All of us, some time or other, take moral stands about issues. We proclaim that we take such a stance because it is the right thing to do so. Because by doing this, we are preventing the wrong from spreading. For example, we say that we would use water judiciously. We would not waste it. And we will take utmost care to use only the required minimum quantity. That's a moral stand. We don't want to waste water. We want to save it for fellow human beings. But given a situation, wherein you were not able to take a bath for 10 days, because you went on a trip to a jungle, living on the bare minimum, would you not gorge on the abundance of water and make sure you scrub every inch of your skin once you get back home? Where then is the moral stance ?
Milk revolution changed things in India. It made healthy drinking for the poor a possibility. And also made torture a reality for cows, buffaloes, goats etc. They are being artificially impregnated, so that they give birth to more off-springs, and give milk continuously. Would I stop drinking milk ? I want to, but have not as of now.
I myself have take a stance of acting like a civilized man, by taking steps to reduce pollution and negative environmental impacts. Likewise, I do whatever I can for the same. Like switching off electronic devices when not required. Using fluorescent tubes instead of regular bulbs. But I light fire-crackers during festivals. And by doing that I pollute the environment - air and noise pollution. So where is my moral stand ? Would I not bathe with warm water if it is freezing outside ? Would I sacrifice taking a bath for the whole of my life, because taking bath wastes water ? No.
Hence, this shows that moral stands are adhered to only until it suits the follower. Only until it is comfortable to follow one. And only until, it does not interfere with one's needs.
Morality also takes a backseat when two or more moral stands collide. For example, you are given an option of saving either of the two : a bucket full of clean water and the life of a man. Whom would you save ? Of course the life of the man. Right ? Why ? Because that is more 'important'. Let's make it more complex. The man, whose life is in question, is a hardened criminal and has butchered more than a thousand people, and has committed deplorable crimes. Now whom would you save ? Still the man ? What if the water bucket is replaced by a young child ? Now whom would you save ?
So, morality is also dependent on one's assessment of the order of 'importance' of things. As it is clear from the above examples, morality is not inflexible. It is flexible. Flexible to one's own comfort. It is, hence, inversely proportional to the rigidity of the need. If the need is more rigid, like in taking bath, moral stand of not wasting water will become 'un-rigid' i.e. flexible. If the need is 'un-rigid', like feeding stray animals from the left-over at home, moral stands will be in-flexible, that is we will follow them.
Mathematically,
In-flexible Need => Flexible Morality, and
Flexible Need => In-flexible Morality
Hence, Morality and Needs are inversely proportional.
No comments:
Post a Comment