A virtuous society cannot be an enforced ideal

A virtuous society is a lofty ideal worth pursuing. It will automatically follow if behavioural changes are driven by conviction of what is right and wrong – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

A virtuous person thinks himself or herself morally better than other people – Cambridge Dictionary

Saturday, 6 June 2020

Morality can neither be compelled, installed nor instilled by law nor task forces. Genuinely morality is in the mind, and how one treats oneself and others around oneself. It is based on the recognition of what is right and wrong, within oneself and amongst others.

In Buddhism, morality is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. 

Previous high moral sounding expressions and political catch phrases like Dharmishta Samajaya and Yahapalanaya failed because the task of ushering in these lofty ideals and introducing society or transforming one to these political objectives became the lot of politicians, who are generally neither moral nor ethical. One is reminded of alley cats and morals.

In the political environment in Sri Lanka, perhaps in other countries too, morality and politicians are oxymoronic expressions and immorality and unethical behaviour is often rewarded if there is political gain. There is a class of politicians who are more equal than others, and moral values that ordinary folk are aware of and practice, are foreign to this super class

Instilling a sense of morality and ethical behaviour is in the hands of one’s parents, teachers and the clergy of your religious beliefs, and more generally, the society around us. Prescriptive morality is in a sense immoral, as it could be a set of behaviours that a so-called “virtuous” person thinks is morally better than what other people believe in.

In the political environment in Sri Lanka, perhaps in other countries too, morality and politicians are oxymoronic expressions and immorality and unethical behaviour is often rewarded if there is political gain. There is a class of politicians who are more equal than others, and moral values that ordinary folk are aware of and practice, are foreign to this super class.

The immorality and unethical behaviour, including the outright robbery of what belongs to the people of the country, have gone unnoticed and unchallenged, and to the best of one’s knowledge, since independence, not a single politician has been charged before a court of law, found guilty and sentenced to pay for the crimes committed, although every succeeding government has accused their predecessors of committing the most atrocious white collar crimes. 

There have been accusations of politicians being part of drug cartels. No one has been arraigned before a court of law suspected of such links, and neither have law enforcement authorities been able to bring any evidence against such people, and they continue to roam free, and sit in judgement of what moral behaviour is.

It is in this backdrop of utter duplicity and white washing that one is forced to consider the latest attempt to usher in a virtuous society.

A virtuous society is a lofty ideal worth pursuing. It will automatically follow if behavioural changes are driven by conviction of what is right and wrong. 

What Sri Lanka needs are laws, and enforcement of laws, without fear, favour or distinction between those who are more equal than others. Immorality and unethical behaviour that are tradeable for political or monetary gain will only make a laughing stock of new catch phrases as the ones in the past had become. Dharmaishta Samajaya became Adharmishta Samajaya and Yahapalanaya became Yamapalanaya, not without good reason.

Trying to tame man has been the eternal human project since the dawn of our social structure as Homo sapiens. Morality, virtue and how to behave socially had been evolving themes way before any known religion. In fact morality precedes religion, not the other way around. 

Centuries old civilisations like the indigenous communities in many parts of the world, practiced morality as they were human values they believed in and espoused. 

No religion or virtue or a human value exists in a vacuum. Both are grounded in the culture they are in. The Iranian-American writer Reza Aslan said it best: “It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.”

The Lebanese born Canadian Elie Mikhael Nasrallah linked a virtuous society to secularism and that secular societies did not forgo or delete prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. On the contrary, he said individuals can build on the foundations of their society, grow independently, and be sovereign with dignity, responsibility and duties to the social contract without superstitious dictates or illusionary supervision. The chain of the historical process is never-ending. Secularism is also a virtue. The old paradigm needs fine-tuning and rewriting. Secularism is one modern way to do that.

In this context, one wonders whether the virtuous society we like to introduce anew will accept and respect secularism as a value and a way of life? Or will our “virtuous” secular society have some who are more equal than others?

As mentioned, in Buddhism, Śīla (in Sanskrit) or sīla (in Pāli), is described as "behavioural discipline", "morality", "virtue" or "ethics". Buddha, if there was any religious philosopher, practiced secularism as it has been defined and understood as thus- Secularism “is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism”.

Previous high moral sounding expressions and political catch phrases like Dharmishta Samajaya and Yahapalanaya failed because the task of ushering in these lofty ideals and introducing society or transforming one to these political objectives became the lot of politicians, who are generally neither moral nor ethical. One is reminded of alley cats and morals

Buddhism was open to anyone and it did not draw boundaries between people who wanted to learn more about Buddhism. Buddha’s teaching was based on the practice of “come and see, learn for yourself” principle.

It is however not only Buddhists that should believe in and practice secularism if the country is to be secular. It must be equally applicable for people of all religious faiths. If such a community compact does not exist, then Sri Lanka will not be a secular State and neither should advocates attempt to make it one. 

What Elie Mikhael Nasrallah said might be true, but it needs the agreement of everyone in a State for it to become secular. What rings very true in what he said is that a society does not forgo or delete prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, and that on the contrary, individuals can build on the foundations of their society, grow independently, and be sovereign with dignity, responsibility and duties to the social contract without superstitious dictates or illusionary supervision.

Sri Lanka is a very complex and diverse country. Its history is its strength and its weakness. In such a country, what should be uppermost is humanity and the fact that we were all born without a religion or ethnicity or even a nationality until we are registered as a citizen of the country. It is this basic humanness of all of us that should groom our virtuosity, our morals and our ethical behaviour, not any acquired labels. 

Virtuousness cannot be an enforced ideal.