Critique of Morality

What should I say of this word that has become the two dots of every line that is sketched, skeleton of every edifice that is ever made? As deep as I can gaze into the abyss of my childhood, I recall only moral teachings- clear distinction between right and wrong, without reason, without consequences, without question. But since the time I have started observing these moral values I see only vagueness, which results more in conflicts rather than mending them. Let me caution you that being immoral does not mean inhuman to me, as some would interpret it to. Inhuman is not the only negation of morality. I feel morality as the greatest hurdle, the disease which we should get rid off to think rationally.

Reason of why morality is so dangerous is that it gives you an illusion of right. A phantasmagoria that you are on the path of virtue and verily you can achieve ends on the current path. In truth, you are driven by the instinct of pity or righteousness with no idea whatsoever of what this would result in. Even the basic understanding of the problem is masked by this morality.

Let us see some very basic problems and the way morality seeks to tackle them. What is more important than hunger and poverty? The “good morality” ascribes poverty to the fate of different men. And the men of better fate should toil to remove poverty by various means. It assumes that one day there would be enough charitable persons, enough hard working persons who will ultimately end the reign of poverty. So in order to achieve its end what “morality” teaches is charity. Charity here is not only donation, it includes the feeling of men. A totally flawed view of origin and solution!

Poverty is not the child of Fate. If we look a little deeper, the origin of poverty is weakness. Weakness, that has its origin not in the era we live but when man was struggling to survive. The same weakness propagated all those years with the help of law. Man with stronger will and physique snatched whatever he felt like snatching. Then he made laws to protect whatever he has acquired. So weak became poor and strong became rich. As the time passed by, weak was made aware by those strong breed that -“Look you have your fate. You can’t escape it. What is better for you is to live like that or strive to become strong.”That is why we see the solution to poverty is to become rich. Religion played an important part in inscribing those words on the minds of everyone. Earth does not give or take anything from anyone the day one is born. So “morality” remembers what was taught to it later by the one who discovered “morality”. Solution by morality is charity. Do not mistake me but how can a thing be solved by charity when its origin is injustice. The way I feel – Every able bodied man is capable of feeding himself and leading a poverty free life if he is not restricted by useless laws such inheritance, predetermined possession and other similar laws. Laws, that have no basis but have the backing of religious teachings.

Another issue – discrimination on the basis of caste. I take this because in India it is prevalent even now. “Morality” by the way of religion again teaches that some men are born so and so and their work is decided by God. Branding humans by birth. While old “morality” done the task of defining humans, let’s see how the new “morality” aims to solve them. The new “morality” seeks refuge again in charity. We should give reservations so that one mythical day would arrive when everyone is not discriminated. They completely turn blind-eye to the origin of problem which is in fact dogmatic beliefs and seek to establish a new harmony between what had been believed and what is followed. Similar is the treatment of women. The problem lies in old morality and they find solution giving them special status through means of reservation. Morality of charity, I am sick of it.

There are numerous such issues whose solution is always sought by absurd morality. Maybe I will extend them in my future posts.

How should a man behave? Another great issue of morality. A man who avoid certain food, wears allowed clothes, speaks like a tamed parrot and abstain from woman other than allowed by law(religious or not) is a moral man, a good man. I cannot understand how these came as parameters of morality. Food is characteristic of region or taste. Clothes are too. The other two moral values are really out of my reach. I cannot understand how they make a good man. All these moral values had only aroused conflicts. Conflicts between poles of morality.

I see the reason of Marx being misunderstood as the same “morality”. These moral men never understand the cause and effect relationship. They see themselves as greatest moralists, replacing one morality with another when one has become old enough to be replaced.

The sickness of morality is everywhere, whether or not they conform to reality. Things you learn, in your education books, at your job, the way you react and even the way you are cremated.

Whatever little I have learned till know from History, from contemporary practices, from my own imagination, for I know nothing of future, solutions to problems or in fact which seem to us as solutions can be found only if we stop categorizing things as Good and evil. Giving definite corners to good and evil lead only to clashes. These clashes in the mean time redefine good and evil, for they never exist, they only change corners and set the stage for another clash. What we need is to think beyond Good and Evil, beyond morality, towards cause and effect.