*One: Stating the problem
*There is a very interesting question. Are morals necessary for society in real terms? It is generally accepted that there must be some amount of moral cautioning to social behavior, meaning that we should follow some basic principles of behavior. The crux of moral behavior is to refrain from doing anything that may harm another in any direct way. The trouble arises because different people have different ideas about what is harm and what is not. But by and large there are some common actions that are perceived to be harmful- deceit, violence and uncourteousness are some of them. However, because perceptions about what is harmful differ so widely across people, there is always felt the need to set a "standard" to be applied. So that what happens is that whenever the legitimacy of anybody’s action is in question, it is compared with the "standard" and if found within its limitations, that action is permitted.
The problem however is not that we need a standard set of morals but another issue altogether. Who should set this standard-Tom, Dik or Harry?(On a lighter note, I was not allowed to type the proper spelling of Dik on moral grounds perhaps!). A universally acceptable authority that can be allowed to set a standard of morals is almost impossible to find. Moralists argue correctly that morals are very society-specific. But what they conveniently forget is that morals are also very time-specific. The freedom with which men and women interact today would have been unwelcome many years ago. So the concept of morality must evolve with time.
So the problem is this. Morals are needed to guide social behavior to prevent clashes of people having conflicting interests, for which we need a universally accepted authority to set morals, at least at the outset. However, this authority is bound to become irrelevant when the society changes in terms of composition and when time influences environmental changes.
*Two: Is Culture Timeless?
*Conservatism manifests in trying to preserve the aesthetic aspects of culture over an extended period of time. However, conservatism was a functional ideology a few years ago. Today, there is a very powerful thrust towards globalization. Although we see globalization as an economic phenomenon, the truth is that is very much a cultural and social phenomenon as well. Therefore, conservatism that always comes with its own measured quantity of xenophobia no longer remains a very useful method of protecting "morals". One is also faced with an interesting questions- is it immoral to follow the moral set of another culture? Another society’s morals are different but being different does not mean being immoral.
Therefore, the traditional structure of Hindu society cannot remain intact any more and we recognized this long ago for other reasons. We’re human beings and so for there to be an artificial system defining our relative status is definitely incorrect, which was why we chose to discard caste system. Today, globalization demands that we pursue methods to sharpen skills across the classes. This is just an example, which supports the claim that culture is not timeless. It is a constantly evolving concept. Those of us who rave about our glorious cultural past should note that at no point did we enjoy a stable and goody-goody cultural environment because culture is always dynamic, always changing and there is always a strain between those who welcome change and those who oppose it. Nothing new is really happening today.
*Three: What about moral policing?
The moral police are those who seek to impose upon the society at large a set of values that they identify as our "culture". I do not wish to question the legitimacy of their claim. Perhaps they are trying to impose the authentic "culture" that our ancestors handed down over the generations. However, it is interesting to note that imposing a value set on someone is both unfair and unsustainable.
A set of values or morals is effective only when it is followed with voluntary allegience. If it is imposed on another, then the set of values is merely a penal code of some sort and therefore will necessarily be opposed. It is human to resist something that we would not naturally choose.
The future is of secularism. Religious secularism is the state of affairs where religion is an individual’s choice and it has no bearing on an individual’s rights to participate in the economy or in the administration of a country. Similarly, we shall have to extend this concept to "morals". Moral secularism means that each individual draws out his own framework of morals and behaves accordingly. Where the framework clashes, the sensible would simply avoid interaction. We do this in our daily lives already- we avoid people that we don’t get along with. It’s just that.
Of course, proactive propagation of one’s values is always welcome just to increase our wealth of ideas and opinions. However, imposing one’s morals on someone else is just as fair and justified as carpet-bombing a busy handlooms market and killing hundreds of women and children in the name of emancipating them from a tyrrant oppressor.(I’m sure that last sentence was immoral in the eyes of an American. If he’s sensible(!) he’ll ignore me).