The Yardstick of Morality

Barbaric. Ancient. Uncivilized. Primitive.

Ever heard those words? Any mention of the words above, and the image of the apeman probably comes to your head. Hmmm, apeman aint what we are today, but hell, it all depends on what you choose to believe. I was flipping through the newspapers the other day, and I came across a very interesting headline. It was titled “Modernizing Islam”. That set me wondering. Why should Islam need modernization? I have never come across any topic such as Modernizing Christianity, Modernizing Hinduism, Modernizing Buddhism. And so why was there such a huge debate about Modernizing Islam.

That set me thinking, and the more I thought about it, the more I found myself outside the circle of religion, and I ended up in the pool of absolutivity. Why should there be modernizing when the modern world will one day become primitive? What are the boundaries and conditions for culture and religion to be “modern” in order to be acceptable by all? Why is there such a stress on modernism and its appeal? For this, I checked up the roots of it.

According to uncle Wikipedia, modernism is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, deconstruct and reshape their built and designed environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation, thus in its essence both progressive and optimistic.
Cool! What I like about the definition is the assertion of the power of human beings to continually change their environment, which is ultimately shaped by culture and belief. What is intriguing about the definition is the assumption that modernism has to be progressive and optimistic.

Science and technology has taken great strides over the centuries, and man can be arrogant enough to declare him god by trying to play god. The world has become a crowded place, and with resources running low, it is science and technology that is continually trying to ensure that we do not self-destruct. Or is it?

But then science does not only make our lives, does it? How about culture? Belief? Can we apply the same assumption of modernism into our culture, beliefs and values? Physiologically, we are of the same form as those of 5000 years ago, the only difference is that they probably had a lot less to worry about. Our instincts, functions, needs and desires are basically the same, only cultured through education and practice. Are we in a better state than them now? How can we define modernism in morality?

Let’s see what Wikipedia says about morality. Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community. Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual

Hmmm. Morality deals with the concept of good and evil that is shared within a society by a particular standard. Personal morality is up to the individual’s belief. Great! I am getting somewhere.

Suppose I told you that I witnessed a man cutting up a cat, only to cook its meat in a microwave, what would your reaction be? Barbaric! Gross! How about the concept of child marriages? Primitive! Outdated! Hey hey hey, heard about the love between these two cowboys on Brokeback mountain?? Oh how sweet! Their love story is such an epic!

These reactions are a result of modernism. The way we think, the way we perceive things all change with time, and the basic assumption is that man knows more now that he did a 1000 years back, therefore the modern man has the better set of values of judgment in identifying right from wrong. And that would be the exact logic of how men a 1000 years back would have thought of their ancestors.

Now comes the debate, who is right? If a person tried to emulate his ancestors, he would be labeled as primitive or old-fashioned. Be it good or be it bad. All you need to do is to emulate your grandparents in anything, and you will be jeered. But then what is now primitive, was at once modern, and at another era, was futuristic.

What causes these change? A large part of the blame can go to science and technology, and so I will leave their involvement at that. I want to know about morality. Humans are humans today as they were 100 years ago and as they were 1000 years ago. All man has conscience, and all man had judgments on the good and bad of things.

A simple example. Maybe one that can relate to all. Lets talk about relationships. The relationship between man and woman has undergone great changes over time. AND, the relationship between man and man has undergone great changes over time. In today’s world, it is acceptable for the man to have many girlfriends whom he can have unlimited sex with before he finds ‘the one’, while it is ‘oppression’ if he has, let alone four, two wives. It is ‘uncool’ to live with your parents after you are an adult, and its only ‘natural’ if you discover that you are gay. In the past, children are the receipts of a marriage, but today marriage is a step so big, even after you have 8 children with your partner. People used to be beheaded in the past, but today they are only electrocuted.

Hmmm. Progression? Optimism? Are we better off?

How do we put a measure of goodness or badness of a belief or a practice in an absolute sense, without looking at the time frame? Is it ever possible? Looking at the definitions above, it is almost impossible for modernism to bring about any negative effect, as the assumption is that we can only progress with time, science and knowledge. I wasn’t lying when I said that this got me thinking. So the next time anyone brings about modernizing anything, you should ask him back. Define modernism. And can there be any morality yardstick that can be checked of the effects of modernism? What are your thoughts?