Lying and Moral Relativism

Is Morality relative to a culture? Professional moral philosophers who are relativists through and through are an extremely rare species today. It may be there in good numbers in other academic departments, but not so in Philosophy departments. One of the reasons why professional moral philosophers who have thought through on this subject do not take such a view on morality is that moral relativism leads to an unlivable society. 

'How do I lead a good life?' or 'What is the right conduct?'  are the kind of questions that bother moral philosophers. This is so because these are the sorts of questions that any rational individual would seek or ought to seek; they are also the concerns of any given society. Every moral theory aims to seek a flourishing society, not just a flourishing life of an individual.  Given that moral theory aims to seek a flourishing society, if a moral theory leads to total breakdown of a society or its logical outcome would lead to a breakdown of society, then it has to be rejected. 

Take the case of lying. Is it okay to tell a lie? No way. Why? If lying is okay, and everybody begins to tell a lie at their own liking and there is no moral prohibition for lying, how would a society look like? That kind of a society cannot function. Let me explain why it is going to be the case. If A tells me a lie again and again and again, and I tell a lie again and again and again to B, and B lies again and again and again to C, how on earth will there be meaningful communication between four of us! And without meaningful communication, a society will break down. A society where red is white sometimes and black other times and blue again later and so on will be chaotic.  This shows that truth telling is a moral requirement for a society to function well. This is the reason why you do anything you want or you speak anything you want, and truth telling is never ever a moral requirement is never ever going to work. Thus, 'thou shalt not tell lies' is a moral requirement for a society to function. 

Now this does not mean that there is no qualification to the statement. Sometimes in certain situation telling a lie may be a requirement. For example, when a Nazi's Gestapo comes home and asks if there is any Jew hiding inside my cupboard, instead of telling them that there are ten Jews hiding inside, I may tell a lie. In such situation telling a lie will be the lesser evil. But just because there is a condition that opens up the door where lying is justifiable, that does not mean that the principle 'thou shalt not tell lies' vanishes. The principle just gets modified little bit: thou shalt not tell lies under normal circumstances but for situation where lying will prevent unjustified killing or something of that sort. 

But there are other moral principles that stand firm irrespective of cultures. For example, something like 'You cannot cut off your children's head just for fun'. Now one may say that no one does that sort of things. True. But no one does that sort of thing because it is considered to be wrong. Moral inquiry is not only about  human action; it is about human inaction too. And human species perform action A or B or C, and not K or L or M or N or O or... because only A or B or C are justifiable. The rest are all unjustifiable. There are many features of human action whose acceptability changes over time; but there are many features of human inaction whose unacceptability remains unchanged over time.

Given this nature of morality one can meaningfully contend that the moral worth of certain human actions/inactions remains unchanged or ought to remain unchanged though the moral worth of certain actions change over time.

PS: The question whether lying is inherently wrong or whether it is wrong because indiscriminate lying  effects breakdown of society is an interesting point. I am not getting into that point here because my concern here is just to show that moral relativism does not work. 

The Unscientific Nature of Astrology and Evil-Eye Myth

Some people claimed that astrology is science because it is based on observation and that it uses certain set of rules and principles to explain the nature. There is truth in such claim. After all astronomy also uses observation and deduction to explain the nature. The problem with astrology, however, arises because it has much more to do than just explain that which is observed. Astrology goes on to explain the connection that the stars have with the lives of people. And it is this aspect and similar ones that get astrology into trouble.  Here are some problematic features of astrology. 

First, the prediction that astrologers make is very general. For example, they will say that given that the stars are arranged in such and such manner, you will do well in the area of family or your job or that you will a good time while travelling. This kind of prediction is not really prediction. Without having anything to do with the stars, one can make such general prediction. And there can be one instance in one's life throughout any given month when such happy moment occurs. And this can be taken as fulfillment of the prediction. But this kind of prediction not what scientific prediction is about. Scientific prediction is much more specific. For example, it is something like under any normal condition, two hydrogen and one oxygen will produce water. Or that under normal condition, the gravitational strength of the body is proportional to the mass of the body. Scientific inquiry is about testable explanation. If an explanation cannot be tested under controlled condition, it cannot become a scientific explanation. Yes, there are exceptional condition when controlled condition cannot be obtained. For example Big Bang theory cannot be repeated under controlled condition nor is theory of evolution explanable under controlled condition. But the point is that scientific prediction is much more specific and is testable. 

Secondly,astrology tries to explain the influence of celestial bodies upon human lives. But this cannot be demonstrated. For example, astrology will say if you get married on this day because the stars are arranged in such and such manner, you will have good fortune. This is related to the former point. But what is good fortune and what is bad fortune? Since the the terms are too general, the connection between position of the stars and the fortune of the people cannot be demonstrated. Again this makes the subject impossible to be considered scientific. 

Third, the celestial bodies are not static bodies; the stars move away from each other at an astronomical speed each second. And given such movement, even determining the precise location of each star requires extraordinary training and technology. And astrologers have no way of precisely knowing the exact location of the stars. 

But how is the belief about evil eye unscientific? 

Now this belief says that so and so possess power to influence our lives for bad. 

First, how is it possible to determine that so and so possess power? There is no way to determine that a person possesses power to harm others. Well, one may say that the effect on another person is the evidence. But how does one determine that so and so is the reason for the effect (pain/suffering) on another person? There can be so many causes for the effect that is being seen on the person. It could be because of what she has eaten or some internal problem. How does one prove that this person is the cause, and not something else is the cause? Well,if this the cause and effect are repeatedly observed over and over again under controlled condition, then one establish that so and so is the cause for the effect. But without such repeated observation under controlled condition, it is not possible to determine the connection. The effect could have been caused by so many other factors.   And it is because of the absence of such connection between the so called cause and effect that the belief is just a myth, and not a scientific belief. 

Second, the one explanation that believers recourse to is to attribute it to the work of evil spirit. If prayer can heal, why not this as well?, reasons a believer. But prayer is not a scientific belief; it is a supra-science. Prayer recourse to what is 'beyond science' to explain the phenomena. Now can such recourse be taken to explain evil eye? Yes. But once that takes place, then one will have to admit that with those who believe in God this is not possible. Because God does not harm us, only evil spirit tries to harm us, by definition. And going by this logic, one will have to say that anyone who believes in God Jesus Christ will not and cannot be possessor of such evil spirit.

This leads us to the conclusion that those people who believe in such myth and therefore discriminate people are the real unbeliever in God and God's power. The problem is not with those so called possessor; the problem is with those who believe in this thing. 

PS: The explanation for evil eye can be traced back to pagan belief. 

Ad Hominem in the Intolerance Debate

Often times ad hominem is employed in debates. And in this entire debates happening in the country with regard to intolerance, an ad hominem has been employed again and again. This is not a valid form argument because instead of arguing against the point being raised, it rather attacks the person. 

The historians, scientists, writers and film makers have been returning their awards because, they argue, there is intolerance going on. Certain people have been murdered by self-appointed religious zealots for speaking out against certain form of religious practices and certain other people have been murdered for their association with beef/cow, and again by self-appointed religious zealots. And the murderers in all these cases appeared to have got the audacity to commit such crimes because people in the government have  prepared the ground for such crimes, explicitly or implicitly, with their fiery speeches towards people of certain sorts. And these people of particular sorts happened to be the victim. 

Now when these historians, scientists, writers and film makers/artists returned their awards protesting against such intolerance in the country, those right wing Saffron brigades who are very supportive of the government came in to defend the government. These bunch  of people argue: Where were you when atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits were taking place? Where were you when there was a riot in 1984? Why did you not return your awards then? Thus making it appear as if these people giving back their awards are hypocrites. Well, why they did not return the awards then is indeed a point worth exploring. And each individual may have a response. But I guess the common response could be that whether it's in 1984 or in the case of Kashmiri Pandits, the government's was not complicit like it is happening now. But this is a different point!

But the point is that in this episode the Saffron brigades are employing an ad hominem called tu quoque. So their argument 'where were you then?' does not invalidate the fact that there is intolerance now and this has to be addressed by the government... and that the government of Modi must stop being intolerant. Those who say 'go to Pakistan' or 'drown in the sea' and similar obnoxious arguments must shut their mouth and those who killed people for being different must be booked. The point that those who are returning their awards still stand strong despite the saffron brigades trying to undermine it by raising a fallacious argument. 

Anupam Kher and His March: A Manufactured Protest

Anupam Kher, a well known film actor of Bollywood, is leading a rally today. The rally is to communicate the message that India is a tolerant state. It is also supposed to counter the message that the writers, historians, scientists and film makers are making. The rally is thus a protests against these intellectuals for defaming India; for portraying to the world that India is an intolerant state. Now is Mr. Kher being reasonable? 

The intellectuals are protesting against the rising intolerance in the country. These people are saying that those in the government or those close to the government are those responsible for the criminals acts. Criminal acts like the murder of Kalburgi for his criticism of religion or the murder of Aklaq for having eaten beef (when what he really ate was mutton) and similar incidents. The hate speech dished out against certain people; speeches like 'go to Pakistan', 'drown in the sea', 'bastards' etc. These are delivered by those close to RSS/BJP. The protest by all these people was to tell the government that it must act against such criminal actions.

So are those who committed murder or delivered hate speeches responsible for tarnishing the image of India or is it those who are protesting against such criminal acts? Anupam Kher, whose wife is an MP of BJP, manufactured this unreasonable yet sly slogan that the protesters are damaging the reputation of India. Instead of protesting against the murderers for being intolerant or against those whose speeches implicitly or explicitly provided political atmosphere that is conducive for such criminal acts, Kher chose to protest against those who protest. And by manufacturing such protest, Kher, by default, chose to support the murderers and those that delivered hate speeches, those who are intolerant.

Is Modi a Victim of Intolerance of Rival Parties?

Arun Jaitley, who holds the post of Finance Minister, says that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a victim of intolerance. Read the news here . Jaitley made this statement after many historians, scientists, artists and writers lambasted Modi's government for creating intolerant environment in the country. These people were joined by prominent figures like RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, Industrialist Narayan Murthy and others. The BJP probably got the sting finally and therefore it was forced to deflect the controversy towards its political rivals. But what is the truth? Is it BJP or the Congress and the Left that have been intolerant all these months? 

Until yesterday, as per the paper, RSS was saying the population of Christians and the Muslims must be checked. Prior to that those who share similar ideology with RSS and BJP have made statements that do not epitomise tolerance. One BJP Minister was heard saying 'haraamzada' (Bastards) -- illigitimate child -- to refer to certain group of people. Another one said that those who oppose BJP should go to Pakistan. Still another said that if Muslim must stay in India, they must give up beef; and on one occasion a BJP leader was reported to have said Nathuram Godse, the murderer of Gandhi, was a patriot. Another leader said that those who opposed Surya Namaskar (Sun Worship/Adoration) should drown in the sea. These are all about verbal intolerance. I never hear any such fiery words coming out from the mouth of  leaders belonging to the Congress or the Left parties. 

But the worse thing is that people like Kalburgi and Pandsare were murdered for being  religious critics. Aklaq was murdered after being accused of eating beef, when what he ate was mutton. Rasool was set on fire and died few days later due to injury over rumour of slaughtering cows. All these murderers share similar ideology with that of RSS and BJP. All these killings coming after fiery speeches  delivered by RSS/BJP leaders cannot be dismissed as coincidences. These are classical cases of intolerance by RSS and BJP. Modi is not a victim of intolerance of rival parties. At worst Modi is a victim of intolerance of his party members or rather a victim of his own apathy towards intolerance by his party members. 

Arun Jaitley is plain wrong to shift the blame to his political rivals for intolerance that fills the air today. His party has not sacked anyone nor taken any disciplinary action against anyone for delivering such speeches. Instead of blaming others, he should have gathered up moral audacity to say that his party has been wrong and now that it is mending ways. Unfortunately BJP has been refusing to show moral uprightness. When the political rivals accused it of corruption and asked the party to sack corrupt members, one BJP leader said something to the effect that removing corrupt people is not in their nature. This is moral bankruptcy. And demonstrating moral bankruptcy in public by such a large political party is to self-destruct.