The War Within - Between Good and Evil - Bheemeswara Challa (psychology books to read TXT) 📗

only marginally and peripherally? Diffusion and division of labor does not
dilute, not to say negate, our share in guilt for what the collective entity does.
One could also posit that we have to bear our share of the moral consequences
since whatever is the nature of our work, it constitutes an input into the overall
work of the company or entity. On the other hand, it can also be argued that
one’s actions are in no way connected to the harmful things the company makes
and therefore one is freed from all consequences.
Our moral predicament, draining as it is, offers also an opening. However
much we want to insulate ourselves, we are bombarded every day with moral
issues. And we feel woefully inadequate to face them and do the right thing,
which is what we want both instinctively and intellectually to do. Too often,
before we have the time to think, time marches on and the decision gets made,
but we have to live with the consequences. And too often we realize ex post
facto that the decision or choice made should have been different in the light
of the consequence. Many times, we are not even aware of all the factors that
should have been weighed. Even when rational and carefully calibrated decisions
are taken, they leave out important moral and ethical dimensions. We keep
repeating, time and time again, the same action, as we do not know how to
integrate a moral and ethical perspective into the decision-making process. The
need of the hour at this stage in human evolution is what we might call ‘moral
decision-making’, which comprises choices and decisions made on moral values,
not necessarily, or only, on legality. The essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb says,
“My biggest problem with modernity may lie in the growing separation of the
ethical and the legal”. Our behavioral focus has shifted from the ‘moral’ to the
‘legal’, for the simple reason that crossing the legal line could be costly, whereas
taking liberties with morality could allow us to ‘let our hair down’ without fear.
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
432
We have long been baffled by how exactly we reason through moral problems
and how we judge others on the morality of their actions. Some seem to find it
easier to resolve problems morally while others find it excruciating. What is even
more intriguing is that the same person acts differently to similar temptations
and provocations. Science is trying to solve the puzzle by studying the ‘network
of brain regions involved in mediating moral judgment’. The real answer is that
it is a reflection of the ever-shifting state of the eternal ‘war within’. Paradoxically,
we can ‘decide’ morally by behaving morally. That is the way to intervene and
influence the ebb and flow of that war.
One of the most often cited words in modern human discourse is ‘law’:
law of the land, law-abiding, rule of law, fear of law, and so on. If we are on
the right side of the law, we feel safe. It is the lock-up room and the prison
cell we do not want to be in. If we were asked to choose between the pleasures
of heaven and not going to an earthly jail, most would prefer the latter. The
truth is that if we are content with legality, we are more likely to end on the
side of modern-day evil, which is not technically illegal. Indeed, we must be
prepared to be more moral than lawful. Every decision is situational and based
on available and known facts, and every one of them involves and entails moral
implications. Moral decision-making stretches, or modifies where necessary, the
facts to include the potential and probable, but avoidable, harm or injury to
someone else, or to the environment or nature, and to future generations. In
making such decisions, we are often forced to choose between two values, such
as choosing between telling the truth or saving a life; between the best interests of
a family or of a community; and the interests of humanity and of the world as a
whole. One has to harmonize context and content, keeping in mind the larger or
common good. We might also have to choose between, or balance, our different
duties, rights and responsibilities in different relationships and situations, like
parents, family, friends, citizens, workplace, professional, religious, and so on.
But however daunting this task might appear, at this time in human history,
it is too critical to be sidestepped. For, as Dante Alighieri wrote in his Divine
Comedy (1555), “the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain
their neutrality in times of moral crisis”. Whether morality is innate or imposed,
it (or the absence of it) has a huge bearing on human social behavior. Even if it
is not part of human nature, it could be a part of evolved human nature. Further,
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
433
complicating the issue, we also know that evil could emanate as much from
intended good as from unintended evil, often inescapable despite the best of
intentions. The question then arises: Must we be reconciled to, and surrender to
the ‘inevitability of evil’? Are we, the good men of the world, to reconcile ourselves
to, to borrow a phrase from Albert Camus, ‘mild, benevolent diabolism’?56 Or
can we truly become a moral, spiritual species, outgrow our animal roots, turn
our passions into compassion, overcome divisive hate, learn to build bridges
between man and man, and in so doing erase the chasm between man and God?
The answer is simple: whoever we might be, even if what we see outside is but a
reflection of what is inside us, we must fight evil, whatever its source or nature,
with all our might. But we hardly make any effort—evading, explaining away, or
excusing every evil. Even worse, so numb is our sensitivity that what most of us
are worried about when joining forces with ‘morality’ or evil’, is not whether it is
right or wrong, but what our chances are of getting caught.
We need, if we are to proceed forward, some kind of benchmark
and a point of both reference and departure. And we have to frame it in the
broadest and farthest cosmic and evolutionary contexts. We must balance two
imperatives: evolutionary theory is a theory of nature, not a moral prescription.
But equally, no moral sense or moral theory can successfully ignore evolution’s
insights. One of the best summations comes from the pen of Thomas Huxley.
He wrote: “The practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness
or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that
which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless
self-assertion, it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading
down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect,
but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival
of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the
gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the
enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who
have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens
the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are
directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual
of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes,
if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage”.57
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
434
The two practical principles ought to be: to avoid, if not minimize, any
kind of harm to any sentient being; and strive to do the ‘greatest good to the
greatest number’. For moral decision-making, what we need is the trigger of
moral motivation. And for that, what we require to do is to engage not only our
logical/reasoning and deductive cognitive capacities of our brain, but also the
intuitive, emotional, and latent spiritual capacities that spring from the energy
and intelligence of our heart. We have to nurture consciously and continually
within each of us a moral mindset, a mindset or a consciousness that is not
hostage to the mind and which instinctively includes moral input into the process
of decision-making. And we need to do it not only alone, but also collectively.
Stray individuals or isolated groups, well-intentioned though they might be, are
necessary but not sufficient. Most of us are moral sometime or the other, and some
more often than others. Where we err is the lack of consistency. We need a critical
mass for cultural change, which spreads not in a linear fashion but in a viral way.
We need an elusive and indeterminate assemblage of men and women above an
unknown threshold that, once crossed, generates self-propelling momentum and
positively infects minds like a pandemic. We must also face up to a fundamental
fallacy. Like much else that is human, here too we apply double, or even multiple
standards. Most of us, as Bertrand Russell noted, have two kinds of morality: one
we preach but seldom practice; the other we practice but do not (dare) preach.
We even accept, if not acquiesce to, the massacres of civilians as jus bellum justum
(the just war doctrine). Although we might think that it is governments that
fight wars, we, as primary stakeholders and shareholders, are morally responsible.
Although one might concede that some wars are ethically inevitable, the moral
point also addresses when such wars should be brought to a close—what is called
jus post bellum (justice after the war). Most politicians and decision-makers know
more about when to start a war than how to wage it (jus in bello), than how and
when to end it. As a result, they sow the seeds of more wars, as in the case of
the First and Second World Wars. The circumstances that led to the latter are
commonly attributed, among other things, to the harsh terms of the Treaty of
Versailles of 1919, which brought an end to the First World War. And citizens,
as ‘owners’ of governments, have a moral obligation to insure and ensure such
fairness and humanness in a war.
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
435
We need a basket of rewards and penalties, incentives and disincentives
to ensure that our individual actions contribute to the common good. Selfsanction
is thus an implicit input for the common good. The specifics of shackles
must also change in tune with changing times. At this juncture, we are by and
large clinging to a moral code that no longer serves the purpose—which is to
tame the ‘natural’ nature of man and make his participation in human society
constructive, not destructive. Our understanding, even our cognizance of what
is acceptable and unacceptable, what is appropriate and inappropriate, what is
decent and deviant, what is good and what is bad, must mutate. It is because,
with all our vulnerabilities and venality, most people want to play by the rules,
as far as possible, and feel that they are decent people, and that their behavior
is not immoral. And if our comprehension of morality remains static then our
behavior will remain rooted in the current zone of comfort. If we do not believe
that our way of life is socially injurious and morally offensive, then the best of us
will stay the course, and avoid a course of behavioral mending and bending. We
must bear in mind that in deciding what is moral, the simplest and safest choice
is the ‘larger good’. In the Mahabharata, the distinguished Vidura sums it up:
“To save a family, abandon a man; to save the village, abandon a family; to save
the country, abandon a village; to save the soul, abandon the earth”.
On a parallel track, we have to design and nurture a new base and basis,
a new fulcrum and foundation, a new paradigm and pattern, new rules and
benchmarks of social adulation and opprobrium, recognition and rewards,
adulation and ostracism, heroism and depravity. It must offer enough elbow
room for individual initiative and self-interest, but must be subordinate to social
interest, order, and justice. While we must strive towards a new moral platform,
implicitly, unknowingly and even unconsciously, we are already adopting a
different moral (or immoral!) code in our behavior that condones things like
lying, cheating, cursing, profanity in public, gossiping, groping, malicious
conduct, causing intentional in jury to others, and so on. But we still do not
look at ourselves as ‘bad’ people. We are privy to and practice much of what we
condemn by telling ourselves that these are ‘social’ evils, which have nothing
to do with us. We lament the fall in values and standards, but