Way too many people get morality all wrong. I am not referring to any particular moral code here, but to a more fundamental question; namely, who exactly is morality about. The crucial thing that many people fail to understand is that morality essentially concerns one’s own attitudes and acts, and not those of others. Those others have their own moral codes to worry about, and so long as they do not become a hazard to public health and safety, how and according to which moral code they live their lives is nobody else’s business.
The sorry consequence of appreciating this crucial distinction is ‘pious’ individuals perpetually worrying about the infringement of this moral injunction or that on the part of somebody else. It could be anything: how this woman chooses to dress, how that man sits, how a particular group conducts itself… the list goes on. This type of moralist, while he incessantly obsesses with the behaviour of everybody else, rarely concerns himself with his own conduct.
To be human is to be less than perfect, of course. So, at one time or another and in varying degrees, everybody is guilty of erring in this regard. There is a particular type of man however, who is especially prone to this failing. This is the sort that lives by a certain moral code, but without any degree of conviction on his part. Why this type adopts that moral code is attributable instead to one or more of various factors: peer pressure, the desire to please certain people, half-hearted faith that he might earn salvation as a result, to name a few. Since his heart is not in it, this type of person resents all those who choose not to be burdened by that moral code.
Recall the story of the jealous fox that had lost its tail. Instead of praying that he got his tail back, he started wishing that all other foxes lost their tails as well. While the foxes that lose their tails by accident deserve all the sympathy in the world, those who choose to do so must not expect others to follow suit. Similarly, those who choose to adopt a particular moral code must not expect everybody else to follow their suit. If their bitterness and frustration is any indication, that is all many ‘moral’ people ever do. Since they are not convinced of the soundness of their moral code, and have adopted it for all the wrong reasons, they cannot help this nagging suspicion tormenting them that those who have chosen to remain unfettered by that moral code may be at a clear advantage in comparison, as the latter seem to be having all the fun while the ‘moral’ person must forego all the joys life has to offer.
Gary Miller commented most beautifully on this apparent conflict between moral sacrifice and fun. When asked what he missed most from his life before he reverted to Islam, he replied that if he missed anything from his old life, he would still be in his old life. That it was not the case that there were all sorts of good things that were barred to Muslims. That as far he was concerned, prohibited things were forbidden to him precisely because they were harmful, not beneficial, for him. The same ought to be true of any moral code, so long as one has adopted it by conviction, not by convention or for pragmatic reasons. If a man resents a fellow human being merely because he chooses to adopt a different moral code it invariably means that he is not quite convinced of the validity of his own moral code.
A concrete example would help to illustrate the point. Lady A wears tights in public and has no problem with anybody else choosing to do the same, or otherwise for that matter. This is one manifestation of a moral code. Lady B does not like to wear tights but has no problem with other ladies wearing them or choosing to do otherwise. This is a manifestation of a different moral code. Which of the two codes is better is not the point of the discussion at hand. For our purposes, suffice it to say that both are legitimate moral codes, since both are applied to the person who chooses to adopt them, not to anybody else. There is Lady C however, who would love to wear tights but cannot do so on account of a variety of external factors. Unable to thus ‘treat’ herself, she has a problem with ‘immoral’ women who are audacious enough to do so. This is just one example of how this sort of ‘morality’ works. Instances of fake morality like this can be observed everywhere: as applied to music, dance, saris, films, theatre… with very much the same mechanics at play.
If a code of conduct is inherited or accepted under pressure of any kind, it can hardly be called morality, whatever else it may be referred to. For morality, by definition, is what is adopted by choice and conviction. Much of the misery in the world can be traced back to a failure to get the concept of morality right. The biggest beneficiaries of getting this straight would be those who are currently consumed by envy and bitterness, which are unavoidable consequences of simulated morality.
