Dr. Salikyu Sangtam
St. Joseph University
Morality, in a general sense, defines the outlook of a society. It is the lens through which the world is viewed and understood. It defines what is considered to be good, beautiful, truthful, sacred, virtuous, ethical, good manners, and so forth. Much of morality, constituted by our certain beliefs and norms, is our own creation. They go on to constitute the morality of our society. Thus, moral ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ is the product of our societal beliefs and norms. Certainly, each society has its own morality that is infinitely varied in its nature and in its sources. Yet, regardless of the differences in culture, language, race, religion, society, history, myths, and memories, there is one thing that is common to us all: our ‘Humanness.’ And as human beings, we share something ‘universal’ that transcends our man-made construction of social and cultural values and beliefs. Indeed, if we seriously consider the numerous divisions we have constructed, by classifying under the guises of religion, language, culture, tribes, traditions, we soon come to a realization that these are all but a human construct, an artificial division created to keep others at bay.
However, our ‘humanness’ enables us to conceive something that transcends all the artificial divisions. This humanness uplifts our particular values, beliefs, traditions, myths, memories to what we know as ‘Moral.’ For it is quite unlikely for morality to exist, or even be conceived of, without this element of ‘humanness.’ Without this particular element of humanness, morality is unimaginable. There are some universally common values, beliefs, and principles, i.e. morals, based on this element of humanness that cut across the differences we have constructed. These morals, based on our collectively shared humanness, are universally valid. So, the obvious question then is: what are these ‘universal’ morals?
Keeping one’s promises; not lying; being honest, kind, and generous; being able to sympathize and empathize with pains and sorrows of others; being genuinely helpful; not cheating to get ahead in life; not being selfish or greedy; not being biased against others because of their tribe, religion, race, etc.; and many more are morals based on this universal principle of humanness. After all, all of these moral codes are equally valued and esteemed regardless of which society, culture, religion, tradition, or tribe, one adheres to. They remind us to see others as an ‘end’ and not as ‘means’ to an end. It is not the case that honesty and kindness are considered to be ‘good’ and ‘moral’ only in one society and not in others; or that selfishness and greediness are considered to be acceptable in one and not in another. These universal morals hold ‘without exceptions,’ for if it is wrong to break one’s promises, to steal, to be cruel, or to lie, then it would be wrong for anyone, at any time, anywhere to do so. There are no exceptions with regard to this universal moral principle. We cannot teach other not to “deceive,” while we exempt ourselves from such teachings. Rather, they entail some sentient of sincere duty, responsibility, and genuine care for the well-being not only toward ourselves but also toward others. And I think, in my opinion, this universal moral principle is lacking in Nagaland.
Most people, myself included, in our state hardly bother to introspect into the underlying moral principles of their action. We ought to be aware of the motivations of our day to day practical actions. This is quite essential because our practical actions, for better or worse, go on to determine how we do thing, how we decide what works and what doesn’t, how we interact with others, and how we view the world; in other words, these actions determine the nature of our relations, good or bad, with others in the society; thus, establishing themselves as moral foundations of our actions. Let me provide some examples to elucidate on the essentiality of universal moral principles in our daily actions.
Say, for instance (taking an example which is close to home), you have the authority to allocate a very lucrative government contract or select a candidate for an important position in a company/government. Numerous candidates applied for that specific contract/position. How will you select the candidate? Will you select the best candidate or the one who belongs to your tribe? Take for instance that you decide to select the candidate from your tribe. Now, the universal moral principle would mean that before you go ahead with your actions of selecting the candidate from your tribe, ask yourself if you are willing to accept this particular principle of your action (“selecting the candidate from your tribe”) to become universal, i.e. practiced by everyone in Nagaland. If this principle of “favoring one’s own tribe by everyone in Nagaland” is acceptable for you, then go ahead with your decision. However, if you find this principle unacceptable then you should refrain from it.
In another instance, say that you are doing well in life. The heavens have blessed you with affluent life with which you could help those who you see struggling and facing great hardships. Say that they came up to you asking for help and you decide not to help. But before you completely dismiss the helpless, you ask: “Will it be acceptable that those who are in need should not be helped?” Moreover, who knows one day, for you never know when you may be at the receiving end of lady fortune’s fickleness, you may be in a position when you may be in need of help. And when that day comes, will you not want to be helped. If you find it unacceptable that those seeking help ought not to be helped, then you should probably help, especially when you are in a position to help.
The same universal moral principle is applicable in all aspects of our daily practical actions to which we conveniently choose to ignore such as in the misuse of public funds; cheating the poor and the rural people; lying; condescendingly speaking to other; not showing respect; speaking behind people’s back; conniving, manipulating, and deceiving; and many more. We don’t spare a moment’s thought to reflect on our actions. The issue here is that we should not lie not because we will be shunned, but because if everybody lied whenever it suits him/her, then fear, distrust, and suspicion will be the fate of human societies. Indeed, the present problem of the “trust deficit” in Nagaland has much to do with this. Or that we should not steal not because we will become unpopular, but because if everybody were to steal, then no one would be safe. In other words, this moral principle is the inner voice reminding us that we are the source of our moral laws. If lying, deceiving, and stealing are unacceptable to us then we should not engage in such behaviour.
Behind this universal moral principle is the dictum, “treat others as you would wish to be treated.” Or as it is said, in the Holy Scripture, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.” But we hardly spare a moment’s thought since we are consumed by things which in the larger scheme of things are superfluous. The universal moral principle communicates to us that we should do things not because we will gain something out of helping or being kind to others. Rather, we should do things because they are right. That we should not expect anything in return for helping others or for doing good deeds. Yet, we do not think about such moral principles. Of course, I am not stating that every person in Nagaland does not think of such moral implications, rather very few people do. However, this is not enough because when the majority of the people practices and accepts a certain belief, that particular belief becomes society’s ‘morality,’ even if the view of the majority is erroneous. This is why tribalism is rampant despite the fact that lots of efforts are propagated to minimize such divisive beliefs. It vindicates the fact that a majority of us cannot get past our tribal mentality. That is also the reason why ‘change’ in our society is hard to come by; and hence, this is why unbridled corruption and backdoor appointments ensue. Moreover, as in any society, we do have elements of people who have an interest or a stake in keeping ‘tribalism’ alive, especially for those who benefit, benefited, and are going to benefit from such spiteful mores. And the only way, in my opinion, to check tribalism, as well as numerous other problems, we face in our state is to apply the unbiased universal moral principle in our daily conduct.
It is indispensable to remind ourselves that the essential characteristics of a society are determined by man’s moral nature. Our society, like any society in the world, is an organism that reflects our moral condition. We, therefore, are the source of our own morality. Whether a society is good or bad depends on the morality of its people. Hence, a good society reflects our moral maturity and veracity, while a bad society reveals our immature moral sentiments; after all, moral goodness is the product of our beliefs, norms, and values. I, certainly, do hope that my observations on the morality of our daily conduct are inaccurate, for they are thoughts of an armchair philosopher, who probably spends way too much time thinking about the ideal, the ultimate state of things.
