Human Right And Morality

Human right embraces the universal dignity, worth and respect of all human beings. Human rights natural rights. Natural rights are moral rights. Civil rights are derivative of moral rights. This means ideally no human being is to be discriminated or ill treated on ground of race, caste, ethnicity, sex, nationality or on any other ground. With regard to the evaluation of the concept of human right, there is unfortunately the Eurocentric mindset still dominates not only in science and technology but also ethics, morality and political ideology. The concept of human right is a very narrow term and it is not very appropriate to say that these concepts emerged and developed only after the French Revolution, American war of Independence and Civil Rights Movements in United Kingdom. In ancient Asiatic Civilizations, morality was used in place of rights. Morality is a value and extended to all living and non-living beings. Such ideas are available in the writings of Chinese Philosopher Lao-tsi, Mahavir Vardhaman the founder of Jainism even extended respect to other non-living beings. The idea of using the word for enjoyment of human being was not there in ancient Asiatic civilizations. Even in Buddha’s Jataka’s stories, the king was willing to sacrifice his life for the protection of a small bird. The idea of performance of vaishadeva is an indicator in this direction. All great ideas relating to rights, equality and liberty were talked of and advocated in Asiatic Civilizations.

The distinction should be made between legal, natural and moral rights. Legal rights have a history and morphology of their own. In other words, legal rights have been legislated at a particular period of time. But natural rights have no history of their own. The concept of fundamental rights enshrined in most  of the constitutions of the world today are significant carryover of natural rights. Natural rights have no history of their own. It flows from the idea of human being and life. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian constitution are a reminder in this respect. Mrs. Indira Gandhi the late Prime Minister of India declared emergency and tried to amend some of the fundamental rights. There was hue and cry in the country. The argument given by N. Palkhiwala pointed out that the country that is, the government does not have the right to destroy the creator that is the constitution. One may not agree with him but the fact remains that certain fundamental rights embodying certain natural rights cannot be amended, abrogated or destroyed or done away with. The Eurocentric mindset that everything good said and done emerged out of Europe should be seriously questioned and rejected. Even the great Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle treated the slaves as commodities in their time.

Morality is an ideal for human flourishing and full development, and not a mere prescription. Morality cannot be taught but can be lived. Writing and doing research in morality is not enough. It cannot alone make man moral. Morality has to be reflected in day to day life. An immoral person how great he may be as a scholar cannot be model for others. Instances of life history of great men, saints, seers and sages show that many of them were illiterate or semi educated. Mahavir, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Zoroastra, Diogenes, Ramana Maharshi were illiterate. But till date they are regarded as great moral icons.

The plan, programme and effort of the present day government in the country need examination. It is argued that moral education should be compulsorily taught from Class I onwards. Delhi University has taken step and first framed syllabus for such a course of study. It is imperative in this connection to mention that some years back the NCERT selected a particular scholar to give lectures on morality at various educational institutions. But the Professor was known for his notoriety and mischief that the lectures did not have any impact on others. After the lecture was over, there was disappointment among audience.

There should be congruence between thought and action particularly in discussion of moral philosophy. Since there is no congruity between thought and action rather most of the time incompatibility between the two had led to disastrous consequences. Some years back a renowned philosopher in India said an absolutely immoral person can be a very good moral philosopher. There is no connectivity between morality and moral philosophy. From this it follows, moral education is a misnomer. Teachers who teach moral philosophy should be moral individuals. This gap between thought and action is widening day by day. This is one of the reasons why students do not take interest in study of moral philosophy; consequently moral education turns out to be a farce. Those who occupy high position should lead austere and moral life. The other day president of a country while delivering convocation address in a University asked students to lead austere and moral life. But there he was a laughing stock when menu for his lunch and dinner was published in newspaper.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the champions of human right like Rousseau and Locke say that “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” B.Tilak the great Indian statesman used to say “freedom is my birthright and I will have it”. Reflection on these sayings it is this that Rousseau, Locke and Tilak put man on the centre. In contemporary period the human right activists also do the same thing. No injustice should be done to human being. To achieve this end, legislations have both at international and national level passed to safeguard the right of man. Derivatively sometimes they talk of animal rights for pragmatic and utilitarian purposes. But I wish to suggest that right is a moral ideal. It should be equally and equitably applied to human being, animals and inanimate world. Human right is a moral ideal and it should not be restricted to human being.

The idea of right is of recent origin. You do not live alone for yourself but you also live for others. Your duty is more important than your right. All great people follow this principle. But unfortunately a vast majority of human beings suffer from the most common disease of insular parochialism. Even the Naga society is plagued by this disease of narrow mindedness. For the realization of full human flowering, human right should be ultimately replaced by moral or ethical ideal. Moral ideal is the good. But goodness is not the pursuit of conformity. If we conform to a belief or a dogma or a concept or an idea or a principle, that is not good, because it is bound to create a conflict. Goodness cannot flower through another like a religious figure or through dogma or through belief; it can only in the soil of total attention and freedom in which there is authority. The essence of goodness is a mind free from any conflict. You cannot be a good person and at the same time allow conflict and war to take place. Goodness means great responsibility and great responsibility means respect for all living beings. Therefore, a person who is really moral and good is totally responsible for his total life and respectful of any being.

Prof.  Xavier. Pfokrehe Mao
Dept. of Philosophy
NEHU, Shillong
_______________________________________________

Readers may please note that the contents of the articles, letters and opinions published do not reflect  the outlook of this paper  nor  of the  Editor in any form.

 



Support The Morung Express.
Your Contributions Matter
Click Here