Moral Policing and related shite..

There's a technique out there, if one would like to denounce something-anything, one would do well to invent a condemning 'catch phrase' - something that need to make just enough sense to be sold to an ever obliging herd and not more..

Moral Policing to me is one such catch phrase... Every time some idiot god-man or a politico utters anything half baked that is pedantic and mis quotes a tradition of some sort - a certain section of the herd who've gone long on the absolute liberalism and freedom concoction take up the cudgels with cries of 'Stop this Moral Policing'..

There are 2 important lines of thought that leave me exasperated with people such as these and I state them below :

Absolute and complete freedom is a myth

We live in a severely partisan and unequal world. If we can roughly agree that the kind of stuff that shapes an individual and his/her thoughts are an hitherto undetermined combination of genes, the socio-economic environment in which one is raised, the company that one retains and the literature that one encounters - then there are a lot of variants of each of these stuff that are made available to each of us in different proportions. Which is why we form a part of various encapsulations that include, but are not limited to language, creed, economic status, religion and state.  
The most telling of these encapsulation is that of economic disparity. Nothing and I mean nothing effects the behavior of people the way economics or more aptly economic policy does. In a society of have's and have not's - the 'haves' demand for absolute liberalism will always be at logger heads with the 'have nots' need for parity in life. When the proportion of these two sets of people is out of whack and if the policies of a state are not conducive for social mobility - then the primal need of man to seek material will be satiated by anti-social activities. What hope can there be of Absolute Freedom under this setup ?
Simply put, For absolute freedom, one needs absolute agreement - an implicit sync in thought and actions which in turn needs absolute equality and societal equanimity.
However we live, always have and may always live in a disparate society and man is predisposed to be divisive  - consequently we will always have limits in what we can say and do. 

Morality isn't a bad word, it's a necessary word

Stanford studies say Morality is :

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
           some other group, such as a religion, or
           accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

If one is allergic to the first definition, then the second offers more purpose. In it's most basic form it is a code of conduct for a society. 
My fundamental doubt is - What could be refutable about a code of conduct for a society ? We have code of conducts in educational institutions, places of work and public establishments - so why not for a society at large ?
While I vehemently oppose the imposition of an individual's perspective of morality onto another, I firmly believe that it is important for a society to have a code of conduct in place that outlines social behavior and limitations..
This is where my buddy Rex and I differ..Morality is too interconnected an entity for it to be reduced to a perspective

And finally the hypocrisy of it all gets my goat - I was speaking to a very sensible friend and mother of two teenage girls last week at work - who was equally frustrated with the aforementioned phrase as I was but for more substantial reasons. Apparently the kids didn't appreciate any sound practical advice anymore and countered any suggestions offered for safety and security with - "Amma, stop this moral policing... "  
To the impressionable mind, the constant narrative had turned morality into something that needed to be despised.

When my mother tells me - be careful what you say, what you wear , what you carry and when and where you step out - she isn't being a moral police as much as a prudent advisor. If I walk into a dark alley with a fully loaded wallet - I will get mugged. This doesn't mean I justify the act of mugging, it means that I recognize the way the world operates. 
And Yes, while our constant endeavor should be to clear the world of dark alleys, we need to be aware that human nature and divisions may make it a pursuit of utopia. If we can have a consensus on a code of conduct - we may never have someone hijacking and enforcing them on us..
But we need to be interested in a consensus and stupid phrases will always form fundamental impediments..

The Risky Toss off..

Human Civilization can perhaps be viewed as one mega data set. However one rarely gets to contemplate on it because individual lives are governed by narratives. Right from the point when one begins to blink - a set of do's and dont's take over. As one grows up, a transition is effected every day from the ideal to the practical so much so that by the time the age of indulging in economic activity is reached, one is rendered incapable of thinking beyond a template - The Matrix!


The biggest casualty from my early years into adult hood has been morality. Growing up in the world of comic books and text books - almost every story, fiction or other wise had a moral lesson. It was a compelling narrative. 
Interestingly with age, a different narrative took over - that of success, freedom and the good life. Morality then got dissected, intellectually rejected and worst of all made to look subjective. 
All of this happened so organically that one can be forgiven for missing the effect!


Over the past 3 weeks, there have been incidents of molestation of a girl by a bunch of hoodlums in Guwahati and an incident in Mangalore where some activists interrupted a party and beat up those involved in the name of culture.
To make my stand clear, I unequivocally feel that both the hoodlums and the activists should be bought to book. The former should be severely punished and the latter should be made to realise that taking law into their hands is not done!


But on more reflection, I find it strange to say the least that almost every media narrative on the subject has chosen to flaunt the "morality is moral only when voluntary" angle. 


So is Morality moral only when voluntary ?
My understanding says No! In my opinion, Morality is to live a life governed by a set of principles and guidelines to sustain the societal framework within which one operates. 
It's a guideline which means one can chose to follow it or not. Consequently, it should not be enforced. 
But here's where I break away from the current convention - There's nothing subjective about Morality. There's no your morality and mine, one cannot justify being immoral as the right thing.
In an ideal world, there proabably wouldn't have been a need for such guidelines. The world would be full of good people and 'Prevention is better than cure' would have been a non existent phrase. 
But in the real world...the ordeal can be a bitch!


The 2 common arguments that I have seen made against morality are :
1. Conflicting with Freedom of expression
2. As long as one leads a non interfering life, one should be allowed to do what one wants. 
The problem I have with point 1 is that Freedom is made out to be all about what to wear, drink and whom to do. This is bloody myopic and hypocritical especially when one has no qualms of putting on a uniform or signing a behavior claue for economic incentives. The Hindu had an article on the Guwahati incident today where the author attributed this nit picking to a narrative driven by consumerism. She stated beautifully that there are many other ways to feel liberated - seeking the pub and disco are not necessarily the right indicators. 
Point 2 is blatantly wrong. Things that are seemingly non interfering are in reality very propagating. The doped dude in the rave party can potentially run over a few pedestrians on his way home. The drunk idiot may not think twice about molestation or any other lewd act. At a more fundamental level, they can cause harm to self , to close one's or someone unrelated. The world is interconnected now more than ever. 


On the other side of the debate, leading a moral life can be overbearing, suffocating even. Religious substantiation of morality can sound dubious to the questioning mind. It's not attractive, is completely man made and sometimes gets in the way...


Which begs the question - Are morality and freedom mutually exclusive ? 
Fortunately, I think not, but for both of them to co-exist,  it would require one  to understand the concepts of control, bounds/limits and societal obligations. 
So, we need a narrative that helps us seek and gain that control, that awareness - 
The issue however is that we have bought into one that promotes the (false) sense of freedom at the cost of morality. What we need is someone to tell us constantly - 
That in the real world, actions have reactions, so follow the equivalent of a balanced diet in the way you lead your life. 
The last thing we can afford is a toss off...

The Problem with Rhetoric

is that it can be made to sound right...

When Greig says thus :

"We can huff and puff as much as we like and have all sorts of external reports but this situation can only be resolved by India accepting that the spirit of cricket is more important than generating billions of dollars; it's more important than turning out multimillionaire  players; and it's more important than getting square with Australia and England for their bully-boy tactics towards India over the years."

I don't intend to play contrarian and am sorta approaching this as a statement up there for validation...
So, why would generating billions of dollars be less important than holding up the spirit of cricket ?
How can Greig be so sure of that priority ? Vantage Point, I reckon..
In a toss off between a billion dollars and something like a 'spirit of anything..' the former is naturally vilified.., maybe that is justified under some contexts, but the operative phrase is 'under some contexts'. 
Think about it - 

• Billions of Dollars generated by the BCCI would preclude - 
• Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs
• Millions of dollars of tax money
• Innovation and some sorta progress..
• More money back into the development of the game and it's practitioners etc. etc.

So why should that be of any lesser precedence to a set of morals that are no doubt important but are merely contextual.
If we tilt the moral prism - As the governing body of a sport in a country that houses it's most loyal and passionate fans the BCCI's moral obligations should be foremost to check all the bullet points above including the etc. - which stems from generating billions of dollars. 
While, the spirit of cricket sounds like the right thing to do, I have a problem when it's made to sound mutually exclusive from generating billions - on the contrary for the spirit to be taken more seriously just pay the players big money! Don't believe me, Ask Symonds and our resident ding-a-ling Bhajji..
Tony's statement makes apparent the fundamental futility of rhetoric that pits morals against the real world .. even from an argument perspective - in that morality should not be a part of the comparison as much as it should be a part of the entities that are being compared..


In short I think his 'more important' assertion is either dumb or spiteful - Take your pick!