The Not So Rational Beings

Man has the capability of thinking-rationally. In the modern, so-called free society of today, each one has the right to think the way he likes. However, many fail to direct their thoughts in a productive way. Social impressions affect a man’s overall personality, as the saying goes, “Man is a social animal”. A greater part of what he thinks and how he acts has its base in the society he comes from.

Great philosophers have always had a keen interest in the way different people manipulate different situations and ideas. Many theories have evolved over the ages, about the understanding the different ways people think. Is their thought based on morality ? How exactly do we define the term “moral”? Who tells us what is moral and what is immoral? If the answer is our religion; then how do the atheists differentiate the moral from the immoral? Generally, an immoral act is considered the one that harms or affects other people’s well being.

One group of rational beings that interests me more than the others do – is the relativists. They believe that every society has a right to believe what ever it thinks is correct. In other words, two societies with contradicting beliefs may both be correct in their thinking and none can object to other’s thoughts or acts. Well, moral or not, ways of one of the societies may seem incorrect to the other. But they must be allowed to follow their own beliefs.

Keeping the idea of relativism in mind, the bigot and narrow-minded people who carry out inhumane acts as our very own “karo-kari” -- or honor killing -- cannot then be criticized because they have every right to practice what their society preaches. If the society as a whole thinks honor killing to be moral then the people of that society would have a moral right to slaughter anybody in the name of honor killing. More over the criteria of a guilty act may differ from society to society. The case of course should not be made up to carry out nefarious designs, but what might seem a wicked design to one society could be law of the other society.

In one way, we all are rational relativists. Each of us follows the moral codes of our community, society or country. How then are we be eligible to criticize the moral codes of those outside our society? Except maybe, through education. If, as Muslims we are qualified to slay those who commit blasphemy, even if the convict follows atheism, then in what capacity do we criticize those who commit “karo-kari”?

“Towards no crime have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences in belief” – James Russell Lowell.

The question arises, does believing something makes it true? Since there are no universal moral codes and laws, which apply to the whole world, how can one society point out the shortcomings of the other? Who then is worthy of being the chosen one to set moral standards? Were the philosophers right to come up with the idea of relativism? It is about time a universal ethical law is introduced, with an unbiased court of law.

Alternatively, if societies having clashing moral codes are all correct in what they practice, then how rational is it to be a relativist ?