The role of religion as a moral reference point has proved controversial time and again. With so many religions, having contra distinct moral percepts, there arises the difficult problem of moral relativism. My religion is more true, hence my moral precepts are truer than yours. Interlinked with this problem is that of cultural relativism across times. All scriptures were written at least a millennium ago, defining their moral framework in the contexts of then prevailing cultures.
Don’t you think that the Bedouin tribal culture of the 7th century middle east would have influenced many codes of the Islamic Sharia? Mohammed himself was a warrior, and the language of warriors is naturally flavored with aggression, grit, passion and strength. Whether he promoted violence cannot be known with certainty, but the context of his culture must definitely have shaped and influenced his vocabulary. Jesus Christ was born, and he taught at a time of Roman occupation of Palestine, when a rebellion in the form of war was not possible, as the Jews were weak and outnumbered. Aggression and a show of strength was futile for a captured people, and naturally Jesus’s teachings speak in the language of peace, compassion, sacrifice and nonviolence. As did Gandhi’s who led India to freedom from the occupying British power, through the teaching of calm, passive revolution.
Krishna, who is the source of Hinduism’s Bhagwad Gita, was a warrior prince who did not always preach peace, servility and sacrifice. He engaged in consummate politics, though to benevolent ends, was a master strategizer and his colorful personality can be a real eye opener to one’s idea of what a ‘God’ or ‘morals’ can be. Educating his protégé, Arjuna on spiritual matters, Krishna instructed him to engage in a war he was reluctant for, because as a warrior that was his ‘dharma’, or his natural duty. Buddha practiced and endorsed severe, self -negating asceticism in the first seven years of his search for truth because that was the dominant spiritual culture of his times. As the story goes, he realized its negative excesses and achieved balance to reach his goal.
It seems then that being self -sacrificing is not more moral than being a crusader. Being a relinquishing ascetic is not greater than being a power-wielding king. Influencers and revolutionaries come in many garbs, depending on the situation. The teachings of Jesus and Gandhi were as much a product of their context as ideas of a saintly mind. They were not warriors because they could not have been. This does not mean that the saints of our history, the harbingers of religion have not been warriors, kings or merchants. They have come in all flavours and roles. There was Mohammed and Rama, who were warriors. Krishna was a peace and power-brokering suave diplomat, Buddha was the king turned ascetic. Shiva was sometimes an ascetic simpleton, sometimes a havoc creating destroyer, and at other times a romantic family man.
Their vocabularies would have been different, naturally. Taking them at literal value is the main cause of the disturbing moral relativism which plagues modern religions.
Culture and Religion are intricately linked, don’t you see? Then, to apply moral guidelines from millennia ago to present times, without realising they arose from vastly different cultural contexts may be foolishness.
The transformation of culture from the times these moral codes were formulated to now, has been both beneficial and harmful. Smriti (remembered knowledge) of the Hindu Vedas contains tantric teachings, which advocate the transformation of sexual energy for spiritual actualization. The sexual celebrations of the Kamasutra and Khajuraho are aligned to this tantric philosophy and reflect an informational open mindedness which is strangely missing in the present times. The contemporary culture of Hindu India is sexually repressive in large swaths. Its culture morphed as did its acceptability of these now taboo-like ideas.
Slavery, a prominent part of the Bible narrative, has been outlawed by the same societies that once followed it as the word of God. Even though contemporary society is still dominantly patriarchal, women now enjoy unprecedented liberties and rights, denied to those of cultures which have passed. Where the Bible and Quran command women to obey their husbands, such lop-sided relationships are frowned upon in these times. The life of a widowed woman in ancient India was insufferable, and the idea of remarriage was moral blasphemy. Today however, with a churning of culture, it does not carry the moral taint it once did.
Cultures undergo metamorphosis; they evolve and mutate irrevocably. The moral framework undergoes a transmutation too as culture drags it along.
In all fairness, the moral framework of all religions have morphed into moulds to fit a predominantly utilitarian goal. Rules which favour the effective functioning of society have become a part of the moral structure. Where once slavery and female foeticide was a morally acceptable thing to do as part of culture, they are reprehensible today because society demands that for its own balance. Where once governing one’s wife’s life was a cultural necessity, now such dominance could get one into prison. Moral code is largely dictated by the need to maintain status quo and to preserve the hierarchy of power. Society rewards and encourages the ones who fit and harmonize, it hates rabble rousers and rebels. Any society is hell bent on self preservation, and tradition is good because it ensures its maintenance. Cultural morals might thus have no merit in themselves and exist only to protect and maintain society. What is moral is moral because society needs to be effectively regulated, lest it collapsed! Hence, as the culture of a society changes, its moral codes change. Different times, different cultures, and thus different value systems!
Consider this –
a) If we have evolved culturally to become a better society and civilization, then the moral precepts of religion are not unbending truths; inerrant and inviolable.
or
b) If the moral framework laid out by ‘God’ in the scriptures is perfect, it means we have degraded culturally since we do not follow them.
Which one is true? A dilemma, is that not?
How can a moral structure which is influenced by its cultural and religious setting be reliable then?
If values change with culture and religion, how can these values be objective truths?
What we need then is an objective moral framework, unchanging for people across cultures, civilizations and millennia. Standard across their chosen religions. Could there be such an unchanging standard of values?
Maybe.