What Gandhi said.

In light of the present day – and world wide - investigations into corruption, fraud and, shall I say, a disinclination to tell the truth, in government, business, sport and finance, what Gandhi said may be of relevance. Gandhi (Mohandas  Gandhi, 1869 to 1948) said that one of the seven deadly “sins” (as he described them) of the modern world was “Commerce without Morality”. 

What did he mean by this and is it true? 

We need first to ask ourselves two questions; what is morality? Is it important?

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines Morals inter alia, as “… of or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil in relation to the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical; …” ; and Ethics, inter alia, as “… the moral principles by which any particular person is guided; the rules of conduct recognized in a particular profession or area of human life”.

Ethics and morality then are the flip sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other.  Someone who is moral must, by definition, be also ethical and be what we would call a ‘good’ person. Such a person we would consider trustworthy, someone we would like to deal with, to call upon for help, advice and guidance. Someone who’s word is their bond.

In the Analects of Confucius (551 BC to 479 BC) translated by Simon Leys, there is a quote about the importance, in ancient China, of the notion of the word ‘gentleman’.

“Originally it meant an aristocrat, a member of the social elite: one did not become a gentleman, one could only be born a gentleman. For Confucius, on the contrary, a ‘gentleman’ is a member of the moral elite. It is an ethical quality, achieved by the practice of virtue, and secured through education. Every man should strive for it, even though few may reach it.” 

It is my contention that Morality is common to all peoples in all places and at all times. As human beings, we naturally, seldom continuously think about things we do not like, or try to do something we would not normally like doing. We generally try to do things that make us happy. We, through our actions, try to express ourselves, what we choose to be, in the eyes of our fellow beings, and at a deeper level, in our own eyes. We naturally try to do ‘good’ and to be true to ourselves. To do or be anything else is always stressful and will certainly reduce our chances of leading a fulfilling life with a good work-life balance. 

In many respects what has been forgotten in today’s frenetic world is that there has been an impoverishment of the concept of MAN (homo sapiens) as a human being. For instance people who look for measurable success live only a one dimensional existence (e.g. a CEO always expected to maintain or increase earnings per share year on year). There is a need to distinguish between succeeding for the sake of winning, and a desire for success that will enrich our lives and lead to fulfilment and a feeling of well being. We need a balance between success, as a human being and success in activities (not always the same thing).

Expectations of measurable success and the activities required to meet them, possibly even exploitative actions, diminish the perpetrators.  Such people are reduced to a one-eyed perception of Life. This is what I believe Gandhi was thinking about when he made the statement that leads this article. The aim of life is the unfolding of man’s creative powers; the potential of Life’s process is a transformation of Society into one governed by compassion, justice and truth.

Those with long memories may recall a businessman (the late Albert Dunlap) nicknamed “Chainsaw”, who, quite a few years ago now, was engaged to reinvigorate a large appliance manufacturing company in the USA. They may also recall his business fate. 

The need for moral and ethical conduct was well known in earlier times. People received instruction about the Natural Laws, by way of fables and myths. These highlighted, in often graphic detail, the consequences of irresponsible actions and the operation of the unwritten “Law” of cause and effect. 

This may be more directly stated as in the old saying, “You reap what you sow”.

For those interested, the 'Seven Sins' according to Gandhi were:- 1: Knowledge without character. 2: Science without humanity. 3: Wealth without work. 4: Commerce without morality. 5: Politics without principles. 6: Pleasure without conscience. 7: Worship without self-sacrifice.

Different people – so what!

They may have a different colour skin; they may speak a different language; they may have different customs; but they will all scream in pain when tortured (as I am sure I would do); they will all bleed when hurt; they will all die of hunger if not fed; they will all die of thirst with out water.

They are all HUMAN BEINGS, like me and like you.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus all worship God – God, Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu (or Shiva or Brahma) – different names for the same thing. All worship in a different way, according to their tradition, but does it really matter?

The fact is that about 65 million people are displaced at present, in the World. This is the greatest number since World War 2. And many, if not all, have been displaced because of their skin colour, their language, their customs or the manner by which they worship God.

This is nearly twice the population of California. About the population of Great Britain and also about the same as the population of France!

This is appalling. It is outrageous that this displacement and the suffering – almost always the suffering of the most defenceless and vulnerable, women and children - should take place at all.

All because of a perceived “difference”!!

There is much wringing of hands and many words of condemnation, but methinks, too little action. These unfortunate people now have no home, little food and shelter and in many cases, no country. Children are denied education, denied the emotional and physical stability and support that is so necessary for their development to achieve fulfillment as useful citizens of the World.

Religious persecution, and this displacement of millions is, at its root, religious persecution, is a significant relapse of values, a relapse of humanity, a relapse back to Medieval, even primitive times and is a very poor reflection on our current, collective, morality.  How about the “Golden Rule” – treat others the way you would like to be treated? Have we forgotten this? Does it no longer apply?

It was Nietzsche (admittedly not one of my favourate philosophers) who, I believe somewhere said, “Anyone who fights with monsters should take care that he does not in the process become a monster.”

Are we becoming monsters?

Do differences really matter that much?

Over seventy years after the Second World War, I don’t believe this will be looked upon as our “Finest Hour”, by future generations.

Memories, Reminiscences and what End?

As one grows older perspectives on life seem to grow and alter with the years. As an example, I now live alone - my wife of many years has died. Does this bother me? Yes, but not as much as it might – I have always been satisfied with my own company. Do I miss her? More than I could ever explain to anyone. Have I memories? Of course I have. Do I reminisce? Yes.

All this, but there is something more, something deeper, something that is slowly approaching the forefront of my mind. It is, I suppose, more of a philosophical discussion with myself. I ask myself the questions – what is a memory, what is a reminiscence and the big one what, actually, is life? And then, what will my “end” be?

Neurologists, quantum biologists and psycho-pharmacologists all stake their claims to understanding when it comes to the brain. It has been established, beyond doubt, that neurons in different parts of the brain are activated (scanning techniques verify this) when looking at something, when listening to a sound, when thinking, remembering or problem solving. Various chemicals have been identified as “neuro-transmitters” that cross the synapses that lie between one neuron and another, which appear to be essential in the “storage” of information or interpreting what has been perceived in the environment.

BUT, and this is where I dispute the “science” of the determination that the brain is the only locus of life, thoughts and memories. For instance the question has yet to be answered – what comes first – do the thoughts and memories somehow activate the neurons in the brain, or do the neurons, by some means, create the thoughts?

AND, what is a thought, actually? What is a memory, actually? What is an emotion, actually? What is life, actually? No one knows.

So I ask myself the question, are they all just the result of chemicals in the brain, as neurologists and psycho-pharmacologists would claim? I ask the question, are they all just the  result of the activities of sub-atomic particles as quantum-biologists would claim? I ask the question, how can a chemical or chemicals in any combination, inanimate as they are, create or store a thought?  Particularly as no one knows what a thought is, actually! I ask the question, how can a chemical or chemicals in any combination, inanimate as they are, create or reflect on an emotion? Particularly as no one knows what an emotion is, actually!  I ask the question, how can a chemical or chemicals in any combination, inanimate as they are, create life? Particularly as no one knows what life is, actually!

Biologists and psycho-pharmacologists have determined the chemical constituents of a cell but no one (repeat no one) has ever come close to “creating” life in a petri dish by mixing together the known chemicals that constitute the structure of a cell.

It would appear to me that life is something above and beyond our knowledge. I have sat and held the hand of someone who is dying. I have sensed that the life force (however this is defined) has left, or withdrawn from, that person. What is it? So, again, what is it that is now absent from the body - the body that was alive and warm and is now dead and growing cold?

The cells that constituted the body of the person who has just died are identical to the cells that constituted the body of that same person the split second before they died - except that they are no longer “alive”.

I don’t suppose, or presume, that we will ever have a “scientific” answer to these fundamental questions, even though scientists try to convince us that the understanding science conveys is the only kind there is!

So I am left to my memories, reminiscences and philosophical thoughts to try and understand what will happen to me when I leave this “mortal coil”!!

I wonder if it will all end as Omar Khayyam wrote in his famous Rubaiyat?

 Quatrain 47

And if the Wine you drink, the Lip you press,

End in the Nothing all Things end in – Yes –

Then fancy while Thou art, Thou art but what

Thou shalt be – Nothing – Thou shalt not be less.

Or is there something more like this, the first verse from John Masefield’s, “A Creed”:

I held that when a person dies

His soul returns again to Earth;

Arrayed in some new flesh disguise

Another mother gives him birth.

With sturdier limbs and brighter brain

The old soul takes the roads again.

I prefer John Masefield’s version but you choose!