|
|
|
|
Articles: My Thoughts | Conscience, the elusive mirage
- Prof. Narasimham Brahmandam
| |
Conscience, the elusive mirage
Most of us believe that we have a built-in self-regulating mechanism within us, which, like the needle of a compass, always points the right path to its possessor. Those who follow its guidance are known as conscientious persons; those who do not are said to be unscrupulous.
Conscience, being needle like, pricks – rather annoyingly at times. The person so afflicted should either bow to it and abandon the objected course of action, or should disregard the pricks and go ahead with the projected action. Most common men choose the former course, rather grudgingly; and, like the wavering Prince of Denmark, bitterly complain that conscience makes cowards of us all. Implied in the statement is the definition that a coward is one who bows to his conscience. By corollary, he who defies it is courageous. The conscience in such men, out of disuse, may either be blunted or atrophied. A Chenghis Khan, a Nadir Shah, a Hitler, or a Truman, who can take the lives of men and vermin alike with equal equanimity have been adored as heroes by their followers with a matching atrophy of conscience.
If we take a close look at these two classes of people, the timidity or boldness manifested by them is not really so much in combating their own conscience as facing up to the conscience of others. The so-called public opinion, which is the consensus of consciences of individuals comprising the public, is the one that has to be reckoned with. The conscientious person is afraid of going against this consensus. But the brave man of the world (as also a small percentage of men with strong convictions) knows that this public opinion is a paper tiger with no sanctions behind it.
Some people have a dormant conscience, which may sleep over many atrocities of its possessor, but wakes up at some critical moment. The screen villain’s conscience, which, after relentlessly pushing him to the climax, suddenly reverses its direction and plunges him precipitously into remorse. Such a type of conscience is, unfortunately, very rare in the real world. However, there are notable exceptions like Emperor Ashoka and Yogi Vemana.
It is not merely the massacre of men that requires defiance of conscience. There are numerous little brave men in our society who, in their own measure, defy their own or the public conscience. The senior student who rags the freshers, the roadside Romeo who teases hapless girls, the doctor who refuses to see the patient until his fees are settled, the elected representative who leaves his party without leaving his seat, the recruiting commission which selects an undeserving candidate due to pressure or nepotism, and many others who remain on the right side of law while they break unwritten social or natural laws, - all defy their conscience in some measure. When nationalized services, having annexed the monopoly, harass the customers who are helplessly at their mercy, when a brilliant student cannot get admission to a college because of ‘equitable distribution’ of seats among regions and castes – in short, when constitutional justice, sanctioned by authority or majority in legislature, is at variance with natural or traditional justice, we tend to put even the government in the category of unpunishable defiers of conscience.
The laws of the government made under expediency, at times, confuse the conscientious, law abiding citizens. The gentleman who has sent his wife to her parents for confinement, allows his friend with voracious children to draw the rations on his card with a sense of doing a pious act of daanam, which would entitle him to a place in swargam after his death. But the rationing officer can give him hell here and now, if he comes to know of it. In fact, during the hey-days of controls after the world war, the aphorism on everybody’s lips was “controls make culprits of us all”. So too, till yesterday, the termination of pregnancy was punishable and our consciences were taught to consider it as amounting to murder. But, to day, one may resort to it in public hospitals without any qualms.
The direction of the conscience is also conditioned by circumstances. Hundreds of soldiers may be killed in combat without unduly disturbing the conscience in most of us. But once taken prisoner, they cannot be shot without upsetting our conscience. In a war, the winner is excused for many carnages for which the loser is punished. Truman killed no less number of people by his atom bombs than Hitler did in his concentration camps. Yet it is the latter who drew a lot of condemnation. Conscience is thus inactive in the aggressor and the winner, but troubles the champions of the weaker sections as is evidenced in the most devilish tragedies of humanity. Orgies committed for a supposedly good cause are hailed by the beneficiary sections.
Even in the same individual, the direction of the conscience is not necessarily set forever. In some categories of people, it is remarkably unsteady and we may call them weathercock consciences. The conscience of a politician, for instance, is absolutely unpredictable. We have seen in our own country how hundreds of chosen representatives went to bed with heir consciences facing right and woke up to find them facing left.
Do all consciences point in the same direction? There is some evidence that they do. That all religions of all times and climes have common do’s and don’ts is strong evidence in favour of the statement. Yet there is also evidence that a conscience may be educated. A cannibal, obviously, would not feel the qualms of his conscience while eating a man with relish much the same way his more sophisticated modern counterpart does not when he enjoys his barbecue. So too does the civilized conscience of modern man lie still as a sleeping child when a million goats are slaughtered for food but is swayed as by a tempest if a single goat is sacrificed before an altar – only again to be used as food later.
The distribution of a sensitive conscience in various groups of the society seems to follow Shaw’s morality pattern being abundant in the middle classes. The lower classes cannot afford it and the rich have no use for it. Soldiers, judges and executioners must nip their conscience in the bud as they are paid for it.
If conscience is to be regarded as a compass needle, a magnetic force of sufficient magnitude should be able to deflect it through any desired angle. The minimum force required for this purpose may be called the threshold force. The source of force needed for the deflection of this compass of conscience may take the form of pressures, flattery, money or other enticements. The basic fact is that there is no conscience that cannot be deflected. Only the threshold force varies. If the force applied does not reach the value, the possessor of the conscience keeps on grumbling that his conscience does not permit – which only means that more enticement is needed for its permission.
Conscience appears to be of negative value to its possessor only indicating what he should not do and not what he should (as the inner voice would). Even here it is not steady enough to be relied upon. On the other hand, on occasions, it can be a distinct hindrance to him. The man without a conscience or with a flexible one, has always an edge over one who has a sensitive conscience – at any rate, most of the time. In fables and films, he may ultimately bow to his conscience or pay for his audacity.
But in the real world, he pays, if at all, for his carelessness rather than lack of conscience. History is replete with dare devils who got away with it. We acknowledge this fact when we say ‘fortune favours the brave’. May be conscience is just a religious concept, a pious wish without an objective reality.
Biologically speaking, conscience should be regarded as an anti-evolutionary force because it hinders aggression that is essential for a struggle, which, in turn, is necessary for the fittest to survive. It is essentially a race preserving mechanism, which is upset by the countering of the primate instinct of inter-group clashes. It does not appear that other living beings suffer from this inhibition. If they did, man would not have, probably, come into existence (owing to the neutralization of the natural forces of evolution). It follows that if we, men, possess the conscience, the superman will never arrive on the scene. It is in our interest, not that of nature, that a superman is not born – lest he should enslave us as we have done other animals.
| Read 2 Comment(s) posted so far on this Article!
| |
|
|
|
 |
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
