Since the birth of man, the essence of irony has ornamented the world. Compared to the past, we live in a dangerously ironical world today, where the two extremes prevail at horrifically endless and non-linear points.
These words seem to be a reflection of how Nietzsche believed the world to be in his times. Amusingly, when he describes the level of immorality in those times, I wonder how the world has degenerated from bad to worse. Out of all facets that he scrutinises, the most intriguing to me is his conception of morality. The way he sews words, that perfectly describe the complex and abstract aspects of the world is not just outrageously candid but also perfectly true sometimes. I may be the most insignificant element on earth to comment on a figure as renowned, loathed, loved and maligned as Nietzsche. I am still daring to. Morality has enjoyed numerous descriptions and re-descriptions with time. To some, it may simply be an abstract concept that is too complex to be understood. On the other hand, some may consider it the simplest notion of mankind and how human conduct them.
In the words of Nietzsche, “Morality is nothing else but obedience to customs, of whatever kind these may be. And customs are the conventional way of acting and valuing, there is no morality in matters of which no observance exists. The circle of morality ever shrinks, in proportion as life is less regulated by observance. What is observance? A higher authority, which is obeyed, not because it prescribes what is useful to us, but simply because it prescribes. By what does this feeling we have towards observance differ from the general sentiment of fear? It is the awe inspired by a superior intellect which lays down prescriptions, by an inconceivable, undefined power, by something more than personal-that is superstition in this fear. Originally, the fields of education, and hygienic, matrimony, the healing art, agriculture, war , speech, and silence, the intercourse of mortals both among themselves and with gods, formed so many departments of morality, which demanded that we should obey, irrespective of our individuality. At the outset everything was custom, and he who wanted to rise above it has to make him-self legislator and medicine-man, a kind of semi-god, that is to say, he had to set up customs-a fearful and most hazardous thing to do. Who is the most moral person? On the one hand, he who most frequently fulfils the law: who, like the Brahmin, carries the consciousness of it with him everywhere and into each minute particle of time, being ever ingenious in finding opportunities of fulfilling the law. On the other hand, he who fulfils it even in the most trying cases. The most moral man is he who brings the greatest sacrifices to morality.”
I do not doubt a single sentence in the above words. These words remained true in the 19th century and still hold relevance in the 21st century. Individuals trying to break away from the conventional prescribed norms either belong to sphere of isolation or are bled to guilt till they don’t agree to the outrageousness of their act. This has always happen and will continue to happen. Let democracy advocate its principles or let liberalism penetrate its way into the modern world of free ideas, the fundamentals would remain the same. They will creep in with a garb of irony and engulf all ideas opposed to this.
The notion of ‘morality’ remains so important, because of the undying prevalence of its antonym, ‘immorality’. When a community lays down certain prescriptions that are considered normal and acceptable, some individuals oppose it and break the spell, leading to immorality. The contemporary world is hugely responsible for renovating immorality and thus making morality a topic of discussion and pseudo-urgency. Infidelity, betrayal, back-stabbing, cheating are all different dresses of the same wardrobe. Not surprisingly, they are an inevitable part of the society today. Do we consider these things immoral? Do we punish the individuals who have crossed to the other side and broken the basic fundamentals of the society? Is it relevant to let the idea of morality enjoy the stature it does today? Why not blur the difference between ‘morality’ and ‘immorality’ and let the conceptions of trust and betrayal walk hand in hand? When morality is anyway breached upon persistently, then why not let ‘immorality’ be a part of the society and let acts of innocence, randomness or accidentality enjoy some mortality? When humans are subject to random acts that may not correspond with the prescriptions of society, then why do codes of conduct rule or dictate their acts?
I wonder if we let things loose and let humans do what they have to, without any reigns of morality or codes of conduct guiding them. Would then humans be happy and morally satisfied? Are half the problems of the world because of the reason that humans are expected to follow a line which may or may not be right in the true sense? Do morals really exist? If life is a synonym for self-expression, then are we living it the wrong way? Are my views too narrow when seen holistically? Am I too conservative for a part of the world where sexuality is usually not married to emotions? These are few questions which would have varying answers ,depending on one's perception or one's society...These are some questions that can never be correctly answered...at least not with universal correctness!!!
-AM
