Sunday, April 11, 2010

My Blog ‘Worst enemy of man kind – Readiness to compromise’ was not very intelligible, I suppose.
I was not trying to canvass a point of view that any person is bound by the moral views or moral standards set up by some one else.  My endeavour was to state that every one should have his own moral code and should live up to that.
When I was referring to white, black and grey I was trying to communicate that you have to follow what is white according to you.  You cannot say that every one makes mistakes, mistake is natural in every human being, people do good and bad and as such grey area is acceptable.  You cannot say that you would be happy to be in grey area doing what is good according to you as well as what is bad according to you.  You must do only what is correct and good in your perception.
When I said no moral code is infalliable I was only trying to communicate that your own concept of right and wrong could undergo change as time lapses.  Every man is dynamic.  No one is static.  As such the views would go on changing.  It is better to keep our mind active, open to corrections and being not rigid.  But at any given point of time we have to follow what is right according to us as on that date.
I insisted that when we accept a friend’s or husband’s or wife’s irrationality by giving into it and thus encouraging it to grow, we compromise.  By this I was not trying to say that your husband, wife or friend is bound by your moral code.  He is bound by his own code.  I was not trying to say that you should enforce your moral code on some one else.  I was only at the point of irrationality.  I was only trying to say that there can be no moral code in yourself to accept irrationality.
The question of you accepting or not accepting your friend would arise ,  when you are affected by the irrationality of another person.  There is no need for any one in search of irrationality of others and protest.  But if irrationality of another person affects you, you cannot accept and such acceptance would amount to compromise which is bad according to me.
One of the definitions of compromise is finding the middle ground.  I was trying to say you can’t find middle ground i.e. accept greyness or blackness.
It was certainly not my intention to ask you to expect others to be bound by your moral code or that you should be fanatic about your moral values.
I had already quoted  Oscar Wilde’s  statement wherein dominant moral sense was said to be not good.  I am very sure that people who have dominant moral sense are always cruel.  My endeavour was only to tell that every one should strictly abide by what is right according to him and every one should certainly not tolerate irrationality of others, when such irrationality affects the person.
Just to remind what Oscar Wilde has stated, I quote it again.
“I never come across anyone in whom the moral sense was dominant who was not heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid, and entirely lacking in the smallest sense of humanity.  Moral people, as they are termed, are simple beasts.  I would sooner have fifty unnatural vices than one unnatural virtue”
That government is best which governs least.  The best way to live is not to interfere with others ideas, life and outlook as long as it does not bother us. 


  1. That clears up every question I had about the previous post.

  2. yeah... perfect! i definitely agree!
    u rock FIL!