Columnists

No Easy Answers

by I.J. SINGH

 

Parsing ethics is never easy, but it is so necessary.

The New York Times carried an item about a woman who was convicted of stealing and is now on probation.  Like all of us, she is a woman of contradictions. She regularly attends church and describes her life as built around the core of her religious beliefs.  She always wanted to be a nun, so there is little question that she has an exquisitely honed sense of right and wrong. 

Then why was she stealing?  Surely, her religion didn't teach her to do so.  The commandment against stealing is clear, but she thinks it is not necessarily absolute.  She claims she had a higher reason for breaking the commandment. 

Moral dictates, we all know, are hardly ever absolute.  There are exceptions.  Some wars are just.  Much of the world would agree that to lie, cheat or steal is wrong, but there are always exceptions to the rule.  Killing another person in war or for self-defense is not a mortal sin; in fact, it may even be meritorious.  The case for stealing may be similar.  To steal in order to feed starving children may be morally justified. 

When there are no absolutes, it means that relative moral weight is to be assigned to any action and a given situation.  How is a person to judge that it is appropriate to reject the requirements of law and society at one time and not another?    Clearly, in consciously rejecting the dictates of societal law, one has to willingly accept whatever consequences follow such act.  But how is one to know that the action is not born out of a selfish end and a self-centered focus on one's own needs or glory?

The circumstances viewed as a whole should guide us.  One way is to look at the action and explore it to see if it fulfills a larger need than that of the actor in the drama.  And someone other than the main player should preferably make that judgment.  One powerful way to make such judgment is to keep in mind the dictum and directive set forth by Kant in his categorical imperative:  Would the action that I am poised to undertake be still acceptable if everyone were to take similar action?

Let me illustrate my concerns by some down-home examples. 

I know of a gurdwara where the management is reputed to sponsor visitors from Punjab for a fee.  The charge is said to be hefty and the gurdwara manager issues a letter of sponsorship in the name of the gurdwara.  When the person enters the United States, he/she promptly disappears in the labyrinthine underground of an immigrant community.   

Until now, the Immigration and Naturalization Service almost never found their man.  There is also a network of immigration lawyers who are able to thwart most legal efforts to deport the few who are caught and legalize the stay of most.  I am told that the fee was substantial, both for the entering this country and the legal establishment, but business was booming, and possibly still is.

There are many levels and myriad ways to justify this. Such stratagems by immigrants are not new to this country; Indians did not invent them.  America is a land of immigrants; in one way or another, except for the Native Americans, all of us came off the boat.  Immigrants came here for a variety of reasons.  Some were running away from religious persecution, others escaped political pogroms and virtual death sentences in repressive cultures.  Many came to pursue economic opportunity. 

Despite pockets that belie what I am about to claim, America remains the most open society with unparalleled opportunities.  Also, India remains a land with scant justice for minorities like the Sikhs.

The history of all immigrants to this country is dotted with innumerable examples of shady practices and illegal ways of entering this society; such methods are almost a rite of passage.  So why should we be unduly critical of Sikhs who have also discovered such time-honored customs of entrée into this society.  Now it is Asian immigrants who are finding ways around the law to enter this society, many of the established American families arrived and arose here by similarly questionable ways, perhaps a hundred years ago.  In terms of history, the difference in time is not even a drop in the bucket.

Now here is the rub.  One gurdwara manager who reportedly resorts to such practices of aiding the immigrants, claims that he personally does not retain or benefit from the money paid by the immigrants but donates it to the gurdwara.  Now, I don't know how true the claim is, but it clouds the matter considerably.  I wonder about this.  Wouldn't his money be considered ill-gotten gains? Legally? Unquestionably so.  Ethically and morally, it might be a murkier matter.

Without a doubt, this money comes from desperate people and some not very good people.  Is it akin to money from corruption that is donated to a charity? Would that wash away the sin of how it was acquired? 

What comes to mind is the oft-repeated parable of Guru Nanak who refused to attend the repast offered by a rich man - Malik Bhago - and preferred instead to dine with the poor but honest Bhai Lalo.  When challenged, the Guru justified his choice on the difference between unethically acquired wealth and honest earning.

Let me add some more to the cauldron.  I know many Sikhs in this country run small businesses, particularly gas stations and liquor stores.  Gas stations routinely carry tobacco products and liquor stations carry all kinds of alcohol.  I am also aware that Sikh tradition disapproves of intoxicants, including cigarettes and alcohol.  Would you think these Sikhs should not be in such businesses, and how would you respond when such a businessman donates money to the gurdwara or other worthy cause?

The Sikh businessman's usual response is fairly simple:  He is merely providing a service that is legal and demanded by the society.  He is not using the product itself.  Furthermore, the earning is certainly honest.  Food has to be placed on the table and his family has needs.  We usually accept such a defense. 

But what if I opened a brothel and donated ten percent of its income to a gurdwara?  I think most Sikhs would not approve of this and might even organize a lynch mob.  I wonder why?  The society would still be paying for an honest service and is not coerced to use it. 

But it is an illegal endeavor, you might respond.  Again, I point out that it is illegal, but not everywhere.  I suppose in Las Vegas, a brothel would be legal and so would be its earnings.  But, keep in mind also that the service would most likely be exploitive, hence unethical.

I remind my readers that about twenty years ago, one gurdwara in Washington, D.C. had a gambling casino associated with it.  It was a legitimate fund raising device for "church-related" activities under the laws of the land and operated for some years.  I don't know if it still exists.  The gurdwara managers organized and operated it. 

A question stemming from similar concerns really arose and was posed in a recent news item.  Should a charity accept the proceeds from a man who has won millions in a lottery and wants to donate ten percent to his church?  Are lotteries ethical?  Is gambling ethical?  I ask this even though many churches raise funds through bingo games that are largely patronized by the elderly and lonely.

Should one enter into or patronize a business that is clearly against one's personal moral and ethical framework? 

I am reminded that not many months ago, the Pope issued a directive asking Roman Catholic physicians not to provide abortion services or advice on birth control to their patients.  Is it forcing one's own personal religious belief on others who may not be similarly inclined?  Is it akin to proselytizing, even somewhat coerced?  Perhaps not, because a patient is free to seek such service elsewhere. 

But when President Bush decides not to approve American aid funds in other countries for their birth control initiatives, perhaps he is forcing his own personal belief on others.  These are not his personal funds, but those of American taxpayers and Americans have not approved such restrictions in their own country, nor anywhere else.

I would think that the wages of sin could never find acceptance in the house of God. Mark the parable from Guru Nanak that I cited above.  But the next question is how is the sin to be judged, and by whom.

At one level perhaps, the business of a person's life cannot be divorced from the personal moral compass of his or her being.  In other words, the question is, how far is our personal belief to be reflected in our life. 

I believe Sikhism does not aim to micromanage a person's life, so it does not draw a directory of the sin-quotient of every imaginable behavior for every conceivable situation.  Instead, it gives an ethical framework to the follower, by which each situation and the proposed response or action can be weighed, judged and formulated. 

Sikhism demands that its followers seriously work at making their external lives and internal beliefs consistent.  I suppose such is the goal of all religious systems. (Certainly that was the purpose of the Pope's directive on reproductive advice from Catholic physicians that I cited above.) 

However, between the ideal and the reality, there is always a gap.  Keep in mind something that was often said in jest: that the last good Christian died on the cross.  What it underscores is that none of us is perfect.  This applies as equally to Sikhs as it does to Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and what have you.  This is why the ideal remains a lifelong quest.

The pursuit of this ideal requires a revolution of will and of values. 

That is why Guru Granth speaks of the need of a life of introspection.  Eh sareera merya iss jug mey aayekey kya tudh karam kamaya, asks Gurbani.  An examined life is the recommendation here. Such a life, capped and imbued with grace, becomes the basis of ethical existence.

Where and how to find the principles, advice and infrastructure necessary to exploring and constructing an ethical framework for one's life? 

In Sikhism, for debate, discussion and counsel of the Guru, the believers are provided with the Guru Granth, a living community (sangat), tradition, and history. 

But in the final analysis, the onus for interpretation of Sikh teaching and its application in life lies with the individual.  The Sikh Code of Conduct  (Rehat Maryada) then becomes the voice of history and tradition that the individual can lean on, and defines bounds within which to operate. 

I have used some obvious examples as scaffolding for some ethical issues; readers can find many more telling situations that posit Hobson's choices for all of us.  I remind you with renewed emphasis that I am pushing no answers. Keep in mind that not all sins and infractions are equal; some have greater import.   I also think we need not and must not judge another until we have walked a mile in the other's moccasins.

Obviously the imperatives of religion are not always limited to the laws of the land.  As the commercial of a maker of kosher hot dogs says, "We answer to a higher authority".

 

[This essay was first published under the title "Some Ethical Hair-Splitting" in BEING & BECOMING A SIKH by I.J. Singh, 2003, Centennial Foundation, Guelph, Canada.]

May 5, 2008

read other articles in Columnists