Evolving Morals

In their book, Lessons of History, Will and Ariel Durant noted:

“History offers some consolation by reminding us that sin flourished in every age.”

Of course, that doesn’t change the view of people who insist that ancient times (and people) were better, morally speaking: they just say that the times they refer to were before recorded history. So how do they know about that pre-recorded era? No answer… it’s like religion, it’s faith based.

In another part of their book, they say:

“Probably every vice was once a virtue… man’s sins may be the relics of his rise rather than the stigmata of his fall.”

They cite very interesting examples of such transformations. When man moved from hunting to agriculture, larger units were needed to sustain oneself e.g. on farms. And so marriage was early; children were farm hands and birth control became immoral. Then again, when we moved from agriculture to the industrial age, individuals could sustain themselves and:

“The authority of father and mother lost its economic base.”

Karen Armstrong makes a similar point in her book titled Buddha. Even the rise of the Buddha was partially due to such a transition from one social system to another, she says. As trade increased, the role (and power) of merchants in the system changed:

“These social changes certainly contributed to the spiritual rev­olution, even if they cannot fully explain it. The market econ­omy also undermined the status quo… The cities were dominated by the new men -- merchants, businessmen and bankers -- who no longer fit easily into the old caste system and were beginning to challenge the brahmins and ksatriyas.”

And so she says, the situation was ripe for a (spiritual) revolution:

“The old rituals had suited a settled rural community, but were beginning to seem cumbersome and archaic in the more mobile world of the cities. Merchants were constantly on the road and could not keep the fires burning, nor could they observe the uposatha days. Since these new men fit less and less easily into the caste system, many of them felt that they had been pushed into a spiritual vacuum.”

All this aligns with what I have believed: morality related to interactions between individuals cannot remain static and frozen; so it will change as the underlieing social structure changes. It’s only the morality of the individual (is that what they mean by spirituality?) that might remain unchanged. And since Buddhism focuses on the individual and isn’t prescriptive about social norms, it’s probably why it remains untarred by the revulsion encountered when it comes to most other religions.