Virtue and Vice

In most countries crime is defined with reference to a sense of pápa [vice] and puńya [virtue].

These have their roots in the religions of individual countries.

For example, English people customarily believe that suicide is one of the gravest sins. According to the customary belief of Indians, suicide is a sin, but not a grave one.

The Japanese do not consider suicide to be a sin at all.

That is why the penal codes of these three countries are different. In Japan neither suicide nor attempted suicide is a crime, and thus neither is a punishable offence.

In India today, the attempt to commit suicide is a crime. But suicide itself is not, hence only the attempt to commit suicide is a punishable offence.

In England, the attempt to commit suicide and actual suicide are both crimes, hence both are considered to be punishable offences.(3)

So those who rend the air arguing about virtue and vice are not usually listened to outside their own countries.

Ideas about virtue and vice are based on one or both of the following factors:

• different religious beliefs
• traditional or contemporary social beliefs created by factors other than religion.

These ideas change not only according to place, but also according to time and person.

In ancient India, for example, people used to burn defenceless widows to death without a twinge of conscience.

The thought that this might be a sinful or unlawful act never entered their minds. Indians of that time believed that those who opposed sati were being antisocial, unpatriotic and sinful.

It would not be correct for us to feel hatred or disdain towards those ancient people, living as we do in a different era.

Perhaps those who burnt Joan of Arc to death did not commit a crime according to the concept of virtue and vice prevalent at the time.

Different concepts of virtue and vice may also coexist in one country.

For example, for a Shákta [devotee of Shakti] eating meat is not a sin.

But for a Vaeśńava [Vaishnavite, devotee of Viśńu] even to see an animal being slaughtered is a sin. He or she cannot even think of eating meat.

Since the concept of virtue and vice is completely relative, it is meaningless to loudly support or oppose the views of a particular community or the laws of a particular country as if they were the absolute truth.

Today, therefore, everyone should develop a magnanimous outlook in such matters. Otherwise, their extreme intolerance will result in bloodshed around the world in the name of:

• spreading religion or
• protecting virtue.

The state should not blindly follow scriptural injunctions on virtue and vice. It will be impossible for the state to maintain its existence if it commits such an error.

Virtue and vice are psychic expressions which are defined by changes in time, place and person.

Under these circumstances, what should the basis of legal codes be? If legal codes are based on the different concepts of virtue and vice professed by different groups of people, a question will arise: “If two litigants, a plaintiff and a defendant, belonging to two different communities, appear in court, on which community’s legal code will the judicial process be based?”

We can therefore see that crime cannot be defined by legal codes developed according to the concepts of virtue and vice followed by different groups of people.

Society will have to define what constitutes a crime and what does not in accordance with a moral standard.

Immorality is anything that, for the sake of advancing the interest of an individual or group, aims to exploit another individual or group, or deprives them of the right to self-preservation.

Behaviour based on such immoral intentions is a crime.

If the concept of virtue and vice of a particular person or a particular time is taken as absolute, the opportunity to introduce corrective measures into the law will be severely limited and restricted.

This will severely retard the dynamism of that society, leading to chaos and collapse.

This is what happened to the ancient Egyptian, Roman, Greek and pre-Buddhist Vedic societies. If the Indian legal system were not reformed, then sati would still be practised today.

This is because, according to ancient beliefs, cremation by sati was a virtuous act.

Every rational person will therefore support giving scope to alterations and additions to legal codes.

As soon as the social codes of the Vedic Age lost their flexibility due to the intransigence of Aryan vested interests, the Buddhist revolution took place.

This significantly raised the consciousness of the people. In a later period, people of all religious affiliations – Buddhist, Jain, etc. – automatically accepted the idea that changes in the social code were desirable, that the concept of virtue and vice would inevitably change according to the needs of the age.

Thus, the following ages had different social systems:

• the Paráshara Saḿhitá
• the Rámáyańa
• the Mahábhárata
• the Manu Saḿhitá.(4)

People cannot arbitrarily impose their judicial system or legal codes on people through the state regardless of differences in time, place or person, are mistaken.

A Changing Moral Code

The principles underlying the legal codes will have to be based on people’s social needs and not on the whims of an individual or group or the biases inherent in a particular concept of virtue and vice.

Society is a dynamic entity. It has to progress by endlessly struggling to break through ever-changing barriers.

It has to equip itself in different ways to respond to changing conditions and new challenges.

Society should remember that:

• the struggles it had in the past will not be the same as those of the present
• the struggles of today will not be the same as those of the future.

Thus, as the environment changes, newer and newer codes of justice will have to be formulated on the basis of the moral code.

The duty of those who frame legal codes is to fully recognize the essential characteristics of life and not violate the interests of individuals, groups or society as a whole. Otherwise the codes will be seen as unnatural and will not be accepted, which means that the state will have difficulty in implementing them effectively.

For example, during the British rule of India, the Sarda Act (5) was not properly enforced due to a lack of education. If a large section of the society is confronted with the possibility of being considered criminals in the eyes of the law, they will engage in deceitful conduct and other antisocial acts to avoid punishment.

Thus, the standard of morality will decline considerably. Therefore, if such codes are ever formulated, the state will lose its credibility and become the laughing-stock of society.

If somebody commits a violent crime, generally he or she will not receive any sympathy from the public.

But if somebody chooses the path of violence to protest against practices which are abhorred by his or her fellow citizens, he or she will, in all likelihood, enjoy popular support.