Is Morality the same across Religions?
January 11, 2026
The statement of Peter in the second reading, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right’ would seem to be a statement that no one could object to, namely that God accepts all those who do right. And yet throughout our human history, across space and time, we have found so many different opinions on what is right and what is wrong, that one is forced to ask the question: How do we decide what is right ?
After all just doing what one thinks is right may lead to Shakespeare’s ‘There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so’ (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). But though that response may feel like quite a justified response at seeing so many different ‘moral codes’ being practiced around the world, is that response valid? After all every profession (medical, legal, advertising, journalism, even in the scientific world including in the world of AI today) refuses to accept this kind of individual-based morality or ethics, and hence often sets up codes of conduct. And every professional in that field must live up to such a code whatever the different cultural or religious backgrounds the various members of that profession come from. At the same time, one must also admit that we all face so many different situations, that there is a natural reluctance to accept absolute ethical rules that apply to all situations.
Thus it is clear that both extremes – either ‘one rule valid at all times’ (this is generally known as the Deontological approach in western philosophy, and would be perhaps represented by RAM from the Hindu religious epic, RAMAYANA) or ‘let each one choose according to what s/he thinks is right in the light of the end goal’ (this is known as the Teleological approach in western philosophy and is perhaps represented by KRISHNA in the Hindu religious epic, MAHABHARATA) — have valid insights and yet obvious weaknesses. The question then is: Can a way be found to put together the valid insights that come to us from both approaches?
Here is a possible way forward. I suggest that making a distinction between values, ethics and morals could help us, even though from a dictionary point of view one must admit that these three terms have quite an overlap of meaning.
VALUES, I suggest, are the ideal norms to which human beings subscribe. Thus, though everybody may not feel honesty is appropriate in every circumstance, would there be anybody who does not accept that honesty, in essence, is better than its opposite, i.e. dishonesty? The same would apply to other values like justice, love, faithfulness and other such almost universally accepted values. In that sense these are “deontological” values, i.e., these are values that cut across time and space and circumstances, irrespective of situations, and would be espoused by almost all religions and ideologies.
“ETHICS”, I would define as the sum of the principles of how to choose “rightly” when faced with a conflict between different values. Thus when faced with two evils - e.g. in the case of a bloodthirsty mob chasing a person whom one has hidden from them, and one is asked where the person is, one has to choose whether to tell a lie and save the person’s life, or tell the truth and let the person be killed. This is called the ethical principle of lesser evil or greater good. An ethical way of functioning demands that such principles, of which there are many, are to be applied consistently and without choosing what is convenient to oneself, or claiming exceptions based on one’s own religious or cultural background.
However, there are times when despite the use of these ethical principles, we are placed in a situation where we cannot decide too clearly. Take the case of a girl who is raped and becomes pregnant. Is it right to save the baby even at the risk of the girl’s entire life being destroyed? Or the other way around? How does one choose which is the greater good? It is in such situations that we come to the question of what I now term MORALS or better still, the Moral or Ideological stance. Thus in crunch situations, when the values between which one has to choose seem equally important, then one needs a hierarchy of values - i.e. which value must be given greater preference. This is what I would define as our MORAL stance.
Let me use an example from the Mahabharata, a Hindu religious epic, to explain this concept of a moral stance or hierarchy of values. In that epic there is a moment when Arjun, one of the protagonists, faces a serious moral dilemma on the battlefield when he sees arrayed against him the very people to whom he owes his entire life. And he wonders, even though he believes he is in the right, whether it is ethically right for him to kill them in the ensuing war. It is at this point that Krishna, an incarnation of God, offers him advice. And in brief Krishna’s advice is that Arjun must fulfil his dharma/duty to fight for justice as the end goal, - though without any attachment to the success or failure of his actions - which is clearly a teleological approach. In continuation of this approach, during that same war, Krishna even advises the Pandava princes on four occasions to consciously use dishonest means to kill four warriors who were otherwise unbeatable in a fair fight (Bhishma, Dronacharya, Jayadratha and Karna) because it was their duty or dharma to ensure that justice prevailed by any means. Now if Jesus, (the one who taught that if someone takes your cloak, one should give one’s coat as well), was the one to advise Arjun, would it be reasonable to assume that he would have advised Arjun to give up on killing others for the sake of gaining back what had been taken from him? Or if the Buddha was the advisor, the one who taught that all sorrow is caused by desire and the way to overcome sorrow was to overcome desire, would he have advised Arjun to look deep into his own heart and overcome his very desire to take revenge, and win back his kingdom. Again, if Mohammad was the advisor, the one who taught that ultimately it was every human’s duty to obey Allah, would it be reasonable to conclude that he might have told Arjun to forget all his own ambitions and desires, and find out through prayer what Allah wanted of him, and do only that, whatever it was. So while all these four would have espoused the same values in general, each one’s hierarchy of values would have led them to different choices.
In the case of a Code of Ethics for a profession, the moral hierarchy clarifies which value must take priority if the person who is a member of that profession is to be trusted. So for example in the code of ethics for a Catholic priest, even if the priest knows through confession who the real perpetrator of a crime is, he must not break the seal of confession, as the code for Catholic priests clearly positions the safeguarding of the seal as of a higher value than that the real perpetrator be caught.
So is there a universal right and wrong? Well, it seems to be that there are universal values and yet different moral stances on how to choose between those values when they clash with one another. But one could ask: Is one moral stance better than the other? Possibly. Or should we say that in certain situations one moral stance works better than the other? For example it could be suggested by some that in times of war, it might be better to follow one’s dharma/duty? On the other hand, in a situation in which one finds that one has become so controlled by one’s ambition that it is even affecting one’s personal health, perhaps Buddha’s moral stance may serve one better. What would seem to be quite unacceptable, however, is if one just picked one’s moral stance based on what is convenient to oneself. In order to avoid falling into this ‘trap’, it would be useful to see our understanding of which moral stance is better than others, as a journey that we are taking as a human race. And if we walk that pilgrimage with integrity, we will realise that we cannot say that we have learnt nothing about which values need to be given greater importance than others - as for example in the moral code we as a human race have articulated in the UDHR or Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is true that what we have learnt on this pilgrimage may be temporary, and tentative, but they are definitely evolutionary in nature, and move us onward, and we should not backtrack on what we have learnt, - for these are hard-won learnings that help us keep our heads above the waters, even as we are almost drowned in the midst of a multiplicity of moral codes.
First Reading: Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations.
He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”
“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
Gospel: Mathew 3:13-17
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Comments
Post a Comment