Understanding Social Conventions: A Legal Perspective for Progress

Social progress insights. Man, being a social animal, "love" is also born just instinctively. This "love" does not necessarily indicate a relationship between a male and female; it can and does take place between a male and female; it can and does take place between a male and another male, also; between a male and an animal, also; between an animal and another animal, also. It is just an instinct of all beings. Union with the object of our love - be it animate or inanimate - necessarily brings us joy, and similarly, separation from the object of our love - be it animate or inanimate - inevitably brings unhappiness. When one thinks of the joy that a union brings, one starts praising "love" strongly and publicly, but when one suffers, which one must inevitably do, as a result of the separation, which also in its turn is bound to take place sometime or another, one starts criticizing "love" strongly and publicly.

Such a feeling, which may help one to experience the joy of union on one side but may not equally expose oneself to the painful, strong feeling of separation, is known as the "feeling of friendliness". It is often called "love" also. To love everybody and to be friendly with everybody is the same thing. Hence, it has been said on the one hand that people to love every human being, but on the other hand has warned people against the mistaken practice of love and said "Love causes suffering".

In order to fulfill any ideal or achieve any social purpose in life, man has to remain united. A large number of individuals gather together on four bases of gathering. A man manages to gather people together, firstly, when a man realizes that this another man can be enlisted by a gift, he enlists him in this way, secondly, when a man realizes that this another man can be enlisted by a kindly word, then he enlists him in that way, thirdly, when a man realize that this another man can be enlisted by a good turn, then he enlists him in that way and, fourthly, when a man knows that this another man must be treated as an equal, if he is to be enlisted, then man enlists him by equality of treatment. All progress is gradual. In certain cases, it can be accelerated, but still, it is gradual. In the opinion of certain modernists, cohabitation is not only a natural relationship but is even essential from the viewpoint of the mental and physical health of the individual.

In addition to this, men shape their own social and personal relationships, as well as their interactions with other things and the environment around them, through volition or intention. Through volition, human beings shape themselves and their lifestyles, social position, and fortunes. It is because kammaniyama (the natural law about human behaviors) is a specifically human concern, covering the entire volitional and creative world of human beings, that the Buddha's teaching greatly stresses its importance. A progressive society with wise administration uses the experience accumulated from previous generations in laying down the conventions and laws of society. These become the good and evil of Social Convention and ideally should be harmonious with the meritorious (kusala) and demeritorious (akusala) of kammaniyama.

Apart from the different kinds of natural laws, there is another kind of law which is specifically man-made and is not directly concerned with nature. These are the codes of law established and agreed upon by society, comprising social decrees, customs, laws, and other similar regulations. Let's call them Social Convention. These codes of social law are products of human thought and, as such, are related to kammaniyama. They are, however, merely a supplement to Kammaniyama. These two kinds of law, kammaniyama and Social Convention, are human concerns and are intimately related to human beings. Kamma means "work" or "action". But in the context of Dhamma, it is defined more specifically as "action based on intention (cetana)" or "deeds wilfully done".

As has been mentioned above, the law of kamma has a very intimate relationship with both cittaniyama (psychological laws) and Social Convention. Cittaniyama governs all mental activity, including the unintentional. The issue that creates the most doubt is the relationship between the law of kamma and Social Convention. Ambiguity arises concerning the nature of good and evil, giving rise to questions such as, "What is good?, What is evil?, What is the standard for deciding between good and evil?

We often hear people say that good and evil are human or social inventions. One action in one society, time, or place may be said to be good, but in another time and place may be said to be not good. One kind of action may be acceptable to one society, but not in another. Some sects of religion teach that to kill animals for food is not bad, while others teach that to harm beings of any kind is never good. Some societies hold that a child should show respect to their elders and that to argue with them is bad manners, while other societies hold that respect is not dependent on age and that all people should have the right to express their opinions.

Some Social Conventions are established by society for a specific social function, such as to enable people to live together harmoniously, and they take the form of accepted values or agreements. They may indeed be instruments for creating social peace and harmony, or they may not. They may indeed be useful to society, or they may, in fact, be harmful. All this depends on whether or not those conventions are established with sufficient understanding and wisdom, and whether or not the authority that established them is acting with pure intention. Good and evil in this respect are strictly matters of Social Convention. They may change in many ways, but their changes are not functions of the law of kamma. If a person disobeys these conventions and is punished by society, that is also a matter of Social Convention, not the law of kamma. Examples of such conventions might be social codes of dress. For instance, before entering a Buddhist religious building (vihara), it is appropriate to remove shoes and hat, whereas to enter a Christian church, it is usually required to wear both.

This can be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose two people decide to live together. In order to render their lives together as smooth and as convenient as possible, they agree to establish a set of regulations. For example, although both work in different places and return from work at different times, they decided that on Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday, one person will clean the house before leaving for work, and on Thursday, Friday & Saturday, another person will clean the house after returning from work, and on Sunday, both of them will clean the house together and go out together. Of those two people, one likes a loud voice and doesn't like a low voice, while the other likes a low voice and doesn't like a loud voice. For mutual harmony, they both agree on a soft voice. Further, of those two people, one likes watching daily soaps on television and doesn't like watching movies, while the other likes watching movies on television and doesn't like watching daily soaps. For mutual harmony, they both agree that each of them should watch television at different times. Similarly, of those two people, one likes the statue of God Krishna and doesn't like the statue of Jesus Christ, while the other likes the statue of Jesus Christ and doesn't like the statue of God Krishna. For mutual harmony, they agree not to bring any statue of God into the house at all; however, they decided not to stop others from visiting their religious building for prayer & happiness. Comparably, of those two people, one likes his own parents and doesn't like others' parents (in-laws), while the other likes her own parents and doesn't like one's parents (in-laws). For mutual harmony, they agree not to insult their in-laws & use any derogatory words. Correspondingly, of those two people, one likes the ABC political party and doesn't like the XYZ political party, while the other likes the XYZ political party and doesn't like the ABC political party. For mutual harmony, they agree to cast their vote in the elections by discussing together about the election manifesto and the character of the candidates. Uniformly, of those two people, one likes the Indian dress code and doesn't like the Western dress code, while the other likes the Western dress code and doesn't like the Indian dress code. For mutual harmony, they agree to wear such dress considering the quality, comfort, cleanliness and fruit of such action towards oneself & towards others.  Likewise, although working in different places and returning from work at different times, they decide to have the evening meal together. As it would be impractical to wait for each other indefinitely, they agree that neither of them should eat before seven pm. Of those two people, one likes cats and doesn't like dogs, while the other likes dogs and doesn't like cats. For mutual harmony, they agree not be bring any pets into the house at all.  Indistinguishably, of those two people, one likes the male child (sons) and doesn't like the female child (daughters), while the other likes the female child (daughters) and doesn't like the male child (sons). For mutual harmony, they agree to have two children and as parents do treat their sons and/or daughters equally and not differently. Having agreed on these regulations, if either of those two people acts in contradiction to them, there is a case of intentional infringement. 

The natural results of cohabitation are the possibility of becoming the father/mother of the child. The birth of a son is more welcome in a family, and the birth of a daughter is unwelcome. It is neither a religious proposition nor even social, but economic. After the passing away of the matriarchal age, the patriarchal period came into existence. It was the father who occupied the most prominent position in the family. Man became paramount in all spheres of social relationships. At that period of social organisation, this particular view seems to have been promulgated that if a man does not beget a male issue, then there is no favourable heir after him. It was the son who was supposed to uphold the family tree generation after generation. To relinquish oneself from the debt of his father, it was considered obligatory that the son also should become a father of a male child, definitely not of a female child. 

In this context, when it is necessary to appraise any convention in the light of good and evil, it would best be considered from two levels. Firstly, in terms of Social Convention, by determining whether or not it has a beneficial result to society. Secondly, in terms of the law of kamma, determining whether it is kusala or not, whether or not it is beneficial to the human psyche. The people of the society should not be mistaken with which is actually not benenificial as being beneficial.