Morality is generally not seen as such, ina black and white manner, but there are different views ofcourse, some indeed hold that morality isn't up for interpretation and hence objective, some hold the view that it is subjective There is the concept of Dharma/Rita in Hinduism, the cosmic law which governs all of the Universe, it includes morality as well What constitutes Dharma in the moral sphere is based upon that specific situation "However, discard the desire (kama) and material wealth (artha) if contrary to Dharma; as also, any usage or custom or rules regarded as source of Dharma if at any time they were to lead to unhappinessor arouse people's indignation.’ What is considered Dharma may not be considered so, in time. In the Mahabharata Bhishma describes how 'open' relationships used to be accepted but in due time because of Rishi Shvetketu | believe it was considered Adharmic(not in line with Dharma) Dharma is whatever that maintains, whatever that promotes prosperity “dharanad dharmam ity ahur dharmo dharayati prajah yah syad dharana samyuktah sa dharma iti niScayah Dharma protects and preserves the people. So it is the conclusion of thepandits that what maintains is Dharma.’ Kanada in his Vaisesika Sutras defines dharma as: "qatsqear:taeRae: STA: Wk 1812 I Dharma (is) that from which (results) the accomplishment of Exaltation and of the Supreme Good." As per Swami Vivekananda, these are the rules of thumb for deciding what is right and wrong, generally speaking (i) The only definition that can be given of morality is this: That which is selfish is immoral, and that which is unselfish is moral.(ii) My idea is to show that the highest ideal of morality and unselfishness goes hand in hand. (iii) The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. (iv) Perfect self-annihilation is the ideal of ethics. (v) The vain ideas of individualism ... have to be given up—say the laws of ethics. (vi) Ethics is unity; its basis is love. (vii) In all our actions we have to judge whether it is making for diversity or for oneness. If for diversity, we have to give it up, but if it makes for oneness we are sure it is good. (i.e it promotes equality)So one implication here is equality, The other is service(seva) To promote harmony and coexistence, it is necessary to promote both equality and service(to the underprivileged or anyone in need, as long as it is within your means) The issue of where ethics can be rooted is a big debate in general not only within religion but philosophy in general. Ethics are to be grounded in the understanding of the oneness of being, from that goodwill arises(1) The first thing we learn from religion is the Unity of all selves, and this is the foundation of Ethics, Ethics is built upon : THE RECOGNITION OF THE UNITY OF THE SELF AMID THE DIVERSITY OF THE NOT-SELF. There is but One Self, and all the separate selves are stg: amshah, parts or reflections of the One, are the One. oT RAR: Ba Ten TA: | aaah aan wast warrate area i “As one sun illuminates this whole world, so the Lord of the Field illuminates the whole Field, O Bharata!” ual 2a: Geayay We: aaah aadgqaiaceear it? “One God is hidden in all beings, all-perva- ding, the inmost Self of all.” ( 265 J One sun is shining, and it shines into every separate place, every separate enclosure. There may be a thousand gardens, separated {rom each other by high walls, but the one sun shines into all, and the light and heat in each are from the one sun, are parts of himself, So the JivatmAs in all creatures, separated from each other by the walls of Prakriti, the walls of their bodies, are rays from the one Sun, sparks from the one Fire, portions of the one Atma, the oie Self. We cannot fully re- alise this, be conscious of it and live in it always, until we have become perfectly pure ; but we can recognise it as a Fact, as the one all-important Fact, and in proportion as we try to make our conduct accord with this Fact, we shall become moral. We shall see, as we study morality, that all its precepts are founded on this recognition of the unity of the Self, If there is only one Self, any’ act by which I injure my neighbour wust in- jure me. A man will not deliberately cut his hand, or his foot, or his face, because all these are parts of his own body, and though a cut on his hand does not directly make his foot ache, He feels the pain from any part of his body. ‘The foot, being ignorant and limited, is not conscious at once of the wound made in the hand, but the man is conscious of it, and will not let the foot carry his body into a place where the hand will be injured;{ 266 } Of course the foot ultimately suffers from the ge- neral fever of the whole body caused by a severe injury to any part of it, as ignorance of the unity of the body does not alter the fact of unity. And so the man who believes that the Self is one, in him and in all others, also necessarily believes that in injuring any part he is injuring himself, though, being limited and ignorant, he may not then feel it; and he learns to look on all as parts of one body, and on his innermost Self as the One who uses that one body, and lives and moves in all.” What is right then in one situation is wot right in another ; and the most general definition that can be given of right and wrong is, that right conduct is that which helps on a known scheme of evolution, to its recognised goal, and wrong the opposite. conduct 1 Dhagwend-G#a, Wi 38. C 284) For an instance of how the epithets wrong may be applied to the very same action looked at from different points of view, take this ase, Two men come together: one confines the other in a closed house by force, takes away all liberty of movement from him, andalso all move- able property he may have about him, and places it in the possession of others who help and obey him, This act taken by itself, without any refer- ‘ence to previous facts, is wrong ; it hinders the life and evolution of the man confined and that of his family and dependants ; in fact it amounts to rob- bery with wrongful confinement of an aggravated character. But suppose that the man confined had forcibly deprived a third person of some pro- perty, and the man who ordered his confinement was a judge, and the closed house a public jail, then the same act becomes the rightful imprison- iment of a thief, and the removal of property from his person a necessary act of prison-discipline, all ‘of which is perfectly right and even necessary, for thereby the evolution of society and of the thief himself is generally helped. But yet again, if the imprisoned man had forcibly deprived the other ‘of property not belonging to that other but to himself, property which that other had stolen, then the action of the judge becomes wrong again, and his order reversible on appeal to a higher judge.