Difficulty of being good – The moderation pill 1



Oxford dictionary defines good as ‘Being positive or desirable in nature’. Gurucharandas in his book Difficulty of being good expounds various facets of ones dharma in the context of the greater good. Good has always been scrutinized from the perspective of the external; good to poor, good to society, good to parents. Nobody talks about being good to self, or rather used to.

We are living in an era of great social change. There is a movement sweeping the land. Of individualism. If books and movies were a reflection of the societal trends a couple of decades back, one just has to look at the social media to see the present trends. Its reflected in the voicing out from all quarters of the society through campaigns such as Kiss of Love, Anti-Beef ban, Anti-Censorship, Pro-gay movement and many more. Good is being redefined.

In this context, what is being good? Is it vehemently guarding your liberal point of view to an extent being obnoxious to others? Is it being narcissisticly putting one’s self out there? Is it voicing the opinion of the oppressed few blinded by logic and driven by emotions?

In the pursuit of private good let the common good not be subdued – replaced by a privately common good, and by that I mean good defined by me and the cause I support. Many a times in pursuit of this cause, of being liberal, we are consumed by the blind obsession with it that we become the oppressor. That’s a reason why we see lot of hatred these days spewing venom in the social media.

I have seen many of my modern age liberal friends blatantly hammering a conservative (by this I mean person with a different opinion from the herd), almost resembling a mob. The irony of the situation was that the topic of discussion was anti-beef ban which is an issue with major moral and religious backdrops. What is the good in this mob behavior, even though the end is justified?

Moderation might be the pill doctor should prescribe for the situation. But then are there any takers?