82 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Not much evidence is necessary to support my contention. Take the meaning [1] of the word Dharma in the Rig Veda. The word Dharma occurs in the Rig Veda 58 times. It is used in six different senses. It is used to denote (I) Ancient custom, (2) Laws, (3) Any arrangement which maintains law and order in society, (4) The course of nature, (5) The quality of a substance and (6) Duty of good and evil. It will thus be seen that from the very beginning the word Dharma in Hinduism has a two fold connotation. It means both law and moral. That is one reason why in the philosophy of Hinduism there can be no distinction between legal philosophy and moral philosophy.
This is not to say that the Hindus have no code of morality. To be sure they have. But it is very pertinent to ask the nature and character of conduct which the Hindu Code of Ethics declares to be moral.
To have an idea of the nature of conduct which the Hindu thinks moral, it is better to begin by recognizing that there are three levels of conduct [2] which must be distinguished. (I) Conduct arising from instincts and fundamental needs (2) Conduct regulated by standards of society and
(3) Conduct regulated by individual conscience. Conduct on the first level, we do not call moral conduct. It is of course not immoral; it is merely unmoral. It is governed by forces not as moral in purpose but as valuable in result. The forces are biological or sociological or psychological. These have purpose, such as to satisfy hunger, or to forge a weapon against an enemy. But the end is one set up by our physical or instinctive nature. So long as this is merely accepted as an inevitable end and not compared with others, valued, and chosen, it is not properly moral. Conduct on the second level is no doubt social. Wherever groups of men are living there are certain ways of acting which are common to the group—“folkways”. There are approved ways of acting, common to a group, and handed down from generation to generation. Such approved ways of acting are called the mores or the morals of the group. They imply the judgment of the group that they are to be followed. The welfare of the group is regarded as in some sense imbedded in them. It becomes the duty of the individual to follow them and if any one acts contrary to them he is made to feel the group’s disapproval. We cannot strictly speaking call the conduct moral. Because the end is accepted as a standard of ‘good’ prescribed by society. If it had spoken of a moral conduct it is only because it conforms to the mores or morals of the Society. It may be called customary morality. Conduct on the third level is conduct which alone is truly and completely moral. That is because in it the
1 What follows if taken from an article on the subject by Mr. Yeshwant Ramkrishna Date in a Marathi Magazine called “Swadhaya” Double No. 7-8. First year pp. 18-21.
2 In this I am entirely following the analysis given by Crawley and Tufts in their volume on Ethics.