On Personal Responsibility and Social Scaffolds

At an individual level, it is undoubtedly true that our salvation from psychological pain, helplessness, fear and greed lies within ourselves. Some of us find the inner strength to engage with that empowering process, some don't. Those who do, don't complain. Those who don't, do. But, really, we should let them take responsibility and figure it out for themselves.

Unfortunately, this view, while undoubtedly true in what it covers, misses a lot. It confuses a true statement about the individual with a sufficient theory of society.

At the individual level, it misses compassion, the holding with affection that acknowledges the weaknesses and lacunae that lie at the heart of most of our beings. It asks other people to display the inner strength and conviction that we know we wouldn't, and haven't, summoned when we were challenged in similar ways, if in other circumstances.

At the societal level, unfortunately, the implications of leaving the individuals to figure out the solutions for their pain on their own are far more profound, simply because a lot more people are involved, and the outcomes often determine the trajectory of a society over far longer timescales than a human lifetime.

All moral codes have been designed with this in mind. Satyam Vada is not a description of how truthful people are. It is a scaffold for people who are tempted to lie. Dharmam Chara is not for those already dwelling in dharma. Atmavat Sarvabhuteshu – see all beings as yourself – would be unnecessary if we naturally did, if people could deal adequately with deceit, hate or lack of empathy on their own. We build moral precepts to scaffold people who might be tempted to disrupt harmony in society into less disruptive ways.

We have built those scaffolds precisely because we know that, in their absence, most of us will fail much of the time. Law is a scaffold. Manners are a scaffold. The queue at the temple, the way we lower our voice in a hospital, the pause before we repeat a rumor – these are all scaffolds that we absorb osmotically – until they are derided in the name of individual responsibility.

When those scaffolds are removed – “let the market decide," "let individuals figure it out," "if they wanted to be safe, they should have..." – we are not promoting strength. We are promoting a breakdown of social order.

It is undoubtedly true that there are times when moral codes fail to restrain some people from using power, money, fear as levers in self-interest, and many rationalize such behaviour as smart, as alpha, as freedom. When that happens, it teaches everyone watching that the scaffold itself is fake. And once that lesson spreads, we don't get a society of strong individuals. We get frayed bonds, everyone looking out for themselves, a low-trust equilibrium where even the strong must sleep lightly.

For times like that, it was said: "Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati Bharata, Abhyuthanama dharmasya, tadatmanam srijamyaham”. That doesn’t have to necessarily be a literal coming of Krishna. When adharma crosses a threshold, society will correct, but violently, at great cost, and over a timescale no individual can control. The wise worry before the seeds of that turmoil are sowed, not after.

The compassion I mentioned earlier at the individual level is the same as the scaffold at the societal level. Both say: I know you are weak in the way I am weak, so let me hold something steady for you until you can hold it yourself.