Morality cannot be legislated, is the assertion generally made by those who oppose any attempts at raising the moral standards of people through measures adopted to prepare the environment for the people to lead virtuous lives. True, law alone cannot make people virtuous. But laws can bring about a social environment that facilitates the practice of religious precepts and principles.
by Milinda Rajasekera
(September 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The action taken by the National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol (NATA) to ban smoking and drinking scenes in programmes aired by TV channels has given rise to much controversy among concerned sections of the public. While some hail the action as an appropriate move, some others condemn it derisively as a stupid decision. This difference of opinion is understandable in this country where any national issue is pounced upon by concerned citizens.
It is for the authorities to take the public opinions that seem genuine and well-meaning into consideration in carrying the present decision forward. The comments that stem from deep-seated prejudices and self-centred notions could, of course, be ignored. Some question whether the steps of this nature would be effective enough to achieve the desired objectives. There is no doubt that the NATA’s move has been prompted by the hallowed motive of protecting the younger generation from the habits of smoking and drinking which are considered injurious to people’s health and well-being.
There is indeed unanimity of opinion about the harmful effect caused to the health of a person by smoking although hundreds of thousands of people continue the habit unconcerned. They thus ruin their health but produce immense wealth to those engaged in the tobacco industry. It is encouraging, however, that in this country, a sharp decline in the smoking habit has been observed in recent times. This outcome is probably due to the intense campaign conducted against smoking. It seems that it is the law prohibiting smoking in buses and public places and other restrictions imposed, more than propaganda and persuasion, that have contributed to this progress.
The situation is different about alcohol consumption. Intense controversy surrounds the practice of alcohol consumption. Opinion is divided among those favouring the pleasures of drinking and those concerned about the problems of alcohol consumption. Most among those who enjoy the pleasures of drinking and oppose any restrictions on the drinking habit are either ignorant or unconcerned about the great harm that is caused to them and to the society by widespread alcohol consumption.
Apart from religious teachings - some of which directly prohibit alcohol consumption, while others exhort adherents to refrain from indulging in the habit - the social problems that alcohol drinking cause should make conscientious citizens shun the drinking habit. They are obliged to do so particularly in the interest of the future generations. The preponderant view among discerning people is that alcohol consumption is a noxious habit which has to be discouraged or completely eliminated since its deleterious effect on people’s lives and the country’s well-being has been well established. The impact of alcohol use on the level of public health, morality, violence, crime and finances is well known. Therefore, it needs no repetition here.
The question that has engaged the attention of concerned people throughout has been the method or methods that could be adopted to dissuade people from the habit of drinking to which they are attracted or enticed by various reasons. The need for stimulation which is an innate desire in human beings appears to be the main reason driving people to alcoholic drinks. As in most other public affairs, in this matter too, it is the business sector driven by the profit motive that has come forward to exploit the situation. So the biggest hurdles that obstruct the moves to curb the drinking habit are the business interests pursued by those bent on making money regardless of the consequences of their enterprises on society. The business interest indeed is the factor that obstructs or defeats objectives sought to be achieved through the ‘Mathata Thitha’ programmein this country. This pecuniary interest arises not only from the fraternity of vine shop owners, but also from keepers of ‘kasippu dens’ in both urban and rural areas. Ironically the support and patronage for these people come from the very politicians who are entrusted with the responsibility of promoting the ‘Mathata Thitha’ programme.
Most parents and concerned adults will, no doubt, approve of the present ban on TV programmes. However, there are also other features in TV programmes, particularly in teledramas and cinemas, that have to be eliminated. Killing and violence seem to be ever present features in some of these programmes. Children, no doubt, like these scenes and they are often observed attempting to imitate those fighting heroes in such scenes. The directors, producers and artistes will, of course, be up in arms against this move asserting that such interruptions would rob the thematic flow of their artistic works.
Morality cannot be legislated, is the assertion generally made by those who oppose any attempts at raising the moral standards of people through measures adopted to prepare the environment for the people to lead virtuous lives. True, law alone cannot make people virtuous. But laws can bring about a social environment that facilitates the practice of religious precepts and principles. It is axiomatic that most people, particularly the weak, succumb to temptations when they are intense irresistible. One cannot expect a person to practice chastity easily in a nudist colony. So, the present effort to remove temptations seems to be a step in the right direction. Moreover, the creation of such an atmosphere could also contribute to social order and peace.
Post a Comment