Developing a Matrix of Meaning: Building Morality in a Diversified Nation

Civis Vol. 2, No. 3, Dec 2010

This article’s central theme is clear enough although acting on it will not be easy: how can we, as a nation with very diverse communities, build and develop a moral livelihood? Is there a common starting point, say, a kind of matrix of meaning, which can serve as a collective point-of-view in the middle of our diversity? This question is relevant because admittedly our diversity is rooted on the basis of varying religions and tribal cultures associated with each of us. In other words, what is the morality common-ground that will be capable to unite us?

Before we answer this question, it helps if we explain first what we mean by “moral” and “morality”. It’s not simple, because even though we have used the term many times, it turns out the explanation is far more complicated than can initially be imagined. For example, in certain circles it is known the term “akhlak”, which comes from Arabic, which simply is often translated as moral and/or morality. However, at its very core, “akhlak” is more than just a moral or morality; it also covers the obligations of religion. So “akhlak” should always be placed in the context of the understanding and practice of religious teachings.

The terms “moral” and “morality” comes from the Latin root word mores/moralities. In its simple form this word means an individual’s character, attitude, or proper behavior. Also included in the definition is the understanding of whether the action is considered good (or decent), as distinguished from bad (indecent). The word can carry a religious connotation, meaning its value may come from religious sources, but it may also be neutral. That is, a moral act does not always have to be done by religious people. Even people with no allegiance to any religion can act as well or better than those of a religion. Conversely, immorality is an active resistance against moral acts and can be done by anyone as well.

Thus, what is called amorality is an unawareness, indifference, or distrust of the existence of moral standards or their supporting principles. Morals or morality may refer to personal values and/or cultural values, a type of code of ethics or social codes adopted in human society. The richness of the understanding on moral and/or morality is seen through various perspectives of understanding in the realms of the philosophical, anthropological, evolutionary, even neuro-scientific and psychology.

Is there a link between morality and religion? It’s an interesting question. At first glance, the answer seems to be in the affirmative. But, as written by Gregory S. Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society, it is not always so. Gary Jensen, who then expanded and elaborated the view of Gregory, even asserted that in fact there is a complexity in the relationship between religion and morals. For example, the moral values of religion can enrich the sense of religiosity (piety) in a person. But at the same time, those values can extinguish that spirit, even encouraging to commission of murder, for example.

That is what we have witnessed in various acts of terror that claimed religious orders. Nowadays, in our country it is too often asked: is there a relationship between ritual piety and social piety? It just so happen, that someone can be so solemnly in prayer (i.e. being in a vertical relationship with God), but soon after that without hesitation go on to harm another person (an incongruent practice of horizontal relationships). Some corruptors are not the devoid of obedient devotion. Not infrequently they are faithful contributors to various religious activities. Even a criminal can make a confession of sin before God, but their social behavior has not changed one bit. That is why despite our worship buildings being crowded on every day of worship, but acts of corruption and insensitivity towards others’ plight continue to flourish.

The view that people who are not religious are still able to do moral things, is supported also by the Apostle Paul, as expressed in Romans 2:14-15. There explained that people who do not know the Law, are a law for themselves. This means that the content of that law is written in their own hearts. There, the role of the conscience also bearing witness is significant. Their minds were accusing, sometimes defending, the conscience bearer. However, says Paul, the values of the Gospel is far superior, as evident in the judgments of Jesus Christ on all things hidden in the human heart.

By quoting the Apostle Paul’s view of this, I as a Christian have shown that in accordance with my faith, Biblical values are the ones t o be put forward in building morality. But how should I express these beliefs in the midst of pluralism of our society? We must realize that everyone else has the same right to claim their religious values as the basis for morality. But if every religious person insists on putting forward what his belief as a basis for morality in a one-sided way, it will not be easy co-existing in Indonesia. Can we walk together in this historical pilgrimage if each respective faith considers it as absolute the values of their religious teachings?

Above I have alluded to “matrix of meaning.” This means there must be values that, despite coming from different religions altogether, can be commonly accepted. The difficulty faced was the possibility of falling into syncretism. But the matrix of meaning is not intended to mix together every religion into one. The matrix of meaning is a set of commonly accepted values, which can be regarded as the driving values in the life of society, nation, and state in Indonesia. Justice for example, is a value that can be accepted by anyone. That we fight against injustice can be approved of by anyone, whatever their religion. The value can be derived from religion, but as soon as it becomes the commonly accepted value, it is as if released from its religious label. Similarly, the same process applies to many other values, such as equality, fraternity, fellowship, solidarity, and so on.

Where can the matrix of meaning be found? Although it may be boring for most people, but constantly we affirm that the Pancasila contains common values, which can be viewed as this matrix of meaning. Because the New Order regime has misused Pancasila to sustain its corruption-filled reign, it becomes our task now to revitalize Pancasila. This means adapting those values to be more actual, dynamic and capable to solve pertinent problems. Pancasila values should not be enforced in a static, as items simply to be memorized in the ceremonies. In practical reality, this means the values of Pancasila should be reflected in each law governing the living interests of all people of Indonesia. Many laws that are inconsistent with the values of Pancasila should daringly be annulled. **