'Morals' a blight on freedom

re: "Putting virtue first" (BP, PostBag, November 5, 2020)

Dear editor,

Steven Young's "Putting virtue first" is a poorly disguised wolf in sheep's clothing. The apparent intent was to prioritize virtue. The actual intent seemed to be to entrench the status quo that has made Thailand the divided nation it is today, where questionable law rules without regard to good morals whilst piously preaching "good morals" in the very constitution itself.

First the obvious: the current, and previous, version of the constitution of the Thai nation already has multiple references to "good morals." In sections 28, for example, the phrase "good morals" undermines the right to human dignity. In section  37, that pernicious phrase weakens the right to religious freedom. In section 36, the words "good morals" effectively void the right to free speech; and in section 50, the same morally indefensible insertion opposes academic freedom. Such a  constitutional plethora of talk about good morals is never a good thing in the law. A sound constitution and subordinate law are clearly and precisely written, the very antithesis of such murky vagaries as "good morals", which phrase fails absolutely to comport with the good moral principles of just law.  

A more telling suggestion made by Mr. Young was that "The Supreme Patriarch or the Chief Brahmin may from time to time provide guidance for the application of such Principles." This flatly contradicts democratic principle. It also contradicts the Buddha's teaching, but perhaps Mr. Young holds the local supreme patriarch, duly appointed by the Thai state no less, to exceed in wisdom even the Buddha himself, who explicitly taught that ideas are never right merely because of who said them, but emphasises instead that what matters is the soundness of the reasoning and the accuracy of the facts cited.

Mr Young, like too much Thai tradition, attaches too much importance to titles, positions and such pompery. Similarly, in the West, we still study Plato, but with the critical approach that Plato himself asks of us: nothing is true or good merely because Plato says it. His ideas about democracy are spectacularly wrong in every way, almost as awful as his beloved notion of rule by philosopher kings. Philosophers might be vastly preferable to religious leaders as sources of moral insight, but they can nonetheless also be as completely wrong as religious leaders have historically proven themselves to be. Perhaps thankfully, philosophers have rarely been listened to by politicians so avidly as religious purveyors too often are, one encouraging exception being that the Founding Fathers of the United States shared a healthy respect for reason as a more reliable guide to healthy politics and sound moral principle.

Every Thai person is perfectly capable of discussing, for example, what constitutes good morals or virtue. Plato might have been of the old Athenian aristocracy, but his teacher, Socrates, was a stonemason, a simple manual labourer. That annoyingly insightful Socrates helped the West onto the path of reason, justice, and the life of virtue. Like that ancient Athenian stonemason, every Thai rice farmer, doctor, factory worker, lawyer (yes, even the lawyers), cook, student, teacher and cleaner can and should contribute to discussions about what constitutes good morals, what is just, what the law should be, and what their society should value. Taking an active role in your nation's affairs, contributing to the national discussion, does not require any qualification above being a member of your society with a voice.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on November 8, 2020, under the title "'Morals' a blight on freedom" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2015903/who-will-lend-an-ear