While discussing Hindu ethics, we need to consider some other aspects. First, Hindu scriptures and moral treatises contain explanations of human conduct, and the reasons why men fare so differently in their lives. Some succeed; others fail; some become rich; others stay poor; some are born with a silver spoon in the mouth; others take birth in a cottage; and some are happy; and others are miserable. Secondly, the treatises explain the motive springs of human action. Thirdly, they contain moral concepts and moral standards. We begin with explanations of human conduct.
To those acquainted with accounts of human motivation, behaviour and action in modern psychology, the explanations of ancient writers will seem strange. They tend to be simplistic; use unreal concepts, and introduce non verifiable or supernatural elements. Even with these limitations, they reveal an intuitive insight into human psyche. To understand ancient writers, we have to enter their social world using historical and psychological imagination.
According to ancient writers, men have freewill. They can decide whether or not to follow the moral law. The classification of right and wrong is based on scriptures. Right is that which scriptures prescribe; wrong is that which scriptures prohibit. Man acquires merit or virtue by doing good deeds; he collects demerit or vices by following evil. Virtues and vices are predispositions (to act) which get lodged in men’s souls. They produce their results, good or bad, usually with a time lag either in this or next life. These are the causes of our happiness or misery. The chain consists of:
m
Good deed 
erit 
happiness; and
Evil deed demerit 
misery
One can overcome demerits by doing good acts; and one can also lose merit by committing sinful acts. There is a continuous cycle of births and deaths. It consists of birth, life, good deeds, bad deeds, merits, demerits, death, transmigration of soul, and rebirth. Release from this perpetual cycle comes through realisation of God through one of the three paths to salvation. This is the law of karma which many writers regard as the corner stone of Hindu philosophy.
Continuing with this explanation of human conduct, we find that our actions arise partly from our merits and demerits, and partly from our autonomous volitions. Action based on human will is purushakara or purushardha. Merits and demerits from earlier life are daiva. They are invisible entities or adrishta. They are like random variables, and influence our life. They need to be distinguished from fate or destiny which is preordained and decided by an external agency without any reference to man. But adrishta is based on man’s own actions; they are predispositions of soul which man’s own actions have created. There is another meaning of daiva, as when we say that our success in an enterprise is due to divine will. Our voluntary efforts succeed only when endorsed by divine will or “insha Allah” (God willing). Purushardha and daivaanugraha (divinegrace) are necessary for success.
Law of karma is a matter of faith. It is not an empirical (grounded in human experience) theory; nor is it verifiable. An attempt to establish a statistical correlation between good deeds and merit and bad deeds and demerit is impossible. We do not know what happens to the soul, if there is one, after death. In modern psychology, human consciousness is considered a psycho-physiological phenomenon. So death may be the end of everything.
Apart from the scientific veracity of the law of karma, it has other disadvantages. Of course, the conflict between science and religion is not confined to any particular religion. The doctrine of karma had other consequences. Though it is not the same as fatalism, and though the effects of bad deeds can be overcome, it has created a negative or fatalistic outlook. People concluded that their prospects in life are largely predetermined. They underestimated the value of and the need for human initiative and self driven effort.
ftarma theory leads to social and economic conservatism. Human suffering, poverty and social inequalities appear as consequences of demerits of the victims. The incentive for good works suffers as a consequence. Concerted social action for tackling existing evils gets discouraged. Unfortunately, these conclusions follow from a false interpretation of karma theory. As we saw, Bhagavat Gita is a gospel for action. In modern times, Swami Vivekananda worked indefatigably to remove these cobwebs from the Hindu psyche.
Manu (much reviled in modern times) regarded the customary law of the society as the standard. It is called achara. It is sanctified by practice over many generations, and becomes part of social memory. Those who follow it faithfully live for long and are happy. They achieve good things. On the contrary, those who flout achara fare ill.
According to Manu, the customary law has to be in consonance with Vedas which are the divine source of law. For Manu, Vedas provide the moral standard. He also recognises conscience as a source of law. When we perceive an act as in keeping with our conscience, we feel a sense of ease. When we violate the promptings of conscience, we feel uneasy. We are all familiar with feelings of guilt, generally over minor transgressions. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, speaks of a ‘super ego’, which represents the moral codes implanted in us at home and school. We feel mentally uneasy when we act against the dictates of the super ego.
According to Mahabharata, Vedas which reveal divine law, and Smritis, which reveal customary law are the sources of our morals. Virtue is defined in terms of customary conduct. Those actions which generally receive common approbation are virtuous; those actions which receive social opprobrium are wrong. Acts which carry social approval should be done; acts which carry social censure should be avoided.
As we saw, our conduct should conform to dharma. Mahabharata refers to many dimensions of dharma. Dharma is something common to the conduct of virtuous individuals in many places. Dharma always carries the sanction of conscience. It is good and promotes the welfare of the creatures. The different sides of Dharma are Vedic injunctions, customary conduct, voice of conscience and whatever promotes social welfare. In case of conflict between these, Vedic injunctions become ultimate arbiters. Ramayana contains similar ideas on morality. Whether an action is right or wrong has to be decided having regard to Vedic law, reason, customary behaviour of virtuous persons and social norms. Vedas will, however, prevail in case of conflict among these criteria. Devotion to the good
of humanity is seen as the highest virtue.
Indian ethics consider moderation (samyama) as a moral standard. We can find these ideas in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Samyama finds expression in the following moral ideas which Buddha preached;
¤ Men should not seek sensual pleasures in excess; however, they need not also extinguish all material desires.
¤ A virtuous life is a life of moderation which avoids both hedonism and asceticism.
¤ Men should be benevolent, control their will and spend time in serene meditation.
¤ Jainism expresses similar ideas.
¤ Excessive pleasures which undermine the moral basis of the soul and upset its balance are bad.
¤ Natural instincts, passions and impulses should not be totally curbed, but regulated by reason for harmonious living.
Bhagavat Gita places great emphasis on temperance. The extremes which Gita mentions are:
Over eating — fasting
Overwork — inactivity
Over sleeping — sleeplessness
Gita stresses that moderation is the key to mental discipline.
In Indian ethics, both political law and divine law are mentioned as moral standards. These standards are external. Charvakas considered king’s commands as laws. A king represents the highest political authority or sovereignty. The laws that he proclaims become the moral standards. To obey a king’s law is right; and to defy a king’s law is wrong.
However, this view is opposed by many authoritative treatises. According to the Nyaya Vaisheshika, the divine law or the God’s command is the moral standard. God is the creator and sustainer of the world. He created the world as a moral order and governs accordingly. The divine laws are contained in the Vedas. It is to these that one should look up to for moral guidance. Bhagavat Gita and Mahabharata take similar positions.
According to Bhagavat Gita, in the human world, social welfare is the greatest good. Men have to act according to their duties to promote human welfare; in this manner, they also make personal spiritual progress. Wise men should perform work without hoping for personal gain and for general good. Sankaracharya interpreted social welfare as social regeneration. The degenerate individuals have to be reformed and turned away from evil.
We may also note that Pravitti and Nivritti are two modes of moral life which Sankaracharya mentions. The former refers to personal morality as applicable to empirical world. The latter signifies the withdrawal of spiritually inclined individual from worldly preoccupations. He detaches himself from all activities and avocations; and concentrating on his self, he seeks a vision of the Godhead. These standards refer to an individual’s religious practice than to practical ethical problems or standards.