Moral policing isn't acceptable, even by the police

Time: almost midnight. Location: BTM layout, Bangalore. After a delicious dinner, I went to drop off my lady. I parked my bike beside her hostel, and we started talking about something serious. Our discussion was unpleasantly interrupted by a pair of policemen who, for some reason, decided to pull over when they saw us.

"What are you doing here? What is the relationship between you two?" they asked. Not that it was any of their business but I told them what they didn't have the basic intelligence to infer: "We are talking. And she's my girlfriend". "Do you know what time it is? Why don't you talk to her in her room?". "Yeah, it's around 11:30 and I can't talk to her in her room because her hostel has a stupid no-boys rule." Honestly, I don't understand the paranoid zeal with which we Indians attempt to segregate the sexes. We humans think too much of ourselves when we believe we can suppress the laws of nature.

Then the policemen started to show their disdain at what we "outsiders" have done to the image of the city. "Which state are you from?". "Orissa", I said. That's all the ammunition he needed."This is not Bhubaneswar. This is Bangalore. These things are not allowed here. You will have to follow the law". I have a lot of things to say about that statement. First, the way he said it, it sounded like he said "This is not Bhubaneswar, this is a village". Heck, if you can't stay out late in a broad-minded, largely youth dominated metro like Bangalore, where can you? Second, even if this were Bhubaneswar, would that make any difference to his attitude? Third, exactly what things are not allowed here? Is there any law against talking to someone on the streets at night? Last time I checked, roads were public property and there wasn't any curfew in force in this city.

The only argument that the cops could have put forth was societal propriety. But since when did we encharge the police with that task? Their job is to uphold the law. Not safeguard our morals. Let society take care of that responsibility.

"Now get out of here. This is your first warning." one of them said gruffly. I was indignant. What right did he have to speak to me as if i were a wallet thief? Why do people put up with police incivility when it is the people via the constitution from which the police derives it's power? I was about to give him a piece of my mind. But then I decided against it because that would not have served my purpose. You see, cops aren't used to having intellectual debates with the kind of people they usually deal with. I probably wouldn't have been able to bring them over to my point-of-view. I can, however, make the public realize that they have every right to not tolerate moral policing or rude behavior from the police.
After all, the police derive their power from our consent and their salaries from our pocket.

Good and Evil

In my previous post the assertion of God's apparent apathy towards good (assuming he exists) makes one think that maybe God's notion of good and evil is different from ours. Or maybe he never did make a distinction between the two. Maybe there is no absoulute classification into good and evil. Maybe they are social constructs created by man.

A few good qualities are kindness, modesty, justice, honesty, truthfullnes. If you examine each of these, you'll find that all of them serve one purpose: the common good i.e. the benefit of all. For e.g. being unkind doesn't benefit you but being kind benefits the person you are kind to. So if the whole society practices kindness then everyone is benefited. Same for modesty.

Now for justice. The nature and origin of justice is beautifully explained in Plato's Republic:

"They say to do wrong is naturally good (profitable), to be wronged is bad (causing loss), but the suffering of injury so far exceeds in badness the good of inflicting it that when men have done wrong to each other and suffered it, and have had a taste of both, those who are unable to avoid the latter and practice the former decide that it is profitable to come to an agreement with each other neither to inflict injury nor to suffer it. As a result they begin to make laws and the law's command they call lawful and just. This, they say is the origin and essence of justice; it stands between the best and the worst, the best being to do wrong without paying the penalty and the worst to be wronged without the power of revenge. The just then is a mean beween two exremes; it is welcomed and honoured because of men's lack of the power to do wrong. The man who has that power, would not make a compact with anyone not to inflict injury or suffer it. For him that would be foolish."

That forms the basis of justice. All the rest of what constitutes justice is but an extension of this central concept. Same goes for honesty. Similiarly everybody lying serves nobody's purpose. Better uphold truthfullness as a virtue.

So anything beneficial to society was encouraged and anything detrimental to society was frowned upon. This is how classification into good and evil was carried out. And this is why you are exhorted to do good and dissuaded from doing evil.