Sedanet's Conversation with Mostafa Malekian on Marriage, and the Rights and Duties of Children and Parents

We are infinitely grateful and thankful that you have given us your valuable time. To make the most of our time, I will pose my questions without preamble.

Malekian: Living ethically is not compulsory.

Sedanet: In the discussion of marriage and childbearing, we assume that the conditions for living ethically have been met for the couple and that they have an ethical marriage and childbearing. After these conditions are fulfilled, what duties do the parents have towards their child? And likewise, what duties does the child have towards their parents?

Malekian: I think the legal answer to this question differs from the ethical answer. According to the existing law in Europe, parents are legally obliged to meet the essential needs of their children until the age of 18. Therefore, [after this age] the child cannot say that you must buy or rent an apartment for me, or give me a certain amount of money monthly, or provide the means for my marriage, or find me a job. Thus, parents have no legal duty after this age. Of course, law differs according to the legislation of each country. But ethical duty differs from legal duty. Failure to perform a legal duty will result in paying a fine, and people are only compelled to live legally and are not compelled to live ethically. Those who live ethically are those who desire to have a transcendent spirit. If someone does not want to live ethically, they cannot be forced to live ethically. For example, you want to be arrogant for the rest of your life. No one can force you to give up your arrogance. Ethics is a completely selective and voluntary act. If you want, you live ethically, and if you do not want, you do not live ethically. No one has the right to tell us that you must or must not live ethically. There is no "must" in ethics. It is in law that "must" exists. Law says one must act according to the country's legislation. But ethics says that if parents intend to live ethically, they should accompany their children more. It is possible that parents want to support their child in every respect as long as they are alive, and it is possible that parents do not want to be ethical and therefore, according to the law, when the child is no longer under their purview at 18, they do nothing more for their child. One must always pay attention to this point: we are not compelled to live ethically. The only thing we are compelled to do is to live legally. Ethics is for those who want to elevate themselves. If someone does not want to elevate themselves, they can be arrogant or lie their whole life. No one has the right to throw you in prison. Of course, there are two or three kinds of lies that have a legal aspect. For example, bearing false witness in court. If you are envious your whole life, or engage in tale-bearing, backbiting, or slander, no one can "compel" you to desist from this. Therefore, there is no "must" in ethics. If parents want to live more ethically, they support their child in every respect. If they want to live even more ethically, they further provide for their child's welfare. And if they do not want to live ethically at all, they only provide support until the age of 18 according to the law. Therefore, no rule can be established for ethics. It is only law for which rules can be established. After the age of 18, the law is silent, and ethics begins to speak. Ethics first asks: do you want to be ethical or not? And the more ethical you want to be, the more you help your child. Just as the more ethical I am, the more I help the poor, and no one can compel me to help. If I do not want to be ethical, I do not help. If I want to be more ethical, I help more of the poor.

Sedanet: Are children only obliged not to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on their parents, or do they have other duties?

Malekian: No. Their duty is only that.

Sedanet: Do parents have the right to a guiding role and to interfere regarding their child's future? To put it more concretely, do parents have the right to interfere in their children's future career and education?

Malekian: Look, there are two types of interference. The first type is when parents command or forbid their child to pursue or not pursue a certain field of study. To choose this job or not to choose that job. In this matter, they have no right whatsoever. But there is a second type, where parents do not command or forbid, but rather share their own experience with their child, saying that if you take this path, it has such-and-such advantages and disadvantages. Our mystics referred to this as "guiding towards the good." The mystics used to say we do not enjoin the good and forbid the evil, but rather we "guide towards the good." Therefore, if they share their experiences with their child and state that if you choose such-and-such a job, it has these benefits and drawbacks, morally speaking, they not only have the right to do this, but they also have a duty. When we say they have a moral duty, it means that if they want to be moral, they must fulfill this duty. But no one has the right to command or forbid. No parent has the right to command their child to pursue this field of study or not to pursue that field of study. To study this subject or not. To choose this job or not. But they can guide towards the good. The more moral parents want to be, the more they must share their experiences with their child and practice guiding towards the good as much as possible.

Sedanet : In your series of sessions on moral psychology, you referred to 6 human assets (knowledge, fame, money, social prestige, popularity, and power). If these 6 things come into conflict with morality, is it optional for me to live morally? Let us assume the police do not catch a person giving a bribe. Is there any compulsion for me to be moral and not exchange bribes? (Assuming that taking and giving bribes is immoral)

Malekian: If you do not want to live morally and the law cannot stop you from taking bribes, you can choose not to live morally.

Sedanet: Following up on the same question, if a person is a pure egoist and considers only their personal interests, or in other words, from among the three components of an ideal life—namely 1) pleasure, 2) goodness, 3) meaningfulness—chooses only the first and third components, that is, pleasure and meaningfulness, and has no desire to live morally, what critique or critiques do you have of this way of living? What effects and consequences would such behavior have? How should others treat such a person?

Malekian: They themselves will have no problem. The only claim made is that a person who does not live morally will lose the balance and equilibrium of their life. That is, if a person does not live morally, they will become anxious. Their level of inner satisfaction will decrease. Because all 5 existential domains of a human being (beliefs, feelings, emotions and passions, desires, speech, and actions) must be in harmony and balance with one another. When I do not act morally, this harmony and equilibrium is disrupted. In that case, I will suffer from imbalance in the areas of nerves, mind, body, and soul. But do other people, as observers, have the right to reproach you for not living morally? Absolutely not, they have no such right. Unless a person's immoral living leads to the commission of a legal crime.

Sedanet : In the discussion of the virtue of "simplicity," you consider one of the characteristics of a simple person to be living "without secrets." But elsewhere you have said not to make yourself a spectacle for others and not to portray your past and future for them. Is the virtue of simplicity not in conflict with this moral advice of the mystics?

Malekian: First, we must distinguish between two types of “secret.” The secret in the first sense is a mystery, something about which a human being can obtain no knowledge whatsoever. Something about which reason has neither the power to prove nor to deny. Some consider God a mystery. But the secret in the second sense is a secret, meaning I have done something but do not want others to become aware of it. For instance, you have placed a book somewhere and do not want me to know the location of that book. You have a house somewhere, but you do not want me to know about it. In Persian, both are referred to as “raz” (secret), but in English, the first is called mystery and the second is called secret.

However, if we take the secret in the second sense, which is when you ask me something but I do not tell you where that thing is, this contradicts “simplicity.” A simple person has no hidden matters, and if you ask them something, they will give you the answer. But another discussion is that a person should not, as much as possible, recount their past and future aspirations to others. That is, they should not, at the outset, recount their place of birth, past deeds, and future aspirations to others. Therefore, there is a difference between someone asking me a question and I, Malekian, knowing the answer but not giving it—which, of course, contradicts the virtue of simplicity—and someone not having asked me a question, but I myself recount my life story in a meeting or include it in a book. This act is not at all recommended in mystical ethics, because the more a person is known, the more others can take advantage of them.

Sedanet : If someone neither believes in God nor has faith in God, can they have an ideal life? That is, if someone does not affirm God in either the first realm of their existence (beliefs) or the second realm of their existence (feelings, emotions, and passions), can they attain an ideal life?

Malekian: The answer to this question depends on what conception we have of an ideal life. But with the ideal life that I conceive, yes, it is entirely possible.

.

Conversation with Mostafa Malekian on the subject of marriage | Azar 1393

Mostafa Malekian marriage