Read on Twitter
While I am no admirer of Godse the conflict b/w him and Gandhi highlights an important difference b/w "Deontological ethics" and "consequentialist ethics"
Gandhi: Withholding Rs 55cr from Pak an act of bad faith
Godse: 55 cr will be used to fund militants in ongoing Kashmir war
Gandhi: Withholding Rs 55cr from Pak an act of bad faith
Godse: 55 cr will be used to fund militants in ongoing Kashmir war
So do you stick to your word and act in good faith?
Or do you cheat when you strongly suspect the other side won't act in good faith in response to your gesture?
Or do you cheat when you strongly suspect the other side won't act in good faith in response to your gesture?
Now the Mahabharata offers many such situations for us to ponder upon
Drishtadyumna's dastardly way of killing Drona
Yudhishtira's engagement in subterfuge
Use of Shikhandi in battle
But vAsudEva KrSNa justifies these acts with what I'd call a consequentialist mindset
Drishtadyumna's dastardly way of killing Drona
Yudhishtira's engagement in subterfuge
Use of Shikhandi in battle
But vAsudEva KrSNa justifies these acts with what I'd call a consequentialist mindset
These acts of chicanery are OK as they help the "right" side win the war.
"Dharma" is on our side
"Dharma" is on our side
Ramayana is a somewhat different epic
Should Shri Ramachandra have revolted against his father and his favorite queen Keikeyi? Even if that meant "disrespecting his parents" and going back on his word?
Should Shri Ramachandra have revolted against his father and his favorite queen Keikeyi? Even if that meant "disrespecting his parents" and going back on his word?
Maybe in that context, you could argue Rama being the divine avatAr was aware of the larger mission that awaited him down south - the killing of rAvaNa
And hence chose to ensure his father abides by his word
And hence chose to ensure his father abides by his word
Alternatively you could argue -
That's not rAma's lens.
His conviction was to "do the right thing" regardless of what lay ahead.
He'd have done what he did even if no rAvaNa samhAra propsect lay ahead
That's not rAma's lens.
His conviction was to "do the right thing" regardless of what lay ahead.
He'd have done what he did even if no rAvaNa samhAra propsect lay ahead
So was rAma taking a deontological view of ethics? Or was he a strict consequentialist?
I leave that up for debate
I leave that up for debate
