The Morality of Eye
People say it is immoral to follow "an eye for eye" principle, this is because people think there is something unethical about revenge. Hence "an eye for eye will make the world blind"
This is true violence without purpose is reprehensible. But sometimes there are circumstances where violence is not only neccessary but also the most honourable course to follow.
War is such a time, when war is neccessary then the soldier is not punished for violence but awarded for killing enemies, this ofcourse goes with natural instinct for survival.
Then applying the above quoted adage is fallacious in all the situations. This is because while in many situations "an eye for eye" may result in world becoming blind, in other situations not acting on it may result in a person becoming blind and trampled.
The criteria to distinguish between these two situations has been indicated above, do not commit violence for sake of revenge, but do commit for sake of self - defense. In other it is perfectly moral (infact the only morality) to harm other's eye (or at the least maintain a credible capability and demonstrable intention to commit it) if it can save your eye.
Indians do not realise it but terrorism is a form of war, violence is unleashed to achieve a purpose, to weaken Indian state and society, so far due to sheer size India is coping with this problem. It is not clear however for how long India can resist it, already we are hearing of Muslim Pradesh , considering that Indians disrespect history, it is anyone's guess when history will again teach a lesson to Indians.
There are two perspective on the issue of terrorism. One perspective gives priority to moral highground other gives to lives of Indian citizens. I belong to the latter category, unfortunately we remain in minority.
This is true violence without purpose is reprehensible. But sometimes there are circumstances where violence is not only neccessary but also the most honourable course to follow.
War is such a time, when war is neccessary then the soldier is not punished for violence but awarded for killing enemies, this ofcourse goes with natural instinct for survival.
Then applying the above quoted adage is fallacious in all the situations. This is because while in many situations "an eye for eye" may result in world becoming blind, in other situations not acting on it may result in a person becoming blind and trampled.
The criteria to distinguish between these two situations has been indicated above, do not commit violence for sake of revenge, but do commit for sake of self - defense. In other it is perfectly moral (infact the only morality) to harm other's eye (or at the least maintain a credible capability and demonstrable intention to commit it) if it can save your eye.
Indians do not realise it but terrorism is a form of war, violence is unleashed to achieve a purpose, to weaken Indian state and society, so far due to sheer size India is coping with this problem. It is not clear however for how long India can resist it, already we are hearing of Muslim Pradesh , considering that Indians disrespect history, it is anyone's guess when history will again teach a lesson to Indians.
There are two perspective on the issue of terrorism. One perspective gives priority to moral highground other gives to lives of Indian citizens. I belong to the latter category, unfortunately we remain in minority.
7 comments:
Here is what I feel purely from the point of view of Indian spirituality :
for almost all practical situations I would agree with you. Real ahiMsa is the ahiMsa of the strong, but most of us are far from reaching that level. Again, this is why I have some confusion regarding gAndhiji's method since his followers weren't nearly as spiritually accomplished as he was ( though his method seems to have worked wonders ). For "strong" individuals I would disagree with violence being the only morality in situations warranting self-defense.
Well, let me add that I would love to see how far the vEdAntic point of view gels with the survival point of view. But I can't think of any obvious way to connect them.
Frog,
We are talking about nations.
But even in case of individuals I will violence for self preservation is justified.
Remember when Sri Krishna extolled Arjun to be courageous and fight because it was his dharma, he was indicating towards this only as our dharma is to protect ourselves and others from injustice
Regards
Indeed, my comment was somewhat tangential to your post. One of the difficulties in connecting the vEdAntic view to your view itself is that vEdAnta talks about individuals and your theory talks about nations; I don't know the way out here but hopefully there is one.
What I said is only that for "most people" it makes sense to resort to violence for self-defense, because most people are weak. Very few people, who have transcended their fears regarding existence, may avoid violence. Others should fight, or else they will accrue a greater baggage of karma.
Regarding the dharma part, here is what I remember seeing in that regard :
1. Nothing is more propitious for a kShatriya than righteous war ( 2.31 ).
2. Better die while in svadharma, others' dharma is fraught with danger ( 3.35 ).
But I don't remember seeing anything calling self-preservation as dharma.
Frog,
No there was no explicit reference.
My point was he exhorted Arjun to fight for sake of justice and justice is idealized and elevated form of preservation.
Regards
Excellent, love it! Colours contact lens samples California refinance home equity california home mortgage Home mortgage refinancing harrisonville75 plastic surgery specialists pc annapolis Honeymoon niagara falls canada power motor sports yamaha motorcycle parts Java forex
That's a great story. Waiting for more. » »
Post a Comment