Download file to see previous pages...
Krishna tells Arjuna that the war is a righteous one. The Gita is actually a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna when Arjuna is confused whether to fight or not to fight against his own people (cousin brothers).
Entering the battle field Arjuna tells Krishna; “…station my chariot between the two armies, far enough for me to see the eager warriors in position—for, whom am I to fight in this enterprise of war?” (Bhagavad-Gita 1.21-22). But when Arjuna finds himself staring into the faces of his Kinsmen he laments to Arjuna that when he see all his family ready for war his limbs flatter and his mouth dries up. He says that there is no good in fighting and killing his own family in a war. He does not wish victory of this kind.
He further says that “We have resolved to commit a great crime as we stand ready to kill family out of greed for kingship and pleasure! It were healthier for me if the [Kauravas], weapons in hand, were to kill me, unarmed and defenseless, on the battlefield!” (Bhagavad-Gita 1.30-34, 45) But Krishna pacifies Arjuna and at the end of the conversation prepares him for the war.
Krishna weaves through a range of complicated philosophical and religious themes; but from the point of view of the epic’s core description these themes are divergent to Krishna’s vital message: he tells Arjuna to set aside his moral sense, take up his bow, and fight and finally this is what Krishna persuaded Arjuna. Now it is rather puzzling that given the Gita’s martial thrust, and the fact that it bears as a preliminary to and vindication for an internal bloodbath, how can the Gita allow for the basis for Gandhi’s policy of non-violent opposition? To this Gandhi argues that the two armies in the Bhagavad-Gita represent the different aspects of an individual’s personality and the war of Arjuna with his own family is indeed a holy war, in which the more
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The author states that nations live in fear hence are always preparing for war so for the military ‘peace’ and ‘war’ are synonymous with the latter being just a “verification of mastery gained during the peace period” and the absence of war would lead to degeneration of life.
Morals originate in people’s beliefs and are based on their principles and values which serve as guides for their actions. The fundamental difference between the moral rules and the legal rules is that while the former are voluntary, the latter are obligatory upon every individual of the society.
Moral obligations are embedded in these relationships’ voluntary nature. However, there is a lot of subjectivity, debate, and difference of opinions when it comes to moral obligations of a richer nation toward a poorer nation across countries. Nations become rich by adopting ways that benefit them socially and economically.
The zeitgeist in Europe preceding World War I gave Britain a sense of invincibility. It also gave her a sense of paranoia regarding the other superpowers. Britain had no desire to share her empire with other European countries, especially countries like France who had been long enemies of the British Empire.
According to the author of the text, though war can not be presumed as intrinsically good, if it is the only way to uphold the ethics and morals of life then the betterment of the long term from war is morally sound and justified. As the professor Ross puts it, the productivity of maximum good is not what makes all actions right.
In India, as well as in other countries, there are a lot of important problems of social character. The situation is redoubled by the system of caste division which refuses the human dignity of some groups of people. Speaking about varna-caste division we should pay attention to the main characteristics of the caste (these characteristics are closely connected with the main points of race discrimination).
He communicates his moral dilemma to his mentor and guide Lord Krishna, who in turn offers Arjuna a discourse on Hindu dharma. While the advice is directed to Arjuna, it is also broadly applicable to all human beings in different contexts in their
The duty to rescue however remains an important consideration for many citizens because it presents valid and humanitarian considerations. This paper shall discuss the statute which would impose civil and/or criminal liability for failing to rescue and