Means vs. Ends 3

How do we define a virtuous end? An end which is devoid of all selfishness, from which will result good for a large majority and which would not result in any harm to innocent victims, will be treated as a virtuous end. Struggle for Indian independence is a virtuous end, so is the restoration of kingdom to Pandavas. Both would serve as good for a large majority. Therefore any means can be adopted for that purpose.

In the two examples cited in the first blog of this series, rescuing the damsel in distress is definitely a virtuous act even if the means employed are as cruel as causing grave injury to those bandits. Similarly helping the child to get well even by begging, borrowing or stealing from the rich is a meritorious act with a selfless end objective if done by a third person not related to the child.

When we look into the examples cited in Mahabharata, killing of Abhimanyu is not a virtuous end and nor is the means employed. This is because Duryadhana’s victory would be a severe injustice to the concept of virtue and morality. However even though Karna’s death somewhat breached the law of morality as Karna was busy lifting his chariot wheel when Arjuna shot his Anjalik weapon, it is for a virtuous end, that of restoration of kingdom to the Pandavas. In the Mahabharat battle victory of Pandavas is a virtuous end, victory of Kurus would have been a grave injustice to virtue and morality because of the wrongs inflicted by them upon the Pandavas. The dice game was definitely immoral, so was the insult to Draupadi in front of all Kurus. Killing of Bhurisrava and Drona, when analyzed from the same perspective, are virtuous as the end objective is the victory of right over wrong.

In Ramayana the slaying of Vali was done in that manner because a) Sugriva could not have killed Vali b) A direct confrontation with Vali while he was still a king would have led the entire force of the monkeys to fight against Rama, leading to unnecessary delay and wasted effort as well as loss of many innocent lives c) Vali was not virtuous. He drove away Sugriva on a flimsy ground even though the latter was loyal to him, and refused to listen to him. He had great pride about his might and power. Therefore killing of Vali was essential and that had to be done surreptitiously and the end was definitely virtuous. So was the killing of Indrajeet, because Indrajeet was on the wrong side and if he had completed his sacrifice he would have been invincible and that would have rendered establishment of virtue impossible.

From a devotee standpoint wherever Rama or Krishna are, there lies virtue, they being the incarnations of the supreme lord of the universe. Therefore any means adopted by Rama or Krishna has to be virtuous. A devotee would say that why God as avatar would do certain things in certain way is beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals because we simply do not have the intellectual capability to understand the infinite and His grand designs. What shall we understand of His activities? In the language of Sri Ramakrishna, can a one litre jug hold ten litres of milk, i.e. can our limited intellect fathom the unlimited and His work?