Should

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122377 wrote:

...

Gandhi adviced a lot of people, incluidng those you mentioned. The British could not match up with his determination, wit, will, intelligence and his politics. The end of British empire began with the political arrival of the Mahatma.

If the Germans, British and the Jews had followed his advice 50 million people may not have been affected by WW II. The foollery of Europians was very evident and more so evident by the words and actions of Gandhi.

What worked against Britain would not work against the Nazis. Hitler had no problem with murdering millions in horrible ways. Though the British were no saints, they did have a problem with going too far, so passive resistance worked against them. If Gandhi had been in Nazi Germany, he would have simply been killed, which is something the British were not willing to do.

In the U.S., even though many people were happy with the status quo regarding civil rights, even many of those people had a problem with brutality against those who were nonviolently protesting against the system, so this had an effect. Hitler, though, would have been happy to load them all onto a train and send them off to an extermination camp. So a person would not be in more than one sit-in with Hitler, as the punishment would have been death, rather than a couple of weeks in jail.

Of course, there was more going on than just passive resistance, both in India and in the U.S. That, too, was probably part of why things went the way that they did.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122377 wrote:

How old are you, by the way?...... your are jumping from one post to another without explaining your previous ridiculous wordings and facts.

Gandhi adviced a lot of people, incluidng those you mentioned. The British could not match up with his determination, wit, will, intelligence and his politics. The end of British empire began with the political arrival of the Mahatma.

If the Germans, British and the Jews had followed his advice 50 million people may not have been affected by WW II. The foollery of Europians was very evident and more so evident by the words and actions of Gandhi.

You mean that the British should have surrendered to the Nazis and done what. Lie on railroad tracks or starve. The Nazis would have been delighted to ride over them, and delighted to watch them starve. You must be kidding. Those are the Nazis we are talking about. Remember?

@fast,

fast;122378 wrote:

What do you mean it keeps on changing? Are you saying slavery wasn't morally wrong and now it is? People's perception of what is right and what is not seem to keep on changing (and not necessarily for the better in my opinion), but that our views change isn't to say that what is morally right and wrong keep changing.

Yes, precisely..............

Perception (not physical but psycho-social) moulds our moral values.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

edited out.............

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122394 wrote:

You mean that the British should have surrendered to the Nazis and done what. Lie on railroad tracks or starve. The Nazis would have been delighted to ride over them, and delighted to watch them starve. You must be kidding. Those are the Nazis we are talking about. Remember?

You have nicely deflected your positions from 'Only King fought the law' to Gandhi's remarks on Jews, to Gandhi's suggestion to British.

Moreover, there was some talk about stupidity on not knowing the consequences of ones action.

Anyway, let me try and address the issue by narrowing the scope of this discussion to what 'should' be done when it is between a moral right and a legal wrong. I would take the example of Gandhi, and since several questions has now being queried on the fallout of Gandhi's position.

Gandhi was a visionary, a thinker, a philosopher, a spiritualist, a religionist, a theist, a reformist, a political leader, a social activist, an environmentalist, a peacemaker, an experimenter, a founder of a philosophy, a pacifist etc and apart from being a lawyer as a profession.

He had adorned different role's. To view Gandhi from any one angle would lead to faulty inferences. Many call him the Apostle os Non-violence, but at the same time, conservationist in England called him an anarchist, a reactionary, a trouble maker, a naked fakir........typical of (then) British arrogance and hypocracy.

But the most relevent portion of his personality viz the topic we have in hand, is that he was a moral preacher. He believed that no man can be deprived of his honour and dignity just because the man is deprived of certain qualities, status, privileges etc or by his gender, ethinicty, colour, caste or creed. His goal was to acheive freedom not just political freedom but freedom from all superstitions, dogmas, ignorance and fear.

He would say that there is no use of political freedom unless people are free from years of injustices, free from hunger and poverty, free from fear and unjust social norms. All this, this struggle for freedom was to be acheived by a means of the concepts of satygraha (firmness of truth) and ahimsa (non-violence).

He came from a caste called the vaishnava's or vaishnavite's. Traditionally they do not kill animals, do not eat meat, and believe and follows, although a staunch hindu, the buddhist and Jain doctrines of Non-violence. He moral values were deeply entrenched in the principles of non-violence. The notions of non-violence is prescribed by religious discourse as the way to redeem the sufferings of the human kind. The sorrows of death, deprivity, destruction, violence, killings, murder, annexation, loot, war, greed, etc could only be dealt with by the superior humans by changing its own brute nature and as a mark of a civilised human being.

It is in this light, that one should see Gandhi and his advices to various people and nations. The question was what 'should' be done. Morally Gandhi could not have said anything else than what he honestly thought needs to be done. It becomes a problem for those who sees him as any other politician or or a statesman. He is almost a saint is because of the fact that he said what he believed in, and not what was 'politicallly correct or strategically correct. Those things are for the menials like ordinary politicians and statesman, found in good measure in the early part of 20th century in Europe. His idea was to put Hitler to shame. He had also written two letters to Hitler, and had met Mussolini.

His cricts conveniently forgets these facts, while they distort the meanings of his messages. What is baffling is naivety is still an excuse in this internet age.

So to address one of the issue raised in this thread that off whether one would be stupid not to consider the consequnces of ones action, than Gandhi's thoughts and actions are the greatest examples in the modern era or history to demonstrate that a morally right action cannot be determined by what consequences will follow in the legal realm. It is stupidity at its best.

Gandhi was tried for 'treason', and the English judge, with a heavy heart and a tear had to sentence Gandhi to 6 years in prison according to extent British laws, but he agreed with Gandhi who argued in his own defense not to spare him of any punishment because he himself knew as a barrister of repute that he was legally wrong but was morally right.

The legal 'should' cannot be the moral 'ought'.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122473 wrote:

The legal 'should' cannot be the moral 'ought'.

I would say this nicely brings us back to whats actually being discussed. Despite the pages of examples from kennethamy, I still haven't seen many examples why we have a moral obligation to follow the law. I might have missed something but it seems the historical examples boiled down to how some individuals chose to resist immoral laws. I've seen no evidence to counter the claim that man has an obligation to defy immoral law.
I know kennethamy suggested earlier that the burden of evidence was on the other side, but having considered it, moral law is a natural conclusion whereas law is a societal one. Therefore, it should be up to society to prove its worth to nature, not natural laws job to bend reality to fit with human constraints.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122473 wrote:

You have nicely deflected your positions from 'Only King fought the law' to Gandhi's remarks on Jews, to Gandhi's suggestion to British.

.

But not at all. I did not say that only King fought the law. I said that only King violated the law of a democracy. The others violated laws, but not of a democracy. And I said that Gandhi's advice to the Jews and the British was stupid, if not malicious. And I said them both. Only King (among those you listed) violated the laws of a democracy, and Gandhi was an idiot. Have I made myself clear now?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122615 wrote:

But not at all. I did not say that only King fought the law. I said that only King violated the law of a democracy. The others violated laws, but not of a democracy. And I said that Gandhi's advice to the Jews and the British was stupid, if not malicious. And I said them both. Only King (among those you listed) violated the laws of a democracy, and Gandhi was an idiot. Have I made myself clear now?

YES!........ what is clear is how stupid a stupid can be!

@fast,

Just a quick offering. Should is a matter of force and should be a matter of moral imperative or a natural occurrence to help, render aid and guide in all contexts to achieve better for all who have the capacity to render it. If and I say if that were a moral imperative this world would be in much better shape than it is now. By far! The common denominator is to enhance life not hinder it.

Now presently what we do is by large measure base on what we can AFFORD to do and not what we should as a moral imperative do. Costs when involved cancel out all morality and any hopes of clearly defining what morality is. Until we eliminate costs what we should do will become more detached and chaos will just become more.

William

@fast,

Bill
I am in total agreement with your remarks.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122656 wrote:

YES!........ what is clear is how stupid a stupid can be!

Note: Calling someone "stupid" is not an argument. Thought I should let you know. And, anyone who thinks it is, is.......well, you know....

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122696 wrote:

Note: Calling someone "stupid" is not an argument. Thought I should let you know. And, anyone who thinks it is, is.......well, you know....

I hit the air, and you got the punch? Thats a surprise. Calling a spade a spade is fine, but calling Lincoln an idiot is stupidity, enough. The height of...you know what....

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122744 wrote:

I hit the air, and you got the punch? Thats a surprise. Calling a spade a spade is fine, but calling Lincoln an idiot is stupidity, enough. The height of...you know what....

I didn't call Lincoln and idiot. I called Gandhi and idiot. You seem to be confusing Lincoln with Gandhi. They do both have an 'i' in their names. Is that why? Anyway, I think that Lincoln was a very smart man. I think Gandhi was an idiot. If you are not sure of the difference between the two, try looking them up. Lincoln and Gandhi were not, I assure you, one and the same person.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122755 wrote:

I didn't call Lincoln and idiot. I called Gandhi and idiot. You seem to be confusing Lincoln with Gandhi. They do both have an 'i' in their names. Is that why? Anyway, I think that Lincoln was a very smart man. I think Gandhi was an idiot. If you are not sure of the difference between the two, try looking them up. Lincoln and Gandhi were not, I assure you, one and the same person.

Ken, its extremely difficult to call Gandhi an idiot. He did live by an extremely strict moral code that is, in some aspects, very foreign to what many people today live by. This is probably way some of this teachings are abhorrent to you. But the fact that he was able to take abstract concepts and morals and apply them to real life effectively to achieve great change? That is not only undeniable but extremely rare in the course of human history. Its also exactly what Lincoln did.
Feel free to disagree with Gandhi, but to call him an idiot is simply wrong.

@Sam I Am phil,

Sam I Am;122857 wrote:

Ken, its extremely difficult to call Gandhi an idiot. He did live by an extremely strict moral code that is, in some aspects, very foreign to what many people today live by. This is probably way some of this teachings are abhorrent to you. But the fact that he was able to take abstract concepts and morals and apply them to real life effectively to achieve great change? That is not only undeniable but extremely rare in the course of human history. Its also exactly what Lincoln did.
Feel free to disagree with Gandhi, but to call him an idiot is simply wrong.

I use the term "idiot" loosely, of course. I simply think Gandhi was a fool, and very silly person to think that passive resistance would be effective against Nazi's. He confused Nazi's with the British who did have some sense of right and wrong. Gandhi had a very effective PR operation going, and that is what gave him the reputation he has. There was far less of him than met the eye. His diaper was his greatest weapon.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122755 wrote:

I didn't call Lincoln and idiot. I called Gandhi and idiot. You seem to be confusing Lincoln with Gandhi. They do both have an 'i' in their names. Is that why? Anyway, I think that Lincoln was a very smart man. I think Gandhi was an idiot. If you are not sure of the difference between the two, try looking them up. Lincoln and Gandhi were not, I assure you, one and the same person.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I had asked you what your age was?..... but no reply, hence i thought i should find out your age. I think i get an fair idea of it.

Thanks pal!...... My apology for confusing you. And i need not 'look up' on people whom i have read in print.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122977 wrote:

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I had asked you what your age was?..... but no reply, hence i thought i should find out your age. I think i get an fair idea of it.

Thanks pal!...... My apology for confusing you. And i need not 'look up' on people whom i have read in print.

How else would you have read them? But Gandhi was not Lincoln. Even if you think they were the same person.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122985 wrote:

How else would you have read them? But Gandhi was not Lincoln. Even if you think they were the same person.

R U kidding? or R U A Joke?

You have still not got it. Right?......... my my, some are like tube lights! :detective:........ any way i have started liking you.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122931 wrote:

I use the term "idiot" loosely, of course. I simply think Gandhi was a fool, and very silly person to think that passive resistance would be effective against Nazi's. He confused Nazi's with the British who did have some sense of right and wrong. Gandhi had a very effective PR operation going, and that is what gave him the reputation he has. There was far less of him than met the eye. His diaper was his greatest weapon.

Gandhi's position in the world wasn't to defeat the Nazis. He was attempting to apply what he thought was the moral standard to real life. He was certainly wrong in that instance but unlike most of society he wasn't going to sacrifice his beliefs to be popular, or to be right.
Lets also not forget that during WWII, very little was known about the brutality of the Nazis. To many, they were just another dissatisfied European nation looking for more land and power. He was experimenting with a method of reacting to conflict in an untried environment.
If you think that's idiotic, you think every scientist that has ever lived is an idiot. Trial and error is what creates strong systems, and there is usually much more error than success.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know