Scholarlink

<p>Most scholars are inclined to say that the <i>Bhagavadgītā</i> ethics is a duty ethics and is hence Kantian. Some, however, claim that it is consequentialist. Some others claim that it is an amalgamation of the two. For them, the ethics of the <i>Bhagavadgītā</i> is sometimes seen as a debate between the consequentialism of Arjuna and the deontology of Kṛṣṇa. Yet others, more recently, have claimed that it is virtue ethics, in its contemporary sense, though it is a revival of Plato and Aristotle. And some of course claim that none of these comparisons are viable, that the ethics of the <i>Bhagavadgītā</i> is unique and indigenous and comparisons to modern Western ethics are futile. In this paper, I will attempt to provide a comprehensive survey of these perspectives and prove that whether the ethics of the <i>Bhagavadgītā</i> is deontological or consequentialist it remains teleological. Consequences are not bracketed away as irrelevant. Consequences of dutiful action after all for Kant lead to the kingdom of ends and consequences of Arjuna’s fighting the battle and winning lead to the establishment of a just society.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing Unified Theory of Ethics of the Bhagavadgītā to Deontological Ethics of Kant

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月22日

查看全文
  • Monica Prabhakar

摘要

Most scholars are inclined to say that the Bhagavadgītā ethics is a duty ethics and is hence Kantian. Some, however, claim that it is consequentialist. Some others claim that it is an amalgamation of the two. For them, the ethics of the Bhagavadgītā is sometimes seen as a debate between the consequentialism of Arjuna and the deontology of Kṛṣṇa. Yet others, more recently, have claimed that it is virtue ethics, in its contemporary sense, though it is a revival of Plato and Aristotle. And some of course claim that none of these comparisons are viable, that the ethics of the Bhagavadgītā is unique and indigenous and comparisons to modern Western ethics are futile. In this paper, I will attempt to provide a comprehensive survey of these perspectives and prove that whether the ethics of the Bhagavadgītā is deontological or consequentialist it remains teleological. Consequences are not bracketed away as irrelevant. Consequences of dutiful action after all for Kant lead to the kingdom of ends and consequences of Arjuna’s fighting the battle and winning lead to the establishment of a just society.