03-09-2005, 03:24 AM
Sunil wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Karthik K,
What I present before you are my opinions on the issue of the moral foundation of war. They may agree with the text of Gudakesa's posts but I do not claim that is what he is saying.
The moral foundation of War provides the basis for the rationality of the War. It provides a psychological tool for the participants to accept the systematic breakdown of social norms and order. Most importantly the "moral foundation of the war" actively promotes premeditated and organized murder - the highest crime in any organized society. The moral foundation also furnishes a class of leaders who foster the activity of war in the political, diplomatic, military and economic sphere.
In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). These are defined into a social context in an extremely selective fashion, the exact nature of the definition depending intensely on the hands of the people that craft it. Once this is done, the moral foundation then calls upon its followers to compete for the complete control of the ideological space in a controlled conflict.
A well chosen moral foundation for a war does the following:
1) expedites a process of social change in an ordered fashion, and
2) produces a new and lasting social order that replaces an older one that is past its time.
The moral foundation of the war however routinely fails on both accounts. When it fails in the former, it creates a war of attrition that ultimately crosses the bounds of what the morality of war justifies, and atrocities multiply. However it is the second step that often causes the most trouble. War though expedited does not produce a stable political order in its aftermath. Without political order - the state of conflict reappears.
In the case of the Mahabharat and the Cold War, the leaders of one political faction prevailed over their supposed adversaries and subsequently could not enjoy the fruits of their success neither could they guarentee political stability. The line of Pandu eventually relinquished the kingdom and the Americans are now at effectively war with their former allies - the Pakistanis and the Saudis.
While it could be said that the Mahabharat argues that War should only be conducted for "moral reasons" but the converse is also holds that a "War" conducted without the necessary sense of detachment from material affairs will eventually produce a sense of "defeat" even for the "victor". The completeness of the Mahabharat lies in the fact that the "losers" of the War attain Heaven while the "Winners" of the war have to endure suffering on earth. Those attached to the notion of "Victory" are ultimately made to taste "Defeat".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Karthik K,
What I present before you are my opinions on the issue of the moral foundation of war. They may agree with the text of Gudakesa's posts but I do not claim that is what he is saying.
The moral foundation of War provides the basis for the rationality of the War. It provides a psychological tool for the participants to accept the systematic breakdown of social norms and order. Most importantly the "moral foundation of the war" actively promotes premeditated and organized murder - the highest crime in any organized society. The moral foundation also furnishes a class of leaders who foster the activity of war in the political, diplomatic, military and economic sphere.
In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). These are defined into a social context in an extremely selective fashion, the exact nature of the definition depending intensely on the hands of the people that craft it. Once this is done, the moral foundation then calls upon its followers to compete for the complete control of the ideological space in a controlled conflict.
A well chosen moral foundation for a war does the following:
1) expedites a process of social change in an ordered fashion, and
2) produces a new and lasting social order that replaces an older one that is past its time.
The moral foundation of the war however routinely fails on both accounts. When it fails in the former, it creates a war of attrition that ultimately crosses the bounds of what the morality of war justifies, and atrocities multiply. However it is the second step that often causes the most trouble. War though expedited does not produce a stable political order in its aftermath. Without political order - the state of conflict reappears.
In the case of the Mahabharat and the Cold War, the leaders of one political faction prevailed over their supposed adversaries and subsequently could not enjoy the fruits of their success neither could they guarentee political stability. The line of Pandu eventually relinquished the kingdom and the Americans are now at effectively war with their former allies - the Pakistanis and the Saudis.
While it could be said that the Mahabharat argues that War should only be conducted for "moral reasons" but the converse is also holds that a "War" conducted without the necessary sense of detachment from material affairs will eventually produce a sense of "defeat" even for the "victor". The completeness of the Mahabharat lies in the fact that the "losers" of the War attain Heaven while the "Winners" of the war have to endure suffering on earth. Those attached to the notion of "Victory" are ultimately made to taste "Defeat".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->