Abstract
The idea of a univocal property of ‘goodness’ is not clearly found in classical Sanskrit sources; instead, a common ethical strategy was to clarify the ontological nature of the self or world in such a way that ethical implications naturally flow from the adjustment in our thinking. This article gives a synoptic reading of sources that treat features of ethics—dispositions, agents, causal systems of effect, and even values themselves—as emergent phenomena grounded in complex, shifting, porous configurations. One conclusion of this was that what ‘goodness’ entails varies according to the scope and context of our concern. Firstly, we examine how the Bhagavad Gītā fashions a utilitarianism that assumes no universal intrinsically valuable goal or Good, but aims only to sustain the world as a prerequisite for choice. Recognising that this pushes problems of identifying the Good onto the individual; secondly, we look at accounts of malleable personhood in the Caraka Saṃhitā and Book 12 of the Mahābhārata. Finally, the aesthetic theory of the Nāṭya Śāstra hints at a context-constituted conception of value itself, reminding us that evaluative emotions are themselves complex, curate-able, and can expand beyond egoism to encompass interpersonal concerns. Together these sources show aspects of an ethical worldview for which each case is a nexus in a larger ethical fabric. Each tries to pry us away from our most personal concerns, so we can reach beyond the ego to do what is of value for a wider province of which we are a part.
Highlights
The idea of a univocal property of ‘goodness’ is not clearly found in classical Sanskrit sources; instead, a common ethical strategy was to clarify the ontological nature of the self or world in such a way that ethical implications naturally flow from the adjustment in our thinking
While there are common abstract nouns for phenomena like truth or knowledge, classical Hindu discourses do not regularly use an acknowledged term for goodness or ‘the Good’ per se. Instead they unpack what is of value relative to different priorities, saying, as the deity Krishna does in the Bhagavad Gıta, ‘This is how things are and how they will turn out: “reflect on this deeply, do as you wish.”’2 It is perhaps for this reason that Hinduism is often taken to favour a ‘contextual’ (Lipner 2019, p. 213), ‘situational’ (Sen 2014), ‘context sensitive’ (Ramanujan 1989, p. 47), or ‘concrete cases’-based (Prasad 2008, p. 169) approach to ethics
Prerequisite Consequentialism: Lokasam. graha in the Bhagavad Gıta We first turn to a distinctive form of consequentialism aimed at securing the existence of the world and its ethical possibilities that is embedded in the Bhagavad Gıta’s discourses on dharma
Summary
Lokasam. graha in the Bhagavad Gıta We first turn to a distinctive form of consequentialism aimed at securing the existence of the world and its ethical possibilities that is embedded in the Bhagavad Gıta’s discourses on dharma. One should act to support the conditions of life not because one assumes any particular general value that people aim for (e.g., well-being or freedom from pain), but only insofar as one affirms the possibility of any agency, choice, and experience at all One can reject this activity only if one does not will the world, as the very field of ethical action, to exist.. All of our acts, including inaction, influence the causal network of the world’s prerequisite factors, and there is no such thing as abstaining from consequences for the world This means that those who want any outcome for any aspect of the world need to act to achieve it; doing otherwise may/will directly impede that desired outcome. This metaphysical rethinking of the self is taken to imply that the dependent, porous character of the self makes context responsibility a more appropriate way of acting
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
