Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-qn7h5 Total loading time: 0.348 Render date: 2022-10-02T13:18:17.636Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

21 - ‘Moral Obligation’ to Fight for the Prevention of Greater Calamity: A Debate between Sādharana Dharma and Sva Dharma

from Part Two - Human Rights Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2012

Malabika Majumdar
Affiliation:
University of Delhi
Get access

Summary

Most justifications of violence begin with some reference to the principle of self-defence. Suffering of innocents or wrong done to them is also a reason why arms against the wrong doer should be used. Once we cross over the reasons of personal squabbles and ask why nations wage war, not only the magnitude but also the quality of arguments vary. Certain paradigmatic justifications like, ‘for the sake of prevention of greater calamity’, or ‘for the sake of restoration of good over evil’ buttresses the argument of ethics in war.

The just war theory faces its biggest challenge from the doctrine of moral pacifism. A pacifist condemns all forms of violence. A warmonger holds forth by arguing that status quo through conflict amelioration is an impotent effort towards conflict resolution. In the context of this debate I have placed the issue of ‘dharmayuddha’. Out of several interpolations of meanings, I have found Gandhi's way of resolving conflict through non-violent means contains the debate between pacifists and just war theorists. However, such was not the case with other interpretations of this term.

As I sketch the history of the concept dharmayuddha, from the days of epic, I come across several reasons why retributive justice has demanded actual and mythical wars in the Indian context. In the Mahābhārata a paradigmatic argument is given to justify a family feud over inheritance right to the throne and it is backed by Krishna's arguments from dharma.

Type
Chapter
Information
Applied Ethics and Human Rights
Conceptual Analysis and Contextual Applications
, pp. 293 - 314
Publisher: Anthem Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×