Therefore, Krishna also tells Aragua that it becomes his duty to fight a bloody war that would potentially wipe out a few hundred thousand lives on either side, but not to expect either victory or defeat in the war. In a sense, when one evaluates this scenario, one understands Arson’s dilemma – a war that will wipe out his relatives and friends or withdrawal from the war that would fall in direct violation of Krishna’ central concept of duty. Thus, one can clearly see that the deontological concept of duty is similar and yet distinct at the same time. Similarities between Demonology and Baghdad-Gait
In the Baghdad-Gait the highest duty is that of ‘insomnia-karma’ or performing acts without expectations or desires. As instructed by Krishna, the concept does not mean action in the absence of desire or unmotivated action, but, rather, it means acting with a perceptive instruction of complete and total surrender before the God Almighty. Thus, according to the Gait, acts that a person carries out with expectations or desire for results are unacceptable. The concept implies that those people who entertain expectations or desires for the fruits of their activities are spiritually poor.
In he deontological concept, Kant does not look upon the result of an act as the object of moral judgment. According to Kant, nothing in world supersedes goodwill and it is goodwill that is supreme. If the will is honorable the action, too, is honorable, whatever may be the result. Since Moral Laws are categorical, their correctness is self-evident being unaffected by the result the other point where Gait and Kant coalesce is that both emphasize service. Another important similarity benzene the two theories is with regard to the control over one’s thoughts and feelings.
A person’s rational tendencies Anton motivate a person to perform an act. The Gait says that when a person acts under the influence of motives such as love and jealousy he or she becomes entangled in the web of karma and falls under the sway of the worldly delusion and desires. Desires (or modes) of passion such as Sex and related acts cause anger when one is denied such act. This anger manifests itself in the form of confusion which, in turn, causes the inherent destruction of reason. The same effect happens when one is guided by desires such as anger, revenge and hatred toward others.
Thus, according to the Gait, the ode of passion takes one toward the direction of darkness and ignorance. Therefore, Lord Krishna tells Aragua that the solution to this problem is the complete and total abstention from the feelings of both hatred and love. Once these feelings come under control, other feelings such as anger, confusion, lust and passion also come automatically under control. The way to achieve this mode of enlightenment is to win over the senses by practice and abstinence, along with performing one’s duties in the mode of ‘insomnia karma’ or working without desiring results.
This singular outlook of the Baghdad-Gait is very close in philosophical terms to the moral theories Of Kant. Even in case of Cant’s theories, the ultimate duty is the restraint of contemptible desires. Lastly, Cant’s notion of categorical imperative as the moral law and its applicability to all of humankind is a concept that rings quite close to the ‘Savoyards’ concept of the Gait. Like Cant’s categorical imperative, Krishna too, dictates that one must perform actions without any desire for the end. (Palmists, 2010, p. 21) The Gait, even states that one is not exempt from performing one’s Savoyards even at the time of death. Differences between Demonology and Baghdad-Gait However, given the various similarities between the opinions of Kant and the Gait, there is also a major difference on the issue of human feelings. The Baghdad-Gait does not treat desire, emotion and feelings as completely evil. Lord Krishna through the Gait emphasizes on devotion and worship to the Supreme God so as to enable the development Of one’s feelings and for the suppression of unwanted desires.
It, therefore, becomes essential for a follower of this doctrine to change or channel one’s feelings positively rather Han exterminate feelings entirely. On the other hand, Kant is much more rigorous in his approach to feelings since he tends to associate the presence of feeling with immorality. Therefore, Cant’s thought makes it necessary to eliminate feelings and emotions as much as possible from life. One can therefore classify his opinion as a strict and rigorous approach to feelings and emotions in life.
This aspect, in itself, makes the Gait easier for the common people to implement and follow compared to the rigorous principles of Kantian ethics. The second point of difference is the point from where duties bring in each of these theories. In case of Kant, a duty arises from human reason and not due to any external factors or motivation. However, in case of the Baghdad-Gait, duty stems from one’s innate nature. For instance, the Gait prescribes the Verna system as a recognition of this problem where every member of the society or a group performs duties in accordance with one’s nature. Maitre, 2006, p. 64) In a way, Cant’s view that one is to “act as a member of a kingdom or ends” sounds somewhat similar to the Verna system. However, for Kant the ultimate objective of performing one’s duty is oral in nature, in the Gait the ultimate objective lies in attaining God and Mimosa – freedom from the cycle of life and death. Therefore, clearly the ethics of Gait are teleological in nature, as compared to the deontological nature of Cant’s theories. Even Gate Pal (2001 ) agrees on the Gist’s teleological foundation. P. 225) The third point of difference between the Baghdad-Gait and the deontological concepts of Kant also lies in the manner in which both the concepts know about the duties. According to Kant, an autonomous being would be able to find out about his duties and the nature f his duties merely by consulting with his reason alone and by not taking external help of any kind. (Maitre, 2006, p. 65) In case of the Gait, the answer to this question lies in the state of mind that one has when answering the same.
But in most situations, the Gait says that one needs external, social, scriptural, or even environmental guidance, in addition to introspective guidance in order to understand the nature of duties that befit one’s understanding capacity and capability. (Maitre, 2006, p. 66) Therefore, demonology requires introspection on the part of the person while the Gait coziness the presence of external factors in determining a person’s duty. One can substantiate the difference between the two theories by providing an example through a real-life situation.
The Gait prescribes people who perform menial labor to fall in the category of Sutras. The Sutras have a foremost duty to their masters or other people in the higher orders that employ them. In line with this duty, the Gait prohibits the Sutra (or a menial servant) to have feelings and emotions or self-esteem, for that matter. This line of thought makes it perfectly fine for the servant to lie to another person t the behest Of his master. On the other hand, Cant’s second formulation Of the categorical imperative asks a person to treat other rational beings as ends, not only as a means. Maitre, 2006, p. 66) This line of thought brings about an opposite effect on the ethical consideration since it prohibits the master to make use of his servant in a disrespectful manner for unethical purposes such as lying or deceiving. Further, Kantian ethics also state that the servant is a rational being with a duty to himself that stands violated although he followed his master’s instructions to lie. On both these counts, Cant’s deontological thought stands in a complete opposition to the ideas put forth by the Baghdad-Gait.