Self to Others: An Exposition from Gandhian Perspective |
Dr. Rajkumar Modak*A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave. - Mahatma GandhiAbstractRealization of self to others is the ultimate achievement of human life. Almost all the moral philosophers including Gandhiji account for their views. Gandhiji being a revolutionary moral philosopher applies his moral principles as a therapy. In order to the realization of God, Gandhiji's recommendations are: (i) the profound knowledge in morality, (ii) ahimsa and (iii) love; this paper is just an exposition of his view by making a comparative study with the views of Mill, Kant and Tagore. (i)History of mankind shows that material achievement can never be marked as the sign of success as a whole, unless and until the truth of life is realized. Among those who spent their entire life searching for the truth, Mohondas Karamchand Gandhi (2nd October, 1869-30th January, 1948) is one of them. For him, truth and non-violence belong to the same category- these are the two sides of a same coin. In his entire life, he never bypasses from the way of non-violence. Without possessing any wealth and political position, he fights against the injustice with prayer, fasting, and peaceful protest. His belief on non-violence is so strong that he applies this power to make India free from the British rulers. Being a frail man, he faces the strong British nation using only his weapons of non-violent resistance. Encouraging all people to be kind, honest, and peaceful, Gandhiji refuses to return injury with injury. He argues that if the violence would be the way to achieve the freedom, then there would be a chance of losing the freedom by some other powerful nation. So, non-violence, for him, is the one and only one way to achieve the ultimate aim of life. Moreover, his theory of non-violence is now treated and proved as the best practices through the whole world. From the above, it is clear that Gandhian philosophy is grounded on the idea of non-violence. But exploring only on the concept of non-violence is not the subject matter of this paper. The aim of this paper is to give an exposition on (i) how the Gandhian concept of morality is based upon ahimsa and/or love i.e. non-violence and (ii) how do we transcendent i.e. go for others, by making a comparative study with the moral view points of (i) John Stuart Mill, (ii) Immanuel Kant and (iii) Rabindranath Tagore. (ii)Gandhiji starts to depict his moral view point, by considering the ultimate destination of human life . Be noted that in Indian philosophy, none of the Indian philosophical system could ignore the ultimate destination of human being and this issue has been considered as fundamental by each system of philosophy which is followed by resolving the question: how do we seek out the ways in order to achieve the ultimate destination? For example, according to the Buddhist philosophers, the ultimate aim of life is to achieve the stage of nirvāṇa , for the Jainas it is to be the kevala-jñāni , for the Naiyayikas to get nihsreyasa etc. Almost similar opinion is found in the Ethics of Aristotle (19th June, 384 B.C.E -7th March, 322 B.C.E). In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle points out that each science has an end. As the sciences are different, naturally, the aims of these sciences are also unlike. But the common factor of all sciences is to bring in and/or promote good for the human beings. To quote Aristotle, Every skill and every enquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that at which every things aim.1 He further remarks: 'there is indeed something "at which all things aim" indicates the ultimate good, which, in his terminology, is eaidaimonia. Amazingly, eaidaimonia-the ultimate good, for him, is not identical with happiness, because happiness may vary time to time. For example, a man may feel happy after getting a job, but after doing his job for sometimes he may be unhappy with his job. So, Aristotle has reasons to state that Eaidaimonia, then, connotes overall success and prosperity and achievement, though it also connotes something that we may call happiness.2 Yet, Aristotle considers eaidaimonia as the highest kind of good-the most good, most noble and most pleasant. According to Gandhiji, the ultimate destination of life is the realization of God. He says that God is not just something which is abstract; He is real and is manifested through the animate and inanimate worldly objects. Realization of God implies the realization of those entities which are His manifestations. Human beings are also the manifestation of the God and they are God like best manifestation. So, if any one tries to realize God, she/he has to realize the human being. Gandhiji further apprehends that morality is the necessary condition for the realization of human being i.e. the God. Without being moral, it is not possible for anyone to realize the God. The realization of God is the ultimate goal of human life. But God is not an abstract entity. He is the truth or Reality that lives in man's own self and in the selves of others.3 Now a pertinent crucial point may be raised regarding the realization of human being i.e. the God Per Se. It is easy to realize self, but it is too hard to realize the others, because there is a Himalyan gap between the self realization and the realization of others. Even the psychologists, are still searching for a satisfactory theory which it will be helpful to know the others mind. Many Western philosophers and as well as the Indian philosophers, have paid their deep concentration to search a path through which it would be possible to realize the others through the realization of self. However, Gandhiji follows a unique tradition, when he finds the ahimsa and/or love or non-violence as the essence of morality and demands that one should go in the way of ahimsa or non-violence, if one tries to realize others. In fact, Gandhiji uses the ahimsa and/or love or non-violence as a therapy. He believes that love in man, is an inherited divine power without which selfishness can never be overcome. Thus he says, But simple morality demands that whilst a particular policy is pursued, it must be pursued with all one's heart. It is simple policy to march along a certain route, but the soldier who marches with an unsteady step along that route is liable to be summarily dismissed. I become therefore incredulous when people talk to me skeptically about non-violence or are seized with fright at the very mention of the word non-violence. If they do not believe in the expedient of non-violence, they must denounce it but not claim to believe in the expedient when their heart resists it.4 It should be mentioned here that Gandhian ethics is not theoretical as like the ethical theory of John Stuart Mill or Immanuel Kant, because Gandhian ethics is not only based on the experience of his daily life but also on his moral principles which are applied as the weapons of non-violent resistance. In a single sentence, we can say that Gandhian moral understanding is not only practical, but also therapeutic. Unless and until one uses the divine impulse of ahimsa and/or love or non-violence, she/he would have to be confined to his narrow realm of selfish existence. As it is mentioned earlier that 'how to realize others after the realization of self' or 'self to others' one of the hardest tasks in the world, the observation of some other philosophers should be reviewed on this particular point, in order to get a clear picture of Gandhian concept of morality. So, let us peep in to the moral viewpoints of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Rabindranath Tagore where they have explored the idea of 'the realization of self to others'. (iii)Jeremy Bentham (15th February, 1748-4th February, 1747), the British moralist is known as the founder of utilitarianism. But his theory is expanded sophisticatedly after a thorough intellectual revision made by John Stuart Mill. In case of judging an action, whether it is morally good or not, the utilitarian philosophers exercise the principle of utility. According to this principle, an action will be regarded as good if and only if it promotes maximum happiness to the maximum numbers and minimum pain to the minimum numbers. Mill defines utilitarianism as follows: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.5 In the definition, mentioned above, the expression balance of good over evil is very important, because the term balance is linked with the measurement. That is why, Bentham provides a hedonistic calculus through which pleasure and pain of an action can be measured. The dimensions of this hedonistic calculus are: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent . But Bentham confines himself only on quantitative aspect of an action, whereas, John Stuart Mill introduces the qualitative feature of an action. When Bentham categorizes the action of finishing an ice cream within five minutes and the action of reciting a poem for five minutes as same, Mill argues against this categorization and concludes that both these actions are not same, because paying attention on a recitation for five minutes and tasting an ice cream for five minutes have qualitative differences. One point should be mentioned here that utilitarianism is comprised of altruism and hedonism. Being altruism, this theory is presupposed on the moral standard-the happiness in general. Again, being hedonism, it does not exclude psychological hedonism where it is said that the structure of human mind is so constituted that in every action, human being seeks his own happiness. But the question is: what makes a man to go beyond? John Stuart Mill (20th May, 1806 - 7th May, 1873), being a supporter of empiricism, does not provide any metaphysical arguments for utilitarianism. He points out about two kinds of moral sanction which force a man to represent his altruistic conduct. These two types of sanction are external sanctions-physical, social, political and religious and internal sanction-an appeal to the self-interest of the individual. It is the internal sanction of conscience which signifies 'a feeling for the happiness of mankind' or 'a desire to be in unity with our fellow being' or 'a feeling of pain attendant on the violation of a duty'. Mill also provides an argument in favour of the transition from egoism to altruism, on the basis of two principles-laws of association and transfer of interest. At the initial stage, we were egoists, and relieved the sufferings of others in order to reduce our own despairs. But later on, after a successive performance, our own interest transfers from the end to the means. We forget about our own pleasure, and delight in alleviating the misery of others. (iv)Immanuel Kant (22nd April, 1724 - 12th February, 1804), on the other hand, in course of exploring his moral view point, holds that an action of a human being should be judged not on the basis of the result it produces, but on the moral rules trough which it is followed. According to him, moral rules are as like as the natural laws. A natural law does not permit the exception and it is applicable for all without any prejudice. Similarly, moral law should be applicable on the actions done by the human being without any biasness. Be noted that Peter Singer, one of the best applied moral philosophers during this age, marked Indian ethics as First Philosophical Ethics , at the time of writing the Encyclopaedia of Ethics, as the Indian sagacious thinkers used to peruse the moral law just like the cosmological law. For them, Ṛta is a cosmic order through which each and every thing of the universe is directed, that which is Ṛta from the perspective of the universe, is moral law from the perspective of human being. It is true that the approach taken by the Indian moral philosophers in 1500 B.C.E and the approach taken by Kant in 18th century may be thought in the same rhythm, but the context are different. According to the ancient Indian thinkers, moral law is nothing but another form of cosmological law. It is just like the two sides of a coin, one side is cosmological law and the other side is moral law. But in that case, morality would be imbibed with determinism which goes against ethics as the freedom of doing action by the human being is presupposed in ethics. To resolve this problem, the Indian thinkers developed a theory of karma. What Kant argues in this point is important. According to Kant, human beings are rational. The capacity of rationality compels them to obey the rules. There is no scope to avoid the natural law. Similarly, there is no escape route to bypass when the actions are done. The important point lies in the fact that the capacity of rationality empowers human being to frame the moral law and as well as to obey the moral law. In fact, the moral laws are self imposed. Human beings are free to frame the rules; once rules are framed it is their duty to obey these rules. Gandhiji points out that the human beings can perform their duties, only when they are able to think that they are free to obey the rules. In his own language, A Satyagrahi obeys the laws of society intelligently and of his own free will, because he considers it to be his sacred duty to do so.7 Now, we should come to the main point of discussion i.e. what makes us to think others? Kant would answer - it is the moral law that makes us to think others. These moral laws are as follows:
In fact, Kant makes a distinction between practical reason and pure reason, instead of giving emphasis on pleasure which is the prime criterion to judge whether a voluntary action is good or bad as mentioned by the hedonists. He advocates self-conquest. He says that it is the conscience, which imposes the moral law upon itself through practical reason. Moral laws are a priori. The rightness or wrongness of a particular action will be judged in accordance with moral law. He also says that universal law is the only moral law and an action will be regarded to have a moral worth, if and only if the maxim of this action at the same time be a universal law. (v)The World Poet-Rabindranath Tagore's view on morality is connected with the noble idea of human being as investigated by him. This unique conception about human being is expressed when he says that human beings are in many respects God-like, albeit he is an animal. He draws our attention to a significant point of human beings, when he describes the process of evolution. He says that before the emergence of human species the total evolution process was mechanical. All animal except the human being accept the process of evolution as usual and are directed by the physical forces, the mechanical law of aggregation, adjustment and co-ordination. After the advent of human species, the evolution process has been changed drastically. Being free, human being neither accepts the evolution process mechanically nor allows automation. In fact, his responses are not involuntary, but pre-determined. To grasp this point, an example may be help full. The ear and the eyes are not controlled by the animals as the animals are bound to hear the sound and or see the sceneries of the world, if these two organs are active. But in case of human beings, these organs are used as like as the trigger determines explosion or the rainbow colours are determined by the crystal. Actually, the basic difference of the human being, with the other animal lies in the fact that all the organs of human beings are determined by their inner power, instead of the direction of any mechanical law. When the human being partially goes beyond the mechanical i.e. the physical level and enters into the spiritual level, evolution, is no doubt, changes its courses. This modification, therefore, is because of a peculiarity with which man appears on the earth- the surplus in him, which is the ability to going beyond. This surplus nature of man helps him to transcendent his limitation. Rabindranath Tagore says, The most important fact that has come into prominence along with the change of direction in our evolution is the possession of a spirit which has its enormous capital with a surplus far in excess of the requirements of the biological animal in man.9 That is why, there is nothing in the world through which the energy of human beings can be arrested or there is any task which is not possible for him. What he can think today, he can do tomorrow. This surplus nature makes him creative. Creativity, as think by Rabindranath Tagore, is not just the capacity to construct the new. In that case, the creative nature of other animals cannot be ignored; a bird can make a beautiful nest for its living may be taken for example. What Rabindranath Tagore wants to indicate by the term creative-'is the capacity of having and giving expression to novel ideas, it is the power of having new and original vision'. Moreover, the character of man's freedom is implied by his surplus nature. Human beings are not only physically free but also spiritually free. According to Rabindranath Tagore, the physical freedom of human beings are limited freedom, whereas, the spiritual freedom for human beings is unlimited. Physical freedom can be compared with the free movements of a bird in to a cage and the spiritual freedom can be compared with the fly of a bird in to the sky. Now we should come to the focal point of the treatise-how is it possible for us to realize the other, after the realization of the self? From the discussion mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the answer of this question could be found in the nature of man as describe by Rabindranath Tagore. Man being surplus is characterised by joy, an inherent realization of the self. It is the joy that makes him to realise the close affinity to the nature and as well as to the other human beings. Joy helps him to achieve the ultimate goal of life i.e. the realisation of God. It is that account which is no doubt transcendental and surplus capacity of human beings. That is why, Kalyan Sen Gupta remarked, This transcendence of individual confinement that our 'surplus' capacity enables may be manifested in many spheres of human life - in our fellowship with other persons, in artistic endeavour, in religion, and in our harmony with the natural world.11 (vi)Let us review Gandhian ethics in detail. Gandhiji at first, does not go with the utilitarian moral principle-'greatest good of greatest number'. Because he advocates that there should be conformity with the action and the means behind the action. If the principle of utility is followed then there is a possibility of violating the rule of conformity between the result of action and its mean. It may be the case, where the actions are good, but the means are foul. Gandhiji strongly believes in the inseparability of the means and ends of actions . A good end is not guaranteed by the utility principle, that it is not based on bad means. For this reason, Gandhiji, in course of his normal life and at the time of organizing any movement, does not allow any method which is based on hatred and violence. Again, he does not go with the moral principle of Kant. Kant argues in favour of universal moral principle which is self imposed by the rational human being. For him, the means is final; we should not wait for the result. 'Duty for duty sake.' is his moral slogan. But Gandhian ethics as has been said earlier never ever permit the separation of means and ends. Furthermore, Gandhian principle of morality is neither 'greatest good of greatest number' nor 'Duty for duty sake.' But it is 'greatest good of all'. In fact, it is really a hard task to follow this principle. That's why Gandhiji remarks that 'greatest good of all' is the ideal principle of morality and we should not go for any compromise with the ideal though it has been pitched high. One should never be depressed when she/he is failed to achieve the ideal. Unattainable ideal stirs up greater and greater to make unending effort in order to progress towards it. Now, the focal point should be taken into consideration. Why should we go for others? Gandhiji's response toward this question arises out of the excavation of the nature of human being. He discovers that ahimsa and love are the two fundamental characteristics of social human beings. For him, ahimsa is neither non-injury nor the opposite of himsa. Gandhiji follows the recommendation of Jainism on ahimsa which must be practiced in thought, speech and action. One should not do ahimsa and she/he should not be the cause of ahimsa either directly or indirectly. Gandhiji adds that ahimsa is very natural for man. At the initial stage, a man may be directed through his sensual impulses by keeping dormant his some other noble qualities including the ahimsa. Because human beings have two aspects-one is bodily aspect or sensual aspect and the other is spiritual aspect. From the perspective of sensual aspect, a man may be selfish. But when he realises that his sensual aspect is not final, he reaches towards his spiritual aspects and realizes the power of ahimsa which enables him to transcendent or go beyond himself. At the spiritual level, another perspective of ahimsa is realised by the human being and understands that it is love through which one can win anything whatsoever. The narrow selfishness is opened up by the love. Love helps a man to break the barrier between self and others. When a man is unaware of his real nature, he may be led by the impulses. But after the realisation of his real nature-he is inseparable from others, his ego is vanished. The path is not too easy, and it is achievable through the moral knowledge which enables the transformation of ahimsa in to the love. References:
Dr. Rajkumar Modak is a Professor of Philosophy in Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, West Bengal. Email: skbuphilosophy@gmail.com |