David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Indian Philosophy 40 (3):277-315 (2012)
This paper identifies the different normative ethical arguments stated and suggested by Arjuna and Krishna in the Gītā , analyzes those arguments, examines the interrelations between those arguments, and demonstrates that, contrary to a common view, both Arjuna and Krishna advance ethical theories of a broad consequentialist nature. It is shown that Krishna’s ethical theory, in particular, is a distinctive kind of rule-consequentialism that takes as intrinsically valuable the twin consequences of mokṣa and lokasaṃgraha . It is also argued that Krishna’s teachings in the Gītā gain in depth, coherence, and critical relevance what they lose in simplicity when the ethical theory underlying those teachings is understood as a consequentialism of this kind rather than as a deontology
|Keywords||Ethics Gītā Krishna Consequentialism Deontology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Simon Brodbeck (2004). Calling Krsna's Bluff: Non-Attached Action in the Bhagavadgītā. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32 (1):81-103.
Tara Chatterjea (2002). Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy. Lexington Books.
Surendranath Dasgupta (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Christopher Framarin (2004). Ni Kāmakarma: How Desireless Need One Be?1. Asian Philosophy 14 (3):239-254.
Christopher G. Framarin (2007). Good and Bad Desires: Implications of the Dialogue Between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. [REVIEW] International Journal of Hindu Studies 11 (2):147-170.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Douglas W. Portmore (2005). Combining Teleological Ethics with Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):95–113.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (1998). On Defending Deontology. Ratio 11 (1):37–54.
James H. Moor (1999). Just Consequentialism and Computing. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1):61-65.
Brian Duignan (ed.) (2011). Thinkers and Theories in Ethics. Rosen Education Services.
Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.) (2007). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell Pub..
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
Roger Crisp (2015). A Third Method of Ethics? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2):257-273.
Miriam Ronzoni (2010). Teleology, Deontology, and the Priority of the Right: On Some Unappreciated Distinctions. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):453 - 472.
David Cummiskey (1990). Kantian Consequentialism. Ethics 100 (3):586-615.
Joshua Anderson (2012). Sen and the Bhagavad Gita: Lessons for a Theory of Justice. Asian Philosophy 22 (1):63-74.
Dietmar Pfordten (2012). Five Elements of Normative Ethics - A General Theory of Normative Individualism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):449-471.
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). 7 Consequentialism. In Christian Miller (ed.), Continuum Companion to Ethics. Continuum. 143.
Scott Forschler (2013). Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged. Metaphilosophy 44 (1-2):88-104.
Added to index2012-03-23
Total downloads24 ( #82,602 of 1,410,002 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #75,642 of 1,410,002 )
How can I increase my downloads?