Post your Gandhi vs. Savarkar opinions here. (Which can make other intellectual comparisons like Luther vs. Kohlhaas, Guantanamo Bay, your revenge against the people who threw eggs at your dorm, whatever.) The question is whether the ends justify the means.
You should also read ch. 25-27 of the Course Guide, which will pertain to your research paper.
Over the weekend, I recommend that you skim through your top few research books and crack the best best one or two open and read them. Your research prospectus is due on Friday; see instructions below.
Rosa & Yen will do the next kickoff, about Chaturvedi's Monday lecture or something in the Savarkar text.
This book review gives some background on Indian religious history, specifically the idea that "Hinduism" is not one religion like Christianity or Islam, but rather a broad set of overlapping traditions.
Oh, and I am desperate for more suggestions for the Doing project. Thanks.
Research Prospectus (due Friday)
Write your prospectus in paragraph form. These are guidelines for what you should try to accomplish in each paragraph, but they're not necessarily in order, and they don't necessarily require equal space. You may notice that the sample prospectus I gave you before does all of these things, but in a completely different order. The purpose of this exercise is simply to create a preview of your research project so that you and I both know what we're getting into.
Paragraph 1
-your topic (one aspect of this might be clarifying what your topic ISN'T)
-how it relates to the theories we've studied in Core this year
-the key research questions you will answer
-your preliminary hypothesis for answering them
Paragraph 2:
-Summarize existing research on the topic
-Focus in particular on your shovel(s), since you won't have read most of the rest
-Even without having read all of the sources, indicate which you think will be most useful
-It might be appropriate to use short quotations from the shovel(s) here
Paragraph 3:
-Gaps in existing research (you don't need to have read everything to get a sense of this)
-Flaws/mistakes in existing research
-Disagreements in existing research
-It might be appropriate to use short quotations here
-How your paper will address these gaps/flaws/disagreements (model: think about how Savarkar does this)
-Your general timetable and plan of action (what's next, etc.)
Paragraph 4:
-Why is your research timely or important?
-Why should anyone care about your research?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For this assignment, I would have to say that the ends do not justify the means, as I favor Gandhi's approach in which the means are everything. If the people themselves don't change, then the underlying cause is the same - like Gandhi says, there will be British rule with Indian faces. The same principles that the Indians want to be liberated from will still be there, which doesn't accomplish anything. Self-improvement will help change thinking so that eventually there CAN be a change, even if it will take longer to accomplish such a thing. Though violence does have its merits in that sometimes it can be a faster way to initiate change, people can engage in senseless violence that loses more lives than necessary. People do not even have to believe in violence to join in - the deindividuation that occurs in joining a bunch of people fighting is enough to cause people to kill without any purpose, thus inflicting worse damage on the country as a whole. Passive resistance, while seemingly accomplishes nothing, accomplishes more in my view, as when a person with a gun is confronted by an empty-handed person, it is much more difficult to kill. This saves lives and makes a statement at the same time - something that cannot be said of violence, which only occasionally makes a statement. Gandhi's method focuses on the individual, which is a place where everyone can start and feel like they are involved. This helps change overall attitude for the better, eventually changing larger systems.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ends do not justify the means. Although I can see the speed and appeal of the ultimate end reward of Savakar's approach, I don't think that it is worth or acceptable to do anything to get the end result. In my opinion, the means of obtaining the end is what builds your virtue. For example, in Guantanamo Bay in order to possibly get terrorist information the U.S. imprisoned men who were not permitted a trial and tortured them. This takes away our freedoms and liberties. Although this specific situation does not affect us personally and we are somewhat removed from the impact it has, imagine if those same freedoms were taken away from you or your family with no evidence it would be devastating. I don't think it is necessary or right for a person to do whatever they wish in order to achieve their desired end. In the same respect, I also agree with Ghandi's philosophy on passive resistance (although I do see some flaws in mobilizing everyone to discipline themselves, because most people are driven by emotions and will act on that emotion accordingly). For example if one man tried to fight a man who just sat and allowed the other to hit him, the violent man although he might begin to hit the passive man, would eventually have no motivation to continue because of the lack of confrontation or would be feel sympathy/pity. Ghandi's method, although hard to conceive or mobilize on the national level, cultivates individual's virtues and disciplines which is ultimately all anyone has true control over.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ends do not justify the means. It's not just about achieving something, but also the way you go about doing so. As Gandhi says, it takes more courage to stand unarmed in front of a cannon than to stand behind one ready to fire it. Peaceful resistance will also most likely stop the attacks of the offensive party (in a situation like India's). If a nation does not fight back against their opressors, but instead shows their disproval by boycotting and burning cloth, it would be more difficult for the oppressors to fight the peaceful protesters. The ends will still be achieved with nonviolence, but the means will be good as well.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the end justifies the means. Savarkar’s method of revolution is action based and takes steps to solve the problem. Whereas Gandhi’s passive resistance is effectively a method of waiting. The “water boarding” argument proves my point of view the best. The men used interrogation techniques that are considered controversial in order to get answers out of the prisoners of war. Although the information they obtained may be classified, the action solves the problem. The government now has the information they need to solve problems. Instead of taking chances on not knowing information or waiting for their problems to be solved, they took action. The two revolutions from the British that I can think of are the American and French revolutions. Both revolutions were confrontational and succeeded. Gandhi’s idea of self-improvement is very forward think. It is admirable. But it is basically impossible to improve every single person in a society in order to intact change. I fully believe in taking matters into your own hands. Maybe not as violently as Michael Kohlhaas when he went on a killing spree, but taking charge of the issues and problems. Improving one’s self and then waiting for everyone else to do like-wise, does not accomplish anything.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure on whether the ends justify the means or not, but i am sure this is an example of the end not justifying the means. i saw a story on tv about some students cheating, on ekid justified his cheating by saying that he just had to get into and ivy league school, therefore he needed to have good grades, and that if cheating was going to get him those grades and that letter of acceptance from an ivy school, then he would cheat, and it wasnt bad for him to do so. i disagree with him, his end of getting into a good school does not justify his cheating. when thinking of a kid who wants to go to college, well one gets a positive image, however in the case of this kid, his means are what make him who he is, a cheater, dishonest...
ReplyDeletethere are moments when i can firmly say, yes the ends do justify the means, for example if someone is harming my family and i want him/her to stop, i would totally kill them, and it was for a good cause and it was justified. nevertheless, it still holds true that i have become a murderer. the ends might or might not justify the means, what holds true is that the means make you who you are.
I accept Gandhi's argument against ends justifying means because Gandhi's position shows a stronger moral consideration. Reading Savarkar reminds me of Kohlhaas. Their use of a deity's name to justify their purpose and dismiss their crimes, murder, torture, etc. doesn't strike me as the "right" way to go about things. When Gandhi discusses religion it is in pursuit of an improved self and, albeit highly optimistic, an improved nation and world. Higher powers are "used" by Savarkar, along with history, to incense and enrage revolutions. This propagates fear and death rather than understanding in my book. Savarkar seems to me, to be someone that throws ethics and morality out the window in exchange for zeal for conflict. Achieving an end by questionable means stain value of success no matter how liberated your nation becomes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the end does not justify the means. Although Savarkar's approach may result in a faster end, the violence and deaths would lead to unrest amongst Indian citizens. A nation cannot be proud and free with a record of violence; it will forever have a gloomy, guilty cloud of consciousness hanging above it. When approached with Gandhi's ideals, the means of passive resistance, it would give India a chance to become a great country (not stained with blood) even though it may take longer. Savarkar may argue that passive resistance is a sign of weakness but Gandhi would say that it takes courage, perseverance, and strength to resist the urge to resort to violence (the easy way out and a tactic of the enemy). Also, a nation with each individual having "self-rule" would make equate to a nation with self-rule (stronger than any nation with guns). The method of tit for tat does not help progress a nation, only a nation with control of itself can.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the ends do not justify the means. Ghandi believes that the means of achieving and end is just as important the end itself. I believe Ghandi would use the past to show how history tends to repeat itself, and with it, nations continue to wage wars with each other, all for a cause that that has only a temporary solution. In order to be fully liberated from an oppressor and to be united as a nation, it must first begin with the individual. Ghandi uses the example of the robber to show how as individuals, we should not value material items and by using passive resistance, it makes the oppressor question their own actions which could lead to a change of heart. Only through nonviolence can we truly reach longterm results.
ReplyDeleteDoes the end justify the means? Well I certainly think that it depends on the situation. In certain cases the end does justify the means, while in other cases the end does not justify the means. In the case of India trying to be independent of Britian, I do think that Savakar is right in that the ends do justify the means. Although I do think that Ghandi is a cool guy because he does have truth to many of the things he says, however I believe he can be impractical. Although is violence the best solution? No, but it is the best out of India's circumstance. Britian was not going to let go of India easily because of capitalistic reasons and force was most likely the only way Britian would stop controlling India. Alright, so even if Britian left, there is a problem that Ghandi points out that even if Britian leaves, the problem of modern civilaztion is still there. Well, modern civilaztion is not perfect, why not try and perfect it? Why not be more like the United States who were also colonized by Britian and create a system that incorporates Indian characteristics? Ghandi would most likely point out all the problems of modern civilaztion has today in the US, but what country doesn't have problems?
ReplyDeleteI'm leaning towards Gandhi and saying that I believe that the means justify the ends, mostly because if the means are corrupt the end product shouldn't be worth it. If all it took for an individual to stop focusing on bettering themselves to make a nation better, it would've happened by now, but the fact of the matter is that the individual must first think of how their input affects the society in its entirety. Its easy to focus on the bigger picture rather than the individual aspects and not do as well as a job, but focusing on specific factors that contribute to the bigger picture is what is more important. Being that the bigger picture is teh ends adn the specific characteristics are the means, i believe that the means play a larger role to achieving the end goal than the end goal itself.
ReplyDelete"In certain cases the end does justify the means, while in other cases the end does not justify the means."
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that, when the ends justify the means they do, and when the ends don't justify the means, they don't. OK, but that's exactly equivalent to saying the ends justify the means.
I agree more with Gandhi and think that ends do not justify the means. By focusing on self-improvement, people should make sure they continue to have integrity and choose to do the right things. People cannot even definitely control the end of their actions, and if their actions are dishonest or wrong, there could possibly be negative consequences. However, if they did the right things, there could only be improvement in themselves even if what they really wanted didn’t work out at least they wouldn’t have to feel guilty or regret any of their actions. I also think things happen for a reason and you shouldn’t need to do something wrong to get what you want because whatever happens you should learn to deal with and things might work out better a different time anyway.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ends justify the means. But I also believe that only extreme means should be used as a last resort. For example, Kohlhaas went through everyyyything trying to get his case. He wrote numerous letters, contacted multiple people, and went through a very lengthy, legal process all for nothing. It was only until he went on a massacre that his voice became heard. I'm not saying that people need to kill in order to get attention, but I do believe that if you want something done right, do it yourself. Not everyone is willing to change. Some people may never change. A good majority of people are mindless sheep and need to be told what to do. And in the end, who accomplishes more? The person who takes charge and gets results - regardless of the means. In the end, it's all about the end. I mean, how did we become free Americans anyway? We didn't hold hands and pow wow. We started a revolution.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Gandhi's method/ plan of obtaining Swaraj. However in most cases, ends do not justify the means. Gandhi's approach is very slow and often contradictory when it comes to attaining home-rule for India. I like Sawarkar's approach because desperate times call for desperate measures. I feel like Gandhi and his "self-improvement" jargon delayed the process. Not everyone is capable of sacrificing their family-life (re: his view about chastity) and neither is such a condition required in order to be successful revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in Savarkar's way of justifying the means. I feel like he is addressing a sympthom but not the disease with his tactic of violence. He does not seem to realize that while the British did invade India on their own accord and the people of India are not to blame for that, they are to blame for their resting. Indians have been supporting the British government and recognizing it to be legitimate. However, Gandhi wants to eliminate that recognition. He takes both a moral and logical path to achieving swaraj by claiming that people of India need to become individually independent of the British before they can expect the country to become independent of them.
ReplyDeleteSavarkar might point to the rebellion of 1857 as evidence that Indians haven't always supported the British government.
ReplyDeleteI was one of the people who was unsure of whether I supported Savarkar or Gandhi in their approaches. While Gandhi's approach comes off as a pleasant approach, because he doesn't encourage any kind of violence. However, he also is so unsure of how he wants life to be that it makes me wonder if he is qualified to be telling people what the best approaches to life are. He doesn't like many modern things, such as medicine and lawyers, but he knows that people can't live in the past either. His indecision makes me unsure if he is someone I would want to follow. Savarkar on the other hand is someone who doesn't seem very rational and understanding to the modern world. He promotes force and doesn't believe that Indians can live with the British. I don't think that society can thrive in this kind of environment, so therefore Savarkar's way of thinking seems to barbaric for me.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to a quote “the journey is the most important part of the destination,” I would agree with Gandhi that the ends justify the means. The means by which an individual arrives at their destination play an important role in ethically shaping that individual. For example, if the end is to become rich, robbing a bank is not considered a justified mean of acquiring wealth. Additionally, if succeeding at school is an end, and cheating is the only means through which one can become successful, then that person not only defies humanistic laws but also civil laws of a particular institution. The ends or goals each person sets out to achieve are usually positive in nature, but it is the means that categorize an action as either good or bad. Gandhi uses the example of the watch to illustrate his point that the ends justify the means. He recites, “if I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it” (82). In each of these cases, the common end is to have possession of the watch, but depending on the means that are employed, the watch will be stolen, sold, or given as a “donation.” In the case of the Indian Nation, the end is to create an independent and self-reliant nation. If India employs violent means to rid themselves of the English rule, they do not accomplish much because they will then still have the British rule without the British leaders, and getting rid of the modern, British rule is Gandhi’s ultimate goal. By making a start to transform and better each individual, Gandhi wants to start a revolution through nonviolent means (passive resistance) by which India can achieve its goals and not woe over the many people that die from violence.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I also understand Savarkar’s reasoning because Gandhi’s movement is slow and one that is not always meant to favor the underdog. Savarkar’s goals are present-oriented; he wants to make a change in the here and now and not waste time getting to his end. For Savarkar, using passive resistance means letting your opponent walk all over you, but if your opponent has a fear in mind, they wouldn’t dare to even pick a fight. Additionally, many of the grand changes that have taken place in history are due to revolution and physically fighting oppression. Savarkar’s method in comparison to Gandhi’s is a shortcut. Its like… instead of reading an entire book, you just go to sparknotes and get the main points cleared up and still manage to Ace your tests and papers, whereas the person who reads the book doesn’t do too hot on exams and is left dwelling on how to improve and become better. =]
Personally, at this moment, i believe that the means help justify your ends. If the way you go about achieve your end is ethically different then the after effects are usually problematic. Yet i have to argue that Gandhi's approach only really works in the right circumstances. Savarkar's method seems like it has more control over the situation and does not rely on the current circumstances to work. Both methods work it depends on the certain situation and what the population is calling for at that time.
ReplyDeleteMarko, I'll repeat my earlier comment. Anytime you go to "depends on the situation," you are saying, in effect, "the ends justify the means."
ReplyDeleteThis an age old problem, but the most famous statement in European philosophy is Immanuel Kant vs. John Stuart Mill, or "deontological ethics" vs. "utilitarian ethics." (Ontology is the study of what the universe is/contains, so deontological means the situation doesn't matter, only the principle. Utilitarianism is a subcategory of what is known as teleological, or ends-oriented ethics. Aristotle, for instance, is ends-oriented, but the end is the development of virtue, not the most useful outcome, as in utilitarianism.)
Footnote to that footnote: Remember how Kant's epistemology freaked out Kleist? Because human beings could no longer access unmediated truth. Well Kant himself doesn't worry about that. He still thinks that humans can access unmediated ethical or moral truth, just that they can't access unmediated truth about empirical objects in the physical world. Kleist thinks that if you can't get the full truth about the world, you can't get the full truth about yourself, or God, or morals, or really anything. So that's his reaction to Kant, but it actually departs from what Kant himself thinks.
I do not think that the ends justifies the mean. It may be a personal thing, but I feel that going with the flow and accepting things as they are now is the way to go. Things will work out as it is meant to be. Going about and forcing answers out of people may mix up evidence in the face of fear. Gandhi does not support violence in finding answers but believes that the improvement on one owns self is how the world (India?) would become a better place.
ReplyDeleteI believe the ends justify the means. When it comes to Ghandi's "self-improvement" there is no doing only sitting and waiting for there justice. Ghandi asks too much of ordinary citizens to give up so much. Although he doesn't require the high standards that he puts himself through, he takes away the pleasures of even a simple life. I already know that Ghandi will come back with, the pleasures that we seek are only temporary material values that demote our spiritual side. I'm sorry Ghandi, but if no one is going to give it to you, you'll just have to take it. By any means possible.
ReplyDelete