Monday, October 23, 2006
Consequentialism vs. Hinduism
While in class, a sharp distinction was made between the Western way of thinking – manifested in Consequentialism – and the eastern way of thinking – manifested in Hinduism. While there is a major difference between the two, I think it would be important to point out a similar pattern of thought.
Consequentialism summed up is to fulfill all desires that a person has to make them happy while Hinduism wants all desires purged from the individual for a fulfilling life. Although they sound on the opposite ends of a spectrum they have a common goal: to leave the happy or fulfilled individual with no desires. Consequentialism, I would consider, is the weak version of the goal because it concedes to the person that they should just fill all desires they have. I call it weak because the person does not struggle at the root of the problem, having desires, but rather at its extensions, fulfilling those desires. Hinduism is a stronger version because it does not allow an individual to any room to do what he or she wishes. It “kicks you in the butt” to say that you are not allowed any commodities and, even though it might be easier in that it does not multiply the desires for the individual like Consequentialism does, it does attack the problem at its base.
Within this, I would say that the two are extremely different, and would probably concede it being polar opposites, but this is a similarity that should be voiced. Furthermore, this does not change many of the facts that differ between the two schools but I believe the polarizing of Consequentialism and Hinduism should take one step down and closer together for it to be completely compliant with what we’ve learned so far.
Consequentialism summed up is to fulfill all desires that a person has to make them happy while Hinduism wants all desires purged from the individual for a fulfilling life. Although they sound on the opposite ends of a spectrum they have a common goal: to leave the happy or fulfilled individual with no desires. Consequentialism, I would consider, is the weak version of the goal because it concedes to the person that they should just fill all desires they have. I call it weak because the person does not struggle at the root of the problem, having desires, but rather at its extensions, fulfilling those desires. Hinduism is a stronger version because it does not allow an individual to any room to do what he or she wishes. It “kicks you in the butt” to say that you are not allowed any commodities and, even though it might be easier in that it does not multiply the desires for the individual like Consequentialism does, it does attack the problem at its base.
Within this, I would say that the two are extremely different, and would probably concede it being polar opposites, but this is a similarity that should be voiced. Furthermore, this does not change many of the facts that differ between the two schools but I believe the polarizing of Consequentialism and Hinduism should take one step down and closer together for it to be completely compliant with what we’ve learned so far.
# posted by Anonymous @ 3:07 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
It is an interesting concept, to say that consequentialism and hinduism have a similar goal. While it may seem to be this way externally, it is the manner in which desires are eliminated that are very different.
First, there is a great difference between ridding yourself of desires and fulfilling all of your desires until you have none left. One of the things that is, I think, implied in the desire-satisfaction theory is that one has an infinite amount of desires, or at least there will never be a point in time in which no more desires remain. For example, it is difficult to imagine that there is one ultimate desire, the achievement of which would make the individual cease to have any further desires.
To look at it in another light, I will make an analogy to video games. Let us presume that I have two separate video games, which are in the action/adventure genre. These two games are identical in nature, except for one key difference: one has no objectives. Once you have your character existing in the game, there is nothing more to do. There is a potential for things to happen because one has a set of abilities; however, these can't be put to any use. The other game allows your character to perform the same feats, but has a long series of objectives that must be met in order to advance in the game. While it is assumed that this second game will have a conclusion where nothing further can be done, it is worth more than the first. It is the act of satisfying the objectives - and eliminating them in this way - that gives this game meaning. The same theory could be applied to human lives, I think. Someone that is experiencing life, fulfilling his or her desires, and forming new desires is having a far different (and perhaps better) life than one who is able to meditate all desires away.
Post a Comment
First, there is a great difference between ridding yourself of desires and fulfilling all of your desires until you have none left. One of the things that is, I think, implied in the desire-satisfaction theory is that one has an infinite amount of desires, or at least there will never be a point in time in which no more desires remain. For example, it is difficult to imagine that there is one ultimate desire, the achievement of which would make the individual cease to have any further desires.
To look at it in another light, I will make an analogy to video games. Let us presume that I have two separate video games, which are in the action/adventure genre. These two games are identical in nature, except for one key difference: one has no objectives. Once you have your character existing in the game, there is nothing more to do. There is a potential for things to happen because one has a set of abilities; however, these can't be put to any use. The other game allows your character to perform the same feats, but has a long series of objectives that must be met in order to advance in the game. While it is assumed that this second game will have a conclusion where nothing further can be done, it is worth more than the first. It is the act of satisfying the objectives - and eliminating them in this way - that gives this game meaning. The same theory could be applied to human lives, I think. Someone that is experiencing life, fulfilling his or her desires, and forming new desires is having a far different (and perhaps better) life than one who is able to meditate all desires away.
# posted by 
: 12:54 AM
: 12:54 AM << Home
