Non-Violent Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi

¶ … non-violent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi is often called 'unrealistic,' despite its demonstrable success in liberating the nation of India from what was once the most powerful empire on the face of the earth. Gandhi's belief system also inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. To use non-violence as a tactic of resistance against the oppression of African-Americans in the United States. However, just as Gandhi had his critics, so did Martin Luther King. Malcolm X, for example, stated that he did not wish to act violently, but if treated violently he would return that violence 'in kind' rather than adopt a strategy of passive resistance.

Gandhi's philosophy is derived from the concept that without moral authority, no liberation movement can succeed. The ends never justify the means. The means color the results that are achieved. Violent resistance would have been useless against a superpower such as the British, but drawing the attention of the world to the plight of the oppressed Indians was a useful and effective moral strategy. Moreover, Gandhi was quite practical in stating that violent revolutions usually lead to the instatement of another violent government. No matter how corrupt the government that was overthrown, the new government that takes power through violent means will be dependant upon military support like the previous government. The French and Russian Revolutions are excellent examples of this principle.

However, some might protest that while Gandhi's policies were well-suited to the subordinate position of Indians in British-controlled India, the ideals of non-violence are not similarly applicable to a large, military superpower such as the United States. Ironically, the U.S. held a state dinner for the Prime Minister of India, and then only weeks later after praising Gandhi at the dinner announced the expansion of the U.S.'s military presence in Afghanistan. It is argued that without troops, the admittedly corrupt Afghani government will fall and the Taliban will take over the nation. But Gandhi would say that to use force in the region will only inspire more anti-American hatred. Instead Gandhi would wisely advocate an influx of aid to help the people of Afghanistan. He would call for the U.S. To offer amnesty, education, and jobs for Taliban fighters, many of whom joined the resistance for food and due to tribal, family pressures. Only by gaining moral authority in Afghanistan and defeating poverty with basic sustenance and education rather than with guns, Gandhi would say, can the U.S. truly make the land a safe place.

Essay question 2:

Consequentialism is the ethical philosophy that stresses that the consequences of ethical actions determine whether the actions are valid or not. Utilitarianism is one (although not the only) example of consequentialism, in which the test of any action is if it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the case of capital punishment, the moral crime of killing another human being is of less interest to a consequentialist than how to achieve a better society. The rhetorical ideal that every criminal deserves to pay the 'ultimate punishment' for taking a life in an eye-for-an-eye fashion is also not particularly important to a consequentialist, either. Thus there are consequentialist arguments on both sides 'against' and 'for' capital punishment.

From a consequentialist point-of-view, the fact that very few murderers are executed and thus capital punishment is of little deterrent value is compelling. So is the fact that the appeals process for a death sentence is so lengthy and expensive that it usually costs more to execute someone than to condemn him or her to life in prison. This indicates that society is not safe as the result of the death penalty, so long as life in prison is a real and fully-enforced option for prisoners who commit terrible crimes.

There is also the very real issue of innocent people who are murdered by the state. Of course, some proponents of capital punishment argue that from a utilitarian point-of-view, more guilty people are executed than innocent people. But an equally rational utilitarian point-of-view is that when it is discovered that the state has killed an innocent person, respect for the state and the judicial process as a whole is damaged. When no one respects the judicial process, crime is likely to increase. Further damage to the social perception of the justice system is incurred by the fact that more non-whites are executed than whites, which suggests that racial biases on the part of juries and lack of access to adequate representation results in two justice systems, one for minorities and one for the dominant ethnic group.

This argument is particularly compelling in a diverse society such as Canada's, which, even though it does not have as deep-seated a history of racial discrimination as the United States, has a wide variety of native peoples, immigrants from Asia, French-speakers, and other minority groups. It does not want to create further divisiveness in society, and it hardly needs the added financial expense and strain upon its judicial system simply to satisfy blood-thirsty vengeance.

Exam question 3:

The type of suicide being entertained is that of passive suicide. No active medications will be administered to the patient, although medically necessary treatment will not be given so the patient will pass away from her illness. While Kant himself argued that suicide is degrading because human life should be embraced in its full capacity, as a source of pain as well as pleasure, and that the categorical imperative necessitates that life must always be preserved, Neo-Kantians would say that showing respect Olivia's wishes necessitates a withdrawal of added support, including medication for pneumonia. Olivia was clearly aware of what life as an Alzheimer's patient was like, and gave a medical directive to ensure that her wishes were obeyed.