Justification of actions- Sri Lankan political context

Justification of actions- Sri Lankan political context

There is a big hue and cry about recent political events in Sri Lanka, especially about the alleged payment of large sums of money to change political allegiance.

Looking back in History, the practice of offering money for some sort of personal gain, apparently done immorally, is not new. In 1518, the Pope sent a Dominican Friar, Johann Tetzel to Germany, to sell “indulgences” to raise money to help rebuild St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. An indulgence is granted for a remission of temporal punishment after the sinner has had performed good work and usually also required a payment to the Church. Luther was outraged by this “immoral” practice, what he regarded as a purchase of salvation.

What is the similarity? Both are actions which are justified on the basis that “the end justified the means”. Some philosophies indirectly support such a view by stating that what matters is the Motive or Chetana. Philosophers such as Kant was of the view that for an action to be moral, it had to be one that could apply to everyone, including yourself (Biblical similarity- “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” from Sermon on the Mount). Most Religions believe that moral rules are transcendentally fixed (Universal God or Consciousness, or Moral Laws such as Karma). Marxism regards Morality purely as a behavioural phenomenon where virtue is judged by the effects of an action on the individuals in a community and is dynamic and evolutionary with no absolutes.

“The End justifies the means” is widely believed to have been first used by the Italian Philosopher Machiavelli in his work, The Prince (not the exact words, but the meaning). This suggests that there are indeed moral actions (how do you define them?) but they are not set in stone and can be overridden by an apparently immoral action if the objective of that action is moral. i.e. Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes; actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome. Morality is a big subject and humans will continue to interpret/justify/rationalise their action by using beliefs/convictions such as “The end justifies the means”. Just to complicate matters, the sought for end may be a mix of personal gain and gain for Society as a whole and nobody has suggested a formula such as
if A60%= or more of B, then X  to Y is not justified where A is personal gain and B is Societal gain, and X is the action and Y is the Intention

JIM REEVES BY SPEEDY

Sardha Jayatilleka

Obituary

Sasara Wasana Thuru- Pandit Amaradeva song sung by MG

This song by Pandit W.D. Amaradeva is one of my favourites. 

Pandit W D Amaradeva or  Wannakuwatta Waduge Don Albert Perera before he took the name of Amaradeva is one of Sri Lanka's most respected musicians. He is a violinist, singer and composer. He died in November 2016 at the age of 88 and achieved many honours and awards including the Philippine Ramon Magsaysay Award (2001), Indian Padma Sri Award (2002)[10] and Sri Lankan "President's Award of Kala Keerthi" (1986) and Deshamanya Award (1998). In 2003 the French government awarded him the prestigious honour; Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. He was influenced by another great Sri Lankan musician, Sunil Shantha. It is a singular honour to sing this song.

Why do we expect the World to be fair?

Why do we expect the World to be fair?

Not a day passes by without hearing somebody say “it’s not fair”, or “I don’t deserve this”. Why do we expect this? Religions certainly promote this concept and expectation. “Be good and you will be rewarded”, by God’s will or by other supernatural means, or perhaps a conclusion reached through mere observation on how life operates - assault somebody and he does not like you, praise somebody and he likes you. Seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? Buddhists have a principle called “Paticca Samaupadda” or dependent origination which essentially means that every effect has a cause and the Law of Karma is part of this belief. Do good and beneficial results follow, and vice versa.

Why should the material Universe apparently have Moral Laws? To believe that an action produces a reaction is understandable but why should this have a moral dimension? For Society to function laws are necessary and laws essentially reward good behaviour and punish bad ones. But we have expectations beyond that. "What have I done to deserve this sadness of losing my loved one prematurely?", "Why is that crooked Businessman so rich and powerful in spite of all the shady deals he is responsible for?" Ah! You say, he will be eventually punished but is that really true? We know of many who died naturally without ever being punished. The only way now to invoke moral justice is to extend life beyond death and say he will suffer in his next birth or that he will go to Hell or some such undesirable place.

But things become more difficult when we explore deeper. It may be perfectly logical for a man to kill another when he is threatened in a situation where failure to do so would almost certainly bring about his own death. But does taking the life of a man deliberately always result ultimately in bad consequences? There are certainly people who believe that through unknown mechanisms, our “bad” and “good” actions are noted in a “ledger” of some sort and these will count in the final analysis.

What I know is that time and time again, it has been shown that many men without any religious beliefs and men who are pure Atheists have an innate sense of moral behaviour. It is “wired” into us. We don’t need Religion to be good citizens. On the contrary, Religion (or interpretation of it), has been responsible for the most heinous crimes in History.

My own conclusion as a one who accepts the Theory of Evolution as a fact, is that survival of a species is favoured by behaviours such as cooperation, love and concern for each other and peaceful co-existence. This does not mean that every bad action inevitably leads to a bad result but on a probability basis there is a high likelihood that it would. To postulate that it is inevitable goes against the laws of Nature, unless you invoke supernatural concepts such as God or karma. Within the framework of life and the Universe, random events and "chance" operates. A tree may fall on a car and crush the passenger to death. Do we need to invoke a theory that somehow, the unfortunate occupant "deserved" this because of some previous action, or in other words, he is responsible for experiencing this?

I love you because- Jim Reeves

One of my Jim Reeves favourites

Jim Reeves was a Country Music singer and was only 41 years old when he died in an aeroplane crash. On Friday, July 31, 1964, Reeves and his business partner and manager Dean Manuel (also the pianist of Reeves' backing group, the Blue Boys) left Batesville, Arkansas, en route to Nashville in a single-engine Beechcraft Debonair aircraft, with Reeves at the controls. The two had secured a deal on some real estate (Reeves had also unsuccessfully tried to buy property from the LaGrone family in Deadwood, Texas, north of his birthplace of Galloway). While flying over Brentwood, Tennessee, they encountered a violent thunderstorm. A subsequent investigation showed that the small aeroplane had become caught in the storm and Reeves suffered spatial disorientation