Sacrifice One To Save Many

jayasala42 · Aug 14, 2016

In many of our joint families there would be a widowed sister or dependent aunt who would be in charge of the entire family.In some families some girls well employed were dissuaded in getting married so that her perennial income and pension would ever benefit the family.A few of my friends, now in 70s remained single and are more or less slaves to the parent home."Stepping down of one person or sacrifice by a single person is justifiable if it amounts to save many lives." it is said.

In philosophy we sometimes consider the question, put by way of hypothesis, of how we should act in the midst of a calamity, disaster, or other danger, if it is apparent that we can save our own life only by the destruction of another’s.
Dushta Nigraha and Shishta paripaalana have been the main motives of many Avatars of Mahavishnu.
But in reality the sacrifice is more often done by the innocent and the most intelligent and efficient one( boy or girl) in the family.Their over generosity is taken advantage of by other siblings and parents too.
In sea voyages this had been a common occurrence.Some stuff either packages or human beings have to be thrown into the sea in order to avoid sinking of the ship and to save hundreds of lives.
When there is sufficient time, the captain chooses the persons to be victimized by lots so as to show himself as impartial.Mostly crew members are not enlisted.

In fact, there have been numerous instances of homicide by necessity, some of which have resulted in murder or manslaughter convictions, and others which have passed quietly into history with no action taken by the authorities. This topic, homicide by necessity, refers to the killing of innocents in order to produce a greater good or avert a greater evil–usually to save a greater number of lives.

On the other hand, from a philosophical standpoint, the intentional killing of innocents, may well be morally permissible, based on utilitarian and other philosophical arguments. The strictly philosophical view is that if we must choose between killing a few and letting many die, it is better to kill the few.

But from a legal standpoint, courts have come to the opposite conclusion. Courts have suggested that it is difficult to see how there is a benefit to society in the intentional killing of innocents even though the action results in the saving of lives.

During the great famine in Egypt , some people killed little children and ate them.
However they were held accountable and burnt to death and their corpses were swallowed by the starving population.This is History.

We have studied that a research team of 20 went to the Antarctic region to perform some research.When they were affected by cold waves and could not even get fish to eat,they decided to sacrifice two of them.Two scientists, with self concurrence, were allowed to die,actually froze to death and other 18 scientists cannibalized them and completed the research successfully.
Twenty started,only 18 returned ,attributing their success to the other two.

During Nazi holocaust a group of jews were hiding from Nazis.A small child from the hiding place started crying, and the people silenced the baby by killing it so that they could not be traced.The judge analysing the facts observed that the action was excusable since
the baby would however been definitely killed by Nazis if the Nazis have located the Jews.

The story of Barbarika in Mahabharatha is a classic example of such sacrifice conceived by Krishna.

Barbarik was the grandson of Bhima and the son of Ghatotkacha. Barbarik was supposed to be a brave warrior having learnt the art of warfare from his mother. Lord Shiva pleased with Barbarik's talent as a warrior granted him a Three special arrows. He also got a special bow from Lord Agni (God of Fire).

It is said that Barbarik was so powerful that according to him the war of Mahabharata could end in 1 minute if he alone was to fight it. The story goes like this:
Barbarik promised his mother that he would join the side that was weaker. Saying this he set up on the journey to visit the battlefield.

The first arrow was supposed to mark all the objects that Barbarik wanted to be destroyed.
The second arrow was supposed to mark all the objects that Barbarik wanted to be saved.
The third arrow was supposed to destroy all the objects marked by the first arrow OR destroy all the objects not marked by the second arrow.He was able to prove this also.
This incident scared Lord Krishna about the phenomenal power of Barbarik. He concluded that the arrows were truly infallible.

Krishna took advantage of Barbarika's promise to join the weaker side. Krishna explained that since he was the greatest warrior on the battlefield, which ever side he joined would make the other side weaker. So eventually he would end up oscillating between the two sides and destroy everyone except himself. Krishna(still disguised as a Brahmin) asked for Barbarik's head in charity to avoid his involvement in the war.
Krishna agreed to place Barbarik's head on top of the mountain that overlooked the battlefield.
The one who sacrificed his life witnessed the entire battle with his head and was fortunate to have vishwaroopa darsan of Lord krishna.
The person who sacrifices gets nothing but a few commendations after his death while others rejoice.

Despite its potential shortcomings, wii there be a justification for homicide in extreme circumstances. When a person is faced with a choice of evils, will the law tolerate the better moral decision, rather than vainly attempt to oppose the human instinct of self-preservation?

But when the person sacrificed ,does it with his own knowledge and concurrence with the motive of saving many others in the process,it is understandable.But when the innocent ones are victimized because they have nobody to support,the case is entirely different.

In political crimes, some innocent victims always are kept handy and they are threatened under false charges to save the rich goons.
Is it always right for one man to sacrifice his life to save many? A million dollar question which has no answer.
Can Barbarika, Abhimanyu or Ghatotkacha come in person and clarify our doubts?

jayasala 42

vaidehi71 · Aug 14, 2016

Nice snippet.
Thanks.

Kamalji · Aug 16, 2016

Dear jaya
Very interesting incidents. I was not aware of girls not getting married due to family pressures. We saw in the movies though.
I have seen a few who bring up the siblings but later on the siblings don't care at all.
Very interesting post.
Regards
Kamal

Balajee · Aug 16, 2016

iN MY IN-LAWS FAMILY FOUR SISTERS OF MY WIFE DIDN'T GET MARRIED BECAUSE THEIR INCOME WAS NEEDED TO LOOK AFTER THE FAMILY.AND AT LEAST IN CASE OF THE ELDEST THE PARENTS HAD SHOWN NO INTEREST IN GETTING HER MARRIED. WHAT MATTERED WERE ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. THIS IS FINE IF THE PERSON CONCERNED DECIDES TO STAY SINGLE VOLUNTARILY TO HELP THE FAMILY. BUT HE/SHE MUST NOT BE ARMTWISTED OR EMOTIONALLY BLACKMAILED INTO DOING IT.

Viswamitra · Aug 16, 2016

Dear Smt. Jayasala:

You have taken a very important topic for discussion here in this snippet. In my view, sacrificing any life in order to save many is an incorrect principle. We all know in Mahabharatha war, many such sacrifices were made which are questionable from the point of view of righteousness. Lord Krishna kept telling everyone that when one gives up the personal vengeance and kill righteous people who are on the wrong side of the war for the common good of the world, even a wrong act would be deemed righteous.

I draw your attention to my earlier snippet of how many innocent rats and mice were killed in order to experiment new drugs. Many new researchers have repeatedly suggested that simulations using computer aided design with some additional extra precautions could save these innocent lives. But many Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research Organizations are still continuing their traditional research. Even Congress purposefully exempted these two animals when they passed legislation to protect animals because of the pressure from the lobbyists. How is human life superior to these innocent animals?

In my view, human beings have no right to eliminate any life unless it is for protecting and preserving their own lives at a given moment as self-defense. Ensuing danger, hunger, winning a war, etc. don't fall under that category. We are living in a world where worst of the worst criminals are preserved as people are leaning towards not executing anyone and give them a fair chance to redeem themselves. Every life is created for a purpose and who are we to make changes to the nature?

The principle that one person can be sacrificed to save a family, one family can be sacrificed to save a village and one village can be sacrificed to save a country is a patriotic principle mentioned to motivate human beings and is seriously flawed. In my view, even joining the military has to be voluntary and no deployment should be made compulsory. In a country where more are ready to get deployed voluntarily is a country brimming with patriotism.

Viswa

Kamla · Aug 17, 2016

jayasala42 said: ↑

In many of our joint families there would be a widowed sister or dependent aunt who would be in charge of the entire family.In some families some girls well employed were dissuaded in getting married so that her perennial income and pension would ever benefit the family.A few of my friends, now in 70s remained single and are more or less slaves to the parent home."Stepping down of one person or sacrifice by a single person is justifiable if it amounts to save many lives." it is said.

In philosophy we sometimes consider the question, put by way of hypothesis, of how we should act in the midst of a calamity, disaster, or other danger, if it is apparent that we can save our own life only by the destruction of another’s.
Dushta Nigraha and Shishta paripaalana have been the main motives of many Avatars of Mahavishnu.
But in reality the sacrifice is more often done by the innocent and the most intelligent and efficient one( boy or girl) in the family.Their over generosity is taken advantage of by other siblings and parents too.
In sea voyages this had been a common occurrence.Some stuff either packages or human beings have to be thrown into the sea in order to avoid sinking of the ship and to save hundreds of lives.
When there is sufficient time, the captain chooses the persons to be victimized by lots so as to show himself as impartial.Mostly crew members are not enlisted.

In fact, there have been numerous instances of homicide by necessity, some of which have resulted in murder or manslaughter convictions, and others which have passed quietly into history with no action taken by the authorities. This topic, homicide by necessity, refers to the killing of innocents in order to produce a greater good or avert a greater evil–usually to save a greater number of lives.

On the other hand, from a philosophical standpoint, the intentional killing of innocents, may well be morally permissible, based on utilitarian and other philosophical arguments. The strictly philosophical view is that if we must choose between killing a few and letting many die, it is better to kill the few.

But from a legal standpoint, courts have come to the opposite conclusion. Courts have suggested that it is difficult to see how there is a benefit to society in the intentional killing of innocents even though the action results in the saving of lives.

During the great famine in Egypt , some people killed little children and ate them.
However they were held accountable and burnt to death and their corpses were swallowed by the starving population.This is History.

We have studied that a research team of 20 went to the Antarctic region to perform some research.When they were affected by cold waves and could not even get fish to eat,they decided to sacrifice two of them.Two scientists, with self concurrence, were allowed to die,actually froze to death and other 18 scientists cannibalized them and completed the research successfully.
Twenty started,only 18 returned ,attributing their success to the other two.

During Nazi holocaust a group of jews were hiding from Nazis.A small child from the hiding place started crying, and the people silenced the baby by killing it so that they could not be traced.The judge analysing the facts observed that the action was excusable since
the baby would however been definitely killed by Nazis if the Nazis have located the Jews.

The story of Barbarika in Mahabharatha is a classic example of such sacrifice conceived by Krishna.

Barbarik was the grandson of Bhima and the son of Ghatotkacha. Barbarik was supposed to be a brave warrior having learnt the art of warfare from his mother. Lord Shiva pleased with Barbarik's talent as a warrior granted him a Three special arrows. He also got a special bow from Lord Agni (God of Fire).

It is said that Barbarik was so powerful that according to him the war of Mahabharata could end in 1 minute if he alone was to fight it. The story goes like this:
Barbarik promised his mother that he would join the side that was weaker. Saying this he set up on the journey to visit the battlefield.

The first arrow was supposed to mark all the objects that Barbarik wanted to be destroyed.
The second arrow was supposed to mark all the objects that Barbarik wanted to be saved.
The third arrow was supposed to destroy all the objects marked by the first arrow OR destroy all the objects not marked by the second arrow.He was able to prove this also.
This incident scared Lord Krishna about the phenomenal power of Barbarik. He concluded that the arrows were truly infallible.

Krishna took advantage of Barbarika's promise to join the weaker side. Krishna explained that since he was the greatest warrior on the battlefield, which ever side he joined would make the other side weaker. So eventually he would end up oscillating between the two sides and destroy everyone except himself. Krishna(still disguised as a Brahmin) asked for Barbarik's head in charity to avoid his involvement in the war.
Krishna agreed to place Barbarik's head on top of the mountain that overlooked the battlefield.
The one who sacrificed his life witnessed the entire battle with his head and was fortunate to have vishwaroopa darsan of Lord krishna.
The person who sacrifices gets nothing but a few commendations after his death while others rejoice.

Despite its potential shortcomings, wii there be a justification for homicide in extreme circumstances. When a person is faced with a choice of evils, will the law tolerate the better moral decision, rather than vainly attempt to oppose the human instinct of self-preservation?

But when the person sacrificed ,does it with his own knowledge and concurrence with the motive of saving many others in the process,it is understandable.But when the innocent ones are victimized because they have nobody to support,the case is entirely different.

In political crimes, some innocent victims always are kept handy and they are threatened under false charges to save the rich goons.
Is it always right for one man to sacrifice his life to save many? A million dollar question which has no answer.
Can Barbarika, Abhimanyu or Ghatotkacha come in person and clarify our doubts?

jayasala 42
Click to expand...

Dear @jayasala42 .

As usual, always very interesting to read your write ups!

What is fascinating is the number of experiences you have lived through and how you use them to explain to all the various aspects, at times amazing aspects of life.

I too have read and watched documentaries about how human flesh has been consumed for survival at times . The one about the team of scientists in Antarctic created quite a buzz. I have a vague recollection of having read about Barbarika. However, I think such brutality for whatever purposes do not exist today, thankfully. It may be a different story where war and revolutions are considered. Else, how do you explain the suicide bombers and self immolations for a cause? My simple mind cannot grasp it all..

As for using son, daughter, brother and sister for their help, money or support is very common and most of us may have someone in our circle who has gone through such lives. I remember a great aunt of mine and her story has never seized to fascinate me. She was a pretty lady, fit and smart but widowed very early and she never remarried again as is the custom in our orthodox families but served all her life for her three brothers, their wives and their children selflessly. In her case at least, she was looked upon with great esteem by one and all and enjoyed the matriarch's status! She also lived by herself and would retreat to her modest abode whenever she felt like it! I also have an aunt whose marriage was being delayed because her income was very needed by the family. By the time others got together to see her married off, she had an affair with a much married man and opted to remain single! Many strange and sad stories.

Which ever way you see, it is not the right thing to use anyone for the survival of others.

Congratulations on being nominated to FP by @Balajee !

L, Kamla

jayasala42 · Aug 19, 2016

Viswamitra said: ↑

Dear Smt. Jayasala:

You have taken a very important topic for discussion here in this snippet. In my view, sacrificing any life in order to save many is an incorrect principle. We all know in Mahabharatha war, many such sacrifices were made which are questionable from the point of view of righteousness. Lord Krishna kept telling everyone that when one gives up the personal vengeance and kill righteous people who are on the wrong side of the war for the common good of the world, even a wrong act would be deemed righteous.

I draw your attention to my earlier snippet of how many innocent rats and mice were killed in order to experiment new drugs. Many new researchers have repeatedly suggested that simulations using computer aided design with some additional extra precautions could save these innocent lives. But many Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research Organizations are still continuing their traditional research. Even Congress purposefully exempted these two animals when they passed legislation to protect animals because of the pressure from the lobbyists. How is human life superior to these innocent animals?

In my view, human beings have no right to eliminate any life unless it is for protecting and preserving their own lives at a given moment as self-defense. Ensuing danger, hunger, winning a war, etc. don't fall under that category. We are living in a world where worst of the worst criminals are preserved as people are leaning towards not executing anyone and give them a fair chance to redeem themselves. Every life is created for a purpose and who are we to make changes to the nature?

The principle that one person can be sacrificed to save a family, one family can be sacrificed to save a village and one village can be sacrificed to save a country is a patriotic principle mentioned to motivate human beings and is seriously flawed. In my view, even joining the military has to be voluntary and no deployment should be made compulsory. In a country where more are ready to get deployed voluntarily is a country brimming with patriotism.

Viswa
Click to expand...

Dear Viswa,
Thank you very much for your intellectual response.
I agree with you.But in practical life situations, voluntary or forced sacrifice has come to stand.In Mahabharatha war many incidents, as you say are questionable.Actually these questions do not arise from our brilliant heads,, but they have emanated from Vyasa himself while writing the epic.He questions the validity of Krishna's actions thro the mouth of Duryodhana, Karna and others.From certain things we learn what to do and from other episodes we learn what not to do.Even gold is chistled to be made into a shining jewel.
During police investigations they keep ready certain pickpockets and ordinary criminals on hand and they are made scapegoats when serious murders involving political heads are investigated.
Righteousness has absolutely no relation with practical realities.

jayasala 42

jayasala42 · Aug 19, 2016

Kamla said: ↑

Dear @jayasala42 .

As usual, always very interesting to read your write ups!

What is fascinating is the number of experiences you have lived through and how you use them to explain to all the various aspects, at times amazing aspects of life.

I too have read and watched documentaries about how human flesh has been consumed for survival at times . The one about the team of scientists in Antarctic created quite a buzz. I have a vague recollection of having read about Barbarika. However, I think such brutality for whatever purposes do not exist today, thankfully. It may be a different story where war and revolutions are considered. Else, how do you explain the suicide bombers and self immolations for a cause? My simple mind cannot grasp it all..

As for using son, daughter, brother and sister for their help, money or support is very common and most of us may have someone in our circle who has gone through such lives. I remember a great aunt of mine and her story has never seized to fascinate me. She was a pretty lady, fit and smart but widowed very early and she never remarried again as is the custom in our orthodox families but served all her life for her three brothers, their wives and their children selflessly. In her case at least, she was looked upon with great esteem by one and all and enjoyed the matriarch's status! She also lived by herself and would retreat to her modest abode whenever she felt like it! I also have an aunt whose marriage was being delayed because her income was very needed by the family. By the time others got together to see her married off, she had an affair with a much married man and opted to remain single! Many strange and sad stories.

Which ever way you see, it is not the right thing to use anyone for the survival of others.

Congratulations on being nominated to FP by @Balajee !

L, Kamla
Click to expand...

Dear Kamla madam,
Thank you for your nice response. In big joint families we had some such Athai or periamma whose talents were fully utilised under the guise of giving food and shelter.
Many lives of jawans are sacrificed to protect the nation.During delivery , sometimes doctors have to take a debatable decision whether to save the child or mother.'In tamil there is a saying'we lose the small fish to catch a bigger one'.Many activities that are branded 'not righteous' are considered as 'worldly wise' and practical wisdom.
I wonder that these tactics form a part of 'SWOT'-Strength, Weakness,Opportunities and Threat -mechanism in Crisis management and can be grouped under lateral thinking as opposed logical thinking.
Take Ramayana. Hanuman 's tail was put into flames. This cation is definitely not righteous.
But in turn Hanuman just jumped through the all magnificent buildings and and put Lanka into flames.This action of Hanuman is very much glorified as an action of lateral thinking.Why should the innocent people of people of Lanka suffer for the misdeeds of the king?
These questions are haunting us for long without any satisfactory answer from any quarter.
But practically, in war or in any critical situation ,righteousness takes the back seat.

Jayasala 42

PushpavalliSrinivasan · Aug 19, 2016

Dear Jaya,
In my opinion any sacrifice should be done voluntarily, not by force. If someone is forced to sacrifice his/her life it is really regrettable.
Even joining army shoud be voluntary and not by force. Those who join voluntarily will not regret when they fight enemies whereas those Who were forced to join might try to avoid fighting .
PS

jayasala42 · Aug 19, 2016

In Singapore all boys, without exception ,are given two years' compulsory army training after plus two.While in India all children decide their profession, engg or medicine or law after plus two, in Singapore the things are totally different.Once they discontinue studies for two years after plus two, children may not have inclination to study further.This is the fear of many parents.Many children leave Singapore after completing xth leaving their parents to avoid this service and they are not entitled re entry into Singapore.Parents and children could meet in some other country only thereafter.
Problems are not simple as we imagine.

Jayasala 42