Equal Rights

[ancient_paztriot]

Hridy: You agree. So we’re different. So now we also observe that in the animal species and insects, they don’t exactly have the same reverence for dharma. In other words, they’re not so much concerned about ethics. For example one animal may kill another animal. There’s not that there’s like a dog police that comes and then a dog trial and a dog judge and dog witnesses come in.

Guest: ???

Hridy: So therefore what is… In other words, why does it follow logically that because we belong to the same species we are equal? Why could I say we belong to the same species…

Guest: ???

Hridy: I’ll tell you why! Because if… I’ll tell you why! I’ll answer… Excuse me! I’ll answer your question. Because the whole point of dharma, ethics and all this, is it provides a restraining force. In other words, what if you have some property? Let’s go to a real situation. You have some property. I want that property. And let’s say I’m physically stronger than you. Or you’re physically stronger than me and you want my property. Now at that point… That’s a real human situation… you come and say Wait a second. Even though you may be physically stronger than me, this is my property and I have my rights. Or let’s say some country wants to invade India and you say this is unethical. In other words, all of us have certain ethical views. So therefore in terms of physical fact, maybe this person actually could dominate you or you could dominate him. So therefore the question becomes why shouldn’t we do that? If you say why I should do it, I could say because I desire it. In other words human beings do desire to exploit each other.

Guest: Because everyone has equal right to live.

Hridy: No, no. But you’re just saying that again. Don’t just enunciate it. Explain it. Let us say in the real world human beings do have desires to exploit each other. And other human beings say Hold on, calm down, you know everyone has their rights. So actually we find that equal rights are asserted in the face of attempts at exploitation and cruelty and so on and so forth. That’s why they’re enunciated, to stop that kind of thing. Therefore, my question is if someone says to you I want to invade that country or I want to steal that man’s property and you say we have equal rights and I say Why? Why not just say but if I can successfully steal then it’s mine? In fact I’ve taken his property. If someone can invade India or if India can invade some other country and they get away with it, then the fact is they now have that property. So when you say even though you’ve got it, you took it it’s yours, it should not be yours, it’s like that distinction you made between what is and what should be. What do you mean when you make a statement like it should be or it should not be? What does that mean? Because if you say we should have equal rights even though we don’t or… What does that mean we should have? Why? If I say why?

If you say it’s a law of nature… It’s a law of nature that people in the same species have same rights. I could say where is it written as a law of nature? Who said it’s a law of nature? I could say it’s a law of nature survival of the fittest. Now why is your law of nature more authoritative than my law of nature which is survival of the fittest? If I can beat you over the head with a club and steal your property, then I’ve got it. So why is that law (which seems to be very pragmatic)… Why is that law less authoritative than yours? And don’t just say it again, tell me why it’s true. Why is it true? Because it’s not in nature. For example we see in an ant colony or a bee colony, there are worker bees and worker ants and there are the royalty. So therefore, it’s not that in nature everyone in a certain species is the same. It’s not true in nature. For example that black widow spider, it mates with a male, they have sex, then it kills the father. So that’s not very ethical. So it’s not that it’s self-evident. In other words if something is not self-evident you have to give an argument for it. So it’s not self-evident in nature that everyone in the same species has the same rights.

Guest: Logically, material nature ???

Hridy: But what if someone said… But it turns out that many people have a different nature. Like that… People, different leaders, politicians, their nature is to exploit and to take things. So what is your argument? Without God and the soul… If you accept God and the soul, I think you can make a very good argument. But my point… What I’m arguing against now is not equality – because I believe in equal rights – but what I’m arguing against is what I consider to be a ridiculous attempt to establish equality and all these things in a secular humanistic context. That’s what I’m attacking.

Guest: No, unfortunately sir, ???

Hridy: But why equal opportunity? If there is no God, if you don’t want to bring in God and the soul, then my argument is very simple. If you try to reject God and reject the soul, you cannot actually sustain a moral philosophy. That’s my point. Now personally I say there is God and there is a soul and therefore moral philosophy can be successfully presented. But if you want… But why reject God and the soul? And the same time you think through some type of humanistic word juggelry that you’re going to establish a moral philosophy or a moral social… I say it’s artificial and bogus.

[ancient_paztriot]

Guest: ???

Hridy: Yea because Krsna says that for example ???. You see, it’s not that this equality was invented by Thomas Jefferson or this man or that man or some guy in France. Actually… Or by the Greeks. The point is Krsna says ???. And Krsna is not a prejudiced humanist that slaughters animals and then ??? human beings. He’s not just a small-minded fool. He says that ???. It doesn’t matter, brahmana or cow or elephant, ???. Why soma-dharsana? Because in every body whether it’s mosquito or the prime minister, in every body there is a soul and in every body there is God. So on that basis yes, it is very easy to understand why we have to give everyone their dignity. But if you say So what am I? I am a physical organism, you’re another physical organism. Then don’t bring in these words dignity because they make no sense. They are talking about a world in which there are only physical things and morality is something people imagine. Because if ultimately reality is just physical organisms, then all these equality and justice and blah morality… These are just words that human beings invent just to manipulate each other. Or to create a certain situation…

Guest: ???

Hridy: I say if you reject God and the soul, then all of this morality and ethics and justice and equality, there’s no philosophical… What does it mean? Because then if there’s no God, then if I say the opposite, then what I say is equally authoritative. If I say No, if I can kill you or I can rape this woman or if I can steal his property or burn your house down or invade that country, then that’s alright. But that’s my philosophy, that’s my morality. And you say No, everyone should be good. But I say Well you’re not God and I’m not God so why is your statement better than my statement. What will you say?

Guest: I think you should ???

Hridy: Individual?

Guest: When discussing about morality, you should take it ???

Hridy: Ok, let’s take a society like let’s say Hitler’s Germany or Churchill’s England. Let’s take a society that is imperialistic where all the people in the society support a policy to invade other nations, rape the women, kill the men, steal all the property. And that’s their societal policy. That’s what…

Guest: ???

Hridy: They may say whatever they like. But let’s take a society like that. And they think that’s good. And that’s their social view and the professors teach it in the universities, there’s books about it, everyone believes it, they’re sincere about their belief and they go and do it. Now is that alright? In other words, are you prepared to accept the philosophical consequences of a world view without God? If you actually want to take out God and the soul, you have to realize what kind of world you’re gonna get – and I mean by logical implications. Because if there is no God, then ultimately if you say that we should be good and I say to be good means to cut off everyone’s head that doesn’t belong to my religion and wasn’t born in my community, is not the same race as I am. Anyone that is in a different category, racially or ethnically or socially or whatever should be killed and you say something else it’s just… You know you’re not God, I’m not God. There are no absolutes. There are just different opinions. I mean do you really believe in that? That that’s the way the world should be? Do you believe that might makes right?

Guest: ???

Hridy: But if might doesn’t make right, what does make right? That’s my question. Now apart from your… Let us say you are asserting a particular moral view. Let’s step aside from that for a moment. To be more objective let us just talk about the general principles. In general, what establishes the authority of a particular moral view… whatever it may be, mine or yours or any moral view? What do we mean when we say that a particular view is correct? Now in this context there is no God. So when we say in English that this moral view is correct, what do we mean by that?

Guest: Now to bring in the example of market forces and things like that. Well every person who goes, he goes to the market to sell his goods, another person goes to buy those goods. On the ??? level, the ??? are contradictory. ???

Hridy: When you go where?

Guest: ???

Hridy: But again you’re saying that nature is sort of a balancing mechanism in nature, whatever. But you see again I would say that you are simply making an appeal to what you consider to be reasonableness. This is a typical liberal appeal. It says look it everybody, let’s just be reasonable. Let’s understand that actually although we apparently have conflicting interest, all these can be reconciled. So what if I just say nonsense, I don’t believe it. And I take out a gun. So my point is that this appeal to reasonableness I think is… What if someone says No, I don’t believe in letting things balance naturally. Everyone be nice and friendly and you know… What if I’m actually a very violent and aggressive person and just completely selfish. My question is this therefore. In general what do we mean? Now you may argue. It’s one thing for you to say that if people follow my view (you know using the marketing analogy)… It’s one thing to say that listen everybody, if you do things this way then most people will be happy. You see if you convince everyone. That’s one thing. But it’s another thing to say that it’s actually right. In other words, what if I say Well you’re just propagating a mass hallucination. Everyone will be happy that way because they’re just all in ignorance. So in other words, my question is not just an appeal on the basis that this will make the largest number of people reasonably happy. But rather my question is is it right? Because what if I had a policy where I give everyone is the state let’s say cocaine, you know or heroin and then everyone feels… So my question is what about a society that is suicidal? In a suicidal society they would consider reasonable policy which provided for the greatest possible destruction of the most people. Or in a society which is very imperialistic, they would feel frustrated unless they could conquer someone. So therefore an appeal to say Well everyone should become a secular, humanistic liberal and that’s how the world would be a nice place to live in.

Guest: ??? that concept is impossible.

Hridy: No, but what I’m saying is what if I’m not only a wicked person, but I’m a very philosophical wicked person? And I say that if you can show me philosophically that what you’re saying is not only alot of fun for the most people, but actually it’s correct, that there’s some proof, there’s some demonstration that I should do it, that this is actually good. Not only pleasant but good. Because you’re saying more or less that it’s pleasant, everyone will have a pleasant life that way. But what if I say is it right? Is it true? Is it objective that we should do this? You would have to demonstrate that an individual must be concerned about society in general. What if I deny even that responsibility? What if I say that I don’t recognize any moral compulsion to care about other people? I don’t empathize with other people. I don’t identify with them. Physically I’m a separate organism. I simply don’t recognize any obligation. Now this is a very wicked position to take. So what would your argument be? Would you just say don’t think that way? What would you say philosophically to show such a person… Don’t say to him Well you’re causing suffering to others because he could say Well that I don’t care about that. But how would you prove to him that he is actually wrong? That there’s something wrong with that objectively? Not only that it’s unpleasant, but that it’s wrong, it’s bad. And he could say what does the word bad mean?

Guest: ???

Hridy: Alright, but then… Fine. Yes, you come back to might makes right. Then he says if I can get more guns…

Guest: ???

Hridy: Therefore if you accept that the basis of moral philosophy is might makes right…

Guest: ???

Hridy: But when you say the law demands… The law doesn’t do anything. The law is just a piece of paper. People demand. So therefore if I can get more power than you and throw you in jail, then that means my wicked policy is right.

Guest: ???

Hridy: You see my… You don’t understand what I’m getting at. I’m trying to expose… I’ll tell you exactly what I’m doing in this discussion.

Guest: No what I’m saying that these ??? possible. Society, the law, the morality ???

Hridy: No, only if you accept might makes right. And if you accept might makes right, there are certain applications of that which are unacceptable to you because your final conclusion was I’ll throw you in jail. But then I could just say…

Guest: ???

Hridy: No, but what if I have my other society. In other words what if there’s a war going on and I win and I put you in jail? In other words there are different kinds of society. Hitler had his society, Churchill had his society, ??? had his society, Reagan had his society. What if the Americans decide that they’re going to throw nuclear bombs at India and let’s say they actually do it and then they become the society. So what I’m saying is do you really believe that right and wrong should be judicated or ultimately decided simply on the basis of who can throw who in jail? Obviously… I mean you don’t accept that. And if you don’t accept that, then without bringing in God what does it mean… What does it actually mean when you say something is right or wrong? What do those words mean if there is no God. Since there is no God anyone can say whatever he likes and no ones God… So no ones God so he can say whatever he likes.

Guest: ???

Hridy: Yes, so my question is if there is not a Supreme God… if there is a Supreme God with the Absolute Truth and who is good and who desires that everyone be good, then we… And actually if He says that I’ve created the world in such a way that actually people are supposed to be good and that by being good they are realizing their own nature, they’re realizing themselves, then you can talk about that. But if there is not God who is an absolute authority whom we are part of and whom we belong to and under who’s control we are, then my question is what does it mean to say that something is right or wrong?

Guest: ???

Hridy: But people decide in different ways. So who is the judge?

Guest: ???

Hridy: But frankly speaking that utilitarian philosophy in my opinion is a bunch of garbage. It never works, it never has worked. You can talk till your blue in the face – utilitarian philosophy – and then some tyrant, some dictator comes along and he’ll bomb your utilitarian head. And that’s actually the reality of it. To think that just by… I mean that’s the whole European you know humanistic secular idea. If we just talk to each other, if we just communicate, if we just have public schools and educate people, everyone will become rational. And when everyone becomes rational, they’ll become a secular humanist. But actually what’s happening is in the public schools they’re turning into drug addicts and sex mongers. Because when you take out God what happens is not that everyone becomes a nice secular humanist who opens the doors for the ladies and stops at the red light and would never declare a war against anyone. But what you get is a bunch of animals, violent animals. Because in fact it’s very interesting to see that this secular humanism arose out of a European Christian society and actually the secular humanists were going on the moral momentum of the Christian period. So when the saecular humanists arose because people in general were Christians, if you said things like we should be good, we should be tolerant, we shouldn’t exploit others, those things were given. In other words you didn’t have to prove those things, they were just given. Yea, Ok. We’ll give you that. We’ll grant that, we’ll grant this, we’ll grant that. So actually they used the foundation… And even Marx did that. You see, if you say to a Christian Europe Well, we shouldn’t exploit each other. Yea, that makes sense. No one’s gonna question that because they still had all the momentum, the ethical momentum from Christianity. But then you see, when you kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is religion which actually is the basis of morality and then people are no longer Christians or Hindus or anything, then suddenly morality isn’t axiomatic anymore. And therefore you have a society of people who are not willing to grant you all these moral views. They say Well I won’t grant it. I don’t believe it.

 

So actually this secular humanism is built on the ethical strength of the religions. So they want to take all that ethical goodness and then cut it off from it’s source which is God. And the result is you get a situation in America where people… You know where they spend trillions of dollars on public education to make people reasonable, ethical people. The result is that all the children have become like little animals. They take drugs, they fornicate like pigs and they don’t care about… They think it might even be pleasant to have a nuclear war if you could win it. I mean these are the kind of people that are being produced. So my point is both philosophically and in practice, if people become godless you will not maintain this enlightened utilitarian ethical society. It’s all just a big dream.