<p>The ethical behaviour of an individual is rooted in morality and character. The same person may carry out an action that she believes is to the larger good of society, even if it requires her to compromise personal values. When both morality and reason are run out, instinct takes over. This complexity is best captured in the Mahabharata through the character of Yudhisthira.</p>.<p>Yudhisthira is the son of Dharma and his nature is to be virtuous. When he loses his kingdom, his brothers, and his wife, he accepts that all of them will live in exile. His brothers and all his allies and friends, who think that the game itself was unfair, want him to declare war and save themselves the hardship of long exile. Yudhisthira stands by what he agreed to. In philosophy, this is called value ethics.</p>.<p>At the end of thirteen years, when the Kauravas break their promise, war is declared. The same Yudhisthira, much against his nature, falsely declares on the battlefield that Ashwathama – the son of Dronacharya – is dead. Krishna convinces him that he must misuse his credibility if the Kaurava General Dronacharya is to be killed. In the larger interest of winning the war, it was necessary that he must compromise his character. His duty to his side came above the personal, and his character had to be sacrificed in the interests of a desirable end-result. Yudhisthira conceded. The morality here is consequential.</p>.<p>Finally, when it is Yudhisthira ‘s turn to fight Shalya there is no morality or reason. Shalya is the brother of Madri and the maternal uncle of the Pandavas. He has been instrumental in sabotaging Karna and helping the Pandavas to kill him. He is in effect a spy planted in the enemy camp. Yet when it falls upon Yudhisthira to take on Shalya there is only the instinct to survive. The battle is itself fought with complete compliance to rules. There is no foul play or deceit. Yet the barbarian nature of the fight and the cruelty shocks everyone. </p>.<p>Thus it is that we are capable of exemplary character, compromise and instinctive action. There is no contradiction or inconsistency.</p>
<p>The ethical behaviour of an individual is rooted in morality and character. The same person may carry out an action that she believes is to the larger good of society, even if it requires her to compromise personal values. When both morality and reason are run out, instinct takes over. This complexity is best captured in the Mahabharata through the character of Yudhisthira.</p>.<p>Yudhisthira is the son of Dharma and his nature is to be virtuous. When he loses his kingdom, his brothers, and his wife, he accepts that all of them will live in exile. His brothers and all his allies and friends, who think that the game itself was unfair, want him to declare war and save themselves the hardship of long exile. Yudhisthira stands by what he agreed to. In philosophy, this is called value ethics.</p>.<p>At the end of thirteen years, when the Kauravas break their promise, war is declared. The same Yudhisthira, much against his nature, falsely declares on the battlefield that Ashwathama – the son of Dronacharya – is dead. Krishna convinces him that he must misuse his credibility if the Kaurava General Dronacharya is to be killed. In the larger interest of winning the war, it was necessary that he must compromise his character. His duty to his side came above the personal, and his character had to be sacrificed in the interests of a desirable end-result. Yudhisthira conceded. The morality here is consequential.</p>.<p>Finally, when it is Yudhisthira ‘s turn to fight Shalya there is no morality or reason. Shalya is the brother of Madri and the maternal uncle of the Pandavas. He has been instrumental in sabotaging Karna and helping the Pandavas to kill him. He is in effect a spy planted in the enemy camp. Yet when it falls upon Yudhisthira to take on Shalya there is only the instinct to survive. The battle is itself fought with complete compliance to rules. There is no foul play or deceit. Yet the barbarian nature of the fight and the cruelty shocks everyone. </p>.<p>Thus it is that we are capable of exemplary character, compromise and instinctive action. There is no contradiction or inconsistency.</p>