View source for On the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|06Apr11}}
{{last|06Apr11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:On The Basis Of]]
[[Category:Imperfect Knowledge]]
[[Category:Ethical]]
[[Category:Humanitarian]]
[[Category:What Is The]]
[[Category:Value]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:We Do Not]]
[[Category:No Value]]
[[Category:All These]]
[[Category:Understanding]]
[[Category:Give]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononSorenAabyeKierkegaard_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="11" link="Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard">
<div class="heading">Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard|Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He says that it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made: if it's made with integrity and self-confidence.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How the decision... Why, how the decision is made, that I still don't know. How? Why? Why they make such decision? One man is running on a slaughterhouse. He's killing only. Another man is after humanitarian work, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: The decision is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He gives importance not so much to the facts of the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then if there is no fact, then what is the use of such philosophy? It is not based on fact.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yeah. He gives stress on how the decision is made.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: When decision is made, then you should go farther. How the decision is made, that is our question. How is this made this decision, that you kill somebody and by killing somebody you protect somebody? How this decision is? That is our question. What is the answer?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: His answer is that you make the decision by inwardness, by turning inward...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And what is that inward mean? Why you are thinking that "I shall give protection to my brother by killing another gentleman"? Why you are thinking like this? What is the ethic? What is the value of ethic? That is our question.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>