Jain Darshan Me Naitik Mulyankan Ka Vishay - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jain Darshan me Naitik Mulyankan ka Vishay" by Sagarmal Jain:

This text delves into the core philosophical debate in ethics concerning moral evaluation, specifically whether the intention (hetu/purpose) or the consequence (phal/result) of an action should be the primary basis for judging its morality.

Key Arguments and Western Perspectives:

The author begins by stating that every action is motivated by a purpose (hetu) and results in an outcome (phal). The purpose relates to the agent's mental state, while the outcome relates to the action itself.
A central debate among ethicists is whether to judge an action's goodness or badness based on its purpose or its outcome, as these can sometimes diverge (e.g., good intention leading to bad results, or bad intention leading to good results).
Consequentialism (Phalvad), represented by thinkers like Bentham and Mill, argues that the morality of an action depends on its results. Bentham believed intentions are good or bad based on their outcomes. Mill considered "intention" irrelevant to the morality of an action, stating it has nothing to do with the action's ethics.
Deontology (Hetuvad), represented by thinkers like Kant and Butler, emphasizes the intention. Kant argued that the results of our actions cannot give them moral value. Butler stated that the goodness or badness of an action depends heavily on the intention with which it is done.
The text highlights that consequentialism focuses on the objective aspect of the act and aims to produce outcomes that benefit the public welfare. However, it clarifies that for Western consequentialists like Bentham and Mill, the desirability or foreseen outcome of a result is more important than its purely physical realization. They don't condemn a surgeon whose operation fails if the intention was to save life. Crucially, they deem the motivations (like earning money, fame, or compassion) irrelevant to the surgeon's morality.
In contrast, deontology values the resolve or motive. According to deontology, if the motive is bad, the action is also considered bad, regardless of the outcome. For example, a doctor saving a beautiful woman with the ulterior motive of satisfying lust would be considered morally bad even if the outcome is good.
The author critiques both Western schools for being one-sided, overemphasizing either the beginning (intention) or the end (outcome) of an action, forgetting they are two inseparable aspects of the same coin.

Indian and Jain Perspectives:

The text asserts that this debate has been a subject of discussion in Indian ethical thought since its early stages, although perhaps not as exhaustively as in the West.
Buddhism is presented as a proponent of deontology (hetuvad). Buddhist texts like the Majjhīmakāya are cited, where Buddha emphasizes the primacy of mental states (hetu) in all good or bad conduct, stating that it is the mental "trade" (hetu) that is primary. The Dhammapada is quoted to show that mental states determine good or bad actions and the resulting happiness or suffering.
The Bhagavad Gita is also presented as a supporter of deontology (hetuvad). The concept of nishkam karma yoga (action without attachment to results) is highlighted, emphasizing the intention over the outcome. Krishna's advice to Arjuna to act without being motivated by the fruits of action is a prime example. The Gita believes that those who act with an eye on the results are inferior ("kripana").
Jainism is identified as a tradition that attempts to reconcile these seemingly opposing viewpoints. The text argues that it would be inconsistent to label Jainism as purely consequentialist because earlier and later Jain texts strongly support deontology.
Jain Agamas, particularly the Sutrakritanga, are cited for their "humorous ridicule" of the Buddhist deontological viewpoint. The example of a Jain monk explaining to a Buddhist monk that harming a "lump of flesh" (interpreted as a non-living object) is not violence, while killing a person would be, illustrates the Jain emphasis on intent. If the intention is not to kill a sentient being, but rather to harm an inanimate object, then even if it resembles violence, it is not considered himsa (violence) in the Jain sense.
Acarya Kundakunda's Samaysara states that it is the adhyavasaya (mental determination or intention) that causes bondage, not the external act of killing. Similarly, Acarya Samantabhadra and Acarya Vidyanandi in their commentaries are presented as refuting consequentialism and supporting deontology.
The text states that Jainism does not negate the importance of consequences but rather criticizes one-sided deontology that neglects practical aspects.
The Jain thinkers' ridicule of Buddhist thinkers is not because they reject deontology, but because they oppose the one-sided version that disregards actions. The significant danger Jain thought saw in one-sided deontology is that it eliminates the objective criterion for moral evaluation, leaving no means to judge others' actions. If only intention matters, then no one can pass a moral judgment on another's conduct because the intention, being a personal fact, is unknowable to others.
The Jain synthesis: The text argues that Jain philosophy provides a comprehensive approach by integrating various aspects. The ultimate decision of right and wrong in Jainism lies in the agent's purpose or intention (abhisandhi). However, they do not ignore the practical consequences.
The text explains that Jain ethics considers the mind and actions in unison. While the intention is paramount, the foreseeing or prior contemplation of the consequences of an action is also essential. An action performed with pure intention but without considering the potential negative outcomes would be considered due to carelessness (ayatana) or negligence (pramada) and thus fall into the category of bad actions.
The author draws parallels between Western concepts and Jain principles:
- Consequences (Phal) vs. Intention (Hetu):
  - Jainism: Prioritizes intention but also considers foreseen consequences.
  - Buddhism: Aligns with Martinu's view of motive.
  - Gita: Aligns with Kant's concept of resolve.
- Jainism's comprehensive approach is seen as somewhat similar to Mackenzie's emphasis on character, as "character" encompasses a broader meaning compatible with the Jain synthetic view.
The text emphasizes that Jain ethics does not reject deontology but opposes the one-sided version that disregards practical outcomes. Jain thinkers identified a significant flaw in one-sided deontology: the elimination of an objective criterion for moral evaluation.
Jain Moral Evaluation Framework:
- Social Perspective: When evaluating an action socially, the focus is on factual evidence, and the consequences of the action become the subject of moral judgment.
- Personal Perspective: When evaluating an action personally, the focus is subjective, and the motivator (hetu) of the action becomes the subject of moral judgment.
- Jainism considers both the "behavioral view" (focus on consequences) and the "definitive view" or "ultimate view" (focus on intention) important and neither can be disregarded.
Jainism and Consequences: Jainism holds that the desire for results or attachment to results is forbidden, not the foresight of results.
The text concludes by stating that the Jain approach acknowledges that while there might not always be a perfect alignment between the agent's intention and the actual outcome, this is an exceptional situation. The general understanding is that external actions reflect the agent's inner state. Jain ethics prioritizes the agent's mental states as the subject of moral judgment. External consequences are considered only insofar as they accurately reflect the agent's mental state.

In essence, the book argues that while Western ethics tends to lean heavily on either intention or consequence, Jain philosophy offers a more holistic perspective by recognizing the crucial role of intention while also acknowledging the importance of considering the practical consequences, particularly in social evaluations. The Jain approach emphasizes the purification of intention and a degree of foresight regarding outcomes for a truly ethical life.