Saturday, November 14, 2015
This raises another question about the morality of means and ends. We have already noted that in essence. mankind divides itself into three groups: the Have-Nots, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores, and the Haves. The purpose of the Haves is to keep what they have. Therefore, the Haves want to maintain the status quo and the Have-Nots to change it. The Haves develop their own morality to justify their means of repression and all other means employed to maintain the status quo. The Haves usually establish laws and judges devoted to maintaining the status quo; since any effective means of changing the status quo are usually illegal and/or unethical in the eyes of the establishment. Have-Nots, from the beginning of time, have been compelled to appeal to "a law higher than man-made law." Then when the Have-Nots achieve success and become the Haves, they are in the position of trying to keep what they have and their morality shifts with their change of location in the power pattern.
I do not know if the next paragraph is true, The Oracle Google was not consulted, but holy wow!
Eight months after securing independence, the Indian National Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against them! No longer as Have-Nots were they appealing to laws higher than man-made law. Now that they were making the laws, they were on the side of man-made laws! Hunger strikes - used so effectively in the revolution - were viewed differently now too. Nehru, in the interview mentioned above, said: "The government will not be influenced by hunger strikes ... To tell the truth I didn't approve of fasting as a political weapon even when Gandhi practiced it."
-both paragraphs from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals; mid-post comment by me.