Was Lord Krishna consequentialist or even utilitarian?

Last Updated on June 12, 2023

The definition of one’s duty is not as strict as it was once. In modern society, there are no such “duties” as based on one’s varna or caste alone for one’s profession or otherwise. Not only anyone can take up any profession of their interest but also they can change their professions if they want to. In fact, as technologies have taken over jobs, people were forced to re-skill and reorient themselves to another job. So, the concept of duty explained exactly in Bhagavad Gita has lost its meaning to some extent. I think If Krishna said – “You have to do your duty. If you are born in Kshatriya, your duty is to fight as a warrior.” wouldn’t be as convincing now as it did back then.

In 2022, Let’s assume there is a duty, if you have enough money, according to your duty, whatever task you need to complete for doing your duty can be just done by outsourcing – to a technology or a person. So, it is not so much a duty as the completion of tasks. It is not like one is being physically present and providing their service as Arjun did in the battle. It is more like operating a drone from a remote and dropping bombs on enemy territories.

If you really think about it, Arjun was not just any warrior. He was like a leader of an army or a King/Prince. He held significant political clout. So, reducing and belittling him to just any other warrior is not really being honest. I think Lord Krishna did what he had to do to restore and boost Arjun’s morale by saying – You are a warrior. You have to do your “duty”. While being in a battleground, facing your enemy’s army is not a good time to lose one’s resolve.

On the other hand, I wonder what Lord Krishna would have said in response if Arjuna had asked the same question a few days or a few months leading up to the war? My guess is Lord Krishna wouldn’t have given the same answer. Then, Lord Krishna being all-wise and all-good would have said considering not only Krishna’s duty being as a warrior but also as a Prince or King who represents people’s interests or has some political clout. I don’t think he would have simply said “just do your duty”. His answer wouldn’t reduce Arjun to being only a warrior.

Arjun got demoralized from the thought of “How can I fight my own people and my own relatives and my own grand uncle Bhishma and my teacher Acharya Drona etc.?”. But, for Lord Krishna, the argument against the war went much deeper than Arjun’s psychological hold-ups at that time. For Lord Krishna, if there is any Dharma, it would involve the idea of Ahimsa, which doesn’t easily square with the idea of war.

Lord Krishna knew in the name of establishing Dharma, it is not right to kill thousands of innocent people. If anything, it does the opposite of establishing Dharma. Lord Krishna believed in the idea of Ahimsa. Before the war, he sought peace first by holding diplomatic talks with Dhritarashtra, the King of the Kuru Kingdom. More importantly, he chose not to actively participate in the war and not to use any weapons in the war but he was present as a chariot driver in the war to minimize the damage.

Lord Krishna knew very well about this. This is why he took a neutral approach towards war – he gave his army to be part of Kauravas’ but he himself to Pandavas, not wanting to completely side with anyone in the war. Lord Krishna didn’t play much active role in the war by becoming a chariot driver. He knew if he participated in the war he would have to kill innocent soldiers including his own army which was part of Kauravas’ army by then. Nonetheless, he made many important moves and deployed crucial tactics in the war but all those were never really against any innocent soldiers. Lord Krishna’s tactics were only surgical in nature targeting strategically important weapons and leaders. So, even in times of war, an argument can be made that Lord Krishna was in a sense practicing the idea of Ahimsa to the extent he could. In other words, he was being a true utilitarian.

He may not be utilitarian but at least he was consequentialist for sure. Following are the strategies and tactics that he used in the war.

1. Demoralizing Drona through Ashwathama lie.
2. Krishna directs Kunti to tell Karna that she is his mother and beg Karna for mercy on her sons, asking him to spare their lives.
3. Sikhandhi tactic against Bhishma.
4. Krishna gets Duryodhan to wear some clothes as opposed to being completely naked like his mother intended to turn his full body into Indra Vajra – invulnerable to weapons.
5. Saving Arjuna from Nagastra by making horses kneel.
6. Krishna covers the sun, faking the sunset, to lure Jayadratha out for Arjun to kill him.
7. Telling Bhima to strike Duryodhan’s thigh, maybe an unfair means – hitting below the waist.

This is not an exhaustive list of all the tactics that Lord Krishna used. But, this is enough to show that he himself considered his and other actions with specific outcomes in mind. So, He was not just “doing his duty”. He carefully crafted strategies resulting in the specific outcome he wanted. This goes against what Lord Krishna advised Arjun that he should only do his duty without worrying about the consequences. Lord Krishna cared about consequences that go beyond “doing only one’s duty”.

karmaṇy-evādhikāras te mā phaleṣhu kadāchana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo ’stvakarmaṇi

You have a right to perform your prescribed duties,
but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions.
Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities,
nor be attached to inaction.

Lord Krishna’s most famous words from Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2, Verse 47

In fact, one can argue that the very act of Lord Krishna advising Arjuna to focus on his duty being a warrior is itself an act of not just Lord Krishna’s duty but also an act of achieving his desired result with an intended consequence, which is boosting Arjuna’s morale and getting him back to fight. In other words, Krishna’s advice/reminding on duty is not just an act of duty but also an act borne of consequentialism.

A long time before the war, Lord Krishna being all-good and all-knowing didn’t prevent or intervene in the gambling game until the very end to protect Kunti – an innocent victim. He didn’t even intervene in the game early on or even tried to prevent it. Then, this begs the question – Was all-knowing and all-good Lord Krishna not doing his duty by not preventing the rigged gambling game entirely? or at least, by not stopping the game at the beginning itself to minimize the damage?. He didn’t intervene because his idea of Dharma, the idea of right and wrong, went beyond “doing only one’s duty is the right thing to do”. This is because he also believed in the idea of “evaluating the consequences of one’s actions even before acting” as opposed to “just performing one’s duty”. So, Lord Krishna let Pandavas face the consequences of their idiotic irrational actions or “duty” in the gambling game. So, again, here, Lord Krishna was being a Consequentialist.

Maybe, what Lord Krishna wanted was for Pandavas and Kauravas to face the consequences of the choices they had made. Otherwise, he could have easily talked Yudhisthira out of playing the betting game and prevented all the pain and suffering that followed it.

It is no doubt that, during the war, Lord Krishna’s techniques were powerful and decisive. Therefore, his choices and actions speak louder than his words to Arjun. Knowing everything, what Lord Krishna wanted to show is how foolish the choices made by Pandavas and Kauravas were by playing a betting game and waging war against each other. Lord Krishna beautifully made a powerful point through his actions that apparently go against his advice to Arjun.

I think almost everyone missed this point, especially those who consider only Bhagavad Gita and not really the Mahabaratha, the broader context in which Bhagavad Gita takes place. If anyone looking at only Lord Krishna’s words to Arjuna and without really giving Lord’s actions due consideration is only taking Lord Krishna at face value without really seeing deeper truths hidden in his actions. In short, in western philosophical terms, Lord Krishna was not just Kantian Deontologist, but he was also a Consequentialist, especially a Utilitarian.