View source for Isn't the breaking of a promise a universal moral command, that one should never break his promise, whether it is here or other countries?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"isn't the breaking of a promise a universal moral command, that one should never break his promise, whether it is here or other countries"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|16Apr11}}
{{last|16Apr11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Is Not]]
[[Category:Break]]
[[Category:Promise]]
[[Category:Universal]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Command]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:One Should Not]]
[[Category:Break]]
[[Category:Here]]
[[Category:other]]
[[Category:Country]]
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1971]]
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononImmanuelKant_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="3" link="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant">
<div class="heading">Well that's all right, but for practical purposes they are breaking promises at every moment.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant|Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He says that the standard for the categorical imperative is that one should act only in such a way that he would want his action to be followed by everyone. In other words, sort of "Do unto others as you would  want them to do unto you." That is his...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is a compromise. This is not morality.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That you should act only in such a way that your action, you would want everyone in the world to act in the same way. You would want it to be a universal law.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So you can allow me to do in my own way, and I allow you to do in your own way.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He uses the example of breaking a promise. He says that if the opportunity is there to break a promise, I should never break the promise, because I would never want anyone else to break a promise.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is going on, man-made laws. But that is not morality. That standard of morality is one in one country and just the opposite in another country.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But isn't the breaking of a promise a universal moral command, that one should never break his promise, whether it is here or other countries?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well that's all right, but for practical purposes they are breaking promises at every moment.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yes. He understands this, but his idea, he wants to get to the basis of morality by saying that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is a good quality. That is brahminical quality, not to break promise, to be truthful. That is goodness.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: This is an example of how one should look at his actions; that he should judge his own actions according to what he would want everyone else to do, and that these must be...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But it is not possible that everyone will be able to do. Just like you become truthful. It may be universal truth, but you do not expect that everyone will be truthful. That is not possible. Therefore it is not universal. It is meant for certain types of men. How can he say this is universal?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But he says that the fact that I ought to do this implies that I can do it, and everyone can do it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is nice. I ought to do it, but I cannot do it. So there is therefore a scientific method of classification of people. That is varṇāśrama. Certain people cannot do it, although they know they ought to do it. He is a śūdra. And a man who does it practically, he is brāhmaṇa. So therefore there must be classification. This class of men, they know that this is good and they do it, and the other class, either they do not know, or even they do know, they cannot do it. So therefore there must be distinction between these two classes of men. Therefore this classification, as Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam: ([[Vanisource:BG 4.13|BG 4.13]]) "The four classes of men, it is designed by Me." But you cannot find all men of the same level. Therefore there must be a class of men who are to be called brāhmaṇa, a class of men who are to be called kṣatriyas, a class of men who are to be called vaiśyas, and a class to be called śūdras. That is a natural division. Because in this world, you cannot find all men of the equal level, on the same platform. That is not possible.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>