Both Ramayana and Mahabharatha conveys the point that good always prevails over the evil.
The fundamental difference is that Rama refuses to adopt unethical means to defeat Ravana, but in Mahabharatha, any means is acceptable as long as the end objective is achieved. For Krishna, it is more of 'end justifying the means' whereas for Rama it was like 'if it were to be done, it is better if it were to be done correctly'
Managers face similar problems in their life. Should one adopt any means to achieve the corporate objectives? or Should one stick to ethical practices, come what may, even at the risk of delaying the achievement of objectives.
It is a moral dilemma. And there is no one answer to it. Both Ramayana and Mahabharatha denotes ideal situations. In real life, there are always ifs and buts. One has to make a call on this. Ramayana is ideal, Mahabharatha is more practical. But the price one had to pay in Mahabharatha was much more. If one were to do a cost-benefit analysis Ramayana scores.
