The following is an excerpt from Srila Acharyadeva's anthology in the making, compiled from various lectures and writings of his, taken from the category "God," subcategory "Krishna":

*

Sometimes we have a misunderstanding of what it means that Krishna is “beyond mundane morality”. Essentially, acting morally means to act consciously to bring about the good in society. The notion of virtue involves conscious intention. So, the nature of moral behavior follows the conscious intention. Saying that Krishna is “beyond mundane morality” means that He can bring about the good in the society in innovative ways.

The benefit of the "part serving the whole" depends on the moral value of the whole. In other words, because we are part of Krishna, the value of our service depends on Krishna’s moral value. Someone may say that it is enough for the part to serve the whole, even if that whole is not being moral. For example, in the case of the part being a member of an immoral community. The sense that there is an intrinsic piety in obedience to something higher than you is an incomplete understanding. In other words, I want to make the point that might does not make right. Given that Krishna is the perfect moral being, then serving Him turns out to be our highest self-interest and the most moral way of acting.

What ties all these points is that Krishna’s intrinsic goodness makes the whole thing work. So, what is Krishna’s intrinsic goodness? And what does it mean to be good? For example, when we go to the dentist, we expect him not only to treat the problem we may have competently, but also, to do that in the least painful way possible. So, in order for Krishna to be a perfect moral being, it must be the case that whenever we suffer—when we get reactions to our past misdeeds—that they are actually for the highest good and that they are the least painful method possible to bring about the necessary benefit. Someone has to actually fulfill that requirement to be considered perfectly moral.

There is an interesting topic by Socrates brought about in a dialogue called Euthyphro. Socrates says to Euthyphro, “Are certain actions pious because God loves them, or does God love them because they are good?” For example—like in the case of the four regulative principles—is it so, that Krishna is a tyrant and he makes us follow these four principles without them being good for us? Did He simply make them up because it causes pleasure to Him, or does Krishna like them because they have a value? Certainly, we are asked to follow these principles for our own good.

(Evening darshan, May 2, 2008 in New Vrindavan)