Shloka 4.18.40
वाली–रामसंवादः (Rama’s Justification to Vali on Rājadharma)
प्रधावितान्वा वित्रस्तान्विस्रब्धांश्चापि निष्ठितान्4.18.39।।प्रमत्तानप्रमत्तान्वा नरा मांसार्थिनो भृशम्।विध्यन्ति विमुखांश्चापि न च दोषोऽत्र विद्यते4.18.40।।
pradhāvitān vā vitrastān visrabdhāṃś cāpi niṣṭhitān | pramattān apramattān vā narā māṃsārthino bhṛśam | vidhyanti vimukhāṃś cāpi na ca doṣo ’tra vidyate ||
Men seeking flesh for food strike animals whether they are running or frightened, at ease or standing still—whether alert or unalert, even when turned away; and in this there is held to be no fault.
'People seeking animal flesh for food kill animals alarmed or unalarmed, animals that run away or animals that stand still. They kill animals whether they are alert or not and no blemish is attached.
Rāma appeals to accepted worldly and royal norms: hunting for food is treated as permissible, including striking animals regardless of whether they face the hunter.
Rāma continues answering Vālī’s charge of unfairness, arguing that his method resembles sanctioned hunting practice.
Rāma’s reliance on precedent and social-legal convention (laukika-maryādā) to frame an act as non-culpable within dharma.