You are on page 1of 104

Krishna Pradeep’s

21 Century IAS
st

ETHICS
INTEGRITY
&
’s
a
rP
y
radee
APTITUDEp
IAS
Krish
st Cen
n
tu
21
Compiled by
ST
TEAM 21 CENTURY

nd
Opp sub Registrar office, Above Vikas book store 2 floor
ASHOK NAGAR, Hyderabad – 500 020

Call us on 8686233879, 040-655 377 33


Mail us on : kptrainer@gmail.com
Visit us on : www.krishnapradeepias.net
Follow us on : www.facebook.com/21stcenturyIas
INDEX

’s
a Pr
r
ad
y
ee
I
p
AS
Krishn
s Ce
t ntu
21
1. NATURE AND SCOPE OF ETHICS
Let us begin our study of Nature and Scope of Ethics in specific precepts and what is the cause of this
by understanding what we mean by moral law. But difference among men? In terms of moral value, we
two things need to be clarified before we raise the can raise this question as follows. If the moral value
question with which we are concerned here. First, par excellence is human person’s self-realization as
the moral law is called ‘law’ only metaphorically, or human how can this moral value determine specific
if one prefers, analogically. The primary meaning of moral values? And why is there disagreement as to
law is “a rule of action, promulgated by him/her who whether such and such an action is a ‘good’ (moral
is in charge of a community in view of the common value) or not?
good”. This is called positive law. If the legislator is
considered to be God, it is divine positive law; if the MORAL INTUITIONISM
legislator is human person, and it is human positive All ‘deontological’ theories agree that there must exist
law. Human positive law can further be subdivided some rule or law which ‘enforces’ moral value and
according to what the common good aimed at. (e.g. that it is natural to human person, intuitively known.
civil law, criminal law, commercial law, etc.) In a case, There is then an element of ‘intuition’ in all of them –
a positive law lays down rules to be observed by no matter how they conceive of it and the way they
human persons. It is prescription. Then there is approach it, whether as ‘conscience’ (Ockham),
another sense of ‘law’ which is quite different. In this ‘Logos’ (Stoics), ‘moral sense’ (Shaftesbury), the ‘a-
sense it is a formula expressing a constant of priori categorical imperative’ (Kant), ‘right reason’
behaviour of things and of persons. So we have (Thomas Aquinas and Suarez). This element of moral
’s
p
S
physical law (including laws studied in physics, ‘intuition’ is also found in the ‘teleological’ theories

Prad
r
ee
y IA
chemistry, biology, etc.), psychological law,
sociological law, etc. (Since the constant of behaviour

na
u
whether implicitly or even explicitly. It is implicitly
found in the concept of ‘autarxia’ (Epicurus), in that

t
among human persons is less fixed and foreseeable of ‘eudemonia’ (Aristotle), and explicitly in the
sh
Kri
n
than that among things it is more of a statistical concept of ‘right reason’ (Hobbes), in the

s Ce
constant). As distinct from positive law, this kind of ‘conscientious feelings of mankind’ (Mill).

t
21
law is called ‘natural law’. It is descriptive. It can also
be called prescriptive to the extent if it is considered And in fact the more the idea of moral obligation is
as willed by God and includes the divine positive law, prominent in an ethical theory, the more explicit
and descriptive to the extent that this divine will is becomes the recourse to this element of ‘intuition’
the ultimate cause of the constant of behaviour in (or ‘direct perception’). This element of ‘intuition’ is
things and human persons. However, moral law strongly emphasized by metaethicists who maintain
corresponds exactly neither to the positive law nor that moral language is ‘objective’ and therefore
to the natural law. On the contrary, the sense of the ‘informative’. But here again, they differ as to what
‘absolute should’ is an immediate datum of the moral the ‘object’ of this moral intuition is. This difference
consciousness itself. is explainable by the difference in their meta-ethical
theories regarding the meaning of moral ‘good.’ Hence
Secondly, in the language of Moral philosophers, for some, this object is the ‘rightness of specific acts’
moral law includes not only general and abstract rules (Carritt, Prichard) for others it is a kind of moral
of action (e.g. “do good and avoid evil”), or, in our property, simple and indefinable in non-moral terms
language, the sense of the absolute should, but also (Moore), for others, it is a general principle (e.g. the
particular and concrete precepts (e.g. help the poor, ‘the principle of utility’ itself – Sidgwick) or a set of
obey legitimate authority, be truthful, do not kill the principles (e.g. the ‘Prima facie’ duties of fidelity,
innocent, adultery is wrong, etc.). These particular reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-
and concrete precepts, we are here calling the improvement and non-maleficence – Ross). In ethics
specifications of the moral law. the philosophy which insists on the necessity of moral
intuition is called Ethical Intuitionism.
Hence our question: How are the general data of the
moral consciousness particularized and concretized
But even the most insistent of all moral philosophers done, evil to be avoided?’ Is it merely by a kind of
on this element of intuition in the moral logical deduction? And if it is ‘selfevident’ in itself
consciousness, namely Kant, not only does not deny, but not known by all, is it because of some accidental
but, on the contrary, explicitly states that the moral reason such as ignorance or bad habit? Finally, if it is
judgment includes elements derived from experience not ‘self-evident’ how is it that human person has
(which are therefore ‘a-posteriori’ as opposed to the today come to agree that such a general principle is
‘a-priori’ element). Kant denies the possibility of correct (that it is amoral value)?
deriving particular and concrete moral precepts from
the concept of practical reason alone. For this the To speak more specifically of thinkers like Thomas
study of human nature is necessary. Aquinas, Suarez and Ross are we to say that the
examples they give of first principles (or of pirma facie
Similarly, Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between the duties) are meant to serve merely as examples or
‘first principles’ of the synderesis which are ‘self- are we to say that they are meant to be included among
evident’, intuitively known by all, and which cannot the first principles themselves? In the first case we
be deleted from the human heart, and the ‘secondary could perhaps disagree that the examples they give
and more specific principles’ which are derived from are good examples but still agree with their doctrine
the former ‘as if by way of conclusion from premises’ that there exist first principles intuitively known by
what is implied here is that this secondary principles every man. The question would be then which are
require reflection. Thomas speaks of the difficulty these fist principles. In the second case to question
involved in applying general principles to concrete the aptness of the examples would be to question
cases. Even though principles whether theoretical or their doctrine itself. Irrespective of what such thinkers

’s
S
practical can be evident in themselves, they may not actually mean we have got to study the problem in
p
ee
IA
be so evident to us. And this is due, according to itself.

ad
r
y
Thomas, to wrong persuasions on the part of human
person.

Krishna
s Ce
P
ntur
Saurez is perhaps even more explicit in his doctrine

t
that even the secondary principles – which like the
If there is any principle that cannot be denied, it is
the immediate data of moral consciousness. If these
data cannot be denied they are self-evident. They are
self-evident not as principles, that is, as formulae but

21
primary are self-evident in themselves – require a as data whether they are thematically formulated or
certain amount of thought and experience. This is not. The immediate ontological foundation of the
truer of the tertiary principles which require study and moral obligation is human inter-relatedness and that
discursive thought. But all moral principles can be the norm for moral good (as distinct from the moral
derived from self-evident principles. One notable right) is human person as a social being. We have
difference between Thomas and Saurez is that the also reflected how the only moral precept which is
former derives the concrete principles in a way immediately given that is self-evident and cannot be
corresponding to ‘human person’s natural justified on a mere moral level is that human person
inclinations,’ the latter derives them in a way should be human (as an individual and social being).
corresponding to a legal system. For Saurez these Hence all other precepts (what we are here calling
precepts have their immediate norm the ‘good’ of specifications of the moral law) must somehow or
human nature. The need of experience and reflection other flow from this fundamental precept that a
is similarly – indeed even more insisted upon by person should realize himself/ herself as human.
contemporary ethicists. Why this greater insistence?
Human consciousness is in a process of becoming.
HUMAN PERSON IN SEARCH OF HIMSELF/ HERSELF Human person is becoming moral and more himself
What we are dealing with here is to see whether a and in the process his awareness of himself develops.
general principle such as ‘serious promises should He/she has been continuously asking himself the
not be lightly broken’ is ‘self-evident’ and therefore question what he is. Human person is in a never-
be counted among the ‘first principles’ intuitively ending search of himself/herself. The more he/she
known by everybody. If yes, how is it derived from grows the more he/she becomes conscious of
the very first self-evident principle that ‘good is to be himself/herself as human person the more he/she is
himself/herself. Moral consciousness is a part or an attained the some of his/her self-consciousness and
aspect of human consciousness. The more human of his/her moral consciousness. What is reasonable
person becomes himself/herself the more he/ she to suppose according to us is that he/she has not.
becomes conscious of what he/she should be. This Apart from the fact that one cannot predict the future,
leads to the emergence of moral precepts specifying contemporary moral problem of the morality of
evermore clearly the conduct of human person. abortion hinges to a great extent on whether one
should consider the human foetus a human person.
Hence the moral precepts (moral values) flow from The so-called women’s liberation movement indicates
the first fundamental moral precept that human no matter what its merits and demerits are that
person should be himself/herself (the moral value par women have not been treated as full human persons
excellence not by way of mere logical deduction or everywhere in the world. One could think of many
of mere mediate inference. The former are related to other indications. If progress is still possible it can
the latter not simply as logical conclusions or as only be done by the passage of time and on the part
implicitly correlated to their premises. Logic has got of human person by experience and by his reflection
to do with ideas, with mere ideas. It cannot be denied on his own experience.
that this relation of the explicit to the implicit of the
clear to the unclear to the unclear of the concrete to LOVE AND THE MORAL PRECEPTS
the abstract is here present. But it is present in the Here we wish to bring into focus the more salient
sense that a continuously developing human moments of our reflection on the subject bringing
consciousness is related to its stages past and future them to bear upon the topic at hand. To recognize
of its development. Existence is more than logic. human inter-relatedness as the immediate ontological

’s
S
foundation of the moral order and to act accordingly
p
ee
IA
If what we are saying about the progressive can be expressed in terms of love. Love is therefore

ad
r
y
development of human consciousness, and therefore the existential basis of the moral order. This leads us

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
of moral consciousness is true one can easily
hn
t
understand the development of morals from the cave-
man to modern human person from ancient slavery

t
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
already to start thinking that love is the basic moral
activity.

The primary intuitively grasped demand that human

21
was approved without a dissenting voice in the United person realizes himself as a human person is
Nations General Assembly in 1948. particularized and concretized in moral precepts. This
too can be expressed in terms of love. Universal love
Ignorance of the moral precepts is therefore not is particularized and concretized – it is objectified –
necessarily the result of perverse customs as if this in the moral precepts. Hence as love not just one
result were accidental. It is a fact of experience that moral virtue among others but the form of all of the
perverse customs not only weaken the will to pursue moral virtues, so too love is not just one moral precept
the moral good but darkens the mind to recognize among others but it is the form of all of them. It is
what the moral good is. But this is more easily what makes moral precepts moral precepts. Indeed
possible on an individual level. Here we are placing it could hardly be called a precept since taken by itself
ourselves on the level of mankind and its historical in a non-objectified sense, it does not prescribe
progress. This ignorance and the variety of morals anything definite. And in the same way one can hardly
can be explained by human historicity itself, that is, call the moral realization of oneself as human as an
by the historical progressive development of his obligation. This too taken by itself in a non-objectified
human moral consciousness. sense does not oblige human person to do anything
specific. And there is hardly any meaning in the saying
However, we must not easily take it for granted that that human person should love (love cannot be
this development has always and everywhere been a enforced) so too there is hardly any meaning in the
linear progress. It may have suffered setbacks, saying that human person should fulfil himself as
reverses and regress. We need not go into that. What human.
is more pertinent here to ask is whether we should
reasonably suppose that human person has now If love is the form of the moral precepts and if love –
like human moral consciousness – is a progressive The Evolutionary nature of human person and of his
affair this means that acting according to the moral human consciousness has long been recognized one
precepts is acting according to love but that this way or another. Charles Darwin gave the theory of
awareness admits of degrees. This means that love evolution a biological basis. An Evolutionary view of
can also be considered to be not only the beginning the world and of human person is today at the basis
of the moral life but also its end. At the beginning it of a great deal of scientific philosophical and
is present as a seed – which is more than mere theological thinking. The thinking of such human
potentiality but already an actuality albeit in a persons as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and of
seminal form. The seed can develop into a fully Aurobindo comes of course spontaneously to mind.
mature and fully conscious lobe. And if it is in love
that human person perfects himself as human, it is Herbert Spencer is perhaps the best known
in this fully mature and fully conscious love that he/ Evolutionary ethicist. He starts by observing that both
she does so. human and animal conduct consists in acts adjusted
to ends. The higher we proceed in the scale of
Many factors go in this process of maturing of self- Evolution the easier it becomes for us to obtain
fulfilment. No matter how logically we can distinguish evidence of purposeful actions directed toward the
one human faculty (or aspect) of human person from good either of the individual or of the species. This
another human person is a totality one integrated purposeful activity forms part of the struggle for
whole. As it is not the intellect which understands existence waged between individual members of the
but human person by his intellect so too it is not with same species or between different species. But this
his/her heart that human person loves but human type of conduct is according to Spencer an imperfectly

’s
S
person by his heart (but heart is one’s whole being). evolved conduct. In a perfectly evolved conduct which
p
ee
IA
Love is an existential relation involving my whole is ethical conduct in the proper sense of the word

ad
r
y
existence. this struggle for existence will yield place to

Krishna P
ntur
Suffice it here to remark already that though human

s Ce
person can develop one or other of his/her faculties

t
independently of the rest (or at least quasi
cooperation and mutual help. Egoism and altruism
will be both transcended. This leads Spencer to
distinguish between absolute and relative ethics.
Absolute ethics is an ideal code of conduct

21
independently) one cannot develop himself/herself formulating the behaviour of the completely adapted
as a human person without developing the core of human person in the completely evolved society.
his/her being namely his/her love and this is not Relative ethics is the nearest approximation to this
achieved by mere study and reflection – although ideal according to the more or less perfectly evolved
these can be very useful – but by doing. As scholastics society in which human person happens to find him/
say the operation is the perfection of being. her.

THE DYNAMICS OF MORALITY Spencer adopts the utilitarian ethical principle. In fact
Here we examine two questions which are intimately he takes happiness to be the ultimate end of life and
linked. In an evolutionary visions of human person to measures the rightness or wrongness of actions by
what extent can we say that morality (that is, the their conduciveness to this end. From a nascent state
specification of the moral law) are universally valid when this utilitarian principle was dependent on non-
for all human persons to what extent can we say that ethical (e.g. authoritarian) beliefs it gradually
they are unchangeable? If one maintains their developed to become independent and as suggested
universal validity one is charged with absolutism with by the theory of evolution, it will continue to evolve
holding the opinion of a static nature of human person and reach an ideal limit.
incompatible with present day theories about man’s
dynamic and evolutionary nature. If on the other hand Happiness however depends on the fulfilment of
one were to maintain a relative validity one would some conditions. And these conditions are the
fall into a philosophically untenable moral relativism. observances of certain principles and rules which
Can the dilemma be overcome? causally determine human welfare. Spencer
acknowledges the existence of moral intuitions which
however are the slowly organized results of in terms of the immediate data of consciousness as
experience received by the race. In other words an foundation on the human order more precisely on
induction from experience handed down from one human inter-relatedness and these data to be in
generation to the other ends up by becoming an conformity to human reason and to be conducive to
instinctive moral reaction. Evolution is moving the selfrealization of human person as human. But
towards the emergence of the highest form of life. human moral consciousness has been evolving. This
Happiness as the supreme end of human person is change takes different forms some of which are easily
the concomitant and virtue is the condition for its understandable and afford no real problem to ethics
attainment. In the preface of the fifth and sixth parts some are not so easily understandable and therefore
of his the principles of ethics subsequently withdrawn afford some difficulty.
Spencer confesses that the theory of Evolution has
not provided as much practical guidance as he had As human person becomes more and more conscious
hoped. What is peculiarly Spencer ’s is his of himself as human – as an individual and as a social
interpretation of Evolution as a teleological process being – he/she becomes more conscious of his/her
directed towards the establishment of a higher and human inter-relatedness and of his/her rights and
higher moral order. duties as a human person. This clearer self-
consciousness is obviously concretized and
THE CONSTANT AND THE VARIABLE IN MORALITY particularized in specific moral precepts. Even at one
Whether or not man has evolved from sub-human given stage of human moral consciousness different
beings it is not for us to decide. But we can easily people living in different human situations (situations
accept the theory that this human consciousness affecting their interrelatedness) will live a more or

’s
S
itself has natured and developed. At the beginning less different moral life. Such human situations can
p
ee
IA
human person was not necessarily conscious of arise out of geographical, climatic and economic

ad
r
y
himself/herself as human as we today are. On an conditions.

Kri
a P
n ur
individual level this progress in human consciousness

shn
t
is a fact of experience. The child is a human being

s Ce
but as it grows it becomes more and more conscious

t
of itself as a human being. We can accept this theory
Again since moral consciousness has been in fact
intimately linked to and condition by religious
consciousness, different religious beliefs have

21
even on the level of mankind as such to explain how produced different moral values. And a change in
the moral law is particularized and concretized in religious consciousness has often wrought a
specific moral precepts. corresponding change in morality. The history of
religion affords us with many examples (e.g. human
Human consciousness involves one’s consciousness sacrifice, burning of witches, saturnalia, etc.). This
of oneself as an individual and as a social being. change is primarily and directly in religious
Moral consciousness is an integral part of human consciousness and only secondarily and indirectly in
consciousness. Primitive human (to call him so) must moral consciousness. It is a change in the religiously
have been morally conscious – otherwise we are not conditioned morality.
entitled to call him/her human at all. So if moral
consciousness belongs essentially to human However, a change in civil law governing the mores
consciousness as such – and in a univocal and not in of the people does not necessarily mean a change in
an analogical sense – it has been a kind of constant morality. When a civil law declares that something is
in all the later stages of man’s evolution. However, legal it does not mean to say that it is moral. Civil
on the accepted theory that the human and therefore law as such does not pass a moral judgment. Legal
moral consciousness has been developing, the means allowed as far as the state is concerned. It is
different stages of this development can be not the business of the state as such to promote the
reasonably considered as the variable in human moral beliefs of one section of its population as
evolution. against those of another. This is important to
remember today when many countries proclaim
If we speak of moral consciousness at all – whether themselves to be secular – today when society is
of the primitive human or ours – we must speak of it increasingly pluralistic.
The variable in morality raises the important question conscious of what he/she really is. His/her moral
regarding the kind of certitude we can have in moral knowledge helps him/her to recognize himself/herself
matters. To put it bluntly if what is believed to be and others more and more as persons. Like in all
morally right today can be proved to be morally wrong spheres of knowledge a time of questioning debate
tomorrow and vice-versa can one be absolutely and temporary disagreement is necessary in moral
certain of what is morally right or morally wrong? In knowledge if progress is to be made. Indeed a state
more philosophical terms if human person is of incertitude on some issues is a pre-requisite and
conditioned by his/her existential situation and if the pre-supposition of every progress. But whatever
human (and moral) consciousness is always in a has been achieved is a definite acquisition – even if
process of development and is dependent on this acquisition remains still open to further advance
physiological, cultural, social, psychological and a deeper understanding.
environmental and other factors, can he/she ever be
certain of having reached objective moral truth if LET US SUM UP
there is such a thing as moral truth? Human person both is and is becoming; he/she is an
“is-in-becoming.” And this is because he/she is both
At the very outset, we have to distinguish carefully essence and existence, rather he/she is and essence-
between moral relativity and ethical relativism. Moral inexistence. He/she is act and potency or here again
relativity is simply the view that different people he/she is act-in-potency. He/ she is spirit and body,
especially in different civilizations and cultures have better still, spirit-in-body. In existential terms he/she
or have had different moral beliefs and what is is freedom and he is existentially situated, that is to
believed to be morally right at a given time or place say he is freedom-existentially situated.
may be believed to be morally wrong at a different
’s
ep
AS
time or place. This is an undeniable empirical fact. Human person is both an end-in-himself and for others

de
I
But ethical relativism is the philosophical theory that a particular human and social being. He/she can only
a
hn Pr
t r y
no foundation exists, there is no universal moral norm
a
u
(or basic moral principle), but what is morally right is

Kris
n
find his self-perfection in the perfection of others.
Hence the dialectical tension in human knowledge

s Ce
relative to the individual or group of men in question. of moral law. The tension between the “is” and the
If such a theory can give reasons for such a position “ought” between intuition and experience (or the

t
21
(as Sartre does), it is ethical relativism in the strict apriori and the a-posteriori) between the static and
sense. If it cannot give reasons but simply admits the dynamic the constant and the variable the
that it is strictly impossible to say what is morally absolute and the relative. We can go on like that an
right and morally wrong it can be reasonably called infinitum.
ethical skepticism.
KEY WORDS
In an evolutionary view of human being, that is, on Moral Intuition :
the accepted theory that human consciousness of All ‘deontological’ theories agree that there must exist
himself/herself is increasingly developing, can we some rule or law which ‘enforces’ moral value and
pretend to say the last word on what human person that it is natural to human person, intuitively known.
is? Obviously not. Human person’s knowledge of his/ There is then an element of ‘intuition’ in all of them –
her self is a progressive and dynamic knowledge, no matter how they conceive of it and the way they
always tending towards a better and better approach it.
understanding. In this sense human person’s
knowledge of himself/herself is relative. And if this Absolute Ethics :
is true his/her moral knowledge is also relative in so Absolute ethics is an ideal code of conduct
far as it is progressive and far from complete. formulating the behaviour of the completely adapted
human person in the completely evolved society.
However an attentive study of the evolution of human
person’s self-consciousness and of moral knowledge Relative Ethics : Relative ethics is the nearest
helps one discover a certain constant progression, approximation to this ideal according to the more or
that is, human person is becoming more and more less perfectly evolved society in which human person
himself/herself. He/she is becoming more and more happens to find him/ her.
2. IMPORTANCE AND CHALLENGES OF ETHICS
Ethics is the philosophical treatise which studies urbanization, easier communication media, faster
human behaviour and tries to determine what is right means of travel whereby people of one culture come
or wrong behaviour. It is also called moral philosophy. in closer contact with people of another culture, etc
(from the Greek ‘ethos’ and the Latin ‘mores’ which are some of the causes.
mean ‘custom’, ‘ways of behaviour ’, ‘human
character’).That there is in man a spontaneous But if, as we have already implied, moral thinking is
awareness of a distinction between ‘right’ and intimately linked with philosophical thinking in
‘wrong’ behaviour is an indubitable fact. But general, it might very well be that these causes,
philosophy, here like elsewhere, cannot content itself whatever they might be, are to be sought for on a
with simply registering facts, it tries to reflect on the deeper human level. Human person, perhaps, is not
‘meaningfulness’ of such facts, establish them (or so much asking about the morality of this or that
reject them) on a rational basis, understand their human act, but, more deeply still, about himself: the
implications, draw their practical consequences and meaning of his life, the direction of human history,
above all intuit their ultimate cause (if any). the significance of the human world he lives in, the
ambit of his knowledge and the possibility of his ever
Our study of ethics is also conditioned by some getting an answer to the questions he asks. Ethics,
philosophical assumptions, which we take to be of course, cannot dream of suggesting answers to
philosophically established in other treatises. such radical questions. But it might well prove to be
a ‘way of approach’ to questions which lie beyond its
s
Perhaps the three principal ones are: the possibility

p
S
own field of enquiry.
e
A
of meta-empirical knowledge, the ontological

de
I
structure of reality and man as a rational and free
a
Pr
r y
being (philosophically established in critical, ontology THE CHALLENGE OF SITUATION ETHICS
a
hn
tu
and psychology respectively). For us, therefore, ethics Situation ethics is the kind of approach to morality
s
Kri
s Cen
is an attempt not only to ‘understand’ what is and we might expect from an existentialist, who tends to
reject the very idea of human nature – or any nature

t
what is not right human behaviour, the empirical and

21
meta-empirical ‘ground’, if any, of the distinction or “essence”, for that matter. Joseph Fletcher, the
between right and wrong behaviour, but also to see former dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, Cincinnati and
whether the conclusions thus drawn can serve as professor of Social Ethics, Episcopal Theology School,
objective norms for practical conduct. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, published his
classical Situation Ethics in 1961. At the onset, he
The importance of ethics is obvious. From as far back presents his view as the golden mean between the
in history as we can tell, man has always sought to two reprehensible extremes of legalism and
know how to lead a ‘good’ life and to draw up rules of antinomianism. Unlike the latter, he assures us, “The
conduct. Thinkers of all cultures tried to explain in situationist enters into every decision-making
what this ‘good’ life consisted and, especially, why situation armed with the ethical maxims of his
precisely it was ‘good’. It is not so much that community and its heritage.” There is no question of
traditional moral values are questioned (e.g. the ‘just’ throwing out all laws, rules and commandments.
war, inviolability of life in cases of the hopelessly However, he “treats them with respect as illuminators
suffering and of unwanted pregnancies, sexual of his problems” but is prepared to “compromise them
intercourse only between the legally married, or set them aside in the situation if love seems better
indissolubility of marriage, etc.), but, more radically served by doing so”. Now that last phrase serves to
still, that the very ‘meaningfulness’ of an unchanging characterize what makes Fletcher describe as
and universally valid morality is brought into question. “Christian” his whole approach to morality. Fletcher
The causes of this modern questioning are hard to even takes a swipe at “Kant’s legalism,” which
pin down. Certainly the spread of education, advances produced universal laws like “a lie is always wrong’.
in science and technology, problems arising from He asks, “But what if you have to tell a lie to keep a
modern way of living like the ever-increasing promised secret?” and answers, “May be you lie and,
if so, good for you if you follow love’s lead.”
When we adopt a critical approach, we cannot but more or less reliability, to (3) the kairos (moment of
record our dissatisfaction as regards the carelessness decision, the fullness of time) in which the responsible
with which Fletcher defines his position. If Aristotle self in the situation decides whether the sophia can
and anyone who hold some sort of “natural law” serve there or not. Whence he goes on to make a
morality are to be counted among the situationists, highly simplistic summary of how the rival ethicists
that grouping has been emptied of almost all precise proceed: “Legalists make an idol of sophia,
meaning. The only ones excluded from that antinomians repudiate it, and situationists use it.”
nomenclature would be the extreme legalist and
antinomians, and would they be so numerous and so Finally, Fletcher, taking his cue from Socrates to the
influential to warrant the setting up of whole “new effect that the unexamined life is not worth living,
morality”? Just about any system of deontological suggests that “unexamined ethical maxims are not
ethics that is open to prudence and casuistry is worth living by.” and then he unleashes a salvo on
already sufficient to respond to the difficulty. And the maxim that “The end does not justify the means.”
when Fletcher pens something to the effect that, On the contrary, he asks, “If the end does not justify
“Situation ethics goes part of the way with natural the means, what does?” And he answers, “Obviously,
law, accepting reason as the instrument of judgment, ‘Nothing.’” Whence his another proposition of
while rejecting the notion that the good is ‘given in situation ethics, “Only the end justifies the means;
the nature of things, objectively,” one cannot help nothing else.” In the light of the preceding, this boils
wondering whether he had really understood natural down to say that anything done out of love (the
law and objective morality properly, at all. means) is thereby justified or made morally good. He
is careful to quickly add, “Not any old end will justify

’s
S
Fletcher has, to say the least, a rather legalistic any old means” only love would do the job. And then
p
ee
IA
definition of love. So long as an act is done he tops it off with another chilling remark, “Being

ad
r
y
“selflessly” without the agent seeking any clearly pragmatic, the situationist always asks the price and

Krishna P
ntur
manifest material gain, it is a moral act. Even the
sickest of mentally deranged acts could also be roped

s Ce
in as ethically laudable if they were done without any

t
demonstrably material profit being sought in the
supposes that in theory and practice everything has
its price. Everything, please note. Even for a ‘pearl of
great price’ whatever it is – might be sold for love’s
sake if the situation calls for it.” This kind of remark

21
process. But if love is selflessness, before we can is chilling because it can be used to justify the suicide
assess its rightness or wrongness, shouldn’t we first bomber who blows himself up with a host of innocent
enquire into the nature of the self? Besides, as one civilians – and, as we have seen, Fletcher actually
might well ask, why should love be the norm of does that.
morality and not hate? Ultimately one can only answer
that question by saying that love enhances one’s Even if we don’t fully endorse Fletcher and his brand
personhood, one’s “human nature adequately of situation ethics, is there something we can learn
considered.” It makes one more fully human, more from what he has tried to tell us? He is reminding us
fully alive. And hate does not do that. This obliges us of a timeless and oft-forgotten maxim: unless an
to recognize a more basic and deeper norm ‘love in action, however good in itself, is done with the motive
itself.’ of sincere love, it has no real ethical value,
whatsoever.
To give Fletcher his due, one has to admit that he
does give the impression that he has done some CULTURAL AND ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM
critical reflection on love and its authentic meaning, There is a quite understandable objection that any
even if it wouldn’t stand up to anything like a deeper kind of ethical system based on human nature
metaphysical query. He trots out some fancy (however adequately considered.) has to face and that
terminology from Tillich to this end: Using terms stems from the undeniable fact of cultural relativism.
made popular by Tillich and others, we may say that In one culture polygamy is viewed as right and moral;
situationalism is a method that proceeds, so to speak, in another it is roundly condemned; not too long ago
from (1) its one and only law, agape (love), to (2) the certain tribes in the South Sea Islands considered the
sophia (wisdom), containing many “general rules” of painless killing off of ones parents a filial duty, most
of us would be horrified at the very idea. Sometimes Kant was determined that his system of ethics have
within the same country or culture, there are splits: an autonomous source. Basing mortal conduct on
Some Indians disapprove of the remarriage of widows, external grounds – the will, of God (Occam) or of
others have no problem with it; People across the positive law (Durkheim) would be to ask for trouble.
globe are radically divided on the morality of birth An atheist would be deprived of any moral foundation
control and divorce. Now, if there were some kind of and positive law would scarcely help matters: it is
common human nature upon which all moral laws are susceptible to so many variants, often on the basis
based, how do we explain these wide divergences – of vested interests and corruption, that it would afford,
even contradictions? at best, a very shaky moral set-up. On the other hand,
Kant’s agnostic epistemology, influenced by Hume,
Furthermore, studies in anthropology and sociology rendered it quite impossible to take the “natural law,”
have led us to accept cultural relativism: there is no based on human nature, as the norm of morality. As
one culture which can be seen as superior to others, the first Critique had argued, we cannot know the
we are told. Each culture makes sense, is sufficient ‘thing-in-itself’ (the noumenon) and human nature is
unto it-self within its own religious and philosophical one of those things, precisely. The only solution was
presuppositions. It would be grossly unfair for one for him to ground it among those a prior practical
culture to arrogate to it-self the right to stand on principle built into our very mental makeup, parallel
judgment on another one. And even if one were to to those speculative principles that The Critique of
claim that he/she is not critiquing an alien culture pure Reason has uncovered. These a priori synthetic
from his/her cultural standpoint, but from the fancied judgments were endowed with the qualities of strict
“neutral ground” of “common human nature”, isn’t universality and absolute necessity. One could as

’s
S
that, to say the least, rather naive? For he/she would much expect exceptions to moral laws as one could
p
ee
IA
be, in effect, advocating an understanding of human require, say, the Principle of Identity or Contradiction

ad
r
y
nature mediated by the “pre-understanding of his/ to allow for contravention on the basis of special

Kris a P
n ur
her own culture, however subjectively convinced he/
hn
t
she may be that strict detachment is being observed.

s Ce
And, in any case, in the practical order of things, it

t
would end up by the economically and politically
circumstances.

But, if one were not to go along with Hume and Kant


and accept that not only is there a common human

21
dominant culture foisting itself upon all weaker ones, nature in which we all participate, but can discern
obliterating all “native” or “local “ cultures and “little what basically constitutes it, the problem is dispersed
traditions” in one vast process of cultural domination? at once. In the first place, this doesn’t open the door
In fact, isn’t this what “globalization” amounts to and to all manner of cultural exploitation and foisting
haven’t we all been most vocal in finding fault with questionable pre-understandings and perceptions
it? onto recalcitrant people and their cultures. The basic
make-up of all humans or “common human nature”
Let us begin our response to these very pertinent would comprise the following data: we are embodied
questions with one important introductory remark. beings with a capacity to transcend space and time,
Many of the people who are up in arms at any are social by nature, rooted in a world and have some
mention of a common natural law confuse it with the sort of relatedness to the ultimate: only that and
rigid formalism of the Kantian “categorical nothing more. No host of uncritical “commonness”
imperative.” Nothing could be more wrong. The are being smuggled in as a kind of packaged deal,
categorical imperative of Kantian morality could not forcing people to accept certain attitudes to people,
but enjoin strict and absolute submission, without any places, things and even God as constituting our
possibility of the least exception. To make matters “common human nature”.
worse, they had to be motivated by a purely internal
drive – not out of love for anyone or anything external Furthermore, sense perception is a necessary
to the agent, not even love of one’s country, God, constituent of human nature and this, in itself, opens
family or friends: it had to be nothing but “duty for the door to certain relativism – perceptual relativism.
duty’s sake”. All this is enough to make any Now this opens the door to a whole range of
selfrespecting antinomian see red, to say the least. divergences within and between cultures. For if all
people are seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting the diversity of judgments regarding matters of fact
same objects, they are not necessarily apprehending throws any doubt on the possibility of valid scientific
them in the same way. There is the possibility of judgments about them”
“acquitted tastes” and some people acquire them,
while others don’t. Accepting a common human He then goes on to detail six different contexts
nature does not oblige us to subscribe to a single, wherein a certain variation in moral practices may
common view of things, as rigid and unchanging as be noted between and within certain nations and
the Kantian categorical imperatives. Inasmuch as cultures. In sum, they are as follows: (1) Variations in
much of culture is built on sense perception there is the view as to whom moral rules were held to be
plenty of scope for a certain cultural relativism. applicable. (2) Variations arising due to differences
of opinion as to the non-moral qualities of certain
However, not all cultural differences can be reduced acts and their consequences. (3) Variations arising
to the mere relativeness of our perception of things. from the fact that the same act appears to be seen
Sometimes it stems from a broader and wider differently in different situations and contexts. (4)
interpretation of whole complexes of interrelated Variations arising due to a difference of emphasis on
experiences. A particular local, regional or even different elements comprising moral life. (5)
national customs or rite may imply a judgment that Variations arising from the possibility of alternative
people of a particular gender, ethnic or religious ways of satisfying primary needs. (6) Variations due
background are either non-persons or rather inferior to differences of moral insight and general level of
version of the species. As a result, they are development, ethical as well as intellectual.
disqualified from enjoying certain privileges and

’s
S
rights that another dominant group claims exclusively The range of persons to whom moral rules are held
p
ee
IA
for it. In cases, such as these, where a clear ethical to be applicable: Anthropologists like Taylor recognize

ad
r
y
bias is manifest, one has every right to challenge and a certain “natural solidarity,” comprising a measure

Krishna P
ntur
critique the culture concerned. Cultural divergences,
based on a questionable hermeneutics and implying

s Ce
arrant discrimination against certain people cannot

t
justify itself on the grounds of cultural difference.
of mutual forbearance, helpfulness and trust as
constitutive of all societies. Everyone felt somehow
bound to his or her neighbour by certain societal
bonds of shared care and responsibility. However,

21
there was a divergence of view as to who really were
MORRIS GINSBERG’S “ON THE DIVERSITY OF ones neighbours. Initially, and quite understandably,
MORALS” “neighbour” was rather narrowly understood to be
Professor of Sociology at the University of London only those of one’s own family, tribe or clan and very
from 1929-1954, just one year before his retirement, often it was only the males who, in the full sense,
Ginsberg delivered the Huxley Memorial lecture on were considered moral persons to whom societal
the phenomenon of apparent ethical relativism that norms in all fullness had to be applied. However, what
anthropologists and sociologists were unearthing in constitutes one’s “neighbourness” is not a particular
cross cultural studies. It would be pertinent to quote set of racial features or one’s sex but “human nature
in anticipation, the conclusion he arrives at, after a adequately considered” and so moral laws have to
long and patient scrutiny of the facts. Amidst be applied to all persons, irrespective of their age,
variations moral codes everywhere exhibit striking sex, social status or nationality. No law was
similarities in essentials. There are no societies understood as discriminating against ones neighbour:
without rules of conduct, backed by the general there was only a mistaken perception as to what the
approval of the members. There are none which do term meant. It could well be that vested interest’s
not regard that which contributes to the needs and made use of this confusion to justify their breaking
survival of the group as good, none which do not of promises and agreements to colonised natives.
condemn conduct interfering with the satisfaction of After all, if the natives had no souls, then they were
common needs and threatening the stability of social mere sub-humans and the ethical prescriptions didn’t
relations. As Ginsberg sums it up insightfully, “It might apply in their case.
be argued that the diversity of moral judgments
affords no more proof of their subjectivity than the
Differences arising from the growth of knowledge it may mean because of the love of God, or because
concerning certain acts: This is perhaps best of the love of men, not so much because they are
exemplified with the medical discovery, in fairly recent worthy of it, but because they are the objects of divine
times, of the role played by microbes in generating love and enabled by the Incarnation; or again for
disease. This has given us new responsibilities as prudential reasons because it would lead to beatitude
regards cleanliness and hygiene: hospital staff may in this or another world.” Sometimes, a particular
be guilty of criminal neglect if they are careless in stress may lead to a certain imbalance if there is no
these areas nowadays something totally unheard of critical reflection accompanying the trend. Irrational
in ancient period. Again, it was only in the eighteenth feelings of love and devotion may land one in the
century that people desisted from torturing and extremes of fanaticism. An over-stress on faith may
burning to death alleged “witches.” At that time, such lead to a neglect of justice. Self-discipline may wind
people were seen as being guilty of heinous crimes up in repulsive forms of masochism. It is not so much
and, due to their pernicious influence or occult powers ethical relativism that is to be blamed for all these
could cause serious bodily harm to peoples, bring oddities, but a lack of the cultivation of a spirit of
about natural disasters and jeopardize not only their self-criticism and recta ratio.
own salvation, but of others as well. As Lecky, remarks
“granted these propositions, there was no moral Variations due to different ways of fulfilling basic
difficulty in drawing the conclusion that… needs: This arises when people, though they may be
[They]…should be put to death.”Happily, we live in in agreement as to what constitutes the most basic
more enlightened times and developments in needs of humans (“first order values”), different
psychology and sociology have helped us recognize societies and cultures seek to fulfill them by

’s
S
the folly and error underlying such views. alternative ways (“second order values”). For
p
ee
IA
instance, most communities favour the monogamous

ad
r
y
The same act is seen differently in different contexts/ marriage and the sex-rules associated with it: the

Krishna P
ntur
cultures: Divergences, here, are very often the result
of ethical laws and principles being couched in a very

s Ce
brief formula. As a result, the passage of time or a

t
wholly new set of circumstances in a different climate
association of sex with enduring companionship, the
fusing of sex with tenderness, the enhancement of
the parental relationship through shared interest in
the upbringing and love of children, providing security

21
or culture yield examples of “differences” in ethical to children by the experience of parent’s love for them
behavior as regards the “same” act when, on closer and for each other and so on. These are all “first order
study, we realize that these are totally different ones values” and all cultures recognize these. However,
altogether. What constitutes “usury” in one place may they may seek different ways to realize these ways
not be so in another, depending on the standard of other than monogamous marriage and its customary
living. A simplistic condemnation of “aggression” may practices. Thus, in Bantu society (in Africa), physical
only apparently be broken in the case of a pre-emptive attraction, affection and companionship usually
strike where one nation attacks another because it follow quite different channels. Instead of seeking
has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is these within the context of monogamy, “quite
planning a full scale invasion. In a society where there different channels” are followed for each of the
is no established system of properly conducted law above-mentioned “second order values”, “a man
courts, self-redress may be a legitimate option, desiring his wife, loving his sister and seeking
whereas it would be condemnable wherever there is companionship among his male relatives and friends.”
a working network of judiciary procedures. This is where there is ample scope for dialogue and
exchange, where people of different cultures can
Variations due to differences of emphases in moral challenge each others’ presuppositions and customs,
responsibility: Even if there is a universal agreement seeking how to more fully and deeply realize the basic
that we should do what is right and spurn all that is goals (“first order values”) that they all respect. In
evil, there may be differences of view as to what is our more enlightened times of freedom of enquiry
the ultimate reason we should do so: it may mean, and dialogue, when we have come to realize that no
as Ginsberg summarizes it, “Because it is the will of culture is perfect and infallible and that we have a
God and that will may be considered inscrutable; or lot to learn even from those we don’t quite agree with,
such exchanges can prove beneficial to all the parties (d) The extent to which there is a separation of moral
concerned and no one will come away from serious codes from law and from religion: this is important
and sincere sharing with quite the same convictions because if no clear demarcation is made, the
and presuppositions with which he or she entered principles of the dominant religion will be taken as
into it. the basis of law and morality and this will imply scant
respect, if any, for people who don’t subscribe to the
Divergences due to the particular level of mental doctrines of the dominant religion: obviously, there
development: The development of mental, and should be left scope for individual decision in certain
therefore, moral acumen may be gauged, Ginsberg matters and the law should not employ its machinery
says, from five perspectives: (a) The degree of to oblige everyone to act as if he or she was not in
universalism that a moral system envisages: this is a full accord with the teachings of a given religion; (e)
matter of assessing whether the moral code stops The extent to which moral systems permit, even
with the confines of the family, tribe or clan or whether encourage, self-criticism and selfdirection: a system
it goes on to include rules governing how one should which assumes that even adults are too immature to
deal with the larger family, embracing people of all make their own religious and moral decisions and
nations, ethnic groups, cultures and religions and refuse to tolerate even the mildest form of dissent,
making no discrimination according to sex, age or even when presented non-violently is certainly inferior
religion; (b) The range or comprehensiveness of to one that assures for a public debate on complex
experience embodied in the particular moral code: issues and in the light of contemporary development
obviously the moral code of a small group that takes in the social sciences.
out a kind of nomadic existence by hunting and

’s
S
gathering will be very sensitive to issues linked with
p
ee
IA
rather limited way of life, but it will be lacking as to

ad
r
y
guidelines for business, economic and inter religious

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
relationships; (c) The extent to which the underlying
hn
t
moral codes and principles that are the basis of any
moral system are brought to light and scrutinized as

t
to how justified they are and whether they have been

21
made to fit together coherently and harmoniously;
3. AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
Etymologically the term “ethics” correspond to morality refers to the first-order beliefs and practices
the Greek word “ethos” whichmeans character, habit, about good and evil bymeans of which we guide our
customs, ways of behaviour, etc. Ethics is also called behaviour (e.g. music and musicology). However, in
“moral philosophy”. The word “moral” comes from most cases they are referred to as having the same
Latin word “mores” which signifies customs, meaning.
character, behaviour, etc. Thus ethics may be defined Ethics is not merely a set of ‘codes’. Ethics
as the systematic study of human actions from the certainly deals with moral codes yet one cannot
point of viewof their rightfulness or wrongfulness, identify ethics to moral codes. Ethics is not primarily
as means for the attainment of the ultimate to restrict one’s behaviour, rather to help one to find
happiness. It is the reflective study of what is good what is good and how to get it. The obligatory
or bad in that part of human conduct for which human character of ethical norms derives from the very
has some personal responsibility. In simple words purpose of ethical enquiry, i.e. to discover the most
ethics refers to what is good and the way to get it, ultimate principles of explanation or the most
and what is bad and how to avoid it. It refers to what ultimate reasons why one ought to do anything.
ought to be done to achieve what is good and what
Scope of Ethics
ought not to be done to avoid what is evil.
Ethics deals with voluntary actions. We can
As a philosophical discipline, ethics is the study
distinguish between human actions and actions of
of the values and guidelines by which we live. It also
human: human actions are those actions that are done
s
involves the justification of these values and

p
S
by human consciously, deliberately and in view of an
e
A
guidelines. It is not merely following a tradition or
e
I
end. Actions of human may not be wilfully, voluntarily,
ad
y
custom. Instead it requires analysis and evaluation
r
P
r
consciously and deliberately done but all the same
of these guidelines in light of universal principles.
a
n
tu
they are done by human (e.g. sleeping, walking, etc.).
sh
As moral philosophy, ethics is the philosophical

Kri
n
It is the intention whichmakes the difference between

s Ce
thinking about morality, moral problems, and moral
human action and action of human. In ethics we deal

t
judgements.
only with human actions.

21
Ethics is a science in as much as it is a set or
History of Ethics
body of reasoned truths organised in a logical order
and having its specific material and formal objects. Ethics is as old as humanity. The first ethical
It is the science of what human ought to be by reason precepts were certainly passed down by word of mouth
of what one is. It is a rational science in so far as its by parents and elders, but as societies learned to use
principles are deduced by human’s reason from the the written word, they began to set down their ethical
objects that concern the free will. Besides it has for beliefs. These records constitute the first historical
its ulterior end the art by which human may live evidence of the origins of ethics.
uprightly or comfortably to right reason. It is a In as much as it is the study of human behaviour,
normative/regulative science in as much as it we cannot really trace the history of ethics. However,
regulates and directs human’s life and gives the right as a systematic study of human behaviour, we can
orientation to one’s existence. point out how ethics evolved as a discipline. It is not
Ethics is also theoretical and practical. It is that we have first a straightforward history of moral
theoretical in as much as it provides the fundamental concepts and then a separate and secondary history
principles on the basis of which moral judgements of philosophical comment. To set out to write the
are arrived at. It is practical in as much as it is history of moral philosophy involves a careful
concerned about an end to be gained, and the means selection from the past of what falls under the heading
of attaining it. of moral philosophy as we now conceive it. We have
to strike a balance between the danger of a dead
Ethics is sometimes distinguished from morality.
antiquarianism, which enjoys the illusion that we can
In such cases, ethics is the explicit philosophical
approach the past without preconceptions, and the
reflection onmoral beliefs and practices while
other of believing that the whole point of the past Aristotelian science and philosophy with Augustinian
was that it should culminate with us. However, we theology. Aquinas greatly succeeded in proving the
can observe a gradual development in the ethical compatibility of Aristotelian naturalism with Christian
thought from the beginning to our day. dogma and constructing a unified view of nature,
In the Western Philosophy, the history of ethics human, and God.
can be traced back to the fifth century B.C with the The social and political changes that
appearance of Socrates. As a philosopher among the characterized the end ofmedieval period and the rise
Greeks hismission was to awaken his fellow humans ofmodern age of industrial democracy gave rise to a
to the need for rational criticismof their beliefs and new wave of thinking in the ethical field. The
practices. It was the time when the philosophers development of commerce and industry, the discovery
began to search for reasons for established modes of new regions of the world, the Reformation, the
of conduct. Socrates, in demanding rational grounds Copernican and Galilean revolutions in science, and
for ethical judgements, brought attention to the the rise of strong secular governments demanded new
problem of tracing the logical relationship between principles of individual conduct and social
values and facts and thereby created ethical organization. Some of the modern philosophers who
philosophy. Plato’s theory of forms could be seen as contributed to the great changes in ethical thinking
the first attempt at defendingmoral realismand were Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Thomas
offering an objective ground for moral truths. From Hobbes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Benedict de
the Republic on through the later dialogues and Spinoza, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant,
epistles, Plato constructed a systematic view of John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche. Further
nature, God, and human from which one derived one’s developments in ethical thinking in the west came
’s
p
S
ethical principles. His main goal in his ethical with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Here we are not

Prad
r
ee
y IA
philosophy was to lead the way toward a vision of
the Good. Aristotle differed from Plato in his method

na
u
intending to give a detailed analysis of their
contribution to ethics. However, the most influential

h
t
of inquiry and his conception of the role of ethical ethical thought during this period were the
s
Kri
s Cen
principles in human affairs. While Plato was the Utilitarianism, dominated by British and French
fountainhead of religious and idealistic ethics, Philosophy (e.g. Locke, Hume, Bentham, Stuart Mill)

t
21
Aristotle engendered the naturalistic tradition. and Idealistic ethics in Germany and Italy (e.g. Kant,
Aristotle’s ethical writings (i.e. Eudemian Ethics, the Hegel, Nietzsche).
Nicomachean Ethics, and the Politics) constitute the The contemporary ethical scenario is a further
first systematic investigation into the foundations of complex area of study. The contemporary European
ethics. Aristotle’s account of the virtues could be seen ethics in the broadest sense attempts to cover a
as one of the first sustained inquiries in normative generous range of philosophies running from
ethics. It was a clear mixture of Greco-Roman thought phenomenology to theories of communicative action.
with Judaism and elements of other Middle Eastern The conditions of contemporary civilization forced
religions. philosophers to seek for a genuine ground for ethics
The medieval period was dominated by the and moral life. In much of the English speaking world
thoughts of Christian philosophers and theologians G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica (1903) is taken to be
like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The influence of the starting point of contemporary ethical theory.
Christianity dominated the ethical scenario. So much Others like Martin Buber, Gabriel Marcel, Emmanuel
so that during this period philosophy and religion Levinas, Max Scheler, Franz Brentano and John Dewey
were nearly indistinguishable. The rise of Christian too have made significant contributions to the ethical
philosophy produced a new era of history of ethics. thinking in other parts of the world.
In St. Augustine, themost prominent philosopher of Method of Ethics
the early medieval period, ethics became a blend of
the pursuit of earthly well-being with preparation of Ethics, as a philosophical discipline makes use
the soul for eternal salvation. The next towering figure of the methods used in philosophy. Thus in ethics,
of medieval philosophy is Thomas Aquinas. He both the inductive method and deductive methods
brought about a true reconciliation between are used. Deduction is a process of gaining knowledge
independently of experience through pure logical practices and beliefs but simply describe the practices
reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a observed in the different groups or cultures.
universal or general truth and leads to knowledge of Metaethics focuses on the analysis of themeanings
a particular instance of it. The classical form of of the central terms used in ethical reasoning and
deductive reasoning is the syllogism in which a decision-making. It attempts to answer questions of
necessary conclusion is derived fromtwo accepted meaning.
premises: e.g All men are mortal, Ram is a man, and Division of Ethics
therefore, Ramismortal. Induction is a process of
arriving at knowledge through experience. Induction The whole study of ethics can be divided into
begins with the particular andmoves to the universal, General Ethics (nature of moral activity, norm of
a generalization that accounts for other examples of morality, foundation of morality, end of morality, etc)
the same category or class. For instance, if a number and Special Ethics (applies the principles of general
of ravens have been observed, all of which are black, ethics to the various actions of human activity).
and if no raven has been encountered that is not back, However, when we consider the ethical theories,
the inferences to the conclusion that the next philosophers today usually divide them into three
observed raven will be black or to the general general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics
conclusion that all ravens are black, are inductive and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates the origin
inferences. and meaning of ethical concepts. It studies where
However, in ethics the inductive method our ethical principles come from and what they mean.
(particular to the universal) is generally preferred to It tries to analyse the underlying principles of ethical
the deductive (universal to the particular). values; Normative ethics tries to arrive at moral
’s
p
S
standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. It
e
A
Different Approaches to the Study of Ethics
e
I
is a more practical task. It is a search for an ideal
ad
Pr
r y
There are basically four different approaches to litmus test of proper behaviour; Applied ethics
a
n
tu
the study of ethics. Tom L.Beauchamp, in his book involves examining specific controversial issues, such
sh
Kri
n
Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental

s Ce
Philosophy presents them with the following diagram: concerns, homosexuality, and so on. In applied ethics,

t using the conceptual tools of metaethics and

21
Descriptive ethics normative ethics, one tries to resolve these
Nonnormative approaches controversial issues.
Meta-ethics
Often the lines of distinction between metaethics,
General normative ethics normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry.
Normative approaches For instance, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical
Applied ethics
topic in as much as it involves a specific type of
controversial behaviour. But it is also an issue
The non-normative approaches examine morality involving normative principles such as the right of
without concern formaking judgements as to what is self-rule and the right to life and an issue
morally right or wrong. They do not take any moral havingmetaethical issues such as, “where do rights
position regarding moral issues. The normative come from?” and “what kind of beings have rights?”.
approaches instead make judgements as to what is
morally right or wrong. They take a clear moral position Ethics and Other Sciences
regarding moral issues. In our analysis of the definition and nature of
Among the two nonnormative approaches to ethics, we have seen that ethics as a science is
ethics, descriptive ethics describe and sometimes try concerned with an end or ideal or standard. Most
to explain the moral and ethical practices and beliefs sciences, instead, are concerned with certain
of certain societies and cultures. This is what uniformities of our experience – with the ways in
sociologists, anthropologists, and historians often do which certain classes of objects (such as rocks or
in their study and research. In their descriptions they plants) are found to exist, or with the ways in which
do not make judgements about the morality of the certain classes of events (such as phenomena of
sound or electricity) are found to occur. These which suggests that religion may be a profoundly
sciences have no direct reference to any end that is liberating force in individual’s lives and an important
to be achieved or to any ideal by reference to which force for social change.
the facts are judged. Importance of Studying Ethics
Ethics is distinguished from the natural sciences, Today, more than ever, the importance of ethics
inasmuch as it has a direct reference to an end that is felt at every sphere of human living. The situation
human persons desire to attain. Although ethics is in the present world is characterised by an increasing
sometimes regarded as a practical science, it is not rate in crime, with no end to such increase in sight.
a ‘practical science’ as medicine, engineering or Besides, the power of traditional religions to inspire
architecture in as much as it is not directed towards moral conduct continues to decline. Terrorism, civil
the realization of a definite result. Ethics is often said wars, industrial pollution, planned obsolescence,
to be the fruit of all the sciences since it ultimately misleading advertising, deceptive labelling, crooked
perfects human person, by ordering all other sciences insurance adjusting, unfair wages, crime syndicates,
and all things else in respect to an ultimate end that illegal gambling, forced prostitution, high jacking,
is absolutely supreme. match-fixing…so many are the prevailing trends! Truly,
there seems to be hardly a few areas in life remain
untouched by growing demoralization! The question
that one may ask in this precarious situation is: Are
we being sucked into a moral vacuum? Is this our way
to the end of ethics?

’s
p
S
We can point out at least three reasons why we

ee
IA
should study ethics. First, the study ofmoral
ad
Pr
r y
philosophy or ethics can deepen our reflection on the
a
n
tu
ultimate questions of life. The study of ethics helps a
sh
Kri
n
person to look at his own life critically and to evaluate

s Ce
his actions/choices/decisions. It assists a person in

t knowing what he/she really is and what is best for

21
him/her and what he/she has to do in order to attain
it.
Ethics and Religion
Second, the study ofmoral philosophy can help
Ethics has no necessary connection with any us to think better about morality. Moral philosophy
particular religion. However, it is sometimes argued can help us to clarify our moral positions when we
that without God or religion, ethics would have no make judgements. It improves out perspective,
point; and therefore insofar as God or religion is in andmakes itmore reflective and better thought out. It
question, so is ethics. This is evidently unacceptable. can also improve our thinking about specificmoral
Although belief inGod or religion can be an added issues. In our every day life we are confronted with
reason for our being moral, it is not necessary to situations in which we have to decide what is the
relate it to God or to any religion. The fact that ethics correct course of action and what is to be avoided.
exists in all human societies shows that ethics is a Whether we choose to act or to refrain from acting,
natural phenomenon that arises in the course of the we are in either case making a choice. Every decision
evolution of social, intelligent, long-lived mammals or choice we make we do so for reasons. However,
who possess the capacity to recognize each other and we should agree that some of these reasons are
to remember the past behaviour of others. better than the others in judging the rightness of the
Critics of religion such as Marx and Nietzsche decision or choice. However, there seems to be a
saw religion as a profound source of social conformity, common agreement that we should all strive to do
as a means of maintaining the status quo and keeping the right thing, to do what is morally acceptable in a
people confined to their existing social and economic given situation or circumstance. However, the issue
positions. Yet there is another face of religion, one of disagreement is over the question of what exactly
is the right thing to do. institutions which are designed to make life easier
Third, the study ofmoral philosophy can help us and better for humankind, cannot function without
to sharpen our general thinking processes. It trains certain moral principles. However, here the question
ourmind to think logically and reasonably and to of individual freedom can also come in. How far the
handle moral issues with greater clarity. Ethics society can go on demanding? Should it not respect
becomes inevitable as by nature human being is a the freedomof the individual? Is morality made forman
‘social’ being, a being living in relationship with other or man is made for morality?
fellow beings and with the nature around. All actions, Morality is a lot like nutrition. Most of us have
whether one is aware of it or not, someway or another never had a course in nutrition or even readmuch
affects the others. In order to make a decision/ about it. Yetmany of us do have some general
judgement one bases himself on a standard of right knowledge of the field, of what we need to eat and
and wrong even though the measure may not be the what not. However, we also make mistakes about
same at all times. these things. Often thinking of the good a particular
Thus, ethical problems confront everybody. diet can do in the long run for our health, we may go
Nobody can really get through life without ethics, for it although it may bring no immediate satisfaction.
even if one may not be aware of the ethical principles. So too is ourmoral life.While nutrition focuses on our
Consciously or unconsciously all of us are every day physical health, morality is concerned about our moral
making moral decisions. Whether we are aware of it health. It seeks to help us determine what will
or not, the fact is that we do have ethical attitudes nourish our moral life and what will poison it. It seeks
and are taking moral stances every day of our lives. to enhance our lives, to help us to live better lives.
Morality aims to provide us with a common point of
’s
p
S
Why be Moral? view fromwhich we can come to agreement about

Pr d
r
ee
y IA
Not few are the people who ask this question:
a
Why should we be moral? Why should we take part
na
u
what all of us ought to do. It tries to discover a more
objective standpoint of evaluation than that of purely

h
t
in the moral institution of life? Why should we adopt personal preference.
s
Kri
s Cen
a moral point of view?

t
In every human person there is a deep desire for

21
good. Human being by nature tend to good –
summum bonum. Eachman/woman desires what is
best for himself/herself. The ethical principles
andmoral practices help one to attain what is best. It
helps a person to perfect himself/herself as amoral
being.Morality has to domore with one’s interior self
than the practice of some customs or set rules.
Viewed from this point, morality is a deep down
desire in human person and is something to do with
the very nature of human person. The rational nature
of human person makes him/her aware of certain
fundamental principles of logical and moral
reasoning. This means that there is not only a
subjective aspect to every human action but also an
objective one that prompts human person to base
himself/herself on certain common principles.
We also find that for the functioning of any
society we need certain rules and regulations. The
conditions of a satisfactory human life for people living
in groups could hardly obtain otherwise (neither a
“state of nature” nor a “totalitarian state”). The
4. Ethics in Greek Philosophy Introduction
The aim of Greek ethics was to develop certain “Right reckoning, when discovered, checks civil strife
principles which help man to lead a good life or happy and increases concord...(it is) the standard and
life. The most important search and quest of the deterrent of wrong doers”. It is quite possible that
human being in every human epoch is to discover the Aristotelian and themedieval theories of right reason
final end of his activity. Confronted with amultitude (recta ratio) as the normof ethical judgement are
of ends, he is unable to assess and make sure of what directly indebted to Pythagorean intellectualism.
the ultimate end would consist. Thus there are some
Heraclitian Ethics
age old questions:What is good? What is the highest
good? What is the meaning of Good? Is it related to Heraclitean fragments suggest that there is an ever-
the good life of man? What is a good life? Is it happy present rational pattern (logos) in this Process or
life? What is the end and aim of life? Who is man, ‘Becoming’. Heraclitus says: “To be ethical is to live
what is his function, what does man act for, what is a rational life, to obey the dictates of reason, which
the ultimate end of a man’s activity and, finally, who is the same for us all, the same for the whole world.”
is the supreme infallible authority to judge the good Man is entrusting himself to his senses, and he lives
life? as if he were epileptic.
Pythagorian Ethics Research on Heraclitus reveals that his moral
views are of primary importance in his
Pythagoras founded an association, the purpose
teaching.Moralitymeans respect for law, self-
of which is described as ethical, religious, and
discipline, control of the passions; to be moral is to
’s
S
political. His ideal was to develop among his followers
p govern oneself by rational principles. The following
ee
IA
political virtues, to teach them to act for the good of

ad excerpts from his writings illustrate the lofty idealism


r
y
the state, to subordinate them to the whole. Here
P
r
of Heraclitus’ ethics: “Character is aman’s guardian
a
u
the individual should learn to control oneself, to
n
t
divinity”; “It is hard to contend with passion; for
sh
Kri
n
moderate his or her passions, to harmonise his or
whatever it desires to get it buys at the cost of the

s Ce
her soul; he or she should have respect for the
soul”. “To me one man is ten thousand if he be the

t
authority, for the authority of his or her elders, his or

21
best”.
her teachers and the state. As a result, the view has
been held that the Pythagoreans were political The word ‘logos’ of Heraclitus has a decisive
communities. But they were not essentially political philosophical meaning. The ‘logos’ brings the
but religious or ethical. contraries into harmony or itmakes possible the
“coexistence of contraries”. ‘Logos’ reveals itself, it
Purification of Soul: The chief orientation of his
thinks itself and it is. It is the universal law immanent
teaching was to the religious-ascetic ideals which
in all things and binding all things into unity and
centred round purification and purity. Pythagoreans
determining the constant change in accordance with
saw the human soul as the life spirit which endures
universal law. Man’s reason is a moment in this
after the death of its first body and may take its abode
universal Reason. Man, therefore, has to struggle to
subsequently in another human or animal body. This
live according to the reign of unalterable law. Man’s
theory ofmetempsychosis or transmigration of souls
reason and consciousness, which are the fiery
is ethically significant since it provides for the
element. Without pure fire body is worthless.
rewarding of good action and the punishment of evil
in these subsequent reincarnations. That is why they Democritian Ethics
undergo purification and soul training in their life. Democritus stressed the soul as the locus of
Right Reasoning: This is the beginning of a very human wellbeing. His concept of eudaimonia includes
important approach to ethical problems, the view that both the notion of ‘good existence’ (eu-esto) and of
‘good’ means what is rational and intelligible. Thus, ‘good feeling’ (eu-thumie). Pace Gosling and Taylor
in the fourth century B.C., a later Pythagorean, think that Democritus was the first Greek philosopher
Archytas of Tarentum, first enunciated the principle to produce a systematic ethical theory. The most
of “right reasoning” as the key to good behaviour: important step towards systematisation was the
transition from the vague ethical thinking that Socratic Ethics
everybody wants to be happy or cheerful, or free from His teachings on moral and religious elements
troubles. Democritus argues again, “Medical science are philosophical insights. These insights are the
heals diseases of the body but wisdom rids soul off fundamental principles which brightened his life. They
passions.” When one is free from passion he are mainly concerned with good and evil, conscience,
experiences happiness. The superiority of reason is the ethical person and moral virtues. Socrates clearly
taken into consideration in the ethical life. The end did think that all the moral virtues are rooted in
of all conduct of men is wellbeing of society and practical wisdom or knowledge. The central teaching
ultimately of man. Well-being means not only the of Socratic ethics is “knowledge is virtue”. He who
intellectual satisfaction but also the pleasure of knows, what good is, will do good. By this he wanted
senses. It needs a little pain, and requires repetition to tell that the right insight led to the right action. For
and moderation of pleasure. The less you desire, the Socrates, themoral conscience is not mere sentiment
less you are disappointed. All virtues are valuable but it is a responsibility before God. Human life is
only if they help to cultivate happiness. Envy, jealousy not tragic; one should confront it with the spirit.
and bitterness ofmind bring friction and they will
destroy everybody. The sense of duty must be the Socratic ethic is teaching that human is a moral
basis of doing the right thing; it should not be from being in general. This was a revolutionary thought
the fear of punishment. We have to serve the state against the belief of the aristocratic people who
too, because if the state is in peace, all realm of state thought that morals are limited only to a privileged
will grow; if the governance of the state is corrupted, group. He believed and taught that doing good is the
then there will not be any order or law but only chaos. moral duty of all human beings and possible for all.

’s Socrates was teaching two moral imperatives


p
S
Protagorian Ethics
e
A
attributed to the Delphic Oracle: “Know Thyself”

shna Pr
t
a
u
d
r
e
y I
Protagoras, a Sophist, took a relativistic position
on ethical judgements. His most famous teaching is
(gnôthi seauton), and “Avoid Excess” (meden agan).
For Socrates the ultimate evil was the “unexamined

Kri
n
that “man is the measure of all things”. This idea life”. He forced upon people for the recognition of

s Ce
would closely affiliate him with the common Greek their ignorance. At the end of the Apology Socrates

t
respect for the judgement of rational beings. A thing told those jurors, who voted for his acquittal, of his

21
becomes right or wrong always in relation to one’s confidence that death will not be an evil thing for
need. Actually, Protagoras did advocate the practical him. He advised them, “to bear in mind this one truth:
virtue of good judgement. It is also more probable that no evil comes to a good man in life or in death”.
that he meant that each individual man is the sole Socrates believed that there is life after death, which
judge of what is true or right for himself. Sextus reflects in the life itself. A virtuous life here leads to
Empiricus interprets it: “He posits only what appears happiness in the life after death. The proof for this is
to each individual, and thus he introduces relativity.” his death itself. This was done according to his faith
That means one is more normal or natural than the in the immortality of soul. This faith ismore religious
other: the vision of the normal eye is more reliable than rational certainty. His life was a faith in the soul
than of the jaundiced eye. rather than a philosophy of the spirit. For him pleasure
Thrasymachian Ethics is below to the virtue.

Thrasymachus is said to have taught that “Might Platonic Ethics


is right”. In the Republic Plato speaks of Plato sees human more in the soul. He affirms
Thrasymachus as a thinker who claims that “just or that “we are souls”. He meant that Soul is human.
right means nothing but what is to the interest of the Evil elements are not in human but in the body. The
stronger party”. Plato himself criticises, that the real evil for human is the body, because human is
honourable is one thing by nature and another by law, always trying to liberate oneself from the bondage
and that the principles of justice have no existence of body. Only with liberation of soul from body, a
at all in nature, but that mankind is always disputing person can be happy and his ethics is known as
about them and altering them. They are told by them eudaimonistic ethics. Plato’s works on ethics are
that the highest right is might. fundamentally ‘eudaimonistic’ i.e., about well-being
or a happy life. He saw the good life for man in terms A good state depends upon the government. Here
of a personal attainment of well-being. In this level the rulers are ruling with reason in wisdom. In the
man’s reason would regulate and order all functions fourth book of the Republic the citizens are divided
of the irrational appetites. Therefore the ethics of into three classes just like the division of man. 1) The
Plato is known as ‘intellectualistic’. The wise man is lowest class is productive and acquisitive. And its
the one who can do the right thing and knows the virtue is in particular temperance, but not set aside
right thing. He believed that the learned and rationally only for this class but also generally for the society
developed soul is the good soul. For him therefore, as a whole because “the desire of the
wisdom is the greatest virtue. inferiormultitude will be controlled by the desires and
The movement within each human toward the the wisdom of the superior few”. 2) The middle class
ideal personality is an original version of self- is spirited, competitive, and warlike, its distinctive
perfection ethics. The development of the basic virtue is courage. 3) The highest class is that of the
virtues is a personal process, of course, and varies rulers which is distinguished by its rationality and
from one man to the next. Childress comments on its special virtue is practical wisdom. Themost
this point: Platonic ethics is eudaimonistic in the capablemember of the highest class will become
sense that it is centred around the attainment of man’s philosophers and will be given complete political rule,
highest good, his true happiness, which involves the since every good ruler is one who governs in virtue of
right cultivation of his soul and harmonious well-being knowledge of the truth. When all these three classes
of his life. work well together, the city becomes virtuous and
perfect. The special virtue of the highest class is
Human has to find happiness in intellectual justice. The goal of the state is general justice, while

’s
exercise. Virtue does not depend upon the will, but

S
each of three classes follows their own virtue. In other
p
e
A
on the practical intelligence, that understands the
e
I
words, we can tell that social morality or individual’s

ad
y
virtue and changes it into action. The realisation of
r morality is the purpose of the state

a P
ur
virtue is more important than the education. If the
n
h
t
In Plato’s ‘ideal state’ rulers and soldiers are not
s
Kri
n
virtue is realised only to the highly educated people

s Ce
then the ethical life is only for philosophers. Here allowed family life or private property. They are
suggested community life. This is a half type of

t
the ethics of Plato becomes an ethics of aristocracy.

21
The ordinary people get only true opinion or extrinsic communism. He confirmed that women could rule a
knowledge through the public education of moral life. country, because women have exactly the same
He also believed that the greatest happiness is in powers of reasoning asmen, provided that they get
the contemplation of the highest ‘Ideas’. Yet Plato, the same training. He said, a state that does not
like most of the Greeks, was well aware of the social educate and train women is like a man who only trains
dimensions of human life and well-being. A good life his right hand. Plato had a good vision of women,
needs association with other persons. Thus ethics considering the time he lived.
grows as part of politics which treats how to deal in Division of Soul:According to Plato human’s soul
a state (polis). is divided into three parts. One part stands for the
Political Thought.7.3. Political Ethics: In the book of appetitive or concupiscent part of the soul (to
Republic Plato gave the picture of an ‘ideal state’ epithumetikon) the second part is the spirited part
which could be ruled by philosophers. The origin of (thumos); in fact these two parts represent two
state is natural. At a certain moment, a group of appetites in man: the desire for sensual satisfaction
families can not live together and be self-sufficient. and aspiration for success and fame. The third part
Economic needs brought division of labour and its is reason (logos, to logistikon) the highest part
administration. This is the functional requirement of ofman’s soul. All these three parts work together for
the nature. Plato says, “Every citizen must practise happiness.
only one activity of the many regarding civil life; that Virtues of the Soul: Each part of the soul has its
activity to which his natural inclination is most special virtue. Practical wisdom (phronêsis, sophia)
disposed”. Therefore, a sound state gets its life and is the virtue of the rational part. Courage or manliness
its function goes well. Then there arises the need for (andreia) perfects the spirited part. Temperance
defence and the government.
(sôphrosunê) is another virtue, which moderates countrymen. He lays down his life for the other. The
desire. Finally,) justice (dikaiosunê) as a virtue of nobility of his character in the function is expressed
individual man is that general condition of soul in clearly all through his life. He can also love a goodman
which each part performs its proper function. The just as his second self. He becomes aman of justice.
man does what is right in his external actions as a Justice is the crown of all virtues, because it is in
citizen of a state; he does the right because his soul relation to others. Justice consisted in giving one’s
is internally well-ordered. To live well, with clear due. Justice considers all in a just way, whether he is
understanding, one must rise to a vision of the idea a ruler or a servant. The mean position can be judged
of the Good. properly only by the virtuous man.
Aristotlean Ethics Pleasure and Happiness: The ultimate end
Aristotle attempts to explain ethics as a science, ofman’s activity is the happiness. Life of happiness
which gives meaning of highest good. All acts of man includes pleasure also. Pleasure is the necessary and
have some ends in view of the acts. Every end has immediate consequences of virtuous activity, but not
again another end of higher quality. If it is so, there the end of life. Pleasure is the completion of activity.
must be some super most good, for the sake of which Pleasure is the concomitant of action, but pleasure
every other good is to be hierarchically ordered. What is not the effect of the act of reason. Hence it will not
is the highest good? The goodness of a thing consists be the highest good.
in the realization of its specific nature. For man it is Since rational part is the highest part, its activity
the realization of the life of reason, not sensitive life will be the highest activity proper to man. The
like animal or vegetative life like plants. Therefore, contemplative life is the highest life, the most

’s
man must function as a human being. The realization continuous, the most pleasant, most self-sufficient,

a Prad
r
e
y
p
AS
of human being is in happiness or ‘eudaimonia’. In
e
I
order to realize this goal all other parts of soul must
most intrinsically worthy way of life. This type of life
will be a step higher than virtuous life; since virtuous

u
cooperate in this direction. The virtue of the sensitive life belongs to the sensitive part, which is under the
n
Krish
nt
part is the moral virtue. This moral virtue must be control of rational part.

s Ce
controlled by the reason, i.e., rational part. These Function Argument: Aristotle says every being has

t
moral virtues are such as justice, temperance, a special function according to its nature. Here the

21
courage, liberality. nature of a thing consists in fulfilling its special
Principle of Mean: The virtue exists in between function. He is of this opinion that human function is
the excess and deficiency. The mean of virtue is not with an “activity of soul in accordance with virtue
to be confused withmediocrity. It is not a safe way and if there are more than one virtue, then it will be
between two extremes. The virtuousmean is the most accordance with the best and most perfect virtue. He
reasonable course of action to be taken in a given thinks with the concept of good in a specialized realm,
situation. Aristotle does not claim the universality of for example, the good of a flutist or of a sculptor,
the principle of mean. This principle is not applicable consists in fulfilling a certain function. A flutist
in the things that are bad in themselves. For example: becomes a good flutist by playing the flute well, not
shamelessness, envy, adultery, theft and murder. They by playing cricket. The same law should be held true
are bad in itself, not only because of their excess or of human beings in general. If human person has a
deficiency, but because they are always wrong and function to do, its goodness consists in doing that
never right. peculiar function perfectly well. Human function is
The mean will be relative to each individual, but not any activity of the soul that conforms to virtue,
it should be measured by the proper reason of the for eating is an activity that can conformto the virtue
right-minded man. The virtuous man is the measure of temperance, but it is an activity of the lowest
of all things. He judges everything correctly and he faculty of the soul, the nutritive faculty. Like that, the
acts virtuously. The good man realizes his true self sensation can not be the peculiar function of the
when he loves and acts according to the supreme human, because animals do the same activity.
part of his self. The virtuous man does not act for his Aristotle is seeking something which is very peculiar
selfishness, but he acts for his friend and his to human alone: certain life of the part of having
reason. This should be the function of the human,
the activity of reason, which is characteristically the happiness is twofold. These two kinds of happiness
human beings engage in. are proportioned to man’s nature, and obtainable by
The function argument can thus be explained: means of natural capacities. These two kinds of
happiness are those to which the moral and the
1) every species has a unique essence, which is its intellectual virtues are immediately ordered. Aristotle
function. finishes his discussion indicating that contemplation,
2) The good of each species is just doing well its which is the peak point of happiness, is similar to
function. God’s activity of contemplation. We understand that
Aristotle puts forward by this concept of a two-fold
3) The essence of the human is activity in accordance
happiness two ideals for life: theoretical life and
with reason. Thus the good of the human is such
practical life. It is not possible that everybody can
activities. Thereby the by-product of such activity is
lead the contemplative life; still each one has the
happiness.
opportunity to lead a happy life that is a virtuous
Teleological Argument: Aristotle is universally political life. Here, we find the greatness of
praised for inventing the concept of teleology. In Aristotelian ethics. Those, who cannot lead the
Physics Aristotle declares that “nature is among the highest happy life, will not be happy as they might
causes which act for the sake of something”. ‘For the have been, still they can lead the best kind of life in
sake of something’ is a thing’s purpose. This is the the fullness of moral virtuous life.
end or goal at which a thing aims. Aristotle is of this
The Aristotelian contemplator is a man who has
opinion that nature does nothing purposeless. The
already acquired wisdom; and what he is
nature is not without purpose. The natural processes,
contemplating is precisely this wisdomalready present
’s
S
according to Aristotle, are ordered to the good ends.
p in hismind. By contemplation he brings his wisdom
ee
IA
Among the good ends, there must be a single supreme

ad once again to the forefront of his mind. In this way


r
y
good; this supreme good must be God.
P
r
contemplation is a quasi-aesthetic appreciation of
a
n
tu
Aristotle believes that man’s ultimate aspiration
sh wisdom and truth. The activity of God is also

Kri
s Cen
is to contemplate and imitate the highest being, God. contemplation. So, if man can also do the activity
All other material beings except human person aspire which resembles the activity of God, he is doing a

t
21
to become human person, who is the best among Godlike activity. That means he is experiencing the
thematerial beings. Human person has the character life of God.
of reason which distinguishes human person from all
Epicurean Ethics
other beings in the cosmos. So we understand there
is a hierarchical order in the process of reaching the As all other philosophies of this age, the main
highest good. Therefore, there is a purposeful act of thrust of Epicureanism was the acquisition of
actualization from lower to higher. happiness. He believed that the powerful objection
to happiness was fear of death instructed by religion.
In Aristotelian words, one might say that
He wanted to root out this fear from his followers
everything in the universe strives to actualize its
and accordingly he formulated his philosophy by
potentialities or capacities. Growth leads to maturity
explaining the nature of the universe. Our happiness
or fullness of things. This tendency for growth is the
depends upon ourselves in this life. Man has two
hidden cause within the nature of that being. This
types of pains: physical pain and psychological
completion of hidden potencies is the good at which
distress. According to him the end of human existence
everything aims. This purpose or teleology, therefore,
is the health of the body and tranquility. Actually he
rules Aristotelian ethics, although as we shall see,
meant when he said, pleasure is “the absence of pain
deontological elements, those pointing to the duties,
in the body and of trouble in the soul.” He did
are not absent from it. Moral obligation is only the
deliberately say that this was not the pleasure of
consequence of man’s good life. Therefore in Physics
prodigal or the pleasure of sensuality (Letter to
he says that there is purpose in the things which come
Menoeceus, 131-2).
to be and are by nature.
The means of pleasure are the practice of the
Contemplation: The whole purpose of virtue is
four virtues. They are prudence, temperance, fortitude
to achieve happiness, but according to Aristotle
and friendship. Prudence is for the calculation of the one who is mere duty oriented without good
pleasures. The next two virtues are instruments for intention. Virtue transforms the duty to right
pleasures; because they control the desire and lead intention. According to Stoics, virtue is the highest
to the continuation of pleasures. These virtues good and the highest happiness, because only a
become evil, if they do not bring pleasures. The last virtuous life can lead and experience a happy life. To
virtue is to enjoy the communion of the people live in such a way is to realize one’s self; and thereby
especially in the public. For him justice is not a virtue, to realize the will of the universe and therefore to
because it is not harming others. This is in cohabiting serve the purpose of universal reason and to remain
in the name of giving and having which reduces itself for the universal ends. The stoic ethics stands for a
into utilitarian fact. Animals also share this reality. universal society of rational beings with the same
Epicurus is registered as one of the members of rights and duties, because the fundamental principle
classical Greek ethicists. We see the special role of is same in all and this is the will of God.
reason in his arguments for the attainment of In Republic of Plato, he speaks, “Each of us
happiness. He believed that pleasure is not should lay aside all other learning, to study only how
intrinsically evil in itself (Principal Doctrines, 8). But he may discover one who can give him the knowledge
he did not recommend its pursuit. Two reasons were enabling him to distinguish the good life from the
given. 1) Pleasures are not capable enough to attain evil”. Greek ethics is enabling one to lead a happy
tranquility. 2) Physical pleasures do not avoid mental life all through one’s life. As we know ethics is a
anxiety. Certain sensual activities produce more pain normative science which makes judgments on the
than pleasure. Tranquility of soul was attained voluntary human conduct; we are supposed to make
through philosophical study and prudence. Human judgment on our own life. Socrates is of this opinion
’s
p
S
persons have different desires. He classifies these that the most evil in the life of human is an

Pradee
r y IA
desires into three groups: some are natural and
necessary; some are natural but not necessary; some

na
u
unexamined life. This is a code of conduct for human
to make judgment on one’s own feelings, words and

h
t
are neither natural nor necessary (Principal Doctrines, activities. Each living being is born with certain good
s
Kri
s Cen
29). It is good to understand that the pleasure and potencies. As it goes through its life, all these
tranquility, that Epicurus thought, were that each one potencies ought to be slowly actualized into its

t
21
of us should seek our own pleasure and tranquility. intended end. In this ongoing process there is a control
Therefore his ethical theory is egoistic one. of final cause. This end is not some goal outside
Stoic Ethics human’s nature, but it is compatible with well being
of human person and society. For Aristotle, human’s
Stoic ethics has its own originality distinguished final end is in serving and contemplating God,
from Platonic, Aristotelian and Epicurean. The Stoics because this is the most beautiful act a human can
developed a system which is based on their do in this life. This act of contemplation is the similar
anthropology of the “logos”, the presence of the act that God himself does. Here God’s act and human’s
“pneuma” in man. This is the qualified presence of act become similar but not same.
the divine inman. In order to discover this divinity in
man, one has to dedicate himself to the order
ofmorals. The cosmos, for them, was a harmonious
unity with a living and intelligent God. Man is the
part of this universal order as a spark of divine fire.
For Stoics, therefore, moral life is a discovery of
“logos” and arrangement of life accordingly. There
are four steps for the ethics of stoics. They are duty,
virtue, good and happiness. Duty is the moral
obligation that one perceives within oneself according
to his nature. Mere duty is not the perfection of moral
act; but right intention is also necessary. Right
intention is the perfection of the morality and it is
coming from the virtue. Virtuous man is better than
5. Ethics in Medieval Western Philosophy
Medieval philosophy is conventionally construed argumentation or ratio which is norm of morality.
as the philosophy of Western Europe between the 3. The obligation to co-ordinate the insights of
decline of classical pagan culture and the philosophy with theological teaching and
Renaissance. The originators of the notion of the revelation – the principle of concordia was
Middle Ages were thinking primarily of the so called verymuch felt. The last was the most important.
“Latin West,” the area, roughly speaking, of Roman Perhaps there was no other issue concerned
Catholicism. While it is true that this region was to medieval thinkers more than the relation of faith
some extent a unit, culturally separate from its to reason and ethics.
neighbors, it is also true that medieval philosophy 4. Toward the end of the middle ages, this beneficial
was decisively influenced by ideas from the Greek interplay of faith and reason started to break
East, from the Jewish philosophical tradition, and from down. Philosophy began to be cultivated for its
Islam. If one takes medieval philosophy to include own sake, apart from, and even in contradiction
the Patristic period then the areamust be expanded to Christian religion. This divorce of reason from
to include, at least during the early centuries, Greek- faith, made definitive in the 17th century by
speaking eastern Europe, as well as North Africa and Francis Bacon and René Descartes, marked the
parts of Asia Minor. birth of modern philosophy. Ethics too became
independent of faith and philosophical
The earliest post-classical origins of medieval intervention.
philosophy lie in the patristic period of Christianity,

’s
in the writings of the Church fathers. These works The Ethical Merit of Medieval Philosophy

radeep
y IAS
were produced between the second and fifth
centuries by religious teachers belonging to the

a P
r
Apart from its own intrinsic and variety, the
thought of medieval philosophers has a special lesson

u
Eastern and Western Churches. The aim of these for people of India in this century to lead moral life.
n
Krish
nt
theological authors was to interpret Judeo- Christian For, whether we endorse their views or not, these

s Ce
scriptures and traditions with the assistance of ideas people succeeded in a goal that we are far from

t
derived fromGreek and Roman philosophy. Although having realised. They found a pastoral and meaningful

21
the Fathers were not themselves speculative thinkers, way of expressing the Christian message in the
they introduced into their theistic ethics, notions of culture and the philosophy of their times. They made
considerable importance which recur throughout use of Neo-Platonism or Aristotelianism or Stoicism
medieval and Renaissance philosophy. – taking care to correct, purify and modify concepts
borrowed from the systems whenever they felt it
Characteristics of Ethics in Medieval Philosophy necessary – and worked out an expression of the Good
1. Medieval philosophy continued to be News in terminology and thought-patterns familiar
characterized by ethical and religious orientation. o their contemporaries. They also made use of the
Its methods were at first those of Plotinus and social and political structures than current ones in
later those of Aristotle. But it developed within formulating all these. This is what we are aiming at
faith as a means of throwing light on the truths in today’s India. And it would be useful to see how
and mysteries of faith. Thus, religion and these people achieved this aim.
philosophy fruitfully cooperated in the middle
ages. Philosophy, as the handmaid of theology, The first great period of Catholic philosophy was
made possible a rational understanding of faith. dominated by St. Augustine among the pagans. The
Faith, for its part, inspired Christian thinkers to second period culminates in St. Thomas Aquinas for
develop new philosophical ideas, some of which whom and for his successors, Aristotle far outweighs
became part of the philosophical heritage of the Plato. Philosophy was concerned to defend the faith,
West. Thus philosophy and faith help people and invoked reason to enable it to argue with those
become moral beings. who did not accept the validity of the Christian
2. Logic, dialectic and analysis were used to revelation. By this invocation of reason, the
discover the truth – the principle of reasoned philosophers challenged criticism, not merely as
theologians, but as inventors of systems designed to which they can simply intuit what it is right or wrong
appeal tomen of nomatter what creed. In the long to do. Borrowing fromthe vocabulary of later theories,
run, the appeal to reason was perhaps a mistake, but itmay be useful to describe these views as ‘rationalist’
in the thirteenth century it seemed highly successful. and ‘intuitionist’ respectively.

Importance of Natural Reason in Ethics Ethics: Sin, Vice and Virtue


The philosophy of the medieval period remained For Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, there existed
in close conjunction with Christian thought, the problem of how we can ever do what we know
particularly theology, and the chief philosophers of we ought not to be doing. This is the problem of
the period were churchmen, particularly who were akrasia. From this ancient perspective, perhaps the
teachers. Philosophers who strayed from the close most striking thing about Augustinian ethics is its
relation were chided by their superiors. Greek easy acceptance of akrasia. In Confessiones II,
philosophy ceased to be creative after Plotinus in the Augustine tells of stealing pears as a boy of sixteen.
3rd century AD. A century later Christian thinkers He spends two chapters ruminating on what might
began to assimilate Neo-Platonisminto Christian have motivated his theft. It was not the pears
doctrine in order to give a rational interpretation of themselves, he says, for he had better ones at home.
Christian faith. Thus, medieval philosophy was born He concludes that it was the flavour of sinning that
of the confluence of Greek philosophy and motivated him.
Christianity. Plotinus’ philosophy was already deeply
religious, having come under the influence of Middle In De libero arbitrio, Augustine admits that the
Eastern religion. question of why we do evil disturbed him greatly when

’s
S
he was young and moved him toward Manicheism.
p
ee
IA
One of the Church fathers whose writings outline Once he accepted the idea of original sin, however,

ad
r
y
the idea of ethics is Clement of Alexandria (150-215). he found nothing paradoxical in saying of someone:

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
By the exercise of natural reason, he and some of
hn
t
the philosophers of antiquity had arrived at
conclusions concerning the kind of life fitting for

t
human beings which were coincident with parts of
‘He hates the thing itself because he knows that it is
evil; and yet he does it because he is bent on doing
it’.

21
Christian moral teaching. This concurrence was later Augustine was an extreme intentionalist in
to become a theme in the defence ofmoral ethics. In De sermone Domini in monte (Commentary
philosophy, and of the study of pagan writers, that on the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount), he identifies
scholastics would offer to the charge that their three necessary and sufficient conditions for
enquiries endangered faith. The particular discovery committing a sin: receiving an evil suggestion, taking
of Greek philosophy which interested the Fathers was pleasure in the thought of performing the act
that of practical reasoning (ratio practica) or right suggested and consenting to performthe act. Thus in
reason. Both Plato and Aristotle had argued that there Augustine’s view, whether one commits a sin is in no
is a faculty of rational judgement concerned with way dependent on whether the contemplated action
choosing the right way of acting. Excellence in the is actually carried out. Even when the action is carried
exercise of this power constitutes the intellectual out, it is the intention (understood as suggestion,
virtue of practical wisdom – prudentia and conduct pleasure and consent), rather than the action itself,
in accord with its deliverances is moral virtue. or its consequences, that is sinful.

The idea of an innate power of moral knowledge Augustine also devoted two treatises to the topic
is open to at least two interpretations. On the first, of lying. In the first of these, De mendacio (On Lying),
human beings are endowed with a capacity for he first suggests that a person S lies in saying p if,
rational thought, and starting from certain premises, and only if (1) p is false, (2) S believes that p is false
knowledge of which is not dependent on revelation, and (3) S says p with the intention of deceiving
they can arrive at conclusions about right conduct. someone. He then considers three cases: first, that
On the second interpretation, the relevant of someone with a false belief who wants to deceive
endowment is one of a faculty of moral sense by another by saying something that is, unknown to
them, quite true; second, the case of someone who heresy. In his treatise De perfectione justicia hominis
expects to be disbelieved and so knowingly says what (OnMan’s Perfection in Righteousness), subtitled ‘In
is false in order to instil a true belief; and third, the opposition to those who assert that it is possible for
case of someone who, also expecting to be one to become righteous by one’s own strength alone’,
disbelieved, knowingly speaks the truth in order to Augustine describes the chief thesis of Coelestius as
instil a falsehood. the contention that if something is unavoidable, then
it is not a sin; there is simply no such thing as an
Augustine seems not to know what to do about unavoidable sin. Augustine responds to Pelagius and
these problemcases. He contents himself with his disciple by rejecting the simple disjunction that
insisting that the conditions (1)-(3) are jointly either something is not a sin or it can be avoided.
sufficient, without taking a stand on whether each is ‘Sin can be avoided’, he writes, ‘if our corrupted nature
singly necessary. be healed by God’s grace.’ Thus in a way, Augustine
agrees that ‘ought’ does imply ‘can’, but only with a
Discussing virtue and vice, Augustine contrasts crucial qualification. ‘Ought’ implies ‘can with the
those things that are desirable in themselves with gratuitous assistance of God’, but it does not imply
those that are desirable for the sake of something ‘can without any outside help’.
else. He says that things of the first sort are to be
enjoyed (fruit) whereas those of the second sort are Augustine’s response to dreaming as a possible
to be used (utility). Vice, he adds, is wanting to use threat to knowledge claims fits together with his
what is meant to be enjoyed or wanting to enjoy what intentionalism in ethics and his anti-Pelagianism to
is meant to be used. produce an interesting problem as to whether one is

’s
S
morally responsible for the acts of one’s dream self.
p
ee
IA
Ambrose had already added the Pauline virtues He agonizes over this problem in Confessiones. Three

ad
r
y
of faith, hope and love to the classical virtues of ways of justifying a claim of no responsibility suggest

Krishna P
ntur
temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. Augustine
follows Ambrose in this, and he follows St Paul in

s Ce
assigning first importance to love; in fact, he offers

t
an interpretation of each of the seven virtues that
themselves. I could say I am not responsible (1)
because I am not my dream self, or (2) because what
happens in a dreamdoes not really happen, or (3)
because I ampowerless to avoid doing whatmy dream

21
makes it an expression of the love of God. Thus self does, and ‘ought’ implies ‘can’.
temperance is love ‘keeping itself whole and incorrupt
for God’; fortitude, or courage, is love ‘bearing Augustine’s philosophical and theological
everything readily for the sake of God’, and so on. commitments seem to undercut each of these three
Virtue, he says, is nothing but the perfect love of God. responses. Thus (1) is undercut, it seems, by his
In this way Augustine provides a Christian analogue somewhat concessive response to scepticism. I can
to Plato’s idea of the unity of the virtues. know that something tastes sweet to me, Augustine
insists in Contra academicos, whether or not I am
Ethics: ‘Ought’ and ‘Can’ dreaming. It seems to be a consequence of this
Augustine also attacked the Pelagians for their insistence that, if I am dreaming, I am my dream self.
views on the avoidance of sin, focusing on the As for (2), it seems to be undercut by Augustine’s
question of ‘ought’ and ‘can’. (Pelagianism is a strong intentionalism in ethics. Thus when I commit
heretical theological position regarding grace and free adultery in my dreams, even if no ‘outward’ adultery
will; it originated with the fifthcentury Britishmonk takes place, still I entertain the evil suggestion, take
Pelagius (354-418 AD), who believed that every good pleasure in the evil suggested and give consent; so
could be got through prayer except virtue. He there is wrongdoing. As for (3), as noted above,
emphasized the primacy of human effort in spiritual Augustine rejects the Pelagian insistence that ‘ought’
salvation). Pelagius and his disciple Coelestius, had implies ‘can’. or rather, he accepts it only with an
made the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ a central important qualification. Although ‘I ought to refrain
tenet of their religious and ethical teaching. As already fromconsenting to fornicate’ does, in Augustine’s
noted, Augustine was the person primarily responsible view, entail that I can so refrain with the help of God’s
for defining their teaching, Pelagianism, as a Christian grace, it does not entail that I can refrain strictly on
my own, that is, without any divine grace. Yet if I characteristic:
receive no grace and consent to fornicate, I sin,
according to Augustine, and it is just for God to punish What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some
me. who will soon die in any case, that others may live in
peaceful subjection? This is merely cowardly dislike,
Ethics: On Killing not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are
Although Augustine’s thoughts on suicide are not love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and
particularly original, they have been extremely implacable enmity, wild resistance, the lust of power,
influential. His position became Christian orthodoxy, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things,
which in turn influenced decisively the legal thinking when force is required to inflict the punishment, that,
in predominantly Christian countries. Augustine’s in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good
position is that, with certain specifiable exceptions men undertake wars.
(primarily, lawful executions and killings in battle by
soldiers fighting just wars, anyone who kills a human Beyond such insistence that war should not be
being, whether himself or anyone else, is guilty of fought from love of violence, revengeful cruelty or
murder, and murder is prohibited by divine lust for power, Augustine did not work out specific
commandment). principles for the just conduct of war. Still, in making
it plausible to many Christians that killing in war need
Augustine did not invent the idea that certain not fall under the divine commandment not to kill;
requirements must be satisfied if a war is to count as Augustine freed others to develop principles for what
just. The theory of just warfare - both the conditions might be considered the just declaration of war, as

’s
S
that must be satisfied if a war is to be entered into well as the just conduct of war, once it has been justly
p
ee
IA
justly (jus ad bellum) as well as the requirements of entered into.

ad
r
y
justice in the waging of war - are already well

Krishna P
ntur
developed by Cicero in his On the Republic. Nor was
Augustine the first Christian thinker to develop a

s Ce
theory of just warfare; Ambrose had already done so.

t
Nevertheless, Augustine is usually considered the
Aquinas’ View on Ethics
Aquinas’ moral theory is developed most
extensively and systematically in the Second Part of
Summa theologiae. Like almost all his predecessors,

21
father of the modern theory of the just war. Such medieval and ancient, Aquinas sees ethics as having
deference is appropriate in that it is in Augustine, two principal topics: first, the ultimate goal of human
more than in Cicero or Ambrose or anyone else in the existence, and second, how that goal is to be won, or
ancient world, that later theorists have found their lost.
earliest inspiration. Summa theologiae sometimes called the Treatise
on Happiness, develops an argument to establish the
Although Augustine accepts the commandment, existence and nature of a single ultimate end for all
‘Thou shalt not kill’, he interprets it in such a way human action, or, more strictly, the kind of behaviour
that not everyone who brings about the death of over which a person has ‘control’. First, ‘all actions
another can be properly said to kill. Thus, he writes that proceed from a power are caused by that power
in De civitate Dei, ‘One who owes a duty of obedience in accordance with the nature of its object. But the
to the giver of the command does not himself kill; he object of will is an end and a good’, that is, an end
is an instrument, a sword in its user’s hand.’ Thus an perceived as good by the willer’s intellect (Summa
executioner may bring about the death of a convict theologiae 1.1c). Fromthis starting point Aquinas
without killing, and so may a soldier end another’s develops an argument designed to show that a human
life without killing, especially when war is being being necessarily (though not always consciously)
waged ‘on the authority of God’. seeks everything it seeks for its own ultimate end,
happiness.
In general, Augustine takes over the Roman
principles of just war as set forth by Cicero and adds Aquinas argues that the often unrecognized
his own emphasis on the intention with which the genuine ultimate end for which human beings exist
acts of war are performed. This following passage is (their ‘object’) is God, perfect goodness personified;
and perfect happiness, the ultimate end with which the volition from which the external act derives. Since
they may exist (their ‘use’ of that object), is the ‘will is inclined toward reason’s good [the good
enjoyment of the end for which they exist. That presented to will by intellect] by the very nature of
enjoyment is fully achieved only in the beatific vision, the power of will’, bad volition stems from defective
which Aquinas conceives of as an activity. Since the deliberation (Summa theologiae 3). As intellect and
beatific vision involves the contemplation of the will continually influence each other, so bad
ultimate (first) cause of everything, it is, whatever deliberation can also be an effect of bad volition.
else it may be, also the perfection of all knowledge Moreover, practical intellect’smistakes in identifying
and understanding. the best available course of action may also have
the passions of the sensory soul as sources.
Aquinas devotes just four questions of Summa
theologiae to ‘the goodness and badness of human Furthermore, ‘because the good [presented by
acts in general’. Although considerations of rightness intellect] is varied in many ways, it is necessary that
and wrongness occupy only a littlemore than ten per will be inclined through some habit toward some
cent of the discussion in Questions 18-21, Aquinas determinate good presented by reason so that will’s
nonetheless appears to think of rightness and determining activitymay follow more promptly’
wrongness as the practical, distinctively moral (Summa theologiae 50.5, ad 3).
evaluations of actions. His emphasis on the broader
notions of goodness and badness reveals the root of Habits of will are conditions necessary for our
his moral evaluation of actions in his metaphysical carrying out our volitions in particularly good or
identification of being and goodness. particularly bad ways, as regards both the ‘executive’

’s
S
and the ‘determining’ aspects of volition; and the
p
ee
IA
What makes an action morally bad is its moving habits that play these crucial roles in Aquinas’moral

ad
r
y
the agent not toward, but away from, the agent’s theory are the virtues and the vices.

Kri
a P
n ur
ultimate goal. Such a deviation is patently irrational,

shn
t
and Aquinas’ analysis of the moral badness of human

s Ce
action identifies it as fundamentally irrationality,

t
since irrationality is an obstacle to the actualization
The four ‘cardinal virtues’ can be understood as
habits of this sort. Reason’s habit of good governance
generally is prudence; reason’s restraint of self-

21
of a human being’s specifying potentialities, those serving concupiscence is temperance; reason’s
that make rational the differentia of the human persevering despite self-serving ‘irascible’ passions
species. In this as in every other respect, Aquinas’ such as fear is courage; reason’s governance of one’s
ethics is reason-centred: relations with others despite one’s tendencies toward
selfishness is justice.
In connection with human acts the words ‘good’
and ‘bad’ are applied on the basis of a comparison to Aquinas’ normative ethics is based not on rules
reason, because…a human being’s good is existing but on virtues; it is concerned with dispositions first
in accordance with reason, while what is bad for a and only then with actions. In addition to the moral
human being is whatever is contrary to reason. For virtues in all their various manifestations, Aquinas
what is good for anything is what goes together with also recognizes intellectual virtues that, like the moral
it in keeping with its form, and what is bad for it is virtues, can be acquired by human effort. On the other
whatever is contrary to the order associated with its hand, the supreme theological virtues of faith, hope
form. (Summa theologiae 18.5c) and charity cannot be acquired but must be directly
‘infused’ by God.
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that
Aquinas takes moral evil to consist in intellective error. Passions, virtues and vices are all intrinsic
Because of the very close relationship he sees principles, or sources, of human acts. However, there
between intellect and will, the irrationality ofmoral are extrinsic principles as well, among which is law
wrongdoing will be a function of will as well, not just in all its varieties. Consequently, Aquinasmoves on
of intellect. In Aquinas’ view, the moral evaluation of in Summa theologiae 90- 108 to his Treatise on Law,
a human action attaches primarily to the ‘internal act’, a famous and original treatment of the subject. The
best-known feature of the treatise is Aquinas’ concept fixed by reason.” In this way, virtue is an acquired
of natural law. Law in general is ‘a kind of rational quality. To achieve ‘eudemonia’’ one must live by what
ordering for the common good, promulgated by the can be considered virtues such as charity, stoicism
one who takes care of the community’ (Summa (indifference to pleasure or pain), honesty,
theologiae 90.4c), and ‘the precepts of natural law friendliness, fairness and so forth.
are to practical reasoning what the first principles of
demonstrations are to theoretical reasoning…. All The methods of virtue ethics are in contrast to
things to be done or to be avoided pertain to the the dominant methods in ethical philosophy, which
precepts of natural law, which practical reasoning focus on action philosophy. For example, both
apprehends naturally as being human goods’. Human Immanuel Kant and utilitarian systems try to provide
laws of all kinds derive, or should derive, fromnatural guiding principles for actions that allow a person to
law, whichmight be construed as the naturally decide how to behave in any given situation. Virtue
knowable rational principles underlying morality in theory, by contrast, focuses on what makes a good
general: ‘ From the precepts of natural law, as from person, rather than what makes a good action. As
general, indemonstrable principles, it is necessary that such it is often associated with a teleological ethical
human reason proceed to making more particular system - one that seeks to define the proper telos
arrangements… [which] are called human laws, (goal or end) of the human person.
provided that they pertain to the definition (rationem)
of law already stated’. Renewed interests in virtue theory arise from
dissatisfaction with the way we do ethics today. Most
As a consequence of this hierarchy of laws, discussions about contemporary ethics consider

’s
S
Aquinas unhesitatingly rejects some kinds and some major controversial actions: abortion, nuclear war,
p
ee
IA
particular instances of human law, for example: ‘A gene therapy, etc. These discussions basically

ad
r
y
tyrannical law, since it is not in accord with reason, dominate contemporary ethics. Virtue ethicists have

Krishna P
ntur
is not unconditionally a law but is, rather, a perversion
of law’. Even natural law rests on themore

s Ce
fundamental ‘eternal law’, which Aquinas identifies

t
as divine providence, ‘the very nature of the
more extensive concerns. We believe that the real
discussion of ethics is not primarily the question about
what actions are morally permissible, but rather who
should we become? In fact, virtue ethicists expand

21
governance of things on the part of God as ruler of the question into three key related ones: Who are
the universe’. we? Who ought we to become? How are we to get
there?
The Nature of Virtue Ethics
In medieval philosophy, the phrase virtue theory To answer the first question, we must focus on
or virtue ethics refers to ethical systems that focus two major considerations. First, what standards are
primarily on what sort of person one should try to be. we to measure ourselves against? Second, how will
Thus, one of the aims of virtue theory is to offer an we know whether we are measuring ourselves fairly?
account of the sort of characteristics a virtuous person Regarding the first point, two of themost important
has. The ultimate aim of virtue theory is eudemonism works in ethics attempt to assist us by naming the
(Gk eudaimonia happiness) which speaks the highest basic virtues. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
ethical goal as happiness and personal well-being. It gives us eleven different virtues that are necessary
is roughly meaning ‘flourishing’ or ‘success.’ for citizens to engage. The different virtues are
concerned with the regulation of non-rational desires
The word ‘virtue’ finds its origin in Latin Virtus (bravery, temperance and good temper), external
and in Greek Arête. A virtue is a quality of character, goods (magnificence and magnanimity) and social
a disposition to do what is right in a particular situations (truthfulness and wit). Apart from these,
direction. A virtue is also a habit of action considering happiness, friendship, generosity and practical
to the quality of character or dispositions. According wisdom are some of these. In the Summa Theologiae,
to Aristotle, “Virtue is a permanent state of mind, Aquinas takes fromPlato, the four cardinal virtues and
formed with the concurrence of the will and based he adds with these the three theological virtues. He
on an ideal of what is best in actual life, an ideal states that we can acquire the cardinal virtues through
deliberately willed and enjoyed habitual right action; Turning to the third question, in order to get there,
the theological virtues are gifts from God. These we need to practice the cardinal virtues along with
virtues help us to answer the question of theological virtues. Modern virtue ethicists often
selfunderstanding like are we just, prudent, claimAristotle as an ancestor. Aristotle, however, was
temperate and courageous? himself working through an agenda laid down by Plato
and Socrates. Socrates asked the question at the heart
But how can we be sure that we are not simply of Greek ethics: ‘How should one live?’
deceiving ourselves regarding our self-understanding?
Here, Aristotle suggests that we can know ourselves The ancient philosophical task was to show how
by considering how we act in spontaneous situations living virtuously would be best for the virtuous person.
and we discover ourselves when we act in the Plato’s Republic attempts to answer the challenge
unplanned world of ordinary life. We may believe that that rational people will aimto get the most pleasure,
we are particularly brave or cowardly, but that honour and power for themselves. His argument is
assessment is only correct if it conforms to how we that justice, broadly construed, is to be identified with
actually behave in the unanticipated, concrete a rational ordering of one’s soul. Once one sees that
situation. Self knowledge is key, critical and honest one identifies oneself with one’s reason, one will
and not based on wishful thinking. realize that being just is in fact best for oneself.
Aristotle continued the same project, aiming to show
The second question, “Who ought we to that human happiness consists in the exercise (not
become”? embodies a vision of the type of persons the mere possession of) the virtues. Ultimately,
we ought to become. We use the virtues to set the Aristotle’s method is similar to Plato’s. Much of

’s
S
personal goals that encourage ourselves to seek. St Nicomachean Ethics is taken up with portraits of the
p
ee
IA
Thomas and others call this goal the “end”. That is, virtuous man intended to attract one to a life such as

ad
r
y
the middle question sets the end that we should seek. his. For Aristotle, all of the ‘practical’ virtues will be

Krishna P
ntur
That end is a type of person with the cardinal virtues.
Setting this end means that the fundamental task of

s Ce
the moral life is to develop a vision and to strive to

t
attain it. Inasmuch as that vision is who we ought to
possessed by the truly virtuous person, the man of
‘practical wisdom’. Medieval philosophy tries to make
a distinction between ethics and morals or morality.
Everyone, even the most uncivilized and uncultured,

21
become, then, the key insight is that we should has its own morality or sum of prescriptions which
always aimto grow. As a person-oriented ethics, this govern theirmoral conduct. Nature had so provided
insists that without growth, we cannot become moral. that each man establishes for himself a code ofmoral
concepts and principles which are applicable to the
Setting such an end describes then another way details of practical life, without the necessity of
that virtue ethicists are different from other ethicists. awaiting the conclusions of science. Ethics is the
Rather than first examining actions and asking scientific or philosophical treatment of morality.
whether we should performthemor not, virtue Morality is the content and ethics is the study of the
ethicists suggest that we ought to set ends for the content.
type of people we believe we should become. Thus,
to the extent that we are examining our lives and
seeking ways of improving ourselves for the moral
prosperity of our world, to that extent we are
engaging virtue ethics.
6. Ethics in Modern Western Philosophy
In themodern times, ethical theories were exist some kind of metaphysics.” Making this
generally divided between consequentalist and distinction between physics and metaphysics was
nonconsequentalist or deontological ethics. necessary for Kant for laying a strong and reasonable
Consequentialismsays that we ought to do whatever foundation for his moral philosophy. For, no morality,
maximizes good consequences. It doesn’t matter what in the view of Kant, is possible if the human will were
kind of thing we do. What matters is that we maximize not free. Kant affirms, “it is the freedom of will which
good results. A popular theory of consequenialismis is a metaphysical reality that is the foundation of
the hedonistic utilitarianism, according to which we morality.” He asks, “how can we say that one is
should always do whatever maximizes the balance morally wrong or right, if he/she were not free to act
of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by our otherwise?” Thus, the concept of freedom or
action. Nonconsequentialism says that some kinds autonomy of will is fundamental to Kantian ethics.
of actions are wrong in themselves and not just wrong The will refers to a faculty, potency or force inman
because they have bad consequences. In other words, involved in decisionmaking. An action can bemoral if
human actions can be absolutely right or wrong and only if its agent is free fromall internal and xternal
regardless of the result, which follow from them. The influences while deciding upon the course of it. The
former was spearheaded by Jeremy Bentham and ability to be motivated by reason alone is called by
John Stuart Mill and the latter to a great extent owes Kant as the autonomy of the will. This free will is the
to Immanuel Kant. We shall here deal with seat of the moral principle, the Categorical
Benthamand Kant and their ethical thoughts to Imperative, which has the characteristics of

’s
S
unearth the undercurrents of Modern Ethics. universality and objectivity. Hence, it is to the
p
ee
IA
Immanuel Kant Categorical Imperative we shall now turn.

ad
Krishna Pr
ntur y
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), a German modern
philosopher stands as a stalwart in the history of
Categorical Imperative
Kant viewed human nature as a battlefield of

s Ce
Western Philosophy. He is considered as themost unceasing struggle between desires (subjective) and

t
important ethicist ofmodern times. Kant’s ethical reason (objective) wherein our desires have a stronger

21
theory is mainly developed in three of his works. They appeal than reason has; therefore, we find that acting
are Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), rightly requires an effort that acting on feeling does
the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the not. Categorical Imperative is a term invented by
Metaphysics of Morals (1797). Kant claims to propose Immanuel Kant to refer to a command that orders us
a universal ethics, a set of ethical rules that is to do something unconditionally – that is, regardless
acceptable to everyone, everywhere and every time. of what we want or what our aims and purposes are.
He claims the characteristics of universality and According to Kant, we experience the principle of
objectivity for his system of morality. Kant firmly morality as Categorical Imperative. Kant’s categorical
believes that “what I ought to do” is perfectly well imperative is categorical because it admits of no
known to every human person by virtue of reason. exceptions and is absolutely binding, inescapable. It
How does he demonstrate it? Let us see. is imperative because it gives instruction about how
one ought to act and, thus, is a command.
Autonomy of Will as the Foundation of Morality
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant makes a The nature of categorical imperative is further
distinction between phenomena (things–as–they– expounded in comparison with hypothetical
appear) and noumena (things-in-themselves) which imperatives. For instance, “you should not kill
are the two modes of representation of the whole yourself” is a categorical imperative and “you should
existing reality. The former can be called physical and not kill yourself because God will punish you” is a
the lattermetaphysical realities. In the view of Kant, hypothetical imperative; the former is unconditioned,
“metaphysics naturally exist…in all human beings, as objective, and binding on everybody and the latter is
soon as their reason has become ripe for speculation, conditioned, providing an extraneous reason only to
there has always existed and will always continue to the person who has the end mentioned in the
antecedent. All of the imperatives that Kant calls interest are not moral.
hypothetical, thus, depend for their force on some
external source of authority – an agency by which Kant emphasizes that the moral worth should come
they have been issued. In contrast to the hypothetical from the volition that precedes our actions. It is not
imperatives, categorical imperatives ensue from the means or the ends that are the cannons to decide
within by virtue of our reason. whether an action ismorally right or wrong but the
volition or intention. Intention justifies means and
Kant captures the cream of his ethics in the form ends, according to Kant! Ultimately, our faculty of
of a supreme norm that “there is … [only] one willing is the law giver of all our moral actions. The
categorical imperative, namely this: Act on that maxim more we become free in our acts, the more moral we
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become; the more we become free, the more we
become a universal law.” This procedure of testing become close to the attainment of Good Will. Hence,
the morality by applying the categorical imperative the attainment of a Good Will must be the ideal and
in concrete consists always in finding out whether moral vocation of every rational being. Since it is
one can will his or her maxim (subjective) to become unconditioned and absolute good in every possible
a universal law (objective) or not. That is to say, if content, it must be the highest good. Kant adduces
what one does could be done by all rational beings, throughout his ethical writings that only a free will or
it is morally permissible and if not, it is not. So when Good Will is capable of legislating moral laws.
I do something, I must make sure that I want
everybody else to do the same if they are in the same Good Will
situation. Only then will I be acting according to the A Good Will is not something, which becomes

’s
S
moral law within. And this applies to all people in all good in relation to something else but is good in itself.
p
ee
IA
societies always. I should do my moral duty because It is like the colours, say, red, blue, yellow, etc., which

ad
r
y
it is my moral duty and for no other reason. If I look do not distil their quality of redness, blueness,

Kris a
s Ce
t
P
n ur
for results, such as my own happiness or the
hn
t
betterment of others, then I am acting hypothetically.

Nonconsequentialism of Kant’s Ethics


yellowness, etc., from anything either within or
without but by their very nature. The quality of
goodness is the ontological necessity of a Good Will.
Kant, hence, begins the Foundations of the

21
Kant as a deontologist maintains that human Metaphysics of Morals with this key statement:
actions can be absolutely right or wrong regardless “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
of the results, which follow fromthem. According to even out of it, which can be called good without
Kant, there is a fundamental connection between qualification, except a Good Will.” A Good Will
rationality and moral motivation. It is only duty from becomes good through willing, i.e., self-legislation
the motive of duty that can fetch moral worth. Only without any constraint. A GoodWill is unconditional,
when an action done on the ground that it is right to conditioning all other goods; everybody has Good Will,
do, it deserves moral worth. Any right action done which can be corrupted by inclinations. A free will is
out of fear, pleasure, self-interest or some other equivalent to a Good Will, which is good without
reasons, is not moral. For instance, a man does not qualification. Kant calls upon every rational being to
accept bribe due to the fear of being caught by the strive relentlessly for the promotion and
anti-corruption squad. Such a person acts rightly but accomplishment of the Good Will, i.e., the highest
deserves no moral credit, according to Kant. Moreover, good.
morality of an action does not lie in the personal
interests. The will that complies with personal Jeremy Bentham
interests is called pathological by Kant in his Lectures Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), an English
on Ethics. Morality, in the view of Kant, concerns philosopher and the chief expounder of Utilitarianism
about actions that are categorically imperative showed deep interest in legal and social reforms from
required by reason alone, independent of motives or very early age of his life. He wanted to make laws for
ends supplied by feeling or desire. Hence, in the the best interests of the whole community, not just
Kantian perspective, we must act out of a sense of for the convenience of the elite class as it was the
duty and actions done merely by inclination or self- case during his time. Bentham’s Utilitarian ethical
thought is presented mainly in his best known work, of Morals and Legislation, Bentham says that we are
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and governed by the factors of pleasure and pain. All our
Legislation (1789). Benthamsaw the world as torn thoughts, words and deeds are directed by them.
between two great forces, the quest for pleasure and What underlies the Principle of Utility is this basic
the avoidance of pain. From this, he intuited that it nature of human beings. By the ‘principle of utility’
would be better to maximize the former and minimize Benthammeant “the principle which approves or
the latter, and that all other considerations are disapproves of every action whatsoever, according
irrelevant. Bentham’s desire for social reforms to to the tendency which it appears to have to augment
construct a society that would provide the greatest or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest
happiness to the greatest number was the starting is in question.” The parties, whose interest in
point for the later Utilitarian philosophy. question may, of course, differ. If we are thinking of
the individual agent as such, it is his/her greatest
Pleasure: The End of Human Life happiness which is referred to. If we are thinking of
Bentham wanted to purify legal and political the community, it is the greater happiness of the
institutions. Bentham began his attempt to do so with greater possible number of the members of the
an analysis of language. According to Bentham, the community which is being referred to. Ethics is
meaning of language or any word depends on our nothing else than the art of directing the actions of
experience. In other words, any word can be human beings so as to bring about the greatest
meaningful only if it refers to something that can be possible happiness to all those are concerned with
experienced. What is real is only whatever wecan these actions. According to this principle an act is
experience, either through external and internal good or evil depending on its usefulness for producing

’s
S
sensations. The former is possible through sight, pleasure or pain. In Bentham’s philosophy, we can
p
ee
IA
smell, sound, taste and touch. The latter is possible exchange the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for ‘pleasure’

ad
r
y
through the feelings of pain and pleasure. Anything and ‘pain’. The goodness or wickedness of an action

Kris a P
n ur
we think or talk without any reference to experience
hn
t
is unreal. Applying the method of analysis of language

s Ce
on the principles of Ethics, he said, the whole of

t
ethics seems to be evolving around two concepts,
is to be judged by its consequences.

Bentham’s utilitarianism is hedonistic. Hedonistic


utilitarianism assumes that the rightness of an action

21
‘good’ and ‘obligation’. If we clarify them, we will see depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends
that moral language is really about ‘pleasure’ and to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent.
‘pain’. We all want, whatever is good. But ‘good’ can Bentham makes it clear that the principle of utility is
mean only ‘pleasure and absence of pain’ and this is to govern not only the acts of private individuals but
all that ‘happiness’ can mean as well. The fictional those of governments as well. Thus governments and
name ‘obligation’ can refer only to some act we are the individuals are charged with the duty of promoting
directed to do, under the condition that if we fail to happiness. No action is in itself good or evil. Things
do it we will suffer some pain. So pleasure and pain such as fame, fortune, education, and freedom may
are the realities underlying both ‘obligation’ and be good, but only to the extent that they produce
‘good’, and the pursuit of pleasure must thus be the pleasure or happiness. They are instrumental goods
core of morality. Basing on the above mentioned, because they are useful for attaining the goals of
Benthamformulates hismoral principle which happiness and pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are
demands maximum pleasure and minimum pain for the only intrinsic goods-that is, the only things good
as many people as possible. In other words, it in themselves.
demands greatest happiness for the greatest number.
He could see amotivational force to follow his ethical Hedonistic Calculus
principle. Because everyone by nature seeks for Utility is something measurable, thus
happiness and the principle only emphasizes on quantitative, scientific and objective. In examining
maximizing it. the consequences of our actions, we can determine
the quantity of pain and pleasure produced by them
The Principle of Utility and thereby determine which of the options open to
In his major work, Introduction to the Principles us would bring about the greatest balance of pleasure
over pain. What distinguishes Bentham’s moral alone do justify means.
outlook is precisely its insistence on testing every
act and every institution by the principle of utility, Kant argues that morality of an act depends solely
and its assurance that a quantitatively based answer on the motive of that act irrespective of the
to any moral question can always be attained. He consequences. The question we should now raise is
tried to put the happiness theory on a quantitative or that ‘how can we do justice to ourselves as imperfectly
mathematical basis. According to Bentham, all people rational beings bound within time and space in
hope to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure treating ourselves as beings only with rationality,
and pain, however, differ from each other and capable of acting purely from the motive of duty’? Or
therefore have independent values. We have to ‘how far one can act from the motive of duty alone’?
estimate the amount of pleasure and the amount of For, people think or reflect differently and come to
pain to which the action seems to give rise and to sundry conclusions. We do not reflect in a vacuum,
weigh the one against the other, while deciding apart from the culture we live in; on the contrary, the
whether a given action is right or wrong. Bentham culture significantlymodifies ourmoral sensibility. In
provides a hedonistic calculus for this purpose. His this fashion, there may, hence, be no objectivity
hedonistic calculus has seven categories of pleasure. without certain elements of subjectivity. It is quite
1. Intensity. How strong is the pleasure? natural that we do not reach the objective truth
without being, in some sense, influenced by the
2. Duration. How long will the pleasure last? subjective impulses. In line with Kant’s view, we do
3. Certainty. How sure are we that the pleasure will also assert that what follows our acts should not
occur? decide the worth of our acts. However, the question,

’s
S
“How is the individual subject motivated to follow
p
e
A
4. Propinquity. How soon will the pleasure occur?
e
I
the objectively conceivedmoral law?” is one that Kant,

ad
r
y
5. Fecundity. How likely is it that this pleasure will perhaps, answered fully neither to his own

6.
7. Krishna
s Ce
t
P
ntur
produce another pleasure?
Purity. How free from pain is the pleasure?
Extent. Howmany people will experience the
satisfaction nor to ours.

As a consequentialist, Bentham, holds that it is


the consequences or ends of our actions that

21
pleasure? determine whether particularmeans to themare
justified or not. This seems to lead to conclusions
Benthamcalled the seven categories the calculus that are contrary to commonsense morality. For
of felicity (pleasure). Through these categories, he example, wouldn’t it justify punishing an innocent
believed we could calculate which course of action person, a ‘scapegoat’, in order to prevent a great evil
would produce the greatest amount of happiness, and or promote a great good? Or could we not justify on
therefore which one we ought morally to take. utilitarian grounds the killing of some for the sake of
the good of a greater number? The principle of utility
In the backdrop of a bipolar division of ethics into justifies any action just so long as it has better
Consequentialismand Nonconsequentialismin consequence than other available actions. Therefore,
themodern era, we have tried to understand the cheating, stealing, lying, and breaking promises may
divergent positions of Kant and Bentham. For the ll seem to be justified depending on whether they
consequentialists, on the one hand, “Respecting maximize happiness in some particular case!
elders” is good because there are more pleasurable
consequences in the act than there are painful Moreover, calculation of the greatest amount of
consequences. For the deontologists or happiness is too complex. When we consider all of
nonconsequentialists, on the other hand, the act is the variables concerning pleasure or happiness that
good because it is good in itself and ought to be done are to be counted when trying to estimate the
(duty). While Kant favoured Nonconsequentialism, “greatest amount of pleasure or happiness,” the task
Benthamopted for Consequentialism in their of doing so looks extremely difficult. We must
approach to the Principle of Morality. For Kant, Ends consider how many people will be affected by
alone do not justify means. But for Bentham, ends alternative actions, whether they will be pleased or
pained by them, how pleased or pained they will be
and for how long, and the likelihood that what we
estimate will happen or not. It is seemingly intricate
and impossible to strictly pursue this pleasure
calculus before we make every moral judgment.

Bentham and Kant radically differ in their view.


This is evidently clear. From a Kantian point of view,
if the action would be good solely as a means to
something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the
action is represented as good in itself and therefore
as necessary, in virtue of its principle, then the
imperative is categorical. In other words, Kant would
indict the principle of utility of Bentham for being
entirely based on hypothetical imperatives. All of the
prescribed acts of utilitarianism are based on the
means-to-an-end argument.

However, the difference of their principles


accompanies an underlying commonality of belief,
that it is the task of moral philosophy to show that

’s
S
there is amethod that each person can use to arrive
p
ee
IA
at justified moral decisions, and to show how we are

ad
r
y
motivated to act accordingly. They were arguing, in

Krishna P
ntur
quiet different ways, that it is possible for humans to
be autonomous moral agents.

s Ce
t
21
7. Ethics in Contemporary Western Philosophy
First, there is early and rich Greek Ethics marked “Contemporary Western Ethics”? We can enlist the
by Pre-Socratic, Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian and following problems which were raised particularly
Sophistic original thinking and writings. Furthered by after Sidgwick, i.e. after 1900:
some equally influential writings of some Hellenistic
and Roman ethicists, the Cynic and the Cyrenaics and What exactly should be done in moral philosophy?
the Stoics in the main. And then after Epicurus’ What if any is the need for ethical monolithic norms?
Cyrenaicism, Plotinus was responsible for what we Why should logico – linguistic concerns take
now call, “Neo-Platonism.” Contemporary ethics owes precedence in moral philosophy?
much to these early and rich ethical reflections, about Why should we not revive Aristotelian tradition of
which we shall come to know later on in the virtues and values?
discussion.
Why should we show any practical interest in ethics?
Nothings less do we owe to the Medical Moral
philosophy, especially to the ethical thinking and Definition
writings of some remarkably eloquent Christian Contemporary ethical enterprise is an attempt to
ethicists like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus justify de novo that ethics as a branch of philosophy
andWilliamof Ockham. This paved way to what wemay should have at least four important tasks, namely,
call, the third epoch, the EarlyModern ethical epoch, the normative, the meta-ethical, the virtue ethical and
growing particularly during the sixteenth and the practical tasks.

’s
p
S
seventeenth centuries influenced by religious

ee
IA
Reformation, and the scientific revolution of Normative Ethics: A New Look
ad
r
y
Contemporary western ethics takes a fresh look
P
r
Copernicus and Galileo, Francis Bacon, Erasmus,
a
u
at normative ethics because at the outset, a number
n
t
Luther and Calvin, However the real modern turn came
sh
Kri
n
with the radical writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588 – of challenges in our times in ethics are against the

s Ce
1679) and the Cambridge Platonists like, Cudworth, old and repetitive normative ethics. It is old in the

t
Cumberland, Malebranche. No less forceful were the sense of its much abused style of inquiries and

21
views of Spinoza (1632 – 1677), Locke (1632 – 1704). repetitive in the sense ofmoving in a circle
Huge impact wasmade by the moral sense theories ofmonolithic thinking, not really giving us anything
of Shaftesbury (1671 – 1713), Hume (1711 – 1776), new. For instance, the entire story of moral philosophy
Reid (1710 – 1796) and Richard Price (1723 – 1791). from the Greek to the modern times, has been the
Then we reach the Enlightenment era in ethical story of either teleological or deontological norms,
thought, with the French and the German each trying its best to show that one norm is necessary
enlightenment, contributed tremendously by Voltaire, and sufficient basis for moral evaluation of human
Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. It was with Kant (1724 and institutional decisions and actions that are
– 1804) that the signs of a Modern Ethics were visible, voluntary. Either we need to abide by a definite
which is more or less the fourth epoch. The Nineteenth “purpose” or “teleos” while deciding and acting, that
century ethics grew mainly owing to the works of the is, taking it as the one end of life or the only moral
utilitarian, Bentham and Mill. Though another ideal; or, we need to abide by what is stated to be
idealistic turn was marked by the writings of Fichte, our “duty”, and not purpose, which ismerely accidental
Hegel and the radical ethicists like, Marx, and and external to what we decide and do. In this sense,
Nietzsche. However, idealists Schopenhauer and the calls are: either our actions have external worth
theistic existentialist Kierkegaard were no less souls. or they have an intrinsic worth. If our actions were
Gradually as times’ tide progressed closer to the extrinsically valuable, the deontologists (the latter
twentieth century with a new idealist and intuitionist view), argues that they are bereft of moral worth
call of some British ethicists like T.H. Green, Bernard because only worthwhile thing is what is our
Bosanquet, F. H. Bradley and Henry Sidgwick, do we “purpose”. On the other hand, we need to respect
really come to what we call The basic question is what we do for its own sake or for its intrinsic worth.
then, what are the distinctive features thatmark The teleologists (the former view), argues that bereft
of purpose, all our intended actions are morally With this extreme non-normative stance in
lackadaisical because doing our drab duties for their contemporary ethics, some other contributors in this
sake is to forget that calling ‘duty” its own purpose is field felt that though relativity of norms is a proven
circular and vague. It is in these ways we moved thesis, it is too hard to accept that philosophers as
through the ages, sometime inventing one norm as philosophers we need only to take logico-linguistic
superior to other, for instance, we were either stuck interest, and that normative interest along its
to egoism, egotism, altruism, consequentialism, application are non-philosophical. A numbers of
welfarism eudemonism, and later to pragmatism, contemporary writers taking logico-linguistic concern
existentialism, and so on. Or we were stuck to Kantian in ethics seriously thought that it is meaningful to
deontology or later to its various revisions, the act inquire into the relative value of norms because it
and the rule forms of deontology proposed by Carritt, needed logic for their relative worth. Ethicist like W.
Ross and others. Hence, the era preceding K. Frankena and R. B. Brandt, for instance, despite
contemporary normative ethics, is monolithic, the deep logico-linguistic interests, inquired respectively
main line of justification being, and there is one norm into the possibility of a fresh set of norms is like
or a summum bonum of our moral life. Beneficence and Political and Institutional norms,
which was reminder to a fresh look at breaking the
There were immediate sceptical questions in barrier of thought raised owing to fact-value
contemporary ethics (as expressed above), because dichotomy. With this, in contemporary ethics, a
we gradually came to know that though teleological number of norms, social, political, metaphysical were
and deontological norms have half-truths, they were advocated, and their relative values assessed given
not needed as monolithic life goals or as exclusive the logic that were available to their supporters. This
’s
S
standards for a wide range moral evaluations. The
p is also a reminder of breaking of ice that crystallized
ee
IA
scepticism followed two ways: One way was more

ad owing to our fateful fact-value debate. Needless to


r
y
radical than the other. Some sceptics called for
P
r
say that despite such interest meta-ethical interest
a
u
normative relativismand rejected any practical
n
t
of justification of norms was not sacrificed. Another
sh
Kri
n
application of a norm or more norms in our real life. interesting, turn to be noticed is that ethical

s Ce
The other milder sceptics called for the same application was not an unphilosophical affair for most

t
‘relativism’ though not rejecting normative application

21
of these thinkers. They were not neutral to application
if it followed an acceptable methodology for possibilities of norms in question in our real life. This
application. The first view was a contemporary brings ethics closer to life or a serious inquiry into
attempt at establishing “normative ethical the ways in which what should be done in life. Many
relativism”, the main tone of which is to do away with conscious thinkers revived a type of “casuistic” method
“one norm” theories of the old ethics, though made famous in medieval Christian ethics. We shall
obliquely recognized the fragmented values of come to it later on.
normative theories provided one keeps in mind that
relative worth of these norms depend on several Meta-ethics or Second Order Ethics
factors, social, economic, cultural, political and so We have noticed that despite a long history of
on, and if one does not forget the truismthat with normative or first order ethics, contemporary ethics
time, ourmindset changes. Interestingly, a number of felt an urgency to lay more stress on meta-ethics or
contemporary ethicists of the Vienna Circle, such as second order ethics. The “first order ethics” is so
R Carnap, A. J. Ayer, M. Schlik and Wittgenstein, called called for it was not only historically prior inquiry,
for “normative neutralism” and “pluralism” was rather it inquired into what was thought primary in
unanimous about rejecting “normative application”. ethics, that is, assessment of moral worth of our
These sceptical thinkers of the logical positivist intended actions. The second order ethics is then,
gharana, toeing the positivist line of the sciences not secondary, rather, considered what lay beyond
thought that philosophers gua philosophers should the first order of inquiry. And what lay beyond the
remain “normatively neutral” in so far as their task first order inquiry is the whole gamut of “ethical
to the heart is language clarification of ethics, for language”, most evidently normative or evaluative in
the same reason philosophers should not apply ethical character, though, language containing elements of
norms.
values, virtues and institutional decisions and actions human being on earth. Groupmorality is equally
were equally important. However, in contemporary important. Hence, the private and the public, the
ethics there have been animated debates whether a individual and the collective intentions, decisions and
number of utterances to be found in the ethical actions are our objects of moral judgement.
parlance are truly “ethical” in nature. “Good”, for
instance, is an umbrella term, covering descriptive However, the Is/Ought duality debate appears at
(factual) as well as evaluative (moral) functions and another point for meta-ethical inquiry, again related
meanings, which needs to be clearly demarcated. to normative inquiry. As was said before, norms beg
“My car is good” and “Honesty is good” do not bear justification for they are not our predilections.
the same evaluative tone because the former is However, we justify a moral normlogically based on
evaluation of an object based on its descriptions of facts; there is a fallacy of deducing a value from a
mechanical properties, which could be observed and fact. In the similar fashion, meta-ethicists of
experimented, whereas the latter evaluates a virtue contemporary times like G.E. Moore, argued that if
of humans, which cannot be observed and clarification ofmeaning ofmoral language is so
experimentally proved or disproved, and for that important, one cannot without a blatant “naturalistic
matter, does not need such justification at all. So the fallacy” logically define moral terms like “good”,
justification in favour of calling “car” a “good” is “bad”, “right”, “wrong” and many more. The reason
different from calling “honesty” a “good”. Hence, is that any logical definition falls back on defining by
moral utterances need to be differentiated for a equivalent natural or factual or metaphysical terms,
proper logico-linguistic analysis of truth and meaning which cannot be the case. How can an ethical
from factual utterances, which is expected ofmeta- termwhich is a simple, non-natural, indefinable

’s
S
ethics.” However, as said before, there is a lot of concept be equivalent in import to complex, natural,
p
ee
IA
debate regarding this is/ought question. One definable concept? Any confusion like this is again

ad
r
y
conclusion with which it is not difficult to agree is confusing a value for a fact. This, Moore learnt from

Krishna P
ntur
that logically speaking, that is, based on strict logical
or formal rules; it is difficult to derive a fact from a

s Ce
value statement without an intervening factual

t
statement, as well as to derive a value statement
Plato (also Socrates), that “justice” is naturalistically
indefinable (cf. The Republic). Hence, neither can we
logically define moral terms, nor can we logically
justify moral premise based on factual premise.

21
froma factual statement without an intervening value
statement. Moreover, it is difficult to derive a fact Although contemporary ethicists started a logical
from value or vice versa based on an assumed truth inquiry into ethical language and justification in this
or predilection or blank presupposition. way, they were quickly challenged. This is the liberal
spirit of contemporary ethics, which moved miles
But the stiffer debate is how to identify “a factual away from the feudal, obstinate and orthodox linear
statement purely so called” and “a value statement thinking of the old medieval and even modern ethics.
purely so called”. There are evidences of statements Thinkers like W. K. Frankena, R. C. Cross and A. D.
appearing to be purely factual but in essence, ‘value- Woozley argued that “naturalistic fallacy” as a
laden”. Hence, a number of so called facts related definist fallacy if a moral term has been “logically
assertions are found to blur the boundary of fact value. defined”. However, in a number of normative and value
This is why socio-political and legal assertions are related discussions, moral terms are not logically
value-laden, and many positivistic assertions are defined at all because no one has ruled out the
carriers of value. This is why there is little hesitation possibility of their non-logical definitions or
in imagining political ideals and ideologies as bases explanations for clarification of meaning. Hence,
for moral judgments. And this is why normative there are hardly noticeable naturalistic fallacies in
pluralism transcends the old theories. Interestingly, ethics; the fallacy is nevertheless, a reminder to
contemporary ethics does not hesitate to evaluate minds tending to move to this fallacy. Similarly, proving
themoral worth of the corporate and the government and justifications are different. If we cannot logically
decisions and functions though they are not an prove several ethical conclusions or a majority of
individual’s intention and action. We have moved moral theories, no one has really prevented us from
from the thought that moral judgment is true of a justifying them non-logically, such as “persuasively”
and “heuristically”.
is true in so far as we have this unique experience
not really intuitively but through our “spiritual
Further, meta-ethicists consider moral language
experiential disposition”. In our times Barth, Brunner,
as such for their truth and meaning. In contemporary
Muirhead are among important ethicists who take this
ethics we care for clear criteria for truth and meaning
line.
of moral assertions. This was by far not systematically
dealt in earlier ethics, though no way it has suddenly
G. E. Moore on the other hand criticizes both views in
popped up owing to fertile imagination of some
Principia Ethica because the naturalistic theory
contemporary genius like Ayer orMoore
confuses ethical statements as descriptive
orWittgenstein. Contemporary ethicists followed two
statements. On the other hand, the ethical statements
major lines with regards to justification and meaning
are non–natural statements because they do not
of ethical language, where ‘ethical language” has
describe any object or state of affairs whether natural
beenmore or less taken as the language pertaining
ormetaphysical. Hence, ethical assertions can be
to ethics or the one that clearly deals with moral
justified for truth and meaning based on direct
values and value judgments. The cognitivists
cognition enabled by our intuitive disposition. They
including the naturalists, non – naturalists and
are thus “intuitive assertions”, not really describing
metaphysical moralists justify the truth of moral
anything. Rather, they reveal what comes to us as
assertions based on the “cognition” of what has been
distinct ideas. But what this queer “faculty” really is,
asserted by means of either sense experience
one is not sure. Is it a rational faculty or a non-rational
(naturalists) or intuitive experience (non–naturalists)
faculty? And what is the source for the universality
or by means of spiritual/metaphysical experience
of the established truth?
’s
S
(metaphysical moralists). The cognitivists are divided
p
ee
IA
partly because they debated over the basis of

ad Looking at the several problems that both the


r
y
justification. The naturalists for justification translate
P
r
naturalists and the intuitionists face, the non-
a
u
all ethical assertions to factual assertions without
n
h
t
cognitivists in the contemporary times pointed out a
s
Kri
n
any distortion in meaning, and hold that like all factual

s Ce
major truth which we were unaware of. The point is
assertions, ethical statements are to be justified
when we find ethical assertions, they are not

t
based on observation and experiment of facts. Hence,

21
combination of letters, and they are spoken and/or
“X is good” is true because “good” is translatable to
written words used meaningfully by a speaker to a
what one ‘desires”, “wishes”, “likes”, “approves” and
hearer. If we miss this speaker– hearer situation
so on, thus describing the speaker’s psychological
inmoral language, we miss the functional aspect of
state of affairs or describing one’s feeling and
the said language and any language for that mater is
emotions about “X”, which is evidently true as a matter
not inert, it is dynamic, it serves human purpose. If
of fact. This theory is a “descriptive theory of meaning”
this be true, it is useless to harp on what language
supported by Hume, Westermarck, utilitarians,
describes or how we can intuit truth. It is more
Russell, Perry and other naturalists in contemporary
important to know what purpose moral or any
ethics.
language serves. Coming to this, contemporary
emotivists like A.J. Ayer said thatmoral assertions do
We can now consider the ‘metaphysical” position. The
not have a truth value as factual statements have
only difference with the naturalists is that unlike
because they are pseudo-statement or rather, pseudo
naturalists, metaphysical moralists translate moral
– factual assertions. Moral statements are neither
assertions to “metaphysical/spiritual assertions” for
about the world nor about describing our feelings and
justification and meaning. This is another
emotions, nor are they intuitive non-natural
“descriptive” theory, though the description offered
truths.Moral assertions are “expressive”, that is, they
in not in nature, and therefore, not sense
express our emotions. Moral statements are thus
experienced. Nevertheless, the justification owes to
emotively meaningful, and that truth is a plain matter
our queer spiritual disposition to know distinctly and
of finding display of our emotions in real lifemoral
clearly the truth ofmoral assertions as we know all
discourses. However, Ayer said that such emotive
religious assertion to be true. In this sense, “X is
statements are not about real moral agreements or
good” amounts to “X is what is loved by God”, which
disagreements because emotions do not beg for representation of the later Wittgenstein theory was
logical or rational justifications. This was opposed to find out “good reasons” in favour of ethical
by C. L. Stevenson, a later emotivist, who thought that assertions, and to do so is to be reminded of the
moral assertions are real life agreements and description, connotative, performative, and other uses
disagreements about matters pertaining to moral of ethical utterances. Without trying to bridge the gap
intentions and actions, and we can, and should of the moral and the non-moral assertions (because
provide some justifications or arguments at least in they are so evidently distinct), these thinkers banked
the favour of what is expressed. Though, emotive on the several performances moral language is
expressions are not subject of rational arguments. capable of to unravel itsmeaning. But the point is,
But we can provide psychological arguments or whether normative and/or meta-ethical inquiries
persuasive arguments to justify what has been were sufficient for amoral philosophy. This takes us
assisted. This is so becausemoral assertions are in to questions regarding ethical values and virtues, and
themain emotive exhortations, and descriptive of the practical application of ethics.
properties of something about which emotions are
expressed. Moreover, we need to persuade the Virtue Ethics: The Aristotelian Revival
disagreeing person to see the truth that for the evident In a seminal essay Ms. G. E. M. Anscombe inquired
properties or worth, such and such thing is of moral whether modern moral philosophy needs a shake up
worth. for being too overloaded with theoretical churning.
Put in another way, some contemporary thinkers
This was further rejected by R. M. Hare on three major worried of theory-ladenness of ethics and wanted to
counts: First, he said that moral assertions far from get rid of it to inquire whether ethics was all good to

’s
S
being emotive exhortations and non-rational, are read and no good to live a virtuous life. Is it not out of
p
ee
IA
prescriptive assertions for they “prescribe” what we way to imagine that moral philosophy, if it pertains

ad
r
y
“ought” to do or what should be a moral course in to moral matters, be engrossed in language analysis

Krishna P
ntur
life. Hence, “X is good” is not amere emotive outburst;
it is prescription to someone to follow a moral course

s Ce
in life. Second, Hare is of the opinion that moral

t
assertions are universalizable, and therefore, not
and not in the values and virtues that humans should
possess so that a good life is lived on earth? This is
exactly the most troubling question for an ethicist
called Aristotle, whose revival was badly needed

21
isolated relative truths depending on one’s state of inmoral philosophy, thought Anscombe. Thus the
mind or what one expresses. Finally, such moral Aristotelian revival came with “virtue or value based
assertions demand rational justification and not ethics”, or simply, “virtue ethics”. This was looked
persuasion or any psychological justification. upon by many as “anti-theoreticism” and ‘anti-
Nevertheless, in contemporary times meta-ethics normativism” or moving away from theory to
progressed further with a number of thinkers like P. consider, “being good”. What exactly are the
H. Nowell- Smith and the adherents of Ryle – dispositions cultivating which amounts to “being
Wittgenstein – Austin tradition in linguistic good”? There may be many, most importantly, the
philosophy. Hare was particularly charged for coming traits of character and the traits of duty. “Deontic
so close and forget what the “use theory” and the traits” and “aretaic traits or virtues’’ are most
other “functionalist” theories advocated important for “being good”. Such moral men if infested
aboutmeaning and justification of moral language. our world will cause moral cleansing of the already
In fact, the use of moral words in moral contexts that burdened world of vices due to human follies. Hence,
gives us a gamut of moral statement is not one, there it is needless asking what ideals or rules should we
is no fixity as the theory goes – it is rather follow. It is more important to find out what values
multifunctional or “janus headed” (Nowell- Smith). should we cultivate. In contemporary ethics, there are
This rules out any monistic tendency, whether other classifications of virtue ethics, the most
emotivist or prescriptivist in finding out its meaning. important ones are: Agent focussed, Agent based,
Though this approach finds a number of supporters Agent prior virtue ethics. The first concentrates on a
in metaethics, we have in contemporary times the moral agent and asks for the inculcation of virtues
goodreasons approach of S. Toulmin, Kurt Baier, Kai most needed, whether deontic or aretaic or both (cf.
Nielson andmany others, who thought that the best Swanton). The second concentratesmore on human
beings as such and inquires about the core of life is relatively older among contemporary
which demands inculcation of virtues that are applicationmodels. It is nothing but relic of old
essential to it (cf. James Martineau). Whereas the mechanics, sophistry and casuistry. We can call it a
last one concentratesmore on the inculcation of such ‘theory guided” and “Chauvinistic” model for ethical
virtues which are most needed for humans for their application, which has to give up its cause for a
holistic well being (cf. Rosalind Hursthouse). However number ofmistakes noted by Caplan, James Brown,
in our times there is a debate whether virtue ethics David Callahan and others. They call it “Sophistic”,
can be sensible without theoretical concerns (both “artificial”, “casuistic and chauvinist” because
normative and meta-ethical). First, we must know the ethicists assume the role of all powerful ethical
meaning of “virtue” and “value” and their types. angels by virtue of ethical wisdom that they have
Second, anti-theoretic stance itself needs a logical (much like Plato’s Philosopher Kings), to consider
justification (which is a meta-ethical problem). Then value-laden practical problems of urgency and work
we need to know that calling virtue by a name, in isolation as experts pulling out right tools for
demands on what basis we call it by that name. If I mending mechanical defects, and then prescribing
call “honesty” a virtue, we need to ask: On what basis moral dictates or do’s and don’ts, which problem
is “honesty” a virtue? Thus we speak of a norm for ridden ethicsless ordinary people should follow. This
calling “honesty” a virtue. Now, if we say that “self- is what Sophists did (sophistry) or what casuists did
fulfilment” is basic to call “honesty” a virtue, and (Casuistry) in isolation, and what in our times Bradley,
then we need to ask, without being honest first of Sidgwick, andmany others nourished. Even anti-
all, how self-fulfilment is realizable? This takes us to practical ethicists like the positivists and later
the contemporary debate to conceive of a virtue ethics Wittgenstein thought that practical ethics is an

’s
S
with normative andmeta-ethical theoreticism — it is ethical abuse just because it is sophistry and/or
p
ee
IA
thus “return to theory”. casuistry.

ad
Krishna P
n
r
tur y
Practical Ethics: Forgotten Past Unearthed
It is strange thinks many contemporary ethicists to
Contemporary ethicists, a number of them, argue
against such “mechanics of duty” of artificiality in

s Ce
try and discover what is right below our nose. If it is ethical application, which is “chauvinistic” because

t
true that virtues are extremely important in ethical ethics bossesapply norms fromthe top. Rather, there

21
discussion, can application of ethics be far behind? is a “bottomdown” approach or a model for
The point has beenalready raised by us when application that rightly answers what needs to be
Anscombe asked obliquelywhether ethics is so applied, and how. It is argued that for ethical
glorious without doing something worthwhile. The application we need moral debates amounting to a
simple answer should be in the negative, think many moral closure leading to formulation of relatively
ethicists, who do not support application ofethics or valuable set of decisionmaking cues regarding value-
practice of ethics. The problems are, what should be laden practical problems of social urgency. The moral
applied in ethics and how? The remarkable feature debates should be initiated and moderated by any
of contemporary ethics is not that if stresses on interested party who is well versed in the practical
ethical application but answers what is applied and problem in consideration and its aspects of value.
how. Again this is a revival of Greek ethics of the Ethicists, whether professional philosophers or others
Aristotelian trend in particular but much different from who are trained in this field, are a better choice for
the methodology of “golden mean” or Socratic some reasons: First, they can selectmoral debates
dialogue or the sophist mechanics. It is different fairly well; second, they can construct people friendly
fromthe casuistry of themedieval Christian fathers. non-structuralist questions for debate; third, they can
The first point is that either standard ethical theories remain theoretically non-bossing while debates go
(deontology and teleology) should be applied by on, and finally, they are best placed to analyse moral
ethicists, or, ethical experience and knowledge of debates, find out the closure points and contribute
sane, grown up individuals need to be applied wherein academically to let us know whichmoral theory of
professional philosophers take a lead or any other theories were in interplay in debates and which
competent party, does so in a theory neutral way. The gained prominence in a closure. This is a non-theory
first model for ethical application, amistaken one, it laden approach, which nevertheless, is not blind to
academic interest of post-corroboration analysis of
moral debates. The model is best referred to as
“intersubjective corroboration”. The theory/anti-
theory debate is taken care of as practical ethics is
not application of moral theories, rather application
of “common moral experience and knowledge” for
moral resolutions.

Nevertheless, post–corroboration analysis of


dialogues reveals normative dynamics, which is a
return to theory.

In contemporary western ethics application of the


moral experiences of professionals of different fields
for moral crises resolution has gained prominence,
which is called “professional ethics”. It covers a broad
field, ecological, biological, medical, educational,
economic, business, management, administration, as
well as social, political and legal fields. It
coversmassmedia, communication and many other
fields like sports. The reason is that in different

’s
S
professional fields, with the passage of time, a
p
ee
IA
number of value–crises crops up. The professionals

ad
r
y
are worried to settle them following a moral

Krishna P
ntur
methodology. We thus have environmental ethics,
bioethics and much such ethical discussion in our
times.

s Ce
t
21
It is encouraging to note that contemporary ethics
possesses dynamicity, it does not cling any more to
one or two standard functions. Since 1900 ethics has
been changing. We now discuss about the use of
“empirical ethics” as well, which is partly empirical
field work based study of moral opinions followed up
by empirical data, which are further analysed for
several moral conclusions. Further, there is a feminist
turn in ethics and ethics of care. Ethics in
contemporary epoch in thus coming closer to social
scientific vocation and is set to be themost rapidly
growing interdisciplinary aspect of philosophy. Ethics
is no more the same cafeteria philosophy of norms
and the language churning by intellectual.
8. Ethics In Ancient Indian Philosophy
In India, at the beginning, there was no distinction world, with blessing of the Gods; it is a sort of sojourn.
between religion and philosophy. The main aim of This world is a place for virtuous people, a steeping
philosophy was a quest for values. That being the stone to aimto the higher one. There is no pessimism
reason, Indian philosophy maintained a close either on religion or in its philosophy.
relationship with religion. Added to it, the intellectual
curiosity and wondrous ambition to realize the highest There is no conflicting discussions regarding the past,
values of life was the reason for the philosophical present or future actions. There is no conflict between
search. The life had to be lived with moral principle. Dharma, Artha and Kama. Man’s life is looked as
That was a must and could not ‘stay put’ in the moral harmonious. The entire life of a man has a single
realm of claims but must go beyond to the higher objective to be good.
region of divisionless, inspiring experience from which
morality derives its sanctions and values. So, Vedic people lived close to the nature. They looked
Philosophers worked with both ‘trans-logical’ and at nature in awe and devotion and experienced the
‘super-moral’. Philosophy understood that wealth divinity of nature. They composed greatest
(artha) and pleasure (kama) were not opposite of Vedicmantras. And each chanting ended with a
righteousness (dharma). request for blessing.

Vedas In the Rv X.34 book, hymn on “Gambler” is highly


The religion, philosophy, ritualistic practices, civic illuminating. The gambler is unhappy about his

’s
S
conductand even social relationship are guided by gambling and regrets for losing the love of his family
p
ee
IA
certain codes which are known as Smrtis, and they and being in debt. But he can not resist the sound of

ad
r
y
are based on the sacred sanction of the Vedic the dice and goes to the gambling house. Hymn

Kris na P
n ur
authority. The Vedas differentiates the fruit attained
h
t
by Karma and Jnana, two factors in the spiritual

s Ce
progress of the man. Karma is connected to the world

t
immediately above the one where men live. Jnana is
advises how to live a virtuous life –

“ ‘Play not with dice; ply thy tillage; rejoice in thy


property, thinking much of it; there are thy cattle.

21
connected to world farther away, an abode of Gods.
O gambler, there thy wife,’ this Savitr here, the noble,
Jnana is considered as mysterious knowledge. It is reveals to me” (13)
said that Indra taught this knowledge to Dadhyac. In
Vedas the rishis evolve a highly complicated systemof The Veda hymns on sacrificial is a part of exchange:
philosophy and highlight the value of Jnana as a in the sense the worshippers gladden the deities to
means to attain highest abode (heaven) after death. receive rewards for the offering. The attitude of the
Through Jnana the soul gets into the state of bliss. worshipper is not the one of the extrememodesty or
But the bliss state is not permanent as the soul sooner deep emotion instead one of the relationship of a
or later changes its abode. “Indian doctrine of friend, but with full reverence towards the maker of
transmigration and Karma, the consequence of the the universe. The purpose is of analogous in character
way one led their life affected the next stage: had a to the end in view.
humble beginning in the primitive way but even at
this early period, contained an ethical content and Upanishads
had attained some degree of elaboration,” wrote A. Upanishads are both religion and philosophy. As a
L. Basham in his book,” The Wonder that was India”. religion it discovers the truth of the inner world and
understands the significance of the divinity of life.
The Vedic rishis do not considered this world as an As a philosophy, it synthesizes the science of inner
evil one. There is no indication that man must thrive world with outer world bring about the unification of
for a salvation. The rishis sang in elaboration the glory understanding of total reality and the effect on the
of the next world after death. But that do not mean human life and character, depth of faith and vision
they fought shy of this world. This world is a good along with breath of outlook and sympathy.
Understanding of the Brahman is the center theme “I don’t know my family, sir” Satyakama answered
of the Upanishads. It is the “Truth of truth’. “As the when asked about his family,” I asked my mother and
spidermoves along the thread, as small sparks come she said that she had me in the youth, when she used
forth fromthe fire, even so fromthis ‘Self’ come forth to travel about a lot as a servant…. She said that as
all breaths, all world, all divinities, all beings. Its she was Jabala and I was Satyakama, I was to give
secret meaning is the truth, of truth. Vital breaths my name as Satyakama Jabala.”
are the truth and their truth is It (Self).”
(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II,.1.20) Both “Nobody but a true Brahmana would be so honest, “
Brhadaranyaka and Maitri highlight that all knowledge the teacher said, “ go and fetch me fuel, my friend
and wisdom are the breath of the eternal Brahman. and I will initiate you for you have not swerved from
All the ethical knowledge from the Vedas, Upanishads, the truth.” (Chandogya Upanishad IV, 4)
ancient lore, science verses, legendary stories,
aphorism, explanations and commentary came out Upanishads do not take away the previous belief of
from the great reality “mahad – bhutam” from rites and rituals but substitute them to meditation
Brahman. They came out as easily and effortlessly and introspection. In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, the
as the breath. This alone is “Satasya satyam iti” Ashvamedha sacrifice, horse is meditated as a symbol
(Maitri Upanishad VI. 32), the truth of the truth, of universe, “The head is the dawn, whose eyes is
empirical existence is the truth; the underlying truth the Sun … whose back is the heaven …. (1. 1. 1.)
of the Self.
The common sacrificial fire is visualized as
Upanishads claim the salvation is by knowledge or extraordinary fires beginning fromheaven which has,

’s
S
realization rather than by faith and work. The ethics “The Sun as a fuel, solar rays as its smoke, the moon
p
ee
IA
is basically pragmatic. All human emotions are the as its cinder …” (Chanadogya Upanishad V. 4.1.) the

ad
r
y
part of Brahman but in relative termonly. The seeker purpose of such visualization is to gradually withdraw

Kris a
s Ce
t
P
n ur
realizes the ‘truth’ that the good which takes him to
hn
t
Brahman and bad is the reverse of it.

“There are three branches of duty, sacrifice, study


the seeker’s mind from the external things and direct
it to inward, to be contemplative, so that he may get
rid of his dependency on the objective world. The
principle is to mould a man to perfection. Take him

21
and charity - Austerity, indeed, is the first. The second from ignorance to wisdom to comprehend the
is the pursuit of sacred wisdom, dwelling in the house ‘Ultimate Truth’ of life.
of the teacher. Absolutely controlling his body in the
house of the teacher is the third. All these attain to “The fundamental object of spiritual life has always
the worlds of the virtuous. He who stands firm in been same, although emphasis has been laid upon
Brahman attains life eternal.” (Chandogya Upanishad different approaches and disciplines. And it must be
II, 23. 1) so, for the approach to ‘Truth’ must suit the psychic
make – up of a being and unless there is the capacity
The difference between the good and the bad is and patience to continue the search up to the end
discussed in BrhadaranyakaUpanishad, “He who ….” has written Mahadranatha Sircar in his essay on
knows (themystery of Brahman) become calm, “Mystical Approach in the Upanishads”.
restrained, satisfied, patient and confident and he
sees himself in the (great) self, sees all things as In the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Prajapati, the Guru
self … evil does not overcome him but he overcomes taught his disciples – God, Man and Demon. After
the evil …. Free from the evil, free from decay, free the completion of the education; while leaving the
from hatred, free from thirst, he becomes a (true) Guru, all the three asked for the last spiritual advice.
Brahman” (IV – 4- 23) The Guru said one sound “Da”.When inquired what
they understood by the sound, God, Man and Demon
The realization of Brahman is possible for all set of gave three different interpretations, according to their
people. Many kings realized the Self. A servant’s son psychic. God responded that it was Damyata (be self
Satyakama could get a teacher as his intention was - controlled), Man understood it as Datta, (give),
pure and honest. Demon analyzed it as Dayadhvam (be merciful)
The process of attaining wisdom is a difficult one. the soul shed downs its karmic bonds completely, it
The one whose mind is filled with material care and attains divine consciousness. Moksha marga (path
desire, one who is given himself up to pleasure can of salvation) is the main objective of a Jain. To attain
not peruse in the path of knowledge. But, one who the salvation one must have Samyak darshan (right
lives a virtuous life can understand the ‘Self’. faith), Samyak Jnana (right knowledge) and samyak
“…………. charitra (right conduct). These are Ratnatraya (the
three jewels). The three jewels are the combination
“Now, what do you see?” of Bakti marga of Bhagavata, Jnana marga of Vedanta
and Karma marga of Mimamsakas. Jainism preaches
“Nothing, Sir.” that Bhakti, Jnana and Karma co – exist in a person.
They work like a medicine to cure a sick mind– faith
“My son,” the father said, “what you do not perceive in its efficacy, knowledge by its use and actual taking
is the essence, and in the essence the mighty banyan of the medicine, right conduct. One’s main objective
tree exists. Believe me, my son, in that essence is in life is to release one self from the suffering soul in
the self of all that is. That is the ‘Truth’, that is the the web of universal samsaric misery.
‘Self’. And you are that Self, Svetaketu.” (Chandogya
Upanishad VI. 12) Jains follow the “Jina” (conqueror). Jinas are
spiritually advanced human beings who have
Jainism rediscovered the Dharma.
“The Jain claims a great antiquity for their religion”,
writes Hiralal Jain, “their earliest prophet was There are Ethical principles for a householder and

’s
S
stricter rules for a sanyasin, monks. But both
p
Rsbhadeva, whois mentioned even in the Vishnu and

ee
IA
Bhagavata Puranas as belonging to the remote past.” adherently had to follow Ahimsa. The path of

ad
r
y
righteousness or Dharma is the combination of
P
r
Jainism even thought existed at the time of Vedas
a
u
Ratnatrya and Ahimsa. Dharma is incomplete if any
n
t
but followed non – violence as one of its strong
sh
Kri
n
principle as against animal sacrifice followed by one is wanting.

s Ce
Vedic people. Jainism teaches strict self discipline

t
as a path of salvation. Mahavira the 24th Tirthankara, There are fundamental five vows for both householder

21
admitted all aspirants irrespective of caste and gender and monks–
and started a system of peaceful proselytization.
Because of him his followers are spread across the He shall not do violence to other living beings -
whole country. Ahimsa

The whole of Jainism ethics revolve around Ahimsa He shall speak the truth – Satya.
and Karma. Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni preaches,
“Nothing which breaths, which exists, which lives or He shall not commit theft – Asteya.
which has essence or potential of life, should be
destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or He shall not commit adultery - Brahmacharya.
denied of its essence or potential.
He shall not greed for the worldly possession -
In support to the truth, I ask you a question – “Is Aparigraha.
sorrow or pain desirable to you?” if you say “Yes it
is”, it would be a lie. If you say, “No, it is not,” you 1. Ahimsa is non – violence. To understand Non –
will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is violence, one must know, what is violence?
not desirable to you, so itis to all which breathe, exist, Injuring and hurting other living creatures is
live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is violence. Jainism emphasizes on equality to all
undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” life, whether the creatures are big or small. So,
Killing a big or a small living being is violence,
Jainism is a quest on self – effort in progress the soul hurting others physically or in speech is violence.
on the spiritual ladder to divine consciousness.When Intentionally insulting andmake others suffer
emotionally is violence. Opposite of violence is advocates to give up eight arrogances–
non – violence. A householder can not lead a life
without violence. Therefore, one is recommended possession of intelligence,
to discharge his worldly responsibilities with the
minimum injuries to others. But killing animals temple worship,
for eating is strictly prohibited. No one should
kill for gain. noble family,

2. What is Truth, satya? Truth is to say what one caste,


has seen or heard. Truth is justice. One should
not hesitate to tell the truth even when his/her physical and mental strength,
life is in danger. But at the same time; if the truth
results in bring harm to others in such case the magical power,
truth should be withheld in the interest of the
others. There is a Sanskrit Subhasita – “Satyam tapas and yoga,
bruyath, priyam bruyath, na bruyath satyam
apriyam”, (say the truth, say what is pleasing to beauty of one’s person. Giving up arrogance lightens
hear but do not say injurious truth). and purifies the mind and heart.Makes one humble
and pure. Leads to the path of divine consciousness.
3. The third one is; do not steal, asteya. Stealing
has various dimensions such as Among all the living beings, Jainism values human

’s
S
a. stealing others property, life as a gift and a rare opportunity to reach
p
ee
IA
b. direct others to steal, enlightenment.

ad
r
y
c. receiving stolen property

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
d. cheating in measure,
hn
t
e. retain things with a motto ‘finders
keepers’.

t
There are two types of monks, monks in white dress
– Swathambaras and monks without cloth –
Digambaras. Ethical codes for themonks are stricter
and harder.Monks can not stay in one place for a long

21
4. The fourth one is not to commit adultery, period of time. The body and mind are trained to
brahmacharya. A married person must not look endure the nature – cold, heat, rain, storm, hunger,
at women with an evil intention. Treat opposite thirst,mosquito bits, and such. By their aesthetic and
sex with respect. virtuous life, purifying mind and body they attain Jina
hood.
5. The fifth and last one is not to amass wealth
greedily, aparigraha. Each householder needs Buddhism
money to have a decent life. But ambitious Buddhism like other Indian Philosophies hold the view
accumulation of wealth without satisfaction, that ‘Samsara’ and Avidya’ (ignorance) are the two
leads to great karmic action, resulting in suffering that one need to escape from. The ‘Kama’ (desire) is
and unhappiness. To lessen the karmic and the root cause of bandage. The moment “Mara” the
samsaric bandage, one must have limited evil leaves, one will be enlightened. Ethics of
necessity and be content. Buddhism is traditionally based on what Buddhist saw
as the enlightened perspectiveof the Buddha or other
Jainismdoes not believe in anOmnipotent Supreme enlightened souls. So, the scholars look at the
Being, Creator or Manager (karaka) but believes in Buddhist scriptures and make use of the
Universe, governed by natural laws. Jainismwarns the anthropological evidences from the traditional
householders not to have superstitious ignorance, Buddhist societies.
mudas – loka muda, devamuda and pasandimuda. It
is advised not to perform rites and rituals to please
The ethical principles are at various degrees
Gods to attain their blessings. To achieve salvation
depending on the individual capability, there are no
through righteousness Jainism
hard and fast rules. There are rules for a layman, and The perceptive for the monks and the nuns varies from
to those who wants to practice strictly and to a monk ten to sixteen. The main feature is not to accept
and nun. money and to indulge in physical comfort.
For the layman it is simple ‘Panca Silani’ five
percepts. The English translation to the Pali text is To be focused in total self – realization, there are
three golden rules to be followed
“I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking
the life. Taking refuge in Buddha.

I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking Taking refuge in Dharma.
what is not given Taking refuge in Sanga.
I undertake the training to abstain from sexual
misconduct To be free from samsara, avidya and dukkha, it is not
enough if one knows the principals of Buddhism but
I undertake the training to abstain from false speech. understand the essentials of life. Wisdom, (Prajna)
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented Ethical conduct (Sila) and the Concentration
(Samadi) are the three essentials. Wisdom ‘prajna’
drink that causes
comes from Right view it leads to the right intention.
heedlessness.” The right view and intentions guides to Ethical
conduct, sila, - the right speech, right action, right
The main perceptive are non – violence and non – livelihood and right effort. The next stage is
injury. To a certain extent Buddhism and Jainism Concentration, samadi, one pointed focus in ‘self –
’s
p
S
propound similar view regarding non – violence. About activity’ to have right mindfulness and right

ee
IA
killing and punishing others physically it is said in concentration. When wisdom, ethics and
ad
Pr
r y
chapter 10 of Darmapada, “Everyone fears concentration becomes the way of life; one gains right
a
n
tu
punishment; everyone fears death, just like you do. knowledge and release from Dukkha and Mara; there
sh
Kri
n
Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears by attain enlightenment. This is called as “Noble

s Ce
punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore Eight Fold Path’.

t
do not kill or cause to kill.” In the sametext in chapter

21
26, it states, “Him I call Brahmin who has put aside The Crusade of ‘noble eight fold path’ starts with Right
weapons and renounced violence towards all View. Right view can also mean – right perspective,
creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill.” right understanding. The right way is to look at life
and society as they really are. Comprehend the
From the Panca sila sutra it is ‘Eight percepts’. This meaning and the purpose of existence. To know the
has the first five percepts of the previous one,– various forms of Dukkha - sickness, aging, death other
restrain from – killing, stealing, un – chastity, lying emotions like greed, unhappiness, hatred and
and taking intoxicants. And there are three more Sutras delusion. Comprehend the cause of physical and
for a stricter discipline. The translation from the Pali mental suffering. The ‘right view’ is explained in
- detail in the “Sammaditthi Sutta”. The aim and
objective are to check one’s confusion and clear the
* undertake the training rule to abstain from eating mind by overcoming the delusion of suffering. Right
at the wrong time. view gives scope to move away from clinging to
dogmatic belief and to be more flexible, open minded.
* undertake the training rule to abstain from singing,
dancing, playing music and garlands. Right view is achieved in two levels one is to
understand the cause of sorrow and judge things
* undertake the training rule to abstain from rationally so that one leads a peaceful life in samsara
luxurious places for sitting or sleeping and over that is ‘view with taints’ followed by laymen. Another
indulging in sleep. one is to understand the cause and effect of human
existence of birth, aging, disease, suffering and
strong disturbing emotions like greed, hatred. And
make an attempt to release one self completely from self awareness. An experienced and competent mind
these and face the present with total present avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering. The
awareness with right mindfulness and be open, quiet consequence of an action, Karma depends on the
and alert. All the judgment and interpretations are intention more than action itself. Buddhism
suspended or if occur then just registered and emphasizes; anguish such as anxiety, remorse, guilt
dropped, be calmand collective, such view ultimately etc, should be avoided in order to cultivate calm and
take the seeker to the enlightenment to be free from peaceful mind.
bondage and to be filled with love, that is ‘view
without taints’ a path way of the monastic. One needs regular practice of ‘Pnaca sila’ - no killing,
stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants, in
One can never overlook the three truths of life: day to day life. If one is to break any one of them,
one should be aware of the mistake and examine how
Karma: each action (by way of body, speech and such a breech may be avoided in the future.
mind) leads to karmic result that is reaction. Karmic
result depends on good actions and negative actions. The ‘Golden Rule’ of Buddhism is empathy. Kindness,
Once the action is over the result of the action is compassion, understanding and respecting people for
permanent and can’t be reversed. So, one has to have what they are. These qualities must be the way of
complete consciousness of one’s action to reduce life under all circumstances, at all time, at all places.
negative karma.
Ethics is such that there are no sharply defined
The three characteristics: everything that arises boundary lines drawn between it and other branches

’s
S
chases (impermanence). Mental, body phenomena of inquiry. No one can inquire the nature of virtue or
p
ee
IA
and suffering are impermanent. values without examining the nature of the system

ad
r
y
of social relationship. From the time immemorial, the

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
Suffering: ‘The four noble truths’ says, “Birth, aging,
hn
t
sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief,
distress and despair are suffering. Not being able to

t
obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising
scholars, philosopher of the ancient civilization to the
present time have tried to understand the Ethics with
their intuitiveness and wisdom.

21
of carving is the proximate cause of the arising of The Vedic Aryans saw the answer in sacrifice, rites
suffering and the cessation of carving is the proximate and rituals. They worshipped the Nature with
cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality sacrifice. They strongly believed that if the nature is
of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of furious then it has the power to destroy livingmortals.
suffering, and the elimination of the quality is the To please the unknown forceful energy they offered
root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way oblation. They composedmost beautifulmantras in
leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble praise of the Universe. AsMax –Muller says, “Nay,
eightfold path.” They (the Vedas) contain, by the side of simple,
natural, childish thoughts,many ideas which to us
GayWatson in his essay, “BuddhaMeetsWestern sound decidedly modern.”
Science” writes: “Buddhism has always been
concerned about feelings, emotions, sensations and The Vedas cover human behaviour, virtue and negative
cognition. The Buddha points both to cognitive and qualities– faith, devotion, beauty, love, passion,
emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause greed, jealous, wars, tilling of the land,magic, a
is desire and its negative opposite, aversion. The complete scenario of human life, inner conflict and
cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly commotion. But the bottomline is to attain heaven
occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things after death and to be reborn with fortune; one has to
are unsatisfactory, impermanent and without essential lead virtuous present life.
self.”
FromVedic period to the Upanishads the shift change
Buddhismgives importance to a ‘Skilled Mind’. The from prolong rituals to seeking knowledge through
‘Mind’ plays an important role in building up of one’s selfrealization by understanding the outer universe
with inner self. A seeker finds a harmonic relationship Aristotle says that there are three natural states of
between the outside worlds with that of inner self. It man – vegetable (physical), animal (emotional) and
is the seeker who has to seek out the inner Brahman. rational (mental). Physical nature is maintained by
Understand the truth is the ultimate goal of the life. exercise and care, emotional by instinct and urges
and mental through human reason and developed
Jainism and Buddhism do not talk of Creator or Divine potential. Rational development is themost important
power. The emphasis is on conduct. The virtue of one’s as it is self – awareness and uniquely human. Modesty
behavior will redeem a person form life. That is needs to be encouraged and very important. Courage
enlightenment. Both teach simple to complex is moderation between cowardliness and
discipline – the basic principles being – no killing, no recklessness. Aim and objective of man is to lead
lying, no stealing, no adultery and no greediness. simple life governed by virtue. Aristotle further says
to practice Virtue is difficult; the right action, right
“The doctrine of Karma, elaborated in Upanishads thinking, right motive to do at the right time, to the
time and adopted by Buddhismand Jainism, was also proper extent to the correct fashion for the right
part and parcel of Hinduism.” wrote A.L. Basham, “The reason.
belief of Karma does not necessarily involve fatalism.
…..our present condition is inevitable, but only All the four Disciplines discussed above have ‘Ethics’
because of the Karma accruing from our past deeds. as the soul of their preaching. All the four disciplines
We can not escape the law of Karma any more than believed in Karma, rebirth, truth, virtue, kindness,
we can escape the law of charity, mercy. The essence is the same but the
gravity or the passage of time, but by judgment and presentation is different.

’s
S
forethought we can utilize the law of Karma to our
p
ee
IA
advantage.” “If I were asked under what sky the humanmind has

ad
r
y
most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has

Krishna P
ntur
In the early dialogue of Plato’s “The Protagoras”,
Socrates ask Protagoras, why it is not easy to find

s Ce
teachers of Virtue as it is to find in swordsmanship,

t
riding or any other arts. Protagoras answers that there
most deeply pondered over the greatest problem of
life, and found solutions of some of themwhich well
deserve the attention even of those who have studied
Plato and Kent, I should point to India. And if I were

21
are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is to ask myself from what literature we who have
taught by the whole community, (Republic 492 b). nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greek
Socrates believed that by encouraging scholars and and Romans, and the Semitic race, the Jewish may
the lay man to tune attention from the outer world to draw the corrective which is most wanted in order to
inner self, the ‘self – knowledge’ can be achieved. make our inner life more perfect, more
Socrates correlates knowledge with ‘Virtue’ and comprehensive,more Universal, in fact more truly
equates virtue with ‘happiness’. human a life … again I should point to India.” Max –
Muller
An old seer has said that human body is the
combination of four persons – the firstl one is the
physical body, ‘Sharirra Purusha’, the second is the
meter person, Chandas Purusha, meter is the
synonym for speech, a

meter is a must for a poetry and the speech is a must


for a living person, the third one is person of Veda,
Veda Purusha, the person with true knowledge
attaining a divine knowledge, the last one is great
person, Maha Purusha a great personage with a
great soul. Balanced combination of all the four
persons in a living human makes a person a perfect
man, man of virtue.
9. Ethics in Medieval Indian Philosophy
The social structure of medieval India was, by and adharma, requesting him for an explanation for such
large, governed by the law of Vedic scriptures that a move. Rama answers that he has promised to help
has transformed its teachings through secondary the sages who have taken shelter in him and hence
sources like Dharmasastras, Puranas, Itihasas, and resolved to demolish the demons. He goes to the
other minor literature. The time immemorial extent of saying, that he is ready to abandon Sita and
classification of social strata based on varna (class) Lakshmana in order to keep up his promise. Here,
and ashrama (stages of life) was widely prevalent Rama evokes his sense of duty as a ksatriya (warrior
and discharging one’s duty based on such a class), that is to protect those who have taken refuge
classification was considered to be dharma (righteous in him. This episode reveals the right exercised by
living). Dharma, as the word indicates, is said to be Sita and Rama’s binding duty, thereby drawing our
the sustainer of the universe in a symphonic harmony. attention to not only rights but also duty as the two
A harmonious living was set as a presupposition for sides of the same coin. The freedom of expression of
the function of a value system in the society. In our one’s opinion is again revealed through the episode
glimpse into the literature of medieval India, we shall where Dasaratha calls for an open-house discussion
find the basis ofmorality as the striking chord for inner declaring the next heir-apparent.When theministers,
growth and universal peace. At a different plane, wellwishers and people assembled expressed
there was an emphasis on the observance of the happiness on Dasaratha retiring to coronate Rama.
samanya dharma (general ethics) irrespective of any But Dasaratha questioned the assembly if it has
societal classification and a reiteration of visesa exercised its will in favouring such a decision. This is
’s
p
S
dharma (specific duties) so as to cater to the an ascertainment of the opinion put forth. We find an
ee
IA
accountability in the peaceful co-existence of every
ad open-house discussion in the court of Ravana too.

Pr
r y
being. The value of free expression lessened the gulf
a
n
tu
between any two relationships.
sh
Kri
n
Ethics in Epics

s Ce
The two great epics or the historical record, as it were, The Mahabharata pictorially depicts a telling tale of

t
are the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Both these

21
each of its characters, which is worth reflecting upon
immortal works, time and again, remind the humanity by every individual. Vyasa shows that dharma and
of the moral order in a social structure. Here, the adharma cannot be categorically compartmentalised
social condition encompasses the political, in white and black. The characters in Mahabharata
economical, cultural, and the natural order. portray ‘grey’ areas of dharma and adharma, in varying
heights in different stages of life. This epic through
Ramayana, through its immortal characters, reveal its narration of the story of over six generations,
the sense of dharma in various shades. Of the many unfolds the changing value system of the society. Each
dialogues in Valmiki’s Ramayana, one striking character symbolises an evolved understanding of
dialogue between Rama and Sita estimates the dharma and the consequence of every character gives
concept of dharma without compromise. Sita speaks an insight into the assimilation of the code of ethics.
when Rama resolves to vanquish the demons in the One of the highlights in Mahabharata is the episode
forest on the request of the sages. She says, desire where a Yaksha questions Yudhishthira as, ‘what is
produces three qualities – untruth, abduction of the greatest wonder in this world?’, Yudhishthira
another woman and anger towards an alien. Of the replies, ‘Seeing death everyday one continues to think
three, Rama cannot entertain the first two qualities, one is immortal, is the greatest wonder in this world?’.
but in this case, Rama seems to fall a prey to the The perception of mortality of the body serves as the
third quality, which Sita considers as adharma. She key to inculcate morality. Mahabharata declares,
defines dharma as the essence of the universe and dharma as the code of life that will sustain and
feels that Rama’s resolve to vanquish the demons maintain a harmonious living. It presents a simple
who are not enemies of Rama is unfair. Here, we see dictum “whatever is not conducive to social welfare,
the rights exercised by Sita in voicing out her view- and what you are likely to be ashamed of doing, never
point on Rama’s action and condemning it as
do it”. Thus, the two epics is a living tradition that on Arjuna is a famous warrior known for his commitment
and off reminds the value of amoral living to obtain to dharma, and swerving away from his dharma in
peace. the time of crisis will be cited as an example for
violation of dharma by the commoner. Krishna shows
Ethics in Gita the impact where if one violates dharma, the entire
Bhagavad Gita, the famous dialogue between Krishna society will sheepishly follow such unhealthy ‘models’
and Arjuna in the middle of the Kurukshetra battle, leading to a sociological disruption. This further
popularly considered as a sacred text of moral code, creates confusion with regard to each one’s duty
is a liberating text. As even Arjuna surrenders to resulting in a chaos.
Krishna, pleading for removal of his confusion and
inability to decide in this crucial moment, Krishna Arjuna questions ‘what is the cause of unrighteous
begins by instructing on the imperishable nature of living when one wants to lead a moral life?. Krishna
Self. Self-knowledge is presented as themeans to replies, it is the ignorance of the fundamental
salvation. The pre-requisite for self-enquiry is shown understanding of the difference between the role of
as an ethical life that is mentioned as Karma Yoga. dharma and adharma in a given time. This non-
understanding is expressed in the form of two forces,
Krishna says, it is impossible for one to remain ‘want’ and ‘anger’. Want, says Krishna, is a ‘Great
actionless even for a moment. Since a person is by Consumer’ that never satiates; it eats away the mind
nature forced to act, Krishna says, let this action be to materialism. The non-fulfilment or contrary
channelised and welldirected. Karma yoga is fulfilment of one’s want is expressed as anger. Krishna
explicated as proper action (karma) and proper warns, one who is subject to anger can never follow

’s
S
attitude (yoga). Action is said to be three-fold based dharma.
p
ee
IA
on the gunas, sattva, rajas and tamas. The action is

ad
r
y
to be oriented based on the sattva guna, where the Religious and Philosophical Ethics

Krishna P
ntur
benefits of one’s act reach more number of beings,
which serves as the cause for spiritual upliftment.

s Ce
The attitude is the ability to accept the consequence

t
of action as the grace of God.
Religious Ethics: The bhakti movement can be
considered almost a reform period when value
structure seem to crumble. An intense devotion to
Almighty instantly developed as a widespread

21
movement arousing unity in nook and corner of the
The importance of karma yoga is highlighted and is country. Religion gives scope for expression of
presented in four different layers. Firstly, karma yoga devotion and a devout helplessly take to a disciplined
is to be performed as a commandment of the scripture. life, since a ‘clean’ life is said to be the path towards
It involves an element of fear and is said to be the the Lord. The different incarnations were eulogised
initial stage of action. Secondly, the sense of gratitude as an event of resurrection of justice and goodness.
in the form of worship of God out of love (and not out A situation of chaos in the societal structure, lop-
of fear) is seen as karma yoga. Thirdly, karma yoga is sided development of rich and poor, superstitious
performed as a means to refine the mind and lastly belief system etc, were uprooted by the living legends
karma is seen as the very dharma, performance of who led simple life and won the grace of God. The
which,maintains the cosmic harmony of the universe. devotees boosted the morale of the commoner in
finding a meaning in leading an ethical life. Religion
Concept of Svadharma: A society prospers when propagated purity at physical, verbal andmental level.
dharma is followed fearlessly. One consumes the The physical expression of devotion was popularised
world, and it is important to reciprocate, says Krishna, through rituals, festivals and pilgrimages where
else such a one is considered a thief. Dharma, in nut- people of different strata and walks of life come
shell is, ‘take and give’. Svadharma or one’s own duty together. The verbal expression includes study of one’s
is to be done for the sake of well-being of the society own scripture and the mental mode is practice of
and the code of righteous living is determined by time meditation. Thus, refinement at three levels paved
and the people who are seen as the role model of the the path for moral standards. Religion facilitated in
society. Whatever is done by a famous figure becomes symbolic representations of the omniscient, it
the standard of living of current times. So Krishna says, included personification of abstract qualities like faith
(shraddha), anger (manyu), intellect (dhi), patience etc. This is described in the Bhagavad Gita as dvandas
(dhrti) etc. The virtues like humility, non-injury, purity, or pairs of opposites and the attempt is to maintain a
dispassion etc were identified with devotion. The balance in either case and avoid extreme reactions
religious consciousness, thus, presupposed an ethical in instances of favourable or unfavourable
living. The ritualistic practices were simplified and circumstances.
compromised to suit the changing times. The religious
reformers created a breakthrough by bringing about Philosophical Ethics: The classical orthodox and
a sense of oneness of varied practices in the length heterodox philosophical systems laid down values or
and breadth of the country. Religion could sufficiently ethics as the pre-requisite condition or the very means
succeed since the value system was universally to liberation. Kapila of Sankhya school presents
accepted that has to be indispensably adhered to and bondage as misery caused by three-fold factors,
this moral scheme was utilised by the devotees to adhyatma (oneself), adhibhuta (others) and adhidaiva
bring about a moral discipline. The value structure in (natural forces). Liberation is overcoming the miseries
various tones is embedded in the Puranic literatures. fromthese three-fold factors. The attitude towards
these three aspects itself calls for an ethical
A need for development of dispassion was considered discipline, which is seen as a means to liberation.
as a pathway to spiritual achievement, and hence we
findmany religious and philosophical schools The eight-limbed theory of Patanjali’s Yoga system is
eulogising dispassion towards ephemeral world and wellknown. Yoga emphasises the discipline of mind,
its relation.Many works were specifically devoted to since, for Patanjali thoughts are cause of bondage.
highlight the quality of ‘dispassion’ and one such work Thoughts create impressions in the mind which in turn

’s
S
is ‘Vairagya Shatakam’ of Bhartrhari. He addresses is the cause of rise of thoughts. This vicious circle
p
ee
IA
the desire in mind in a nostalgic mood and says, ‘O can be eliminated in two methods, that is practice

ad
r
y
desire! I travelled distant lands which turned fruitless, and dispassion. Practice of effort is to be repeated

Krishna P
ntur
giving up family, relatives, and my country I sought
greener pastures in the bargain I gave up my customs

s Ce
and practices, ate all kinds of food like a crow losing

t
my self-respect, still you O desire! is not satisfied’.
for development of concentration ofmind and
dispassion is to be attained by detaching oneself from
sensual pleasures. The refinedmind then has to be
directed towards God. Patanjali’s discipline at

21
The insatiable desire is presented as that which physical, verbal and mental level aims at an ethical
rejuvenates in its youthful lustre but the physical body life.
is wrinkled with grey hair and feeble limbs. Bhartrhari
says, even when the life is cheerful there is a constant Gautama in his Nyaya sutras explains dharma which
fear of its coming to an end. Every sense pleasure is expressed in two ways, verbal and mental. The
has an intrinsic defect which is the cause of fear. He verbal expression is speaking the truth that is
says, beneficial and pleasing and recitation of one’s own
scriptures and the mental expression is compassion,
‘If one is born in an illustrious family there is the fear bereft of enviousness and faith. The contrary of these
to maintain family reputation. If one amasses wealth is said to be adharma. Nyaya’s liberation is knowledge
there is the fear of Tax norms. One who is conscious by removing the adharmic effects which calls for a
of selfrespect has the fear of insult. If one is strong moral life.
there is fear of enemies. If attached to physical beauty
there is fear of old age. If a scholar, there is fear of In the Vaisesika system of Kanada, dharma is
debaters. If virtuous, one is afraid of criticism and if presented as the source of attainment of prosperity
attached to body there is fear of death’. and liberation. Jaimini in his Dharmasutra refines this
definition by stating that the source of dharma is vedic
Bhartrhari exclaims that detachment is the only way injunction which is the cause of prosperity and
by which one can understand fearlessness. He liberation. The performance of action as enjoined, for
presents the world as a pair of opposites: birth and Jaimini, is dharma which not only is conducive to
death, youth and old age, contentment and maintain cosmic, social balance but also is the means
temptation, poise and passion, virtuous and jealousy for liberation.
The Vedanta sutra of Badarayana explicates four-fold kingdom and engage oneself in trade and commerce
qualities as a pre-requisite for self-enquiry. This value is the key area of vaisyas, while the sudra varna is to
structure serves two-fold purpose, one to develop a assist the other three varnas. The specific duty of
moral standard and other to lead to spirituality. The sudra mentioned is charity and freedom from jealousy.
first quality is discrimination of ephemeral and eternal Practice of one’s specified duties with utmost care,
entities, everything other than the self is perishable Manu feels, will result in a poised living condition.
being an effect and self being devoid of doership is He explicates the importance of five great sacrifices,
eternal. The second quality is dispassion for the viz, study and propagation of scriptures (brahma-
results in this world and the other worlds. The third yajna), worship of ancestors (pitr-yajna), worship of
is a six-fold discipline that includes mastery of mind, gods (deva-yajna), service tomankind (manushya-
mastery of sense organs, performance of one’s yajna) and caring the animal and plant kingdom
ordained action, forbearance, faith, and concentration (bhuta-yajna). He defines ‘dharma’ as wisdom, good
and lastly the quality is desire for liberation. Thus, conduct and tranquil mind. Even though, the duties
ethics is a presupposition for entry into any and responsibilities are enjoined based on a particular
philosophical system. feature, Manu favours the idea that one should take
to an action that pleases the mind. Manu seems to
The heterodox schools equally played an important warn one who takes to unrighteous path (adharma)
role in development ofmoral standards. that such a person will find no peace while living.
Thematerialistic Carvaka proclaimed that body is the Through the concept of transmigration of soul,Manu
soul and pleasure is the ultimate end of life. This can shows that soul is the carrier of results of action that
be taken as the starting point, since any thinking has to be experienced in different births. He says, in

’s
S
person can ascertain by direct experience that death of the body, no person or relation will follow
p
ee
IA
pleasure do not last and one have to cope with rising but only one’s conduct. This seems to be an incentive

ad
r
y
problems. Buddhism and Jainism ingeniously provided to attract all to lead a righteous life while

Kris a P
n ur
designed the course of life and held high the value
hn
t
system. In themiddle path of Buddha, he advocates

s Ce
the right vision, right resolve and right conduct which

t
resonates orality. Jaina ethics define dharma as the
living.

Over a period of time, many other works exclusively


highlighting the changing moral life were written for

21
obedience to safe guard against karma disrupting the the laity and one such work known as ‘Nitishatakam’
soul. The dharma includes forgiveness, simplicity, by Bhartrhari is popular. It encapsulates the value
cleanliness, celibacy etc. Thus, the development of systemin poetic language, wherein the consequence
the philosophical schools enhanced the value of association with good ones and bad ones is based
structure and emphasised its importance for overall on the law of association. He says, a good company
development. removes sluggishness in thought,motivates to speak
truth, elevates self-respect and pleases the mind,
Social and Political Ethics whereas a bad association is condemned in the
The Social Ethics of medieval India reflects in the manner that it should be given up as even one
famous Manusmriti of Manu, who is considered as abandons a snake. An unrighteous life led out of lack
an extreme moralist. Manu in his code of law, kept in of knowledge is also condemned. He says, that the
mind the social condition and reveals his awareness fire can be quenched with water, the bright sun can
of the diminishing value system in each yuga. He be avoided by using an umbrella, elephant with rut
recommends the highest value to be upheld in the can be controlled with a goad, disease can be emoved
kaliyuga as ‘charity’. The common conduct to be by medicine but there is no medicine for a foolish
upheld by the first three varnas is charity, study of person who refuses to lead a virtuous life.
scriptures and performance of rituals. While the
specific responsibility of brahmana is propagation and The Political Ethics resonates in the Arthasastra of
preservation of wisdom, the ksatriya is responsible Chanakya that is considered as the Dharmasastra
for protection of people. Manu specifies, that the addressing the rulers and transgression of law was
ksatriya should keep away from over-indulgence of seen as a punishable crime. Arthasastra emphaises
sensual pleasures. The duty to protect the animal three-fold duties of a ruler, that is, protection of the
state from external aggression (raksha),maintenance art work is directly proportional to one’s disciplined
of law and order within the state (palana) and safe- life. We have instance of the transformation of the
guarding the welfare of the people (yogaksema). young Gandhi to take the resolve of truth and
Chanakya recognises the four stages of life as relevant nonviolence based on his viewing of the enactment
for the maintenance of the social and political order of the life of Harishchandra. Thus, visual presentation
of a nation. In the work ‘Chanakya Neeti’, Chanakya has an impact on young minds. We see literature
highlights the importance of education. He censures galore in the medieval India that reflects the moral
an uneducated person as a scentless flower. He has life through its rich literature catering to all kinds of
a high regard for wisdom and states no land is alien people. Its relevance and refinement lies in the
for a man of learning. For him, knowledge yields fruits present generation who dictate the quality of life now.
in all seasons, it protects and rewards one in distant
lands and is the greatest secret treasure. Chanakya We have had a brief survey of the development of
maintains that the highest bliss is attained through ethics in medieval India. In this unit, we have focussed
knowledge and one should never be content with on the study of ethical discipline as found in the
knowledge gained. He defines dharma as the eternal available literature dating tomedieval period.
principle unlike wealth, prosperity, life and youth. Literature is said to be themirror of the society and
Chanakya cautions not to be too simple and straight hence we derived value system from different
forward, he says, in the forest the smooth, straight literatures beginning from the two great epics,
trees are felled whereas the crooked ones stand Ramayana and Mahabharata. Set in different time
unharmed. period, the varied literature reveals the changing
value structure thereby indicating the changing life

’s
S
Ethics Through Aesthetics standard. This is inevitable and assimilation of this
p
ee
IA
A less focussed area in the ethical tradition is the helps us in leading a peaceful life. We find the

ad
r
y
contribution of Aesthetics in augmenting the moral common thread throughout the different times is want

Krishna P
ntur
standard of the society. The creative expression of
any art formreflects the many facets including

s Ce
themoral condition of a said society in a particular

t
time and place. In the Indian tradition of ethical
for a harmonious living and every attempt in different
guises is bringing about peace and co-ordination. The
disruption of peace can be at any level, but individuals
who make the society are the key factor. Hence, we

21
development, Aesthetics has played a vital role which find the literature covered in this unit, focus on
can be traced to the earliest extant available so far, general and specific disciplines for every individual.
that is, the Natyashastra of Bharata. Bharata, Duty performed will naturally result in gaining rights.
categorised as the ‘Father of Indian Dramaturgy’ was The reverse of this is a dangerous bargain. However,
himself a moralist who expounds in his Natyashastra exploitation is demolished by reformative movements
that the very ‘Natya’ emerged in order to re-establish time and again. There seems to be a cyclic process.
the diminishing value system. People were A balance of religious, philosophical, social, political
overpowered by anger, jealousy, etc and have condition through its defined ethics may seem an
forgotten their own duty to be performed, as a ideal situation, but is a necessity that is reminded in
reminder Natya was developed. Natya was meant to aesthetic culture. We have seen the role of ethics in
reach out to all sections of the society and present each of these fields and their contribution for a better
the dharma structure with audio-visual effect. The mankind, which is the need for this hour. It is said
Natyashastra commented upon by various scholars that whenever ordinary men of the world were in
include Abhinavagupta a Pratyabhijna philosopher doubt regarding dharma and adharma, they should
who heightens the performing art to a spiritual decide the issue by closely observing the dharmic
journey. Later, Aestheticians who penned dramas etc, deeds of the elders in their area or by consulting them
enlightened the morals poetically. In fact, the on specific issues. Each one of us should serve as
Buddhacharita of Asvaghosha is said to have created the referent point of righteousness of our times.
a wide impact on the value of peace that ‘shanta’ as
a separate ‘rasa’ emerged. Artistic expression calls
for a high acumen of knowledge and skill that includes
a disciplined life. It is considered that the quality of
10. Ethics in Modern Indian Philosophy
Most Hindus today still adhere to traditional teachings degraded social system and artificial
and practice passed down via the four main compartmentalization resulted in mutual hatred and
communities. What has been termed “modern discontent. It was the time when India began to pass
Hinduism” has grown largely out of a number of quite through the age of general resentment, reaction and
radical reformmovements of the nineteenth and early opposition to the existing religious and social values.
twentieth centuries. These movements had a It was also the time when India saw the new light of
relatively small number of followers and by no means renaissance, reformation, enlightenment and
replaced or superseded the major traditional forms reconstruction. The religious movements like the
of Hinduism. Some specific reform movements, like Brahma samaj, was an earnest effort to recast Hindu
the Brahma Samaj, Arya Samaj and the Ramakrishna religion into a new form in order to meet the
Mission, still continue to be influential. requirements of the new society.

The reform movements largely emerged from the The fundamental principles of the Brahmo Samaj,
growing contact that Hindu thinkers had with Western founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1828 are:
thought, culture and religion. Below are the three most
important reform movements and their ethical 1. There is only one God, who is the creator, and
outlook. the savior of this world. He is spirit, infinite in
power, wisdom, love, justice and holiness,
Ethical Teachings of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the omnipresent, eternal and blissful.

’s
S
Brahma Samaj
p
ee
IA
Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s lifelong endeavor was to 2. The human soul is immortal and capable of
ad
r
y
infinite progress, and is responsible to God for
P
r
recreate human brotherhood and unity on a religious
a
n
u
its doings.

t
basis, by rediscovering the harmony and unity of all
sh
Kri
n
religious strivings of mankind. In this regard he can

s Ce
rightly be considered the last link in the long chain of 3. Man’s happiness in this and the next world

t
religious teachers of India – a chain unbroken fromthe consists in worshipping God in spirit and in truth.

21
days of Kabir and Nanak to his own. His desire to
combine the best of both East and the West led him 4. Loving God, holding communion with Him, and
to advocate the introduction of the western systemof carrying out His will in all the concerns of life,
education for Indian students. Like other contemporary constitute true worship.
Indian thinkers, he also pleaded for the scientific basis
of education. But his deep study of ancient Hindu 5. No created object is to be worshipped as God,
culture despite his love for scientific education did and God alone is to be considered as infallible.
not make himappreciate materialismof the west.
To this, Raja Ram Mohan Roy added “The true way
During the eighteenth and the beginning of the of serving God is to do good to man.” Since no one
nineteenth century, Hindu religion in India came under person is considered to be infallible, the Brahmos hold
the complete domination of the corrupt priestly class. all the great religious leaders of the world in respect,
Tomaintain their supremacy, the Brahmin priests were and believe that truth is to be gleaned from all the
interested in keeping people ignorant, and fed scriptures of the world. To that extent, the Brahmo
themwith false hope of rewarding after life. They religion is truly eclectic. Universalist in nature, it is
commercialized religion by introducing costly “dogmatically undogmatic”.
ceremonies and offerings to the images of gods. As
a result of these efforts by the vested interests the Faced with the superstitious beliefs and rituals of
real spirit of Hinduism was clouded. Many social evils popular Hinduism on the one hand and seeing
such as child-marriage, Sati, degradation of women distinctly on the other, the truth contained in Islam
and division of Hindu society into endless castes and and Christianity as well as in the Upanishads the Raja
sub-casts weakened the whole Hindu society. The found a layman’s solution to the complicated problem.
He seized the theistic elements common to the three inculcate knowledge, love of God and sympathy for
faiths and declared them to be at once the original his own fellowmen. It must inculcate human feelings
truths of Hinduism. In so doing he believed, he was and soften the general attitude. He wanted everyone
restoring the Hindu faith to its original purity. As a to assess the rational character of religious doctrines
humanist he thought that mankind could be united if and reject those which contrast the rational test.
the basic elements of the major religions like
Hinduism, Islam and Christianity were brought home He always emphasized that all human problems must
to the people. be solved in human ways. The social problems in India
were only due to inhuman practices. He condemned
Raja wanted to provide a rational basis for religion religious sanctity attached with social evils. Following
condemning all irrationalities. In this sense he had are the areas of reformation.
the honor of bringing about revival of Hinduism. His
efforts in the direction can be treated in three parts, Removing the Caste System
namely, his conception of religion, his attack on the The caste system has been a part of Hindu society
existing form of religion, and founding of the Brahmo for hundreds of years. It’s inherent divisive nature
Samaj for realizing his ideals. He found that religious and social injustices were abhorrent to the early
conflicts were based on ignorance. In his first appeal Brahmos. Therefore an important reform that the early
to the Christian public he said, “May God render Brahmos campaigned for was the removal of the caste
religion destructive of differences and dislikes system.
between man and man, and conducive to the peace
and union of mankind”. In India, the land of many Many of the early Brahmos came from the Brahmin

’s
S
religions, he not only tried to reconstruct the faith of caste, who wore a sacred thread around their body
p
ee
IA
his forefathers but tried to purify Islam and Christianity to signify their caste superiority. From the 1850’s

ad
r
y
with a sublime conception of the universal in all onwards the renunciation of the sacred thread came
human beings.

Krishna
s Ce
P
ntur
Apart from the spiritual aspect he was well interested

t
in the social and ethical aspects of religion. He did
to symbolise this break with tradition. The equality
of all men was fundamental to the Brahmo movement,
and to them it did notmatter what caste or indeed
religion someone was born into.

21
not believe in the existing formalistic religion of the
Hindus and introduced his conception of ideal and Sati and Child Marriage
inspirational religion based on strictmonotheismand The attractive programme of the Samaj won the
humanism. In this contest Dr Iqbal says “For him the support of a large number of educated people in
practical expression of such faith must always be in Bengal and outside. It fought against the social evils
ethical conduct, in dedication for the good of the like child marriage, sati and selling of female children
society. The devotion he claims, which is most and all other inhuman practices which heaped
acceptable to the creator consists in promoting union suffering on women in the name of religious sanctity.
of human hearts, with mutual love and affection for In spite of an organised opposition fromthe Dharma
all one’s fellow beings, without distinction of caste Sabha, Brahmos came out successful in getting the
or creed, race or colour”. law passed in 1829 against the sati practice, they
were thankful to God and British Government, whose
His attack on orthodox Hindu customs not due to any protecting arm has rescued our weaker sex from cruel
narrow sectarian bias but guided by his desire to murder, under the cloak of religion. It fought against
reform Hinduismof all the rubbish of superstition and the continuation of evil practices which subjected
priestcraft created during centuries of ignorance. He women to miseries, degradation and inferiority.
declared that in its purity Hinduism could not be
different from other religions. Against polytheism he Widow Marriage
said that there was one God for all religions and Despite Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar’s campaign that
humanity. In his conception of religion Raja was led to the legalisation of widow remarriage (1856) in
motivated by national and socio-ethical India, Hindu society hadmany reservations on this
considerations. He believed that religion must issue. The Brahmos campaigned against such pre-
judices. To reinforce their commitment to this many cow could feed a thousand. Also, the dung of the cow
young men of the Brahmo movement made a positive was a valuable source of manure. His reasons for cow
point of marrying widows. protection clearly rested on economic, ecological and
probably political criterion; but not on theological or
Saving of Upper Caste Unmarried Women emotive ones. That the economic argument was
It wasn’t just the lower castes who suffered in the foremost in his mind is evident from the fact that he
caste system. Despite their caste status, the girls takes great pains to show that go-medha, the sacrifice
fromthe upper caste families suffered because of their of kine, refers most of the time to bulls, whose
position. If a suitable bridegroom could not be found economic value is less than that of cows. And when
for such a girl in their caste, their options were limited, the texts unmistakably refer to a female animal, then
asmarriage to lower caste men was not permitted. a barren cow is meant.
These girls often found themselves being married off
to very old men who were already married several Other instances of his pragmatism include his
times over. Or worse still, sometimes these girls adoption of sanyas to run away from home; his prompt
would be poisoned to death. Again the Brahmos closure of his failing schools and his study under the
campaigned against such unjust practices and saved blind Virajnanda to learn grammar.
the lives of many such girls.
However, it would be a grave mistake to conclude
Women’s Education and Status that Dayananda had any elements of opportunism in
Traditionally education had been primarily for the him. Dayananda sincerely subscribed to his
men. However during the 1860’s and the 1870’s the ontological view in the infallibility of the Vedas, and

’s
S
attitude of the Brahmos started to change. Education them being the source of all knowledge as an
p
ee
IA
was encouraged among the Brahmo women. At the axiomatic truth. The claim of the opponents of the

ad
r
y
same time their equal status in society was Arya Samaj that the Swami admitted to one,

Krishna P
ntur
emphasised by allowing women to pray with men at
the prayer halls. In 1881 the Brahmo Samaj at Barishal

s Ce
(Bengal) appointed the first woman Brahmo preacher

t
(Manorama Mazumdar).
Bholanath Sarabhai that he didn’t himself believe in
the infallibility of the Vedas, but held on to them for
the sake of tactics; they being the rallying points of
all Hindus according to Jordens lacks any convincing

21
proof. Dayananda accepted the Vedas as his rock of
Ethical Teachings of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati firm foundation, he took it for the guiding view of his
and the Arya Samaj life and he regarded it as the work of eternal truth.
Despite his revulsion for many features of popular
Hinduism, Dayananda Saraswati stressed the need An Ethics Based on Vedic literature
for unity and friendship among all Hindus for the sake Although virtually all the six systems of Hindu
of well being of the whole country. He was a radical philosophy pay lip service to the Vedas [especially
but he was also willing to compromise on certain the samhitas] as being the repository of the greatest
issues. To instantiate, although he himself didn’t spiritual and metaphysical truths; yet in practice the
believe in any food taboos he maintained them in samhita portion [especially the rig Veda] have been
the public sphere for in their absence they would be viewed only as closed manuscripts; commentaries or
cut off from Hindu society and lose the chance of bhasyas on themhave been very few and far between.
influencing its masses. Sayana had written the last great bhasya on the Rig
Veda in the 13th century. But interest in the Vedas
Similarly; he adopted the cause of cow protection to revived in the 19th century due to the pioneering work
unite the sectarian Hindu outfits to come under one of the German Indologists like Max Muller and Griffith.
platform and struggle for a common cause. It is
noteworthy that Dayananda pertinently advocated Dayananda wrote his bhasya chiefly out of the old
the cause for cow protection (gau raksha) not on the national albeit dormant instinct in Vedic superiority;
orthodox premise of cow being vestige to 84,000 a move to counter the misconceptions of these current
divinities or cow as mother but due to its economic orientalist commentaries which he claimed were
utility. A dead cow could feed only a dozen but a living inferior to his work, since the latter was based on
original commentators like Yaska. Also a bhasya would the orthodox Hindus who resented his literal
allow the Arya Samajmembers to have a definite and iconoclasm; he had famously remarked that “If you
reliable reference for all their literary queries on Vedic expel the English, then, no later than tomorrow, you
interpretation. Dayananda briefly concluded that the and I and everyone who rises against idol-worship,
Vedas literally contained all the wisdom of god; and will have our throats cut like mere sheep”.
hence was universal in nature. He repudiated the idea
of Vedas carrying any historical references since the Yet, in a remarkable transformation; Dayananda
Vedas to him antedated all history. His second, emerged as one of the paramount figures of North
assumption was Vedas proclaiming a pure Indian Hindu Nationalism in Modern India. Some of
monotheism unlike the popular view of modern his conceptualizations like amythical golden age of
indologists (then and now) that the Vedas proclaimed the Aryans where Vedic wisdom ruled the length and
a henotheistic mode of devotion. breadth of not only India, but the world; where people
of all classes lived in happiness and comfort; where
Dayananda had a rudimentary knowledge of science women were respected and educated universally;
and technology but this didn’t stop him from asserting where crime, poverty and adultery were unknown
that the Vedas contained all scientific truth in them. remain till date some core ideas of the ultra-orthodox
Also, he reasoned that there was nothing in the Vedas elements of Hindu Nationalism. The origin of this
which could remotely offend morality. tendency in Dayananda had a multifocal origin, one
of whose epicenters must have been in Punjab where
Although, Dayananda’s bhasya spanning thousand of he was repeatedly confronted with themissionaries.
pages is not taken seriously in Vedic studies and He criticized the Christians in his second Satyartha

’s
S
considered outdated; the fact remains relatively Prakasha [and to an ordinary 19th century India;
p
ee
IA
unknown that it did win the approval of few of his Christian and British were synonymous] as being

ad
r
y
later contemporaries whose works are considered at usurpers who descended on the property of

Krishna P
ntur
least intellectually far superior to his. For instance,
Sri Aurobindo, arguably the most original thinker of

s Ce
modern India concludes “in the matter of Vedic

t
interpretation I am convinced that whatever may be
foreigners. They were so biased that when a black
man is killed by a white man, they acquit themurderers
in court. Since their God enjoins animal sacrifices
“why should they not fill their belly with beef” They

21
the final complete interpretation, Dayananda will be have taken delight in war; for war is their guru mantra.
honored as the first discoverer of the right clues….He Dayananda’s criticism of Christ for declaring war on
has found the keys of the doors that time had closed humanity, in declaring hismission tomake war
and rent asunder the seals of the imprisoned between brother and brother, mother and son is
foundations” denounced in the most unapologetic terms. While all
this may seem to be a harsh judgment; the Swami
Last but not the least; the bhasya constitutes the very was only paying back the missionaries in the same
first effort and a massive one at that in bringing the coin who had used even more extravagant arguments
Vedas out of the sanctuary of Brahmanical dominance in their attacks on Hinduism.
into the open andmake themaccessible to all Hindus;
irrespective of caste and creed. Jordens believes this Dayananda attempts to unite Hindus cutting across
to be the strongest argument in him being called “The sectarian and caste lines is another feature of his
Luther of India” ingenious attempt in constructing the idea of Hindu
nationalism. We have already noted how Dayananda
An Ethics Supporting Hindu Nationalism had considerably toned down his attack on popular
Dayananda is one of the chief figures of Indian Hinduism; his tolerance for food taboos and certain
nationalism who began as career as a British loyalist. other dogmas for which he cared little are an outcome
In fact, the first edition of the Satyartha Prakasha of the same for he realized that dissent would lead
carries a tract describing the merits of the British rule to a forced divorce from the Hindu community which
which unlike that of the decadent, intolerant Mughals wouldmean inability to further influence the ignorant
was rational and scientific in its scope and Hindu masses. The protect cow movement was also
expression. When Dayananda had to face the ire of more of an attempt to unite Hindus under the garb of
an issue to which all had a natural sympathetic and scientific truths. Sri Aurobindo reminds us that great
emotive attitude. He had regretted deeply; the divide facts of science were not unknown to ancient
in the Hindu community which had prevented them civilizations, and while it would be premature to affirm
from exerting sufficient pressure in compelling the Dayananda’s contentions there is still nothing
government to enact a cow protection act. fantastic in Dayananda’s idea….He would even add
his own conviction that Veda contains other truths of
Dayananda’s Hindu nationalism was essentially a science that modern world doesn’t at all possess,
rationalistic; it was not a blind espousal of all things and in that case Dayananda had rather understated
hoary and of yore but instead an attempt to seize a than overstated the depth and range of the Vedic
vital thing out of the past and throw it into the stream wisdom.
of modern life, for it is the most important means of
renovation and newcreation. He knew too well that The Arya Samaj couldn’t revivify itself through the
the Hindu religion was the lifeblood of the nation; it vicissitudes of time; it has lost its potency as a
was unquestionably its very identity. reforming organization by being rooted in time; it has
failed to take note and learn from its founder who
Views and Visions constantly adapted, harnessed, and remoulded, if not
Dayananda was an extrovert; a fiery determined man modified his ideas with time.
who had only a singular passion in the rise of a great
Arya nation. His spirituality was practical and Nevertheless, Dayananda will go down in Indian
betrayed no signs of that unfortunate tendency of History as the most significant and radical reformer
ascetic voyeurism. A spontaneous power and of modern India. His humanism, courage, intellect and

’s
S
decisiveness is stamped everywhere on his work. As vision will remain an epic tale for centuries to come.
p
ee
IA
Sri Aurobindo writes “what an act of grandiose

ad
r
y
intellectual courage to lay upon this scripture (Veda) Modern Indian Ethics was developed in the context

Krishna P
ntur
defaced by ignorant comment and oblivion of its
spirit, degraded by misunderstanding to the level of

s Ce
an ancient document of barbarism and to perceive in

t
its real worth as a scripture which conceals in itself
of the British Rule. The ethical thinkers in this era
gave relevant meaning to traditional ethical outlook
in dialogue with the Western ethics. These interpreted
traditional Indian ethics in terms of prevalent

21
the deep and energetic spirit of the forefathers who significance.
made this country and nation.”

He was a man of principle; and he refused to


compromise on them howsoever great the peril.
Neither threats of loss of influence, of ostracism, of
the demise of friendship, even of danger to his life,
nor promises of wealth, success in reform work could
dislodge the Swami from his stand. However, it is also
true that he lacked in him the ability to appreciate
any shades of grey; to him all things were defined in
black or white.

While his rationalism paved the way for initiating


several reforms; this radical rationalism also failed
him as a theologian to decipher the crucial
relationship between myth and symbol. His
totalitarian rejection of the Bhagavatam, Puranas and
Brahmanas is a mistake, a limitation, the nadir of his
genius. Even if his claim of infallibility of the Vedas
tends to seem exaggerated there is no reason to
dismiss his belief in Vedas being repository of
11 . Ethics in Contemporary Indian Philosophy Introduction
Besides the cultural matrix and religious patrimony Froma very long time, knowledge of Vedanta was
of India, the contemporary Indian thinkers were very confined to caves and forests. But Vedanta truths
much influenced by empiricistic, utilitarian, agnostic, have to be practiced in themidst of family and social
humanistic and analytic ethics in the West, especially life. Vivekananda tried his best to restore Advaita to
of the thoughts of John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, its original purity. In other words he attempted to give
Herbert Spencer, Tolstoy and Wittgenstein. These a concrete shape to Advaita Vedanta by applying it
Western-oriented ideas served to generate a secular to life. He never tired of saying that the Vedanta of
and rational ethics and stimulated social and religious books must be translated into practice. Vedanta truths
movements. Among those who deserve our special should never remain in theory. The following are the
mention for their original contributions to ethical characteristics of Practical Vedanta according to
thinking are Swami Vivekanada, Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Amartya Sen (currently
at Harvard). Universality: Vedanta is a universal religion. Its three
schools, namely, Advaita, Visistadvaita and Dvaita are
Ethics of Swami Vivekananda three stages in the spiritual growth of man. They are
Swami Vivekananda was the pioneer of the rationalist not contradictory of one another but supplementary.
movement in modern India, in the spheres of Ethics According to Vivekananda Advaita is the complete
and religion. He may be regarded as the dynamic truth and Visistadvaita and Dvaita are partial truths.
counterpart of Ramakrishna Pramahamsa. He tried The progress is from lower truths to higher truth. One

’s
S
to read Sankara’s Advaita into Ramakrishna’s can reach the highest truth only after passing through
p
ee
IA
teaching. He tried to give an intelligent, concrete and the other two stages. The Absolute can be reached
ad
r
y
scientific account of practical Vedanta. According to

r
only through the medium of the names and forms.
a P
n
u
him the central point of Vedanta is that of unity in

t
Again Vedanta is universal in the sense that its truths
sh
Kri
n
variety, not that of barren unity. The universal soul is apply to the whole of mankind in general. It is the

s Ce
encased in the living Prakrti. Finite is the real form of same current that flows through every human being.

t
the absolute. He does not reject the universe outright And that is spirit. Vedanta is universal in the sense

21
as something illusory. His philosophy is more or less that it is rooted in the idea of the oneness of all, in
the synthesis of the philosophy of Shankara and the the idea of unbroken continuity of existence.
humanism of Buddha and Ramanuja. He liberated the
Vedantic ideas and ideals fromthe caves, forests Impersonality: Vedanta depends upon no persons or
andmade themavailable to the common man. incarnations. Its eternal principles depend upon its
Therefore his Vedanta is called Practical Vedanta. own foundations. Hence it alone is the universal
The practical teachings of Vivekananda are full of religion. Vedanta alone is based on principles,
activism and humanism. whereas all other religions are based on the lives of
their founders. Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism
His philosophy may be summarised thus all is would lose their authority in the eyes of their
Brahman; the jiva is none other than Siva; every followers, if Christ Mohamed and Buddha are proved
creature is God himself in particular mode of name to be not historical figures. It is truth that matters in
and form. According to him the manifestation of Vedanta, not the personalities.
Brahman is not the same everywhere. The moon and
the star, the lowest worm and the highest man are Rationality: Vedanta is in complete agreement with
lower and higher forms of manifestations. From the the methods and results of modern science. Its
stand point of the Absolute Brahman, nothing else conclusions are preeminently rational, being deduced
is. From the stand point of the world of Mâya, fromwidespread religious experience. For example the
everything is real. All human beings are potentially grand Vedantic idea of the spiritual oneness of the
divine and perfect. Vivekananda did not accept a whole universe. According to science all things in the
totally impersonal and indeterminate Brahman as a universe are waves. Vedanta has discovered that
reasonable concept of metaphysics. there is but one soul throughout the universe and that
all being are only Configurations of that one Reality. to teach Vedanta to the poor”. The poor and the hungry
Fromthis oneness the solidarity of the universe can should be fed first. He again says, “I am not interested
be deduced. Vivekananda firmly believes in this in my own moksha. I shall not have it till each one
oneness of humanity. Vivekananda says that it is the gets it”. Ignorance and illiteracy are the greatest
spiritual oneness of Vedanta that serves as a firm stumbling blocks in the path of progress. Every
ground of all ethical teaching. “Love your neighbors educated youth should contribute his mite towards
as yourself”, one loves another, because one sees the eradication of ignorance and illiteracy. His
one’s own self in the other. The application of supreme task was to work for the religious
Vedantic truth to political and social life, results in regeneration of the land through renunciation and
the spiritualisation of democracy, socialism, liberty, service. He urged his countrymen to dedicate
equality and fraternity. themselves to the service of starving and oppressed
millions. We may say that Vivekananda’s whole life
According to him Vedanta is thoroughly rational and was one prolonged cry for the uplift of the toiling
scientific. Vedanta does not discard reason in favor millions of his beloved country. He was a great
of faith. It recognizes intuition or inspiration as a humanist.
higher faculty than reason. But the truth derived from
intuition have to be explained and systematized by Swami Vivekananda was a man of Religion. His
reason. concern was with spiritual truth not with physical,
dogmatic or scientific discoveries. For him religion is
Catholicity: According to Swami Vivekananda action, a matter of experience and not a system of dogmas.
devotion, meditation, knowledge all have their due Thus he clearly illustrates the attitude of the East

’s
S
place in the scheme of religious life. Its conception and the West towards spirit. The western idea is that
p
ee
IA
of the four yogas give a complete chart religious life. man is a body and has a soul. According to the East

ad
r
y
Guidance is here given to all kinds of aspirants in all man is a soul and has a body.

Kri
a
s Ce
P
n ur
stages of growth. Hinduism is often compared to a

shn
t
mansion in which rooms are available to all classes
ofmen, fromthe lowest peasant to the highest mystic.

t
Religion is the main stay of India. It has been flowing
in India for thousands of years. Religion in India has
entered the very blood of the people. It has

21
Optimism: Optimism (Hopefulness) is the life breath permeated the whole atmosphere. It has become one
of Vedanta. Vedanta is a religion of strength and hope, with the bodily constituents of Indian people. It is to
not a religion of weakness and despair. It teaches be further supported and lived and in any case,
unshakable optimism. It alone makes men strong and religion is not to be opposed or to be pushed to the
self-reliant. It insists upon the inherent divinity of the background. Vivekananda stands for the necessity of
human soul under all circumstances. It gives hope of religion.
infinite progress to every man. It accords man a sense
of Sacredness and dignity unknown to other religions. He distinguishes true religion and institutional
It teaches that man is essentially divine. Hence his religion. According to him true religion is personal
salvation must come from within. Vivekananda says religion. “ It is well to be born in a church, but it is
“Vedanta is a strength-givingreligion and man making terrible to die there”, says Vivekananda. A pilgrimfor
education”. The people of India are incurably God-realisation is born in a religion, but he goes out
religious. They are not ignorantly religious but of it and transcends the external forms of religion,
intelligently religious. when he is evolved in spirit. The dogmas, rituals,
images and sacraments initiate a man and make him
Humanism: Humanism is the dominant note of God-conscious. But God-realisation is possible only
Vivekananda’s practical Vedanta. The masses should when he transcends the limits of his own finite
be our Gods. Service to man is service to God. We religion, and experience the mystic vision of God.
should perceive Siva in every Jîva.We should serve
not Narayana in the temple but Lame-Narayana, blind- Again personal religion consists in rendering service
Narayana, hungry Narayana and have not Narayana. to the humanity. The best form of religion is to see
Vivekananda says, “first food then Brahman. It is sin Shiva represented in living men and especially in the
poor. It consists in serving a lame Narayana, a blind keeping religion’. In such a religion God is not looked
Narayana and so on. “Here take this and go away” is up on as an end in itself, but a means of transaction
the sense of charity in the European society. This had of business. He strongly criticized ritual ridden cults
a bad effect alike on the giver and the receiver. But like Tantra. Even mysticism is to be assessed with
according to Vivekananda, in the religion of service, great care. Vivekananda says we want not occultism
‘the receiver is greater than the giver’, because for and mysticism but man-making religion. He prefers
the time being the receiver was God himself. to believe in a God who gives bread in this world than
to a God who gives undying bliss in heaven.
Religion is the highest expression of love and
devotion, beauty and sublimity. Freedom is the key A religion which teaches only renunciation and
note of spiritual life. Religion consists solely in inner nothing else, is a gospel of inaction and isolation.
spiritual urges. Wherever religion is estranged or cut Man is often pictured in some religions as a miserable
off from its vital spring, spiritualism, it is generated sinner, weak and helpless. This is wrong. Man himself
in to dry formalism or a routine affairs of life. is the true abode of divinity. The true aimofman should
be to draw attention to the divinity already inman.
Religion does not consist in subscribing to a particular Vivekananda thus goes away from glorifying God
creed or faith but in spiritual realisation. What counts outside man. No religion should make man a helpless
in spiritual life is neither blind faith nor intellectual empty nothing. The religious man must first be a proud
understanding but in being and becoming. This human being.
moulding of life and character, is spiritual
transformation and that is the essence of religion. Religion is not what is found books. It is not an

’s
S
intellectual consent. It consists in realisation. It is a
p
ee
IA
Religion or spiritualism according to Vivekananda perfectly natural and normal element of human life.

ad
r
y
does not signify running away from hazards of life It is simply the experience of human nature in the

a P
ur
battle and taking recourse in other worldliness. It does higher ranges of its activities. It is source of highest
n
Krish
nt
not mean running away into mountain caves or kind of happiness.

s Ce
monastery cells to practice renunciation. It consists

t
in cultivating strength and visions to face trials of Vivekananda believed in the possibility of Universal

21
life with heroic calm and determination. Religion Religion. Religions of the world vary in important
should teach strength to the poor and the details. They differ from the point of view of mythology,
downtrodden. Religion should be the gospel of rituals, social values, and philosophic traditions. Yet
strength and activism. Every one should work for the Vivekananda says, “The religions of the world are
religious regeneration of mankind through not contradictory and antagonistic. They are but
renunciation and service. various phases of one eternal religion”. He continues;
“Religion is one because like blood and breath, it
Vivekananda emphasizes on religion of love. He firmly belongs to the very life ofman”. The essence of all
believed that it is only through love that mankind religion is the same and that is God-realisation. A
could be brought together. Another word for love is religion of love, peace and harmony is a universal
God. It is in God that all the hopes, aspirations and religion, according to Swami Vivekananda.
happiness of humanity are centered. All that is great
and holy is associated with it. But he is never tired of Ethics of Mahatma Gandhi
saying that love or emotion must not sink in to Mahatma Gandhi lit the imagination of the entire
sentimentality. His formula is, if your heart comes world. The waste of human ability energy and money
into conflict with the head, follow the heart. But he is on armament will continue unabated, and diversion
against excessive emotionalism. of world resources to development will remain a pipe
dream, so long as human does not learn the great
Vivekananda makes it a point to distinguish religion lesson which Gandhi preached so convincingly in our
from sentimentality. It is to be demarcated from rituals own times that non-violence is the law of our species.
and customs. Emotion is short lived. It is the Today Gandhian values have special significance for
association of customwith religion thatmakes it ‘shop- national integration. Communal harmony has become
essential for national integration and hence Gandhi integration as inter-religious record. He said that we
gave it the highest priority. By communal harmony must work for economic equality and social justice,
Gandhiji did not mean merely paying lip service to it. which would remove the ills caused by distress and
He meant it to be an unbreakable bond of unity. In bitterness. He stressed that the foundation of equality,
the religious context Gandhi emphasized that the core of harmony will have to be laid here now
communal harmony has to be based on equal respect and built up brick by brick through ethical and
for all religions. Everyone, Gandhi said, must have economic satisfaction of the masses. There is no
the same regard for other faiths as one had for one’s denying the fact that Gandhi was deep rooted in his
own. Such respect would not only remove religious cultural and religious traditions. The phenomenal
rifts but lead to a realization of the fact that religion success Gandhi registered in far away South Africa
was a stabilizing force, not a disturbing element. fighting for human rights and civil liberties and later
Gandhi’s basic axiom was that religion since the the adoption of the Gandhian techniques by Nelson
scriptures of all religions point only in one direction Mandela and the subsequent revelations made by the
of goodwill, openness and understanding among former South African president De Klerk that he was
humans. greatly influenced by Gandhi’s principles.

He regarded education as the light of life and the In the American continentMartin Luther King’s heroic
very source from which was created an awareness of fight for civil liberties on the Gandhian lines and his
oneness. Gandhi believed that the universality of own admission that it was from Gandhi that he learnt
ethics can best be realized through the his operational tactics also is not an isolated instance
universalisation of education, and that such of the relevance of the Gandhian tactics.Martin Luther

’s
S
universalisation was the spring board for national King (Jr.) said, “If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is
p
ee
IA
integration. Harmony is not brought about overnight. inescapable. He lived, thought and acted, inspired

ad
r
y
Gandhi advocated the process of patience, persuasion by the version of a humanity evolving towards a world

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
and perseverance for attainment of peace and love
hn
t
for harmony and was firmly convinced of the worth
of gentleness as panacea for all evils. Communal

t
harmony had the pride of place in Gandhi’s
of peace and harmony. We may ignore him at our own
risk.”

Gandhi successfully demonstrated to a world, weary

21
constructive programme. He taught us the dignity of with wars and continuing destruction that adherence
labour as a levelling social factor that contributed to to Truth and Non-violence is not meant for individual
a national outlook in keeping with the vision of new behaviour alone but can be applied in global affairs
India. He always believed that a nation built on the too. Gandhiji described seven social sins: Politics
ethical foundation of non-violence would be able to without principles.
withstand attacks on its-integrity from within and
without. Wealth without work; commerce without morality;
education without character; pleasure without
Gandhi pleaded for the humanization of knowledge conscience; science without humanity; and worship
for immunization against the ideas of distrust among without sacrifice.
the communities of the nations and the nationalities
of the world. He wanted to take the country fromareas Though he was open to various religious traditions,
of hostility into areas of harmony of faiths through Gandhi was mainly influenced by Hindu and Christian
tolerance, so that we could work towards traditions. Gandhi agreed that we can say that God
understanding each other. Hismass contact is love, but he felt that the word love is used in many
programme was specifically aimed at generating a ways and can be ambiguous. Therefore, Gandhi
climate of confidence and competition and preferred to say that truth is God rather than God is
eliminating misgiving andmisconceptions, conflicts truth, because the former proposition expresses a
and confrontation. belief that even the atheists share. The belief in the
presence of an all-pervading spirit in the universe led
Gandhi also held that bridging the gulf between the Gandhi to a strict formulation of the ethics of
well off and the rest was as essential for national nonviolence (ahimsa). But he gave this age-old ethical
principle a wealth of meaning so that ahimsa for him religion, and philosophy. Moral values are necessary
became at once a potent means of collective struggle for the development of his personality. Non-violence,
against social and economic injustice, the basis of a renunciation and suffering are positive necessities
decentralized economy and decentralized power of human life. Renunciation means the rejection of
structure, and the guiding principle of one’s individual the worldly desires; it is not the rejection of life in
life in relation both to nature and to other persons. the world.
The unity of existence, which he called the truth, can
be realized through the practice of ahimsa, which In India, philosophy has been interpreted as an
requires reducing oneself to zero and reaching the enquiry into the nature of human, human’s origin and
furthest limit of humility. destiny. To the Indianmind, philosophy is essentially
practical, dealing as it does with the fundamental
Equality of religions is one of Gandhi’s cardinal beliefs. anxieties of human beings, which are more insistent
It is based first on the unfathomable and unknowable than abstract speculations. We are not contemplating
character of the one God who is over us all; secondly, the world fromoutside but are in it. Events happen in
on the never-ending forms of divine revelation and the mind of humans before they are made manifest
human religious responses to them; thirdly on the in the course of history. The present chaos in the world
centrality of the law of non-violence enjoined by all can be traced directly to the chaos in our minds. There
the religions; fourthly, on the existence of errors and is division in human’s soul. Scientific and secular
imperfections in all religious and fifthly, on the humanism alone will not create a harmonious society.
conviction that all religions are in evolution towards Peace of mind is a remote hope until and unless we
fuller realization of truth. According to Gandhi, not have a vision of perfection, a glimpse of eternity to

’s
S
Christology but ethics as the means to truth prevail against the perspective of time. Security
p
ee
IA
constitutes fundamental Christianity, and it is the without which no happiness is possible cannot come

ad
r
y
same in all religions. It is possible to say that where from the mastery of things. Mastery of self is the

Kris a P
n ur
there is boundless love and no idea of retaliation
hn
t
whatsoever it is Christianity that lives. Gandhi tends

s Ce
to say that it is impossible to comprehend religion

t
without ethics. In fact there exists a distinction
essential prerequisite.

Radhakrishnan gives a spiritual interpretation to the


modern theory of evolution. He maintains that human

21
between religion and ethics, though they are related. is the higher product of evolutionary process.
Spiritual evolution takes place after the emergence
Ethics of Sarvappalli Radhakrishnan of human, the spirit in human being a promise of the
Radhakrishnan tried to present Hinduism as highest future development.
significant to modern and, thereby, to offer a vision
to human who today is threatened by one’s own According to Radhakrishnan, the self is an organized
inventions, a vision that would enable one to work whole different from the self as subject. The self is
towards greater human solidarity and authentic conscious of its limitations and purpose. The ordinary
development. human does not try to know the mysterious existence
of the soul in us. The existence of soul in us can be
Human beings by nature are value seekers. They proved by the analysis of our spiritual consciousness.
strive for truth, beauty and goodness. Ethical The voice of the spirit is completely silent in none.
principles are unconditional commands. They are The seers have listened to it better. They are the
guidance to man to attain his real self. Human life is beginnings of new human species. Misuse or lack of
transitory. Man is not satisfied with the fragments of use can also destroy the powers of the spirit. All the
happiness (which are full of dualities, discords and great religious systems signify the importance of
contradictions). Radhakrishnan maintains that man worship and cultivation of love and sympathy through
is in need of a deep ontological unity behind all these which alone human spirit can be developed.
fragments, which alone can give him the proper
meaning of life, the everlasting peace of mind and Human exists in the world for a higher cause. Hindu
spirit. This deep awareness and understanding of the systems of thought believe in the power of the
mystery of life can be gained only through ethics, humanmind to lead us to all truth. Our ordinarymind
is not the highest possible order of the human mind. released souls become one with the Infinite.
It can rise to a level almost inconceivable to us. The
idealist tradition both in the East and the West has Human can develop one’s moral nature by cultivating
asserted the supremacy of spirit in human. Mere love for one’s fellow beings. One has to control one’s
physical desire and passion, impulse and instinct, egocentricity to know truth. We must cease to identify
even intellect and will do not exhaust one’s nature. ourselves with the separate ego shut up in the walls
The spiritual status is the essential dignity of human of body, life and mind. This is an ethical process. A
and the origin of one’s freedom. morally developed person is led by the inner spirit,
and not by the conventional or external standards.
The purpose of ethics is also to effect right
relationship between the individual and the society. Human’s highest destiny is to grow more humane,
Social order is ordained to develop ethical, material more spiritual and to be more sympathetic in
and intellectual spheres of human’s life – realize the understanding others. Conflicts in their souls have
best possibilities of one’s life. grouped humankind into numerous conflicting groups.
Freedom of human is not a whim since our present
While the truths intuition grasps are self-evident, life is the continuation of the past. The character of
training is necessary to direct ourmental vision to the human is constituted by the past history of one’s life.
right objects so that our mind can ‘behold’ the objects. Human is not a puppet at the hands of fate. Life is a
In so far as our minds are not creative of reality but growing stage and the growth is free to a certain
only receptive of it, we must get into contact with extent. The emergence of self and not the
reality, outward by perception, inward by intuition, selfconscious mind is the basic desire of nature.

’s
S
and by means of intellect interpret and understand Matter, life and mind evolve only when their
p
ee
IA
it. It is unfortunate that insistence on intuition is often respectively necessary conditions are fulfilled,

ad
r
y
confused with antiintellectualism. Intuition which similarly spirit or the supermind will evolve when the

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
ignores intellect is useless. The two are not only not
hn
t
incompatible but vitally united. We can realize the
potentialities of spirit only by a process of moral

t
assess which gradually shapes the soul into harmony
necessary efforts are made and the conditions are
ready.

Ethics of Amartya Sen

21
with the invisible realities. To know better, we must Sen proposes that people’s well-being should be
become different, our thoughts and feelings must be evaluated on the basis of their ‘capability to achieve
deeply harmonized. Intuition is not only perfect valuable functionings’. This approach is called ‘the
knowledge but also perfect living. capability approach’ which consists of two distinct
notions: functionings and capabilities. Functionings
Human’s nature changes in two ways. First, there are refer to the number of ‘doings’ and ‘beings’ that a
the natural or mechanical changes due to the person manages to achieve in life. Sen mentions both
environmental and inherent causes. Secondly there basic functionings like nutrition, life expectancy,
is the ethical and spiritual change which is conscious. health and education as well as complex functionings
The evolving personality of human is yet to grow to like self-respect, social recognition and political
greater possibilities. Morality enables human to rise participation. Capabilities refer to the extent of
to a higher plane. He emphasized the religious nature freedom that a person has in order to achieve
of human. His concept of religion transcends all kinds different functionings. When we look at a fasting monk
of creeds and dogmas. It is a universal religion, which and a starving poor child, they do fare equally in terms
fulfils the aspirations of humanity. He respected all of achieved functioning since both do not eat. But in
religions. Radhakrishnan’s philosophy is the terms of capabilities, they are unequal in as much as
philosophy of growth and progress of human’s spiritual the monk has the freedom to choose that state while
personality. He conceives that human can attain one’s the child does not have that freedom. The capability
higher destiny by becoming one with Isvara through approach therefore is a freedom-centred approach.
jnana and intuition. He believes in cosmic liberation.
The total perfection is possible for human only when The capability approach differs from two other
the human race as a whole is liberated, only when all prominent approaches: utilitarianism and liberalism
inspired by the American Philosopher John Rawls. structures. Since Rawls’ theory works with the
Having defined utility in terms of pleasure, happiness assumption of a liberal society with citizens having
or desire-fulfilment, one of the chief aims of more or less equal capacities, Sen points out,
utilitarianismis tomaximise its overall value in society. inequalities and disadvantages arising from human
Although such thinking today does not form a distinct diversities are either postponed to be settled by
political ideology, it exerts considerable influence on legislative or judicial procedures or at the most
public policy decisions: ‘greatest happiness of the relegated as issues falling in the domain of charity.
greatest (and perhaps, the socially and politically
powerful!) number.’ Many countries in the world seem Besides the ethicalmatrix and religious patrimony of
to follow this crude utilitarian calculus when pursuing India, the ethical teachings of the contemporary Indian
developmental projects such as building huge dams, thinkers – Swami Vivekanada, Mahatma Gandhi,
establishing industries and sometimes even initiating Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Amartya Sen – were
large-scale deforestation. In contrast to utilitarianism, influenced by the Western ideas of secularism,
Rawls bases his philosophy on a set of individual humanism and rationalism. Swami Vivekananda
rights: ‘each person possesses an inviolability emphasizes on religion of love. He firmly believed
founded on justice that even the welfare of society that it is only through love that humankind could be
as a whole cannot override’. His first of the two brought together. Another word for love is God. It is
principles of justice requires that civil and political in God that all the hopes, aspirations and happiness
rights, including freedom of speech and of humanity are centred. Human is the true abode of
freedomfromtorture and arbitrary arrest, be given divinity. The true aimof human should be to draw
absolute priority. Rawls, in his second principle tries attention to the divinity already present in oneself.

’s
S
to balance the demands of efficiency and justice: Vivekananda thus goes away from glorifying God
p
ee
IA
while society’s offices and positions should be outside human. No religion should make human a

ad
r
y
available to everyone in an open competition, in order helpless empty nothing. The religious human must

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
to keep social inequality within manageable
hn
t
proportions special attention has to be paid to the
needs of the worst off in society.

t
first be a proud human being. Vivekananda believed
in the possibility of Universal Religion. The essence
of all religion is the same and that is God-realisation.
A religion of love, peace and harmony is a universal

21
Sen acknowledges Rawls to be a great moral and religion, according to Swami Vivekananda. Mahatma
political philosopher particularly for advocating a non- Gandhi believed that the universality of ethics can
utilitarian political philosophy. Yet, Sen thinks Rawls’ best be realized through the universalisation of
theory to be limited from the point of view of human education, and that such universalisation was the
capabilities: it does not go deep enough to capture spring board for national integration. Harmony is not
human diversity and some blatant inequalities in brought about overnight. Gandhi advocated the
society. Human beings differ from one another in a process of patience, persuasion and perseverance for
number of ways. There are, first and foremost, attainment of peace and love for harmony and was
differences in personal characteristics such as health, firmly convinced of the worth of gentleness as
age, sex and genetic endowments. Human beings also panacea for all evils. Communal harmony had the
vary from one another in the types of external pride of place in Gandhi’s constructive programme.
environment and social conditions they live in. These He taught us the dignity of labour as a levelling social
different elements of human diversity crucially affect factor that contributed to a national outlook in keeping
the ways in which resources such as income and with the vision of new India. He always believed that
wealth are transformed into relevant capabilities. A a nation built on the ethical foundation of non-
physically handicapped person, for example,might be violence would be able to withstand attacks on its-
in need ofmore resources to be mobile than an able- integrity from within and without. For Radhakrishnan
bodied person. Or, increasing the social and political humans by nature are value seekers. They strive for
participation of traditionally oppressed groups would truth, beauty and goodness. Ethical principles are
demand effortsmore than just providing access to unconditional commands. They are guidance to human
resources; it might require tackling some entrenched to attain one’s real self. Human life is transitory.
social, economic and political practices and Human is not satisfied with the fragments of
happiness (which are full of dualities, discords and
contradictions). Radhakrishnan maintains that human
is in need of a deep ontological unity behind all these
fragments, which alone can give him the proper
meaning of life, the everlasting peace of mind and
spirit. This deep awareness and understanding of the
mystery of life can be gained only through ethics,
religion, and philosophy.Moral values are necessary
for the development of one’s personality. Non-
violence, renunciation and suffering are positive
necessities of human life. Amartya Sen proposes an
economic ethics of ‘capabilities. Capabilities refer to
the extent of freedom that a person has in order to
achieve different needs.Human beings differ from one
another in a number of ways, in health, age, sex and
genetic endowments. These differences crucially
affect the ways in which resources such as income
and wealth are transformed into relevant ethical
capabilities.

’s
a Prad
r
ee
y
p
IAS
Krishn
s Ce
t ntu
21
12. Moral Experience
Ethics is a branch of enquiry in Philosophy. It is a within the larger socio-political and intellectual
treatise which studies human behaviour and context. One could argue formoral experience purely
determines what is right and wrong behaviour. Another on individual conviction. Rejection of external
termfor ethics ismoral philosophy. It attempts to show authority and belief in one’s own inner light situates
that there is in human beings a spontaneous and moral sense within human nature itself without any
moral awareness and orientation for distinguishing reference to any agency or divine will.
between right or wrong. The capacity for
differentiating the mere registration of facts from the Moral Consciousness
meaningfulness of such facts is based on rationality. Moral experience begins withmoral consciousness
Ethics does not merely describe the rules of conduct ormoral sense. In fact moral consciousness and moral
as a positive science but it also aims, as a normative experience are used as synonyms bymany.But it is
science to show if moral conclusions can serve as good to distinguish between the two. Experience is a
objective norms for daily living. The whole of human generic termin the sense that whatever affects a
history may be viewed as a journey in moral person can be called an ‘experience’. It can be an
experience. Humanity has undertaken this important emotion like love or hatred. It can be active or passive
voyage by a continuous process of moral decisions. like love for a friend or love of a friend. One can speak
of one’s progress in studies as ‘knowledge
Against this backdrop, ‘Moral Experience’ includes a experience.’ Any experience leaves behind an
wide range of concepts like moral consciousness, impression or memory. Such impressions or memories
’s
p
S
moral sense, moral sentiments, moral dilemmas, cumulatively add up to one’s experience. The totality

Prad
r
ee
y IA
moral principles and moral Judgements.Moral
experience investigates all these as human events.

na
u
of such experiences contributes to the formation of a
human personality.

t
Psychological states such as intentions, motives, will,
sh
Kri
s Cen
reason, emotions like guilt and shame,moral beliefs However in the experiential process of personality
and attitudes offer further scope for moral experience. development of an individual, there is always a lack

t
21
It does not stop with psychology but covers concepts of awareness. It is only when an individual becomes
like virtue, character, habit and freedom. Hence moral aware of one’s latent talents and potentialities of
experience may be studied both as a descriptive and every aspect like mind, heart and will that one could
as a normative science. speak of consciousness. As a human experience
‘human consciousness’ is never total. Even though
Study of Moral Experience human consciousness or the self- reflective process
The Study of Moral experience is motivated by of a person is integral to human nature, it is possible
scientific curiosity, a search for explanations of all to distinguish the contents of the various fields of
kinds of moral phenomena, more specifically as to human consciousness. These fields are normally
what is designated as moral experience. However, referred to as ‘noetic consciousness ’, ‘aesthetic
the study must include the promotion of human consciousnesses’ and ‘moral consciousness’ which
welfare. Moral experience is highly contextual and highlight the formal objects of Truth, Beauty and
communal. Therefore cultural and social factors play Goodness.
a very important role in the understanding of moral
experience. Another significant aspect of moral The formal object ofmoral consciousness or rectitude
experience is themoral systemwhich regulates deals with what is right and the right thing to do.
themember of the community. Moral experience is in Rectitude or Goodness is very meaningful word.
constant need of revision and improvement in view Careful reflection and calmreasoning is required to
of public service in a democracy. Individual understand the implications and importance of the
development of personality always takes place phrase ‘moral goodness’ or ‘moral rectitude’ which
through the study of one’s moral experience. Moral constitutes the major component ofmoral experience.
sense derives its character from the public context The passage from moral experience to moral
consciousness may very well be compared with the ofmoral experience serves as a useful method to
entry point of an airport and the myriad runways on understand moral problems. Metaethical theories like
the tarmac. It is again like going from the merely logical positivism, emotivism and intuitionism do not
implicit background opaque experience to the explicit actually solve ethical problems but contain very
foreground of enlightened consciousness. So far, it precious insights for understanding moral experience,
has been dim, vague and unthematic. Henceforth it particularly with regard tomoral ideal ormoral value
would be clear, plain and thematic. which cannot be reduced to non-moral value. Moral
experience is made up of specific moral actions. Moral
Data for Moral Experience actions issue from moral values. And the totality of
At this juncture, a remark is necessary as to what is moral values can be called the moral order.
specific or ‘subjective’ experience of a particular
individual and whatmakes for the general or ‘objective’ What is the foundation for moral experience? Do
experience of every person. A study of the moral humans build such a foundation? Is it universal? How
experience of others obtained frompublic contact with do the humans come to know such a foundation? The
themand a careful study ofmoral history would throw first two questions are explicit and the latter are
light on the question of the data of moral experience. implicit.
The most immediate primary data of moral experience
are actions which are good and which are done by Humans as beings with a conscience are dynamic,
everyone and the actions which are bad and which always becoming and in the making, transparent,
are avoided by everyone. The scholastic tenet that undetermined and indefinable. They become the
‘the good is to be done and the evil to be avoided’ is foundation of moral experience. If Humans as social

’s
S
the principle of common sense. Humans come to the beings are the immediate domain ofmoral experience,
p
ee
IA
awareness of this distinction through the process of then interrelatedness becomes the foundation for

ad
r
y
socialization, influence and education. moral order and experience. This interrelatedness

Krishna P
ntur
Some good actions are absolute, some are conditional

s Ce
and some others are optional in practice. Similarly

t
some bad actions are avoided absolutely while others
operates at three levels namely, a relatedness with
an absolute being, a relatedness with other humans
and a relatedness with the infra–human world. For
the moment, the relation with the Absolute as

21
are avoided conditionally. A sense of obligation or religious value is kept aside. The other two relations
constraint is the result of the feeling of’ ‘should’ or play a significant role inmoral experience. Expression
‘should not’. Moral experience is based on amoral ofmoral sentiments towards the infra-human world
choice or freedomto comply with the sense of is analogous in the sense that one’s attitudes towards
obligation or constraint. Moral obligation becomes animals and plants are similar to one’s attitudes
objective in the sense that an individual finds oneself towards fellow human beings. Only the relation with
as ‘obligated’ even before any moral decision. It other humans serves as the primary sphere ofmoral
comes to express a universal application. The second experience. Actions in this domain become morally
aspect of moral experience is that what is right must qualifiable and quantifiable.
be done because it is right to do it and it is an end in
itself and avoid what is wrong and must be avoided. The social dimension is a constitutive aspect of the
The sense of satisfaction when the right thing is done human order. Humans are not merely ‘social animals’
and the sense of guilt when a wrong thing is done is but are bound by ‘social contract’ as well. The human
another important datum of moral experience. The interrelatedness serves as the foundation for moral
right action gets approval and praise while the wrong experience, human rights and duties. While the
action invites condemnation and blame. believer considers the foundation of moral order to
be God, there are others who take human relatedness
Philosophical Analysis and freedom to be the foundation of the moral order.
A philosophical understanding ofmoral experience
invites us to explore the meaning of terms such as Norm For Moral Judgement
‘good or bad’, ‘right or wrong’. There are different Once the foundation for moral experience is
approaches to moral experience. Linguistic analysis established, the question about the criterion for moral
Judgement arises.Moral Judgementsmust be based perfection as the ‘good’. In the attainment of
on ‘norms, rules, standards or criteria. Ethical history perfection, humans achieve happiness. The highest
has proposed ethical theories which are founded on good consists in the attainment of perfect exercise
ethical principles. A cursory view of these norms of properly human activities. These human activities
would shed some light on moral Judgement. These are moral and intellectual virtues. Virtue is the mean
theories may generally be classified as teleological or middle between two extremes, (e.g.) courage is
(from the Greek word, ‘telos-end’) and deontological the mean between foolhardiness and cowardice.
(from the Greek word ‘deon-that which is binding, Virtue is a constant disposition of the soul. While
duties). Teleological theories propound ‘ethical moral virtues perfect the will, intellectual virtues
egoism’, represented by hedonismof Epicurus and perfect themind. Aristotle lists five intellectual
Thomas Hobbes, ‘eudemonism’ of Aristotle and virtues. 1) the art of knowhow (tekne-later technology)
‘ethical altruism’ or Utilitarianism represented by 2)prudence(phronesis) 3) demonstrative reason
Jeremy Bentham andJohn Stuart Mill. (episteme) 4)intuitive reason(nous) and 5) wisdom
(sophia). The cardinal moral virtues are: 1) courage,
TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES 2) temperance, 3) justice and 4) wisdom. In the
Epicurus (4th century BC) looks at pleasure as the philosophical contemplation of wisdom, does consist
motivating power of moral experience and indeed as the supreme goodness and perfect happiness. Hence
the end of human life. Pleasure is not the present practice of virtues becomes the norm of moral
transitory sensation. It lasts throughout a life time. judgement.
Pleasure consists in the absence of pain than in
positive gratification. It is preeminently serenity of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832AD) a major figure in

’s
S
soul or repose (atarxia). Virtue is necessary condition the history of ethics emphasizes utility, which is that
p
ee
IA
for serenity. Vices produce pain and are an property in any object whereby it tends to produce

ad
r
y
impediment to the acquisition of the serenity of the benefit, advantage, pleasure, good and happiness to

Krishna P
ntur
soul. The highest virtue is phronesis, the prudential
art of calculating and measuring pleasure and pain.

s Ce
Epicurean norm is self-centred and hedonistic. What

t
is conducive to the purpose becomes the norm of
the party whose interest is considered. The British
utilitarian movement originated with Bentham since
it was he who applied the utilitarian principle to civil
legislation and morals for the first time. It is measured

21
moral Judgement. by the degree of conduciveness to the greater
happiness of the greatest number of humans. He
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679AD) explains all kinds of states that humans are moved to action by the
experiences, namely physiological, emotional, attraction of pleasure and the repulsion of pain. By
intellectual and volitional in terms of physical motion. pleasure he not only means sensual pleasure but also
Pleasure sets in motion all these of events while pain aesthetic, intellectual and benevolent satisfaction.
impedes them. It is reasonable to aimat pleasure for His famous’ felicific calculus’ enables humans to
self-preservation which also implies that humans must decide what concrete action to perform or avoid so
endeavour to establish peace among themselves as to find the greatest amount of happiness. Any moral
which is the first law of nature. Along with this, action results in happiness based on the following
humans must be willing to forego their claimto have seven factors. ‘the intensity of pleasure, its duration,
everything. These laws of nature are dictates of its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or
reason which govern moral Judgement and moral remoteness, its fecundity of further pleasurable
experience. Thus there is openness to social sensations, its purity from unpleasant sensations, and
consciousness and civil law in the social utilitarianism its extent or number of people affected. The norm of
of Hobbes. His norm for moral Judgement can be moral judgement is pleasure understood in the light
interpreted as selfpreservation or civil law. Civil law of his ‘measure of utility’. Bentham’s ideas represent
aims at the common good. His insight is that moral personal utilitarianism.
good is based on human interrelatedness. Both these
theories are termed as ‘ethically hedonistic’. John StuartMill (1806-1873AD) is evenmore explicit
than Bentham when he states that ‘the general
Aristotle (384 BC) states that every thing aims at principle to which all rules of practice ought to
conform and the test by which they should be tried is sufficient reason to follow right reason is God’s will.
that of the conduciveness to the happiness of
mankind or rather of all sentient beings’. He defines Emile Durkheim (1858-1917AD) For Durkheim,
utility as the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’ as the morality is a social phenomenon. Society is not the
foundation of moral experience. Actions are right in sum of individuals but it is a kind of ideal. This ideal
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong or ‘collective conscience’ of the group is the source
as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By of religious andmoral ideals. So morality has a social
happiness he means pleasure and the absence of function and it consists in the help it gives the
pain. According to Mill, what humans desire individual to adapt themselves to live harmoniously
immediately is not their personal happiness but with the mores of the group. The norm for moral
common happiness. Besides there is not only a Judgement would be precisely these mores of one’s
quantitative difference between pleasures but also social group. Collective thought becomes the norm
a qualitative one. And it is virtue which is conducive for the truth or falsehood .This kind of thinking in
to common happiness. He associates the utility ethics is called ‘Moral Positivism’.
principle with the notion of justice. The norm of moral
judgement in the case of Mill would be the The Stoics (4th cent BC onwards) According to the
‘conscientious feelings of mankind’. Hence Mill may Stoics, reality consists of two principles, one is active
be designated as representative of social and the other passive which stand one to the other
utilitarianism. as the soul to the body. Good and evil are two
necessary parts, each subserving the perfection of
DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES the whole cosmos. All human actions are

’s
S
necessitated by fate. Virtue consists in one’s internal
p
ee
IA
The second set of moral theories is deontological conformity to the logos, or the comic order. Virtue is

ad
r
y
which lays stress on duty or obligation. The norm for the only good for humans desirable in and for itself

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
moral judgement is based on the ‘rightness’ of a moral
hn
t
duty. Deontological theories like the Divine
Voluntarism of OckhamandMoral Positivismof

t
Durkheimspeaks ofmoral norm as extrinsic to moral
and vice is its own punishment. Humans are social
beings and as citizens of the cosmos they must live
according to the Logos.

21
experience. But the Cosmism of the Stoics, the Moral Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713AD) As an ardent
Sense of Shaftsbury, the Formal Rationalismof Kant, admirer of Aristotle, Shaftesbury insists on the social
the Right Reason of Thomas Aquinas and the Human nature of humans. Self-love as distinct from
Nature of Suarez locate the moral norm as intrinsic selfishness can be consistent with and contribute to
to moral experience. love of others or benevolence. Rectitude or virtue is
the harmony of one’s passions and affections under
William of Ockham (1290-1349AD): Divine freedom the control of the reason both with regard to oneself
and omnipotence play an important role in Ockham’s and with regard to others. The emphasis is laid on
thought. Sincemoral order like the created order is character rather on actions. Virtue must be sought
contingent, what is good or bad is in such a way as for its own sake. His theory of ‘moral sense’ states
God commands or forbids it. By an absolute power that every human is capable of perceiving moral
God has established a definite moral order and it is values and distinguishing between virtues and
not likely to be changed. He speaks of ‘right reason’ vices.Moral concepts are connatural to humans but
and any morally good will, a moral virtue or a virtuous he admits that moral sense may be darkened by bad
act is always in conformity to it. Indeed for an act to customs and education.
be a virtuous act, not only must it conform to right
reason but also it must be performed simply because Immanuel Kant (1724-1804AD) Kant is a landmark
it is good. It appears that on the one hand he posits in the history of morality. Moral knowledge does not
the absolute will of God as the foundation, norm and depend exclusively on experience but contains apriori
source of moral experience and on the other he elements like necessity and universality. But Kant
proposes ‘right reason’ at least as the proximate norm attempts to show that these elements originate in
of morality. According to Ockham, the ultimate and practical reason. He understands by practical reason
the choices made in accordance with the moral law. obligation of the humans. There is a relation of
He discovers in practical reason the nature of moral reciprocity between the good and the right. While the
obligation. The ultimate basis of moral law cannot norm of the good is an ideal for the humans, the norm
be anything else but pure practical reason itself. It is of the right is moral consciousness itself. As human
Kantian rationalism. Kant starts with an analysis of interrelatedness is the immediate ontological
the idea of ‘good will’. He discovers that a good will foundation of the moral order and love is the
is a will which acts for the sake of duty alone. It acts existential foundation, the basis ofmoral activity, the
out of reverence for the moral law. It acts because norm for moral judgement has to be located in the
duty is duty. Moral law itself is the source of moral golden mean of Confucius, ‘do not do to others what
obligation. He further proceeds to formulate the you do not want others do to you’, the golden rule of
universal formas the principle to serve as the criterion the New Testament, ‘do to others what you want
for the moral Judgement. Kant calls this universal form others do to you’ or in the categorical imperative of
of the moral law as the ‘categorical imperative’. The Kant, ‘so act as to treat humanity whether in your
possible ground for categorical imperativemust be an own person or in that of any other always and at the
end which is absolute and not relative. For Kant the same time as an end and never merely as a means’
supreme good is virtue, which is nothing but making The norm of morality is constitutive of a person’s self-
one’s will accord perfectly with the moral law. No actualization as a social being and its practical
other philosopher has brought out better than he, the principle formoral Judgement is the principle of
nature of the moral obligation, its independence of universal love. Theory and practice together formwhat
empirical experience and its foundation in reason. is calledmoral experience.

’s
S
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274AD) The most prominent Moral Dilemmas
p
ee
IA
Christian philosopher and theologian of the Middle The term ‘Moral dilemma’ is applied to any difficult

ad
r
y
Ages speaks of God as the ultimate cause of moral problem. Dilemmas raise hard moral questions.

Krishna P
ntur
everything. A certain plan and order exists in the mind
of God which he calls the ‘Eternal Reason’ or the

s Ce
Eternal Law. As manifest in creation, he calls it the

t
‘Natural Law’ which can be known through human
In the context of relevance of morality, moral
philosophers state moral dilemma when one moral
reason conflicts with another. Moral reasons normally
conflict with religious or aesthetic reasons. Bur moral

21
reason. Any act that conforms to the plan of God is dilemmas occur only when there is conflict between
good; otherwise it is bad. The ultimate end of man is twomoral reasons. Amoral reason is a moral
God personalistically conceived. Human reason is the requirement just in case it would be morally wrong
proximate homogenous norm of moral experience. not to act on it without an adequate justification or
excuse. E.g. X holds a weapon for Y; then X has a
Francis Suarez (1548-1617AD) The eternal law is a moral reason to return it when asked for. Burt if X
free decree of the will of God who lays down an order feels that Y would commit a heinous crime with the
to be followed. The principles of the natural law are weapon, then X has moral reason not to return the
self-evident and therefore known immediately and weapon.
intuitively by all normal human beings. For Suarez
themoral good consists in the conformity to human Moral Principles
nature that is to rational nature as such. Human Normally a person of moral principle is associated
reason is seen as a capacity to distinguish between with s fixed set of rules that ignores the complexities
acts which are conformed to human nature from those of the situation and fails to adapt one’s behviour to
which are not. And hence human reason not only changing circumstances. Themorality of principles is
becomes the foundation of moral experience but also contrasted with the morality of sensibility which lays
its standard. stress on virtue as sympathy and integrity. But a
general sense of moral principle indicates some
The teleological theories approach moral experience factor that is generally relevant to what ought to be
and moral values as good, namely, the good of the done. Moral principles can then be regarded as
humans. The deontological theories approachmoral statements picking out those factors of situations that
experience and moral values as a right, namely the can be appealed to as moral reasons. Correctness of
universal moral principles is taken as a condition of relativizes any absolute normformoral experience.
the correctness of particular moral Judgements. Authors like Charles Darwin (1809-1882AD), Pierre
Ultimate moral principles and their correctness is a Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955AD) Sri Aurobindo
necessary condition of the correctness of all (1872-1950AD) with much evidence from biology,
othermoral Judgements.Without some ultimate moral science and philosophy emphasize the dynamic and
principles, moral Judgements cannot be justified. changing consciousness of the human and
corresponding moral order. Hence the structure of
Moral Sentiments moral experience must be understood in the sense
Moral sentiments are a subset of affective of what constitutes the constant ofmoral experience
phenomena like feelings, dispositions and attitudes and what makes the variable. While moral
that are more or less intimately related to moral consciousness in a univocal sense remains the
phenomena. Moral sentiments are varied and result constant, immediate data in an absolute manner, the
in different responses to moral phenomena. There same moral consciousness in specific and particular
are cognitivist and non cognitivist theories of emotion contexts of the moral law becomes the relative
which also apply to moral sentiments. Cognitivists normofmoral experience.While metaphysical
(Nussbaum: 2001) identify emotions with evaluative certitude is possible and is in fact existentially
Judgements. Noncognitivists (William James: 1842- operative with regard to the immediate data of moral
1910) view emotions are essentially felt experiences experience, moral certitude is sufficient with regard
different in kind from that of beliefs and Judgements. to the specifications of the moral law.
Contemporary noncognitivists (Prinz: 2004) believe
that sentiments are not properly amenable to Humans in search of realization base their moral

’s
S
assessment in terms of truth or falsehood. experience in the ontological foundation ofmoral
p
ee
IA
Philosophers have debated the role of moral obligation which is nothing but human

ad
r
y
sentiment in moral deliberations and Judgements, interrelatedness and the norm for moral good is

Krishna P
ntur
moral motivation and moral responsibility. Today
moral philosophers are especially concerned with the

s Ce
role of moral sensibility, a capacity for experiencing

t
or disposition to experience feelings, emotions,
nothing but the social character of the human
community.Moral precepts and sentiments as
selfevident factors regulatemoral experience. By
continuously becoming human and moral persons and

21
honour, pride and shame relative to the role of reason. progressively developing human and moral
consciousness, moral experience is particularized and
Philosophical interest in the affective aspects of concretized. This process involves bothmoral intuition
one’smoral experience is not limited to any epoch like and reflection on human and moral experience. Love
the moral developments in the 18th century is the form of all moral precepts and norms.
Britishmoral philosophy. Right from the early Greek
thought, one finds a concern with the place of feelings,
emotions and affective attitudes generally in the
constitution and care of the psyche or soul. . For Plato
and Aristotle human excellence requires that one’s
soul is properly constituted in the relation of the
rational, desiderative and appetitive parts- the latter
comprising the domain of sentiments and emotions.
Proper constitution of the soul is an achievement of
the harmony among all the three. All affects of the
soul have ethical import even if they do not have
ethical content.

Dynamics of Moral Experience


In the evolutionary vision of the human community,
the question of universal validity of moral norm raises
questions. The dynamic becoming of the human order
13. Norm of Morality
This is an attempt to understand the norms of The basic and fundamental nature of morality is its
Morality in general. Norm is a rule or standard for stability. If the norm is changing and fluctuating, the
our judgement. It remains as a standard or rule with morality would be lacking its fundamental stability.
which we can judge our actions as good or bad. For Such a norm would not be a reliable standard, because
this we compare the human acts with the norms and in such cases human beings can never be certain of
come to our conclusion. the morality of his/her acts.

In ethics we can find two kinds of norms: the 2) The Norm needs to be Universal
subjective norm of morality and the objective norms
of morality. In the subjective normofmorality, The norm is meant to everybody. It is not for a
themoral authority dwells within the individual. In particular group or class of persons. It should be
ethics, conscience can be understood as the applicable to all human beings. Everybody should feel
subjective norm of morality. himself or herself bound to the moral law. Nobody
can be exempted from this obligation.
Objective normis the standard for an objective
evaluation of the human acts. In this group we can 3) The Norm needs t be Accessible to all
see Intuition, Law and Pleasure as the objective norms
of morality. The universal accessibility of the norm is an essential
nature of it. Everybody must be able to know at least
’s
p
S
Norm of Morality – Basic Understanding the fundamental principles of morality. It will help

ee
IA
A norm or criterion is a Standard of Judgement. “It is them to lead a moral life. Unless the norm ofmorality
ad
Pr
r y
a rule or standard by which principles, facts, is accessible to all, they can never arrive at knowledge
a
n
tu
statements and conduct are tested, so as to form a of the fundamental principles of morality because all
sh
Kri
n
correct judgement concerning them”. In ethics a moral moral principles naturally flow from the norm.

s Ce
criterion is a rule or standard by means of which we

t
are able to discriminate between what ismorally good 4) The Norm needs to be Applicable to all Conditions

21
andmorally evil and to arrive at a correct judgement of Life
that a particular act ismorally good or morally evil.
If only the norm is within the mental reach of every
The moral criterion presupposes the existence of an individual, they would be able to make all their actions
objective moral ‘standard’ or norm with which the conform to the norm of morality. In other case, such
particular act can be compared. With the moral norm, a norm could not serve a standard for every individual
human beings can test the morality of the act and in all his/her actions.
judge whether it be good or evil. In general a norm is
an authoritative standard, which gives as a pattern 5) The Norm needs to be of single Standard
or model to which things of similar nature must
conform. Thus a judgement can be described as a Although there are many moral actions for human
comparison of an act with the standard or norm. When beings, morality remains always as one. Since every
the act conforms to the norm of morality, we judge human beings have the same human nature, the
the act to be good and when we find that the act moral standard of all human beings must be the
deviates from the norm, we judge the act to be evil. same. Thus there cannot be one norm for a particular
group of persons or actions and another norm for a
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE NORM different group of persons or actions.
In order to be effective as a moral criterion or standard
of judgement, a norm of morality should have the Conscience as Subjective Norm of Morality
following qualifications: Conscience is the subjective norm ofmorality in which
we trace the moral authority inside the individual. It
1) The Norm needs to be Unchangeable is not something that directs from outside. Conscience
is an ‘inner voice’ as described by Mahatma Gandhi Third one is that of the act of ‘permitting’ in which
which directs one by telling what to do or what not to one regards an act as ‘allowed’ by one’s own moral
do. Conscience can be defined as the subjective values. d) Fourth one is the act of ‘advising’ in which
awareness of the moral quality of one’s own actions one is aware that an act is either probably better to
as indicated by the moral values to which one do or probably worse to do.
subscribes.
Division of Conscience
In the opinion of Butler, an English moral philosopher, The judgement of the conscience can be understood
conscience has got two different aspects: a cognitive as the judgement of the intellect. The human intellect
or reflective aspect and an imperative or authoritative can be mistaken either by adopting false premises or
aspect. In the cognitive or reflective function of by drawing an illogical conclusion. Because of this
conscience discerning the goodness and badness of there can be different consciences such as correct,
the human action is important. It considers characters, erroneous, doubtful, certain, perplexed and
actions, intentions and motives with the special aim scrupulous consciences. A correct conscience judges
of discovering their goodness and badness. In the as good what is really good, or as evil what is really
imperative or authoritative aspect the decision is evil.Whereas an erroneous conscience judges as good
important. Here conscience does not merely give what is really evil, or as evil what is really good. A
arguments for one action rather than another, but it certain conscience judges without fearing that the
decides in favour of one action. opposite may be true. A doubtful conscience either
hesitates tomake any judgement at all or does make
Acts of Conscience a judgement but with misgivings that the opposite

’s
S
The feeling of remorse has always been connected may be true. A perplexed conscience belongs to one
p
ee
IA
with conscience. It is a deep regret for a wrong who cannot make up his/her mind. Such persons

ad
r
y
committed. Conscience not onlymakes judgement remain in a state of indecisive anguish, especially if

Krishna P
ntur
over certain actions that we have done as right or
wrong, but it arouses a peculiar feeling of pain that

s Ce
is extremely unpleasant. This pain of conscience or

t
feeling of remorse is identified by moralists as one
s/he thinks that s/he will be doing wrong whichever
alternative he chooses. A scrupulous conscience
torments its owner by rehearsing over and over again
doubts that were once settled. S/he finds new sources

21
of the reasons of avoiding wrong actions. of guilt for old deeds that were best forgotten,
striving for a kind of certainty about one’s state of
Antecedent and Consequent Conscience soul that is beyond our power in this life.
Conscience can be divided into antecedent
conscience and consequent conscience. Antecedent Norm as Given by Intuition
conscience deals with future actions whereas In intuition, the basic human reasoning process is
consequent conscience deals with the past actions. questioned. An Intuition can be defined as ‘the
Conscience that acts as a guide to future actions, immediate apprehension of an object by the mind
prompting to do themor avoid themcan be defined as without the intervention of any reasoning process’. A
an antecedent conscience. Conscience which is moral intuition is one that apprehends some moral
acting as a judge to our past actions, the source of objects immediately, without there being any
our selfapproval or remorse is known as consequent reasoning about it. Ethical intuitionism is here taken
conscience. In ethics Antecedent conscience, which to be the view that normal human beings have an
is a guide to our future action, is more important. immediate awareness of moral goodness and moral
The acts of Antecedent Conscience are divided into values. Some of the exponents of this theory have
four. They are: a). First one is the mental act of a contended that the awareness in question can only
‘command’ whereby one senses that a particular act be conceived satisfactorily as a form of sense
is ‘to be done’. It is an imperative and the individual perception.
is not free not to do the act. b) Second one is the act
of ‘forbidding’ whereby one senses that a particular Objects of Moral Intuitions
act is ‘not to be done’. It is an obligation to avoid
such acts. Doing of such act is an immoral act. c) There are three possible objects of moral intuitions:
a) Perceptional or Individual Intuitionism humanity. d) Intuitionism fails as an ethical theory,
because in every case it is possible to give a reason
The first object ofmoral intuition is known as for what an intuition dictate. Once rationalization
‘perceptional intuitionism’ or ‘individual intuitionism’. starts, the basis of intuitionism itself fails.
It is the theory that holds that the only way of knowing
rightness and wrongness is by such intuitions of the Law as Norm
rightness or wrongness of individual actions. We may Law is one of the most important norms of morality
know directly that one particular act, such as the which controles the human judges from outside.
assassination of Caesar by Brutus, is right. To have
this intuition does not imply that political murder General Notion of Law
would be right in any other case.
In accordance with the field of action it is found, the
b) Dogmatic Intuitionism term law appears in threefold meaning:

Second one known as ‘Dogmatic Intuitionism’ is the a) In its widest and most general sense, a law is the
theory which holds that this is the only way of knowing rule or norm according to which something is drawn
the rightness or wrongness of actions. We may know toward an action or restrained from an action. All
directly without reflection that certain class or kind beings in this universe are governed by laws in this
of actions is right or wrong; for example that telling sense. For example, the law of electricity, of light, of
the truth is always right. heat, of gravity, of motion ..etc…b). In a more
restricted sense, a law is the rule or norm which

’s
S
c) Universal Intuitionism governs the free actions of rational beings in any field
p
ee
IA
of practical endeavour. Such laws refer to the

ad
r
y
Third one is the ‘Universal Intuitionism’ which deals techniques of the various crafts or arts. For eg.

Krishna P
ntur
with universal principles of ethics. We may know
directly some moral principle by which we can judge

s Ce
actions to be right or wrong. We may know intuitively

t
for example that any action that treats a man merely
Painting, games, sports, architecture, construction
..etc… c). In its strictest or ethical sense, the term
law means the rule or norm governing the free actions
of man relative to moral obligation. The violation of

21
as a means is alwayswrong. law in this sense involvesmoral delinquency or sin.

Objections to the Intuitionism The Nature of Law

There are certain objections to all these three kinds A law is defined by Thomas Aquinas as an “ordinance
of intuitionism: a) It is true that there are always some of reason directed toward the common good and
actions and some classes of actions and some promulgated by the one who has the care of the
principles that we can know intuitively to be right or community”. a). Law is an ordinance of reason.
wrong. This is by no means true of every action or ‘Ordinance of reason’ is the formal cause of the law.
every class of action or every moral principle. b) In By this we mean that a law is a directive demanding
the human life there will always be occasions of some a definite course of action. They are not free to accept
unusual circumstances. It may be true that intuition or reject this ordinance, but are subject to a moral
of all three kinds works fairly well in normal constraint to carry out the injunction demanded by
circumstances. But it does not work in unusual cases. the ordinance and contained in it. A law can only be
It is self evident that we should speak the truth until given to rational beings, with the purpose of
we come to the unusual case where our doing so controlling their human acts. Since the law belongs
seems likely to involve the sacrifice of innocent lives. to the rational order, in order to be a true law, it
c) Infallibility of intuitionism always creates problem. cannot command anything contrary to reason. b) A
People make mistakes in their intuitions. Use of the law is directed towards common good. The final cause
term ‘intuition’ by religious people and mystical of the law should be common good. It cannot be
philosophers suggests that there is something directed to promote the private welfare of individuals
infallible about intuition. It can be dangerous to or relatively small groups within a community. It
should be directed towards the welfare of the eternal and temporal.
community as a whole. Thus a law has the public
welfare as its objective. c) A law should be a) Eternal law is the plan of God’s wisdom
promulgated. The promulgation of the law is the directing all created things toward the
material cause of the law. d) The promulgation of the realization of their natural end.
law should be done by the one who has the care of
the community. This legislator is the efficient cause b) Temporal laws are those enacted, not from
of the law. Laws are matters of public authority and eternity, but in time by temporal authority. For.
jurisdiction, and only the bearer of the supreme public E.g. By state through legislative or responsible
authority and jurisdiction has the authority to enact channels.
a law affecting the common good of all.
D) From the viewpoint of Promulgation law can be
Kinds of Laws divided into natural and positive.
Laws can be observed from different standpoints and
correspondingly we distinguish between different a) Natural law is law in so far as it is manifested
kinds of laws. by the natural light of human reason reflecting
A) From the viewpoint of Obligation we distinguish on the fundamental principles of morality.
four kinds of laws: affirmative, negative,
permissive and punitive. b) Positive law is a law enacted by legitimate
a) An affirmative lawis a law of ‘command’ authority, such as the state, supplementing
obligating a person to perform a definite the provisions of natural law and made in view

’s
S
positive act. E.g. The state commands citizens of the special need of the community.
p
ee
IA
to pay taxes in support of the government.

ad
r
y
Pleasure as Norm

Krishna P
ntur
b) A negative lawis a law of ’ prohibition’
obligating a person to refrain from performing

s Ce
a definite act. For e.g. The Decalogue forbids

t
adultery and murder.
From the very beginning of human history there had
been people who considered pleasure as the supreme
good of human life. For thempleasure is the only
normofmorality. They believed that every human

21
activity is prompted by a desire of seeking pleasure.
c) A permissive law is one which allows a person Hedonism The word hedonism has its root in Greek
to perform a certain act without hindrance word ‘hedone’ which means ‘pleasure’. Hedonism is
from others. one of the oldest, simplest and most earthly of ethical
theories. It is the ethical theory which teaches that
d) A punitive or penal law is one which imposes pleasure is the onlymark of good life and those who
penalty upon violation. The law itselfmay desire to lead a good life must seek pleasure by all
stipulate the exact penalty, or itmay be left means. Historically the beginning of hedonism can
to the discretion of the judge. be sought in the philosophy of Cyrenaics and the
Epicureans. We find hedonism first proposed by
B) From the viewpoint of the Legislator we Aristippus, the leader of Cyrenaic school, who
distinguish law into divine and human laws. identified happiness with pleasure. According to
himpleasure is the only mark of good life and all
a) Divine law emanate from God as the legislator. pleasures are essentially alike though they differ
The laws contained in the Decalogue were fromthe point of view of intensity.
given by God directly.
Epicureans also attached importance to pleasure but
b) Human laws are enacted by legitimate human they did not give much significance to the momentary
authority. For eg. The state authority establish pleasure. For Epicures the end of life is not intense
laws for its subjects. pleasure, but an abiding peace ofmind, a state of
cheerful tranquillity. Above all we must avoid fear of
C) From the viewpoint of Duration law is divided into the gods and fear of death.
In India too we had the philosophy of the Charvak
whih stated that the pleasure of the moment should
be sought. It taught people to eat, drink and be happy
for tomorrow we may die.

Hedonistic theory was revived during the


Renaissance, and was propounded in England during
the seventeenth century by Thomas Hobbes (1588-
1679) and John Lock (1632-1704). Later exponents of
the pleasure theory were Bentham (1748-1832) and
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

In this unit we have explained the basics of the norms


of morality in general and have gone in detail to the
different particular norms of morality. As particular
norms we see Conscience as subjective norm of
morality and Intuition, Law and Pleasure as the
objective norms of morality. In the subjective
normofmorality, themoral authority dwells within the
individual.

’s
S
Objective normis the standard for an objective
p
ee
IA
evaluation of the human acts. The moral criterion

ad
r
y
presupposes the existence of an objective moral

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
‘standard’ or norm with which the particular act can
hn
t
be compared. With the moral norm, human beings
can test the morality of the act and judge whether it

t
is good or evil. In general a norm is an authoritative

21
standard, which gives us a pattern or model to which
things of similar nature must conform. Thus a
judgement can be described as a comparison of an
act with the standard or norm. When the act conforms
to the norm of morality, we judge the act to be good
and when we find that the act deviates from the norm,
we judge the act to be evil.
14. DEFINITION, CONCEPT, DESCRIPTION,
CHARACTERISTIC OF ATTITUDE
“Oooh chocolate ice cream. I just love it!”, “I hate attitudes were seen as the central construct of social
smokers”, “Black colour looks really classy”, “Yuck! I psychology.
can’t stand sea food”, “I love social psychology”, and
so on. All the above statements show that we react Since Allport, the definition of attitude has evolved
to our environment in an evaluative manner. We are considerably and become narrower. Attitudes are now
constantly making judgments about whether objects, looked as evaluative statements— either favorable
events, ourselves, and others are favorable or or unfavorable- concerning some aspect of the social
unfavourable, likeable or unlikeable, good or bad. This world. For instance, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) define
falls in the domain of attitudes. Social psychologists an attitude as
who study attitudes investigate factors involved in
such evaluations; how they are formed, changed, and “a learned predisposition to respond in a
so on. consistently favorable or unfavorable manner
with respect to a given object” (p. 6).
In this unit, we will examine the concept of an
attitude, how attitudes are formed, and what functions “Object” includes people, things, events, and issues.
are served by holding attitudes. When you have When you use such words as like, dislike, love, hate,
finished learning this unit, you should have some good, bad, yuck, etc. you are describing your attitudes.
understanding of attitude and its relevance. In this view, attitudes then are evaluations of a
’s
ep
AS
particular person, group, action, or thing.

de
I
DEFINING ATTITUDES
a
Krishn P
n
r
t r y
The study of attitudes has been at the forefront of
a
u
social psychology for many years. Attitude field is vast
A similar definition was proposed by Eagly and
Chaiken (1993), according to whom,

s Ce
and diverse accumulating over 80-plus years. The
study of attitudes has been a core topic in social “Attitude is a psychological tendency that is
t
21
psychology. Attitudes are involved in practically every expressed by evaluating a particular entity with
other area of the discipline, including social some degree of favor or disfavor” (p. 1).
perception, interpersonal attraction, prejudice and
discrimination, conformity, compliance, and so on. The Thus an attitude is focused on a particular entity or
chief reason why the concept of attitude is so central object, rather than all objects and situation with which
to psychology is because the aim of psychology is to it is related.
study behaviour, and attitudes are supposed to
influence behaviour (whether or not and how and Psychologists use specialized terms to describe
when they will be discussed in Unit 3). certain classes of attitudes. For e.g., an attitude
towards the self is called self-esteem, negative
Let us first try to understand what exactly an attitude attitudes towards specific groups are called prejudice,
is. attitudes towards individuals are called interpersonal
attraction, and attitude towards own job is called job
Early on attitudes were defined very broadly. satisfaction.
Allport (1935) defined attitude as “a mental and
neural state of readiness, organised through Simply defined, attitudes are generally positive or
experience, and exerting a directive or dynamic negative views of a person (including oneself) place,
influence upon the individual’s response to all thing, or event (the attitude object).
objects and situations with which it is related”
(p. 784). ATTITUDES, VALUES AND BELIEFS
There are two psychological constructs closely
With such a broad definition it is easy to see why associated with attitudes: values and beliefs.
Attitudes and Values Values are relatively more stable and enduring than
The most frequently cited definition of what attitudes, since they are basic notions about what is
constitutes a human value is offered by Rokeach right and wrong. Attitudes are less stable than values.
(1973) as an “enduring belief that a specific mode of Further, if we know an individual’s values, we are
conduct or end-state of existence is personally or better able to predict his behaviour in a particular
socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode situation.
of conduct or end-state of existence” (p.5). Values
constitute an important aspect of self-concept and Attitudes and Beliefs
serve as guiding principles for an individual. Rokeach Beliefs are cognitions about the probability that an
argued that, considered together, values form values object or event is associated with a given attribute
systems where a value system is “an enduring
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Some theorists regard belief
organisation of beliefs concerning preferable modes
as one component of an attitude. However, there are
of conduct or end-states of existence along a
differences between attitude and belief. Attitude can
continuum of importance” (1973, p.5). Thus the
be considered as the sum of beliefs. A person can
importance of different values should co-vary with
the importance of others in the value system. For e.g. have many beliefs about a phenomenon (positive and
you may value ‘honesty’ over ‘success’. negative). This person will have an attitude toward
that phenomenon based on the overall evaluation of
Human values are strongly prescriptive in nature and her beliefs. For e.g. I may believe that Pepsi is sweet;
form the core around which other less enduring beliefs it contains preservatives; it is high on calories (belief);
are organised. As such they are important in a range I like Pepsi (Attitude).

’s
S
of other processes, like attitudes. It is contended that
p
ee
IA
the formation of specific attitudes is predicated upon According to Eagly and Chaiken (1993), it is possible

ad
r
y
more general values. Values indirectly influence to verify or falsify some beliefs (at least) using

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
behaviour through their influence on attitudes.
hn
t
Although values can shape attitudes, it does not

t
however mean that values shape all attitudes. For
external criteria. For e.g. the belief that water freezes
at 0 degree Celsius can be verified either factually or
even by agreement among many individuals; yet few
attitudes can be ‘tested’ using such interjudge

21
e.g. your attitude towards say love versus arranged consensus. Most social attitudes, such as political,
marriage is probably shaped by your values, but your aesthetic, or consumer preferences are largely
preference for one brand of toothpaste over another variable across people. You may like Pepsi; your friend
is less likely to be influenced by important life goals. may not like it at all!
It is clear that some attitudes are formed through the
influence of long-standing values internalized early Both beliefs and values are central to the dynamic
in life. These are called symbolic attitudes, because forces that form and transform existing attitudes.
the attitude object is a symbol of something else. In
contrast, there are some attitudes that are based on
FORMATION OF ATTITUDES
utility, a direct benefits and costs of the attitude
Right from our birth onwards, we are exposed to a
object.
wide variety of stimuli, both directly and indirectly,
These are called instrumental attitudes, because they which lead to our acquiring particular attitudes
are instrumental to meet those needs. towards the attitudinal object. It is believed that
Interestingly the same attitude object could serve a attitudes are by and large acquired as a result of
symbolic or an instrumental need. For e.g. your various life experiences, although a small but growing
decision to eat only vegetarian food could be based body of evidence indicates that attitudes may be
on utility (if you stay in a place like Europe or America influenced by genetic factors, too.
where it is more difficult to get vegetarian food) or
taste-instrumentally based attitudes— versus A number of theories have been used to identify what
considerations of animal rights and right to live- lead to formation and maintenance of attitudes (Refer
symbolically based values. Figure 1)
prejudice. Further, through classical conditioning,
people may come to have powerful attitudinal
Classical
Conditioning
reactions to social objects even in the absence of
firsthand experience. Hence, children who hear
repeated pairings of words in their parents’
conversations (such as say, Muslims-Aggressive,
Genetic Formation of Instrumental Muslims-Fundamentalists) throughout their early
Factors Attitudes Conditioning
years of development may come to adopt such
negative attitudes themselves— without even meeting
them.
Observational
Learning Instrumental Conditioning
Child: “Mummy, doesn’t Mausi look nice in her green
Fig. 1.1: Perspectives to attitude formation dress? She really knows how to carry herself.”

Let us examine these factors one by one. Mother: “You are absolutely right dear. I’ve felt that
for some time now and was hoping you would agree.
Your dress sense is really getting evolved. You can
Classical Conditioning now suggest me what to wear the next time we go
The process of classical conditioning was first out.”
described by Pavlov. In his experiments on dogs, he

’s
S
found that after repeated pairings of an unconditioned This kind of conversation illustrates quite clearly the
p
ee
IA
stimulus (e.g. bell) with a conditioned stimulus (dog), role of reinforcement in attitude formation. Following

ad
r
y
the latter acquires the capacity to evoke a conditioned her mother’s agreement, it is likely that the child’s

Kris
s Ce
t
a
n
P
ur
response (salivation), similar to the old,
hn
t
unconditioned response (salivation).

It has been suggested that in the same way that a


initial responses of a positive attitude about Mausi
will be reinforced. Of course, had the child remarked
that Mausi looks awful; the mother might have
reacted with displeasure, thereby punishing the

21
bell can evoke a physiological response, classical remark. Following reward, the child’s attitude is likely
conditioning can produce a positive/negative attitude to be strengthened; whereas punishment would
towards a previously neutral object. Arthur and probably lead to a weakening of the attitude.
Carolyn Staats (1958) were two of the first researchers
who systematically studied the classical conditioning This is the process of instrumental conditioning, a
of attitudes. They conducted an experiment in which basic form of learning studied by Thorndike (1911)
the goal was to condition positive and negative and Skinner (1938). According to this, behaviours that
attitudes to the names of countries (Sweden and are followed by positive outcomes tend to be
Holland) which previously were regarded neither strengthened, while those that are followed by
positively nor negatively. During 108 conditioning negative outcomes are suppressed. The degree to
trials, two nationalities were always followed by a which attitudes are verbally or nonverbally reinforced
negative word (e.g. failure), two were paired with by others will affect the acquiring and maintenance
positive adjectives (e.g. happy, gift), and two others of attitudes. For e.g. early in your life, if your parents
were paired with neutral words (e.g. table). At the and teachers praised you for doing well in studies,
end of the experiment, it was indeed found that you may have doubled your efforts and developed a
participants held more positive attitudes towards the positive attitude towards studies. However if your
nationalities associated with positive words and more friend’s parents did not acknowledge her
negative attitudes toward those associated with achievements in studies, she would have probably
negative words. developed a negative attitude toward studies.

Classical conditioning could play a role in establishing Observational Learning


some of the emotional components of attitudes and In both classical and instrumental conditioning
approaches to attitude formation, the person has Allport (1935) in his classic discussion of attitudes.
direct contact or experience (as in the case of Staats According to him, attitude was social psychology’s
experiment) with the attitudinal object. However, it most indispensable concept. He stated, “Without
is also true that people may acquire attitudes simply guiding attitudes the individual is confused and
by observing the rewards and punishments that baffled…Attitudes determine for each individual what
others get for their espousal of those attitudes. The he will see and hear, what he will think and what he
phenomenon by which a person acquires new forms will do…they ‘engender meaning upon the world’;
of behaviour or thought simply by observing others is they draw lines about and segregate an otherwise
called observational learning. For example, you might chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding
develop a negative attitude towards the college our way about in an ambiguous universe” (Allport,
canteen if you saw someone throwing up after having 1935, p. 806).
a meal there. Although your friend’s newly formed
dislike is due to instrumental conditioning, your This has been termed as the object appraisal function
negative attitude is a result of observational learning. by Fazio (2000). According to him, the mere possession
The rationale behind commercials of say, Pizza Hut of any attitude is useful to the individual in terms of
which show someone ordering and then obviously orienting him to the attitudinal object. This object
enjoying a pizza is that the viewer will also form a appraisal function can be regarded as the primary
positive attitude vicariously and imitate such value of having an attitude. Fazio goes on to state,
behaviour in the future. “Every attitude, regardless of any other functional
benefits that it may also provide, serves this object
Genetic Factors appraisal function”. (p. 4)

’s
S
Some research (Waller et al., 1990; Keller et al., 1992)
p
ee
IA
indicates that our attitudes, at least a tendency to Similarly both Katz (1960) and Smith, Bruner and White

ad
r
y
develop certain views about various topics or issues, (1956) commented on this object — appraisal function

Krishna P
ntur
are inherited. For instance, Arvey et al. (1989) studied
the level of job satisfaction of 34 sets of identical

s Ce
twins separated from each other at an early age, and

t
found that approximately 30% of job satisfaction
in their functional theory of attitudes. One of the
fundamental assumptions of functional theory is that
we often hold or express our attitudes and preferences
in order to communicate something about ourselves

21
appears to be explainable by genetic factors. Tesser to other people. This implies that attitudes towards
(1993) has argued that hereditary variables may specific issues, products, or ideas serve to convey
affect attitudes— but believes that they may do so broader information about us to those who are
indirectly. interested. For e.g. Smith et al. (1956) said, “Attitudes
aid us in classifying for action the objects of the
Additional research suggests that genetic factors play environment, and they make appropriate response
a stronger role in shaping some attitudes than others. tendencies available for coping with these objects”
For e.g., attitudes involving gut-level preferences (say (p. 41).
a preference for a certain kind of food) may be more
strongly influenced by genetic factors than attitudes Katz (1960) takes the view that attitudes are
that are more cognitive in nature (say attitudes determined by the functions they serve for us. People
towards environment conservation). hold given attitudes because these attitudes help
them achieve their basic goals. Katz distinguishes four
FUNCTIONS OF ATTITUDES types of psychological functions that attitudes meet.
From the above it is obvious that we hold many Let us examine these four functions now.
attitudes about almost all aspects of the world around
us. Are you wondering why we bother forming the Utilitarian Function (also Called Instrumental
many attitudes that each one of us have? In this Function)
section, we will throw light on some functions served We develop certain attitudes towards objects that aid
by attitudes. or reward us. We want to maximize rewards and
minimize penalties. Katz says we develop positive
The functional utility of attitudes was pointed out by attitudes towards those objects that are associated
with rewards and develop negative attitudes toward child. The rationalisation might be, ‘of course I don’t
those that are associated with punishment. For e.g. want her to get spoiled by giving in to her whims every
if you are a graduate looking for a job, if you belong time.’
to a minority community (say Other Backward Classes)
which has job reservations, you will favour the Value-Expressive Function
political party that introduced such reservations. On Value-expressive attitudes show who we are, and
the other hand, if you belong to the majority, you might what we stand for. Hence they serve to demonstrate
develop a negative attitude towards the same party one’s self-image to others and to express our basic
because it ‘took away some jobs from the general values. This function comes from a humanistic
quota and reserved them for OBCs’. We are more likely perspective. It seems logical to assume that only
to change our attitudes if doing so allows us to fulfill important and strongly self-related (central) attitudes
our goals or avoid undesirable consequences. should serve the value-expressive function.

If you think this function seems close to instrumental For e.g. you may have a negative attitude towards
conditioning, you are right. It does come from a homosexuals because your religion considers
behaviourist perspective. homosexuality to be immoral (although I personally
don’t think any religion degrades homosexuality). The
Knowledge Function fact that you may never have had a bad experience
We all have a need to attain some degree of with anyone who was homosexual is irrelevant. Your
meaningful, stable, clear, and organised view of the negative attitude satisfies your value-expressive
world (just as most of us have a need to maintain an function, allowing you to express an important value

’s
S
organised cupboard!) Attitudes satisfy this knowledge associated with a religious group with which you
p
ee
IA
function by providing a frame of reference for strongly identify. By extension, if you don’t strongly

ad
r
y
organizing our world so that it makes sense. Using identify with your religious group, your negative

Kris a
s Ce
social information.

t
P
n ur
such a cognitive perspective, attitudes serve as
hn
t
schemas that help us in organizing and interpreting
attitude towards homosexuals will not have much
effect on your self-esteem.

Social Identity Function

21
For e.g. people who hold traditional gender stereo Other than the basic four functions served by
types (such as ‘a woman’s place is in the home’) will attitudes suggested by Katz, Shavitt (1989) added
have greater satisfaction with the current status of another social identity function of attitudes. This
women at work and will explain the low number of refers to the informativeness of attitudes for person
women in high positions in office (glass ceiling effect) impressions, or how much attitudes appear to convey
with traditional gender explanations. Via such about the people who hold them. Shavitt and Nelson
attitudes as stereotypes, we can bring order and (2000) suggested that products tend to engage a
clarity to the complexities of human life (even if utilitarian function to the extent that they are seen
misplaced!) as expressing identity and values, the product is
generally displayed in public or is visible to others,
Ego-Defensive Function or the product is widely seen as symbolizing
Some attitudes serve to protect us from membership in a particular group. For e.g. the
acknowledging basic truths about ourselves or the purchase of an Indian flag on the Republic Day may
harsh realities of life. These can help a person cope be driven primarily by social identity goals.
with emotional conflicts and protect self-esteem. As
you would’ve noticed, this comes from a In addition to investigating how attitude functions
psychoanalytic perspective, and assumes that vary among people, current researches in the field
attitudes serve as defense mechanisms. For example, also consider the possibility that different attitude
a new mother might feel bad about herself after objects may actually serve different functions for
experiencing a sudden urge to hit her crying child, different people. For e.g. people purchase certain
and to defend against this threat to self-esteem, she products to fulfill utilitarian needs (computers,
might develop a positive attitude toward spoiling the television, etc.) and other products to satisfy value-
expressive needs (for e.g. a particular brand of car). GLOSSARY
Further, an attitude changes when it no longer serves Belief :
its function, and the individual feels blocked or Any cognitive content held as true.
frustrated. Thus, those who are interested in changing
other people’s attitudes must first determine what Classical Conditioning :
functions those attitudes serve for the targeted Learning through association, when a neutral stimulus
individuals, and then use an appropriate approach. (conditioned stimulus) is paired with a stimulus
(unconditioned stimulus) that naturally produces a
In this unit, we have discussed the definition, concept, response.
formation, and functions of attitudes. Attitudes are
generally positive or negative views of a person Defense Mechanisms :
(including oneself), place, thing, or event-the attitude Unconscious tactics used to safeguard the mind
object. They differ somewhat from values and beliefs. against feelings and thoughts that are too difficult
Values are concerned with important life goals and for the conscious mind to cope with, for instance,
may shape attitudes; beliefs are one component of forgetting, rationalisation, denial, repression,
attitudes that can be verified (or falsified) using projection, etc.
external criteria.
Functional Theory of Attitudes:
Attitudes are formed by a number of mechanisms. In Attitudes are determined by the functions they serve
classical conditioning, attitudes form when a for us.
previously neutral attitude object comes to evoke an

’s
S
attitude response by being paired with some other Glass Ceiling : Attitudinal or organisational bias in
p
ee
IA
object that naturally evokes the attitude response. the workplace that prevents women and other

ad
r
y
Another powerful way in which attitudes are formed minorities from advancing to leadership positions.

Kri
a P
n ur
is through instrumental conditioning, using reward

shn
t
and punishment contingencies. Some attitudes are

s Ce
also formed via observational learning by vicariously

t
experiencing rewards and punishments given to
Instrumental Conditioning :
A type of learning in which behaviour is strengthened
if followed by reinforcement and weakened if followed

21
others. Finally, genetic factors play a role in shaping by punishment.
some attitudes. The functional approach says that
we hold attitudes that fit our needs. All attitudes, Schema :
regardless of any other needs that they fulfill, also A cognitive framework that helps organise and
serve an object appraisal function. Early functional interpret information.
theorists proposed four psychological functions that
attitudes may serve: utilitarian, knowledge, Values :
egodefensive, and value-expressive. A social-identity Enduring beliefs about important life goals that go
function of attitude was added later. beyond specific situations.
15. COMPONENTS OF ATTITUDE
We saw in the last unit that attitudes are favourable Let us examine these three components more closely.
or unfavourable evaluations of people, objects, or
events — or just about anything in our environment. Affect
Regardless of how you might evaluate, what exactly Affect refers to feelings or emotions that are evoked
is an attitude made of? Is it a feeling? Is it a thought? by a particular person, item, or event — the attitude
Is it an act? In this unit, we will examine the three object, or the focus of our attitude, for e.g. fear,
basic components of attitudes. sympathy, hate, like, pleasure. You may feel positively
or negatively about your boss, the painting in your
If I were to ask you, ‘What is your attitude towards office lobby, or the fact that your company just bagged
lizards?’ your answer might be quite clearly negative. a big contract (it may mean a bigger bonus; it may
If I were to now ask you, ‘What is your attitude also mean strict and deadlines and hard work!).
towards giving death penalty to kidnappers?’ your
answer might not be as clear. Clearly then, attitudes Obviously, such feelings can vary in intensity. For
have several properties that are dynamic and have example, I may very strongly like classical music, but
implications for information processing, retrieval and have only a casual dislike of carrots. Such feelings
behaviour. We shall also discuss some such properties form from our experiences (or observing experiences)
in this unit. and serve to guide our future behaviour. I may be more
inclined to go to a musical concert by Pandit Bhimsen
THE ABCS OF ATTITUDE Joshi; and may be less inclined to avoid carrots.
’s
p
S
Favourable or unfavourable evaluations towards

dee
IA
something that define a person’s attitude can be Much of attitude research has emphasized the
a
Pr
r y
exhibited in beliefs, feelings, or inclinations to act. importance of affective or emotion components.
a
n
tu
This is known as the multidimensional or Emotion works hand-in-hand with the cognitive
sh
Kri
n
process, or the way we think about an issue or

s Ce
tricomponent view of attitudes (e.g., Breckler, 1984;
Katz & Stotland, 1959). These three components situation. Emotional appeals are commonly found in

t advertising, health campaigns and political messages.

21
represent the basic building blocks of attitudes.
Any discrete emotion can be used in a persuasive
Consider for example, my attitude towards swimming. appeal; this may include jealousy, disgust,
Because I believe that it is an excellent form of indignation, fear, humour, and anger. For e.g. a pack
exercise, I feel liking towards it, and therefore intend of cigarettes now contains a picture of black lungs
to swim every day (at least in summers!). These along with a message that says ‘Smoking Kills:
dimensions are known as the ABCs of attitudes: affect Tobacco causes cancer’ designed to arouse fear.
(feelings), behaviour (tendency to act), and cognition
(thoughts) (Refer to Figure 2.1). Research suggests that affect plays a very important
role in attitude formation. For instance, Kim, Lim, &
Bhargava (1998) conducted two experiments, using
established conditioning procedures, to assess the
impact of affect on formation of attitudes about
certain products. The results indicated that affect can
Affect
Cognition influence attitudes even in the absence of product
beliefs (Experiment 1). Further, affect plays as
important or more important a role than the belief
mechanism in attitude formation, depending on the
number of repetitions (Experiment 2).

Affect is a common component in attitude change,


Behaviour persuasion, social influence, and even decision
Fig. 2.1: The ABCs of Attitudes (Adapted from Myers, 2005, p. 134)
making. How we feel about an outcome may override It may seem logical to assume that if we have a
purely cognitive rationales. negative attitude for a particular object— your boss
in the above example— it is likely to be translated
Cognition into a particular type of behaviour, such as avoidance
Attitudes involve more than just feeling— they also of your boss and even looking for an alternative job.
involve knowledge— what you believe to be the case However, such behavioural tendency may not actually
about an attitude object. For e.g. you might believe be predictive of your actual behaviour. Behaviours are
that studying psychology will help you understand typically defined as overt actions of an individual. For
other people better and equip you to deal with them. e.g. although you may be interested in taking a new
Whether it is completely accurate or completely false job, you might not actually take it if a better one (with
(quite true in this case), this belief comprises the higher or at least similar salary and designation) is
cognitive component of your attitude towards not available. It is thus important to note that your
psychology. When you form your opinion or judgment intention to behave in a certain way may or may not
on the basis of available information and decide translate into how you actually behave. It is more
whether you have a favourable or unfavourable reasonable to assume that one’s behavioural
opinion on that, it is the cognitive part of an attitude intention, the verbal indication or typical behavioural
we are talking about. tendency of an individual, rather than actual behaviour
is more likely to be in tune with his affective and
The term cognition literally means ‘to know’, ‘to cognitive components.
conceptualize’, or ‘to recognize’. Hence the cognitive
component of attitude is the storage component Consider this: You may believe that smoking is

’s
S
where we organise information about an attitude injurious to health; you may fear that you may get
p
ee
IA
object. It comprises of our thoughts, beliefs, opinions, cancer; yet you may continue to smoke. At the same

ad
r
y
and ideas about the attitudinal object. As we saw in time you may have an intention to quit smoking.

Krishna P
ntur
the last unit, beliefs are cognitions about the
probability that an object or event is associated with

s Ce
a given attribute (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). When a

t
human being is the object of an attitude, the cognitive
Hence, your behaviour towards an attitude object may
not be in line with how you feel about it (affect) and
what you know about it (cognition). We will examine
the link between attitude and behaviour more closely

21
component is frequently a stereotype, for e.g. in the next unit.
‘Punjabis are fun loving’.
Though most attitudes have all three components,
It is suggested that the congruence between affective they can be more strongly rooted in either the
and cognitive components may influence the intention cognitive or the affective component. It is also
to behave. For e.g. whether someone actually uses a possible that all three aspects are not always present
condom may depend upon the congruence between in an attitude. Research indicates that not all three
his feeling about it (pleasure versus displeasure) and of these components need to be in place for an
his belief that using a condom will prevent him from attitude to exist (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). For e.g. you
AIDS. could develop a positive attitude towards a product
that you see on television (say a sauna belt) without
Behaviour developing any beliefs about it (you may lack
As just mentioned, the things you believe about knowledge about it and hence don’t know if it will
something (for e.g. ‘my boss is corrupt and is misusing really work) or ever engaging in any purchase
company funds’) and the way you feel about it (e.g. ‘I behaviour.
can’t stand working for him’) may have some effect
on the way you are predisposed to behave (e.g. ‘I’m In fact, research has demonstrated that we can
going to quit my present job’). Thus, attitudes have a develop a positive attitude towards a product simply
behavioural component— a tendency or a by repeatedly being exposed to it. This is known as
predisposition to act in a certain manner. Note that the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968), the tendency
behaviour is different from a behavioural tendency. to develop more positive feelings towards objects and
individuals, the more we are exposed to them. We
seem to naturally develop a liking for those things are often related to important values. Attitude
that are repeatedly presented to us, be it a stranger strength involves several dimensions, such as
in a neighbourhood or our own face! Don’t you start
liking a song and maybe even humming it after hearing Certainty: How much the individual knows about the
it many times on the radio. Let me give another quick attitude object.
demonstration.
Intensity and extremity: Extremity refers to the
Activity: degree of favorableness or unfavourableness towards
Answer the following question quickly, without giving the attitude object. Intensity refers to the strength of
much thought: What are your favourite letters of the the feeling, i.e. how strong is the emotional reaction
alphabet? provoked by the attitude object. For e.g. both Tanya
and Vedika have a negative attitude towards dogs.
I am sure you would have answered with the letter Tanya avoids touching a dog, while Vedika grows pale
with which your own name begins? This demonstrates even at the sight of a dog.
a well-demonstrated phenomenon in social
psychology: people of different nationalities, Attitude origin: Attitudes formed through direct
languages, and ages prefer the letters appearing in experience are generally stronger than those formed
their own name, and those that frequently appear in without such experience. Vedika may have been
their own language. This is line with the mere bitten by a dog herself, while Tanya may have just
exposure effect. heard about her story.

’s
S
The significance of the mere exposure effect regarding Personal Importance: The extent to which an
p
ee
IA
the three components of attitudes is simple. It individual cares about the attitude.

ad
r
y
llustrates how sometimes affect can become

Krishna P
ntur
associated with an object independent of any
knowledge about it. These feeling-based attitudes

s Ce
represent a very powerful form of evaluation, though

t
affective and cognitive components tend to be
One key determinant of personal importance is vested
interest— the extent to which the attitude is
personally relevant to the individual who holds it, in
that the object or issue to which it refers has important

21
intertwined. For primarily affect-based attitudes, it consequences for this individual. For e.g. if a new
is more difficult to produce cognitive law is proposed that prohibits drinking below the age
counterarguments in the resistance to persuasion and of 25 years, you may react more strongly to it if you
attitude change. are around 22-23 years as opposed to if you are 40
years old and thus unaffected by the change in
PROPERTIES OF ATTITUDES drinking age Research shows that the greater such
For many years social psychologists have been vested interest, the stronger will be the impact of
interested in the structural properties of attitudes. such an attitude on behaviour. Further, attitudes that
One way to examine structure of attitudes is look at are intense, important, or held with great certainty
its three components— the ABCs of attitudes. Another are associated with clearer and more univocal and
way in which we can examine the structure of accessible attitudinal cues.
attitudes is by exploring their dynamic implication for
information processing, retrieval and judgment. Attitude Accessibility
Attitudes have dynamic properties in addition to the Attitude accessibility refers to the ease with which
somewhat static ones, as discussed in the previous attitudes can be retrieved from memory, in other
section. Let us examine the dynamic properties of words how readily available is an attitude about an
attitudes now. object, issue, or situation. Some attitudes are
characterized by clear, univocal, and highly accessible
Attitude Strength cues in memory; whereas others are associated with
Attitudes differ in strength. Strong, central attitudes weak, ambiguous and inaccessible cues. Accessibility
are attitudes that refer to important attitude objects is assumed to reflect the strength of association in
that are strongly related to the self. These attitudes memory between the representation of the attitudinal
object and the evaluation of the object along a examining 20 different attitude objects, a positive
dimension ranging from positive to negative. correlation was found between the extent to which
attitude objects were described in affective terms and
Attitudes that are more accessible from memory are the accessibility of attitudes towards the object
more predictive of behaviour, influence what (Fazio, 1995).
messages are attended to, and how those messages
are processed, and are more stable across time. Finally, repeated expression of an attitude tends to
Research has found highly accessible attitudes to be make that attitude more accessible in the future
more predictive of a wide variety of behaviours such (Powell & Fazio, 1984). The more frequently we ask a
as voting and selection of consumer products than subject about his attitude towards an object or issue,
are attitudes low in accessibility. the quicker will be his subsequent responses to that
same object or issue. Also, if an attitude object was
Consider the following example. Suppose you see a initially evaluated positively, repeated attitude
cockroach. You might have a very quick ‘yuck’ expression will cause positive object features to
response. The fast yuck response indicates an become more strongly associated with the object than
accessible attitude toward spiders. You do not have negative features, thereby leading to greater
to think about whether you like cockroaches (who extremity. And lastly, reporting an attitude on one
does?), rather the mere presence of a spider results issue facilitates subsequent reports of related or
in the activation of your attitude. Now imagine you linked attitudes. For e.g. if I am asked my opinion on
are walking down a road with a friend looking for a whether I think smoking is harmful, I will also think
place to eat. Your friend points to a Thai restaurant about tobacoo chewing.

’s
S
and suggests that you both eat there. Now you may
p
ee
IA
have to think about whether you like Thai food, Past studies conclude that accessible attitudes are

ad
r
y
because you are not really sure what you think of it, more resistant to change. Attitude accessibility has

Krishna P
ntur
before deciding that it is good/bad and that you are
ready to eat there. The fact that you have to ponder

s Ce
whether you like something suggests that either you

t
have a relatively inaccessible attitude or you have
also been shown to predict behaviour. An accessible
attitude is more likely to result in attitudinally
consistent behaviour than a less accessible attitude
of the same valence.

21
never formed an attitude toward that object.
Attitude Ambivalence
Some factors are related to attitude accessibility: People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward
attitude importance, affect versus cognitive an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess
evaluation, repeated expression of the attitude. Let both positive and negative attitudes toward the object
us consider them one by one. in question. Attitude ambivalence refers to the fact
that our evaluations of objects, issues, events, or
Research has found that issue involvement, the people are not always uniformly positive or negative;
relevance and salience of an issue or situation to an our evaluations are often mixed, consisting of both
individual, is not only correlated with attitude strength positive and negative reactions.
(as we saw in the previous section), but also attitude
access. Attitude importance and attitude accessibility A very common object of ambivalence is food! Chronic
are also related. Importance can result in more active dieters experience a conflict between two
seeking of attitude relevant information and more incompatible goals: on one hand, they enjoy food and
extensive elaboration of that information, which can love to eat (the eating enjoyment goal); on the other,
lead to greater accessibility. in line with societal demands on slimness, they want
to lose weight (weight loss or control goal). As a
Studies have shown that responses to affective result, they experience difficulty reducing their calorie
evaluations are generally given faster than responses intake, because eating enjoyment, as an affective
to cognitive evaluations, suggesting that affect-based reaction, is usually the food reaction to food stimuli.
evaluations are more accessible in memory than Don’t you go glassy-eyed and look longingly at
cognition-based evaluations. For example, in a study chocolate cakes?
Attitude ambivalence occurs when there is evaluative GLOSSARY
tension associated with one’s attitude because the Attitude accessibility :
summary includes both positive and negative How quickly an attitude is activated from memory.
evaluations. This is manifested in the person feeling
mixed or torn about the attitude object. Attitude Attitude ambivalence :
ambivalence may also be the result of conflicting The ratio of positive and negative evaluations that
values. For e.g. you may have an ambivalent attitude make up that attitude
towards arranged marriages, because on one hand
you value obedience and adherence to parents; on Attitude extremity :
the other, you may value freedom and personal choice. The intensity of feeling on the object of the attitude.

There is some evidence that as attitude ambivalence Attitude strength :


increases, attitude-behaviour consistency decreases In its most general sense, it may be viewed as the
(for e.g. Conner et al., 2003). Further, ambivalent extent to which an individual’s attitude is formed.
attitudes are less accessible than non ambivalent
ones. Individuals may recognize the underlying Cognition :
conflict associated with their attitudes and thus be A faculty for the processing of information, applying
less sure of their validity. This may lead people to knowledge, and changing preferences.
conclude that they should try to avoid use of attitude.
Higher ambivalence is also related to less extreme
attitudes. As a matter of fact, research on attitude

’s
S
ambivalence originally came from interest in
p
ee
IA
individuals who held neutral positions on some

ad
r
y
attitudes.

Krishna
s Ce
P
ntur
Research also shows that there are individual
differences associated with the tendency for

t
ambivalence. Individuals with high need for cognition

21
(who enjoy effortful cognitive processing and those
who dislike ambiguity) tend to have lower levels of
ambivalence than individuals lower on need for
cognition.
16. PREDICTING BEHAVIOUR FROM ATTITUDE
As you have seen in the previous units, every day we Chinese visitors, 91% of the 128 who responded said
constantly form and use attitudes. You have probably that they would refuse service to Chinese! LaPiere
formed an attitude about this topic and me as the concluded that there is a sizeable gap between what
author, and the use of that attitude may affect people say and what they do-an inconsistency
whether or not you choose to study this unit or leave between attitudes and behaviour.
it. But, wait a minute. Does it really? May be not.
Because if you want to prepare well for your A few decades later, Wicker (1969) in his seminal
examination and score well, perhaps you will study review of attitude-behavior studies also found a lack
regardless of your attitude. In other words, even if of correspondence between expressed attitudes and
you may have formed a negative attitude towards this behaviour. Wicker found that the correlation between
unit (I certainly hope that’s not the case), your attitude and behaviour in several domains rarely
behaviour may not reflect your attitude. In this unit, exceeded 0.30 and was often close to zero. He found
we will examine the complex relationship between that:
attitudes and behaviour. Attitude and behaviour
represent the classic chicken-and-egg case. What • Student attitudes toward cheating had little
came first? The chicken or the egg? What comes first? relation to the likelihood of their actual cheating;
The attitude or the behavior? We will attempt to find
answers to such questions in this unit. • Attitudes toward the church were only modestly
linked with actual church attendance on any given
’s
p
S
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDE AND Sunday; and
BEHAVIOUR

na Pra
u
d
r
ee
y IA
Attitudes were the corner stone of social psychology, • Self-described racial attitudes were unrelated to

t
right from its inception. Much of the interest in
sh behaviour in actual situations.

Kri
s Cen
attitudes came from the commonsensical belief that
attitudes determine behaviour, and behaviour after Wicker went on to say that the field had been largely

t
21
all, was the subject matter of psychology. In fact, the wasting its time on attitudes, because they do not
earliest definitions defined attitudes largely in terms strongly influence overt behaviour. Subsequent work
of behaviour. For e.g. Allport (1924) defined attitudes over next 35 years did little better. Our attitudes often
as tendencies or predispositions to behave in certain do exert important effects on our behaviour. For e.g.
ways in social situations. Jung (1971) similarly defined if you like Aamir Khan very much, chances are that
an attitude as “a readiness of the psyche to act or you would’ve watched every movie of his. A better
react in a certain way” (p. 687). It turned out that this question, then is, when do attitudes determine
‘common sense’ was actually ‘uncommon’. Despite behaviour or influence behaviour? Answer to this
intuitive belief that attitudes determine behaviour, a question is given in the following paragraphs.
large body of early research indicated that attitudes
are actually poor predictors of behaviour. ATTITUDES PREDICT BEHAVIOUR
Let us take up the question as to when do attitudes
Let us look at some earliest researches that shook predict behaviour and then turn our attention towards
this faith. One of the earliest classic studies to the various factors that determine the attitude-
examine the relationship between attitudes and behaviour relationship. To put succinctly, some of the
behaviour was by LaPiere (1934). He spent two years factors that are instrumental in making attitude
traveling around the United States with a young predict behaviour are:
Chinese couple, at a time when prejudice against the
Chinese was quite open. During this travel, only one i) True versus expressed attitudes
out of 184 hotels and restaurants refused them
service. However, when he wrote back to them after ii) One instance versus aggregate
the trip and asked if they would offer service to
iii) Level of attitude behaviour specificity.
The above are discussed in detail below: One Instance Versus Aggregate
Consider this. Sachin Tendulkar’s career batting
True Versus Expressed Attitudes average is 55.56 (1989–2010, 166 Tests, 13,447 runs).
Very often one does come across a person saying Does that mean he will score 55 runs in every inning?
something which does not express the person’s held Not at all. How much he will score in a particular game
attitude. As mentioned elsewhere, in the context of is nearly impossible to predict, because it is affected
many others watching the person or when a person by many factors such as the pitch, weather
against whom a negative attitude is held is the conditions, bowler he is facing, and so on (I’m not an
person’s boss, true attitude will not be expressed. expert in cricket, you may know this better than I do!).
Thus a measured or expressed attitude may not be a
person’s true attitude especially when dealing with The point is simply this: predicting people’s behaviour
sensitive issues, contexts and situations. In order to from their attitudes is like predicting a cricket player’s
find out the true attitude in such situations, a hitting. Just as we can predict the approximate batting
technique called “the bogus pipeline” is used, in average of Sachin Tendulkar (but not individual
which every attempt is made to convince the person game), similarly averaging many occasions would
who holds an attitude that there is a machine which enable us to detect more clearly the impact of our
would definitely measure the true attitude. If ther attitudes.
person is convinced that his / her attitude would For e.g. research shows that people’s general attitude
anyway be revealed by the machine, he/she may tell towards religion poorly predicts whether they will go
the truth and thus their true attitudes will be more and worship next weekend. That’s because the
consistent with their behaviour. weather, their mood, their health, how far the temple

’s
S
is from residence, alternative plans, etc. also
p
ee
IA
There is yet another technique that is used to get at influence attendance. However, religious attitudes do

ad
r
y
the true attitude held by a person and this is called predict quite well the total quantity of religious

Krishna P
ntur
the implicit association test, uses reaction times to
measure how quickly people associate a certain

s Ce
concept related to the true attitude. In this technique

t
if a person has a negative attitude towards a certain
behaviours over time (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974). This
is known as the principle of aggregation: the effects
of an attitude become more apparent when we look
at a person’s aggregate or average behaviour rather

21
community persons, many words are selected that than at an individual act.
are related to that community persons. These words
are mixed with many other unrelated words and the Level of Attitude-behaviour Specificity
individual is asked to respond with their attitude Too often in the past, researchers (e.g. Wicker, 1969)
towards each of these words. The time between investigated correlations between very broad and
presenting the word and the time the individual general issues like discrimination and a specific
responds called as the reaction time is noted. If the behaviour such as taking a picture with an Afro-
reaction time to certain words associated with American. Attitude specificity, the extent to which
particular community persons is observed to be longer attitudes are focused on specific objects or situations
than to other words, then it may be assumed that the (e.g. ‘Do you like to eat Mexican food?’) rather than
person does have a negative attitude towards that on general ones (e.g. ‘Do you like to go out to eat?’)
community. Only when true attitudes are measured is clearly an important factor in the attitude-behaviour
using such techniques will they be predictive of link. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1977), every
behaviour. single instance of behaviour involves four specific
elements: target, action, time and context. According
Activity: to the principle of compatibility, measures of attitude
Test yourself for hidden racial or gender biases with and behaviour are compatible to the extent that these
the help of the implicit association test by logging on elements are assessed at identical levels of generality
to http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/ or specificity.
index2.htm. You can take either the race test or the
gender test and may end up being surprised by the Target: I might have favourable attitudes toward the
results! environment, but have a negative attitude toward
carrying paper bags because I find polythene bags in touch with their attitudes. One way of making
more convenient. In LaPiere’s case, the respondents people self-conscious is to have them act in front of
may have viewed the target as a devious oriental, a mirror (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Making people self-
rather than a well-dressed, soft-spoken oriental aware in this way promotes consistency between
couple traveling with a White man. words and deeds.

Action: I might support somebody’s right to have an Thus, attitudes are more likely to guide behaviour if
abortion, while being opposed to having an abortion they are made salient (e.g. ask people to consider
myself. their attitudes, make them more conscious of their
attitudes).
Context: I might support the right to have an abortion
under certain circumstances (save the life of the Attitude Strength
mother, rape, or other tragic circumstances) while By now you should be able to guess that the stronger
being opposed to it in others. the attitudes are, the greater their impact on
behaviour. We saw in Unit 2 that attitude strength
Time: It might be all right for me to drink at night or involves several dimensions, such as how much the
on the weekends, but not in the morning. individual knows about the attitude object (certainty),
the intensity of the attitude (how strong is the
Thus, attitudes can predict behaviour if you both emotional reaction provoked by the attitude object),
attitudes and behaviours are measured at similar how the attitude was formed in the first place (origin),
levels of specificity. For instance, Davidson and and the extent to which the person is personally

’s
S
Jaccard (1979) analysed correlations between married affected by the attitude (importance). Thus, thinking
p
ee
IA
women’s attitudes towards birth control and their more about something often results in greater

ad
r
y
actual use of oral contraceptives during the two years attitude-behaviour consistency. Attitudes formed

Krishna P
ntur
following the study. When ‘attitude towards birth
control’ was used as the attitude measure, the

s Ce
correlation was 0.08, indicating low correspondence.

t
But when ‘attitudes towards oral contraceptives’ were
through direct experience are stronger, and as a result,
are better predictors of later behaviour. The attitudes
of more personally involved individuals will be
stronger predictors of behaviour than attitudes of the

21
measured, the correlation rose to 0.32, and when less involved.
‘attitudes towards using oral contraceptives’ were
measured, the correlation rose still further to 0.53. Attitude Accessibility
Finally, when ‘attitudes towards using oral You may recall from the previous unit that attitude
contraceptives during the next two years’ was used, accessibility refers to the ease with which attitudes
it rose still further to 0.57. Clearly, the more specific can be retrieved from memory. Most modern theories
the question, the higher was the correspondence with agree that attitudes are represented in memory, and
behaviour. that attitudes that are more accessible from memory
are more predictive of behaviour. According to Fazio
Self Awareness (1990), more accessible attitudes can be
Another aspect that influences behaviour is the self spontaneously and automatically activated without
awareness, that is, how far the individual is aware of our conscious awareness, and can guide our behaviour
the attitudes that he or she holds. So ong as persons without us being necessarily aware of them.
are not aware of their attitudes , these attitudes will
tend to influence the individuals’ behaviours all the By definition, strong attitudes exert more influence
more intensely. On the other hand if an individual is over behaviour, because they can be automatically
aware of his attitude, he or she will be quite self activated. One factor that seems to be important here
conscious about it and may hesitate showing it in is direct experience. For example, Fazio and Zanna
their behaviours. Also when people are more attentive (1978) found that measures of students’ attitudes
of their own behaviour, and presumably of their towards psychology experiments were better
internal States, their attitude behaviour congruency predictors of their future participation if they had
increases. People who are self-conscious are usually already taken part in several experiments than if they
had only read about them (remember the mere his ability to become a nonsmoker (low perceived
exposure effect that we studied in Unit 2). behavioural control). Thus, despite his proper attitude
and the subjective norm, Rahul is unlikely to quit
ATTITUDES DETERMINE BEHAVIOUR smoking.
The most comprehensive answer to this puzzling
question first came from the theory of reasoned action It is also true that at times subjective norms will
proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). They determine our intentions. Even if we dislike something,
suggested that behaviour is primarily a function of we may do it anyway, because of subjective norms
an intention to carry out a particular act. These (think of peer pressure). For instance, even if Rahul
intentions, in turn are determined by two factors: the had a negative attitude toward smoking, had the will
attitude towards the behaviour and the subjective power to quit (high behavioural control), but thought
norm. The attitude is a function of belief about that his friends expect him to smoke and he wanted
consequences and subjective evaluation of those to please his friends (high subjective norm towards
consequences. Subjective norm, on the other hand, smoking), he would have probably not have an
is a person’s perception of whether others will intention to quit smoking (at least with his friends, I
approve of the particular behaviour. am not sure what he would do in front of his fiancée!).

In a later modification of this theory, known as the This model has been quite accurate in relating
theory of planned behaviour, Ajzen, 1991) added a attitudes to behaviour in areas like voting, drug use,
third factor that leads to behavioural intention: political and family planning behaviour. It is important
perceived behavioural control (Refer Figure 3.1). to note that this model will be accurate only in

’s
S
Perceived behavioural control refers to people’s explaining behaviour based on rational thinking and
p
ee
IA
appraisals of their ability to perform the behaviour in planning— hence the name ‘planned behaviour’.

ad
r
y
question. As a general rule, the more favourable the

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the
hn
t
perceived control, the stronger should be the person’s
intention to perform the behaviour in question.

t
The model has been criticized for suggesting that
behavioural intentions are the only direct determinant
of behaviour. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
effects of any other kind of attitude will only be

21
indirect, and relationship with behaviour could be
weak. This has, however, been questioned by critics.
Many have found that feelings (the affective
component of attitudes) may be a better predictor of
what you will do than your intentions. Especially when
intentions are weak or ill-formed and other beliefs
are strong, affective attitudes may be the best
predictor of behaviour. Often intentions are not even
formed until immediately before behaving.
Sometimes people act without thinking. Many habits
for instance, not wearing seat belts, lowering the
window of the car to throw a wrapper, etc. — are
performed in a relatively unthinking manner, and thus
are less influenced by conscious intentions. Some
have even said that the relationship between attitudes
Let us use an example to explain this theory. Rahul and behaviour is backwards- behaviour influences
believes that smoking causes cancer and that cancer attitudes, rather than the other way.
is very bad (therefore he has a negative attitude
towards smoking). His fiancée wants him to quit BEHAVIOUR DETERMINES ATTITUDES
smoking and he would like to please her (subjective We shall now turn our attention to a seemingly
norm for smoking is low). He however realizes that surprising idea that behaviour determines attitudes.
this habit is deeply ingrained and lacks confidence in Consider this example. Suppose you went to watch a
brainless comedy movie with your friends one important finding: behaviours (such as playing a role)
evening. You thought that the gags were rather silly, can quickly lead to attitudes. The effect of behaviour
but found your friends laughing. You also start on attitude appears even in theatre. The actor, at
laughing at some of the jokes in the movie. Later times becomes so absorbed in his role that he
another friend who didn’t go for the movie asked you experiences genuine emotions of the character that
how it was. You thought to yourself, ‘Well, I did laugh he is playing.
at quite a few places. It must be funny after all’ and
you tell your friend ‘It was good. You should’ve come’. Foot in the Door Phenomenon
This illustrates that at least in some circumstances, ‘Papa, can I go over to Sunita’s house for an hour?’
our behaviour determines our attitudes. After your father agrees, you follow your request with
(either after some time or after you have already gone
Let us now consider some such instances where to Sunita’s house), ‘Can I please stay the night? Sunita
behaviour does determine our attitudes. is really insisting’. Interestingly (and your father may
not know this), but you have already carried your
Role Playing nightclothes for the sleep over! If you have ever used
The Oxford English Dictionary defines role-playing as this kind of technique, you would know that it is quite
“the changing of one’s behaviour to fulfill a social an effective tactic. Known as foot in the door
role”. The act of role playing often results in changing technique, this involves getting the person to agree
of the behaviour of the person who plays that role. to a large request by first setting them up by having
Let us now consider a classic experiment led by that person agree to a modest request. This technique
Zimbardo and his team of researchers in 1971, known works on the principle of consistency: once we have

’s
S
as the Stanford prison experiment that demonstrated said yes to a small request, we are more likely to say
p
ee
IA
the potent effect of role playing. Twenty-four yes to subsequent and larger ones too, because

ad
r
y
undergraduate males were selected out of 70 (on the refusing them would be inconsistent with our previous

Kris a
s Ce
P
n ur
basis of their psychological stability and health) to
hn
t
play the role of either a guard or a prisoner in a mock
prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology

t
building. Roles were assigned based on a coin toss.
behaviour. In other words, your initial behaviour
affects your attitude and affects subsequent
behaviour!

21
Guards were given uniforms, batons, and whistles and BEHAVIOUR AND MORAL ATTITUDES
were instructed to enforce the rules. The prisoners Actions also affect our moral attitudes— both
were locked in cells and made to wear humiliating negative and positive. Evil sometimes results from
outfits, complete with a chain around their ankles. gradually escalating commitments. In concentration
Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, camps, for example, guards made to engage in cruel
stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been acts may be initially uncomfortable, but later justify
predicted and leading to dangerous and their behaviour.
psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the
guards exhibited sadistic tendencies, while many Consider one of the most serious conflicts of our
prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had times: the Israel-Palestine conflict. It may be argued
to be removed from the experiment early. The that by legally engaging in discriminatory acts
experiment had to be terminated only six days after towards Palestinians (for e.g. different roads for Jews
it began instead of the fourteen it was supposed to and Palestinians, differential access to water and
have lasted. Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners other resources), Israelis have started believing that
and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their the ‘sleazy, corrupt, and inferior Orientals’ deserve
roles—i.e. they internalized their roles. It seemed that it. The earlier Zionist leaders ‘believed’ that the
the situation caused the participants’ behaviour, rather expulsion of the Palestinians was moral, ethical, and
than anything inherent in their individual good for them.
personalities.
Fortunately, the reverse is also true. Positive
Despite severe criticisms of the experiment as being interracial behaviour has also been found to reduce
unethical and unscientific, it did demonstrate an racial prejudice. For e.g. greater intergroup contact
typically corresponds with lower levels of intergroup GLOSSARY
prejudice. A meta-analysis of 516 studies (Pettigrew Behavioural intentions :
& Tropp, 2006) obtained a mean effect size between The conscious decisions to carry out a specific action.
contact and prejudice of r =-.21. It also found that
95% of the 516 studies report a negative relationship Intergroup contact :
between contact and prejudices of many types. Under appropriate conditions, one of the most
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) reasoned that contact hypothesis effective ways to reduce prejudice
reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about between majority and minority group members is
the out-group; (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup through interpersonal contact (Allport, 1954).
contact; and (3) increasing empathy and perspective
taking. Clearly, then whether good or bad, attitudes Meta analysis :
have followed behaviour. As Myers (2005) says, “We A statistical procedure for combining the results of
not only stand up for what we believe in, we also several independent studies in order to estimate the
believe in what we have stood up for” (p. 150). integrated effect of variables across these studies.

A number of theories have been proposed to help Prejudice :


explain this attitude-followsbehaviour phenomenon. A negative attitude towards members of a particular
We shall discuss them in the next unit. group formed beforehand or without knowledge of
facts.

Role :

’s
S
A set of norms that define how people in a given social
p
ee
IA
position should behave.

ad
Krishna P
n
r
tur y
s Ce
t
21
17. EFFECTING ATTITUDINAL CHANGE AND COGNITIVE
DISSONANCE THEORY, COMPLIANCE OF SELFPERCEPTION
THEORY, SELFAFFIRMATION
SELF PRESENTATION sense, we do try to impress others by flattering them
Some time back I was invited by a school to deliver a or threatening them so as to make them complement
talk on promoting us amd allow us to be part of their group. In certain
environmental consciousness on World Environment other cases the person shows his vulnerability and
Day. I wore a green cotton sari, carried a folder of supplication by agreeing to do whatever the others
recycled paper and travelled in metro (instead of my ask so that they allow the person to be retained on
car) to the school. A part of why I did so was because their company. Thus there are many ways in which
I am fairly environment friendly, but another important we try to impress others in order to gain some positive
reason was that I wanted others to see my actions strokes or rewards from others about whom we care
consistent with my words. and whose company we want to continually keep.

The process mentioned above is self presentation ii) Expressive:


(also called impression management). It may be We construct an image of ourselves to claim personal
defined as the organisation of the presenting identity, and present ourselves in a manner that is
person’s cues so as to elicit desired responses in consistent with that image. For example, image
building by politicians who try to express what they
’s
S
others (Goffman, 1959). These cues may be verbal,
p
e
A
are and what all they can achieve and how they would
e
I
nonverbal (posture, gesture, eye gaze, etc.), stylistic

ad achieve and how caring they are about people’s


r
y
(use of clothing, arrangement of hair, household or
P
r
concerns and greeting people on all festivals to show
a
u
even decorative items with which one surrounds
n
h
t
that they care etc. Here the main motive is expressive
s
Kri
n
oneself, and even type of people with which one

s Ce
surrounds oneself). Goffman uses the metaphor of motive. Through expressing themselves they also act
accordingly by putting up posters and hoardings about
t
the actor in a theater to explain this. An actor performs

21
on a stage with a back drop; the props direct his how they greet people on festivals and also organise
action; he is being watched by an audience; but at groups and talk in groups about their plans and
the same time he is an audience for his viewers’ play. actions. There are others who use certain status
Any individual, as a social actor, has the ability to symbols such as “khadi kurta pajama” a sort of dress
choose his stage, props, and costume he would put that Indian politicians wear showing how they all are
on in front of a specific audience. The actor’s main similar to the common man, and convey the
goal is to adjust to the different settings offered to impression that they belong to this group and that
him and to create impressions that reflect well upon others should recognise them as belonging to that
him. group.

There are two main motives of self-presentation These types ofusing status symbols and behaving in
(Schlenker, 1980): (i) Instrumental and (ii) Expressive. a certain manner in line with the image building, in
Let us see what these are. course of time build in them the needed attitudes
that go in line with the expressive motive. It is in this
i) Instrumental: sense one can understand how one’s actions affect
We want to influence others and gain rewards. For attitudes. To look inconsistent would be to look foolish.
instance, we like to dress up very well and would like To avoid being treated differently, we express
to be commented favourably about it. Some will read attitudes that matches our actions, even if it means
up the latest in the field in which he or she is involved displaying a little hypocrisy. Impression management
so that they would talk about it and impress others theory states that individuals must establish and
as to how knowledgeable he or she is. They hope to maintain impressions that are congruent with the
be complemented for their knowledge. In a negative perceptions they wasn’t to convey to others. The
others’ percepitons of you then become the reality Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), students were asked
from which they form ideas and the basis for intended to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g.
behaviours. turning wooden knobs again and again). The tasks
were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude.
As you might expect there are several factors After the subjects had finished, the experimenters
affecting impression management, including asked some of them to do a ‘simple favour’. They were
individual differences in self-monitoring (the process asked to talk to the next subject (actually the
through which people regulate their own behaviour experimenter’s assistant) and lie that the tasks were
in order to be perceived by others in a favourable interesting and that he will enjoy it. Some participants
manner) and self verification (the act of conforming were paid $20 (a huge amount back in 1959) for this,
the audience to the person’s self-concept). another group was paid $1, and a control group was
not asked to perform the favour. In the end, the
Clearly then, the explanation of self presentation subjects were asked to actually rate the boring tasks.
does not explain all instances where attitudes follow
behaviour. This is particularly true for those who What do you think the results were? Answer the
express their changed attitudes even without knowing sentence given below as true/ false:
how they have behaved; and those who internalize
their self-presentations as genuine attitude changes. The group that was paid $20 for lying thought that
Let us consider other competing explanations that the tasks were more interesting than those paid $1.
address this. (True or False)

’s
S
If you thought the above was true, you are wrong!
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
p
ee
IA
Contrary to operant conditioning principles that big
d
One of the most influential approaches in social
a
r
y
ewards produce big effects, those in the $1 group
P
r
psychology having far reaching implications is that
a
u
rated the task more positively than those in the $20
n
t
human beings have a tendency to seek consistency
sh
Kri
n
and control groups. This was explained by Festinger

s Ce
in one’s cognitions (attitudes, beliefs, self-
perceptions). First introduced by Heider (1946), this and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance:

t ‘I told someone that the task was interesting’, and ‘I

21
principle of cognitive consistency implies that our
attitudes change because we are motivated to actually found it boring.’ When paid only $1, students
maintain consistency among our cognitions. were forced to internalize the attitude they were
induced to express, because it is unpleasant to say
This seemingly simple cognitive distance theory was something that you don’t feel. Those in the $20
proposed by Festinger (1957). According to Festinger, condition, however, had an obvious external
we feel tension (‘dissonance’) when we become justification for their behaviour (‘I lied because I was
aware of two simultaneous inconsistent cognitions. paid$20 to lie’), and thus experienced less
In order to reduce this unpleasant arousal, we often dissonance. People paid only small amounts of money
adjust our thinking. have less justification for their inconsistency, tend to
experience more dissonance, and hence change their
The classical example of cognitive dissonance can attitudes more. This is referred to as the less-leads-
be found in the Aesop fable The Fox and the Grapes, to-more effect.
in which a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and
wishes to eat them. After several failed attempts at In 1969, Aronson reformulated the basic theory by
reaching the grapes, he decides that the grapes are linking it to one’s self concept. According to this
probably not worth eating anyway (that they are not interpretation, cognitive dissonance does not arise
yet ripe or that they are too sour). because people experience dissonance between
contradictory cognitions. Instead, it occurs when
Dissonance theory addresses the discrepancies people see their actions as conflicting with their
between behaviour and attitudes. We are aware of normally positive view of themselves. Thus, in the
both. Hence, if we sense some hypocrisy, we feel original Festinger and Carlsmith study, the dissonance
pressure for change. In a classic experiment done by was between the cognition, ‘I am an honest person’
and the cognition, ‘I lied to someone about finding making important decisions, we usually reduce
the task interesting’. dissonance by upgrading the chosen alternative and
downgrading the unchosen one.
One real life example of cognitive dissonance is
smoking. It is widely accepted that cigarettes can Some research suggests that dissonance can be used
cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to to generate hypocrisy as a powerful tool for beneficial
live a long and healthy life. The desire to live a long changes in people’s behaviour. When people fail to
life is dissonant with the activity of doing something practice what they preach, their act of hypocrisy can
that will most likely shorten one’s life. Smokers induce cognitive dissonance and the motivation to
therefore should experience tension produced by change their behaviour. This has been demonstrated
these contradictory ideas. Such tension can be in several areas regarding health and safety. For
reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence instance, Stone et al. (1997) asked participants to
of lung cancer (‘only very heavy smokers get lung prepare a videotape regarding the use of condoms to
cancer’; ‘my chances of dying in a road accident are prevent transmission of HIV. They were then asked to
higher than that of dying from lung cancer’ etc.), or think about reasons as to why they hadn’t used
justifying one’s smoking (‘It helps me control my condoms in the past. When participants were brought
weight’). Because it is often easier to make excuses face to face with their own hypocrisy, it was found
than it is to change behaviour, dissonance theory that they engaged in direct means of reducing
leads to the conclusion that humans rationalize rather hypocrisy (by purchasing condoms at a lower price).
than be rational. Thus dissonance induced through hypocrisy can result
in change in behaviour- for the better.

’s
S
Dissonance theory has implications for parenting. It
p
ee
IA
suggests that parents should aim to elicit desired One important caveat: cultural factors influence the

ad
r
y
behaviour without threats, thus motivating children operation of cognitive dissonance. Although

Krishna P
ntur
to internalize the appropriate attitudes: ‘I am not
watching television because it’s more interesting to

s Ce
play outside’ as opposed to ‘I am not watching

t
television because my father will punish me if I do
dissonance occurs all around the world, it is less likely
to influence attitudes in collectivistic cultures like
ours as compared to individualistic cultures like the
United States. After all, if your marriage is based on

21
so’. your parent’s choice, and you are not happy, you can
say to yourself ‘I didn’t like him in the first place. He
Another implication of the dissonance theory is after was my parent’s choice’ as opposed to where your
making decisions- post decision dissonance. Let’s say marriage is based on personal choice. In case of latter,
you bought an expensive pair of sunglasses from a the possibility of making an incorrect decision is
store. You are feeling very happy because this is what perceived more as a threat to one’s own self: ‘How
you wanted to buy for a long time. After buying it, could I be so stupid?” as opposed to ‘How could my
you see a similar pair in another shop, priced at parents be so stupid?’ Thus, the desire to engage in
almost half the price you paid for it. What would you cognitively consistent actions may not be uniform
feel now? If you feel upset or anxious, you are across cultures.
experiencing post decision dissonance, dissonance
experienced after making a decision regarding the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND ATTITUDE CHANGE
possibility of it being wrong. So what do you do to Attitudes as mentioned earlier are indeed difficult to
reduce this dissonance? You might rationalize and change. But there are many ways in which attitudes
change your perceptions: find additional reasons or could also be changed. Many studies as for example
justifications to support your choice and make your that of Veen et al (2009), demonstrated that attitude
decision seem more attractive (assuming that the shop change also shows in the neural changes. They found
will not permit any return or exchange). You might that when the person’s actions conflict with the prior
decide that your sunglasses are better— ‘the two are attitudes, these often change the persons attitudes
not really the same’, ‘the second shop might be selling to be more consistent with their actions. This
fake sunglasses, mine are real branded’ etc. This may phenomenon, known as cognitive dissonance, is
not be true, but it would make you feel better. After considered to be one of the most influential theories
in psychology. Using a Solomon fourgroup design, they shows that these people are not as the individual
scanned participants with functional MRI while the thought them to be. In course of time with the
subjects argued that the uncomfortable scanner changes in beliefs and ideas getting stronger the
environment was nevertheless a pleasant experience. individual is able to get over the negative attitude
They found that cognitive dissonance engaged the and change to a more positive attitude. This is one
dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula; way of changing attitude. Here dissonance is created
They also reported that the activation of these regions by facts and figures and the individual reduces the
tightly predicted participants’ subsequent attitude dissonance by changing his attitude.
change. These effects were not observed in a control
group. Their findings elucidate the neural To cite another example, consider someone who buys
representation of cognitive dissonance, and support an expensive car but discovers that it is not
the role of the anterior cingulate cortex in detecting comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists
cognitive conflict and the neural prediction of attitude between their beliefs that they have bought a good
change. car and that a good car should be comfortable.
Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it
According to Festinger’s theory, there are basically does not matter since the car is mainly used for short
two factors that affect the strength of the dissonance, trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief)
viz., (i) the number of dissonant beliefs, and (ii) the or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety,
importance attached to each belief. appearance, handling (thereby adding more
consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be
Hence one can eliminate dissonance by the following eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behaviour

’s
S
methods: is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.
p
radee
y IA
1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs

na P
ur
Thus the two most important principles of cognitive
dissonance can be stated as that (i) dissonance

Krish
s Ce
dissonant beliefs.

t nt
2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the occurs when a person has to choose between
contradictory attitudes and behaviour. (ii) Another
principle is that the dissonance can be removed by

21
3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no changing the importance of conflicting beliefs and
longer inconsistent. acquiring new beliefs that change the balance or
remove the conflicting attitude or remove the
As mentioned earlier, Dissonance occurs when an conflicting behaviour.
individual has to make a choice between two
incompatible beliefs or actions. The dissonance SELF PERCEPTION
created is very high when the two alternatives are According to Wikipedia , Self-perception theory (SPT)
equally attractive. This is akin to approach – approach is an account of attitude change developed by
conflict which creates considerable tension. Attitude psychologist Daryl Bem. It asserts that people develop
change is more likely in the direction of less incentive their attitudes by observing their behaviour and
as this results in lower dissonance. These concluding what attitudes must have caused them.
explanations could be very effectively used in attitude The theory is counterintuitive in nature, as the
formation and change. conventional wisdom is that attitudes come prior to
behaviours. According to this theory, attitudes come
In regard to changing of attitude towards a certain about without accessing the internal cognition and
community people, the integrated housing scheme moods. The persons logically reasons out and explain
provides a good example of application of cognitive their overt behaviours rationally in the same way they
dissonance. When people start living together, and attempt to explain others’ behaviours. Bem was an
have to interact with each other for various reasons, early critic of cognitive dissonance theory. He
they get to know each other and many ideas and proposed self perception theory as an alternative
beliefs about the other person belonging to a certain explanation of the results of Festinger and Carlsmith’s
community start changing considerably as experience (1959) study. In other words, people form and develop
attitudes by observing their own behaviour, much as
they use other people’s behaviour to infer what their Cognitive Disssonance Theory Self Perception Theory
underlying attitudes are. Attitudes directly known Attitudes are inferred from behaviour
Unpleasant affect necessary for No unpleasant affect involved in attitude
attitude formation formation
Applying this principle to the Festinger and Carlsmith
Applicable when attitudes are Applicable when attitudes are weak or
study, Bem argued that the participants must be clearly formed vague
inferring their attitudes from their behaviour, without Dissonance most likely when Self perception of attitudes most likely
the attitude in question is when the attitude in question is less
necessarily experiencing any dissonance. Thus, when important to the self or the important to the self or the attitude
asked ‘Did you find the task interesting?’ they decided attitude behavior discrepancy behaviour discrepancy is small
is substantial
that they must have found it interesting because that
is what they told someone. To test this hypothesis,
Bem (1967) presented participants a description of Whether cognitive dissonance or self-perception is a
the original study (You would recall that a subject more useful theory has raised considerable debate.
performed a boring task and then was paid either $1 Based on a number of studies, it seems that both are
or $20 to tell another that it was fun and interesting). correct, but in different situations. Aronson (1969)
He then asked the participants to guess the person’s suggests that the cognitive dissonance theory
attitude towards the task. The participants did guess explains attitude changes when people’s behaviours
that subjects in $1 condition would hold more of task are inconsistent with their original attitudes which
being boring than those in the $20 condition. Their are clear and important to them; while the self-
reasons: the subject who was paid $20 to say the perception theory is used when those original
task was interesting really was lyingn because he attitudes are relatively unclear and less important to

’s the self (Refer Table 1). Since a large proportion of

S
clearly did it for the money. However, the subject who
p
e
A
our attitudes are vague, the self-perception theory is
e
I
was paid $1 must have been honest, because such a

ad
y
significant in interpreting one’s own attitudes. Finally,
r
small amount doesn’t justify lying!

a P
ur
it has also been demonstrated that both cognitive
n
Krish
nt
Thus, Bem’s theory and Festinger’s theory make dissonance and self-perception could co-exist (Fazio,

s Ce
identical predictions, but offer different explanations. Zanna, & Cooper, 1977).

t
Dissonance theory predicts the presence of

21
unpleasant tension or arousal, while self perception Numerous studies support the self-perception theory,
theory suggests that no negative drive state is demonstrating that emotions do follow behaviours.
involved in attitude formation— attitudes are inferred For example, when Laird (1974) asked college
from behaviour rather than the other way around. students to enact different facial expressions, gazes
While dissonance theory addresses attitude change, and postures (to approximate happiness, sorrow,
self perception theory explains attitude formation. anger, etc.), they did feel corresponding emotions. In
Dissonance theory explains what happens when we the end of the experiment, subjects inferred and
act contrary to clearly defined attitudes: we feel an reported their affections and attitudes from their
unpleasant tension, so we modify our attitudes to practiced behaviours, despite being previously told
reduce it. In situations, where attitudes are not well to act that way. This is also consistent with the James-
formed, self-perception theory explains attitude Lange theory of emotion: first we act, and then the
formation. As we act and then reflect, we develop acting creates the feeling. We feel angry because we
attitudes in line with our actions. A comparison scowl; we feel sad because we cry, and so on. Based
between the two theories may be seen in Table 4.1 on findings like these, Duclos et al. (1989) proposed
given below. the facial feedback hypothesis. This view holds that
people’s emotions— and thus their attitudes— can
Table 4.1: be manipulated by changing their facial expressions,
Comparison between Cognitive Dissonance and Self body posture or other motor responses.
Perception Theories
One interesting implication of the self perception
theory is the overjustification effect: rewarding people
for what they like doing anyway decreases their
internal motivation for doing that task. According to Individual and cultural differences have been reported
the self-perception theory, people pay more attention in self-affirmations. For e.g. people with high and
to the incentive, and less attention to the enjoyment secure self esteem engage in less self-justification
and satisfaction that they receive from performing (Holland et al., 2002). People with high self-esteem
the activity. An experiment to demonstrate this was are more likely to rely on self-affirmation than other
done by Greene, Sternberg and Lepper (1976). They defensive mechanism such as rationalisation. Culture
played mathematical games with schoolchildren, also imposes some effect on the process of self-
which the children seemed to enjoy. After a while, affirmation. In individualistic cultures, the self is more
they started giving rewards for success. When they emphasized, and independence stands out; in
took away the rewards, the children quickly gave up collectivist cultures, kinship and interdependence are
playing the games. Do you know why this happened? emphasized. Collectivists are less likely to be
Because playing became less about ‘fun’ and more motivated to protect the self-integrity since self
about ‘work’. esteem is less emphasized in their culture.

SELF AFFIRMATION There are numerous applications of this theory. The


Another interpretation of dissonance theory with a technique of self affirmation can also be used in
focus on one’s self image is Steele’s self affirmation multiple domains such as:
theory. According to Steele (1988), people are
motivated to maintain the integrity of the self. The Personal relationship: When faced with an emotional
ultimate goal of the self is to protect an image of its upheaval in a personal relationship, the affirmation
self-integrity, morality and adequacy. These two process can be done by writing down positive

’s
S
statements about our partners, such as how they care
p
premises lead to two implications:
ee
IA
about us and what we appreciate in them (Sherman

ad
r
y
& Cohen, 2006).
P
r
We experience a self-image threat, after acting in a
a
n
tu
manner inconsistent with our sense of honesty or
sh
Kri
n
Health: Self-affirmation is an effective tool in health

s Ce
integrity.
interventions. In a groupbased cigarette cessation

t program for smokers, those who received a

21
When our self concept is threatened, we often
compensate by affirming another aspect of the self. selfaffirmation intervention had a lower
In other words, we can reduce ‘dissonance’ by defensiveness towards graphic cigarette warning
affirming our integrity in some other unrelated area labels than a control group. Moreover, these self-
of our lives. affirmed smokers also had a stronger intention to quit
smoking (Harris et al., 2007).
As a result, these ‘self-affirmations’ enable people
to deal with threatening events and information in a Research has found that providing people with
more open and even-handed manner, without affirmation opportunities on alternative sources of
resorting to defensive biases. For example, if you self-integrity lead to a less biased evaluation to
show me that I cannot sing, I’ll go and dance even threatening information. Self-affirmation thus
more, which I know I’m better at. increases the openness of people to ideas that are
difficult to accept.
Besides reducing threats to the individual self, self-
affirmations could also reduce threats to the self at GLOSSARY
a collective level, i.e. when people confront some Cognitive Dissonance :
threatening opinions or humiliating comments about An uncomfortable internal state that results when
the groups they belong to, such as nation or gender. people realize that there is inconsistency between
For example, when someone says ‘Women are lousy two or more of their attitudes or between their
drivers as their spatial ability is inferior to men’, I often attitudes and their behaviour.
cite evidence of women having better verbal and
interpersonal abilities.
Hypocrisy :
When an individual publicly advocates some
attitudes or behaviour, but acts in a way that is
inconsistent with them.

Individualism/Collectivism :
One value dimension on which national cultures differ
(Hofstede, 1980). People are individualists, when they
take care only of themselves and their families; they
are collectivists when they distinguish between
ingroup and outgroups and expect their ingroups
(relatives, clans, organisations) to look after them,
in exchange for being loyal to them.

Post decision dissonance :


A state of anxiety experienced after making a decision
regarding the possibility of it being wrong. It is usually
reduced by increasing the importance assigned to the
positive features of the chosen alternative, and
increasing the importance assigned to the negative
features of the nonchosen alternative.

’s
Self monitoring :

radee
y
p
IAS
The process through which people regulate their own

a P
r
u
behaviour in order to ‘look good’ so that they will be
n
Krish
nt
perceived by others in a favorable manner.

s Ce
t
21

You might also like