Today, we are going to talk about, one of
the most celebrated figures in recent Indian
history, is
even from the point of moral philosophy, it
is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, more popularly
known as Mahatma Gandhi.
Now, many of us have, a preliminary idea about
Gandhian Ethics.
And of course, in this course, we will just
touch upon Gandhian Ethics, as a part of the
tradition
of Indian Ethics, which is again up, as a
part of the broader outline of the syllabus
of Ethics.
Now, there are many things, in Gandhi has
been considered as a Moral Stalwart.
He is being
referred as a Politician among Saints, and
as a Saint among Politicians.
Gandhi’s Civil
Disobedience Movement, and phenomenal role
in the Independence of India, cannot be
overstated.
And, the importance of Ethics in Gandhi’s
ways, are perhaps one of the most
prevalent examples of Moral Theoretician getting
into practice.
So, apart from being an Idealist, Gandhi also
put his theory, his beliefs into test, into
the real
world.
So, before we talk about Gandhian Ethics,
let us just briefly put out this, understand,
what
was the relationship, or what was Religion
and Ethics for Gandhi.
The first thing, that we are now going to
talk about is, Religion and Ethics - Gandhian
perspective.
Now, philosophically, Religion and Morality,
are two different things.
Religion is
very frequently defined as a set of beliefs
about, the Metaphysical pre-suppositions of
human
existence.
And, Ethics or Morality is about, how people
behave with each other.
Now, let us look
at this fundamental issue that, Religion is
dealing with our Metaphysical beliefs or claims.
And, Morality is perhaps dealing with, how
people deal with each other.
Is there a relation?
Philosophically, of course, they are two different
entities.
But in fact, the Philosophers would
accept that, they can co-exist, but they need
not be connected.
So, from the philosophical point of
view, Religion and Ethics are conceptually
distinct, although a co-existence is possible.
Now, for
Gandhi, this is not 
a true description of reality.
Let us say, philosophically, we can understand
that well, Religions deals with a different
domain
of human existence, and Morality or Ethics
deals with a different domain.
Now, why does
Gandhi confuse the two.
Before that, let us reflect on, what our own
views are.
Here, we see a
religious person, for example.
Imagine any religious person, that you have
seen.
Now, if we
imagine, this religious person, speaking or
misrepresenting facts, or cheating, or committing
cruelty.
Do we not find something amiss, with this
religious person, that we imagine, a cleric,
or a pundit,
or a religious practitioner?
That, if we do not find ordinary day Morality
reflected, in the lives of
supposedly religious people, we find something
missing.
All the religious books, prescribes, a
moral code of conduct.
It is not that the case, that Religion is
silent about, moral code of conduct.
In fact, all Religions propose a moral code
of conduct.
They do not philosophise.
Or perhaps, most of them do not philosophise
on, how the moral code
of conduct is arrived.
In fact, many of them take the God's word,
as sanction for a code of
conduct.
But, all of them, do talk about Morality.
All of them, do talk about Ethics, about how
people ought to deal with each other.
Whereas, you see that, Religion does talk
about, our mode
of interacting with each other, which concerns
the value domain or morality.
So, we do find it unusual that, if we find
a religious person, and who is not moral,
it seems to be
a sort of contradiction.
That well, if somebody is a religious person,
but does not display
ordinary day moral values, well, there is
something amiss over here.
In fact, it is a prevalent
strain amongst, youngsters and young people
today, to describe themselves as, spiritual
but not
religious, as moral but not religious.
So, what are these examples about.
These examples, are a reaction from, what
Religion has become.
Religion has become a set of
rituals, devoid of any connect, or any commitment
to morality.
Observing a set of rituals, makes
one, a religious person.
But, if observing a Religion does not bring
about, what one would regard
as ordinary moral day behaviour, then we find
the kind of difficulty.
In fact, we tend to throw out
the baby with the bath water.
We tend to throw out Religion, because we
find religious people,
not being moral.
Perhaps, what Gandhi verbalise, is an intuitive
human urge, to find religious people as moral,
to
find Religion as a carrier of Morality.
And, Morality is not necessarily to be carried
by Religion.
But, Morality is an essential accompaniment
of Religion.
In fact, there have been Atheist, there
have been people, who are irreligious, but
yet, they commit themselves to the moral domain.
Bertrand Russell, was such an example.
That, where the moral domain exists, and is
to be followed, irrespective of Religions.
What we
serve intuitively, first, that we want to
find religious people as moral.
We also want to have space
open, that well, there are moral people, who
may or may not be religious.
Now, what is it for
Gandhi.
Now, for Mahatma Gandhi, Religion and Morality
is inseparable.
So, Gandhi’s claim is
that well, we find Religion.
Gandhi would say that well, a religious person
has to be a moral
person, and not the other way round.
That, a moral person has to be a religious
person, but
Religion as the basis of Morality.
That, a religious person has to be moral.
And, if there is a conflict, between a Moral
Diktat and
Religious Diktat, well, it is the Moral Diktat,
that has to remains supreme.
So, Religion is to be
judged, from the point of view of Morality.
That, if a religious person is acting in an
apparently
Immoral way, then well, that person is not
religious enough.
So, Morality as the judge of
Religion, or Morality as crucial to Religion.
He goes on to say, that well, True Religion
and True
Morality are inseparable.
And, that Morality represents, the core of
Religion.
So, what is Gandhi’s point of view.
Gandhi’s
point of view comes out to be, that well,
Morality is the core of Religion.
That, we do have to
take Morality into account, while understanding
Religion.
And, Religion ought to bring about
Morality.
And, if it fails to do so, well, then there
is something wrong with the Religion, or its
interpretation.
So, Religion ought to bring about Morality.
And, if it fails to do so, then the Religion
ought to be discarded, or that particular
kind of
Religion ought to be reinterpreted, or discarded,
and not Morality.
The moral sense is
fundamental, and that should be preserved.
Now, having said that, about the relationship
between
Religion and Ethics, let us come about, that
well, what is Gandhi’s Notion of Morality,
or
Gandhian Ethics.
Now well, to begin with, Moral Actions.
What are Moral Actions.
Or, what are
Morally Judgeable Actions.
Moral Actions are actions, which are voluntary
actions, and without the fear of punishment,
or
greed of reward.
So, these are Moral Actions.
That, actions that take place voluntarily,
and that
without the fear of punishment, or greed of
reward.
That is, no coercion.
So, Gandhi begins by
claiming, that well, what kind of actions
are to be judged as Moral Actions.
Now, actions which
originate, from our freedom of choice, from
our ability to choose, are actions, that can
be judged
as Moral Actions.
Whereas, actions which are done out of instinct,
or done out of reflex reaction, can no more
be
judged as moral reaction.
Now, this is a fairly simple analysis of action.
And, when I find, that
well, if we are talking about our moral judgeability
of actions, we do mean actions, which have
the freedom of choice.
Now, the second point, seems to be more important,
and has something
more to offer.
That well, actions, which take place without
coercion.
So, without the fear of punishment, and
without the greed of reward, in such a case,
can actions be Moral Actions.
What would Gandhi
say.
Gandhi would say, that well, if somebody is
acting in a way, which is motivated by a fear,
or
fear of punishment, or the desire for a reward,
well, it is no more in the domain of Moral
Action.
So, in this strain, we find a very Non-Consequentialist
undercurrent, in Gandhian Ethics.
That well, if we are working for consequence,
or our actions are motivated by certain goals,
then
that cannot be classified as a Moral Action,
or that cannot be classified as a morally
appreciable
action.
Let us take for an example.
Going by, our earlier discussion about the
Theory of Karma,
we said that well, one has to accumulate moral
dessert.
So, accumulating moral dessert, for any
betterment in this life, or after life, or
later, and that being the primary motivation
for good
action, it seems to be for Gandhi, not an
example of a Moral Action at all.
So, when something good is being done, to
avoid punishment, or to get something for
oneself in
the future, it can no more be called as Moral
Actions.
So, well, when one is doing good turns to
attract, to get future benefits, then one
is not doing a moral act.
So therefore, Moral Actions have
to be actions out of, emerging out of free
choice, uninfluenced by any consequences,
that they
bring about, which affect the action.
So, having any goal, of a good life, or of
later rewards, or fear of latter punishments,
is not really
Moral Actions.
So, look at this, a very interesting example.
In that case, the schoolboys
discipline, which is enforced by the fear
of the schoolmaster, is not a discipline,
that Gandhi
would say, is a moral act at all.
Because, this takes place, in the fear of
punishment.
When, that
same schoolboys, is out of the school campus,
and freed from the fear of punishment.
If that schoolboy continues, to choose to
be disciplined, that comes out to be an example
of a
Moral Action.
Whereas, if that schoolboy comes out, and
chooses to be indiscipline, well, then
that is, that action can be judged morally.
Not the action, that takes place, under the
fear of
governance.
Now, look at it, this way.
This is a deontological, and a very huge jump,
in
expectations from human behaviour.
So, in human societies, we have this entire
notion of
punishments and rewards.
And, punishments in particular, are framed
to discourage behaviour, that is not right,
or that is
deemed Immoral by the society.
So, the fear of punishment, keeps us of Immoral
Actions.
Now,
that for Gandhi is actually, no moral credit
of ours.
So, if I am not stealing, or not doing anything
wrong, for the fear of being caught, then
I am not to be given any credit for my acts,
for not
doing anything wicked.
Now, so just imagine.
Imagine it.
I leave it to you, as a thought experiment.
That, if you pull out
law enforcement for a day, from the streets,
what would be fine people doing.
Now, this would
give you an, the Gandhian test for Morality
is, when this enforcement, or this fear of
punishment,
or the greed of reward is pulled out.
In case of Morality, is mostly in terms of
constraints.
It is
mostly, in terms of the fear of punishment.
That, if we do this, we are punished, therefore
we do
not do this.
But, whether would a person steal, if he had
an opportunity to steal, without the fear
of being
caught.
That, according to Gandhi, is a true test
of Morality.
So, this is an example of a high
Gandhian ideal, which is according to Gandhi,
a true test of Morality, rather than a confirmation
to the expectations, of the reward punishment
scheme, of the society.
Now, coming back to the
slide.
When we talk about Moral Actions, and the
classifications of Moral Actions.
Well.
So, we
talked about voluntary actions.
That, Moral Actions are only actions, which
are voluntarily done.
That is, they have a freedom of
choice.
And, number one, was this.
And, number two was, when it is without the
fear of
punishment, or the greed of reward.
So, there is no coercion.
Now, what does this lead to.
Well.
Okay.
Now, Gandhi’s crucial claim is that, self-transcendence,
or Love constitutes, is the essence
of Morality.
So, it is when, one is able to transcend oneself,
that one comes to function out of
Love, and that is the essence of Morality.
So, when one transcendence one’s selfish
desires, transcendence of one's perspective.
So, very
often, we have run across this, as a conclusion
of many moral theories, that when, the ability
to
transcend one's perspective, makes one's acts
as moral.
Because then, well, it is not done for
one's own purpose, but well, when it is seen
that from a trans-perspectival decision.
So, Gandhi
is also sticking to the same kind of classification,
calling self-transcendence and Love, is the
essence of Morality.
Now, why is Love, as the source of Morality.
Well.
When one transcends, one’s perspective,
one
would perhaps have access to others perspectives.
So, unless there is a Love for the other,
why
would one want to benefit, because from doing
an action, which is morally right, and which
perhaps, disadvantages the self, and gives
an advantage to the other.
Now, look at this interesting
notion.
That, transcending perspectives, gives us
the Epistemological tool, to know the other.
But, Love
gives us the motivation, to do the right act.
So, let me put it down.
That, Self-Transcendence 
is
the Epistemological tool + Love.
And, in this case, analogically, Epistemological
tool +
Motivation.
The Love acts as the Motivation.
And, Self-Transcendences is the Epistemological
tool.
So, this gives rise to the moral act, or the
moral domain.
Now, Gandhi introduces another perspective,
into this association of concepts, is that
well, he
accepts that well, we do find that well, Love
is blind, and it might lead to actions, which
are
blinded.
So here, he introduces the Notion of Knowledge.
Love is blind.
And, this blindness can
lead to, Barbarism, or Fanaticism, or a lot
of things like this.
Now, by introducing the third term,
knowledge, is that which 
conditions or tempers the Love, so that, it
is an informed choice for
acting upon.
Now, when Gandhi says that, Morality does
not consist in loving blindly, it is loving
with the full
consciousness and knowledge of Love.
Now, knowledge as an essential 
part of Morality.
Let me
make this clear, that what has knowledge got
to do.
Well.
Self-Transcendence gives the
Epistemological perspective, or Epistemological
tool, to transcend one's perspective to know,
to
perceive from, or to comprehend what is it,
from other perspectives are trans-perspectival.
Now, Love gives the motivation, for converting
it into action.
But, this Love cannot be unbound.
It is bounded by knowledge.
And, what is this knowledge.
This knowledge is about the reasons,
why the moral act is obligatory.
Knowledge is about reasons, as to why, the
moral act is
obligatory.
So, what is the point.
The point is that, Morality is obeying the
voice of the
conscience, with the full knowledge of the
conditions, that make this call imperative
or
obligatory.
So, that means, that well, where does knowledge
enters the equation, is that well, when we
are
listening to the voice of conscience, and
we also understand, why we are listening to
the call of
conscience.
So, knowledge is also a factor in the, moral
act being performed.
So, one is not just
having trans-perspectival knowledge, but one
is able to transcend one's perspective, one
loves the
other, or the entities concerned to motivate
for an action.
And also, one is in knowledge of the reasons,
why this apparently selfless action is obligatory.
That, what is the reason for this, to take
place.
Now, this according to Gandhi is, what he
has
termed as the knowledge of Satyagraha.
Or, that is particularly, how Satyagraha takes
place.
So,
Morality is nothing but, Satyagraha.
Because, this 
is what, are the points that, Gandhi talks
about
Satyagraha too.
Will now talk about, the various virtues,
that Gandhi talks about, which are taken
from tradition.
And, Gandhi adds it to those.
He talks about, virtues like, non-violence,
truthfulness, nonstealing, non-acceptance,
and chastity.
So, these are known in Sanskrit as, Ahimsa,
Satya,
Asteya, Aparigraha, and Bramhacharya.
So, these are some of the virtues, core virtues,
cardinal
virtues, for a Satyagraha too.
And, in this understanding, for the moral
person, to act upon.
Gandhi expands on this, and adds some more
virtues to this, which we will be talking
about,
next.
