Welcome to this lecture series on ethics This
is the 2nd lecture We will discuss the following
topics
After a very brief examination of the subject
matter of ethics we will see the different
approaches to ethics That is going to be the
focus of this lecture
And we have already seen you know some of
the major issues with which ethics as a reflective
discipline deals with And here you know we
can say that the standards that regulate human
behaviour and conduct is the subject matter
of ethics I mean there are different ways
in which the subject matter of ethics is approached
The ancient approach was very different from
the modern approach So what I am trying to
do here is that I am trying to arrive at a
very modest way of explanation to see what
would be the subject matter of ethics
Without really referring to any metaphysical
or other assumptions it deals with the standards
that regulate human behaviour and conduct
Though these are terms which have rooted in
several (ta) see for example contact is a
term which Aristotle uses a lot For him what
is conduct is a habitual behaviour There is
a difference between behaviour and conduct
Behaviour need not be habitual He he just
behaves like that A person just behaved in
a certain way but the conduct of a person
is something which is more or less static
which you arrive at an understanding of the
conduct of a person by having interacted with
that person for some time And after several
months or years you know that a particular
person’s conduct is this So that is definitely
different from behaviour
So the standards that regulate human behaviour
is ethics and uhh it analyse why are we obligated
to do or not to do certain things See we are
definitely obligated not to do certain things
We all are very clear about it Say for example
stealing or copying in an exam these are things
we are obligated not to do but we have to
actually reflect what is the reason Why is
it that we are obligated to do these things
or not to do these things
And again you know helping others helping
a person who is in need and someone saving
someone’s life we can do that all these
are things which we have some we feel that
we are obligated to certain things like Definitely
we all know that they are not legal obligations
For example obligation to help another person
is not always a legal obligation But at the
same time we feel that there is an obligation
We are responsible for doing certain things
because if we do that the life of the other
person might significantly change in a positive
manner So in that way we feel that there is
an obligation Why What is the base of that
See religious people might believe that they
are all created by God or we are all the children
of God So in that sense there is an obligation
God has made us obligated to each other because
we are siblings
But a person who does not believe in this
such an assumption such a belief that we are
children of God still there might be he or
she might be feeling that he or she is obligated
to do and help others Why Again there are
studies why certain standards of behaviour
are treated as virtuous Say for example respecting
freedom respecting the rights of other people
They are all virtues in nature
And why do we consider honesty integrity trustworthiness
and respect for freedom and fairness as important
in our life Most people do that most of us
feel that you know we consider that honesty
is important integrity trustworthiness fairness
respect for freedom I mean all these are important
for our life But they are they really important
On what basis can we say that they are important
So a reflection means you know a philosophical
reflection has to answer such questions But
before we getting into those details before
we really try to understand the uhh 3 different
ethical frameworks that discuss about such
or rather try to answer these questions which
we have raised at the very outset we will
try to understand the different approaches
to it
There are basically 4 approaches we are going
to discuss this The 1st one is metaethics
and metaethics is it talks about the nature
of ethics and moral reasoning Metaethics talks
about the nature of ethics and moral reasoning
and normative ethics talks about the attempt
to determine meanings of normative terms example
right wrong good bad or etc
Applied ethics tries to find out how do we
apply ethics to work and lives Say for example
it is an approach to apply directly apply
the ethical insights or ethical reflection
into certain specific field of activity Say
for example business or medicine practice
of medicine So there are medical ethics There
is medical ethics there is business ethics
there is engineering ethics
These are all different domains in which ethical
reflection is being applied to address and
resolve certain very specific issues that
might evolve in those context And that is
very ported in today’s world because we
are living in a world where we rely upon a
lot on professional communities Moral psychology
is the 4th one It studies the biological and
psychological basis of ethics So will not
try to understand some of these things in
detail
Coming to normative ethics Normative ethics
is known as philosophical ethics because it
deals with norms It deals with standards and
tries to justify the very availability and
the very need for such standards It tries
to examine the content of our moral behaviour
What is that makes a particular form of human
action a particular behaviour moral or distinguish
it from the immoral It answers the question
as to how we ought to live by delineating
a general theory of the good
So we have a general theory a general framework
which would describe our our assumptions about
what is good and also try to provide a justification
for those assumptions Then again it examines
the norms of standards that tell us what it
ought to be So that oughtness aspect comes
prominently here Examines the norms or standards
that tell us these are the norms to be followed
and these norms basically tell us that what
ought to be the case what ought to we be doing
and uhh to in order to do the right thing
Normative ethical theories extract us what
ought to be done on previous occasions of
life where we encounter ethical dilemma See
this is another very important aspect because
several occasions we might need the guidance
of ethical theories Why do we need to be doing
a certain kind of action instead of certain
other kind of actions Or what criteria should
be applied Say for instance as I mentioned
in the previous lecture there are different
aspects there are different criteria we normally
consider
Whether the intention of the person needs
to be considered as a criteria If the intention
was good the action is good If the intention
is bad even though the consequences are good
even though many people benefit out of his
actions since his intention is bad the action
is not be treated as ethically valuable and
ethically good Such theories emphasise on
the intentions
Say for example you have Kantion theory Kantion’s
duty ethics emphasises that duty is the most
important thing Duty for duty’s sake So
an action which is done for the sake of beauty
is the right action That action might lead
to consequences which are really bad which
are really horrible but regardless of that
the action needs to be treated as good because
it was done with the right intention with
a conscious awareness of the fact that it
is done for the sake of duty
Now when we come to another framework called
utilitarianism utilitarian framework emphasises
the consequences the particular action leads
to good consequences happy good consequences
they are good and the utilitarians like Jemery
Bentham and JS Mill emphasise on such a framework
So these are some of the normal ethical frameworks
And in general it can be divided into 2 categories
consequentialism and non consequentialism
So normative ethics has 2 broad categories
See for example consequentialism which says
that morality of an action is determined by
its consequences You have taken some money
from the bank Why do you need to return it
If you do not return it what will happen The
banking system will collapse So you have to
do that So consequences are important And
non consequentialist theories are not really
bothered about what will happen what is the
real result or consequence of an action
But morality of an action depends on the intrinsic
nature on its motives or on its being in accord
with some rules or principles There might
be some rules For example God said it Okay
a person believes that I do this because God
said it A religious person he believes in
charity because his religion insists that
charity is important Why What is the consequence
He is not bothered about consequences office
action He just do that because his religion
wants him to do that Or he had a good intention
another framework another approach He has
a good intention he has a good motive or like
Kant he did it he does it because he thinks
that it is his duty He knows that it is his
duty So these are the nonconsequentialist
theories
And there are several consequentialist Like
for example the hedonistic framework which
I just mentioned the Benthamy and hedonism
which is called the utilitarianism and JS
Mill had another dimension to this to this
utilitarian framework We will discuss these
details in the following lectures Then the
utilitarianism like hedonistic balance of
pleasure over pain
So the utilitarians have actually developed
a utilitarian calculus a happiness calculus
a pleasure calculus you can probably call
it because for them the utility of an action
which is the consequence is very important
and utility is equated largely with happiness
with pleasure And there is something called
ideal or social utilitarianism which is non
hedonistic which emphasises on moral good
And there is another framework which believes
in perfectionism which believes that the aim
of human life is to attain perfection self
realisation
So it is a non hedonistic approach and it
emphasises on the full development of (pan)
man attaining all his developments or rather
realising all his potentials self realisation
is the aim So any action that promotes human
circular aviation needs to be considered as
a good action and anything that prevents is
to be treated as evil So that is the perfectionist
would argue for that And then egoism this
very commonsensical framework which says that
self interest is the most important thing
and the best interess of the person is what
is to be treated as good by that particular
person
This is a very ancient framework From olden
days onwards you can find various versions
of egoism The Sophists have advocated a kind
of egoism but not purely egoism in the sense
in which we understand the term today And
there are different other schools of types
of egoism Then situationism which says that
what makes an action good is the consequence
definitely but at the same time the situation
also matters
So these are some of the fundamental consequentialist
approaches We will be discussing some of them
in detail later in the following lectures
So now uhh the non consequentialism are basically
2 of them we will discuss here in this lecture
series the divine command which underlines
the will of God as very important And also
the Kantion theory which I have already mentioned
which emphasises on a universal law which
is called deontologism because it emphasises
it highlights the duty aspect It talks about
a universal law
It says that you should act according to a
principle which can be treated as a universal
law so that everyone else can follow it So
before performing an action you have to think
whether this action is based on a principle
which can be universalised So the principle
of universalisability is a key aspect of the
Kantion framework So that is the nonconsequentialist
approach
Now metaethics metaethics is a very important
framework It talks about the nature of ethics
and moral reasoning It is not actually involved
in debates on ethics It attempts to determine
the meanings of normative terms which we normally
use when we involve ourselves in ethical debates
We use terms like right wrong good bad ought
et cetera That is not good that is not bad
That is your obligation that is your responsibility
and it is non virtuous You are not supposed
to do that So when we do engage in conversations
about ethics or in debates on ethical issues
we are using certain terms and metaethics
is trying to understand the meaning of these
terms what do they actually mean when you
say that it is right or wrong or good Do they
actually stand for something which is very
substantial
Do they actually when I say that a particular
action is good say for example war is bad
or racism is bad does it really refer to something
which is fundamentally true Does this statement
racism is bad does it have a true conduct
in it When I say that pens are used for writing
it is a statement it is a description about
pens which is a very materialistic description
Are they the same
What about the similarities the structural
similarities between these terms So these
are some of the issues which metaethics would
race Discussions about whether ethics is relative
that is a very interesting discussion which
is quite old in human history and in philosophical
history discussions about whether ethics is
relative and whether we always acts from self
interest are examples of metaethical descriptions
See I will take a very concrete example which
was a controversy in the recent past the Santhara
controversy Because it Santhara is a name
of the practice which exists among the Jains
where they decide to die So and what happens
is that a Jain after attaining a certain age
decides to give up his life That is part of
their integral part of their religious beliefs
It is not compulsory but many people do that
What the person does is that he or she would
refrain from having food slowly and then slowly
from again having water and finally dies slowly
goes off slowly signs off So this process
is Santhara which is actually spiritual And
some people feel that this can be equated
with committing suicide because in committing
suicide also that is not happening naturally
In Santhara also one can argue that that is
not happening naturally because one is refraining
oneself from eating and drinking and dying
ok
So similar kind of thing is happening in suicide
as well It is not a natural process in both
cases So this has been questioned in the court
of law where the person who argued against
it who questioned it challenged the practice
by saying that it is suicide So it has to
be banned and the lower court banned it
And it has raised a huge controversy all over
the country among the Jain community people
and they argued product and they said that
it is a right it is a religious right and
they said that it is not it cannot be equated
with suicide So it involves a very interesting
question whether it is suicide 
or 
not
On what occasions can we treat it as suicide
When a young chap does it and an old person
does it do they have the same meaning So all
such questions can be raised in this context
For our purpose this raises a very interesting
question because Santhara is a traditional
religious practice which has been happening
in our country in India for several centuries
now And suddenly a modern court comes and
bans it
Can we justify that So there is an apparent
contradiction between tradition beliefs and
modern convictions of law And how do we really
settle this controversy There is a controversy
How do we really settle it The argument goes
on from both sides and ethical reflection
needs to address very carefully with the intricacies
of the arguments made by both the parties
finally before taking a decision The legal
decision is something else That is law But
from the point of view of ethics we must arrive
at a better understanding by conceptually
analysing
Metaethics is a very peculiar approach to
ethics It does not deal with what ethically
one ought to do and hence is not normative
ethics So there is a very important distinction
In normative ethics we actually are engaged
in an ethical debate But here it is metaethics
It does not deal with what ethically what
ought to do but rather it it actually analyses
the talk about ethics the terms used The substantive
ethical questions are not addressed by metaethicist
but rather it is an attempt: this is what
the Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy says
Metaethics is the attempt to understand the
metaphysical epistemological semantic and
psychological presuppositions and commitments
of moral thought talk and practice See practice
for example Santhara is a practice So what
are the metaphysical epistemological semantic
and psychological presuppositions and commitments
behind it So behind all the judgements we
make when we say that a particular action
is right what are the presuppositions
It analyses the language concepts and methods
of reasoning in ethics which I already mentioned
And what are the meanings of the terms right
good responsibility obligation virtue justification
et cetera So terms are analysed Do they have
any substantive meaning Like for example energy
which is a scientific term or colour which
is again a scientific term which can be explained
temperature can be explained in terms of scientific
principles
So the meaning of such terms can be very clearly
delineated But this impossible to arrive at
such clarity in ethical discourse when someone
is saying that he is obligated to do What
is this meaning of the word obligation here
While the meaning of the term temperature
is quite clear the meaning of the word obligation
is weak We cannot without controversy establish
the correct quote unquote the correct meaning
of the word obligation or moral obligation
or good or right
Raises questions like whether morality is
objective or not rational or emotive There
are some people who argue that there is nothing
beyond emotive utterances Moral judgements
are nothing but emotive utterances You are
just expressing your emotions So that is what
So there are basically 2 types of metaethical
frameworks One is cognitivism the other one
is called noncognitivewism
The cognitivist studies the language of ethics
They say that statements this is what I mentioned
just now honesty is good business statement
which we make in ethics Honesty is good We
believe that many of us believe that honesty
is good It is a principle and let us take
another example Knives are sharp which is
a description about a certain object called
knife They have the same grammatical structure
Though their truth content are of different
nature because as I mentioned knives are sharp
is a certain description about an object called
knife or objects called knives But honesty
is good Can we say that honesty is good is
a description about the object or a kind of
a situation called honesty So this is a kind
of vagueness which is associated with the
sentence honesty is good though these 2 are
sentences which same grammatical structure
In cognitivism believes that they have something
similar beyond their apparent grammatical
structure That is not just they are sharing
common same grammatical structure but also
there are other ways in which they are similar
They both describe conditions of things conditions
of being sharp and conditions of being good
So in that way there are similarities
That is what cognitivism would argue They
can also be factually right or wrong Honestly
not always be good and knives need not always
be sharp So that is why there can be right
or wrong
And Metaethics the other approach in metaethics
more noncognitivism believes that as I already
mentioned there are no moral truths and hence
the language of morality does not refer to
anything beyond just emotions feelings et
cetera or preferences So these are 2 major
candidates either emotions or preferences
Moral judgements are not like physical descriptions
like knives are sharp They express the emotions
and preferences of an individual
Say for example Emotivism would say that moral
statements are emotions or preferences and
prescriptivism says that moral statements
are (stab) subtle commands When I say that
something is good it implies that I am making
a command that thing should happen expressing
what I wish to happen Okay So when I say that
helping others is good it is my preference
I command I want that people should help others
Non Expressivism says that moral statements
represent the feeling of the community So
these are some of the metaethical approaches
And when we come to applied ethics as I already
discussed this when we mentioned about applied
ethics in the beginning of this lecture it
addresses specific realms of human action
specific context Say for example medicine
the practice of medicine by physicians and
other healthcare professionals they are expected
to follow certain standards of behaviour certain
norms certain principles
For example the Doctors the physician should
respect the autonomy of the patient or benevolence
or non malfeasance no harm principle have
to be followed In engineering the primary
concern is safety
We have to ensure the safety at any cost in
engineering When a particular design is planned
for when something is being (constru) Dam
is constructed or a road or bridge is constructed
all these things have to be kept in mind So
these are specific realms specific spheres
of human action and there are many such specific
spheres of human action in modern life
There are advocates there are doctors there
are nurses so there are nursing ethics doctors
ethics then advocates ethics engineering ethics
and each engineering branch has its own very
peculiar ethical dilemmas Because one engineering
branch would raise very different ethical
dilemmas than the other So there are many
such things specific concerns specific human
spheres where ethical insights and principles
have to be applied in order to understand
the situation and also resolve some of the
dilemmas which we might encounter
Discuss the criteria to be employed for discussing
issues that might arise within those realms
And also these are some business ethics computer
ethics For example then Internet ethics privacy
for example is very important that confidentiality
is very important there You cannot defy you
cannot really think of not respecting privacy
of individuals when you use computers So many
such things have to be understood
And then the 4th one I am not discussing We
will now directly go to the next topic evolution
of ethical reasoning Before we really try
to understand the next topic we have to very
briefly discuss the evolution of ethical reasoning
We can see that it happened with the evolution
of human societies into complex social arrangements
We know that you know human societies have
evolved from very simple forms of a tribal
existence to complex societies social formations
If you take the example of India from the
small Janpadas to Mahajanpadas to Rashtras
to country to nation and finally to the kind
of nation which we have today as India which
involves a lot of diverse cultures in it into
its fold
So this complex social organisation has demanded
different ethical frameworks that what existed
in ancient India That was the real challenge
before our Constitution makers When were Constitution
was designed the architects of the Constitution
had the greater challenge to encounter They
had to negotiate between the existing traditional
value system which is largely rroted in religious
beliefs and conventions and also the evolving
modern assumptions about morality and ethics
rooted in the egalitarian democratic frameworks
largely evolved in the West
So on the one hand you have this tradition
and other hand you have the modern approaches
So these 2 things have to be negotiated and
this was a greater challenge they faced But
we succeeded to some extent and the discussion
still goes on Different emphasis on different
ages For example the way in which ancient
people treated morality was very different
from the medieval people dealt with morality
Say for example if you take the example of
(Greek) you are up the Greek people had developed
a very peculiar moral outlook because the
Greek civilisation existed the Greek people
had several city states each citystate being
autonomous from the other There are different
city states like Athens and Sparta had a very
different political environment So there are
different political environments existing
in different city states but at the same time
there was a kind of quality that existed in
these city states and particularly in Athens
where democracy existed
And this the moral outlook that evolved in
ancient Greek in ancient Athens was very different
from the kind of moral outlook that later
on was developed in medieval Europe by the
scholastic philosophers Then again by the
time of modernity and enlightenment things
have changed and the contemporary world has
a very different moral outlook So we can see
that the moral outlook is also evolving over
history
But at the same time what we have to keep
in mind is that though I have mentioned ancient
medieval modern and contemporary they are
not watertight compartments Our contemporary
modern other options owe a lot to our ancient
medieval assumptions as well And different
cultures again you have to keep in mind that
there are different cultures they exhibit
different patterns of evolution because the
way in which morality has evolved in the West
is very different from the way in which it
has evolved in India or China or other civilisations
in the world
Material factors and conditions played a crucial
role in this evolution because if we examine
India’s history we can very easily find
this Like with the evolution of emergence
of larger nation under the rule of Chandragupta
Maurya the modern India was formed and thereafter
the moral assumptions were also undergoing
significant changes and by the time of Asoka
things have changed a lot
Geographical conditions historical events
climatic patterns et cetera all have influenced
the evolution of ethical insights or ethical
frameworks in different cultures And customs
habits natures beliefs scientific temperament
natural and man made calamities all are factors
that have very crucial influences on the evolution
of ethical framework So with this we will
wind up this lecture and in the coming lectures
in this lecture series we will address some
other important ethical concerns For the time
being we will wind up Thank you
