Ethics: Nandan Sir

Lecture II
Ethics and Human Interface
Broad Topics: Essence/Dimensions/Consequences of Ethics/Ethics in Private & Public
Relationships/Human Values-Lessons from Thinkers from India & World.
Concrete Themes:
Dimensions of Ethics:
❖ Ethics & Law.
❖ Ethics & Morality.
❖ Normative Ethics & Meta-ethics
Why should one be ethical?
Consequences of Ethics:
I. Ethics creates a Life of Well-Being
II. Ethics caters to self-interests.
III. Ethics culminates into Life of Integrity.
I. Ethics creates a Life of Well-Being
❖ Ethics of Socrates: The unexamined life is not worth living.
❖ Ethics of Plato: The Ethics of Justice

Answer of 2016 Q.11 Case Study:

Suppose you are an officer in-charge of implementing a social service scheme to provide
support to old and destitute women. An old and illiterate woman comes to you to avail the
benefits of the scheme. However, she has no documents to show that she fulfills the eligibility
criteria. But after meeting her and listening to her you feel that she certainly needs support.
Your enquiries also show that she is really destitute and living in a pitiable condition. You are
in a dilemma as to what to do. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents
would clearly be violations of rules. But denying her the support would be cruel and inhuman.
(a) Can you think of a rational way to resolve this dilemma?
(b) Give your reasons for it.
Answer:
(a) I believe the rational way to resolve this dilemma would be to understand the spirit of the
law in the given context. Rule of Law is sacrosanct, a public servant has all the more
responsibility to uphold it. But, the spirit of law is integral to Rule of Law. A valid law must be
interpreted sincerely & critically. Letters of the law shall be interpreted impartially &
impersonally in accordance with the novelty of the context, without prior biases and prejudices.
The woman is illiterate, she would not know her rights. She would not be aware of the
prerequisite documents to avail the social service scheme. When the woman has the eligibility
as a matter of fact, then the officer has a constitutional duty to reach out to her and expedite the
preparation of documentations.
Moreover, if she is struggling with basic needs, like food & medicines, then she shall be given
immediate help, document can be prepared through proper channel. But the life once gone can
never come back. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents, in the given case,
should not be seen as a violation of rules. When her existing social-economic conditions have
already ascertained her eligibility then it should not be seen as a violation of rules.
As a representative of a welfare state, the officer has to make the system efficient and
Page | 1
transparent to establish ethical governance sans red-tapism and apathy.
Gandhi's talisman can help us resolve this dilemma as well. Putting her under the scheme, can
help us minimize her suffering to some extent. When woman like her can have access to basic
primary goods, we can have antyodaya, upliftment of marginalized & oppressed sections.
Welfare of this woman is a prerequisite to ensure welfare of we the people and to make India a
true Republic.
(b)
1. Just because a person has the documents that does not mean one is eligible, unless the
documents are verified by inspecting the ground realities. Likewise, one does not become
ineligible in the absence of the documents, despite being old & destitute. An officer must
establish the eligibility holistically with precision, rather than mechanically and superficially.
2. An officer should have sensitivity and compassion to disseminate service to humanity in true
sense of the term. Compliance of law necessitates best and just interpretation of the law, in the
specific context with right motive.
3. As a public servant, the officer has the constitutional obligation to uphold the Right to Life of
the woman and to treat her as an end rather than treat her merely as a means.

Questions From Previous Mains Exam:

2014: Q4 (a): Which eminent personality has inspired you the most in the context of ethical
conduct in life? Give the gist of his/her teachings. Giving specific examples, describe how
you have been able to apply these teachings for your own ethical development. (150 words).
2015: Q1(b): Differentiate between:
1. Law & Ethics. (50 Words)
2015: Q2: Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
(a) “The weak can never forgive, forgiveness is the attribute of the strong”. (150 words)
(b) “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy of life is when
men are afraid of the light”. (150 Words)
2016: Q5: Law and ethics are considered to be the two tools for controlling human conduct
so as to make it conducive to civilized social existence.
(a) Discuss how they achieve this objective.
(b) Giving examples, show how the two differ in their approaches (150 Words).
2017: Q7 (a): The crisis of ethical values in modern times is traced to a narrow perception of
the good life. Discuss. (150 Words)
2018: Q12 Case Study: Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA systems
administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence
of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US
Government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of
State secrets as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued
that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by
stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that
which is done against them.”
According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless
of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved
here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised

Page | 2
national security, for which he should be held accountable.
Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why
or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case. (250 words).
2019: Q 6: Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
(a) “An unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates (150 words).
2020: Q 4(a): Distinguish between laws and rules. Discuss the role of ethics in formulating
them. (150 words)

Representative Questions for Practice:

(Answers will also be provided)
Q.1. What do you understand by ‘Ethics’ and ‘Morality’? What kind of a relation holds
between the two? Explain your position with suitable illustrations and due justifications. (150
words)
Q. 2. What is Meta-ethics? How is it different from Normative Ethics? Discuss.
Q. 3. Bring out what it means to you in the present context:
(a) “Corruption anywhere is a threat to transparency everywhere”. (150 words)
(b) “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger”. (150
words)
(c) “When a poor person dies of hunger it has not happened because God did not take care of
him or her. It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he or
she needed”. (150 words)
Q. 4. Case Study: Narayanan is a Doctor and he is working in a District Government
Hospital. One day a fourteen-year-old tribal girl comes to him and complains that she has
severe stomach ache. After the examination he discovers that the girl has a pregnancy of over
four months. The moment Doctor informs the girl about her pregnancy, she starts to cry
hysterically and then asks the Doctor for the abortion. Narayanan expresses his inability to
terminate pregnancy citing legal provisions and suggests that since she is a minor so she shall
come with her parents. The girl says that her mother is no more and if her father gets to know
about this then he will kill her remorselessly for bringing disgrace on the family. She also
says that if she registers a case of rape then she will never be able to get married because of
the social stigma attached to victims. She pleads Narayanan to help her clandestinely, she
says she is too poor to go to private clinics where they may not ask for any legal formalities.
Noticing that Narayanan is unrelenting, she says if he would not take her out of this
quagmire then she will be left with no option but to commit suicide.
(a) What would be your advice to Narayanan? Explain with due justification.
(b) “Abortion can be legal but it can never be moral, since it is nothing but killing a life in
disguise”. Discuss. (250 words)
Answers of Representative Questions (Lecture I)
Q1: What is an Ideal? What, according to you, shall be the highest Ideal of human life?
Explain your position with due justification.
Ans: An Ideal shall be understood as a norm, standard or value. Ideal can be the highest

Page | 3
objective or end of the life. Life, in true sense of the term, cannot be envisaged without
ideals. Ideal beckons us, it imparts meaning, substance and direction to human life. It can
inspire individual, society and state to replace existing state of affairs with a better scheme,
that ought to be realized. Ideals can be conceptualized through a critical normative discourse.
For instance, through deliberations, in the collective wisdom we have envisaged
Constitutional ideals and we have solemnly resolved to uphold them. Thus, as Indians it is
imperative for us to act in accordance with the Constitutional ideals. We strive to constitute
India as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic Republic where Justice, Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity would prevail.
I believe ‘Service to Humanity’ can be the highest ideal of human life, whereby the
autonomy of individuals, their right to life and right to self-determination will be honoured.
We ought to treat humanity as an end and not merely as a means, and should expand the
same to natural resources as well. Such an ideal would assimilate and integrate
Constitutional ideals, classical ideals-Truth (Satyam), Good (Shivam) and Beauty
(Sundaram) as well as purusharthas- dharma, artha, kama and moksha, in a profound way.
Q2: Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
“Truth is one, but it can manifest itself variously in different times and situations”
Ans: The given dictum suggests a very profound view about the ideals, ends and values of
life. It allows us to integrate and reconcile subjective, relativistic, skeptical and objective
notions of values. That is, ‘Being’ and ‘Becoming’ can be uniquely synthesized. Such a
perspective could inculcate humility, sincerity and tolerance in the agent, whereby one could
dispel dogmatism and feel inspired to investigate further. At the same time, in a multi-
religious society, this can promote religious tolerance and undermine fanaticism and
radicalization.
For instance, ‘Justice’ has been explained and understood variously by different thinkers and
traditions in different times and situations, and in the process ‘Justice’ has evolved further.
There was a time when Sati, Untouchability, Slavery and Apartheid were Just, but today they
are removed from the conception of Justice. Now, within Justice we have socio-economic-
political dimensions, feministic perspective, child rights, animal rights as well as multi-
cultural perspective.
Again, the truth enshrined in Indian Constitution has been understood variously and in the
process it has gone through amendments, yet there is something like ‘Basic structure’ which
is cardinal and immune from revision. However, there can be no absolute and final
exposition of the basic structure and it would continue to have different meanings and
significance.
Thus, we know disagreements and different points of view are not something to look down
upon, rather they provide the impetus to rise to the next level of life.
Q3: What is meant by ‘professional ethics’? How professional values are similar to, or
different from, ethical values? Discuss.
Ans: Professional Ethics implies a set of guidelines and norms to uphold the highest
standards of personal integrity and probity in professional life. It aims to inculcate a sense of
responsibility and accountability in professionals. It strives to create a work culture where
one shall be motivated to render service without fear or favour, without any expectation of

Page | 4
extraneous rewards, without departing from the path of rectitude, without lowering the
dignity of public service and without conflicts of interest. Its objective is to ensure
impartiality and incorruptibility of administration.
I believe ethical values are the most fundamental and cardinal values of human life, and they
shall beckon values of every other spheres of life, including professional. That is, ethical
values shall be understood at the apex and values of every other spheres of human life shall
promote them in their respective ways. Thus, professional values shall be regarded as a
derivative of ethical values, they can be understood as the means to realize the highest end-
ethical values.
Q4: ‘’ Ethics of Ahimsa and Forgiveness has lost its relevance in the times of Global
Terrorism and Crimes against humanity; stringent punishment, including Capital
Punishment, is the only solution’’. Critically analyse this statement.
Ans: I believe if there is one panacea which could cure world and humanity of all ills and
depravity then it is the ethics of ahimsa and forgiveness. I completely subscribe to the adage
‘violence begets violence’. Indeed, we touch new lows on a regular basis in perpetrating
cruelty and barbarism on humanity. Terrorism, genocide, riots, brutality against child and
women and sexual perversions have become regular features of our lives and despite all
measures, including stringent punishments and capital punishment, such incidents have been
going on unabated. Thus, we need to introspect as an individual, institution, nation and
global citizen to ascertain the root cause of this deviation. It seems we have inculcated a
wrong world-view and a misplaced notion of being human, and until we make amend at the
fundamental level, we will not succeed in creating a humane world-order.
Exclusive legal measures cannot help us bring about durable peace. Stringent punishments
and capital punishment can check such incidents but they cannot take us beyond a point.
Although such punishments do have deterrent impact, however, I believe deterrence comes
from certainty of punishment and not merely from stringent provisions. We shall strengthen
judiciary as an institution for effective delivery of justice by enforcing the rule of law. The
objective of punishment shall be to reform and to rehabilitate, it shall not be retribution. As
Gandhi says, ‘’an eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind’’, we shall ‘’hate the sin,
not the sinners’’.
Thus, the teachings of ahimsa and forgiveness are universal and eternal, they can never
become obsolete and irrelevant, onus is on us to refer back to them and to understand the
corollaries of these classical ideals. Thereby, create a world-view which would assimilate
aspirations of all and sundry, where we ascend from a myopic point to universal vantage
point, where there will be space for all divergent view-points, without any animosity we
would agree to disagree and learn to live in cohesion by retaining our respective
individuality. As Swami Vivekananda had stated at the World Congress of Religions, we
must accept all religions as true, we must learn tolerance and universal acceptance. As
Dayanand Saraswati says ‘’go back to vedas’’, I believe it is high time that we go back to our
classical inheritance of knowledge and civilization, and strive to revive the jewels of wisdom
and introduce radical reforms in education, parenting, legislation, governance, developmental
model and climate change in true spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
Q5: Discuss the moral significance of Thoreau’s statement “That government is best
which governs not at all” in the Indian context.
Page | 5
Ans: The statement of Thoreau can have immense moral significance in Indian context, it
can inspire us to ponder over the meaning and objective of government and can guide us
script a true Republic. He seems to imply that it is not the government that is an end, but it is
the people who are an end. Government shall function as a sevak to people, who are the real
sovereign, the real masters of their own lives. People shall be allowed to have aspirations as
an autonomous being. The government should act as a facilitator to ensure that they have
access to avenues and infrastructural prerequisites, whereby they can paint their dreams with
the colour of reality. Government shall not govern, in the sense that government should not
impose its own agenda and interests on the people. A true government shall embody and
exemplify the will of ‘we the people’, and not merely cater to the majoritarianism.
Government shall enact laws for the sake of people, and not legislate to undermine their
individuality and self-respect. Individuals should have a right to self-determination, rather
than being controlled or governed autocratically by the government. The government shall
uphold its mandate by serving the cause of people, it shall annihilate slavery, poverty, hunger
and deprivations of all sorts. Government shall ensure that even the most marginalized and
the destitute have access to the highest offices of the country, and one’s destiny and worth
are not determined by one’s birth.
Moreover, as an empowered individual, one shall have the right to elect a government as
well as to dethrone it democratically.
Q6: What do you understand by ‘Post-Truth’? Do you believe that ‘Post-Truth’ can be
regarded as a moral value? Why or why not? Explain your position with illustrations.
Ans: By ‘Post-truth’, I understand a fabricated truth, where objective facts are
misrepresented, distorted or selectively reported for the realization of vested interests. A
post-truth may have an emotional appeal, it may reinforce stereotypes and popular beliefs,
and it can be used as a propaganda tool. Post-truth is far removed from reason and logic, it
thrives on myths and populist sentiments. Thus, I believe post-truth cannot be regarded as a
moral value.
Although post-truth can be found in every sphere of human life-personal, professional,
social, economic, political and religious- and can vitiate the moral fabric of all these spheres.
However, it can impact the political realm most adversely and irreparably. The essence of
politics is democratic dialogue and rational scrutiny, and in this regard the role of Media is
pivotal. But post-truth makes politics immune from critical discourse, it subverts the integrity
of Media and misuses it to construct and propagate a pseudo-narrative to secure electoral
success. Hence, post-truth is an anathema to democratic values and moral principles.
I draw inspiration from Gandhi, who believes that politics without principle is one of the
seven social sins. Thus, it is imperative on our part to be vigilant against post-truths and to
uphold the moral sanctity of political institutions. As a Satyagrahi, one shall strive to pursue
truth relentlessly rather than take things for granted. Like Mill, I believe it is better to be a
critical person like Socrates and to remain dissatisfied in the quest for real truth than be an
uncritical fool who would easily be swayed by a post-truth. As the Vedic verse claims, truth
is one, but it can manifest itself variously, I believe we need to remain committed towards
our resolve to interpret, reinterpret or rediscover truth in an incessant manner by overcoming
vested self-interest. We must strive to pay heed to the voice of collective conscience to
subvert post-truth.
Page | 6
Q7: “What is moral is legal and what is legal is moral”. What is your position in this
regard? Justify your answer with illustrations.
Ans: I think ‘What is moral is legal and what is legal is moral’ is partly true. Morality is
closely related to law, laws are primarily formulated to promote well-being, social harmony,
and to resolve conflicts of interest, just as morality does. I believe formulation of law shall be
embedded in a critical moral deliberation whereby ‘just law’ will be formulated and thereby
the ideal of ‘justice according to law and law according to justice’ can be promoted.
Moral deliberations result into insights that we strive to approximate by formulating laws.
For instance, the moral discourse initiated by Raja Rammohan Roy emphasizing the
immorality of Sati could result into a law prohibiting it. Similarly, the moral debate initiated
by Ambedkar could help us enact law against untouchability. In fact, I think it would not be
wrong to say that the deliberations of Constituent Assembly were essentially moral, whereby
the spirit of the Constitution of India could be envisioned.
Moral enquiry can also enable us to evaluate some laws as immoral without denying that
they are valid laws. Law differs from morality in the sense that physical sanctions enforce
the law, but essentially it is the sanctions of conscience and reputation that enforce morality.
Q8: Examine the ethical and legal tenability of the following :
(i) Euthanasia
(ii) Suicide
(iii) Capital Punishment
(iv) Martyrdom
Ans: Although, on the face of it, euthanasia, suicide, capital punishment and martyrdom, all
of them result into the loss of life, but their respective contexts can help us delineate their
ethical and legal tenability.
(i) Euthanasia, in principle, can be argued to have ethical tenability, though few years ago, it
was believed to have no legal tenability in our country. Euthanasia is the practice of
intentionally ending the life of someone who is suffering from an incurable illness or is in
irreversible coma.
I believe what imparts ethical tenability to euthanasia is the intention, it is the love,
compassion and respect for a dignified life that may prompt one to seek euthanasia. A person
should be allowed to die with dignity rather than be forced to suffer inhuman conditions.
‘Right to Dignified Death’ can be understood as a corollary of ‘Right to Life’. It may take us
a while to delineate the legal tenability of euthanasia to ensure that such provisions are not
misused for vested interests.
(ii) Suicide can neither have ethical nor legal tenability. As an act, suicide can be irrational, it
can be a manifestation of depression, weak mental health and ignorance about the nature of
life. While contemplating suicide, a person could be completely pessimistic. One might
believe that there could be no solution of one’s problems and sufferings. But with proper
counselling and guidance, one may develop mental strength to endure and overcome
vicissitudes of life. In euthanasia, the terminally ill patient has the specific information that
the future is indeed short and there is no other way to come out of unbearable pain. Unlike
suicide, euthanasia is a deliberative act and it is in sync with individual’s autonomy. Suicide
aggravates human sufferings, it undermines humanity. Suicide manifests violence, it could
Page | 7
be rooted in hatred and anger, towards oneself as well as others. There can be an element of
vengeance, as well. On the contrary, euthanasia is sought for the sake of humanity.
Euthanasia manifests respect for the life, it does not have elements of anger or hatred, it is an
expression of compassion. Thus, a genuine case of euthanasia can be an act of ahimsa rather
than violence, since intent is to lessen or end human pain rather than aggravate the misery
and pain.
(iii) I am more inclined to believe that Capital punishment may have legal tenability in a
transitional phase of human progression, which is characterized by terrorism and extreme
depravity. But, in principle, death sentence may not have ethical tenability. Taking cue from
deterrent theory, I believe deterrence would come from certainty of punishment and not
merely from stringent provisions. We ought to strengthen our institutions and the
mechanisms of judiciary to ensure strict enforcement of law with zero tolerance. There can
be many other forms of punishment, like lifelong imprisonment with other stringent
impositions, to deter people from committing serious and capital crimes. I believe Gandhi’s
words shall inspire us to understand that the objective of punishment shall not be retribution,
as he says, “an eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind”. State should create
opportunities, whereby people would get educated in true sense of the term. People ought to
discover their true being and intrinsic goodness. We shall ‘hate the sin, not the sinners’.
Thus, in accordance with ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, propounded by the Supreme Court, capital
punishment should be administered sparingly in the cases of extreme depravities. Through
value based education, we shall strive to cultivate ethical outlook and scientific temper in
people at all the levels. People and the institutions should treat humanity never simply as
means, but always as an end. A life of introspection and samvaad would pave the path
towards complete ethical & legal untenability of crimes against humanity as well as capital
punishment.
(iv) Martyrdom can be an extreme form of brave act that transcends the purview of ethical
and legal tenability. It can be a supererogatory act that goes ‘beyond the call of duty’, which
is highly inspirational and praiseworthy. Socrates can be a classical illustration who opted for
a death of dignity rather than a life of contempt. Similarly, our martyred soldiers have shown
the unparalleled grit and commitment to the Sovereignty of ‘We the People’. Such martyrs
become immortal, since their character, courage and commitment inspire people to opt for a
life of authentic existence.
Q 9 Case Study: A poor man has an ailing wife, he has spent all his savings and money
on her medical treatment. One evening, she is struggling with her life but the man has
no money to buy the life-saving drugs.
(i) Do you think he should steal the drug in order to save the life of his wife?
(ii) Bring out and discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
Ans: In such an unfortunate case if the man is coerced to ‘steal’ life saving drugs then I
believe it can be illegal but it may not be unethical in true sense of the term.
Stealing can be understood as an act at the level of thought, word and deed, whereby one
tries to take hold of something that does not belong to one. In such an act the principal
motive can be greed, envy or arrogance, where one tries to treat others as a means to one’s
vested interests. Moreover, such an act can be primarily voluntary, that is out of choice.

Page | 8
But in the given case, one’s act at the level of thought is not motivated by any ignoble intent
but with love and respect for human life. In fact, the way Gandhi ji has explained stealing,
which is an act of himsa, the act of this case cannot be characterized as stealing, since it
seems to be an act of ahimsa. The intent is to save a life. Love or compassion is the primary
motive. The overridingness of saving a life cannot be undermined.
However, if the man ‘steals’ the drug then he must hold oneself legally responsible and shall
either pay back the medical storekeeper in cash or kind or shall submit oneself to law
enforcement agency.
(ii) The ethical issues are as follows: Most importantly, it is an issue of Right to Life,
Injustice, Inequality and subordination. It is indeed our collective failure that we have not
been able to ensure quality medical care and employment across sections of society. In case
we punish the man for stealing the drug as it can be seen as a legal offence then ethically, we
may feel like punishing him twice, since to begin with he is a victim first. He is a victim of
social-economic-political injustices. India cannot become a Republic unless the ‘Basic
Primary Goods’ are distributed with equity and fairness. Antyodaya is a prerequisite for
India to become a welfare State.
Q 10: Case Study: Ms. Suroopa, who is heading a district jail, receives an anonymous
written complaint against a security guard, named Rameshwar. The letter accuses him
of mis-conduct and breach of discipline, it alleges that Rameshwar provides prohibited
items, including cell phones, to inmates inside the jail premises. After some preliminary
examination, it appears to Ms. Suroopa that there can be some truth in the accusations,
and prima facie Rameshwar cannot be given a clean chit. In the wake of this, Ms.
Suroopa decides to constitute an Enquiry Committee to probe in to the matter.
However, even before she could officially constitute the Enquiry Committee, one
morning, the wife of Rameshwar, who is working as a domestic help to Ms. Suroopa,
comes to Ms. Suroopa, falls into her feet and starts to wail miserably. She pleads that
Rameshwar is a victim of misfortune and poverty. She says that Rameshwar’s father is
a cancer patient and, thus, he resorts to earn money through this route to afford quality
medical care available in the city’s best private hospital. She points out that the
Government Hospital is in complete shambles with no medical care available. She also
produces the record of bill, running into several lakhs, that have been paid to the
hospital over medical expenses. She explains that their small earnings, in the form of
their respective salaries, are too meager to meet the basic domestic needs, and in
addition to that there are academic expenses of two children, who are studying in the
reputed Public school of the city. She, further, points out that government school is not
imparting quality education, and that it only serves Mid-day meal. She reiterates that
wrongdoings of Rameshwar has not been out of choice but necessity, he resorted to it
not for the sake of luxuries but to meet the basic needs of life.
Moreover, she assures that all such incidents are the acts of past, when they were in the
dire need of the money. Now, he is no longer into any kind of malpractices, since his
father has recovered and the medical expenses are manageable. Finally, she says that
she has been serving Ms. Suroopa very devotedly for past many years, and she has
treated Ms. Suroopa as her daughter. Thus, she begs Ms. Suroopa not to proceed with
the official enquiry and to forgive Rameshwar for all his wrongdoings, she promises
Page | 9
that, henceforth, Rameshwar will never involve himself in any unlawful act.
What are the options, you believe, Ms. Suroopa has in the given situation? Evaluate
each of the options available and suggest the most appropriate one that you believe is
the most just.
Ans: I believe Ms. Suroopa does not have much options in the given situation to choose
from. As a civil servant, she has only one moral obligation- to uphold the rule of law. Sardar
Patel has said that civil servants should render service without fear or favour and without any
expectation of extraneous rewards. They should maintain to the utmost the impartiality and
incorruptibility of administration. Any act of deviation from the path of rectitude would
debase public service and lower its dignity. I believe that civil service is a professional
service and it forms the backbone of government structure. Thus, it must remain neutral and
professionally competent. It must maintain the highest standards of personal integrity and
probity.
Ms. Suroopa should do her duty on the lines of Kant’s Categorical imperative, that is,
without getting affected by any emotion of sympathy, she should regard her duty as a
universal law of nature and must uphold it unconditionally without any discretion and
exception. She could draw inspiration from Plato’s conception of a Philosopher-King, who
would never involve oneself into any act of nepotism and would always uphold the rule of
law in letter and spirit. She must act as a competent Sarathi, and follow the path of justice
and thereby discipline the deviant ones, like Rameshwar.
It is indeed ironic that despite seven decades of self-rule(swaraj) we have not been able to
provide quality medical care and quality education across the sections of society. However, it
does not mean that Rameshwar’s misconduct can be condoned in the wake of this collective
failure. As Gandhi says, ‘’a good end can never justify a wrong means’’. Thus, we must
believe that means and end form a continuum. One must not resort to a wrong means, no
matter what is the provocation. Hence, Rameshwar cannot defy the responsibility, one can
never escape the law of karma, ‘as you sow, so shall you reap’.
As an individual, one may occupy various stations of life and may remain bestowed with
corresponding duties. However, as a moral aspirant, one must discern in a given situation a
moral duty that has overriding character, which can be universalized, which is prescriptive
and which can cater to the welfare of people in general. In the case of Ms. Suroopa, such an
action is only one, that is, she must follow the legal procedures and constitute an Enquiry
Committee in accordance with the established procedures. She must ensure equality before
law and equal protection of law.
Q 11: Case Study: Consider that you are a District Magistrate. One day a group of
people come to you with a representation seeking a ban on a book. They argue that the
book in question portrays their group in a derogatory manner and that their sentiments
have been hurt immensely. They assert that if the book is not banned with immediate
effect, then they would launch violent protest movements and force the author to
withdraw all his work.
(a) What are the options available to you?
(b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving
reasons.

Page | 10
(c) Examine the ethical tenability of freedom of speech.
Ans: (a) I believe it is important for every individual to respect the sentiments of fellow
human beings at the level of thought, word and deed. However, it shall not restrain an
individual from undertaking an academic enquiry to examine the ethical tenability of a socio-
cultural norm, institution or convention. As long as one is able to analyse a particular aspect
of life with credible justification without resorting to uncritical assumptions and frivolous
presuppositions, one’s autonomy must be respected and no one shall be allowed to infringe
upon one’s fundamental right- freedom of speech.
In the given case, the protesters do have a right to express their grievance and register their
objections but within the framework of law and democratic traditions. A committee of
competent people can be constituted to look into the matter as well. A legal case can also be
filed. But to give a veiled threat, going on a rampage, resorting to violent protests, taking
civic life to ransom or any attempt to take law into their own hands can never be regarded as
a tenable options-legally or morally.
Thus, as a civil servant, I have only one option, to act within the ambit of the Constitution
and the law of the land.
(b)The community group cannot threaten the author’s freedom of speech and cannot appoint
themselves as community guardians nor can they dictate how their group can be portrayed.
For instance, in a similar case, the Madras high court defended a book of Tamil author
Perumal Murugan. His Tamil novel Madhorubagan caught the attention of some caste-based
groups, the author was hounded since ‘sentiments’ were offended. The judgment asserts that
the State ought not to ban the work of art, in doing so, the State legitimises violence and falls
in its first duty: to assure the security of its citizens. The judgment says “art is often
provocative and is not meant for everyone”. Also, “If you do not like a book, simply close it.
The answer is not its ban.” Similarly, on one occasion former prime minister Shri Vajpayee
jee has stated that the best response to a book is to write another book. Thus, I believe the
democratic rights of author is paramount and the State shall infuse a sense of security in
citizens so that they can pursue their respective creative works with a sense of dignity and
self-respect.
(c)I believe the freedom of speech is one of the most cardinal right, such a right be regarded
as the most pivotal one, in the absence of which life would cease to remain a life. As
Socrates says, “The unexamined life is not worth living”. Rabindranath Tagore seems to
assert freedom of speech through his verse in the Gitanjali, “Where the mind is without fear
and the head is held high; where knowledge is free”. Thus, freedom of speech must be
regarded as an inviolable right, it can be the panacea for every ill that is ailing human life at
the level of individual, family, State and Globe.
Q 12: Case Study: Raghav is a research scholar. He has been working under the
supervision of an eminent professor for close to two years. On one occasion Raghav
visits the professor at his residence in order to collect some rare books and literature.
In the process he discovers that the professor lives with another man and that the two
men are homosexuals. They are in no way different from a lot of other nice people he
knows. He notices that both of them are witty, intelligent, compassionate and
considerate. On returning home, he casually shares this piece of information with his
parents. They are stunned to know all this, they advise him to change his supervisor
Page | 11
immediately and not to keep any contact with him. They express concerns and
amazement that a characterless man like him could get appointed in a university, which
is the apostle of learning. Raghav contests their position and asserts that the professor
is academically so erudite. However, his parents remain unrelenting and ask him to
either deregister himself with immediate effect or reregister with any other professor of
good character, even if one is academically less competent than this professor.
(a) Consider that Raghav comes to you for the advice, what advice will you offer to
him?
(b)Do you think homosexuality is legally and morally wrong? Explain your position
with due justification.
Ans: (a) I would advise Raghav to think like an educated person. As an educated person one
must participate in critical discourse with regard to every aspect of life and thereby
accomplish highest standards in both academic and personal lives.
Education is not merely a vocational training to secure employment, though employability is
a very significant objective of education in a developing country like ours with high rate of
poverty and unemployment. Education shall, primarily, impart self-reliance and originality, it
shall enable one to be oneself and to act like an autonomous and progressive agent, who may
not have eternal allegiance to any doctrine or position and one is always motivated to
undertake an enquiry in a presuppositionless manner. Thus, education can endow us with the
strength to be a non-conformist as well.
Hence, if Raghav is convinced about the academic credentials of his Supervisor, and it is
only his sexuality which is an issue for his parents then, I believe, Raghav should continue to
work under him, the way he has been working for last two years. He should not leave his
Supervisor because of the social stigma attached to homosexuality.
(b)Do you think homosexuality is legally and morally wrong? Explain your position
with due justification.
Ans: I believe homosexuality cannot be evaluated as morally wrong, although earlier it was
legally wrong in our own country, under the section 377 of IPC. Homosexuality is regarded
as immoral or illegal, primarily, on the ground that it is unnatural. However, there is no
conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. Moreover, something shall
not become moral or legal because it is natural, for instance, inequality can be natural but
that does not mean inequality is moral or legal.
‘Right to life’ can be regarded as the most fundamental right, and I believe one of the
corollaries of it can be the ‘right not to be discriminated’ on the basis of sexual inclination or
preference. Again, another corollary of right to life can be the right to adult and consensual
sex. Rightness or wrongness shall not be determined on the basis of the sex of the partners
but on the nature of their interaction. A consensual sex, whether between same sex or
different, can be moral and any coercive sex, without consent, can be immoral, whether
between same sex or different. Similarly, all sexual relation with children can be immoral.
Some of the most barbaric sexual offences, like Nirbhaya, have been perpetrated by
heterosexual people. On the contrary, many eminent people have accepted their homosexual
nature openly and all of them are distinguished in their respective fields. Further, being in
love can be a natural emotion and sex can be one of the expressions of love. If heterosexuals

Page | 12
can express their love in this way, then why should homosexuals be not allowed to express
their love through the mode of sex as well.
Thus, there may not be any justification to evaluate homosexuality as immoral or unjust. I
believe legal law is a concrete approximation of moral values. Formulation of legal law shall
be embedded in moral deliberations and thereby the ideal of ‘justice according to law and
law according to justice’ can be realized.

Ethics & Legal Law

❖ ‘Law’ is essentially a Norm, Value, Ideal or Dharma.
❖ Law has imperativeness, it has inviolability.
❖ Law can be social, cultural, religious, legal, natural as well as ethical.
❖ Ethical laws can be created through ethical enquiry, by an autonomous ethical agent.
❖ Legal laws are formulated through formal political institutions.
❖ The Constitution of India is essentially the reservoir of ethical values, and it is the
fountainhead of all legal laws.
❖ The basic structure of the constitution is the spirit/soul of the Constitution of India. It is
unwritten and, like the spirit, it pervades the entire written text.
❖ The basic structure of the Constitution is, primarily, an ethical conception of India, it is
the essence of India. It is embedded in the collective conscience of We The People.
❖ Legal law ought to be an embodiment of ethical law. The legal law is the body and
ethical law is the soul/spirit. Legal law is the means and ethical law/life is the end.
Hence, legal law must be upheld in letter & spirit.
❖ The ideal of legal justice ought to be: Justice according to law & law according to
justice.
❖ ‘Justice according to law’ implies ‘Rule of law’. The law must prevail unconditionally.
‘Equality before the law & equal protection of law’ is central to Rule of law.
❖ ‘Law according to justice’ implies that the law must be ethically just. Law should not be
the whims & fancies of a despot. Law should not be based on the popular sentiments of
majority.
❖ As ‘We The People’, we aspire to create ethically just law through constitutional
democracy.
❖ As ‘We The People’, we strive to participate in a collective deliberation as impersonal
selves, on the lines of Rousseau’s General Will.
❖ A legal law, which is in contravention of the basic structure of the Constitution of India,
cannot be regarded as a just law, since it is ethically unjust.
Points of Difference:
❖ Ethics is upheld out of choice/voluntarily, through internal sanction of conscience &
self-reputation. It springs from within. An action has no ethical value, if it is
performed out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. Legal law, on the other
hand, is, primarily, implemented through external sanctions, through coercions,
through positive & negative incentives.
❖ Ethical laws are universal & eternal, on the lines of Natural laws. Natural & Human
Rights, like Right to Life, are essentially ethical. They transcend the boundaries of
space and time. They can take precedence over legal rights/laws. Hobbes, Locke &
Rousseau maintain that Natural Rights are prior to the origin of the state. One can
possess ethical rights by virtue of being a human, a natural being. Accordingly,
animals can also claim animal rights.
Legal laws are relative. They are confined within the boundaries of a State. They
have spatio-temporal limitations.
❖ Legally speaking, practices like child-marriage, sati, untouchability & slavery were
Page | 13
 not illegal, in a way legal, until legal laws against them were not formulated.
However, all these practices are eternally & universally unethical.
❖ Ethically perfect life, like Gandhi’s Sarvodaya Samaj & Marx’s Communist Society,
would not require legal laws. Legal laws are required in an unethical life. Legal laws
become more stringent, with the degradation of ethical values. State can be coerced
to formulate unjust legal laws, like death sentence & AFSPA, in the wake of
complete subversion of ethical principles. However, deterrence of law does not
come from stringent punishment, but from certainty of punishment.
Most importantly, legal measures can check the incidence but it cannot restore
ethical order. The credible solution lies in ethical interventions.
❖ Homosexuality can be ethical, since it can be a corollary of ‘Right to Sex’, which is
implied by ‘Right to Life’. But it is illegal in many countries, even we have accepted
its legal tenability recently.
❖ Suicide can be unethical, since it subverts ‘Right to Life’. But, for the right reasons,
it is not illegal in many countries, including India.
❖ Begging can be unethical, since it is an expression of social, economic & political
injustices. But, for the right reasons, it is no longer illegal in our country.
❖ Euthanasia, in all its form, can be ethical, since it is rooted in compassion &
empathy. Right to dignified death can be a corollary of Right to Life.
But we have given legal sanction only to voluntary-passive euthanasia, all other
forms are still illegal.
❖ Marital rape can be unethical, since it violates ‘Right to Consensual Sex’, it violates
‘Right to Life’. But it is not illegal in our country.
❖ It can be ethical to know the sex of a foetus. But we were coerced to make it illegal
to undermine unethical practice of female-foeticide.
❖ Abortion can be ethical, and it is legal in our country. However, some abortions are
sex-selective, they are female-foeticide & therefore, they are unethical & illegal.

Ethics & Morality

‘Ethics’ and ‘Morality’ are closely inter-related. The relation between the two is relative and
contextual. In some contexts, they can be one and the same, in other contexts they can be
different.
In a normative context, where we ask the principal question - ‘What ought I to do?’, ‘Ethics’
and ‘Morality’ can be used as interchangeable terms. An ethical issue can be a moral issue, and
vice versa. Again, ‘Ethics’ is derived from the Greek word ethos and ‘Morality’ from the Latin
word mores, and both these words mean ‘custom’, ‘habit’. However, despite their etymological
origin, it would be wrong to equate ‘Customary’ with the ‘Ethics’ or ‘Morality’. We can clearly
distinguish between ‘Customary Morality’ and ‘Reflective Morality’.

Moreover, in academic contexts, some scholars distinguish between ‘Ethics’ & ‘Morality’.
Some important points of difference:

1. Some scholars distinguish between ‘Ethics’ and ‘Morality’ with reference to theory and
practice. They maintain that the interest of an ethicist is theoretical while that of a moralist is
practical. Accordingly, ‘Ethics’ is also called ‘Moral Philosophy’ or ‘Science of Morals’, since
it tries to examine moral concepts such as ‘right’, ‘good’, ‘virtue’ and so on.

2. According to others, Morality is a subset of Ethics. Ethical deliberations help us

conceptualise the highest ideals of life, whereas Morality is concerned with specific principles
of action. In other words, Ethics is concerned with an ideal or good life, while Morality with
right conduct.
Page | 14
3. Some scholars are of the view that Ethics is secular while Morality is related to a religion.

4. Some thinkers make the distinction by claiming that something can be unethical yet moral.
For example, it can be said that Robin Hood’s act of stealing to feed the poor was unethical but
still moral.

5. According to some, ‘Ethics’ comes from the Greek ethos meaning ‘character’, whereas
‘morals’ derives from the Latin mores which means ‘custom’ and ‘etiquette’. Thus, Morality is
about right actions, obligations and duties. Ethics, on the other hand, is about one’s character,
the kind of person one is.

6. Few others opine that ‘Morality’ refers to culture, the prevalent value system of society,
while ‘Ethics’ refers to individual’s own value system.

Normative Ethics & Meta-ethics

The distinction between Normative Ethics and Meta-ethics was not there prior to 20th century.
Normative Ethics is the first order enquiry, it primarily enquires into the question ‘What ought I
to do?’. In contrast, Meta-ethics is the second order enquiry, it examines moral concepts,
judgments, methods and arguments.

The central questions of Meta-ethics are as follows:

1. Semantic questions: What is the meaning of moral terms, such as ‘good’, ‘ought’, and
‘right’?
2. Logical questions: How to ascertain validity of moral arguments?
3. Ontological questions: Whether there are moral facts?
4. Epistemological questions: Is there such a thing as moral knowledge?

Socrates (469-399 BCE)

Socrates was a great thinker. He influenced the entire development of Western Ideas &
Thinking. He wrote nothing. Our knowledge of Socrates comes primarily from Dialogues
written by Plato. Plato was deeply influenced by him. It is impossible to see clearly where
Socrates’ thought ends and Plato’s begins.
Socrates lived in Athens. Socrates’ chief concern was to challenge the scepticism of Sophists.
Since Sophists threatened the foundations of morality and the state by undermining knowledge.
For Sophists, knowledge is unattainable and there is no truth. Socrates borrowed his view of life
from the inscription at Delphi “Know Thyself”. He boasted that his superiority lay in his
awareness of his own ignorance. Unlike the Sophists, he made no claim to the possession of any
special knowledge.
As per a story, when a man asks the oracle at Delphi who is the wisest man living, the oracle
says ‘Socrates’. But Socrates claims that he has only one knowledge, he knows that he does not
know. He sees himself as a ‘gadfly’, his aim is not to construct a system of philosophy but to
arouse the love of truth and virtue in men, by stinging (questioning) them.
Socrates does not offer a theory but practices a method of acquiring knowledge, lives it and
teaches it to others. His philosophical method, Socratic method, is that of refutation or elenchus
(dialectical): questioning of beliefs in order to establish truths and reveal inconsistencies. He
spends much of his time in discussions & debates with rich young men. He compares himself to
a mid-wife. He maintains that, like a mid-wife, he draws out the thoughts with which his young
pupils are pregnant.
According to Socrates, knowledge is concerned with the general and not with the particular. For
him, conceptual knowledge is the only genuine knowledge. Socrates was not interested in
Page | 15
metaphysical speculation. His main concern was ethics and practical aspects of life. Socrates
said, “Knowledge is virtue”, that is, moral knowledge and virtue were one and the same thing.
If someone did wrong, then it was because he did not know what was right.
His ideas and personality won him a devoted following among the young, but he was far from
universally admired. He was accused of not worshipping the Gods of the state (as he used to say
that he follows an inner divine voice), of introducing new divinity (atheism & impiety) and of
corrupting the youth of Athens. He was given death sentence and his death was brought about
by drinking hemlock.
During his trial, even when it became evident that he would be sentenced to death, Socrates did
not surrender to his accusers. Socrates told the judges that he could have easily framed a
defence and would have secured acquittal, but the kind of tactics required would have been
beneath him. As Socrates said, such an act, although it might have saved his life, would have
destroyed his soul, for it would have meant surrendering wisdom to ignorance. For Socrates the
real difficulty is not so much to escape death but to escape from doing wrong. “To be afraid of
death is just another form of thinking one is wise when one is not”. Socrates’ equanimous
acceptance of the verdict increased his fame as a wise man; and he has come to be regarded as
the perfect example of the truly philosophical life. Plato was present at Socrates’ trial and later
wrote a dramatized version of his speech in the Apology.
His famous dictum “The unexamined life is not worth living” aptly illustrates that ethics is
integral to human life. His statement is as significant today as it was then. Socrates devotes his
entire life to the examination of life and finally prefers to die rather than live a life where he is
not allowed to question. Socrates’ life teaches us ‘How to live?’, ‘Why to live?’ and even ‘How
to die?’.
In the dialogue Crito, Crito urges Socrates to escape from the prison. But Socrates argues that
injustice shall not be answered with injustice, and refuses to escape. He asserts that it is more
important to live a just life than merely remain alive.
Socrates offers following arguments to prove that it is morally wrong to escape from the prison:
1. He argues that State is more important than an individual. He says, State is like one’s parent
and teacher, and if I escape, I will be disobeying my parent and teacher.
2. He claims that by being a member of the state, one is under an agreement to obey its law, and
if I escape, I will be breaking that agreement, which is wrong.
3. Socrates points out that we ought not to harm anyone. He believes that his escaping would
harm the state, since it would violate and show disregard for the State’s laws.

Plato (427-347 BCE)

Plato is a pre-eminent Greek thinker. Plato was gifted and extremely versatile. He was Socrates’
pupil and Aristotle’s teacher. He was an admirer of Socrates. Plato was born into an aristocratic
and politically powerful family in the city-state of Athens.
Plato came under the influence of Socrates during his youth and set aside his ambitions for a
political career after Socrates was executed for impiety. He founded his own school of research
and teaching – the Academy. The best-known student of the Academy was Aristotle, who
joined at the age of 17, when Plato was 60, and remained for 20 years.

Plato’s Conception of Justice

For Plato, justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, the other three are temperance,
courage and wisdom. In Plato’s Ideal state, everyone has one’s place. Thus, justice implies that
they act and are treated accordingly. Cooperation among all for the sake of a successful
society is the key to justice. According to him, justice in the state is precisely the same as
justice in the individual, that is, reason must rule within human as well as within the state.
There will be justice only when there is a rule of reason, and the people obey its commands.
So, in an Ideal state, the reins of government shall remain in the hands of Philosopher-king,
Page | 16
military positions be held by warrior class and material production shall be undertaken by
the producers. Thus, for Plato, justice means performing one’s duties with all abilities
towards the social whole.
In The Republic, Plato draws an analogy between an ideal city-state and the individual’s soul.
An ideal State has 3 classes: Rulers, Soldiers and Workers/Producers. Similarly, soul is
composed of: Reason, Spirit and Appetite.
Appetite is a-logical, it desires bodily pleasures, it seeks monetary gain as well. Metaphorically,
Plato represents it by Ugly Black Horse. Spirit refers to energy and power, it loves victory,
challenge and honour. It is represented by Noble White Horse. Reason is the logical part, it
loves Truth and earnestly seeks it. It is represented as a Charioteer.
A soul, for Plato, can become just, only when Reason, the Logical Self, becomes the Ruler. The
Charioteer should be in-charge of the whole system, it should decide when to give a horse its
rein and when to hold it back. One should not be governed by the wishes of the horses but by
the rational decisions of the Charioteer. Similarly, in the ideal City-State, only a Philosopher
should be the King, who alone has the knowledge of supreme value- The Good.

The Story of Gyges’ Ring

In The Republic, Plato tries to examine whether it is in one’s own interest to be a just person
(moral/virtuous person). It is assumed that injustice (immorality) is advantageous, if one can get
away with it. On the other hand, justice/virtue or moral behaviour merely serves the interests of
others, and not self-interest. Plato tries to establish that justice or morality is so great a good that
it is worth any sacrifice, it can create greatest good for one’s own as well as for others.
In The Republic, the opponents of Socrates argue that given a chance everyone would like to be
immoral/vicious/evil, but because of the fear of punishment people remain moral. That is, given
a chance one would prefer to have an ideal life where one has absolute freedom to do just
anything. But the problem is everyone would like to do the same and this would result into a
state of chaos and conflict, where no one would be able to fulfil any desire. Thus, people have
compromised and the result of that compromise is justice or a system of morality.

To illustrate their point, the opponents tell the story of a Shepherd named Gyges, who finds a
ring that can make him invisible at his command. Gyges uses the ring to his advantage and
fulfils all his greed with impunity. The opponents claim that it is plausible to suppose that we
all would do the same, if we get hold of such a ring. Now, they ask a very pertinent question:
suppose there are two such rings, one is given to a wicked/vicious person and another to a
virtuous person. No doubt the wicked person will act like Gyges. But why should a virtuous
person care about morality when there is no fear of punishment? Despite being vicious, one can
be seen as just and one can be incredibly successful. But despite being virtuous, one can be seen
as unjust, and one can be incredibly unsuccessful. Thus, the question is which life ought we to
choose? Why should one be moral?
Socrates asks us to choose the life of the Unsuccessful-Just Person. He claims that, primarily, it
is to one’s own advantage to be moral. Ethical life results into mental well-being. Justice is not
only a means to happiness, but is essential to happiness. Justice brings about a healthy soul.
Immorality corrupts the soul, it weakens the soul and makes it a slave of desires and passions. A
moral person is able to tame the beasts of desires and passions, & thereby acquires justice.
Thus, one is happy or unhappy in exact proportion to one’s moral integrity.

Plato’s Allegory of The Cave

In the Republic, Plato explains his conception of knowledge through various analogies and
illustrations, and allegory of the cave is one of these. Socrates asks his audience to imagine a
group of prisoners chained in a cave from the very beginning of their lives. There is a wall
behind the prisoners and there is a fire located on the other side of the wall. Along the wall,
Page | 17
people are walking up and down carrying statues on their heads. What the chained prisoners see
are the shadows cast by the statues on the wall in front of them. The prisoners believe that the
shadows are reality since they are unaware of the outside world. If they hear people behind the
wall speaking, they assume that the voices come from the shadows.
Suppose that one of the prisoners escapes and comes out of the cave. At first, one will remain
confused and not understand what one sees. Gradually, the released prisoner will get
accustomed to firelight and will understand the reality of statues. Further, when the released
prisoner comes under the sunlight, one will be able to comprehend the real world and
understand the significance of the Sun. Now, if one is the sort of philosopher who is fit to
become a ruler then one will consider it as one’s duty to go back into the cave and educate
fellow prisoners and show them the way up.

Page | 18