BLOCK – 4

UNIT - 1

NATURAL MORAL LAW:

HUMAN ORDER AND MORAL ORDER:

Quest: What is the foundation of moral order? Explain.

Ans. The word ‘moral order’ implies ‘the totality of moral values’.  The crucial question related to ‘moral order’ is this that whether it is subjective or objective to decide the moral values? Whether it is based on the perception of the individual or based on the objective reality? Whether the basis or foundations of moral values are based on some reality? 

It includes two questions: whether is in fact such a foundation on which moral values should be established, and whether it is ‘right’ to base the values on it.  Further, there will be another question of context and its generality. Whether the same norm is applicable in all situations? And whether it is applicable for all persons? At the same time, it is difficult to decide, what is the moral value in a given situation?

Ideal human behaviour is that which is a according to a certain norm or as it ought to be. A ‘moral ideal’ is a ‘moral value’. As ‘value’ is related to some specific issue, it is used in plural.  It is specific actions which are decided as ‘good or ‘bad’. Any human person who does good acts, is said to be good person.

Quest: Natural law theory (June-2012 , 100 words)

THE DATA OF MORAL CONSCIOUSNESS:

Quest: Relate ‘moral consciousness’ and ‘human relatedness’ in society (Dec-2011, 150 words)

Quest: Explain ‘moral objectivism’ (Dec-2011, 150 words)

Quest: What is ‘moral objectivism? (June-2011,150 words)

Ans. The fundamental principle of ethics is that there are certain acts to be done and certain others to be avoided. This is the most primary principle of ethics.  Therefore, it needs a detail description and explanation. 

       But the real problem is how to decide this that which one is ‘good’ action and which one is ‘bad’ one. Whether it is decided by the parental influence or education or social environment etc.

       Among ‘good actions’ some actions are to be done necessary while others are to be performed only on certain conditions.  Another category of actions is left to the wish and will of the agent, though if performed, receives appreciation and reward.

       The first category of action which is to be done with the sense of absolute should is not to be decided subjectively.  It is in a sense obligation to do it, therefore, it is objectively determined.  This ‘absolute should’ has an universal appeal which we feel while deciding any action that it should be applied to every person. Though we cannot pinpoint which actions are universally obligatory but this universality is implied in moral consciousness like any objective reality.

       Another standard of moral consciousness is that which is ‘right’. That which is ‘right’ should be done.  This ‘right’ enforces the agent because of its being an ultimate end. But this ‘right’ act should be done with good motive as well.

       Another data of moral consciousness is the sense of ‘satisfaction’ while doing any ‘right’ act and sense of ‘guilt’ while doing any wrong act.  And this realization must not be affected by the praise or blame incurring that act. Because, this praise or blame is almost always based on the perception of the person

HUMAN ORDER AND MORAL ORDER:

Quest:  What are the ethical foundations? Discuss their importance in our life (June-2013, 500 words)

Ans.  Human inter-relatedness is ontological foundation of the moral obligation. Whereas, human person as a social being, is the norm for moral good.  The only moral precept that is self-evident is that human person should be human. So, all other precepts are based on this fundamental precept i.e. a person should realize himself as human, and natural outcome of this precept.

       Human consciousness is in the transition period.  His self-awareness is increasing and he is more grounded in morality. By going through continuous self analysis of his own existence, he is trying to search himself.  His consciousness of himself grows with his growth. And since moral consciousness is a part of self-consciousness, he becomes more morally conscious with his growth. From this self-consciousness emerges the moral precepts, as he thinks what he should be.

       Moral precepts are the natural corollary of the fundamental moral precept that human person should be himself.  Or we can say that moral precepts are the offshoot of the first fundamental precept.  This relation of moral precepts to the fundamental precepts is not the logical one.  Though on the level of the ideas these are logically related yet this relation is a type of continuously evolving process of human existence. Radical transformation has taken place from the primitive age of cannibalism to the contemporary age of universal declaration of human rights by United Nations General Assembly. 

       Though it is true that unreasonable customs spread ignorance of the moral precepts yet it is not the accurate description of the human being in general.  Human   historicity is the basis of this ignorance and variety of moral precepts. By the historical progressive development of his moral consciousness this ignorance and variety of morals can be defined. May be so that this development was not smooth and linear but screwed as well.The question, whether human person has gained his self and moral consciousness may be answered negatively because of some moral problems like abortion, women’s denigration etc.  Still women are not being treated as full human persons.  Whether fetuses should be considered as a human person is still being debated.  So many other problems like this indicate that still there is scope for progress and it will take its own time to complete this journey.         

Human Relatedness in Society:  Most of our actions are related to our relations in society. There are certain other actions which are related to men themselves, to God or to animals etc.  Actions related to God imply religious values, something different from moral values.  Whereas actions related to animals may be considered as moral or immoral one.  Actions related to oneself, are more difficult to decide as moral or immoral because this type of actions don’t affect others except the doer.  But after showing the impact of these actions on others, it can be as ascertained, good or bad. Human being, though a part of the whole human species, exists on his own right. Human person is essentially related to other human beings.  This relationality of human being is his essence.  The awareness of human being of this person hood makes him a socially responsible person. Known by human person and is self evident. 

       “Social dimension” is an integral part of human person’s personhood. It is this inter-relatedness which is termed as ‘human order’. To be recognised as a human person is the fundamental right of every human being. At the same time to recognise others as human beings is the duty of every human being, as well.

       Every theistic philosopher will  consider  God the foundation of  this human order, as well as moral order. St. Thomas holds this view and says that this human order is intuitively known by human person and is self – evident. Ontologically also, it is human nature to become related to each other.

EXISTENTIALIST HUMANISM:

Quest: Described Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialist humanism. (June-2014, 250 words)

Ans. Jean Paul Sartre, an existentialist humanist tried to find out the solution for objective moral norm on the basis of ontology.  The crux of moral philosophy is the question: is there a same foundation - an objective reality – which does in fact serve as a basis, or foundation, for moral values irrespective of their divergence and variability? For Sartre, the objective foundation could only be a ‘realism of essences’ created by God.  But, according to him, God does not exist.

       He says that in the absence of any pre-existing essence, to build any moral order and also there is not any norm on the basis of which anybody can pass moral judgement, the very agent is free to create his own moral values.  Sartre is not against the universal form of Ethics but he says that this universal form is based on human freedom itself.

       Sartre denies his philosophy being inhuman.Since, it promotes the human freedom and dignity as well it is much more humanism than any other philosophy.  He says that while behaving freely by one’s own freedom, one should not ignore the freedom of others.  Since there does not exist any God to decide the norm, human person finds himself cursed to be free and thrown in this world of passion.  He is anguished by this freedom and disappointed to be free.

       But  human person for itself is rather from a thing. Human person is dynamic, undetermined and indefinable as opposed to the thing which is static, fixed, determined and definable. With some pre-existing norms to determine him, human person also  would have been like thing and devoid of his dignity.  It is his existence as free being which makes his essence.  That’s why he says that existence precedes essence. It is possible for human person to proceed forward from his existing situation.  This is possible because of his being a conscience being.  The concept of God which includes both the ‘in-itself’ and ‘for itself’ is contradictory, according to Sartre. It is obvious that his ethical doctrine is determined by his ontology. Hence, his atheism plays crucial role in the description of ethical theories.

       The universality which lies in the ethical norm is the universality of human freedom. So, he says that, a person who does not   recognize his freedom and tries to find excuses for his decisions is a salaud (bastard).  Every human person is free to invent his own moral value.  So, human person is synonymous   with human freedom for Sartre. Every human person is free to make himself what he wants to be.

       According to critics, this freedom may lead to anarchism, is assessed from the practical point of view.  Giving too much emphasis on the dynamic nature of human being and ignoring his ontological essence would lead to logical absurdity.  Since, moral values are based on human person himself; ignoring his noumnal reality which is static would give only one sided view.

Q1. What do you understand by the ‘Absolute Should’?

Ans. the data

Q2. How do I understand moral ideal is a moral value?

Q3. “Human person should invent his own values”-explain with Sartre’s idea.

Q4. For Sartre, why does existence precede essence?

Q5. Explain the idea of human freedom for Sartre.

Ans. EXISTENTIALIST HUMANISM:

Quest: Described Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialist humanism. (June-2014, 250 words)

Ans. Jean Paul Sartre, an existentialist humanist tried to find out the solution for objective moral norm on the basis of ontology.  The crux of moral philosophy is the question: is there a same foundation - an objective reality – which does in fact serve as a basis, or foundation, for moral values irrespective of their divergence and variability? For Sartre, the objective foundation could only be a ‘realism of essences’ created by God.  But, according to him, God does not exist.

       He says that in the absence of any pre-existing essence, to build any moral order and also there is not any norm on the basis of which anybody can pass moral judgement, the very agent is free to create his own moral values.  Sartre is not against the universal form of Ethics but he says that this universal form is based on human freedom itself.

       Sartre denies his philosophy being inhuman.Since, it promotes the human freedom and dignity as well it is much more humanism than any other philosophy.  He says that while behaving freely by one’s own freedom, one should not ignore the freedom of others.  Since there does not exist any God to decide the norm, human person finds himself cursed to be free and thrown in this world of passion.  He is anguished by this freedom and disappointed to be free.

       But  human person for itself is rather from a thing. Human person is dynamic, undetermined and indefinable as opposed to the thing which is static, fixed, determined and definable. With some pre-existing norms to determine him, human person also  would have been like thing and devoid of his dignity.  It is his existence as free being which makes his essence.  That’s why he says that existence precedes essence. It is possible for human person to proceed forward from his existing situation.  This is possible because of his being a conscience being.  The concept of God which includes both the ‘in-itself’ and ‘for itself’ is contradictory, according to Sartre. It is obvious that his ethical doctrine is determined by his ontology. Hence, his atheism plays crucial role in the description of ethical theories.

       The universality which lies in the ethical norm is the universality of human freedom. So, he says that, a person who does not   recognize his freedom and tries to find excuses for his decisions is a salaud (bastard).  Every human person is free to invent his own moral value.  So, human person is synonymous   with human freedom for Sartre. Every human person is free to make himself what he wants to be.

       According to critics, this freedom may lead to anarchism, is assessed from the practical point of view.  Giving too much emphasis on the dynamic nature of human being and ignoring his ontological essence would lead to logical absurdity.  Since, moral values are based on human person himself; ignoring his noumnal reality which is static would give only one sided view.

Q6. What is human order?

Ans. HUMAN ORDER AND MORAL ORDER:

Quest: What is the foundation of moral order? Explain.

Ans. The word ‘moral order’ implies ‘the totality of moral values’.  The crucial question related to ‘moral order’ is this that whether it is subjective or objective to decide the moral values? Whether it is based on the perception of the individual or based on the objective reality? Whether the basis or foundations of moral values are based on some reality? 

It includes two questions: whether is in fact such a foundation on which moral values should be established, and whether it is ‘right’ to base the values on it.  Further, there will be another question of context and its generality. Whether the same norm is applicable in all situations? And whether it is applicable for all persons? At the same time, it is difficult to decide, what is the moral value in a given situation?

Ideal human behaviour is that which is a according to a certain norm or as it ought to be. A ‘moral ideal’ is a ‘moral value’. As ‘value’ is related to some specific issue, it is used in plural.  It is specific actions which are decided as ‘good or ‘bad’. Any human person who does good acts, is said to be good person.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS:

INTRODUCTION:

Quest. Give a detailed description of environmental ethics (June-2014, 500 words)

Quest.  Environmental Ethics ( June- 2011, Dec-2013)

Quest. Write an essay on Environmental Ethics and the importance of its learning today( June-2013)

Quest Define environmental ethics. Explain the three levels of environmental ethics.

Quest.   Discuss the nature and scope of environmental ethics (June-2012)

Ans. As the very name environmental ethics suggests, it deals with the ethical problems related to environmental protection.  To justify from the point of view of ethics, to global environmental protection is the aim of environmental ethics.  The main characteristics of environmental ethics are a follows:

            Firstly, environmental ethics is the extended form of traditional ethics.  While, traditional ethics is concerned about the problems related to human duties, environmental ethics goes beyond it and includes humanity in general and animals and whole nature as well. Its realm is biosphere – both present and future state of it.

            Secondly, environmental ethics has interdisciplinary approach to biospheric problems.  It includes disciplines like environmental politics, environmental economics, environmental sciences and environmental literature etc.  All these disciplines provide important guidance for environmental ethics and environmental ethics, also offers them value foundations.

            Thirdly, environmental ethics is a combination of various sub-disciplines. Its anthropological basis, animal right theory, biocentrism and egocentrism all provide ethical foundation and justification for environmental protection.  All these sub-disciplines assert the same view it is everyone’s duty to protect the environment, though in their approach to the problem they differ. Cultural traditions also influence the ideas of environmental ethics.

            Fourthly, environmental problem is a global phenomenon. Ecological crisis transcends national boundaries.  Pollution is not limited to any particular nation.  Global warming is a matter of concern for all the countries of the world.  So, it is necessary for all the countries to reach to consensus on the point of values and co-operate with each other.  It needs global governance.  Thus, we can say that environmental ethics is global ethics.

            Fifthly, environmental ethics is leading new paths and ways to solving the problems. Ideas of environmental ethics cross the demarcation made by conventional ethics by including non-human beings and future generations.  Environmental ethics is dead against materialism, hedonism and consumerism including capitalism and pro ‘green lifestyle’ that is in sync with nature.  Economic arrangement that is aware of the earth’s limits and careful to the concerns of life is acceptable to it.  It is pro-pacifism and against arms competition.  It supports equitable international economic and political order that promotes democracy, protects, human rights and provides global justice.

            Environmental ethics gives us scope for global action and thought.  It makes us realize our cosmic existence.  It expands to its fullness to human ethics.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: WHY AND WHY NOW? :

Quest: Write an essay on Environmental Ethics and the importance of its learning today. (june 2013, 250 words)

Ans. Importance of Learning Environmental Ethics:  The prime question which may be asked about environmental ethics is:   why do we need this discipline? If we want to decide to ignore the issues regarding environment then indirectly it is decide to let the environment destroy.  But immediately after this decision the follow up question will be there: ‘Can we do with it anymore?’ Can we continue with the ‘business as usual’?

            The situation has changed drastically due to the impact of scientific revolution and technological development.  It has created a plethora of moral problems which are screaming for attention.

            Though ethics is a discipline of hoary antiquity environmental ethics is a recent development in the field of knowledge. Ethics discusses the issues regarding human conduct i.e. freedom of will, motive, intention etc. Now, with the growth of human intelligence and capabilities, we have more choices as well to opt for.  Now, we are capable to do more, with the enhancement of our skill. Now, within the domain of our choice is the birth, life and death of our species and others.  It covers the whole arena of living being on this land.  

             When, the human species was not so evolved to understand the ecosystem as a whole or when it was considered as beyond the approach of human destruction at such a time there was no question of environmental ethics.  But due to the advancement of scientific knowledge and power ensueing that knowledge, we people have achieved destructive power as well.  As, scientists are amused by their ‘value neutral’ methodology the need for environmental ethics has become more pressing.

            Though this ‘properly value free’ methodology has bestowed a lot of   capacities and choices to human being yet being devoid of ethical norms and moral restraints these choices and capacities have become hazardous for living beings. Since, the choices are there, we cannot ignore them and ‘not to decide is to decide’ not to do.

            In the words of William James, the issues of environmental ethics are momentous, live, forced and these issues need moral decisions of utmost importance that we should make. It is our moral responsibility to urgently decide and solve the problems which are inescapable. Our reckless behaviour may destroy the natural environment and our future, as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: DESCRIPTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CRITICAL:

Quest: Define environmental ethics. Explain the three levels of environmental ethics.(Dec-2014, 250 words)

  Three levels of Environmental Ethics:

            Moral philosophers have divided into three “levels” the study of their discipline.  The first level i.e. ‘descriptive ethics’ is related to the matter of value for the people.  It includes moral opinions of the people without offering a moral judgement of those beliefs. So, descriptive ethics may be mentioned as a form of social science.

            The second level i.e. normative ethics which is also mentioned as “prescriptive ethics” assesses the moral issues like right or wrong, duties and rights, justice and injustice, virtue and wickedness etc.  On this level of ethical discourse, moral values of acts, their motive and intentions are assessed.  They may be appreciated or assessed as ‘good’, ‘best’ course of action.  Normative responses to the issues are made in this type of discourse.

            To try to clarify the meaning of normative terms or to examine the structure, grounds and justification of normative arguments is to involve in the performance of critical ethics or “meta-ethics”.  The only matter of concern for critical moral philosopher is logic, language and methodology of normative discourse and argument.  He is not interested in the subject matter of judgement.

So, after applying these three levels of ethical inquiry to environmental ethics we find that descriptive environmental ethics is not a significant problem in environmental ethics. Because, descriptive ethics, instead of being a part of moral philosophy, is a part of social science.

            Mainly, it is normative ethics, which deals with the real theme of morality i.e. ‘what should we do?’ or “How should we treat certain natural area?” ‘Whether it is useful or useless to protect a certain endangered species?’ How much effort and money should be spent to protect them?  Or ‘How much risk and damage could be afforded, in return of nuclear power or synthetic fuels?’

            While, critical ethics deals with the meanings of ethical concepts itself and justification of normative claims  environmental meta-ethics deals with questions like, the technical use of the terms ‘developer or preservationist.’

            Thus, we can say that the term ‘environmental ethics’ is to be used as a meta-ethical term indicating any ethical position.  It deals with the problem related to man’s responsibility to nature.  While the term ‘ecological morality’ discusses the normative environment ethics of authors like Aldo Leopold etc.  These ecologists view human person as a part of the natural community with moral responsibilities towards that community.  

Ecological Morality : not typed

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS:

Quest: Explain the modern construction of environment-ethics.

Ans. Being the supreme creature of the creation, it is the duty of human being to protect the right of other non-human beings in nature. Environmental ethics gives us the guidelines to consider this duty of ours as a part of our ethical and moral values.  Along with non-human beings, we have duties towards our environment also. Because we are getting the benefit of surviving due the environment. If we wouldn’t protect the environment, it will prove self-destructive for us. At the same time if we wouldn’t try to protect the non human beings then also indirectly we will be killing our own primitive existence.  No human being will be evolved out of those non-human beings if they will be killed in their primary stage.  Those non-human beings are an integral part of our existence.

            We are cutting down the forests, using excessively the natural resources.  This excessive use of resources leads to depletion and forest cutting, creates environmental degradation which will lead to risking lives of ours and future generations as well. Being aware of this hazarduous situations scientist Rachel Carson and environmentalists propounded the school of environmental ethics as a branch of environmental philosophy.  The Earth Day celebration of 1970 also contributed much in this field creation.

            The person who is responsible for the depletion and destruction of the environment has the sole responsibility to restore it.

            Ever increasing human population is another factor for the depletion of the natural resources.  The imbalance created by us in the nature is sure to rebound on us.  By doing this we will be depriving ourselves our future generations and co-existing non-human beings also.

            All these are immoral and against the values propounded by ethics.  So, environmental ethics in its modern version is sorely needed in this age of environmental degradation.

           

            Are we the whole-sole authority of the earth? Are we bound by the ethical obligation towards the natural world? Should we use all the resources of the earth for our own purposes?  Does it include in our duty to be good stewards over the earth? Is it possible to give legal right to the trees? What is our religious approach about our relation with the cosmos?

            There are some perennial questions to be answered by environmental ethics.

UNIT – 3

DISCOURSE ETHICS:

Quest: Write a critical note on Discourse Ethics (Dec.2013, 250 words)          

Quest: What  are the general features of  Habermas  discourse Ethics? (June.2012,  250 words)

Quest: Elucidates the general features of discourse ethics(Dec.2013, 500 words)

Quest: What are the main features of Habermas discourse ethics? (Dec.2014, 150 words)

Quest: What do you understand by ‘Discourse Ethics? Discuss the views of Habermas and Karl-Otto  Apeal. (June.2012, 500 words)

Quest: What is Discourse Ethics ?  How does Habermas address the concern of multiple discourses on Ethics? (Dec.2012, 500 words)

Quest: Illustrate discourse Ethics. (Dec.2011, 250 words)

THE GENERAL FEATURES OF HABERMAS’ DISCOURSE ETHICS:

Ans. German philosopher and sociologist of the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism asserts that philosophy should seek to reveal the significance that can be found in everyday experience. He says that elements of universal significance that can be proved by empirical sciences should be debated and their importance should be asserted.  According to him philosophy should deputize empirical sciences and try to find out the theories based on universal laws.  The three general features of Habermas discourse ethics are as follows:

1    Discourse ethics is not concerned about the good life or prudence but merely with the issue of morality.  The question of morality is something different from the question of prudence because of their basis being universal.  So, discourse ethics justifies the norms that determine the legitimate opportunities as per the needs. It tries to change the understanding of the needs of the participant. The only matter of concern for discourse ethics is institutional justice.

2    Discourse ethics lays down the procedure to be followed while determining the validity of norms.  That’s why it is called procedural ethics.  It does not give any norm for the theory of good or justice but merely the procedure to follow while adjudicating between conflicting norms. Universalizability is the rule of argumentation which belongs to the practical discourse. It helps the moral actor to create general agreement in the situation of crisis of the validity of any norm.

3    The discourse is related to the practical and empirical life not something which is merely hypothesis or assumption.  He says that the validity of discourse is based on the kind of action it engenders. According to him, communicative action is based on the genuine communication in the social world.  This genuine communication leads to social interaction which promotes harmony and freedom in the society. He says that capitalists try to subdue most of the people of the society by falser communication. So, he aimed at a free society which is not the victim of distortions of communication. He says that a free society will create an ideal society”.  According to him this is the ideal speech situation where people could freely exchange their views without any fear of dominance by superiors. Here all partners have equal rights and opportunities without the dominance and deception of others.  Though he admits that this ideal speech situation is merely a probability or possibility. But he asserts the by creating favourable conditions it can be transformed into reality.  His criterion of truth is the consent of all the others in the discussion.

Thus, according to Habermas a true consensus can be created only in the ideal speech situation with the help of the rules of argumentation.

Quest: Elucidates the general features of discourse ethics(Dec.2013, 500 words)

Karl-Otto Apel’s Discourse Ethics:  The philosophy of discourse ethics is based mainly on the philosophy of Kant’s transcendental ethics. His discourse ethics is based on the foundation of fundamental fact of language. According to him the lacuna in the moral theories are due to the ignorance of this linguistics fact.  The introspective or monological use of language and its contradiction with the communal language in which, they all had to philosophize, has lead to all the problems regarding moral philosophy. Resultantly, they all become a sort of personal theory based on perception.

       Realizing the importance of the ‘linguistic turn’ in the history of philosophy, Apel gives prime place in his philosophy to linguistic facts and discourse of which each human being is a member. Apel gives four universal validity claims based on Habermas’ theory, which are as follows:

1.  Whatever is said makes sense or has meaning

2.  Truthfulness of the all assertions is another requirement

3.  The belief of the  speaker in its truth or sincerity

4.  Normative correctness is another important factor.

APEL’S CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS MORAL THEORIES:

 Quest: Write a critical appreciation of Apel’s Critique of previous moral theories.

Ans. According to Apel, moral philosophy remained unable to give a sound foundation of morality. He holds the view the teleological theory of Aristotle, is of personal or particular level.  It lacks universalistic appeal to humanity in general.  Kant’s categorical imperative, too, is limited to the conventions of his society. Contract and convention theories also failed to satisfy the individuals, mainly in care, their own interest was to behave differently.

       Apel opines that while science has succeeded in grounding on universality, moral philosophy, due to its basis being perception, has turned in to sheer  stupidity .  Due to the globalization of the society, there is pressing need of universal norms to appease the whole world , not to only one or the other particular society or nation.

       The main matter of concern for Apel is this that moral philosophy is based on the individuals pondering. They failed to realize the importance of the language community and discussion and communication.  All the thoughts of moralists are based on communal language.  All our thoughts are in argument form.  Hence the linguistic condition must be of primary importance for any moralist philosopher.  The failure of the moralists to give an universal ground to moral norms is due to their negligence of linguistic condition.

       Thus, to avoid failure, the moralists should take care of the linguistic  conditions, so that they can achieve the goal of universal conditions of morality.  This universal ground will be the basis of all human theoretical and practical activities.

 Quest: What are the general features of Habermas’ discourse  ethics?  How would you relate moral consciousness and discourse ethics? (June-2014, 500 words)

Ans. General Features of Discourse Ethics: To propound accurate moral and political principle is the aim of discourse ethics.  And to accomplish this mission, the procedure to be followed is communication. Through exchange of information and opinion between people this aim can be achieved.  And the conditions to be followed are:

1.  Equal regard for all parties and equal regard to the interests of all participants.

2.  No pressure or constraint should be used on any party

3.  Only rationalistic approach to convince the people should be adopted.

4.  Noting should be accepted without inquiry

5.  Consent of all parties for any agreement will be required.

6.  Every issue will be considered as open for discussion.

Discourse ethics is an attempt to reformulate Kantian deontological ethics.  It is an attempt to implement the universality of Kantian deontological ethics through discussion.  Justification of facts is the basis of the justification of moral norms, according to this cognitivist moral theory.  To give a rationalistic approach to moral insight is the aim of this theory. That’s why it is called ‘argumentation ethics’.

German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas and Karl-otto-Apel are the eminent ethicists who support this theory. 

Moral Consciousness and Discourse Ethics:  The aim of Habermas’ discourse ethics is to find out an ‘ultimate procedure’ through which moral truths, which are universally applicable to every circumstances, can be approved.  For achieving this goal it is necessary to find out the presuppositions inherent in our lives.  It is needed to validate and reflect scientifically and empirically, the abstract concepts of philosophy.

                     Language and communication and its relation with action are the factors of utmost importance in Habermas’ philosophy.  Socio-cognitive tools used by participants depend on the proposed actions their futuristic view among the participants combined effort of all participants is needed to perform this action.  The maturer the participants become, the more complex their conflicts become.  Their socio-cognitive inventory also expands.  As per the moral development, the socio-cognitive inventory evolves.

                     To sum up Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics:

(a)                                 To find out  temporary solutions for moral  issues by establishing  universalistic procedure.

(b)                                The basis of this procedure is the ‘assumptions’ implied in the language of the communicative action. This language has also universalistic form, due to which it is used always and everywhere.

(c)                                 This procedure of deriving the social norms must be based on reciprocal process of both parties.  The natural outcome of this whole process will be the universal principle which will be the basis of impartial judgement.

(d)                                The ground for this development of discourse ethics is the rational interpretation of the social and empirical facts of the issues given by some prudent human person.

(e)                                 In order to reach to the point of convergence the members should try to find out reasons that are acceptable for all.

Q2. Explain Kantian Deontological Ethics.

Questions of the unit:

Quest: What are the general features of Habermas’ discourse ethics?  How would you relate moral consciousness and discourse ethics? (June-2014, 500 words)

Q.1 What are the ideal conditions for commutation in Discourse Ethics?

Ans. General Features of Discourse Ethics: To propound accurate moral and political principle is the aim of discourse ethics.  And to accomplish this mission, the procedure to be followed is communication. Through exchange of information and opinion between people this aim can be achieved.  And the conditions to be followed are:

1.  Equal regard for all parties and equal regard to the interests of all participants.

2.  No pressure or constraint should be used on any party

3.  Only rationalistic approach to convince the people should be adopted.

4.  Noting should be accepted without inquiry

5.  Consent of all parties for any agreement will be required.

6.  Every issue will be considered as open for discussion.

Discourse ethics is an attempt to reformulate Kantian deontological ethics.  It is an attempt to implement the universality of Kantian deontological ethics through discussion.  Justification of facts is the basis of the justification of moral norms, according to this cognitivist moral theory.  To give a rationalistic approach to moral insight is the aim of this theory. That’s why it is called ‘argumentation ethics’.

German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas and Karl-otto-Apel are the eminent ethicists who support this theory. 

Q4. How does Habermas explain ideal Speech Situation?

Ans. The Rules of Argumentation:

Q5.  Describe Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics.

Ans. Moral Consciousness and Discourse Ethics:  The aim of Habermas’ discourse ethics is to find out an ‘ultimate procedure’ through which moral truths, which are universally applicable to every circumstances, can be approved.  For achieving this goal it is necessary to find out the presuppositions inherent in our lives.  It is needed to validate and reflect scientifically and empirically, the abstract concepts of philosophy.

                     Language and communication and its relation with action are the factors of utmost importance in Habermas’ philosophy.  Socio-cognitive tools used by participants depend on the proposed actions their futuristic view among the participants combined effort of all participants is needed to perform this action.  The maturer the participants become, the more complex their conflicts become.  Their socio-cognitive inventory also expands.  As per the moral development, the socio-cognitive inventory evolves.

                     To sum up Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics:

(a)                                 To find out  temporary solutions for moral  issues by establishing  universalistic procedure.

(b)                                The basis of this procedure is the ‘assumptions’ implied in the language of the communicative action. This language has also universalistic form, due to which it is used always and everywhere.

(c)                                 This procedure of deriving the social norms must be based on reciprocal process of both parties.  The natural outcome of this whole process will be the universal principle which will be the basis of impartial judgement.

(d)                                The ground for this development of discourse ethics is the rational interpretation of the social and empirical facts of the issues given by some prudent human person.

(e)                                 In order to reach to the point of convergence the members should try to find out reasons that are acceptable for all.