BLOCK
- 1
UNIT
2
IMPORTANCE
AND CHALLENGES OF ETHICS
Situation
Ethics: (June 2013, 100 words) Any situation ethicist
rejects the concept of human nature. The propounder of the situation
ethics, Joseph Fletcher presents his
view as the middle path between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism.
He says that every situationist tackles every problem as per the norms of his
community and its heritage. But as per the demand of the situation, he may
compromise them or set them aside if love seems better served by doing so. He is against Kant’s legalism and says that
according to the demand of the situation these universal laws may be changed
for the sake of love’s lead or for damage control.
Fletcher mentions that a part of situation ethics is common
with natural law though he rejects the notion that the good is ‘given in the
nature of things, objectively. He has
also accepted reason as instrument of judgement. Since, love enhances one’s personhood, makes
one more human and hate does not, love should be the norm of morality. It must be selfless love devoid of any material
gain with more basic and deeper norm, ‘love in itself’. In nutshell, we can say that situationalism
is a method that proceeds from a agape
i.e. love to the Sophia(wisdom) containing
many “general rules” of more or
less reliability to the pairos i.e. the
moment of decision in which the responsible self in the situation decides
whether the sophia can serve there or
not. So, to say that anything done out of love (the means) is justified or made
morally good. He says that, “Not-any old
end will justify any old means” only love would do the job.
150 words
(June-2011,150,words)
MORRIS
GINSBERG’S “ON THE DIVERSITY OF MORALS
Question: Briefly explain the contexts of variations in
moral practices proposed by Morris Ginsberg.
Ans. According to Ginsberg there are six different
contexts in which certain variation may
occur between certain nations and cultures. There are as follow:-
1. First
of all he mentions the differences of opinions regarding the range of persons
to whom moral rules are applicable.
Anthropologist –Taylor says that naturally there is solidarity in all
societies. Everyone feels bound to his neighbours by the bonds of shared care
and responsibility. But this word ‘neighbour’ is dubious, according to
Ginsberg. Generally, this word is used
to indicate members of one’s own family, tribe or clan. Usually, only males
were supposed to follow the norms of the society.
But
moral laws have to be applied to all persons, without any discrimination of
their age, sex nationality.
2. Secondly,
there are differences due to the levels of knowledge among people, regarding
certain acts, For example, people used to kill persons who had occult
powers. They were assumed to cause
serious harm to peoples and bring about natural disasters. Lecky says that if all these threats were
true, then there was no moral difficulty in drawing the conclusion that they
should be killed. But now due to
blessings of enlightenment and development in psychology we are aware of the
folly and desist from commiting the crime. Now, people know that it is microbes
which are generating diseases.
3. Thirdly,
due to different contexts and cultures the moral assessment of the same act,
varies. The act may be considered right in a certain situation while wrong in
another. Telling lie is prohibited in general but to tell the truth of one’s national
security to the enemy is immoral act.
Public display of affection is not criticized in the West while it is
immoral act in East. (fallacies- generalization, division)
4. Fourthly,
differences of emphasis in moral responsibility may cause variations in moral
norms. Occultism is the shelter for such type of decisions norms. People may give reason for a certain act
being moral because it is will of God or that because of love of God. It may be
argued that certain moral act would lead to divinization of men. But all these
doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t reflect on these dictums. Irrationality may lead
to radicalism or fanaticism.
5. Fifthly,
there may be difference, due to different ways to fulfilling basic needs. For example, there is consensus regarding what
constitutes the basis needs but there is difference on the point of fulfilling
them. Most communities support the idea of monogamous marriage and sex rules
related to it. But they may differ on the point of its application in their
life. This is where there is ample scope for discussion and can reach to the
point of convergence regarding the realization of the basis goals that they all
respect. Since, all the cultures have drawbacks,each society can learn a lot
from others and even teach them something new. This sharing of views and caring
for each others attitude will lead to a harmonious situation.
6. Sixth
and last cause of variance may be certain level of mental development. Ginsberg
gives five criterions to ascertain the value of a moral acumen. Firstly, the
perspective of a certain norm, whether it has narrow view or bigger picture and
broader perspective minus any discrimination related to age, sex, nation, cast,
creed, religion etc. In nutshell, the universalism implied in this moral norm
may decide its importance. Secondly, the range it covers will decide its
significance. For instance, any moral norm applied on tribal society may not be
appropriate for national or international level issues. Thirdly, right
assessment of any moral codes and principles which are the basis of any moral
system and their coherence and harmonious existence. Fourthly, the moral codes
the, extent of moral codes’ separation from law and from religion is also
important. Fifthly, the extent of freedom given to the people for self-assessment
and self-direction.
CULTURAL
AND ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
Ques: Cultural and
ethical relativism is the natural outcome of diversity of human nature?
Discuss.
Ans: Every ethical system based on
human nature has to face certain objections coming out its relative nature. The
diversity of moral or ethical norm is the main problem. For example, in one
society polygamy is right, while in another, it is wrong. Some will glorify the
painless killing of one’s parents while others will condemn it, as it amounts
to murder. Even within the same society there is diversity of ethical standard.
For example, inter cast marriage is acceptable in one part of our society,
whereas in another part it is severely criticized and even grooms are killed
for the sake of honour. To worsen the case, killers are glorified as heros.
Problems like birth control and divorce has also differences of views. The
question arises that if there is something like generality in human nature then
what is reason behind diversity?
But, relativism has nothing to do with the
superiority or inferiority of certain culture. As per the studies of
anthropology and sociology, we should accept the relativism involved in the
culture. Every culture has its own philosophical and religious background.
Based on that very foundation, it has its own justification as well, for
following certain norm. Even critiquing a culture from neutral ground is also
not acceptable, because it will indirectly be affected by the prejudices and
perception of his/her own culture. It will lead to ‘might is right’ and
dominant nation will force weaker countries to accept their culture tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment