NATURE AND SCOPE OF ETHICS

BLOCK - 1

UNIT - 1

NATURE AND SCOPE OF ETHICS:

Ques- Write an essay   on the nature and scope of the ethics?

Question:- Define morality. How does conscience play specific role in the development of morality? June-2011 – 500 words

Question:- Explain the nature and scope of Ethics. Describe its relationship with other branches of philosophy. December 2011 – 500 words

Question:- Define ethics. Discuss its nature and scope. June 2012 – 500 words

Question:- Explain the nature  and  scope of Ethics. How is it related to other branches of Philosophy? December, 2012 – 500 words, June 2013- 500 words

Question:- Write an essay on the nature and scope of ethics.  December-2013- 500 words

Ans:         Definition of Ethics:  Paul W. Taylor says that: “Ethics may be defined as philosophical inquiry into the nature and ground of morality”. Greek term, ‘Ethics’ is the equivalent of Latin term, “Morals”. So, it can be described as the study of the ‘goodness or badness’ or ‘the rightness or wrongness’ of human actions. But taking into consideration the analysis of the terms ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ by meta-ethicists, these terms needs further discussion.

The very word, ‘ethics’ has been derived from the root ‘ethos’ which literally means conduct. Further the term ‘moral’ has been derived from the root ‘moras’ which also means behaviour. Therefore ethics is the normative science of human conduct with certain codes or principles. In a particular critical situation how the agent will react will determine his moral attitude. Morality is based on the habits of the individual and when a large number of people develop a certain type of behaviour it becomes custom. Morality is based on the instinctive behaviour of human being. These instinctive behaviour of human being are judged as good or bad or right or wrong. The assessment of any action as good or bad is value based while its assessment as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is based on the laws of society.

Nature and scope of Ethics:  Nature and scope of ethics can be determined only by determining the meaning of moral law. Since, ‘law’ is a rule of action, promulgated by the incharge of the community in view of the common good, moral law is not law in this sense. Metaphorically, it is called law since it decides, the norms of ideal behaviour. That’s why, it is called ‘natural law’. It is descriptive as well as prescriptive in the sense of being prescribed by God. Moral law neither corresponds exactly to the positive law nor to the natural law. A bit different from both these laws, the central theme of moral law is ‘absolute should’. What one ‘ought to do’ is the only, matter of concern for any moralist. It positively asserts some dictums like: help the poor, obey the authority, always tell truth, follow non-violence etc. These precepts are the laws of morality.

The crucial problem faced by ethicists is the standard of morality. How to judge the human behaviour is the real problem with morality. To decide the criterion for judging any action good or bad, right or wrong is the main issue before ethicists. Who will decide the norm and law?

Being a normative science ethics gives many criterions to decide the actions of human beings. There are two types of criterions for judging human actions: classical and modern. Classical

ethics starts from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Accordingly to Plato knowledge leads to good activities while ignorance is the cause of evil. Aristotle gives the idea of middle path as golden path like Buddha.

Hinduism as standard of morality holds the view that all human beings tend towards happiness. Whereas stoicism advocates perfection of the individual. Utilitarianism propounds the standard of ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ as the criterion of morality. Intuitionism and Kant’s categorical imperative, virtue and nature ethics are some of the traditional theories of ethics.

Modern ethics can be divided into three parts:

        i.            Either subjective or objective

    ii.            Naturalistic and non-naturalistic or emotive.

 iii.            As motivist, deontologist or consequence theories.

Almost all these theories are Meta-ethical theories, based on the analysis of language. Judgements based on the perceptions of the individual are subjective one. Judgments based on the natural science (psycho) come into the realm of naturalistic theory. Theories based on the motive of the agent are called motivist theories. Whereas deontological theories are instinctive

one. Theories based on effect of the act are consequential theories. 

Ethics and Metaphysics: J.S Mackenzie writes in his book ‘A manual of ethics’, “It is indeed only a part of philosophy, because it considers the experience of life only from the point of view of will. It does not, except indirectly, consider man as knowing or enjoying but as doing, i.e. persuing as end. But it considers man’s whole activity.” According to Hegel, Green etc. ethics is dependent on metaphysics whereas Rashdall etc.are of view that metaphysics is dependent on ethics. Whatever be the case none of them are opposed to their close relation with each other. In fact both are interdependent and an integral part of each other.

The difference between metaphysics and ethics is that the realism of metaphysics is broader than ethics. Metaphysics is merely related to theoretical aspects of reality while ethics is all about its practical aspect as well as theoretical one.

Moral intuitionism:

Ques: what is formation of conscience? Explain. (Dec. 11, 150 w)

Ans: moral values are intuitively known is the assertion of all deontological theories. Whether it is ‘conscience’ of Ockham or ‘Logos’ of stoics, or ‘Moral sense of Shaftesbury or ‘apriori categorical imperative of Kant or right reason of Thomas Aquinas and Suarez , all these theories has one element in common i.e. intuition. Even teleological theories also include this intuitive power of human beings. Also ‘autarxia’ of Epicuras, ‘eudaimonia’ of Aristotle, ‘right reason of Hobbes and ‘conscientious feelings of mankind of Mill have this intuitive sense in their theories. Corresponding to the idea of moral obligation this element of intuition becomes more prominent. Even meta-ethicists also emphasize this element of intuition. But since moral language is objective, according to them, they differ on the point of object of intuition. It is ‘the rightness of specific acts' for Carret Prichard whereas for Moore it is a kind of moral property, simple and indefinable in non-moral terms. Sidgwick says that it is the general principle like ‘principle of utility’. For Ross it is a set of principles like ‘prima facie’ duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence etc..

Though ethical intuitionist, Kant asserts that moral judgements include empirical facts. He says that it is not possible to derive any moral value on the basis of practical reason alone.

St Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between ‘the first principles’ and ‘secondary and more specific principles’ of reason i.e. Synderesis, according to him. He says that while first principles are ‘self-evident’ and intuitively known, the secondary ones need reflection. He also admits that there is difficulty in applying general principles to empirical life. He says that it may be so that the principles are not so evident to us despite their being evident in themselves.

According to Saurez, secondary principles require contemplation, though are self-evident in themselves. Whereas, tertiary principles, according to him, require discussion and analysis. But he says that since all moral principles are implicit in the self-evident principles, they can be derived from them.

HUMAN PERSON IN SEARCH OF HIMSELF: The soul matter of concern for any moralist is whether general principle like; ‘serious premises should not be

lightly broken’ is self-evident and can be counted among the ‘first principles’ which are known intuitively? If the answer is positive one, then it will give birth to the another question that, ‘how this can be derived from the first principle that ‘good is to be done, evil is to be avoided?’

Another question regarding this problem is, whether this kind of deduction is merely logical deduction or it is real one? Further, anything which is self-evident must be known by all. Then, what is the reason of the ignorance of some persons about it? Whether, it is lack of knowledge or evil spirit behind it? Again, it’s being not self-evident will raise another question, then how it is possible to reach to the point of convergence about its being correct.

Next pertinent question regarding the first principle is this that whether the examples given by Thomas Aquinas, Suarez and Ross are merely examples of first principles or a part principles itself. If the first case is true then there is scope for disagreement that examples are not good enough though it may be accepted that there are general principles which can be known intuitively. But, still there remains a question to be answered that, ‘which are these first principles’? Further, if the examples are

questionable then the doctrine to which they belong will also be questionable.

According to some moralists, it is only the immediate data of moral consciousness which cannot be denied and is self-evident as well. But this data cannot be considered as principle. The concept of interrelatedness is based on the ontological foundation of moral obligation. And since human being is a social being, he is supposed to be morally good. Being human is the condition for being moral and it is self-evident, at the same time it needn’t any justification.

Human being is continuously evolving and along with his evolution as human being his moral consciousness also evolves. As much the person becomes conscious of himself, his sense of morality also developed. 

So, the foundation of all moral precepts is the humanitarian one. Being aware of one’s existence is not a logical deduction or any mediate inference. The present existence of human being is with reference to his past and a prospect of future.

The primitive man evolved up to his present state, a journey from jungle raj to universal law of morality. Perverse customs don’t play any role in the ignorance of moral precepts. Of course, perverse customs affect the moral decisions of

 individuals and confuse him so that he couldn’t discriminate good and bad. But of course, its individualistic approach. On the level of human being in general perverse customs are not so significant to be counted for. 

But evolution includes in itself along with progress, regress and setback also. The question here arises that whether, in fact, we have gained self-awareness and moral consciousness? Negative is the answer because still we are stuck in the situations of moral importance. Whether it is the issue of abortion or gender bias still we are not evolved enough to embrace the reality and do justice to the female. If, still there is any scope of progress, it will be conducive to take help of one’s experience by being retrospective and prospective.

DYNAMICS OF MORALITY:

Ques: Discuss the Dynamics of morality? (June-11,150w ,Dec-11,250 w)

Ans. The crux of morality is to whether to approve the universal validity of it or to be pro-change. The first one asserts absolutism and the second one favours relativism. Evolutionary

nature of human person is an undeniable factor since the origin of the concept of morality.  On biological basis Clarles Darwin gave the theory of evolution. Scientific, theological and philosophical theories are all based on the evolutionary nature of world and human person. Sri Aurobindo and Pierre Tailhard de Chardin are the prominent figures in this field. Herbert Spencer, the ethicist, is also pro-evolutionary nature of morality. According to him at the lower level of evolution of both human being and animal, conduct is adjustable. Whereas the higher level shows the purposeful actions. It is directed towards good of the individual and species as well. But this purposeful activity is merely struggle for existence done by the members of the same species   or of different species. It is not the ideal state of being, for Spencer. Till everybody lives in harmonious relationship with everybody else other than him, it cannot be called ethical conduct.  To transcend the limitations of the both egoism and altruism is the ideal state for morality.  This is the absolute ethics, according to Spencer. This is ideal state of a completely evolved society and completely compatible human person. While relative ethics is primary stage of this fully evolved stage.   

   Being pro-utilitarian ethical principle, according to Spencer, happiness is ultimate end of life and criterion of rightness or

wrongness of actions.  This utilitarian principle originated developed from non-ethical beliefs and evolve upto the ideal stage. Happiness is the outcome of the fulfillment of certain conditions which themselves are the obedience of the rules of human welfare. Moral intuitions are also the natural offs hoot of the experience received by human beings, according to Spencer. It is being transmitted from one generation to another, which will end up in instinctive morality. Evaluation is proceeding towards highest form of life, of which happiness is the end and virtue is the condition. It is another factor that Spencer was himself not satisfied with the impact of evolutionary ethics.

THE CONSTANT AND VARIABLE IN MORALITY:

 

Ques: what is the constant and what is variable in morality? Explain. (Dec-14,25o w)

Ans: Human consciousness is continuously evolving is undisputed fact. People have become more self-conscious than they used to be. This process of transition can elaborate, how the moral law is particularized and concretized in specific moral

precepts.

                Human consciousness evolves both on individual and social level. Morality is the basis of human existence. Since the time of primitive age, human beings have been morally conscious. So, moral consciousness has been the constant in all stages of human evolution. Yet, since moral consciousness has been developing continuously, its different stages are the variables of the moral consciousness. This changing moral consciousness takes different forms. Some of which conform to the ethics norms whereas others create some difficulty. While discussing about moral consciousness we should take into consideration human-inter-relatedness. And this data must be according to human reason and conductive to the self-realization of human person as human.

                The more human being evolves, the more he becomes conscious of his interrelatedness and his rights and duties. To decide and assess these rights and duties, there have been laid down some moral precepts. Geographical climatic and economic conditions are also deciding factor of human moral consciousness. People of the same stage of human moral consciousness differ is their moral life due to different situation.

                The moral consciousness of human being has also been influenced by difference religious beliefs. Different

religious beliefs have produced different moral values. Corresponding to the changes in religious consciousness, there are changes in moral consciousness.

                But moral consciousness of human being doesn’t change according to the changes in the civil law. Legality of certain norms doesn’t mean that it is moral also. Also, in this age of secularity and pluralistic society, it is not the business of the state to promote the beliefs of any particular section against another.

                But the crux of morality is the issue regarding its certitude. The continuous change in the society raises this question that can anybody be certain of having reached objective moral truth if there is such a thing as moral truth?

                Also, there is difference between moral relativity and ethical relativism. Moral relativity is relative to time and space. Different people of different civilizations and cultures have had different moral norms. Whereas, ethical relativism is the philosophical theory that there is no universal moral norm.  This norm can be decided by the individual or group in question.  To deny the existence of universal moral  norm and give reasons for it is ethical relativism  whereas accept  the absence of universal

 norms without any sufficient reason is ethical skepticism.

As, human person’s knowledge of himself is dynamic and progressive, his moral knowledge  is also relative and always  changing . Only the progression is constant.

LOVE AND THE MORAL PRECEPTS:

Question: what is the existential basis of the moral order? Discuss.

Answer:   Love is the basic moral activity and ontological foundation of moral order. It defines the inter relatedness of human beings. This love is the factor which makes human being realize himself as human being. Moral precepts are the particular and concrete aspects of universal love. Love is the basis of all moral virtues. It is also the ground reality of all moral precepts. Due to this love factor, moral precepts are moral precepts. Love is subjective reality but in the form of precepts, it becomes objective. Realizing oneself as human person is not obligatory. At the same time it doesn’t enforce anybody to do some definite thing. Nobody may enforce other to love his neighbour as himself and feel himself as human being.

                Being the form of the moral precepts, love is the

standard of moral precepts. 

Question: Explain Absolute Ethics and Relative Ethics (dynamics of morality)June-2013, 250 w.                                                                                                                

Answer: Absolute ethics comprises that type of commands which are true for all time in all places and in all situations. Certain ethical norms, which are right or wrong objectively, may not change according to culture. Certain moral norms are intrinsically right or wrong. These moral values are eternal and applicable everywhere. Absolutists are believer in God, who establishes moral order in the universe. According to this deontological approach, the consequences of actions are not taken into consideration. In whatever circumstances any crime has been committed, it doesn’t matter and it is after all crime. Nobody may approve killing someone without any reason. Both ethical relativist and ethical absolutist would agree on this point.

        For any ethical relativist killing one person to save many lives is alright while for any absolutist, it is wrong. And to kill one person to save another is wrong for both. As per the absolute ethics, judgements can be made about other’s actions

and courts of laws may exist to maintain the order.

        The question: where do these absolute laws come from? is easy to answer for theists. It is obvious that for them these laws come from god but for atheists it is abit difficult to answer. The only option for them is to say that they are apriori in nature. Like Plato’s world of forms, there are many things we know intuitively without being taught. It may be said that they are inherent in our nature.

        Whereas ethical relativism holds that all the ethical norms are relative to particular age and culture and there are no universal norms. According to this theory, there is no objective criterion for deciding something good or bad. It depends merely on the perception of the viewer. Truth is subject to the community to which one belongs.

        Sophists were the first moralists to assert about relativism. According to them, morality was relative, right and wrong varied from place to place, from time to time and from person to person. Protagoras declared that-“man is the measure of all things.” This view was refuted by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Q.2- How are love and moral precepts related?

Ans.  Love is that cohesive factor which is the cause of peaceful co-existence of human being. It is the ontological foundation of interrelatedness of human being. Moral order exists due to love. It is the basis of moral activity.

The behavioral aspect of the realization of human person of his existence as human being is expressed in moral precepts. The medium of expression of these moral precepts is, love. The particular, concrete and objective aspect of universal love is moral precept. Love is general aspect of all moral precepts, like it is the general characteristic of all virtues. Being a general factor, love is something abstract that’s why non-objective. So, it is not, in fact, moral precept but the basis of all moral precepts. It doesn’t specify anything to be done. The same is the case with the realization of oneself as human being which also doesn’t mention any definite thing to be done, as moral obligation. Further, since morality is a matter of inner conscience, nobody can be forced to do any moral act or love someone in order to feel himself as human being. Just like evolutionary ethics, love also has hierarchical existence. Love is the beginning and end of human life. Love starts in the form of unmanifested, potential state and culminates in its complete actualized form. Through perfect love, man reaches to his

perfection. This process of evolution comprises many factors on the part of human being though all these factors make the integrated whole of human existence. It is only human person who by his intellect understands and through his heart loves. Thus, love comprises the whole of human existence.

Anybody’s development as human being is impossible without the inclusion of the core of his existence i.e. love, though he may develop many aspects of personality separately. And to develop as perfect human being one needs to act not to merely study or contemplate about it. As according to Scholastics perfection requires operation. 

Q. 4- What is the notable difference between Aquinas and Saurez’s idea of self-evident or moral principle?

Ans. St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned two types of principles: first principles and secondary principles. The point of distinction between the two is while first one is self-evident and intuitively known by all and cannot be deleted from human heart second one is more specific and derived from the former just as conclusion is derived from the premises. These secondary principles can be used only after reflection.

According to Aquinas, it is difficult to apply general principles

on specific cases of practical life. Further, he says that though these theoretical and practical principles are self-evident in themselves yet they may not be evident to the agent. He says that due to this vagueness usually human beings err while taking decisions.

Whereas Saurez holds the view that secondary principles are also self-evident in themselves yet they need thought and experience to be applied in practical life. Further he mentions that the third range of principles require even more analysis and critical study. Though source of all principles may be self-evident principles.

The crucial difference between Thomas and Saurez is in their method of deduction of concrete principles. While Thomas derives the concrete principles in a manner similar to natural inclination of human person Saurez derives them corresponding to legal system. According to Saurez the norm of moral precepts is ‘good’ of human nature.