GS Notes

8. Ethics Notes 14

16 min read

Elaborate Notes

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is an empirical and scientific approach to studying morality. It does not prescribe how people ought to act but rather describes, analyzes, and explains how people actually behave and what moral beliefs they hold.

  • Empirical Investigation: It employs methodologies from social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and history. For instance, an anthropologist studying a remote tribe might document their customs regarding marriage and property without judging them as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This was a key method used by early anthropologists like Franz Boas (early 20th century) who championed cultural relativism, the idea that a person’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual’s own culture.
  • Study of People’s Beliefs: It examines the moral codes, practices, and beliefs of various groups and cultures. For example, a sociologist might conduct surveys to understand public opinion on capital punishment or euthanasia in a particular country at a specific time.
  • Value-Free Approach: The core principle of descriptive ethics is to be non-judgmental or value-neutral. The researcher’s role is that of an impartial observer, documenting moral phenomena without imposing their own values. This concept is heavily influenced by the German sociologist Max Weber’s (1864-1920) idea of Werturteilsfreiheit or ‘value-freedom’ in social science research.
    • Clarification of Terms:
      • Value-free: The ideal that research and knowledge can be conducted objectively, without the influence of the researcher’s personal values and biases. Max Weber argued that while absolute value-freedom is an ideal, social scientists should strive for it.
      • Value-laden: The perspective that knowledge and decisions are inherently shaped and influenced by personal values, cultural context, and social positions. It posits that complete objectivity is impossible. Many postmodern and critical theorists support this view.
  • Example: Kohlberg’s Theory: Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1927-1987) stages of moral development are a prime example of descriptive ethics. He did not state which stage was ethically ‘best’ in a prescriptive sense; instead, he empirically observed and categorized the reasoning processes people used at different stages of life to resolve moral dilemmas, thereby describing the developmental trajectory of moral thought.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist building on the work of Jean Piaget, developed a comprehensive stage theory of moral development. His research, primarily conducted at Harvard University’s Center for Moral Education, involved presenting subjects with moral dilemmas and analyzing their reasoning.

  • Heinz’s Dilemma: This is Kohlberg’s most famous moral problem, designed to probe the underlying logic of moral reasoning. The dilemma is not about whether Heinz’s action was right or wrong, but why a person thinks it is right or wrong.

    • The Dilemma: A woman is near death from a special kind of cancer. A new drug might save her, but the druggist who discovered it is charging ten times the manufacturing cost. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, cannot afford it. He tries to negotiate, but the druggist refuses. Desperate, Heinz breaks into the store to steal the drug for his wife.
    • Kohlberg’s Questions: The questions posed—Should Heinz have stolen the drug?, What if he didn’t love his wife?, Should the chemist be arrested for murder if she dies?—were designed to elicit responses that would reveal the respondent’s stage of moral development.

  • The Three Levels and Six Stages: Kohlberg identified a progression through three levels of moral reasoning, each with two stages.

    • Level 1: Pre-conventional Morality (Typical of children under 9)

      • Morality is externally controlled. Rules are imposed by authority figures, and actions are judged by their consequences.
      • Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation: The individual determines right and wrong based on what is punished. The primary motive is to avoid punishment. Example: A child believes stealing is wrong simply because they will be spanked or sent to their room if caught.
      • Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange (Self-Interest Orientation): The individual follows rules only when it is in their immediate interest. They recognize that others have needs too, but their own needs come first. Morality is based on a “what’s in it for me?” or a transactional mindset. Example: A child might share a toy with another child expecting that the other child will share their toy in return.

    • Level 2: Conventional Morality (Typical of adolescents and most adults)

      • The individual internalizes the standards of valued adult role models and social groups. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.
      • Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships (Conformist or “Good Boy/Good Girl” Attitude): Right and wrong are determined by what pleases or is approved of by others. There is a strong emphasis on being seen as a “good” person by family, peers, and the community. Example: A teenager might refrain from cheating on a test because they want their teachers and parents to see them as a good, honest student.
      • Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order (Law and Order Orientation): The individual shows respect for authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of social order. Right behavior consists of doing one’s duty and upholding the law for its own sake. Example: A citizen believes one must always stop at a red light, even at 3 AM with no traffic, because it is the law and laws maintain social order. Most adults are believed to operate at this stage.

    • Level 3: Post-conventional Morality (Attained by a minority of adults, typically after age 20)

      • The individual moves beyond unquestioning support for their own society’s rules and laws. Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies.
      • Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights: The individual recognizes that laws are social contracts that exist for the greater good. They understand that laws can be changed if they fail to serve society’s best interests. They believe some values, like liberty and life, are absolute and must be upheld regardless of majority opinion. Example: A person might argue that while a law against stealing is generally good (Stage 4), it might be justifiable to break it in specific circumstances, like Heinz’s dilemma, to uphold a higher value, the right to life.
      • Stage 6: Universal Principles: The individual’s reasoning is based on self-chosen, abstract ethical principles of justice, equality, and human rights. These principles are comprehensive and universal. The person acts because it is right, not because it is expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. People at this stage are willing to defend these principles even if it means going against the law and facing social condemnation. Examples: The non-violent civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi against unjust colonial laws, or the activism of Martin Luther King Jr. against segregation laws, are often cited as embodying Stage 6 reasoning. Kailash Satyarthi and Bhanwari Devi are modern Indian examples of individuals acting on universal principles against child labour and child marriage, respectively.

Meta-Ethics

Meta-ethics does not concern itself with what actions are right or wrong, but rather with the nature of morality itself. It is the “ethics of ethics,” exploring the meaning of moral language, the nature of moral facts, and the grounds of moral reasoning.

  • Moral Absolutism: This view holds that certain moral principles are universally valid and binding, irrespective of culture, context, or consequence. These principles are objective, eternal, and unchanging.

    • Source: For many, the source of these absolute rules is a divine being (Divine Command Theory). For others, like the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the source is pure reason. His Categorical Imperative is an absolutist principle stating that one should act only according to a maxim that one could will to become a universal law.
    • Example: The principle “Do not lie” is held to be an absolute moral rule, which must be followed in all circumstances, even if telling a lie could save someone’s life.

  • Moral Relativism: This is the antithesis of absolutism. It posits that there are no universal or absolute moral truths. Morality is considered relative to the standards of a person’s culture, society, or historical period.

    • Cultural Relativism: Argues that what is moral is determined by the specific culture. An act is right if it aligns with the norms of that culture.
    • Examples: The practice of Sati was once considered a moral duty in parts of India. Cross-cousin marriage is prohibited in some cultures but encouraged in others. Matrilineal systems of inheritance (e.g., among the Khasi tribe of Meghalaya) contrast with the more common patrilineal systems. From a relativist viewpoint, none of these is inherently superior or more “moral” than the other.

  • Moral Objectivism: This position is a middle ground. It asserts that there are objective moral truths, but they are not necessarily absolute. Moral principles are universally true, independent of human opinion, but their application may be context-dependent.

    • Distinction from Absolutism: An absolutist might say “lying is always wrong.” An objectivist might say “lying is objectively wrong, but there might be rare situations where it is the lesser of two evils.”
    • Example: The Fundamental Duties enshrined in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution can be seen as an expression of moral objectivism. They are presented as objective duties for all citizens, such as promoting harmony and protecting public property, which are considered objectively good for the nation.

  • Moral Subjectivism: This view takes relativism to the individual level. It holds that moral statements are merely expressions of an individual’s feelings, attitudes, or opinions. There are no objective moral facts; “X is wrong” simply means “I disapprove of X.”

    • Example: In a debate over a large infrastructure project, Person A might subjectively feel it is moral because it promotes economic growth (“I approve of economic growth”). Person B might subjectively feel it is immoral because it harms the environment and displaces communities (“I disapprove of environmental harm”). According to subjectivism, neither statement is objectively true or false; they are just expressions of personal preference.

  • Moral Nihilism: This is the most radical meta-ethical view. It claims that morality is a fiction and that there are no moral facts or truths whatsoever. Ethical claims are not just relative or subjective; they are fundamentally false.

    • Argument: Moral nihilists, such as J. L. Mackie (1917-1981) with his “error theory,” argue that when people make moral claims, they are trying to state objective facts, but since no such facts exist, all moral claims are in error.
    • Example: A moral nihilist would argue that the statement “Murder is wrong” is false. This doesn’t mean murder is right; it means the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are meaningless human constructs, possibly created for social control. They would see debates over capital punishment not as a clash of objective moral values, but as a clash of differing social conventions and power structures.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics, also called prescriptive ethics, is the branch of ethics that seeks to establish norms or standards for right and wrong conduct. It addresses questions like “What should I do?” or “What kind of person should I be?“.

  • Key Approaches:
    • Action-based ethics: Focuses on the morality of actions.
    • Virtue-based ethics: Focuses on the character of the moral agent.
    • Justice-based ethics: Focuses on principles of fair distribution.
    • Right-based ethics: Focuses on the entitlements of individuals.

Action-Based Ethics

This approach judges the morality of an action itself, either by its intrinsic nature or by its consequences.

  • Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics):

    • Core Principle: Deontology, from the Greek word deon (duty), asserts that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. The “means” are paramount.
    • Key Proponent: Immanuel Kant is the most famous deontologist. His philosophy emphasizes duties and rules.
    • Concept: The focus is on the process and adherence to duty. This aligns with the concept of Nishkama Karma from the Bhagavad Gita, which advocates performing one’s duty without attachment to the outcome.
    • Examples: A doctor has a duty not to lie to a patient, even if the truth might cause distress. Copyright piracy is considered wrong because it violates the rule of respecting intellectual property, regardless of whether it helps students access expensive materials.
    • Criticism: Deontology is often criticized for its rigidity. It can lead to actions that have devastating consequences and fails to resolve conflicts between two opposing duties.

  • Teleology (Consequentialist Ethics):

    • Core Principle: Teleology, from the Greek word telos (end or purpose), determines the moral worth of an action based on its outcome or consequences. The core maxim is “the end justifies the means.”
    • Key Proponents: Early forms include Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) Psychological Egoism and Ayn Rand’s (1905-1982) Ethical Egoism. The most prominent teleological theory is Utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and later refined by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Amartya Sen’s concept of the “common good” also has teleological underpinnings.
    • Examples: The “Robin Hood” scenario—stealing from the rich to give to the poor—is a classic teleological justification. A public official might justify displacing a small number of people to build a dam that will provide irrigation and electricity to millions.
    • Criticism: A major critique is the inability to accurately predict all future consequences of an action. It can also be used to justify actions that are intuitively wrong, such as sacrificing an innocent individual for the greater good of many.

  • Threshold Deontology:

    • Concept: This is a hybrid approach that attempts to reconcile the rigidity of deontology with the practicality of consequentialism. It posits that deontological rules (like “do not kill an innocent person”) should be followed unless the consequences of not violating the rule are so dire that they cross a certain “threshold of seriousness.”
    • Application: A pure deontologist would say torturing a terrorist is always wrong. A pure consequentialist might say it is right if it saves many lives. A threshold deontologist would argue that torture is morally wrong and prohibited, but it might become permissible if, for example, it is the only way to find a nuclear bomb set to detonate in a major city, thus saving millions of lives. The potential catastrophe crosses the “threshold.”

Prelims Pointers

  • Descriptive Ethics: An empirical study of people’s moral beliefs. It is value-free and describes ‘what is’.
  • Normative Ethics: A prescriptive study of moral action. It prescribes ‘what ought to be’.
  • Meta-Ethics: The study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It analyzes the language and concepts of ethics.
  • Lawrence Kohlberg: An American psychologist known for his theory of the stages of moral development.
  • Heinz’s Dilemma: A thought experiment created by Kohlberg to assess moral reasoning.
  • Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Morality:
    1. Pre-conventional (Obedience/Punishment, Self-Interest)
    2. Conventional (Conformity, Law and Order)
    3. Post-conventional (Social Contract, Universal Principles)
  • Moral Absolutism: Belief that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of context. Associated with Divine Command Theory and Kant’s Deontology.
  • Moral Relativism: Belief that moral standards are culturally and historically determined; there are no universal moral truths.
  • Moral Objectivism: Belief that certain moral principles are universally valid, independent of opinion, but their application may be context-dependent.
  • Moral Subjectivism: Belief that morality is based on individual feelings and perceptions, not on external rules.
  • Moral Nihilism: The view that there are no inherent moral truths or facts.
  • Deontology: A duty-based ethical theory. The morality of an action depends on the action itself. Associated with Immanuel Kant.
  • Teleology: A consequence-based ethical theory. The morality of an action depends on its outcome. Also known as Consequentialism.
  • Utilitarianism: A major teleological theory associated with Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill, focusing on “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
  • Ethical Egoism: A teleological theory stating that it is moral for individuals to act in their own self-interest. Associated with Ayn Rand.
  • Threshold Deontology: A hybrid view where moral rules are followed unless consequences become catastrophically bad, crossing a certain threshold.

Mains Insights

Connecting Ethical Theories to Governance and Administration

  1. The Deontology vs. Teleology Dilemma in Public Service:

    • The Core Conflict: Civil servants are frequently caught between adhering to rules and procedures (a deontological approach) and achieving desirable outcomes for the public good (a teleological approach).
    • Deontology in Administration: Upholding the rule of law, following due process, and maintaining procedural fairness are deontological duties. For example, rejecting a contract bid that does not meet all tender requirements, even if the bidder is competent and offers a low price. This ensures transparency and fairness.
    • Teleology in Administration: Focusing on outcomes like poverty reduction, infrastructure development, or national security can sometimes seem to justify bending the rules. For example, coercive land acquisition for a vital public project might be justified on teleological grounds (benefit to many) but violates the deontological rights of the displaced individuals.
    • The UPSC 2018 Question (“Means vs. Ends”): A balanced answer would argue that while ends (public welfare) are crucial, the means adopted must also be just, fair, and constitutionally sound. Unethical means can corrupt the end itself and erode public trust in the government. The philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing the purity of means (Satyagraha), provides a strong counter-argument to a purely teleological view. A modern administrative approach often requires a balance, perhaps leaning towards threshold deontology, where rules are paramount but can be reconsidered in exceptional crises with proper justification and oversight.

  2. Kohlberg’s Stages and the Moral Development of a Civil Servant:

    • Relevance: Kohlberg’s theory provides a framework for understanding the moral reasoning of public officials.
    • Stage 4 (Law and Order): Many officials operate at this stage, viewing their duty as the strict enforcement of laws and rules. This ensures predictability and order but can lead to bureaucratic apathy and a lack of compassion (the “rules are rules” mentality).
    • Stage 5 (Social Contract): An ideal civil servant should operate at this stage. They understand that laws are meant to serve the public and can be interpreted flexibly or even challenged (through proper channels) if they lead to injustice. They balance letter of the law with the spirit of the law, guided by constitutional values.
    • Stage 6 (Universal Principles): Officials operating at this level demonstrate exceptional moral courage. They are whistleblowers who expose corruption, or social reformers like Bhanwari Devi, who fight for justice even at great personal risk, guided by universal principles of human dignity and equality.

  3. Meta-Ethics and its Implications for a Pluralistic Society:

    • Moral Relativism vs. Universal Human Rights: In a diverse country like India, cultural relativism is a social reality. However, it poses a challenge when cultural practices conflict with universal human rights (e.g., arguments defending child marriage or female genital mutilation on cultural grounds). The Indian Constitution navigates this by protecting cultural rights (Article 29) but also upholding fundamental rights to life, liberty, and equality that can override certain regressive practices.
    • Moral Nihilism and Corruption: A nihilistic or overly relativistic attitude can foster cynicism and corruption. If an official believes there is no real right or wrong, only social conventions, they may find it easier to justify corrupt acts, viewing them merely as “part of the system” rather than as inherently immoral.
    • Moral Objectivism as a Foundation: A belief in objective moral values, such as integrity, impartiality, and compassion (as enshrined in the Nolan Committee principles and foundational values for civil services), is essential for good governance. It provides a stable foundation for ethical conduct that transcends personal or cultural preferences.

Graph View