8. Ethics Notes 15

Elaborate Notes

Normative Ethics: An Overview

Normative ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. It examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions. The two major schools within Western normative ethics are Teleology (or Consequentialism) and Deontology.

• Teleology: Derived from the Greek words telos (end, goal) and logos (science, study), this approach determines the moral worth of an action based on its outcome or consequences. The most prominent teleological theory is Utilitarianism.
• Deontology: Derived from the Greek deon (duty), this approach 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. Its chief proponent is Immanuel Kant.

Consequential Ethics

Consequentialism posits that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome. This can be further divided based on whose consequences matter most.

Consequences for Self: Egoism

Egoism is a theory of motivation according to which the motive for all voluntary action is the desire to benefit the self. It is crucial to distinguish between its descriptive and prescriptive forms.

• Psychological Egoism:

  • This is a descriptive theory of human psychology. It claims that all human actions are, at their core, motivated by self-interest, even if they appear altruistic.
  • It does not make a moral judgment; it purports to describe a basic fact about human nature.
  • Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is a key philosopher associated with this view. In his seminal work, Leviathan (1651), written amidst the chaos of the English Civil War, he argued that in a “state of nature” (a hypothetical condition before society), humans are driven by a perpetual and restless desire for power which ceases only in death. This inherent selfishness leads to a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes), where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

• Ethical Egoism:

  • This is a prescriptive or normative theory. It argues that human actions should be motivated by self-interest. It posits that acting in one’s own rational self-interest is the highest moral good.
  • Ayn Rand (1905-1982), a Russo-American writer and philosopher, is the most famous modern proponent of this view. Through her philosophy of “Objectivism,” detailed in novels like The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), and non-fiction like The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), she advocated for “rational selfishness.”
  • Positive Aspects:
    • It reconciles morality with self-interest, eliminating the potential conflict between doing what is right and doing what is best for oneself.
    • It promotes rationality, as one must rationally determine one’s true, long-term interests.
    • It encourages self-awareness and self-care, fostering productivity and personal goal achievement.
  • Negative Aspects:
    • It can lead to a self-centred society where empathy, compassion, and collective well-being are devalued, potentially causing social fragmentation.
    • It struggles to resolve conflicts of interest; if everyone pursues their own interest, it can lead to Hobbes’s state of nature rather than a harmonious society.

Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan State

• Hobbes’s philosophy was a direct response to the political instability of the English Civil War (1642-1651). His psychological egoism formed the basis of his political theory.
• Prescription: To escape the brutal state of nature, Hobbes argued that rational, self-interested individuals would consent to a social contract. They would agree to surrender some of their natural freedoms and submit to the authority of an absolute sovereign.
• This sovereign entity, which he called the Leviathan (after a biblical sea monster symbolizing immense power), would possess absolute and indivisible authority to enforce laws and maintain peace and order.
• Under the Leviathan, citizens do not have absolute rights; their primary right is to self-preservation, which the state is created to protect. The state must be powerful enough to suppress internal dissent and external threats, even through means like education and propaganda to induce obedience. The example of modern totalitarian states like North Korea can be seen as an extreme, real-world manifestation of a Leviathan-like state.

Ayn Rand and the Rejection of Altruism

• Ayn Rand argued that an individual’s own life and happiness are their ultimate moral purpose.
• She defined altruism as a moral framework where an individual has no right to exist for their own sake and that service to others is the primary moral justification for their existence. She vehemently condemned this, viewing it as a morality of self-sacrifice that is detrimental to human flourishing.
• According to her perspective, actions like altruistic surrogacy (where a woman carries a child for another with no financial gain, purely out of a desire to help) would be morally questionable. An ethical egoist would argue that any action should be based on a contract of mutual self-interest, not on the principle of self-sacrifice.

Consequences for Others: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory where the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall utility, specifically by its ability to produce the “greatest happiness for the greatest number.”

• Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832):

  • In his work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham outlined the Principle of Utility. He argued that human beings are governed by two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain.
  • He promoted Quantitative Utilitarianism. For Bentham, the quality of pleasure was irrelevant; only the quantity mattered. He famously stated, “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.”
  • He developed a “Felicific Calculus” to measure the amount of pleasure or pain an action would produce, based on factors like intensity, duration, certainty, and extent.
  • Criticisms: His philosophy was criticized for potentially leading to the “tyranny of the majority,” where the interests of minorities could be sacrificed for the happiness of the majority. It was also seen as promoting a hedonistic, materialistic view of life.

• Revisited Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873):

  • A student of Bentham, J.S. Mill sought to refine and defend utilitarianism from its criticisms in his essay Utilitarianism (1863).
  • He introduced Qualitative Utilitarianism, arguing that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and valuable than others. He distinguished between higher-order pleasures (intellectual, moral, artistic) and lower-order pleasures (sensual, bodily).
  • His famous declaration, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied,” directly counters Bentham’s quantitative approach.
  • To protect minorities, Mill proposed the Harm Principle in his work On Liberty (1859). This principle states that the only legitimate reason for exercising power over an individual against their will is to prevent harm to others. This provided a crucial space for individual liberty within the utilitarian framework.
  • Criticism of Mill: Critics argued that by introducing qualitative distinctions and the Harm Principle, Mill had moved so far from Bentham’s original formulation that he had effectively overturned it. He was called “the Peter who denied his master.”

Concept of Common Good vs. Utilitarianism

While both aim for societal well-being, their approaches differ fundamentally.

• Utilitarianism: Its unit of analysis is the individual. It aggregates individual utilities to determine the best outcome (“maximum benefit for the maximum number”). Policies like Universal Basic Income (UBI), Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT), and consumer subsidies are utilitarian as they aim to maximize the happiness of individual recipients.
• Concept of Common Good: Its unit of analysis is society as a collective. It focuses on creating and maintaining shared social conditions and infrastructure that benefit everyone. The benefits are enjoyed in common and are not just a sum of individual private goods. Examples include investment in public infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools), national security, and a clean environment. The idea is that maximizing the benefit for society as a whole will eventually trickle down and benefit all its members.

Deontology

Deontology is an ethical framework that judges morality based on adherence to rules or duties. It holds that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. The mantra is, “There is no wrong way of doing the right thing.”

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):

  • The foremost proponent of deontology, Kant articulated his philosophy in works like Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).
  • He proposed the “Categorical Imperative” as the supreme principle of morality. It is Categorical because it is absolute and unconditional, applying in all situations. It is an Imperative because it is a command of reason.

• Principles of the Categorical Imperative:

  1. Principle of Universalism: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” An action is moral only if it can be applied universally without contradiction. For example, lying cannot be a universal law, because if everyone lied, the concept of truth would collapse, and lying itself would become impossible.
  2. Principle of Equality: The universal laws must apply to all rational beings without exception, including oneself. The administrative anti-pattern ‘You show me the man, I show you the rule’ is a direct violation of this principle. The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you want to be treated,” is a popular, though less rigorous, parallel.
  3. Principle of Humanism: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” This principle forbids using people as mere instruments to achieve one’s own goals. Practices like child labour, human trafficking, commodification of women, and using humans in clinical trials without informed consent are unethical from this perspective because they treat persons as objects.
  4. Duty Principle: For an action to have genuine moral worth, it must be done from a sense of duty, not merely in accordance with duty. The motivation matters. For instance, a shopkeeper who is honest because it is good for business is acting in accordance with duty, but not from duty. His action has no true moral worth. This resonates with the concept of Nishkam Karma in the Bhagavad Gita, which advocates for action without attachment to its fruits. A celebrity engaging in charity for publicity is not performing a moral act by Kantian standards.

Virtue-Based Ethics

This branch of ethics shifts the focus from actions (“What should I do?”) to the agent (“What kind of person should I be?”). It emphasizes the moral character of the individual.

• Aristotle (384–322 BC) is the primary historical source for virtue ethics, particularly in his work Nicomachean Ethics.
• The central concept is virtue (arete), which refers to a desirable character trait or excellence (e.g., honesty, kindness, compassion, integrity, courage).
• The Goal: The ultimate end of human life is Eudaimonia (human flourishing, a state of living well and doing well). This is achieved by living a life of virtue.
• How Virtues are Acquired: Virtues are not innate but are developed through practice and habituation, like a skill. The process of socialization is therefore critical, and agencies like family, school, and community play an indispensable role in character building.
• Moral Decision-Making: A virtue ethicist determines the right action by asking what a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances. According to Aristotle, a person with practical wisdom (phronesis) will naturally make the right choices when faced with ethical dilemmas.
• Criticisms:
  • Lack of Guidance: It is often criticized for failing to provide a clear, action-guiding framework. In a complex dilemma, simply saying “do what a virtuous person would do” may not be helpful.
  • Subjectivity and Cultural Relativism: The list of what constitutes a virtue can vary significantly across cultures and historical periods. For example, the ancient Greek virtue of megalopsychia (greatness of soul, or pride) may conflict with the Christian virtue of humility.

---

Prelims Pointers

• Normative Ethics: Examines standards for right and wrong actions. Main schools: Teleology and Deontology.
• Consequentialism (Teleology): Morality of an act is based on its consequences.
• Deontology: Morality of an act is based on adherence to rules or duties.
• Psychological Egoism: A descriptive theory stating humans are always motivated by self-interest. Key proponent: Thomas Hobbes.
• Ethical Egoism: A prescriptive theory stating humans should be motivated by self-interest. Key proponent: Ayn Rand.
• Thomas Hobbes: Author of Leviathan (1651). Proposed the ‘state of nature’ and ‘social contract’ leading to an absolute sovereign state.
• Ayn Rand: Founder of ‘Objectivism’. Advocated for rational selfishness and condemned altruism. Author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
• Utilitarianism: A consequentialist theory aiming for the “greatest happiness for the greatest number”.
• Jeremy Bentham: Founder of modern Utilitarianism. Proposed Quantitative Utilitarianism and the “Felicific Calculus”. Stated “Pushpin is as good as poetry.”
• J.S. Mill: Refined Utilitarianism. Proposed Qualitative Utilitarianism (higher vs. lower pleasures). Proposed the Harm Principle in his book On Liberty (1859). Stated it is “better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
• Concept of Common Good: Focuses on benefit for society as a whole (e.g., infrastructure), distinct from the Utilitarian aggregation of individual benefits (e.g., DBT).
• Immanuel Kant: Foremost proponent of Deontology.
• Categorical Imperative: Kant’s supreme principle of morality; an unconditional moral command.
• Principles of Categorical Imperative:
  1. Principle of Universalism (act can be made a universal law).
  2. Principle of Humanism (treat people as ends, never merely as means).
  3. Duty Principle (action must be done from duty).
• Virtue Ethics: Focuses on the character of the moral agent.
• Aristotle: Key proponent of Virtue Ethics in his work Nicomachean Ethics.
• Eudaimonia: Aristotle’s term for human flourishing or living well, the goal of a virtuous life.
• Virtue (Arete): A desirable character trait, often seen as a “golden mean” between two vices (e.g., courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness).

---

Mains Insights

Utilitarianism vs. Rights-Based Approaches in Governance

1. Policy Dilemmas: Utilitarian logic is frequently used in public policy, especially in cost-benefit analyses for large development projects (dams, highways, mines).
   • Cause: The goal is to maximize economic growth and benefit for a large population.
   • Effect: This often leads to the displacement of marginalized communities (e.g., tribals, farmers) whose lands are acquired. Their individual and community rights are sacrificed for the “greater good.” This creates a classic conflict between a utilitarian calculus and a deontological, rights-based approach (as enshrined in the Constitution, e.g., Article 21).
2. Debate: Bentham vs. Mill in Social Policy: The debate between quantitative and qualitative happiness has real-world implications.
   • Should government spending prioritize mass entertainment and subsidies that provide immediate, widespread (but perhaps ‘lower’) pleasure? This is a Benthamite approach.
   • Or should it invest more in higher education, arts, and scientific research, which may benefit fewer people directly but cultivate ‘higher’ faculties and have long-term societal benefits? This is a Millian approach. A balanced policy often requires elements of both.

Deontology in Public Administration

1. Foundation of Rule of Law: Kant’s Principle of Universalism and Equality forms the ethical bedrock of the ‘Rule of Law’. It stands in direct opposition to administrative evils like nepotism, cronyism, and arbitrary use of power. It demands that laws and rules be applied impartially to all citizens.
2. Ethical Guide for Civil Servants: The Principle of Humanism is a powerful guide for a civil servant in a developing country. It means treating every citizen, especially the most vulnerable, with dignity and respect—not as a mere statistic in a file or a means to achieve a target.
3. The Absolutism Problem: Kant’s rigidity can be problematic in complex administrative situations. A civil servant might face a dilemma where telling a lie (e.g., to a violent mob to protect a person from a minority community) could save a life. A strict Kantian would forbid the lie, while a consequentialist would justify it. This highlights the need for administrators to balance absolute principles with situational realities and potential consequences.

Virtue Ethics and Building an Ethical State

1. Beyond Rules and Regulations: While rules (Deontology) and outcomes (Consequentialism) are important, Virtue Ethics argues that they are insufficient. An ethical administration depends on the character of the people within it.
   • Application: This underscores the importance of robust training for civil servants that focuses not just on laws and procedures, but on cultivating virtues like integrity, compassion, courage, and objectivity. The goal of institutions like LBSNAA should be character-building (sheelam param bhushanam).
2. Agent-Centric Approach: This perspective suggests that long-term ethical reform requires focusing on the “agencies of socialization”—family, education system, and society at large—to foster a culture of virtue. This is a long-term, foundational approach to combating corruption and unethical behaviour, rather than a purely punitive or rule-based one.
3. Challenge of Pluralism: A key challenge in applying virtue ethics in a diverse country like India is the lack of a universally agreed-upon set of virtues. Constitutional morality must serve as the ultimate source for defining the virtues required of a public servant, ensuring that they align with principles of democracy, secularism, and social justice, rather than narrow cultural or traditional norms.