8. Ethics Notes 16

Elaborate Notes

Virtue-Based Ethics

Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that emphasizes virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). It posits that a right action is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances.

• Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE)

  • Core Tenet: ‘Knowledge is Virtue’: Socrates equated virtue with knowledge. He believed that no one does wrong voluntarily or knowingly. Immoral actions are the result of ignorance. If a person truly knows what is good, they will naturally do it.
  • Socratic Method (Elenchus): He did not lecture but engaged in dialectical inquiry. As documented in Plato’s early dialogues like “Euthyphro” and “Apology”, Socrates would ask probing questions to reveal contradictions in a person’s beliefs, thereby guiding them towards a more rational understanding. This process aimed to clear away false beliefs and arrive at genuine knowledge.
  • “An Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living”: This famous dictum, from Plato’s “Apology”, encapsulates his philosophy. Socrates argued that the purpose of human life is personal and spiritual growth, which can only be achieved by continuous self-reflection, questioning of one’s own beliefs and values, and a relentless pursuit of truth.
  • Contemporary Relevance: In the modern era of misinformation, “fake news,” and algorithm-driven echo chambers, the Socratic call for critical examination is highly relevant. It advocates for intellectual humility and the courage to question established narratives, whether personal, societal, or geopolitical (e.g., questioning state-sponsored propaganda).
  • Connection to Indian Philosophy: The Socratic emphasis on knowledge as the path to a good life has parallels in Indian thought.
    • Bhagavad Gita: It outlines three paths to Moksha (liberation), one of which is Jnana Yoga (or Gyan Marg), the path of knowledge and wisdom.
    • Jainism: One of the Three Jewels (Triratna) for attaining Kaivalya (omniscience or ultimate liberation) is Samyak Jnana (Right Knowledge), alongside Right Faith and Right Conduct.

• Plato (c. 428–348 BCE)

  • A student of Socrates, Plato expanded upon his teacher’s ideas, primarily in his seminal work, “The Republic”. He identified four cardinal virtues that are essential for a good individual and a just state.
  • (a) Wisdom (Sophia): This is the highest virtue, associated with the rational part of the soul. It is not just the accumulation of facts but the profound understanding of universal truths and the ability to apply this knowledge for the good. For Plato, the ideal rulers, the “Philosopher-Kings,” would be those who possessed this virtue. It governs and harmonizes the other virtues.
  • (b) Courage (Andreia): This virtue resides in the spirited part of the soul. It is more than just physical bravery; it is the moral fortitude to uphold one’s convictions, stand for justice, and persevere in the face of adversity, danger, or social pressure. Examples include whistleblowers like Satyendra Dubey who exposed corruption in the NHAI, or social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who fought against practices like Sati.
  • (c) Temperance (Sophrosyne): This virtue is about moderation, self-control, and the mastery of one’s appetites and desires. It involves a harmonious balance where the rational part of the soul governs the appetitive part. In contemporary society, temperance is a crucial virtue to combat issues like consumerism, digital addiction, substance abuse, and financial imprudence driven by a “credit card culture.”
  • (d) Justice (Dikaiosyne): For Plato, justice is the ultimate virtue and the outcome of the other three working in harmony.
    • At the Individual Level: The soul has three parts: Reason (Logos), Spirit (Thymos), and Appetite (Eros). An individual is just when Reason, guided by Wisdom, rules over the other parts, with Spirit, full of Courage, acting as its ally to control the Appetites.
    • At the State Level: The ideal state is a macroscopic reflection of the just individual. Society is divided into three classes corresponding to the parts of the soul:
      1. Ruling Class (Philosopher-Kings): Embody Reason and possess Wisdom. They govern the state.
      2. Military Class (Auxiliaries): Embody Spirit and possess Courage. They defend the state.
      3. Producer Class (Artisans, Farmers): Embody Appetite and practice Temperance. They provide for the state’s material needs. Justice in the state is achieved when each class performs its designated function without interfering with the others, creating a harmonious and well-ordered society.

• Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

  • A student of Plato, Aristotle presented a more practical and empirical approach to ethics in his work, “Nicomachean Ethics”.
  • The Golden Mean (Doctrine of the Mean): Aristotle argued that virtue is a mean state between two extremes (vices), one of excess and one of deficiency. It is not a mathematical average but a “mean relative to us,” determined by practical wisdom (phronesis).
    • Examples:
      • Courage is the mean between the vice of Cowardice (deficiency) and Rashness (excess).
      • Generosity is the mean between Stinginess (deficiency) and Extravagance (excess).
      • Modesty is the mean between Humility/Shamelessness (deficiency) and Pride/Shyness (excess).
  • Character over Action: For Aristotle, the focus is on developing a virtuous character (ethos). A virtuous person will habitually and naturally choose the right action. The ethicality of an act is determined not by the act itself, but by the character of the agent performing it.
  • Application: The principle of the Golden Mean is applicable in various contexts. For instance, in response to governmental policies, the extreme of violent protest (excess) and the extreme of apathetic silence (deficiency) are both vices. The virtuous mean would be constructive and lawful dissent, such as peaceful protests, public interest litigation (PIL), or engaging in reasoned debate.

Justice-Based Ethics

This branch of ethics focuses on fairness, equality, and the just distribution of resources, punishments, and opportunities.

Concerning Crime

• Retributive Justice:

  • Principle: Based on the concept of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”), this form of justice holds that punishment should be inflicted on wrongdoers because they deserve it. It is backward-looking, focusing on the crime already committed.
  • Core Tenets:
    1. Proportionality: The punishment must fit the crime. A minor offense should not receive a severe penalty.
    2. Retrospective Implementation: Punishment can only be for an act that was illegal when it was committed. This is enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 20(1) as protection against ex post facto laws.
    3. No Double Jeopardy: A person cannot be tried and punished for the same crime twice. This is a fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
  • Limitations: Critics like Cesare Beccaria in his 1764 treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” argued that retribution can perpetuate cycles of violence (revenge) and does little to reform the individual or prevent future crimes. Social stigmatization (“naming and shaming”) can also hinder the reintegration of an ex-convict into society.

• Reformative Justice:

  • Principle: This forward-looking approach is based on the philosophy that criminals can be reformed and rehabilitated. It views crime as a social or psychological disease that can be treated. The goal is to transform the offender into a law-abiding and productive member of society.
  • Methods: Includes psychological counseling, vocational and skills training, education, meditation, and restorative practices. Kiran Bedi’s reforms in Tihar Jail in the 1990s, which introduced yoga, meditation, and grievance redressal systems, are a classic Indian example.
  • Policy: The Model Prison Manual (2016) by the Ministry of Home Affairs reflects this shift, emphasizing correctional administration, humane treatment, and the rights of prisoners.
  • Debate: While humane, reformative justice, if pursued in isolation, may undermine the principle of deterrence. A balance is necessary where retributive measures provide a deterrent and satisfy the public’s sense of justice, while reformative measures aim to reduce recidivism.

• Justice as Compensation:

  • Often a component of Restorative Justice, this focuses on repairing the harm caused to the victim. Compensation, whether monetary or otherwise, acknowledges the suffering of the victim and helps in their recovery and survival.
  • Application: It is crucial in cases of communal violence (e.g., compensation for victims of riots), state negligence, or crimes against vulnerable sections like SCs/STs (as mandated under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989).

Distributive Justice

• Aristotle:

  • Principle: “It is unjust to treat equals unequally as it is unjust to treat unequals equally.” Aristotle advocated for proportional justice. The distribution of resources, wealth, and honor in a society should be in proportion to an individual’s merit (axia).
  • Example: In distributing flutes, they should go to the best flute players, not the wealthiest or most noble, because the purpose (telos) of a flute is to be played well.
  • Criticism: This theory is often criticized as elitist because it can justify existing inequalities. It does not account for historical injustices (e.g., caste discrimination), social disadvantages, or the fact that “merit” itself can be a product of privilege and socio-economic background.

• John Rawls (1921–2002):

  • In his landmark book, “A Theory of Justice” (1971), Rawls proposed a theory of “justice as fairness” based on a social contract approach.
  • Veil of Ignorance: To arrive at fair principles, Rawls devised a thought experiment. He asked us to imagine a hypothetical “original position” where individuals decide on the structure of society from behind a “veil of ignorance.” Behind this veil, no one knows their future class, social status, race, gender, talents, or religious beliefs.
  • Rationale: Since individuals do not know if they will end up as the most or least advantaged, they will rationally choose principles that protect everyone, especially the worst-off, just in case they end up in that position.
  • Two Principles of Justice:
    1. The Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others. This is non-negotiable and has lexical priority.
    2. The Equality Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
       • (a) The Difference Principle: to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society.
       • (b) The Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle: attached to offices and positions open to all.
  • Relevance: The Difference Principle provides a powerful philosophical justification for affirmative action policies like reservations, progressive taxation, social welfare schemes (DBT, subsidies), and initiatives like Stand-Up India that aim to uplift marginalized sections.

• Amartya Sen (b. 1933):

  • In works like “Development as Freedom” (1999) and “The Idea of Justice” (2009), Sen critiques Rawls’s focus on institutions and resource distribution (niti) and instead emphasizes outcomes and substantive freedoms (nyaya).
  • The Capability Approach: Sen argues that true justice is not about providing people with resources (like income or goods) but about enhancing their capabilities—their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value.
  • Functionings vs. Capabilities: ‘Functionings’ are the things a person manages to do or be (e.g., being well-nourished, being educated). ‘Capabilities’ are the set of achievable functionings from which a person can choose. Justice, for Sen, is about expanding this set of choices.
  • Policy Prescription: The focus should be on investment in social infrastructure—healthcare, education, and public services. This empowers individuals, transforming them from passive recipients of aid to active agents of their own development.
  • Contemporary Relevance: This approach is central to modern development economics and underpins concepts like the Human Development Index (HDI), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and policies focused on Human Capital Formation, Women Empowerment, and ensuring a healthy, productive life for all citizens (Longevity Dividend, Healthy Ageing).
  • The Flute Story: To illustrate the complexity of justice, Sen uses an allegory where three children claim a flute. Anne claims it because she is the only one who can play it (utilitarian argument). Bob claims it because he is poor and has no other toys (egalitarian argument). Carla claims it because she made it (libertarian argument). Sen shows that different, perfectly plausible theories of justice (utilitarian, egalitarian, libertarian) can yield different answers, proving there is no single, universally perfect principle of justice.

Prelims Pointers

• Socrates: Equated virtue with knowledge. Famous for the Socratic method of questioning. Stated, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”
• Plato: Author of “The Republic”. Identified four cardinal virtues: Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice.
• Plato’s theory of the soul includes three parts: Reason, Spirit, and Appetite.
• Plato’s ideal state has three classes: Rulers (Philosopher-Kings), Soldiers (Auxiliaries), and Producers (Artisans).
• Aristotle: Author of “Nicomachean Ethics”. Proposed the concept of the “Golden Mean,” where virtue is a mean between two vices of excess and deficiency.
• Retributive Justice: Based on punishment proportional to the crime (lex talionis).
• Indian Constitution:
  • Article 20(1): Protection against ex post facto laws (no retrospective punishment).
  • Article 20(2): Protection against double jeopardy.
• Reformative Justice: Focuses on rehabilitation of criminals. The Ministry of Home Affairs released the Model Prison Manual in 2016.
• John Rawls: Author of “A Theory of Justice” (1971).
• Key concepts by Rawls: “Veil of Ignorance,” “Original Position,” and “Difference Principle.”
• Amartya Sen: Proponent of the “Capability Approach.”
• Key works by Sen: “Development as Freedom” (1999) and “The Idea of Justice” (2009).
• Sen distinguishes between niti (institutional justice) and nyaya (realized justice).

Mains Insights

Historiographical and Analytical Perspectives

1. Virtue Ethics vs. Rule-Based Ethics for Civil Services:

   • Debate: Should a civil servant’s ethical conduct be guided by a strict code of conduct (deontology) or by an ingrained virtuous character (virtue ethics)?
   • Analysis: While rules are necessary to ensure accountability and uniformity, they cannot cover every situation. Virtue ethics argues for cultivating virtues like integrity, courage, and compassion, which enable an officer to use their discretion wisely (phronesis) in complex, novel situations. A character-based approach is more resilient against “lawful but awful” actions. The Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life (UK, 1995) also emphasized principles like integrity and selflessness over a purely rule-based framework.

2. Plato’s Ideal State: Utopian Ideal or Totalitarian Blueprint?

   • Cause-Effect: Plato’s desire for a perfectly just state, born from the political turmoil and corruption he witnessed in Athens (including the execution of Socrates), led him to propose a rigid, hierarchical society ruled by an intellectual elite.
   • Critique: Philosophers like Karl Popper, in “The Open Society and Its Enemies” (1945), critiqued Plato’s Republic as a blueprint for totalitarianism. The lack of individual liberty, censorship of art, and concentration of power in an unaccountable ruling class are seen as deeply anti-democratic.
   • Relevance: While its structure is rejected, Plato’s idea that rulers should be wise and selfless remains a powerful ideal. The debate continues on how to ensure that those in power possess competence and a commitment to public good, a central question in administrative ethics (GS Paper IV).

3. The Dilemma of Justice: Retribution vs. Reformation in Modern India:

   • Context: Indian prisons are severely overcrowded, with a high percentage of undertrials. This context challenges the efficacy of a purely retributive system.
   • Analysis: Retributive justice satisfies the societal need for accountability and acts as a deterrent (e.g., stringent punishments for heinous crimes). However, without reformative measures, prisons become breeding grounds for hardened criminals, leading to high recidivism. Reformative justice, aligned with human rights, aims to reintegrate offenders, reducing the long-term burden on the state.
   • Synthesis: A modern criminal justice system requires a balanced approach. This includes efficient trials to deliver swift retribution, coupled with robust in-prison reforms (skill development, mental health support) and post-release support to prevent re-offending.

4. Distributive Justice in India: A Rawlsian and Senian Analysis:

   • Rawls’s Difference Principle in Action: India’s policy of reservation in education and employment is a direct application of the Difference Principle. It is an inequality (unequal opportunity) designed to benefit the least-advantaged (historically marginalized communities like SCs, STs, and OBCs) to bring them to a level playing field. Subsidies and welfare schemes (PDS, MGNREGA) also fit this model.
   • Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach as a Policy Guide: Sen’s framework critiques mere resource distribution (like cash transfers) as potentially creating dependency. It advocates for policies that empower individuals by expanding their capabilities. For example:
     • Instead of just providing unemployment benefits, focus on Skill India to enhance employability.
     • Instead of just food subsidies, focus on the National Health Mission and POSHAN Abhiyaan to build the capability of being healthy and well-nourished.
     • The focus on female education (Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao) directly enhances the capabilities and agency of women.
   • Conclusion: While Rawls provides the justification for why we need pro-poor policies, Sen offers a more effective framework for how to design and implement them for sustainable and empowering development. This is a critical insight for GS Paper II (Social Justice) and GS Paper III (Indian Economy).