ETHICS &

HUMAN
INTERFACE
• Etymologically the term "ethics"
correspond to the Greek word "ethos"
which means character, habit, customs,
ways of behaviour etc.

• Ethics may be defined as the systematic

study of human actions from the point of
view of their rightfulness or wrongfulness,
as means for the attainment of the
ultimate happiness. It is the reflective
study of what is good or bad in that part of
human conduct for which human has some
personal responsibility. In other words,
Ethics is a set of standards that a society
places on itself and which helps guide
behaviour, choices and actions.
 Ethics is one of the branches of philosophy. As a
philosophical discipline, ethics is the study of the
values and guidelines by which we live. It also involves
the justification of these values and guidelines. It is
not merely following a tradition or custom. Instead it
requires analysis and evaluation of these guidelines in
light of universal principles.

Ethics is also called "moral philosophy". The

word "moral" comes from Latin word "mores” which
signifies customs, character, behaviour etc. It is the
reflective study of what is good or bad in that part of
human conduct for which human has some personal
responsibility.
• As moral
philosophy, ethics is
the philosophical
thinking about
morality, moral
problems, and moral
judgments.
Socio-Political Evolution of Ethics

Ethics is as old as humanity. The first ethical precepts

were certainly passed down by word of mouth by parents and
elders, but as societies learned to use the written word, they
began to set down their ethical beliefs. These records
constitute the first historical evidence of the origins of ethics.

In the Western Philosophy, the history of ethics can be

traced back to the fifth century B.C with the appearance of
Socrates. As a philosopher among the Greeks his mission was to
awaken his fellow humans to the need for rational criticism of
their beliefs and practices.
Plato's theory of forms could be seen as the first attempt
at defending moral realism and offering an objective
ground for moral truths. He was the fountainhead of
religious and idealistic ethics, Aristotle engendered the
naturalistic tradition of ethics.

Aristotle's ethical writings (i.e. Eudemian Ethics,

the Nicomachean Ethics, and the Politics) constitute the
first systematic investigation into the foundations of
ethics. Aristotle's account of the virtues could be seen as
one of the first sustained inquiries in normative ethics. It
was a clear mixture of Greco-Roman thought with
Judaism and elements of other Middle Eastern religions.
 The medieval period was dominated by the
thoughts of Christian philosophers and theologians
like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The influence of
Christianity dominated, the ethical scenario so much
that during this period philosophy and religion were
nearly indistinguishable.

The rise of Christian philosophy produced a

new era of history of ethics. In times of St. Augustine,
the most prominent philosopher of the early
medieval period, ethics became a blend of the
pursuit of earthly well-being with preparation of the
soul for eternal salvation.
 The next towering figure of medieval philosophy
is Thomas Aquinas. He brought about a true
reconciliation between Aristotelian science and
philosophy with Augustinian theology. Aquinas greatly
succeeded in proving the compatibility of Aristotelian
naturalism with Christian dogma and constructing a
unified view of nature, human, and God. emphasizing that
all things have a divine nature, purpose, or essence which was
evident through natural inclinations
The social and political changes that characterized the
end of medieval period and the rise of modern age of
industrial democracy gave rise to a new wave of thinking
in the ethical field.
The development of commerce and industry, the
discovery of new regions of the world, the Reformation,
the Copernican and Galilean revolutions in science, and
the rise of strong secular governments demanded new
principles of individual conduct and social organization.
Some of the modern philosophers who contributed to
the great changes in ethical thinking were Francis Bacon,
René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz, Benedict de Spinoza, John Locke, David Hume,
Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Further developments in ethical thinking in the

West came with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Here, it
is not intended to give a detailed analysis of their
contribution to ethics. However, the most influential
ethical thought during this period were the
Utilitarianism, dominated by British and French
Philosophy (e.g. Locke, Hume, Bentham, Stuart Mill) and
Idealistic ethics in Germany and Italy (e.g. Kant, Hegel,
Nietzsche).
 The contemporary ethical scenario is a
further complex area of study. The contemporary
European ethics in the broadest sense attempts
to cover a generous range of philosophies running
from phenomenology to theories of
communicative action. The conditions of
contemporary civilization forced philosophers to
seek for a genuine ground for ethics and moral
life.
 In much of the English speaking world G.E.
Moore's Principia Ethica (1903) is taken to be the
starting point of contemporary ethical theory. Others
like Martin Buber, Gabriel Marcel, Emmanuel Levinas,
Max Scheler, Franz Brentano and John Dewey too have
made significant contributions to the ethical thinking in
other parts of the world.
Scope of Ethics

Ethics deals with voluntary actions. We can

distinguish between human actions and actions of
human: human actions are those actions that are done
by human consciously, deliberately and in view of an
end.
Actions of human may not be wilfully, voluntarily,
consciously and deliberately done but all the same they
are done by human (e.g. sleeping, walking, etc.). It is the
intention which makes the difference between human
action and action of human. In ethics we deal only with
human actions.
What is Ethics?

Derived from the Greek word "ethos", which means

"way of living", ethics is a branch of philosophy that is
concerned with human conduct, more specifically the behavior
of individuals in society.

Ethics may be defined as the systematic study of human

actions from the point of view of their rightfulness or
wrongfulness, as means for the attainment of the ultimate
happiness. It is the reflective study of what is good or bad in that
part of human conduct for which human has some personal
responsibility. In simple words ethics refers to what is good and
the way to get it, and what is bad and how to avoid it.
 Ethics is the study and justification of the
values and guidelines by which we live. It is not
merely following a tradition or custom. Instead it
requires analysis and evaluation of these guidelines
in light of universal principles. As moral philosophy,
ethics is the philosophical thinking about morality,
moral problems, and moral judgments.
 Ethics is the philosophical science that directs
or guides voluntary human actions according to
ultimate principles discovered by human reason.

Ethics is a set of standards that society places

on itself and which help guide behavior, choices and
actions. Ethics is based on well-founded standards
of right and wrong that prescribe what humans
ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations,
benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.
What Ethics is Not?

Ethics is not morality. Morality can be an

individual set of commitments even when they are
rejected by others. But, one cannot be ethical alone.
Ethics brings other people for the realization of the
self. Morality does not demand acquiescence from
others the way ethics does. It is possible to be moral
alone. A moralist can say I do not believe in war, so
what if everyone else does.
Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but
ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate
high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all
the types of problems we face.

Ethics is not following the law. In law, a man is

guilty when he violates the rights of another. In ethics,
he is guilty if he thinks of doing so (Immanuel Kant). A
good system of law does incorporate many ethical
standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law
may have a difficult time designing or enforcing
standards in some important areas, and may be slow to
address new problems.
 Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms.
Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become
corrupt or blind to certain ethical concerns (United
States was to slavery before the Civil War, caste system
in India). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not
a satisfactory ethical standard.
Ethics, Values and Morals

Ethics can also be defined as prepositional

statements (standards) that are used by members of
a profession or group to determine what the right
course of action in a situation is. Ethics rely on logical
and rational criteria to reach a decision, an essentially
cognitive process.

Values, on the other hand, describe ideas that

we value or prize. To value something means that we
hold it dear and feel it has worth to us.
As such, there is often a feeling or
affective component associated with
values. Often, values are ideas that we
aspire to achieve, like equality and
social justice. Morals describe a
behavioural code of conduct to which
an individual ascribes. They are used to
negotiate, support, and strengthen our
relationships with others.
Values

Values are the individual principles or qualities that guide

judgement and behaviour of a person or a group. Values are like
an anchor in a ship. When a storm comes, a ship is not swept
away by strong currents but remains anchored to the shore. A
person with strong values or character sticks to his principles and
is not swept away, in crisis or under pressure.

Values flow from the highest of our own self. For each one
of us, there are values rooted in the finest part of the self from
where we radiate outwards. These values are an inbuilt
mechanism, which distinguishes the right from the wrong, the
Do's and Don'ts of any action, even when no one is looking.
Values are concerned with character and conduct of a
person and evaluate the voluntary and habitual actions
of individuals with reference to their being right or
wrong.

There is another view on the values, that this self

managing mechanism is not intuitive, but it is acquired
from the environment by continuous teaching and the
behaviour of others, especially the superior in age and
statues, as perceived by an individual. We cannot deny
the impact of environment, society and family on an
individual for the values he imbibes.
At the same time, we cannot deny the fact that the
source of values is within, which guides one in making
choice in acquisition of learning from the environment.
We can say that there are uniform (Universal) values
inbuilt in each one of us. They flow out of the highest
of our own self, our ultimate holistic potential. They
refer to our intrinsic humanness.

Individual or personal values vary to the extent

one is conscious towards this inner source and the
extent to which one tends to compromise with it in the
given cultural environment and other compulsions.
Thus, both the source 'within' and the 'cultural
environment' are important for inculcation of values.
Intrinsic Values and Extrinsic Values

Values can be viewed from the standpoint of

their importance. All values are experiences of
different degrees of importance in the development
of individuality. So, we classify values on the basis of
importance these values have.
 An intrinsic value is one which has worth in its
own right. It is an End- in-itself. Truth, Beauty,
Goodness, Temperance, Courage, etc. are considered
as intrinsic values. They are good not because of their
consequences but because they are good in
themselves. These values retain even if they were to
exist completely alone. Intrinsic values are said to be
Absolute values.

An extrinsic value is one which is a means to

some other value. It is of instrumental worth only. A
pair of spectacles is good only if there are eyes.
behind spectacles to see through them.
The spectacles have instrumental value. Extrinsic
or Instrumental values are the part of larger
whole. They are means to an End. Wealth, fame,
physical fitness, etc. borrow their worth from
something extraneous to them.

The terms Extrinsic and Intrinsic are used

relatively. They are not always mutually exclusive
or fixed. What is valued by one person for its own
sake may be valued by another person as a means
to an end.
 Values can be graded as Positive Values and
Negative Values, Productive Values and Unproductive
values; Permanent Values and Transient Values.
In general, Intrinsic Values are rated higher than
Extrinsic Values. Positive Values are preferred to
Negative Values: The locus of values is human mind.
It is a special sort of reaction to the environment.

Human mind has three psychical functions

(aspects)-thinking, feeling and willing. The values
corresponding to these functions are Intellectual
Values (Truth), Aesthetic Values (Beauty) and Moral
Values (Goodness). Truth, Beauty and Good are
Universal Values.
Value System

Values constitute an important aspect of self-

concept and serve as guiding principles for an
individual. Considered together, values form 'values
systems'. A 'value system' is an enduring organisation
of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or
end-states of existence along a continuum of
importance.

Thus, the importance of different values co-

varies with the importance of others in the value
system. For e.g. one may value 'honesty' over
'success’.
 TYPES OF VALUE
Value Meaning Examples
These are personal to an individual
both in terms of their possession and
their use. These values are cherished Cleanliness
by individual irrespective of his social Discipline
Personal Value relationship. Punctuality

These values refer to certain

behaviors and beliefs that are shared
within specific cultures and social
groups. These values form the basis
of relationship of an individual with Courtesy
Social Value other people in society. Charity

These values comprise attitude and

behavior that a society consider
essential for co-existence, order and
general well-being. These enable an
individual in making a distinction Kindness
between right and wrong and good Honesty
Moral Values and bad. Gratitude
Values of Life

It is important for each one of us to possess a set of

values in order to maintain conducive atmosphere. A few
of them are:

• Honesty and loyalty

• Respect for work
• Punctuality, regularity and discipline
• Courtesy and politeness with others
• Judicious use of resources
• Taking initiatives
• Efficiency in completing tasks
Values at Workplace

It is very important for an employee to

possess a set of values in order to maintain a conducive
atmosphere at the workplace. A few of them are mentioned
below:
• Honesty and loyalty for the organization
• Respect for the work assigned
• Punctuality, regularity and discipline
• Judicious use of resources
• Courtesy and politeness with co-workers
• Efficiency in completing tasks
• Willingness to take up new tasks
Morals

Moral is related to issues of right or wrong and

to how individuals should behave. Therefore
Morality means standards of conduct that are
accepted as right or proper. It is based on personal
conscience rather than what the law says.
Morality and Ethics

Ethics and morals seem to appear similar on

the face of it, but if one analyzes deeply, there is a
subtle difference.
Ethics define the code that a society or group of
people adhere to, while morality delves into the right
and wrong at a much deeper level, both personal and
spiritual.
Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a
social system in which those morals are applied.
Moral Character

Moral character or character is an evaluation of

a particular individual's stable moral qualities. The
concept of character can imply a variety of attributes
including the existence or lack of virtues such as
empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or
of good behaviors or habits.
Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of
qualities that distinguish one individual from another
although on a cultural level, the set of moral
behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said
to unite and define it culturally as distinct from
others.
Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as
"a disposition to express behavior in consistent patterns
of functions across a range of situations".
The word "character" is derived from the Ancient Greek
word "charakter", referring to a mark impressed upon a
coin. Later it came to mean a point by which one thing
was told apart from others.
There are two approaches when dealing with moral
character: Normative ethics involve moral standards
that exhibit right and wrong conduct. It is a test of
proper behavior, and determining what is right and
wrong.
Applied ethics involve specific and controversial issues
along with a moral choice, and tend to involve
situations where people are either for or against the
issue.

In 1982 V. Campbell and R. Bond proposed the

following as major sources in influencing character and
moral development: heredity, early childhood
experience, modeling by important adults and older
youth, peer influence, the general physical and social
environment, the communications media, the teachings
of schools and other institutions, and specific situations
and roles that elicit corresponding behavior.
Why be Moral?

Not few are the people who ask this question: Why
should we be moral? Why should we take part in the moral
institution of life? Why should we adopt a moral point of
view?

In every human person there is a deep desire for

good. Human being, by nature tend to good summum
bonum. Each man/woman desires. what is best for
himself/herself.
 The ethical principles and moral practices help
one to attain what is best. It helps a person to perfect
himself/herself as a moral being. Morality has to do
more with one's interior self than the practice of
some customs or set rules.
Viewed from this point, morality is a deep down
desire in human person and is something to do with
the very nature of human person.
The rational nature of human person makes him/her
aware of certain fundamental principles of logical and
moral reasoning. This means that there is not only a
subjective aspect to every human action but also an
objective one that prompts human person to base
himself/herself on certain common principles.

We also find that for the functioning of any

society we need certain rules and regulations. The
conditions of a satisfactory human life for people living
in groups could hardly be obtained otherwise (neither
a "state of nature” nor a "totalitarian state").
 The institutions which are designed to make life
easier and better for humankind, cannot function
without certain moral principles. However, here the
question of individual freedom can also come in. How
far the society can go on demanding? Shouldn't it
respect the freedom of the individual? Is morality made
for man or man is made for morality?

Morality is a lot like nutrition. Most of us have

never had a course in nutrition or even read much
about it. Yet many of us do have some general
knowledge of the field, of what we need to eat and
what not.
 However, we also make mistakes about these
things. Often thinking of the good, a particular diet
can do in the long run for our health, we may go for
it although it may bring no immediate satisfaction.
So, too is our moral life. While nutrition focuses on
our physical health, morality is concerned about our
moral health.
 It seeks to help us determine what will nourish
our moral life and what will poison it. It seeks to
enhance our lives, to help us to live better lives.
Morality aims to provide us with a common point of
view from which we can come to agreement about
what all of us ought to do. It tries to discover a more
objective standpoint of evaluation than that of purely
personal preference.
Moral Intuition

Moral intuition refers to the immediate, non-

reflective sense of what is right or wrong, good or bad,
without explicit reasoning or conscious deliberation. It is
a spontaneous and often emotionally charged response
to moral situations, shaped by an individual's values,
upbringing, cultural influences, and personal
experiences. In the realm of moral philosophy,
intuitionism posits that there are objective moral truths,
and individuals can apprehend these truths through their
moral intuitions. Philosophers like G.E. Moore argued
that certain moral principles are self-evident and can be
known directly through intuition.
 However, moral intuition is not without challenges.
Critics argue that it can be subjective, culturally influenced,
and prone to error. Different individuals or cultures may
have conflicting intuitions about what is morally right or
wrong.
Despite these challenges, moral intuition plays a significant
role in ethical decision- making. It often serves as a quick
and automatic guide for individuals facing moral dilemmas,
influencing judgments and actions in the absence of
conscious reasoning. Integrating moral intuition with
reflective moral reasoning can lead to more robust ethical
decision-making, balancing immediate emotional
responses with careful consideration of principles and
consequences.
 Understanding and critically evaluating one's
moral intuitions can contribute to ethical growth
and a deeper awareness of the factors influencing
one's moral judgments.
In both philosophy and psychology, the study of
moral intuition continues to be a fascinating area,
shedding light on the complexities of human
morality and the interplay between emotion and
reason in ethical decision-making.
Difference between Non-Moral, Immoral, and Amoral

Non-Moral Actions

Non-moral actions or events are those areas of interest

where moral categories cannot be applied. Almost all
examples involving human intentions, volition or behavior
are described in terms of moral categories, ceteris paribus ( all
other things being equal)- with other things remaining same- such
examples involve the possibility of helping or harming
oneself or others.
For example, wondering whether one should eat
grapefruit, wear socks of a specific shade of color, or
part your hair on the left side of the head are all
usually considered non-moral issues. Yet, there are
circumstances where such actions could have moral
consequences. Generally speaking, statements in the
sciences (so-called "factual statements") are
considered to be about non-moral issues as well.
Immoral Actions

Immoral actions or events are those areas of

interest where moral categories do apply and of are
such a kind as to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to
some code or theory of ethics. An immoral action then
can be defined as a violation of a rule or code of ethics.
Strictly speaking, on the one hand, an action could be
considered immoral on the basis of one rule, code, or
theory and, on the other hand, be considered moral or
even non-moral on the another rule, code, or theory.
Such examples are common from the point of view of
sociological or moral relativism.
Amoral Actions

Amoral actions or events are those areas of

interest exhibiting indifference to and not abiding by
the moral rules or codes of society. For example, a
sociopath, sometimes called a person without a
conscience, and a very young child are called
"amoral" because such people have no feeling or
understanding of the concept of right or wrong.
Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning is the cognitive process

through which individuals analyse, evaluate, and
make decisions about what is morally right or wrong.
It involves the application of ethical principles, values,
and logical thinking to resolve moral dilemmas and
guide behaviour.
Moral reasoning is a key component of ethical
decision-making and is influenced by philosophical,
cultural, and personal perspectives.
 One prominent framework for moral reasoning is
Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which outlines a
progression from pre-conventional to conventional and post-
conventional levels. At each stage, individuals gain a deeper
understanding of moral concepts, moving from a focus on
self-interest to principles such as social contract and
universal ethical principles.
Cognitive moral development is not the only influential
factor; emotional and social considerations also play roles in
moral reasoning. The dual-process theory suggests that
moral judgments involve both intuitive, emotion-driven
processes and controlled, reflective processes. These two
systems interact in shaping moral decisions.
 Cultural context and individual experiences
contribute to the diversity of moral reasoning. Different
cultures may emphasize distinct ethical values,
impacting how individuals reason about moral issues.
Moreover, personal experiences, education, and
exposure to diverse perspectives shape an individual's
moral reasoning abilities.
Effective moral reasoning involves considering
consequences, understanding the perspectives of
others, and reflecting on underlying principles. It
contributes to ethical behaviour, social cohesion, and
the development of a just society. Recognizing the
multifaceted nature of moral reasoning helps individuals
and societies appreciate the complexity of ethical
decision-making, fostering a more inclusive and
informed approach to addressing moral challenges.
Ethics and Other Sciences

In our analysis of the definition and nature of

ethics, we have seen that ethics as a science is
concerned with an end or ideal or standard. Most
sciences, instead, are concerned with certain
uniformities of our experience with the ways in which
certain classes of objects (such as rocks or plants) are
found to exist, or with the ways in which certain classes
of events (such as phenomena of sound or electricity)
are found to occur.

These sciences have no direct reference to any

end that is to be achieved or to any ideal by reference
to which the facts are judged.
 Ethics is distinguished from the natural sciences,
in as much as, it has a direct reference to an end that
human persons desire to attain. Although ethics is
sometimes regarded as a practical science, it is not a
'practical science' as medicine, engineering or
architecture in as much as it is not directed towards the
realization of a definite result.

Ethics is often said to be the fruit of all the

sciences since it ultimately perfects human person, by
ordering all other sciences and all things else in respect
to an ultimate end that is absolutely supreme.
Determinants of Ethical Behaviour

There are three main influences that determine

the ethical behaviour and decisions-
Personal Ethics

It is generally accepted principles of right and

wrong governing the conduct of individuals.

• Our personal ethical code exerts a profound influence

on the way we behave as business people.
• The first step to establishing a strong sense of business
ethics is for a society to emphasize strong personal
ethics.
• Expatriate managers may experience more than the
usual degree of pressure to violate their personal ethics.
Decision-Making Processes

• Several studies of unethical behavior in business

have concluded that business people sometimes do
not realize they are behaving unethically primarily
because they simple fail to ask..... "Is this decision
or action ethical?"
• Often the result of applying straight-forward
business calculus to a decision without considering
important ethical issues.
Organization Culture
• The climate in some businesses does not
encourage people to think through the ethical
consequences of business decisions.

• Result of an organizational culture that

deemphasizes business ethics is reducing all
decisions to be purely economic.
Unrealistic Performance Expectations

• Pressure from the parent company to meet

unrealistic goals that can only be attained by cutting
corners or acting in an unethical manner.

• This often results in managers will, violating their

own personal ethics and engage in unethical
behavior.

• An organizational culture with values that reinforce

ethical behavior is an essential ethical component.
Leadership

• Leaders help to establish the culture and values of

an organization, and they set the example that
others follow.
The Ethical Mind
How does an ethical mind think?
• "What kind of a person, worker, and citizen do I want to be?
Should I be supporting my close friend, even though I know he is
wrong?

• Is my job and personal comfort more important than the suffering of

larger society using my company's adulterated food products?"

An ethical mind is more community-oriented. Ethical mind is

not equivalent to a respectful mind, which aids you to understand and
form relationships with other human beings. It's important to clarify
the distinction between the respectful and the ethical mind, because
we assume that one who is respectful is ethical and vice versa.
 You can be respectful without understanding
why: As a child, you might have respected your
parents and grandparents because you were taught
to. But ethical conceptions and behaviors demand a
certain capacity to go beyond your own experience
as an individual person.
Once you have developed an ethical mind, you
become more like an impartial spectator of the
team, the organization, the citizenry, the world. And
you may have to sacrifice respect for another person
if your role as a citizen or worker calls on you to do
damage control to protect an idea or institution you
believe in.
Branches or Dimensions of Ethics

A. DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

It gives us a general pattern or a way of life of

people in different types of communities. Descriptive
ethics studies the history and evolution of ethics. It
gives a record of certain taboos, customs or
conventions. For example, it states the history of
various institutions like family or marriage. Lawrence
Kohlberg's theory of moral consciousness is an
example of Descriptive Ethics (See Unit 7 for
Kohlberg's theory).
 Descriptive ethics investigates people's
ethical ideals or what actions are condemned in a
society. It aims to find out people's beliefs about
values, which actions are right and wrong and
which characteristics of a moral agent are
virtuous.
Descriptive ethics seeks the explanation of actual
choices made by moral agents in practice. It tries
to examine the ethical codes applied by various
groups. Descriptive Ethics is a value-free approach
to ethics. It is empirical investigation of people's
moral beliefs.
B. NORMATIVE ETHICS

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral

standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In
a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of
proper behaviour.
Normative ethics is also called as prescriptive ethics. It is
the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people
ought to act. It examines standards for the rightness and
wrongness of actions.
Normative ethics suggests punishment when a person
deviates from the path of ideals. It provides justification
for punishing a person who disturbs social and moral
order. It tries to establish certain theories on the
guidelines of some norms. Normative ethics offer the
moral principles used to resolve difficult moral decisions.
Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's deontological ethics,
Mill's Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) and the
Bhagwad Gita's Nishkam Karmayoga are the theories in
Normative Ethics (these have been explained later-on in
Unit-7).

The Golden Rule is a classic example of a

normative principle: "We should do to others what we
would want others to do to us". Since one would want
people to feed him if he was starving, then he should
help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, we
can theoretically determine whether any possible action
is right or wrong.
So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong
for a person to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill
others.

The Golden Rule is an example of a normative

theory that establishes a single principle against which
we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on
a set of foundational principles, or a set of good
character traits.
C. META ETHICS

Meta ethics is defined as the study of the origin

and meaning of ethical concepts. The term "meta"
means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion
of Meta ethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of
the entire project of ethics.

In Meta ethics, two issues are prominent: (1)

Metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists
independently of humans, and (2) Psychological issues
concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral
judgements and conduct.
 In other words, Meta ethics is the study of what
ethical terms and theories actually refer to. It
determines the validity of theories advanced in
Normative Ethics. We use certain moral concepts such
as right, wrong, good or bad to evaluate human
actions.

These moral concepts are used as tools in

passing moral judgements. Meta ethics analyses
ethical concepts. It studies the meaning of moral
language and the metaphysics of moral facts. Meta
ethics seeks to understand the nature of ethical
properties and evaluations.
Meta ethics deals with the questions such as 'What is
the meaning of moral terms or judgements?', 'What
is the nature of moral judgements?', 'How may moral
judgements be supported or defended?"
D. APPLIED ETHICS

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the

analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion,
animal rights, or euthanasia. It helps to use knowledge of moral
principles to present dilemmas. There are certain issues which arise
due to newly adopted life style.

Applied ethics deals with the questions such as, "Is getting an
abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action
right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine
them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals have
the right of self- determination?"
Two features are necessary for an issue to be
considered an 'applied ethical issue'. First, the issue
needs to be controversial in the sense that there are
significant groups of people both for and against the
issue at hand.

The second requirement for an issue to be an

applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral
issue and not just a social controversy. Ethical issues
concerned with the biological aspects of life and how
and when it starts is included in Bio-Ethics which comes
under applied ethics.
Bio-Ethics

Bio-ethics should be understood as a study of

morality as it concerns issues dealing with the biological
issues and facts concerning ourselves, and our close
relatives, for example, almost any non-human animal
that is sentient.
It can be divided into three parts: beginning of life
issues, including abortion; end of life issues, for example
euthanasia; and finally, ethical concerns involving
medical research, as well as availability of medical care.
1. Beginning of Life Issues

All of the beginnings of life issue are

contentious. Some of the issues like: abortion, stem-
cell procurement and research, and cloning. Each of
these big issues (they could be considered research
fields themselves) are related to each other.

Abortion: Abortion is the process of willfully

removing the foetus from the womb of the mother by
one or another method. Although several countries
including India have legalized
abortion particularly during the first trimester, everyone
knows that it is an act of willfully putting an end to the life
of a helpless child in the womb of its mother. For the
world community, it is an ethical issue.

Although abortion has been viewed as a moral

issue and a challenge to human survival in the western
world, it is important for us to understand that most of
the abortions take place in Asian countries for various
reasons. Very often people agree to participate in
abortion without knowing the what, why, and how of
abortion and its lifelong impact on an individual, family
and the society.
 The moral issue involved in the abortion is,
the child has as much claim as the mother to life
and should have even more claim to legal protection
of its right, since it is incapable of defending itself.

Right of the Unborn Child The UN declaration

on the Rights of the child maintains that "The Child
by reason of its physical and mental immaturity
needs special safeguards and care including
appropriate legal protection before as well as after
the birth."
 The Anti-abortionists (particularly the Christian
Conservatives and in general the Creationist who
believes in an intelligent designer behind human live)
claim that science has proven beyond any reasonable
doubt that human life begins at fertilization and even
before that it is divine.

The fetus from the beginning has its own life, is a

totally new human being, a new person, with a genetic
code quite distinct from the genetic code of its parents.
That new life is completely there at fertilization, lacking
only development and growth. Abortion always takes
away the innocent's already existing life.
 Stem Cell Research: Stem cell research is
important because it provides avenues for the
development of organs and tissues that can be used
to replace those that are diseased for those suffering
from certain medical conditions;
in theory, an entire cardiac system could be
generated through stem cells, as well as through all
of the research required on stem cells in order to
eventually produce successful organ systems. There
are various routes by which stem cell lines can be
procured, and this is where things get controversial.
 Human Cloning and Designer Babies: Designer
babies, is defined as "a baby whose genetic makeup
has been artificially selected by genetic engineering
combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the
presence or absence of particular genes or
characteristics".

After such definition, we need to pause and ask

what moral or ethical limits, if any, should apply to the
selection of our children's genes or characteristics.
In order to answer this, we address following
questions:
• How would designer babies be made?

• Is there a moral or ethical difference between

using genetic technologies to prevent disease
and to enhance human capacities?

• Should we be striving to protect our humanity

from genetic enhancement?
• What effect will human genetic modification have
on society?
II. End of Life Issues

It includes issues concerning like euthanasia

and physician-assisted suicide. There are of course
other issues relevant to the end of life - for example,
issues surrounding consent, often through examining
the status of such things as advance directives, living
wills, and DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders, etc.
 Euthanasia: Euthanasia falls into the category of
vital life issue subjects, the philosophy or study of it is
extremely important. It is necessary that not only in
bioethics but in every field this issue is taken up
because it involves the family, the basic unit of society.
Previous decisions rulings affected by modern
techniques need to be addressed.
There are many grey areas affecting human lives. There
are instances where dying patients do not accept pain
killers or sedations as they wish to be alive, to enjoy the
last moments with their loved ones. Many people are
there who do not have anybody to love or who do not
feel needed. These are the ones who will sign the living
will or put to sleep permanently.
 Euthanasia Debate: Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to
focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel
Emanuel (an American Bioethicist), proponents of euthanasia have presented four
main arguments:

a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be al- lowed
to choose their own fate;
b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they
continue to suffer;

c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active
euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle-the doctrine
of double effect-is unreasonable or unsound); and

d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences.

Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Nether- lands and
Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue
that it is mostly unproblematic.
 Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four
major arguments presented by opponents of
euthanasia:

• a)not all deaths are painful;

• b)alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment,
combined with the use of effective pain relief, are
available;
• c)the distinction between active and passive
euthanasia is morally significant; and
• d)legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery
slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences.
 In fact, in Oregon, in 2013, pain wasn't one of the top five
reasons people seek euthanasia. Top reasons were a loss of dignity,
and a fear of burdening others.

Euthanasia in India: Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7

March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalised passive
euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in
a permanent vegetative state.

The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case

involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative
State (PVS) until her death in 2015.
 Suicide: Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own
death. Suicide is often carried out as a result of despair, the cause
of which is frequently attributed to a mental disorder such as
depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality
disorder, alcoholism, or drug abuse, as well as stress factors such
as financial difficulties, troubles with interpersonal relationships,
and bullying.

A number of questions are raised within the philosophy of

suicide, included what constitutes suicide, whether or not suicide
can be a rational choice, and the moral permissibility of suicide.
Arguments as to acceptability of suicide in moral or social terms
range from the position that the act is inherently immoral and
unacceptable under any circumstances to a regard for suicide as a
sacrosanct right of anyone who believes they have rationally and
conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives, even if
they are young and healthy.
 Opponents to suicide include Christian
philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas
Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, etc. Others view suicide as
a legitimate matter of personal choice. Supporters
of this position maintain that no one should be
forced to suffer against their will, particularly from
conditions such as incurable disease, mental illness,
and old age, with no possibility of improvement.
 They reject the belief that suicide is always
irrational, arguing instead that it can be a valid last
resort for those enduring major pain or trauma. A
stronger stance would argue that people should be
allowed to autonomously choose to die regardless of
whether they are suffering.
Notable supporters of this school of thought include
Scottish empiricist David Hume and American
bioethicist Jacob Appel.
Legal Status of Suicide in India (Mental Healthcare Act,
2017)

As per the new Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

notified by the Health Ministry in May, 2017-

• Manner of Treatment: Every person would have the

right to specify how he would like to be treated for
mental illness in the event of a mental health
situation. An individual will also specify who will be
the person re- sponsible for taking decisions with
regard to the treatment, his admission into a hospital,
etc.
•
• Access to Public Health Care: It guarantees every
person the right to access mental health care and
treatment from the government. This right includes
affordable, good quality, easy access to services
such as minimum mental health services in every
district. Persons with mental illness also have the
right to equality of treatment and protection from
inhuman and degrading treatment.
• Suicide Decriminalised: Attempting suicide is no
more a crime in India and there will be no more
electric shocks for mentally ill children. Notwith-
standing anything contained in Section 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to
commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved
otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be
tried and punished under the said Code.

• Insurance: It requires that every insurance company

shall provide medical insurance for mentally ill
persons on the same basis as is available for physical
illnesses.
The new law aims for social inclusion of persons with
mental illness by emphasising that treatment and care
is to be provided in a way that enables these persons
to live with their families in their own community.
However, there are certain challenges in its
implementation.
III. Research, Patients, Population and Access

Access to, and quality of, health care is a very real

concern. A good health care system is based on a number of
things, one being medicine and delivery systems based on
research But research requires, at least to some extent, the
use of subjects that are human beings. As such, one can see
that ethical concerns arise here.

Furthermore, certain populations of people may be

more vulnerable to risky research than others. As such, there
is another category of moral concern. There is also a basic
question concerning how to finance such health care
systems.
 Following are the concerns in this research
ethics

(a) Randomized Clinical Trials: Randomized Clinical

Trials (RCT's) are such that the participants of such
studies don't know whether they are obtaining the
promising (but not yet certified) treatment for
their condition. Informed consent is usually
obtained and assumed in addressing the ethicality
of RCT’s.
Notice, though, that if the promising treatment is life-
saving, and the standard treatment received by the
control group is inadequate, then there is a basis for
criticism of RCT's.
(b) Beneficiaries of Research: Another case that affects large
numbers of people is that, certain medications can be tested on
a certain population of people and yet benefits those outside
the population used for testing. So, take a certain medication
that can reverse HIV transmission to fetuses from mothers. This
medication needs to be tested. If you go to an underdeveloped
country in Africa to test it, then what kinds of obligations does
the pharmaceutical company have to those participating in the
study and those at large in the country upon making it available
to those in developed nations like the U.S?
If availability to those in the research country is not feasible, is
it permissible in the first place to conduct the study? These are
just some of the questions that arise in the production of
pharmaceutical and medical services in a global context.
Military Ethics

Military ethics is an interdisciplinary study that

incorporates about: The conduct of war;
• Decisions on how and when to engage in military
operations;
• Issues relating to the moral psychology;

• Care of those who serve and of veterans of military

service; and

• Focusing on core values and moral principles of members

of 'military profession' or 'profession of arms.’
• Military ethics involves multiple sub-areas,
including the following among others:
• What, if any, should be the laws of war

• Justification for the initiation of military force

• Decisions about who may be targeted in warfare

• Decisions on choice of weaponry, and what

collateral effects such weaponry may have

• Standards for handling military prisoners and the

refugees created by such wars this issue
has become the bone of contention in the past
few months due to Syrian Refugees crisis which
has in a way also instigated the far-right
movements in Western Europe as an anti-
thesis to a flexible approach shown by the
respective European nation towards the plight
of the refuges coming to their nation illegally
through the Mediterranean Sea
War Ethics

War is defined as "an armed conflict

openly
carried on between nations or states, or
between different parties in the same state."
Ethical and moral judgments about war can be
categorized as ethics to be followed before war
and during war.
Principles of Just War
It is about justice of resorting to war in the first place. It includes
following:
• Just Cause: There should be a just cause to conduct a war, for
example, direct attacks on territorial integrity and political
sovereignty of an internationally recognized state.

• Legitimate Authority: The declaration of war by a legitimate

authority.

• Public Declaration: Public declaration of war, notably to its own

citizens and to the enemy state(s).

• Right Intention: The intention to conduct a war should be right.

The only right intention for a just war is the will
to right the wrong of aggression and to bring
about peace. Intending revenge, domination,
harm, cruelty, or personal or national self-
interest are always wrong.

• Necessity: The costs of armed conflict in

terms of money and lives are so high and
because armed conflict, once begun, is
inherently unpredictable, it is necessary, to
ensure that war is the last resort.
Just in Bello

It is about justice of conduct within war. It

includes following:

• Non-combatant Immunity: There have to be

limits on who can be deliberately attacked.
The combatants are legitimate objects of
deliberate attack. Non-combatants should be
immune from attack. Children, the elderly,
and the infirm all are inappropriate targets of
military action.
• Humanitarian Concerns: The deliberate targeting
of civilians, their use as "human shields," or use
of indiscriminate warfare on populations is not
acceptable in just war.

• Moral Responsibility: Choosing weapons, tactics,

and plans which strive to the limit of the possible
to protect innocent civilian populations, even if
they place soldiers at (acceptably) greater risk.

• Proportionality: Foreseen but unintended harms

must be proportionate to the military advantage
achieved.
Just Post Bellum - Justice after war

• It is about justice of peace agreements and

the termination phase of war. It includes
following:

• Proportionality and Publicity: The peace

agreement needs to be moderate, reasonable
and publicly stated.
• Right Vindication: The settlement should remedy
the wrongs which led to the war, for example,
restoring rights to life and liberty; community
entitlements to territory and sovereignty.

• Discrimination: Peace agreement has to distinguish

leaders and soldiers of the defeated nation from its
civilians and civilians should be immune from
punitive post-war measures.

• Rehabilitation: There has to be reform of

institutions and introduction of humane policies in
the defeated nation.
Arguments for and against Morality of War
Arguments for Morality of War

The traditional arguments in favor of war

includes war is the best controller of overpopulation;
war is the only way in which societies can develop
and experiment with advanced technology; war
forges national unity as people work together for the
national goal of winning war; the production of war
machines and material creates an upsurge in
economic well-being and prosperity and existence of
"morally just war."
Arguments against Morality of War

The main argument against the morality

of war is that it is a direct and massive
violation of the Value of Life principle that
reflects a concern for the preservation and
protection of human life.
War doesn't just involve the killing of one human being
by another; rather, it involves a mass killing of up to
millions, depending upon the scale of the war.
Furthermore, especially because of modern military
techniques, war necessitates the useless killing of a
great number of innocent non-combatants, many of
them children.

At length there is the responsibility to prevent

war. The tools of root-cause prevention include political
measures (e.g. promoting democracy), economic
measures (e.g. alleviating poverty), legal measures (e.g.
implementing human rights in national legal
systems) and even military measures (e.g.
training military personnel about international
humanitarian law). The tools of direct
prevention also include political measures (e.g.
crisis diplomacy), economic measures (e.g.
economic sanctions) and legal measures (e.g.
indictments by the International Criminal
Court).
'Social Ethics

Social ethics are the philosophical or moral

principles that, in one way or another, represent the
collective experience of people and cultures. This sort of
ethics often acts as a sort of "code of conduct" that
governs what is and is not acceptable, as well as providing
a framework for ensuring that all members of the
community are cared for. Standard ethics are typically
driven by individual morals that determine right or wrong.
Within a society, the focus is usually more on what may be
considered appropriate behavior for people as a whole.
People perceive things differently, however, and various
cultures share often wildly opposing beliefs; as such, what
is deemed "right" for one group may not necessarily be
consistent universally – and defining social ethics as an
absolute is often very difficult.
 So, social ethics can also be referred to
as a methodology of applying moral principles
to social issues. The purpose is to clarify the
moral principles and social goals inherent in
social issues and public initiatives. It asserts
that the relative strength of various moral
claims can only be compared within the
contexts of a particular social issue.
Social ethics has always been used in a relative
context dependent upon the spatio-temporal
milieu. What was socially ethical yesterday may not
be acceptable today. Similarly, what is appreciative
in one part of the world may be considered
abhorrent in the other part. Take for example, the
evolving issue of gay rights which in some nations
and particularly in present times is considered as
normal as compared to it being social anathema
earlier.
 Perhaps some not-as-controversial (compared to
earlier times) topics that fall within social ethics are
affirmative action and
smoking bans. The discussions involved with these
topics are rich in discussion of such moral notions as
fairness, benefits, appropriation of scarce resources,
liberty, property rights, paternalism, and consent..

Other issues have to do with appropriating the

still very real gender differences in wealth,
responsibilities, social roles, and employment
opportunities. How are these differences to be
understood? Obviously not because such differences
are deserved. Given this, such differences need to
either be morally justified (doubtful) or morally
rectified, and so, if they
can't be justified, then such differences should
be morally eliminated/rectified. Very good
work can be done on understanding how to do
this in a way that does not create further moral
problems.

Additionally, work on the visibility of

transgendered persons is important, and how
transgendered persons can be incorporated
into the modern life of working in
corporations, government, education, or
industry, living in predominantly non-
transgendered communities and networks of
families with more typical gender narratives,
and doing this all in a way that respects the
personhood of transgendered persons.

Recently, India also, though being behind

the social evolution tangent, has made some
phenomenal advances in rectifying some of
the fossilized social wrongs. In Tamil Nadu, we
have seen first transgender becoming sub-
inspector and exemplify the openness of our
will to revisit some of the social-wrongs which
were 'considered' right then.
Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is the part of

environmental philosophy which considers
extending the traditional boundaries of ethics
from solely including humans to including the
non-human world. There are many ethical
decisions that human beings make with
respect to the environment. For example:

• Should we continue to clear cut forests for

the sake of human consumption?
• Why should we continue to propagate our species, and
life itself?

• Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?

• What environmental obligations do we need to keep for

future generations?

• Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction

of a species for the convenience of humanity?
• How should we best use and conserve the space
environment to secure and expand life?
Following issues occupies environmental ethics:
Ecocentrism

It is a term used to denote a nature-centered,

as opposed to human- centered, system of values.
The justification for ecocentrism usually consists in
an ontological belief and subsequent ethical claim.
The ontological belief denies that there are any
existential divisions between human and non-
human nature sufficient to claim that humans are,
either the sole bearers of intrinsic value, or possess
greater intrinsic value than non-human nature.
 Thus the subsequent ethical claim is for
equality of intrinsic value across human and
non-human nature, or 'biospherical
egalitarianism’.(concerned with the rights of other
species independent of their interactions with humans)
Biocentrism

Biocentrism in a political and ecological

sense is an ethical point of view that extends
inherent value to all living things. It is an
understanding of how the earth works;
particularly as it relates to biodiversity. It
stands in contrast to anthropocentrism which
centers on the value of humans. Biocentrism
does not imply the idea of equality among the
animal kingdom for no such notion can be
observed in nature. Biocentric thought is
nature based, not human based.
 Advocates of biocentrism often promote
the preservation of biodiversity, animal rights,
and environmental protection. The term has
also been employed by advocates of "left
biocentrism", which combines deep ecology
with an "anti- industrial and anti-capitalist"
position.
Anthropocentrism

It is the belief that human beings are the central or

most significant species on the planet (in the sense that
they are considered to have a moral status or value higher
than that of all other organisms), or the assessment of
reality through an exclusively human perspective.

The term can be used interchangeably with

humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human
supremacy or human exceptionalism.
Intrinsic Value of Animals

The intrinsic value of an animal refers to the value

it possesses in its own right, as an end-in-itself, as opposed
to its instrumental value, its value to other animals
(including human beings). The phrase (often used
synonymously with inherent value) has been adopted by
animal rights advocates.

The Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act referred

to it in 1981: "Acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of
animals means that animals have value in their own right
and as a consequence their interests are no longer
automatically subordinate to man's interests".
 This acknowledgment has stirred a
debate on what it entails in the context of
animal husbandry, animal breeding,
vivisection, animal testing and biotechnology.

Conservation Ethics

It is an ethics of resource use, allocation,

and protection. Its primary focus is upon
maintaining the health of the natural world, its
fisheries, habitats, and biological diversity.
Secondary focus is on materials conservation,
including non-renewable resources such as
metals, minerals and fossil fuels, and energy
conservation, which is important to protect the
natural world. Those who follow the
conservation ethics and, especially, those who
advocate or work toward conservation goals
are termed conservationists.

Climate Ethics

Climate ethics is an area of research that

focuses on the ethical dimensions of climate
change (also known as global warming), and
concepts such as climate justice.
Human-induced climate change raises many profound
ethical questions, yet many believe that these ethical
issues have not been addressed adequately in climate
change policy debates or in the scientific and
economic literature on climate change; and that,
consequently, ethical questions are being overlooked
or obscured in climate negotiations, policies and
discussions. It has been pointed out that those most
responsible for climate change are not the same
people as those most vulnerable to its effects.

Terms such as climate justice and ecological

justice ('eco justice') are used worldwide, and have
been adopted by various groups.
Environmental Justice

Environmental justice emerged as a concept in the

United States in the early 1980s. The term has two
distinct uses. The first and more common usage
describes a social movement in the United States whose
focus is on the fair distribution of environmental benefits
and burdens.
Second, it is an interdisciplinary body of social science
literature that includes (but is not limited to) theories of
the environment, theories of justice, environmental law
and governance, environmental policy and planning,
development, sustainability, and political ecology.
 Indian environmentalism has, for the
most part, been about social justice. During
the 1970s and 1980s, it was concerned with
differential access to natural assets and
ecosystem services.
The Bhopal Gas Disaster of 1984 raised new
issues, pertaining to industrial risk and safety.
Environmental Racism

Environmental racism is a form of environmental

injustice in which the impacts are identified as falling
primarily on people of color.

The term was coined in a 1987 study drawing

together US census data and government data on the
location of toxic waste sites; the study documented
"clear patterns which show that communities with
greater minority percentages of the population are more
likely to be the sites of commercial hazardous waste
facilities."
Eco-Justice

Eco-Justice holds together commitments for

ecological sustainability and human justice. It sees
environmental issues and justice issues not as
competing agendas, but as intertwined elements of
how humans are called to relate to God's creation.

It asserts that it is not possible to care for the

earth without also caring for humanity, and that
seeking human justice must involve care for the
environment.
Stewardship

Stewardship expresses the human obligation

to care for God's creation. It is grounded in the
proclamation that "the Earth is the Lord's" and
sees humanity as caretakers, not owners, of the
earth.
 Stewardship has been given a wide range
of interpretations. At one extreme, where
humans are seen as separate from the rest of
creation, stewardship is strongly colored by
ideas of dominion, control and management.

At the other extreme, where humans are

seen as part of creation, stewardship is a way
of expressing how humans might interact
gently and responsibly with the rest of
creation, and is a rejection of dominion.
Ethical Standards

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard?

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical
standards we are to follow:
1. On what do we base our ethical standards?

2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we

face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted

social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many
philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical
question. They have suggested at least five different sources of
ethical standards we should use..
Five Sources of Ethical Standards

1. The Utilitarian Approach: Some ethicists emphasize that

the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the
least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance
of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one
that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who
are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community,
and the environment.
Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with
the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction.
The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to
increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.
 2. The Rights Approach: Other philosophers and
ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best
protects and respects the moral rights of those affected.
This approach starts from the belief that humans have a
dignity based on their human nature per se or on their
ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the
basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends
and not merely as means to other ends.

The list of moral rights including the rights to make

one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told
the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so
on is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans
have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply
duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
 3. The Fairness or Justice Approach: Aristotle and
other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that
all equals should be treated equally. Today, we use this
idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings
equally - or if unequally, then fairly based on some
standard that is defensible.
We pay people more based on their harder work or the
greater amount that they contribute to an organization,
and say that is fair. But, there is a debate over CEO salaries
that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others;
many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a
defensible standard or whether it is the result of an
imbalance of power and hence is unfair.
 4. The Common Good Approach: The Greek
philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in
community is a good in itself and our actions should
contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the
interlocking relationships of society are the basis of
ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all
others - especially the vulnerable are requirements of
such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the
common conditions that are important to the welfare of
everyone.
This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire
departments, health care, a public educational system, or
even public recreational areas.
 5. The Virtue Approach: A very ancient approach
to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be
consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for
the full development of our humanity. These virtues
are dispositions and habits that enable us to act
according to the highest potential of our character
and on behalf of values like truth and beauty.
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity,
tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-
control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.
Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of
person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action
consistent with my acting at my best?"
Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what

standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still
problems to be solved, however. The first problem is that we
may not agree on the content of some of these specific
approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and
civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common
good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a
harm.

The second problem is that, the different approaches

may not answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same
way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important
information with which to determine what is ethical in a
particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the
different approaches do lead to similar answers.
Global Standard of Ethical Behavior

We all learn ethics in the context of our

particular cultures, and the power in the
principles is deeply tied to the way in which
they are expressed.
 Harems may still be a popular culture in
Islamic countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia or
Egypt, but in countries like India and U.S., it is
considered illegal. In a conservative Indian
society, an Indian man having an intimate
relationship with any woman other than his
legally wedded wife is looked down upon and
considered unethical and immoral. Similarly,
while very low wages may be considered
unethical in rich, advanced countries; but
developing nations may be acting ethically if
they encourage investment and improve living
standards by accepting low wages.
 Likewise, when people are malnourished
or starving, a government may be wise to use
more fertilizer in order to improve crop yields,
even though that means settling for relatively
high levels of water pollution and this may
qualify as an ethical practice. Context must
shape ethical practice. The theory behind such
predicaments between what constitutes
ethical and unethical practices is absolutism,
which is based on three problematic principles.
Absolutists believe –

(i) There is a single list of truths.

(ii) That these can be expressed only with one
set of concepts

(iii) They call for exactly the same behavior

around the world.

It clashes with many people's belief that

different cultural traditions must be respected.
In some cultures, loyalty to a community
family, organization, or society is the
foundation of all ethical behavior. The
Japanese, for example, define business ethics
in terms of loyalty to their companies, their
business networks, and their nation.

The Americans, for example, define

business ethics in terms of liberty, the U.S.
tradition of rights emphasizes equality,
faimess, and individual freedom.

In India, its traditional societal values

hold that work is not a tool to realize one's self
but a means to fulfill family and caste
responsibility. It is hard to conclude that truth
lies on one side or the other, but an absolutist
would have us select just one. The notion of a
right evolved with the rise of democracy in
post-Renaissance Europe and the United
States, but the term is not found in either
Confucian or Buddhist traditions.

Internationally accepted lists of moral

principles, such as the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, draw
on many cultural and religious traditions. As
philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, "There
is no Esperanto of global ethics."
Balancing the Extremes: Three Guiding
Principles

There is a need to distinguish between

practices that are merely different and those
that are wrong. For relativists, nothing is
sacred and nothing is wrong. For absolutists,
many things that are different are wrong.
Neither extreme illuminates the real world of
business decision making. The answer lies
somewhere in between. When it comes to
shaping ethical behavior, companies must be
guided by three principles
• Respect for core human values, which
determine the absolute moral threshold for
all business activities.

• Respect for local traditions.

• The belief that, context matters when

deciding what is right and what is wrong.

Respecting differences is a crucial ethical

practice. This is what forms the pedestal of the
principle of secularism in multi-religious and
multi-ethnic India. Tolerance is respecting
differences in each other's religions, values,
views and opinions.

People often equate respect for local

traditions with cultural relativism. That is
incorrect. Some practices are clearly wrong.
Union Carbide's tragic experience in Bhopal,
India, provides one example.

The company's executives seriously

underestimated how much on-site
management involvement was needed at the
Bhopal plant to compensate for the country's
poor infrastructure and regulatory capabilities.
In the aftermath of the disastrous gas leak, the
lesson is clear: Companies using sophisticated
technology in a developing country must
evaluate that country's ability to oversee its
safe use.

Some activities are wrong no matter

where they take place. But some practices that
are unethical in one setting may be acceptable
in another. For instance, the chemical EDB, a
soil fungicide, is banned for use in the United
States. In hot climates, however, it quickly
becomes harmless through exposure to
intense solar radiation and high soil
temperatures. As long as the chemical is
monitored, companies may be able to use EDB
ethically in certain parts of the world.

How Will You Measure Your Life?

How can I be happy in my career? How

can I be sure that my relationship with my
family is an enduring source of happiness? And
how can I live my life with integrity?

Surprisingly, the most powerful

motivator
isn't money; it's the opportunity to learn, grow
in responsibilities, contribute, and be
recognized. That's why management, if
practiced well, can be the noblest of
occupations; no others offer as many ways to
help people find those opportunities. It isn't
about buying, selling, and investing in
companies, as many think.

The principles of resource allocation can

help people attain happiness at home. If not
managed masterfully, what emerges from a
firm's resource allocation process can be very
different from the strategy management
intended to follow. That's true in life too: If
you're not guided by a clear sense of purpose,
you're likely to fritter away your time and
energy on obtaining the most tangible, short-
term signs of achievement, not what's really
important to you. And just as a focus on
marginal costs can cause bad corporate
decisions, it can lead people astray. The
marginal cost of doing something wrong "just
this once always seems alluringly low. You
don't see the end result to which that path
leads. The key is to define what you stand for
and draw the line in a safe place.
This is a personal code of ethics and in no way
do I expect anyone other than myself to follow
it. This is a very important distinction, because
most policies are held by a community
whether it be secular laws or religious morals.
As Lao Tzu said, "Losing the way of life, men
rely on goodness; losing goodness, they rely on
laws."

Personal Ethical Policy

Given below is an idéal personal ethical

policy, one may adopt, to guide. their life in the
right direction.

1. To not purposely cause harm to any

other human being

This means, among other things, that

one shall not fight in any war; as the saying, 'an
eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'.
The way to resolve issues is through
knowledge, good communication, and
brotherly love. One cannot take the life or
freedoms of another to protect their own or
promote their ideals.
2. To promote and demonstrate my ideals
through my actions not through enforcing
them on others

Every religion is based on the ideals of

love, brotherhood and harmony. The Bible
itself points out the hypocrisy in people, who
profess themselves as religious and try to
enforce ideals they themselves do not follow.

3. To respect the ideas, lifestyles, religions, and

ideals of others
 If one's own personal ideas and lifestyles
are in conflict with the above stated policies,
then one may not respect them, but one need
not break the above policies in order to change
them. One of the greatest problems that still
exist is stereotyping. People have unfavorable
opinions of those who are gay, transgender, or
atheists or even belonging to religion other
than their own. It is through fear and not
respect, that certain people and groups stand
taller than others.

4. To abide by the rules, codes of conduct, and

laws of the community around me as long as
they are not in conflict with my higher
principles

A large part of respect is doing things in

acceptance with those around me. It would be
rude and disrespectful to do otherwise.
Governments, unfortunately sometimes, fight
a never ending battle to appease both the
people and the many lobbyists that try to do
things that are in opposition of what is
desirable by the people or healthy for society.
One may choose to fight them for a higher
cause.
5. To be honest and trustworthy, and to
disclose my feelings

One of the main principles that allows a

society to work efficiently and without violence
is honesty. Hiding information by lying often
causes more harm than good. One should also
make good their promises to others and make
sure that their words are followed by action.
Included in this statement, is the need to be
honest when there is something that you
disagree with. Too often problems occur by
hiding feeling in order to preserve temporary
peace.
6. To respect the property of others as long as
we have the concept of property

An important moral value is that of not

stealing. That means not only stealing from
others, but from nature and the commons. We
live in a consumption crazed society. We have
too often been caught up in the desire to
consume, that through our consumption we
have, in essence, promoted companies to take
the lives of others and put them in sweat
shops to produce for us. With more respect for
what is shared, rather than hoarding what "I
own," one can live at greater peace with their
neighbors and global community.

At the same time, one must respect what

others own and hopefully through sharing
through volunteerism, donations, and
community service one can encourage others
to see the power in this mode of thinking.

7. To promote through self-education,

observation, reading, conversation, and writing
the sciences or the understanding of the world
around me. And to use this understanding to
the benefit of myself and others through both
action and sharing of knowledge.

Human progress comes through

understanding, not ignorance. One can only do
more damage in trying to change that which
one does not understand. It is the coupling of
knowledge, gained through experience,
education, communication, and observation,
with self-respect and love of others that will
enable one to make positive contributions to
society.
8. To give proper credit to others

When someone does something for

someone or for a group, one should not take
credit for their work. Also if one gets an idea
from a source, he/ she should reference it.

9. To honor confidentiality

In helping others there may be cases

where they may confess certain actions or
share private information with you. When they
share such information, one should not spread
this
information except when you may find that
keeping it confidential is in violation of my
higher principles. For example, if someone
described to me how they were going to kill
someone else, one should report such a threat.

10. To promote a higher quality of life for

myself and others

Probably one of the key desires of a

human being is the betterment of their current
situation. For some, this drives them insane to
the point where this encompasses their whole
being. In doing so, they diminish the lives of
others through a pursuit to increase the quality
of their own lives. 11. To live a healthy lifestyle
and do things that will aid others in healthy
living Through exercise, good eating habits,
and general good self-care, one can ease the
burdens of their life and others. This includes
promoting health facilities, open space, parks,
hiking trails, and other public places of
recreation. It also means eating right and not
partaking in activities that could lead to
diseases and other health problems.
12. To not have others fear me

Fear is the key to perpetuating hatred.

Fear is capitalized by governments, religions,
and individuals to get others to do what they
want. It often leads. to rebellion and war.
There are much better ways to promote
conformance, the best of which I found is to
work together with whatever social group that
surrounds me and agree through compromise
and cooperation what rules should be
established. It would be a great error to
assume that others have the same morals as
one do and that one should promote those
morals with fear in
order to benefit the lives of those around
them.

How Personal Ethics Produce Effective Leaders

Leadership is a relationship between

people. Therefore, the ability to ethically
influence others is a major determinant of an
effective leadership. In his book, 'Ethics and
Leadership', William Hitt lists three
requirements of leaders that allow them to
capitalize on their ability to influence ethical
conduct. These three requirements are:

(1) Achieve an understanding of ethics

(2) Serve as a role model in making ethical

decisions.

(3) Develop and implement a plan of action for

promoting ethical conduct on the part of his or
her staff.

Ethics and effective leadership function

as a
cause and effect relationship Effective
leadership is a result of ethical behavior. Good
ethics promote all the characteristics necessary
for effective leadership.

Followers must first choose to accept a

leader before leadership may commence.
Followers accept leaders they can trust. India
chose Jawaharlal Nehru as its first Prime
Minister because they trusted his ideas and
vision for the independent India. Trust is
considered the glue of leadership and
promotes long-term success. The good ethical
decision-making template adopted leads to the
best decision possible under the given
circumstances.

A leader with an understanding of ethics,

a history of ethical decision-making and the
ability to develop and execute plans of action
shows stability, empathy, integrity and resolve.
All of these traits shown in a leader's track
record will infuse a greater sense of trust
within followers. Current behavior also affects
trust developed between leaders and potential
followers.
 After a leader is accepted, effective
leadership is partially determined by the
relationships a leader is able to form with
others. The problem with leadership today is
lack of ethics. With a decrease in ethical
conduct and today's increasing interactions
with networks, leaders have no true direction
and are less accountable for their actions.
Leadership will become ethical and effective
once ethics are adopted as the backbone of
good leadership. It is difficult to imagine, that a
change so dependent on a leader's
understanding of ethics, could directly impact
society's ethical conduct.
The importance of understanding ethics,
motivation to act as a role model and
developing a plan of action for an organization
were discussed because of their importance
regarding development of good leadership.
These key aspects suggest personal ethics
positively affecting leadership and when made
a priority. for leaders, will produce ethical and
effective leadership.
Ethics in Private and Public Relationships

Every human being has certain personal and

public relationships which become better or worse
depending on the ethics that define the relationships.

People generally seem to need friendship, love,

happiness, freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in
their lives, not only for themselves but for others, too. It
doesn't take much further examination to discover that in
order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and
follow moral principles that encourage them to cooperate
with one another and that free them from fear that they
will lose their lives, be mutilated, or be stolen
from, lied to, cheated, severely restricted, or
imprisoned.
Ethics in Private Relationships

• The relationships with parents, life partner,

children, family members, and friends are
termed as private relationships. These
relationships are governed by certain
universal principles called as ethics in private
relationships.

The principles which govern ethics in private

relationships are:

• Care and Affection: It is the foremost

principle that drives private relationships as
emotional bond of affection and care goes
beyond limitations, for example, mother's love
for her kids.

• Respect, Honor and Dignity: Private

relationships should not be taken for granted;
instead each relation should be given respect,
honor and dignity it deserves.

• Fidelity: Fidelity addresses a person's

responsibility to be loyal and truthful in their
relationships with others. It also includes
promise keeping, fulfilling commitments, and
trustworthiness. Example: a person has to be
loyal to his/ her life partner and friends. Lack of
loyalty brings disharmony in relations and even
sometimes leads to end of relationships.

• Confidentiality: Secrecy and privacy are

necessary to maintain sanctity of private
relationships, for example, private fights are
often resolved by involving minimum number
of people.

Truthfulness: Trust and honesty

strengthens
relationships. Dishonesty creates suspicion and
allegations which hamper relations.

• Responsibility: In private relationships it is

one's responsibility to ensure material and
non-material well-being of his/her near and
dear ones. Example: A parent is to provide for
the children's material wellbeing, including
proper nutrition and shelter, as far as
possible. A child has the responsibility to care
for their elder parents and serve them as the
parents served the child when the child was
young, giving back the unconditional love the
parents gave to the child.
Accountability: One has to be accountable if
he/ she has failed to fulfill his/her
responsibilities.

• Giving and Receiving: Private relationships

are not to be carried on by one person. Both
sides of relationships are equally responsible,
for example, parents who ignore their
children during childhood days cannot expect
respect and care from their children once
they grow old. Belongingness and
Togetherness: The private relationships are
governed by culture of belongingness and
togetherness as these are based on love, care
and affection.

• Forgiveness and Reconciliation: There are

incidences where we may hurt the
sentiments of our near and dear ones. So, it
is necessary to seek forgiveness and reconcile
with the person whose emotions have been
hurt.

• Protect from Harm: In a private sphere, we

have to protect our closed ones. Example: A
parent protects children from physical harm
and abuse.
• Tolerance and Acceptance of Minor
Imperfections: In private relationships, we are
tolerant and acceptant about the
imperfections our near and dear ones have.
This depends on the closeness of relationship
we have with other person.

Example: We may not like someone

touching our stuff but our sibling has the habit
of always doing that, so we are usually tolerant
about his behavior.
Ethics in Public Relationships

Public relationships are the relationships

that exist because of the aspects of social life
happening in public in the open as opposed to
more private social interactions. These
relationships exist by the virtue of profession
or visit to a public place. There are certain
basic principles and values that govern the
interactions in public, called as ethics in public
relationships. These relationships may not be
permanent but the ethics governing these
relationships have permanency.
Public relationship recognize a long-term
responsibility and seek to persuade and to
achieve mutual understanding by securing the
willing acceptance of attitudes and ideas. It can
succeed only when the basic policy is ethical,
and the means used as truthful. In Public
Relations, the ends can never justify the use of
false, harmful or questionable means.

The principles which govern ethics in

public relationships:

• Veracity: It means to "tell the truth". A

person
has to work honestly at his workplace which
strengthens his credibility and authenticity. In a
public place a person should be truthful and
not indulge in any kind of theft. In a society a
person should not indulge in rumors and
gossips and only speak about third person after
being sure about it.

• Non-maleficence: It means to "do no harm."

In public relationships a person is expected to
cause no harm to others. If he is in a public
place, he is expected to not litter; at
workplace, he is expected to not work against
the interest of the organization and in a
society, he is expected to prevent spread of
misinformation in form of fake news or hate
speech. The activities like cyber-crimes are
threatening public relationships.

• Beneficence: It means to "do good." In a

society, a person on having surplus, can give
to others freely, unconditionally, and joyfully
and bridge the deficits in life of others. At the
workplace, he should work with punctuality,
sincerity, honesty and dedication to
contribute for the development of the
institution. In a public place, he can do 'good'
via his gratitude, generosity and hospitality
by helping old-age and disabled people;
maintaining cleanliness, etc.

• Confidentiality: It means to "respect privacy."

A person should not leak the secrets of an
organization where he is working in lieu of
some private interests or benefits. He is
supposed to respect the privacy of others in
public places as well.

• Fairness: It means to be fair and socially

responsible. It is necessary to respect every
individual, behave responsibly and be just in
public relationships.
These principles have become necessary in
public relationships because of following
reasons:

• Recognition of right of expression and

freedom of information

• Advance in telecommunication and transport.

• Opening up of traditionally closed societies

and increasing globalisation. Governments
employing Public Relation practice for staying
in power, for development task, etc.
• Growth in business, amalgamations,
collaborations, operating with subsidiaries,
spreading across national boundaries and in
different cultures. Unethical act in public
relations may include:

• Suppressing unfavourable news,

• Misrepresenting facts,

• Postponing to serve a cause but actually

serving some other interest, Promising results
that cannot be obtained,
• Use of undesirable method towards
pressurising editors for carrying publicity
material.

Ethical Duties of Human Beings

Ethical duties refer to the rules all human

beings should adhere to, because
it is their moral obligation to do so. These are
as follows-
• Value Life: We should preserve and protect
human life.
• Honesty: We should tell truth.

• Fidelity: We should strive to keep promises

and be honest and truthful.

• Reparation: We should make amends when

we have wronged someone else.

• Gratitude: We should be grateful to others

when they perform actions that benefit us
and we should try to return the favor.
• Non-injury (or non-máleficence): We should
refrain from harming others either physically
or psychologically.

• Beneficence: We should be kind to others

and should try to improve their health,
wisdom, security, happiness, and well-being.

• Self-improvement: We should strive to

improve our own health, wisdom, security,
happiness, and well-being.

• Justice: We should try to be fair and try to

distribute benefits and burdens equably and
evenly.

• Dignity of Labor: We should respect all jobs

equally and should not con- sider one job
superior to another. Rather than depending
upon others, it is better to earn one's own
living and that too by honest means

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a

trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a
practiced method for exploring the ethical
aspects of a decision and weighing the
considerations that should impact our choice
of a course of action. Having a method for
ethical decision making is absolutely essential.
When practiced regularly, the method
becomes so familiar that we work through it
automatically without consulting the specific
steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical

choice we face, the more we need to rely on
discussion and dialogue with others about the
dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the
problem, aided by the insights and different
perspectives of others, can we make good
ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework

for ethical decision making a useful method for
exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying
ethical courses of action.

Recognize an Ethical Issue

• Could this decision or situation be damaging

to someone or to some group? Does this
decision involve a choice between a good and
bad alternative, or perhaps between two
"goods" or between two "bads"? Is this issue
about more than what is legal or what is most
efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

• What are the relevant facts of the case?

What facts are not known? Can I learn more
about the situation? Do I know enough to
make a decision?
• What individuals and groups have an
important stake in the outcome? Are some
concerns more important? Why?

• What are the options for acting? Have all the

relevant persons and groups been consulted?
Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

Evaluate the options by asking the

following questions:
• Which option will produce the most good and
do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)

• Which option best respects the rights of all

who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)

• Which option treats people equally or

proportionately? (The Justice Approach)
Which option best serves the community as a
whole, not just some members? (The
Common Good Approach)
• Which option leads me to act as the sort of
person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

• Considering all these approaches, which

option best addresses the situation?

• If I told someone I respect or told a television

audience which option I have chosen, what
would they say?
Act and Reflect on the Outcome

• How can my decision be implemented with

the greatest care and attention to the
concerns of all stakeholders?

• How did my decision turn out and what have

I learned from this specific situation?

Given the notion of equating moral

responsibility with voluntary action, however,
moral luck becomes a problem. This problem is
illustrated by an example that many moral luck
philosophers employ that of a traffic accident.

There are two people driving cars, Driver

A, and Driver B. They are alike in every way.
Driver A is driving down a road, and, in a
moment of inattention, runs a red light as a
child is crossing the street. Driver A slams the
brakes, swerves, in short does everything to try
to avoid hitting the child - alas, the car hits and
kills the child. Driver B, in the meantime, also
runs a red light but, since no one is crossing,
gets a traffic ticket but nothing more. If a
bystander were asked to morally evaluate
Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to
expect them to say that Driver A is due more
moral blame than Driver B. After all, Driver A's
course of action resulted in a death, whereas
the course of action taken by Driver B was
quite uneventful. However, there are
absolutely no differences in the controllable
actions performed by Drivers A and B.

The only disparity is that in the case of

Driver A, an external uncontrollable event
occurred, whereas it did not in the case of
Driver B. The external uncontrollable event, of
course, is the child crossing the street. There is
no difference at all in what the two of them
could have done however, one seems clearly
more to blame than the other. How does this
occur?

This is the problem of moral luck. If it is

given that moral responsibility should only be
relevant when the agent voluntarily performed
or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and
B should be blamed equally, or praised equally,
as may be the case. At the same time, this is at
least intuitively problematic, as whatever the
external circumstances are one situation
resulted in a death, and the other did not. As in
the foreword itself it has been discussed about
the importance of intention of an act rather
than the act itself.

In the arena of law it is called as actus

reus and mens rea which means respectively
the action and the intention behind that
action. In the evolved jurisprudence; more
stress is given on the 'mens rea even if the
actus reus had been devoid of moral luck.

Moral Luck

Moral luck describes circumstances

whereby a moral agent is assigned moral
blame or praise for an action or its
consequences even if it is clear that said agent
did not have full control over either the action
or its consequences.

Moral Luck is a concept that could be

applied to establish the locus of culpability
based on intention.

This term, introduced by Bernard

Williams, has been developed, along with its
significance to a coherent moral theory, by
Williams and
Thomas Nagel in their respective essays on the
subject.

Moral Authority

Moral authority is authority premised on

principles, or fundamental truths, which are
independent of written, or 'positive, laws. As
such, moral authority necessitates the
existence of and adherence to truth. Because
truth does not change, the principles of moral
authority are immutable or unchangeable,
although as applied to individual circumstances
the dictates of moral authority for action may
vary due to the exigencies of human life.

These principles, which can be of

metaphysical and/or religious in nature, are
considered normative for behavior, whether
they are or are not also embodied in written
laws, and even if the community is ignoring or
violating them.

Therefore, the authoritativeness or force

of moral authority is applied to the conscience
of each individual, who is free to act according
to
or against its dictates. Moral authority has thus
also been defined as the "fundamental
assumptions that guide our perceptions of the
world".

Moral Responsibility

In philosophy, moral responsibility is the

status of morally deserving praise, blame,
reward, or punishment for an act or omission,
in accordance with one's moral obligations.
Deciding what (if anything) counts as "morally
obligatory" is a principal concern of ethics.
Philosophers refer to people who have moral
responsibility for an action as moral agents.
Agents have the capability to reflect on their
situation, to form intentions about how they
will act, and then to carry out that action. The
notion of free will has become an important
issue in the debate on whether individuals are
ever morally responsible for their actions and,
if so, in what sense. Incompatibilists regard
determinism as at odds with free will, whereas
compatibilists think the two can coexist.

Moral responsibility does not necessarily

equate to legal responsibility. A person is
legally responsible for an event when a legal
system is liable to penalise that person for that
event. Although it may often be the case that
when a person is morally responsible for an
act, they are also legally responsible for it, the
two states do not always coincide.

When Two of Your Co-workers are Fighting

People disagree at work. That's a given.

But what if there's an all-out war between two
of your co-workers? What's the right way to
respond? If the people fighting are your direct
reports, you have a duty to intervene, but what
if they're your peers? Should you play the role
of peacekeeper? Or should you just stay out of
it?

What the Experts Say

Whether or not you get involved will

depend on how enmeshed you are in the
situation. If either person approaches you to
complain or to enlist your help, you have to
respond in some way. And while you may not
be their manager, you have a responsibility to
make sure work gets done.

"If it's getting in the way of teamwork,

then talk to them," says Anna Ranieri, a career
counselor, executive coach, and co-author of
'How Can I Help? But intervening is not always
a straightforward prospect. "Peer-to-peer
conflict is often fuzzy," says Roderick Kramer, a
social psychologist and the William R. Kimball
Professor of Organizational Behavior at the
Stanford Graduate School of Business. It's not
always clear who's responsible and you may
not know what to do.
 "People often find themselves in over
their head. They think they can intervene,
make suggestions, feel good about themselves,
and move the conflict forward in a constructive
way. But that's not always possible," says
Kramer. Here's how to respond next time you
find yourself in the middle of a co-worker
battle.

Allow Venting

It can be hard to listen to people

complain but sometimes that's exactly what
they need.
"Allowing colleagues the space and time to talk
it out is a real luxury in workplaces," says
Ranieri.

"People often just want a safe place to

vent and in doing so, may figure out on their
own what they want to do." Kramer agrees:
"There are times that people are just frustrated
and need to express that. Venting isn't an
effective long-term strategy. "Encourage
people not to get caught in the trap of venting,
ruminating, and gossiping about the situation,"
says Kramer, because that won't move things
forward.
 "But there's nothing wrong with
tolerating a few complaints in the short term."
If you're worried that by hearing one person
out, you'll upset the other (on small teams, it's
often obvious who's talking to whom) make an
effort to get both sides of the story. "At a
minimum, you should keep a cordial
relationship with the other person, but a better
strategy is to demonstrate that you're fully
open to all your colleagues," says Ranieri.
Empathize

While listening to your colleague, show

that you understand how hard the situation is.
You can say, "I'm sorry this is happening," or
"It's tough when two people can't see eye to
eye." But you don't have to and shouldn't take
sides. "Don't endorse one person's point of
view," says Ranieri.

Stay neutral instead and speak from your

own experience. Offer observations like, "It
seemed like Jane was stressed out and didn't
mean what she said," or "I know that Joe is a
direct person and can sometimes come off as
harsh."

The key, Ranieri says, is to "show that

you know where your colleague is coming from
but not go as far to say, 'You're right and he's
wrong." If you're being pushed to choose a
perspective, make it clear that you won't: "You
seem hurt but I can't take sides because I have
to work with both of you."
Explain the Impact of their Fighting

After you've demonstrated your concern,

make clear how the fighting is affecting the
team. Ranieri suggests something like, "You
two not getting along is hard for everyone and
it's preventing us from doing good work." Help
both parties see how the skirmish is hurting
others so they are motivated to do something
productive about it.
Offer Advice Cautiously

Before you give your two cents, ask your

coworkers if they want your help: "We tend to
offer unsolicited advice because we think we
know better," says Ranieri. But people might
not want your opinion, so start by saying
something like: "Would it be helpful if I
suggested some ways to work this out?"
Remember too that your particular perspective
may not be helpful.

"Maybe you've been through a

workplace
fight and the way you resolved it worked for
you but it may not work for this situation,"
Ranieri explains.

Problem-Solve Together

If your colleagues do want your advice,

focus on making observations about what they
might do, rather than concrete suggestions.
Kramer suggests you think with each of them,
or just the person confiding in you, about all
the possible options and lay out a decision
tree.
 "You should be more in problem-solving
mode than gossip mode and -together you can
decide on the right intervention," he says.

Broker a Détente

Don't rush to sit them down together

however, "getting people into a room and
letting them duke it out is not responsible,"
says Kramer. "There are likely be asymmetries
in their power or their abilities and you risk
causing further damage to the relationship." Of
course, if the conflict has reached a crescendo
- perhaps people are yelling then you may have
no option but to pull them into a meeting and
quickly get to the root of the problem.

Beware Resistance

Ranieri points out that there are some

people that can't and won't be helped. She
says that psychotherapists call these "Yes, but
clients. "Yes, I could approach Jane but I think
she should approach me first."

"Yes, I want things to be better, but that

will
never work." So despite your best attempts,
you may not see progress. If one person insists
she's right or refuses help, it. may be time to
retreat. In those cases, you can push back the
next time she approaches you: "We've talked
about this multiple times and it doesn't seem
like you're ready to resolve it, so I guess it is
what it is right now.“

Don't Escalate

Kramer and Ranieri agree that it's rarely

a good idea to involve the sparring co-workers'
boss (or bosses) unless the problem is truly
intractable and impeding work. "That would
escalate the situation and possibly make one
or both people feel like a victim," says Kramer.
Also, once you've raised it to other people, you
may now be seen as part of the problem in
their eyes, though you might consider
approaching your own superior for advice as a
last resort.

Know your Limits

"Remember that you aren't a

psychologist
or a mediator," says Kramer. "If the situation is
outside your comfort zone or you think the
disagreement is juvenile, there's nothing
wrong with saying, 'This is not my problem.'
Adds Ranieri: "When you're in the helping role,
you need to make sure you take care of
yourself. You don't have to be an unpaid
referee."

But always give one or both of your co-

workers a next step to take. You may want to
say, "I'm not sure I'm the right person to help
you with this but you might want sit down
together or find someone else." Suggest a
dispassionate third party who's not part of the
team hierarchy, perhaps an ombudsman, or
someone from HR.

Public VS. Private Ethics

Public ethics are the moral principle that

ought to govern different areas of law and
policy making, and about the ethically proper
conduct of elected officials, government
agents, and ordinary citizens.

It has often been said, "What happens in

privacy does not hurt anyone." Does it get
carried out by other means? Is anything truly
secret? The implication of the two mottos
above suggests that any indiscreet behavior
that transpires in the privacy of a hotel room
will not become públicly known and bring
irreversible harm or affect that individual or
the community.

Accordingly, a person can be assured that

there will be no public exposure of private
indiscretions.
This raises the following issues:

• Do private ethics have no bearing on public

life or social ethics?

• Does what occurs in the privacy of a public

official's home or office have no influence on
public or social policy decisions?

• Can private ethical behavior be separated

from social ethics without consequences?
• Can there be public or social ethics without
underlying personal ethics?

• Is there a legitimate bifurcation between

private and public ethics?

These questions go to the heart of law,

the extent of morality, relationships
development, the inner life and its outward
expression, and public and social policy
development.

One ethicist said that "It is impossible to

maintain a clear and precise distinction
between social ethics and personal (individual)
ethics. No individual behavior is without social
implications. No social situation or problem is
without individual repercussions." Further she
said that the public policy and social ethics are
intertwined..

Public policy, politics, economics, war,

poverty, education, racism, ecology, and crime:
these are examples of the subject of social
ethics. All of the social institutions she
identifies encompass a vast range of issues in
every segment of society and cannot exist
apart from individuals. Business, education,
temple, professional associations, and
government all involve people as they interact,
exchange ideas, trade goods and services, and
make decisions. They influence one another
during these interchanges and affect the
structure and moral environment of society.

Ethics in Human Actions

Humans are said to be evaluative in

nature. Whenever a person does something
we find others analysing his/her behaviour and
commenting that was good, bad or at times
indifferent.

Ethics is said to be a philosophical

treatise which studies human behaviour and
tries to determine whether the act performed
was morally right or wrong. It cannot content
itself with simply registering facts; it attempts
to reflect on the meaningfulness or
meaninglessness of such facts, establish or
reject them on a rational basis, understand
their implications, draw relevant consequences
and, above all, intuit their ultimate cause.
Understanding of Human Act

There is a difference between 'Acts of

Man/Human' and 'Human Acts' respectively.
Not every act that a human being does is a
human act.

Human activities, like the circulation of

blood, heartbeat, over which normal people in
general have no control are not classified as
human acts. Such acts which are beyond the
control of humans and those which they share
in common with animals are called as 'Acts of
Humans'. Acts of humans, then, are
involuntary and therefore, not morally
responsible for them.

On the other hand a 'Human Act' is one

which proceeds from knowledge and from
consent of free will. Or, in other words, it is an
act which emanates from the will with
knowledge of the end or goal to which the act
leads.

The Human act is to be distinguished

from acts of humans which are performed
without
intervention of intellect and free will.

The Constituent Elements of Human Action

Constituent elements of the human act

refer to the inner causes or the constituting
elements which generate a human person to
undertake a certain act. The understanding of
the human act indicates that there are two
essential elements which constitute a human
act:
• The Intellectual Element (knowledge); and

• The Volitive Element (free will).

The question of free will or human

freedom in the matter of making a moral
choice has been formulated as Determinism
versus In-determinism.

Determinism is a theory which explains

that all human action is conditioned entirely by
preceding events, and not by the faculty of the
Will. In-determinism is a theory, though not
denying the influence of behavioural patterns
and certain extrinsic forces on human actions,
insists on the reality of free will or the capacity
of the humans to make a free choice. This view
asserts that humans are an exception to the
rigid determinism that occurs in nature.

Impediments for Human Acts

In the process of performing a human act

the individual might encounter certain
obstacles which though may not nullify the
human act and make it involuntary but they
may reduce the imputability or culpability of
the individual, thereby making him less
responsible for the particular act. Some of the
main impediments which might affect either
the intellectual or the volitive constituent (or
both together) of the human action are
ignorance, passion, habit and fear.

Factors determining the Morality of Human

Actions

Analyzing the morality of the human act

is said to be a complex enterprise since it is
affected by so many conditions which are
within and without.

Most of the moralists agree that to judge

the goodness or badness of any particular
human act, three elements must be weighed
from which every act derives its morality. They
are:

• the Object of the act;

• the Circumstances surrounding the act, and;

• the End or Intention that the one performing
the act has in mind.

Bona fide Mistake

'Bona fide' is a Latin word and used to

mean "in good faith." It is commonly used as a
legal term if a party fails to follow the law in
attempting to collect a debt. In its simplest
definition, bona fide mistake is defined as an
honest mistake that when rectified quickly
requires no punishment. Bona fide mistake is a
légal term referring to an unintentional mistake
or oversight that may be corrected promptly to
avoid exposure to legal action.

An example of a creditor claiming a bona

fide error might be continuing to attempt to
collect a debt that had already been paid. If
the payoff had not been recorded properly
because of a clerical or systems error, or
because. incorrect information was received
from a prior creditor, the debt collector might
claim a bona fide error to defend against
prosecution. A mistake in legal judgment,
however, is not ordinarily considered a bona
fide mistake.
Consequences of Ethics in Human Actions

Ethics focuses on human actions and

their morality. However, ethics focuses only on
people's deliberate human actions, and not on
undeliberate actions or actions done because
of ignorance.

Ethics in human actions result in following

consequences:

• Summum bonum: Ethics help to achieve

highest good for human beings, which can be
in form of pleasure or happiness or welfare of
humankind. Rationalism: Ethics prescribes well
established standards of right and wrong that
should be followed by a person concerning
rights, obligations, etc. These standards put a
reasonable obligation to prevent unethical
activities like crime, theft, fraud, etc.

Example: On encountering a purse full of

cash and important documents, ethics will
guide us in taking the steps necessary to
returning the purse, with all of its contents, to
its owner while absence of ethics will drive us
to take the cash and not return it to the owner.
• Informed Decision Making: Ethics empower
us to create the knowledge that could inform
better decision making both in matters of
private.life and public policy. Ethics provide a
framework which helps a person to critically
evaluate his actions, choices and decisions
and make an informed decision.

• Makes Action Objective Oriented: Ethical

standards help to organize goals and actions
to accomplish a good life which serves larger
good for society. Absence of ethics makes
human actions random and aimless. Ethics
give an objective to human action.
• Solves Moral Dilemma: Ethics provide us
principles that enable a clearer view of moral
problem, thereby resolving moral dilemma.

• Builds Healthy, Peaceful and Better Society:

Ethics help a person to appreciate and follow
rules and regulations. These rules help in
providing stability and preventing chaos in
society. Ethical conduct ensures rightful and
law-abiding behavior which helps in
establishment of peaceful society. Ethics help
us to preserve values that prevent-
• loss of life and damage to public property;

• break down of families;

• no law and order;

• crime and corruption;

• alcohol and drug abuse;

• abuse of women, children and other

vulnerable members of the society; and ⚫
• olndiscreet use and wastage of resources.

As ethics help us to judge the difference

between good and bad, whereby it helps us to
try to do good and avoid bad, ethics in human
action benefits an individual and society.

For individual, ethics in human action leads

to-
• Happiness

• Positive outlook toward society

• Elevated sense of being

• Acceptability and likeability Credibility

• Accomplishment

• Improved Interpersonal relations

• Informed Decision making

For society, ethics in human action leads to-

• Peace and harmony

• Good governance

• Justice and inclusion

• Equitable and inclusive development

• Healthy society
• Sustainable living

• Progressive ideologies

Doctrine of Double Effect

The doctrine seeks to explain the

permissibility of an action that causes harm as
a side effect of promoting some good end.
According to this doctrine if a person's
behaviour or conduct is intended to achieve a
goal which is morally good, however, as a
result, there is a morally bad side-effect, then it
is still acceptable to make that particular
behaviour or conduct.

Ethicists provide a few general

principles to help decide the morality of acts
of double effect. They are:

• The action that produces the two effects

must be either good or indifferent- that is,
not intrinsically wrong.

• The good effect must be immediate-that is,

not obtained through the evil effect.
The intention or purpose must be good.

There must be a proportionately good

reason or cause for performing the action in
the first place.

Example: A Physician has diagnosed

serious medical complications in the case of a
pregnant woman about to deliver. In the
physician's opinion, it may not be possible to
save both lives. Physician may perform a
surgical procedure intending to save the
woman's life (good effect), but from which
procedure the physician foresees that death of
the unborn infant (evil effect) will result.
However, the physician does not intend this
evil effect.

Ethics and Natural Reason

By exercising the natural reason, a

person can arrive at a conclusion concerning
the kind of life fitting for human beings.
Ethicists argue that there is an inherent faculty
of rational judgment concerned with choosing
the right way of acting. Excellence in the
exercise of this
power constitutes the intellectual virtue of
practical wisdom, prudential, and conduct in
accord with its deliverances is moral virtue.

The idea of an innate power of moral

knowledge is open to at least two
interpretations. On the first, human beings are
endowed with a capacity for rational thought,
and starting from certain premises, knowledge
of which is not dependent on revelation, they
can arrive at conclusions about right conduct.
On the second interpretation, the relevant
endowment is one of a faculty of moral sense
by which they can simply intuit what it is right
or wrong to do. These views may be described
as 'rationalist' and 'intuitionist' respectively.
Human Values- Lessons from Lives of
Great Leaders, Administrators & Reformers

Human Values

The values according to or against which

we act are the unavoidable and essential
element of all important decisions in the
human arena. Values are the link that ties
together personal perceptions and
judgements, motives and actions.
The same applies in understanding social and
political life. A make-or-break idea is that
values or precepts and their various practical
consequences in life - are at least as
fundamental to understanding man and
society as are the much-vaunted physical
necessities. They are also essential in
improving man and society too.

The great predominance of violence, war,

hate and crime in most societies and eras of
history may seem to refute the universality of
human values. However, the values do go back
to the earliest recorded human societies. and
religions and have somehow persisted
throughout all the eras and all cultures. In this
sense they are universal, added to which is the
evolutionary nature of the human being and
civilisation, whereby the assertion of these
values becomes eventually more and more
secure, and now on an interactive global scale
through international laws and practices.

What do Human Values consist of?

Human values can be formulated or

expressed in many ways: anything from
practical examples to moral principles at the
highest levels of generality. However, genuine
human values are not abstract principles
developed by academics or preachers, but life-
embedded ideas and precepts, along with

their various justifications. Because they

are human, values are not divinely ordained
rules of behaviour not commandments set in
stone.

They are related to differing cultures,

unique persons and situations and are
developed and expressed in human terms for
the human aims they collectively represent.

Basic Human Values

Human Values which have wide common

appeal possibly even a universal relevance are:

• Truth

• Love-Caring

• Peace
• Responsibility

• Justice

Truth

The truth in any matter does not depend

upon the will or wish of the individual, but is
independent of desires and their related
interests and opinions. Evidence that truth is
an inherent value in the human psyche is found
in the fact that no-one likes to be called a liar,
not even most liars. Further, it is much harder
to sustain a lie than to maintain the truth,
because one lie leads to another until the
complexity is unmanageable.

Hatred

Hatred is a negative emotional response

to certain people or ideas, usually related to
disliking something. Hatred is often called as
intense feelings of anger, contempt, and
disgust. Hatred is sometimes seen as the
opposite of love. Hatred can be expressed in
several ways like violence, hate speech and
discrimination against a person or group of
persons for a variety of reasons. It poses grave
dangers for the cohesion of a democratic
society, the protection of human rights and the
rule of law. If left unaddressed, it can lead to
acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.
In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of
intolerance which contributes to hate crime.

Aware about consequence of hate

speech in society, it becomes important to
provide criminal prohibition when hate speech
or hatred propagated which may publicly
incites violence against individuals or groups of
people. At the same time, it should also be
taken care that balance must be kept between
fighting hate speech on the one hand, and
safeguarding freedom of speech on the other.
Any restrictions on hate speech should not be
misused to silence minorities and to suppress
criticism of official policies, political opposition
or religious beliefs.

Example: In many instances, it has been

found that an effective approach to tackling
hate speech, in particular cyberhate is self-
regulation by public and private institutions,
media and the Internet industry, such as the
adoption of codes of conduct accompanied by
sanctions for non-compliance. Education and
counter- speech are also equally important in
fighting the misconceptions and
misinformation that form the basis of hate
speech.

Love-Caring

The word 'love' should be taken in the

very wide sense of 'care' or 'concern for'. This
can be taken as a basic category or general
human value which relates to concern and
respect for
others and the environment. The word 'love' is
here used in a broader sense than in common
parlance where personal and/or erotic love is
the common interpretation. Its essence can be
characterised by the words "Love is unselfish
care and concern for the well- being of others
and the world at large.

The less selfish it is, the more it enriches

life". Being neither a sensation, an emotion nor
a mere conception, but being identifiable only
at the heart or core of the human
consciousness, love in this universal sense is
the characteristic par excellence of the human
soul or psyche. It is common to include
altruism, understanding and forgiveness under
the more encompassing (but vague and
ambiguous) word 'love’.

Peace

As a universally-accepted positive value,

peace refers to the experience of harmony, a
balanced but nevertheless dynamic mental
condition. Peacefulness in a person's life, in
society and in world terms, is a product of all
positive values working together sufficiently.
Without truth, caring concern (or "love") and
justice, conflicts arise and peace is endangered
or lost. While peace is the absence of
disturbance, violence, war and wrongdoing
generally, it is tangible present when
experienced individually as peace of mind, the
mutual respect and pleasure of friendliness
and tolerance.

Peace of mind is individual, but peace in

society is the result of positive acts, which are
not violent or destructive but tolerant and
constructive.
Violence

The word 'violence' is derived from the

Latin word 'violentia' which comes from the
root 'vis' which means force. Usually 'violence'
denotes great force, excessive or constraint.
The first two meanings: force and excessive
force are taken from the stand-point of an
agent's activity. The third meaning: constraint
is taken from that of a passive principle
affected adversely by the activity of the agent.

In defining violence, we may point out

two
principles: the constraining and the
constrained. The latter, though always passive
in relation to the agent inflicting violence, may
suffer violence either as an active or as a
passive principle.

A casual look at our society. will tell us

the untold miseries existing and how this
violence is perpetuated under various shades.
There is cultural violence, religious violence,
economic violence, media violence, group
violence, sexual violence, political violence and
the types of violence could be inexhaustive.
Life is being threatened by innumerable kinds
of violence and we feel powerless and helpless
at the intensity and the gravity of the matter.
Something has gone wrong somewhere. It is
the personal and collective responsibility to get
on the right track of life and not on the violent
one. Violence can only beget violence and not
peace. Moral laxity is one of the causes of
violence, others being lack of education,
unemployment, caste system, poor planning
and deep corruption, etc.

Moral laws are finest fabric which knits

together the different persons in the society
into a whole. The moral laws safeguards the
inter-personal relationship and builds up a
better and strong society. Whenever the moral
laws of the land was tampered with and less
attention was given to it, respect for life and
value of life had dwindled.

Laxity in moral standard of life will clearly

reflect in the attitude towards life. There are
already visible signs of this danger in the way
human beings are treated. Human life has
become the least valuable things where as the
lives of other animals and birds get a better
attention. This easy-go mentality may lead one
to lose one's own conscience or inner voice
and would end up in violence and crime
against humanity.

Terrorism

The Oxford Advanced Dictionary defines

terrorism as the use of violent action in order
to achieve political aims or to force a
government to act. The terrorists use various
methods to cause panic and fear among
people. Some of these methods include
hostage taking, hijacking, political
assassination, kidnapping, bombing, and
explosions.

Terrorism has several objectives, such as,

to advertise the movement or to give publicity
to the ideology and strength of the movement;
to mobilize mass support and urge
sympathizers to greater militancy; to eliminate
opponents and informers and thus remove
obstacles to the growth of the movement; to
demonstrate the inability of the government to
support the people and maintain order, to
destroy internal stability and create a feeling of
fear and insecurity among the public; and to
ensure the
allegiance and obedience of the followers.
Terrorism and Social Ethics

Terrorism has turned out over the years

to be a method of dehumanizing the entire
spectrum of human beings. The principles of
the terrorists are rooted in destruction and
dehumanization. Consequently, they take
control of the ethical supervision of a society
and fabricate the citizens of a substandard
conscience and a splintered morality. Terror is
not merely a rational phenomenon. It envelops
people, body, mind, and spirit. It leaves people
paralyzed by anxiety and fear. Terrorism in all
its forms is always wrong. Terrorism violates
human rights, including the basic right to be
treated as a moral person.

Terrorism as a phenomenon does raise a

few ethical questions for our study and
reflection. The growing hate campaigns against
groups, regions and countries affect the
normal morale of the society. Terrorism can
thus be a threat to the civilization of the world.
For, behaving ethically is a part of being
civilized. The terrorists, however, are devoid of
any love and benevolence and are
disinterested in truth of life. They do not like to
cultivate any art, literature and music. They
prefer darkness of nights to the light of the
day. They like their hiding places more than
one loves one's home. They often kidnap
children for claiming ransom. They have no
qualms of conscience to make married women
suddenly widows even after a few hours of
marriage.

Responsibility

The human value of doing one's duty is

closely related to non-violence. This is the
reasonable tendency to wish to avoid harm to
creatures or their environment wherever
avoidable. Respecting the integral nature of
eco-systems or of a social-natural environment
as against the destructive influences of
pollution, misuse and excessive exploitation
exemplify the spirit of non-violence (the Hindu
concept of 'Ahimsa' as well-developed by
Gandhi). It is the inherently- sensed value that
prompts us to draw back from unethical
meddling in life processes.

Knowledge of what is true combined

with insight into what is good, are the basis of
duty,
also conceived as 'acting rightly'. Behind any
conscious act lies the thought. If the thought is
fed by the will towards the true and the good
in contrast to purely selfish aims the act is
'right'. This is also found in the Eastern concept
of 'dharma' or action in accordance with the
universal laws of nature (both physical and
human nature).

Justice

The European tradition has long

embraced justice as one among the higher
human values,
even as the highest (Socrates and Plato). The
idea of justice is difficult to define satisfactorily.
It is based on fairness, where the equality of
every individual before the law is fundamental.
As such it is a social value in that it aims to
resolve and reduce conflict, guided by the
principles of care and non-violence (involving
the minimum use of force required).

The aim to achieve social justice for the

perceived common good has certainly a long
pre-history as a central idea in all human
societies.
The Classical Greek idea of justice eventually
gave rise to that of 'human rights', first
formalised in the Charter of the 1948 Geneva
Convention, which is continually undergoing
further development and extension.

The human value justice also has wide-

ranging political relevancy, such as in the
strivings of egalitarianism in political
democracy and other systems of rule. As such,
justice is a major human value that embraces
most aspects of social life. This value is to be
understood in the deep Vedic sense of
'Ahimsa', being universal in implying respect
for all living beings.

Leader and Administrator: Meaning and

Differences

Administration is defined as a process of

working with and through others to
accomplish the agreed goals efficiently. An
administrator then is one who is responsible
for carrying out this process. Administrative
theorists describe the essential roles and tasks
of administration as planning, organizing,
leading and controlling. Management is also
concerned with tasks such as planning,
coordinating, directing, defining objectives,
supporting the work of others, and evaluating
performance. Thus a similarity exists between
administration and management.

However, leadership is the exercise of

high-level conceptual skills and decisiveness. It
is envisioning mission, developing strategy,
inspiring people, and changing culture.

Administrators are appointed. They have

a legitimate power base and can reward and
punish. Their ability to influence is based upon
the formal authority inherent in their
positions. In contrast, leaders may either be
appointed or emerge from within a group.
Leaders can influence others to perform
beyond the actions dictated by formal
authority. In this sense,
managers/administrators get other people to
do, but leaders get other people to want to do.

Another distinguishing factor between

leaders and administrators is that leaders
initiate new structures or procedures to
achieve organizational goals or objectives,
whereas administrators utilize existing
structures or procedures for this purpose. In
other words, administrators are concerned
with shaping existing structures and processes
of the organization to produce desired results,
whereas leaders have a commitment or vision
and shape people around their commitment or
vision. An administrator is concerned with
carrying out policies, while a leader formulates
policies. An administrator does the thing right,
while a leader does the right thing.
Reformer

A reformer is a person who wants to

improve the prevailing conditions in society by
bringing about reforms in any area of human
activity e.g., politics, social customs and
religion.

A social reformer is a disputant who

advocates for reforms to discard the social evils
like child marriage, untouchability, female-
foeticide, etc. Examples of social reformers
include Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Raja Rammohan
Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. These
people have been able to make an impact on
the people with their philosophy and great
work for the society.

A political reformer is one who promises

voters that he will address poor practices or
questionable activities in government. Some of
the main issues addressed to by the political
reformers are like corruption in government
offices, right of equality to all, transparency
and accountability in government activities.
 A religious reformer is someone who
feels that a certain religion has overstepped its
bounds or has lost its original message,
purpose or goal, and who attempts to bring it
back to its pure state.

Leader, Administrator and Reformer: Common

Values

Though leader, administrator and

reformer may require different attitudes, skills
and traits, but they share certain values which
they adhered to even in
their toughest time. An attitude to serve the
people, uplifting the downtrodden, impartiality
and integrity, benevolence and compassion -
they all became the hallmark of their
personality and character.

Human Values- Lessons from the Lives of

Great Leaders

There have been many great leaders over

the world like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham
Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson
Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Su Ki and
Mother Teresa and ohers who lived and did all
the things on the basis of basic human values.

Some of these human values which

manifested from their works and lives are as
follows-

• Love for Justice

• Selflessness

• Respect for Humanity

• Dignity for All

• Loving and caring behaviour

• Peace loving (non-violence)

• Benevolence

• Compassion
Human Values Lessons from the Lives of Great
Administrators

Our generation has been fortunate

enough to have some of the best
administrators in the world. Some of them are
as follows- Verghese Kurien, M.S.
Swaminathan, Sam Pitroda, E. Sreedharan, C.D.
Deshmukh, I.G. Patel, V.P. Menon and GVG
Krishnamurthy.

From the work of these administrators, it

is evident that they have been guided by
various professional and human values
their lives.

Here, we mention some of the

professional and human values which have
been the source of their guidance in the field
of administration -
• Integrity

• Non-discrimination

• Discipline

• Citizenly-duty
• Social Equality

• Lawfulness

• Sense of ethical accountability

• Loyalty

• Courage

• Solidarity and respect

Human Values Lessons from the lives of Great
Reformers

In India, there have been many social

reformers like Kabir, Guru Nanak Dev, Raja
Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar,
Swami Vivekananda, etc. who challenged the
prevailing evil customs and enlightened the
society on various social and religious matters.
We observe that their lives exhibit following
values-

• Respect for Humanity

• Dignity for all

• Humanism

• Reason and Inquiry for seeking the truth

• Kindness and compassion

• Contentment

• Social Equality
Role of Family, Society and Educational
Institutions in Inculcacting Values pe

According to Radhakamal Mukherjee,

"Values may be defined as socially approved
desires and goals that are internalized through
the process of conditioning, learning or
socialization."

Values are the guiding principles of life

that contribute to the all-round development
of an individual. They give a direction to life
and thus bring joy, satisfaction and peace.
Values add
quality to life.

Thus, we can say that any human activity,

thought or idea, feeling, sentiment or emotion,
which promotes self-development of an
individual, constitutes a value. Value system is
the backbone of the community, society and
nation.

Why there is need of inculcating Values?

In the present scenario, due to manifold

changes in various aspects of our civilization
such as population explosion, advancement in
science and technology, knowledge expansion,
rapid industrialization, urbanization,
mobilization, IT revolution, liberalization,
privatization & globalization as well as the
influence of western culture, present society
has become highly dynamic.

Growing global poverty, pollution,

hunger, disease, unemployment, unsociability,
caste system, child labour, gender inequality,
ill-treatment of women, violence, disability,
exploitation of natural resources and many
such evils have caused value- crisis on the
globe, adversely affecting the core human
values such as honesty, sincerity, morality and
humanity.

• To overcome the problems of the present era,

inculcation of values among individuals and
promotion of values in educational system, as
well as society, is highly essential.
There is need to inculcate values because of
following:

• To guide the human beings in the right path

and inculcate the core values such as truth,
righteousness, peace, love and non-violence
among the people to make them good human
beings in true sense.

• To inculcate the concept of 'Universal

Brotherhood' and achieve the absolute values
of Truth, Goodness and Beauty.

• To give direction and firmness to life and

bring joy, satisfaction and peace of life to
preserve our culture and heritage and to
develop morality and character.
• To bring the behavioral changes towards
positivism.

• To promote the peace and harmony in the

individuals and society.

• To bring the quality of life and sustainable

development in the society.

Inculcating Values

• The development of value patterns that are

meant to result in behaviors deemed
appropriate is referred to as value inculcation.
Family, society and educational institutions
play an important role in inculcating values.
Inculcating Values Role of Family

Family being the first and major agency

of socialization has great influence and bearing
on the development of the child. It has been
shown by various studies that most of the
children who are successful/great achievers
and well-adjusted come from the families
where sustaining wholesome relationships
exist. Therefore, it is the home, which sets the
pattern for the child's attitude towards people
and society, aids intellectual growth in the
child and supports his aspirations and good
values.
 If we love children, take care of old
family members, give respect to seniors and
neighbours, speak gently, keep our home and
surrounding neat and clean, take decision after
collective discussion with the family members
and experienced one, the child should learn
the values like love, respect, care, softness,
gentleness, cleanliness, openness, trust, etc.
Level of education, religious belief, rituals and
other practices in family also affect the
thinking level of the children.
Inculcating Values Role of Parents

"Parents are a child's first teachers and

role models." Parents play a very important
role in inculcating values in their children as
they are the first people that children look up
to and learn from. They are responsible for
shaping up the child's behavior and
implementing positive values in them.

The parents play following role in process of

value inculcation -
• Being Supportive: They contribute to their
children's development by providing love,
support, and guidance.

• Role Models: Children listen, observe and

imitate their parents, thereby acting as
models for the behavior they want their
children to emulate.

• Rewards: Parents need to set a good example

for their children and teach them how to
behave through positive reinforcement when
they do something right.
• Imparting Moral Lessons: Telling stories and
giving moral lessons can have a long lasting
impact on children psyche and help in the
development of moral reasoning and thereby
helping them differentiate between morally
appropriate and inappropriate behaviors.

Therefore, parents can ensure that their

children grow up with good values, morals, and
habits by imparting these during their
formative years. Parents can help their children
to become an asset for society by teaching
them the values of honesty, respect, teamwork
and perseverance.
However, there are certain limitations in value
inculcation by parents:

• Parents teach kids to be in company of

children with similar religious and caste
identities.

• Parents by differentiating between girl and

male child create a patriarchal attitude in
male child while submissiveness in female
child.
• Parents often express the difference in their
opinions by indulging in fights in front of their
children.

• Authoritative parenting with absolute

absence of democratic parenting leads to
only external acceptance of values but not
internalized process which leads to the
development of weak value framework.

• Neglect, apathy and non-involvement of

parents in child's life can lead to development
of negative values in children.
Inculcating Values Role of Society

Finer said, "The ethics of every

profession will be found, on close analysis, to
be not much higher and not much lower than
the general decency of the nation as a whole.
Their nature, at the best, is powerfully
moulded by the level of the surrounding and
prevailing civilization."

The society plays an important role in

inculcating values of civic consciousness,
respect of rights of all, tolerance, national
integration, preservation of culture and
collectivism.

The society inculcates values in following

manner:

• The political setup of society can help in

inculcation of demand for transparency,
accountability and democratic rights or
acceptance of corruption.

• The structure of economy of a society

influences the values of members of the
society. A socialist economy promotes the
value of equity while a market economy
inculcates competitiveness

• The culture and religion help in inculcation of

tolerance, mutual respect, fraternity and
accommodation.

• The traditions and customs that are the basic

essence of any societal setup teach loyalty,
belongingness, etc. via festivals, celebrations,
etc.
• The information dissemination channels of
society like mass media have a wider reach
thereby having a profound impact on values
of its members. It can foster togetherness
and belongingness and on the other spread
communal feelings.

• Mobilization of people's values via civil

society using tools of media, demonstrations,
etc. Example: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
Sangathan (MKSS) movement which led to
RTI Act, 2005 in India inculcated the value of
openness and transparency in public life.
However, there are certain limitations in value
inculcation by society:

• In a multi-cultural society diversity is often

equated with discrimination which can
inculcate negative values.

• The society is mainly driven by traditions and

customs which are often against the
liberalism and constitutional morality.
Example: Institution of Khap Panchayat
• Loss of credibility of socio-religious
institutions and leaders due to their
involvement in immoral activities.

• The prevalence of highly irrational

enforcement mechanism to punish those
who deviate from social norms.

• The social institutions are often driven by

vested interests, hindering inculcation of
positive values in the members.
Inculcating Values- Role of Religion

Religion is one of the most prominent

and wide-reaching social institutions, touching
and shaping virtually every sphere of culture
and society. Religion is a social-cultural system
of designated behaviors and practices, morals,
worldviews, texts, sanctified places,
prophecies, ethics, or organizations that relates
humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or
spiritual elements.

Religion forms the basis by which

individuals in the society learn, develop and
maintain values in the society. It offer people
the understanding of existence and provide
rules and regulations which controls people
behavior as it is believed that to live a godly life
according to one's religion is to carry out one's
duty both to God and men.

Religion contributes to the maintenance

of societal stability of equilibrium by
inculcating values from self-transcendence
(e.g., protecting the environment) to self-
enhancement (e.g., social power), and, from
openness to change (e.g., freedom) to tradition
(e.g., self-discipline).

Inculcating Values - Role of Culture

Culture plays an important role in

inculcating values. Cultures provide an
opportunity to embrace diversity and
understand that prejudices can hinder ability
to think and live in peace. The diversities in
culture act as a challenge in teaching values of
fraternity, justice, non-discrimination and
respect for others.
Cultural Absolutism

Cultural absolutism is the view that says

ultimate moral principles do not vary from
culture to culture. This does not mean that all
cultures have the same moral rules and
standards. Instead, it means that the ultimate
principles underlying all of the varying rules
and standards are the same. For example, the
cultural absolutist might argue that in all
cultures there is some principle concerning the
value of human life, but there are many
different rules and standards when it comes to
protecting it or authorizing its destruction.
Inculcating Values - Role of Educational
Institutes

Education is a process of initiating the

learners into a form of life that is considered as
desirable to preserve and promote. Education
necessarily involves transmission of values.
However, these changes are to be brought
about employing such procedures as do not
violate the freedom and autonomy of the
learner.
 The different aims of education-
development of the human personality, pursuit
of knowledge, preservation of culture,
development of character, promotion of social
justice, scientific temper, democracy,
secularism and so on are just so many varied
educational expressions of the constituents of
the good life. It is through education that
society seeks to preserve and promote its
cherished values.
 Schools and higher education plays an
important role in inculcating values in
students, their development and socialization
by providing a structured environment where
they can learn about different values and how
to apply them in their lives.

Educational institutions mould a diverse

population into a unified society. By providing
a safe and welcoming environment for all
students, educational institutions can help
inculcate values of inclusion and respect.
It is the place where the seeds of discipline,
obedience, devotion, and commitment are
planted and fostered with deliberate efforts.

Educational institutions can inculcate values

in following manner:

• By setting a good example, teachers and

other staff members can show students the
importance of certain values as students
generally observe their peer group, teachers,
etc. in school and learn from their behavior.

• Creating an environment conducive to

learning about and practicing values.
• Using visual perception tools like drawings,
charts, images, etc. and sharing anecdotes for
communication of attitudes and values
among the students.

• Incorporating values education into the

curriculum.

• Providing opportunities for students to put

their values into action through service
learning or other activities like group activity
including role playing, games, group projects,
etc.
• Evaluating student progress regarding the
development of their values.

• Putting in place strong enforcement

mechanism wherein students are rewarded
for pro-moral behaviors and punished strictly
for immoral behaviors.

However, there are following limitations in

inculcation of values by educational
institutions:

• Curriculums focus on imparting technical

skills while moral teachings are largely
• Educational institutions have become a
center of rote learning rather than
encouraging learning through observation,
activity and experiences.

• Education has become commercialized and

there is decline in the quality of education
along with rising inequality in terms of
accessibility and affordability of quality
education.

• The values taught at educational institutions

are sometimes in conflict with values taught
by other institutions.

Example: Children are taught value of

secularism in schools but at home they are
asked to abide by their religion and maintain
distance from other religions.

Inculcating Values Role of Teachers

Teachers are the ideals to their pupils.

Teacher in true sense is the role model, proper
guide, true friend, philosopher and second
guardian. They shape the future generation,
thereby have a greater role in inculcating
values. The teacher helps in improving the
values of students by transmitting not only the
same static knowledge but by adding his
experiences.

All teachers are teachers of human

values at all times of school life, practicing
what they teach or preach and have a goal of
helping internalization of values in thought,
word and deed and not mere providing
knowledge of these values. Teachers constantly
motivate
students and become a strong source of
inspiration. Teachers offer their students
guidance and counselling about how to face
problems and solve them.