ethics

1. Define International Ethics. Write an essay on the philosophy of International Ethics.

Definition of International ethics

It refers to the good that international interactions, exchanges, relations can bring to our planet earth and to all life forms and which can be harmed by unfriendly, hostile, uncooperative behaviours. International ethics is a good which can be harmed and also knowledge of international ethics provides us with insights to assess the good and harms, the rights and wrongs, which can occur in the international space.

Philosophy of International Ethics

Realism focuses on a single reality, international power. It is the power that one nation has to influence another nation directing and shaping its destiny in the direction it desires namely into a kind of tacit servitude of serving and protecting its interests at the cost of the other.  In the international realm, realism holds that the only thing that really matters is power – what power a country has. Nothing else matters – morality, ethics, law, and political systems, legal systems, cultural systems – are all irrelevant. 

Idealism and International Ethics

Idealism focuses on “common interests” between nations, and not necessarily at the power or power distance or at power balance. It seeks to build the international sphere on the basis of idealist values that are of common interests to nations participating in any international issues and problems. Idealism built on common interests appears to be stronger in power than unilateral power of realism and hence can have the potential to replace realism in thought, word and deed and as a philosophical thought.

Constructivism and International Ethics

Constructivism focuses on things like foreign policy, diplomatic initiatives, etc to shape international relations and the international sphere where a country has credible influence.  In these things the focus is on domestic politics and how it shapes foreign policy with what goals in mind. It is more pragmatic with domestic political regimes as seats of international action and initiators of international action and its implementation.

Cosmopolitanism and International Ethics

Cosmopolitanism shares something in common with idealism, namely, do the right thing. The right thing to be done is to behave as you would want others to behave.  Behave in ways that you think others should behave. It focuses on how we interact in a global community. What is relevant is the global community since we interact with people in other countries.  It holds that since we interact with other countries, we have a moral duty to treat people of that country morally as moral people. Hence the prescription in cosmopolitanism is to “do the right thing”. Cosmopolitanism thus empowers international ethics and the development of “global values and ethics” fully.

Constrained Choices and International Ethics

International ethics guides our choices in the international sphere, but evidently our choices are constrained rather than free. The choices may be constrained by the necessity of pleasing the domestic political support and widening the support for the ruling party or coalition. The choices may be constrained by the identity politics.

Equality of Life and International Ethics

Every life may be considered as having equal moral weight. In this belief, valid if one holds such beliefs, it is the global interest that count as much as domestic interests. No preference is given by governments or by anybody else to the welfare of citizens of that country. There are no differentiating factors recognized by such governments that distinguish between the welfare of its citizens and those belonging to another country.

Economic, Social and Environmental Frameworks and International Ethics

Though context may differ, there are a number of frameworks available for making decisions concerning international actions which have economic, social, and environmental consequences and impacts over future generations. There is a gap between any system of global and international values and international ethics on the ground, because of the widening gap in ground realities between nations and international organizations due to levels of difficult conflict

2. Write an essay on Existentialist Humanismm, explaining Sartre’s idea - “Humanperson must invent his own values”.

Jean Paul Sartre is the philosopher who has perhaps best succeeded to give expression to a certain way of feeling and thinking with regard to the question we have raised. Surely the way he articulates the problem and the philosophical terminology are peculiarly his, but the problem itself is human and the solution a common one. This is why we have chosen to speak of him in a particular way. In his best-known book Being and Nothingness, Sartre devotes only three out of seven hundred pages to the moral question. The book, as is clear from the title, is concerned with ontology. His moral theory is summarily presented in a little, but no less well-known book Is Existentialism a Humanism? and his various plays.

If there are no pre-existing essences on which to build a moral order and no pre-existing norms according to which human person can pass moral judgment he/she is free, and left on his/her own to create his/her own moral values. It is not that Sartre does not acknowledge a certain universal form of Ethics, which permits him to pass both a logical and moral judgment on himself and on others, but that this universal form is based on human freedom itself. But what counts is the element of invention and the knowing whether the invention that has been done has been done in the name of freedom.

Sartre defends his moral stance against the accusation that it is inhuman. For Sartre his existentialism is indeed humanism in the sense that it alone can promote the dignity of human person which consists precisely in human freedom. And human person is responsible to others in that when he acknowledges and chooses freedom he is by that very fact acknowledging and choosing freedom for others.

Human person as a conscience being is different from a thing in that he is free. A thing is static, fixed, opaque to itself determined and therefore definable. Human person is dynamic always in the making transparent undetermined and therefore indefinable. If human person had his essence already pre-fabricated for him he would be a thing and his human dignity would be done away with. But his essence is what he himself makes of his existence in freedom. That is why for Sartre, existence precedes his essence. And this is possible because in human person there is a gap between the in-itself and the for-itself which permits human person to be what he is not and not to be what he is. This explains human consciousness. And incidentally that is why for Sartre the very notions of God contradictory. For, God, if he existed, would have to be both and at the same time an ‘in-itself’ (to the extent that he would have to be the full plenitude of being and therefore admitting of no becoming) and a ‘for-itself’ (to the extent that he would to be consciousness of himself and free). There is a certain internal consistency in Sartre’s philosophy.

We have seen that Sartre does base a certain universal form of Ethics on human freedom. Human freedom is for him the foundation of the moral order for which we are seeking. And for Sartre when you say human freedom you are simply saying human person. Can one draw the conclusion then, yes in the sense just explained not in the sense that Sartre refuses to define human person. If human person is freedom he/she is what he/she makes himself or herself.

3. b) Explain the Aristotelian concept of Eudaimonia.

Aristotle is one of the founders of the Virtue Ethics in Greece. He says that the human person is a rational animal. Human person has got the ability to reason out which serves as the essential characteristics and functions of the human being. This essential characteristic of being rational leads to achieve a particular goal or end which Aristotle calls virtue.

“Eudaimonia” is an Aristotelian term loosely and inadequately translated as happiness. It is not what we think of in an ordinary way. Eudaimonia means the flourishing of human life. Aristotle recognizes that actions are not pointless because they have a purpose. Every action aims at some good. For example, the doctor’s vaccination of the baby aims at the baby’s health. Furthermore, some actions are done for their own sake (ends in themselves) and some other actions are done for the sake of some other end (means to other ends). Aristotle claims that all actions that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is the greatest good of all. That good is eudaimonia. In other words, eudaimonia is happiness, contentment, and fulfilment; it’s the name of the best kind of life, which is an end in itself and a means to live and fare well. In his opinion virtuous thinking of human being leads to a good action that further cultivates good habits. These habits develop virtuous characters that lead to the final goal that is eudaimonia (happiness).

d) What is the importance of Bioethics? Explain some contributions made by Bioethics to medicine.

The importance of Bioethics

Bioethics is considered useful in promoting critical thinking. It allows greater accessibility to the content through connectivity rather than stand-alone units. It engages the content and process of real-life situations (present and future) where decisions have real consequences, seldom with risk-free outcomes. Finally, it promotes a focusing framework that places the biology in a fully integrated form. Faced with new ethical challenges emerging as a result of technological developments in modern medicine, bioethics seeks ways in which people in societies can work together under the provision of medical care and research. The field is supposed to provide an insight into the issues of moral community, and into how society understands political authority and its appropriate exercise. Bioethics also involves social philosophy because the basic concepts of health care (concepts like ‘health’ and ‘disease’) are socially constructed categories.

Contributions made by Bioethics to medicine:

As a response to specific abuses, bioethics has remained practice oriented; society expects bioethics to solve or at least ameliorate visible problems. But Callahan asserts that bioethics is ‘less wayward and more establishmentarian’, and finds that four developments were important: the opening up of once-closed professions to public scrutiny, which happened strikingly with medicine; a fresh burst of liberal individualism, putting autonomy at the top of the moral mountain; the brilliant array of technological developments in biomedicine, ranging from the pill and safe abortions to control the beginning of life to dialysis and organ transplantation to hold off the end of life.

4. a)What do you understand by the Doctrine of Karma ?

The doctrine of Karma states that whatever a man suffers or enjoys is the fruit of his own deed, a harvest sprung from his own actions, good or bad committed in his previous life. Karma is of four categories: 1) Sanchita Karma, which means the accumulated past actions 2) Prarabdha Karma, which means the part of Sanchita Karma, this results in the present birth itself. This is also called pre-destination 3) Kriyamana Karma, which means present willful actions or free will 4) Agami Karma, which means the immediate results caused by our present actions. Karma simply means action. And this Karma must remind us that what is called the consequence of an action is really not a separate thing but it is a part of the action and it cannot be divided from it. The consequence is the part of the action, which belongs to the future but yet the part is done in the present. Whatever a man sows he shall reap.

b) Write a short note on purusharthas.

Purusharthas (Supreme Goals): The dominant interest of the Indian thought is in the highest value of human life. There are four values, which give meaning to human life. They are called Purusharthas. They are as following 1) Dharma 2) Artha 3) Kama 4)moksa. Dharma is usually distinguished into sadharana dharma and varnashrama dharma. sadharana dharma refers to the duties of the universal scope and validity. There are ten cardinal virtues known as sadharana dharma according to Manu, endurance, patience, self-control, integrity, purity, and restraint of senses, wisdom, learning, and truth, absence of anger or non-violence. The varnasrama dharma refers to the duties of persons according to the castes and the stages of life. Thus ‘dharma’ is considered to be a means value for attaining personality integration in the spiritual level or liberation.

c) What do you understand by Situation Ethics?

Situation ethics is the kind of approach to morality we might expect from an existentialist, who tends to reject the very idea of human nature – or any nature or “essence”, for that matter. Joseph Fletcher, presents his view as the golden mean between the two reprehensible extremes of legalism and antinomianism. Unlike the latter, he assures us, “The situationist enters into every decision-making situation armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage.” There is no question of throwing out all laws, rules and commandments. However, he “treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems” but is prepared to “compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so”. Now that last phrase serves to characterize what makes Fletcher describe as “Christian” his whole approach to morality. Fletcher even takes a swipe at “Kant’s legalism,” which produced universal laws like “a lie is always wrong’. He asks, “But what if you have to tell a lie to keep a promised secret?” and answers, “May be you lie and, if so, good for you if you follow love’s lead.”

e) Briefly explain John Rawls theory of justice.

John Rawls is an American philosopher. He raises the question, what is the principle of justice? Principle of justice is that which brings satisfaction to all both in quality and quantity and so it is not challenged. For instance, the grading system of examination brings out this principle of justice. It brings satisfaction to all the students. Each one is rewarded based on his or her hard work. In some tradition this kind of principle exists but is not accepted because the tradition itself is unjust. An example for such an unjust society is the one where the principle of slavery is dominant.

Two general principles of justice of Rawls:

1.      Principle of equal liberty: each person should have equal right to everything. Egalitarianism where equality is practised to the full extent.

2.      Principle of difference: here the greatest benefit to the least advantaged section. For example, reservations for the deprived sections of the society.

5. c) Deontology

            The term of deontology comes from the Greek deon, meaning duty or obligation. Whereas values are expressed as evaluative statements in the indicative, norms are expressed as prescription such as “do this” or prohibition in the imperative: “Do not steal”. It is necessary to distinguish various types of norms.

The most well-known deontological ethics are religious laws, which set out a code of rules that must be followed. Put simply, deontology is about following the rules. The most influential philosophical deontological ethics are those of Immanuel Kant. Kant doesn’t ground morality in God’s will, or in the seemingly arbitrary moral codes of particular cultures. Morality is grounded in reason itself, and the demands of morality can be discovered through rational reflection.

d) International law

The universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the form of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. In contemporary discussion on ethics, question of human rights cannot be ignored. All human rights are indivisible, whether civil or political, including the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression, economic, social and cultural rights as the right to work, social security and education. The collective rights as the right to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. Similarly, deprivation of rights has a negative effect on others. The non-discrimination is a universal principle in international law of human rights.

e) Virtues

Virtue ethicists develop virtues not only because it leads them to happiness but also it enables human flourishing in general. Hence they evaluate their actions not only in the light of results they produce for them but also for others. Similarly they judge not only their actions but also those of others to see if those actions lead to human flourishing. Thus the guidance they seek in living out a moral life is not so much from the clearly laid out norms as from virtues that promote human flourishing. Not moral norms but persons who lead virtuous life become moral ideal. As the philosopher Louis Pojman says, they look for moral ideals in persons without focusing on abstract reasons.

f) Social responsibility of media

Media ethics is given a broader concept of social responsibility. In presenting the facts and news around the globe, the Media is expected to have certain responsibility inherent within or imposed upon, namely responsibility towards the society to which it serves. Responsibility for the act of reporting is on the journalist.

• a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context

which gives them meaning;

• a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism;
• the projection of a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society;
• the presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society;
• full access to the day’s intelligence.

h) Discourse ethics

 It is a moral theory that starts from the inescapable linguistic matrix or medium of all our thoughts, reasonings, argumentations and purposeful actions

There are three general features of discourse ethics. They are namely:

a)      It is not concerned with questions of prudence or the good life but only with so-called questions of morality. The questions of morality are differentiated from the questions of prudence because they are answered from the standpoint of unversalizability.

b)      It is a proceduralist ethics. It does not offer any substantive theory of goodness or principles of justice. Rather, it provides a procedure that ought to be followed in determining the validity of a norm.

c)      The discourse is actual not merely hypothetical. It is something that is carried out by real people.