BPYC-132

ETHICS

School of Inter-Disciplinary and Trans-Disciplinary Studies

(SOITS)
Indira Gandhi National Open University
New Delhi
Basic Concepts
EXPERT COMMITTEE
Prof. V. T. Sebastian, Dr. Ruplekha Khullar Dr. Sudnya Kulkarni,
Visiting Professor, JNU Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy
& Professor of Philosophy, Punjab Janki Devi Memorial College, Janki Devi Memorial College,
University, Chandigarh University of Delhi University of Delhi
Dr. Garima Mani Tripathi
Dr. Meeta Nath, Dr. Amit Kumar Pradhan, Department of Philosophy
Mata Sundri College for Women,
Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Delhi
Ramajs College, Ramjas College,
Dr. Vijay Kumar,
University of Delhi University of Delhi Department of Philosophy
Shyama Prasad Mukharji College
Dr. Sumesh M K, Dr. Bins Sebastian, for Women, University of Delhi
Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy Ms. Priyam Mathur,
Arts Faculty, St. Stephen’s College, Consultant (Philosophy),
University of Delhi University of Delhi SOITS, IGNOU
SOITS FACULTY
Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, Prof. B. Rupini, Dr. Shubhangi Vaidya, Dr. Sadananda Sahoo

COURSE PREPARATION TEAM

Block BPYC - 132 ETHICS
Block 1 Basic Concepts Unit Writer
Unit 1 Introduction to Ethics Dr. Wilson Jose
Unit 2 Moral Action Ms. Lizashree Hazarika
Unit 3 Vitue and Vices Dr. Wilfred D’Souza
Unit 4 Moral Law Dr. Kuriyan Joseph
Unit 5 Moral Relativism Ms. Lizashree hazarika
Block 2 Western Ethical Theories
Unit 6 Virtue Ethics: Aristotle Dr. Richa Shukla
Unit 7 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant Dr. Richa Shukla
Unit 8 Consequesntialist Ethics: J. S. Mill Ms. Surbhi Uniyal
Unit 9 Critical Appraisal of Ethical Theories Dr. Md Inamur Rahman
Block 3 Meta-Ethics
Unit 10 Introduction to Meta-ethics Ms. Surbhi Uniyal
Unit 11 Ethical Naturalism and Non-naturalism Ms. Surbhi Uniyal
Unit 12 Subjectivism: David Hume Ms. Lizashree hazarika
Unit 13 Emotivism: Charles Stevenson Mr. Banshidhar Deep
Unit 14 Prescriptivism: R. M. Hare Mr. Banshidhar Deep

COURSE EDITOR
Dr. Pragati Sahni, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi
Dr. Sudnya Kulkarni, Associate Professor, Janki Devi Memorial College, Delhi
Dr. Amit Kumar Pradhan, Assistant Professor, Ramjas College, Delhi
Dr. Ayesha Gautam, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi
Mr. Ikbal Hussain Ahmad, Assistant Professor, Tezpur Central University, Tezpur

FORMAT EDITORS
Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Mr. Ashutosh Vyas, Consultant (Philosophy), SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi

PROGRAMME COORDINATOR
Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Cover Design: Ms. Neetika Singh, Doctoral Research Scholar (Philosophy), Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Print Production
Mr. Kulwant Singh
Asst. Registrar
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
July, 2021
 Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2021
ISBN :
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without
permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information about the School of Social Sciences and the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses
may be obtained from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068.
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by
Registrar, MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi.
We acknowledge the reference of material and figures from various sources like NNF, AIIMS, WHO, UNICEF,
IGNOU, Govt. of India etc.
Laser Typesetting : Akashdeep Printers, 20-Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002
2 Printed at : Akashdeep Printers, 20-Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002
 Introduction to Ethics

Contents
Pages No.

BLOCK 1 BASIC CONCEPTS 5

Unit 1 Introduction to Ethics 7
Unit 2 Moral Action 20
Unit 3 Vitue and Vices 34
Unit 4 Moral Law 45
Unit 5 Moral Relativism 57

BLOCK 2 WESTERN ETHICAL THEORIES 71

Unit 6 Virtue Ethics: Aristotle 73
Unit 7 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant 83
Unit 8 Consequesntialist Ethics: J. S. Mill 92
Unit 9 Critical Appraisal of Ethical Theories 103

BLOCK 3 META-ETHICS 115

Unit 10 Introduction to Meta-ethics 117
Unit 11 Ethical Naturalism and Non-naturalism 128
Unit 12 Subjectivism: David Hume 135
Unit 13 Emotivism: Charles Stevenson 145
Unit 14 Prescriptivism: R. M. Hare 154

3
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Ethics or Moral Philosophy as a branch of philosophy offers a systemic study of
the concepts and principles essential for distinguishing good and bad human
conduct. Ethics is concerned with what is Good (Shreya, a concept of Indian
Philosophy, and culture) for individual or society. Ethical theories are usually
divided into three areas: Metaethics, Normative Ethics and Applied Ethics.
Metaethics investigates the meaning and origin of ethical principles and concepts.
What is the meaning of “good”, what is the nature of moral statements? Are
moral statements merely emotive judgments or merely prescription? Can ethical
statements be true or false? Such questions are discussed in Metaethics. Normative
ethics on the other hand formulates principles and standards for evaluating human
conduct. It tells us what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. It discusses
ways of deriving the principles as well as ways justifying those. Applied ethics,
in contrast, is concerned with application normative principles in practical
problems. It may also refer to Metaethical theories to solve a practical ethical
problem. Applied ethics examines controversial but practically significant specific
issues, such as infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, environmental
concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment etc. The three areas of ethics are
interrelated and actually are just different aspects of same entity, i.e., ethics. For
example, if we want to examine the issue of animal rights, one can apply here
utilitarianism or any other relevant normative principles. But this may further
lead to metaethical issues like what “right” means andwhether that meaning can
be applied in case of animals. Ethics thus provides us a toolkit for evaluating an
action as good or bad. It is not necessary it will always provide a solution to a
problem. The objective of this course is to offer a philosophical background for
basic ethical debates and concepts. The units use the Indian context to simplify
the theories and provide easier examples for the students.
The present course on “Ethics” consists of 3 blocks and 14 units. This updated
course gives more detailed emphasis on Normative Ethics and Metaethics.Keeping
in view the increasing significance of Applied Ethics it has been developed as a
separate course.
Block 1 deals with “Basic Concepts” of ethics. This block gives an introduction
to ethics, discusses what stands as a moral action, what is virtue and vice, concepts
of moral law and concept of moral relativism.
Block 2 is about “Western Ethical Theories”. This block discusses most important
western normative theories like Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, Immanuel Kant’s
Deontological Ethics and J. S. Mill’s Consequentialist Ethics. A last unit of this
block offers critical appraisals of these three theories.
Block 3 offers a more comprehensive account on “Meta-Ethics”. It discusses the
fundamental notions of Metaethics, the debate between Ethical Naturalism and
Non-Naturalism, David Hume’s perspective on Subjectivism, Charles Stevenson’s
theory of Emotivism and R. M. Hare’s account of Prescriptivism
The three blocks as a whole form an introduction to ethics. The concepts and
theories of the two main fields of ethics- Normative Ethics and Metaethics are
contained in the contents of this course.
 BPYC-132

Block-1
Basic Concepts
Basic Concepts
BLOCK INTRODUCTION
Block 1 “Basic Concepts” having five units deals with the various concepts,
constituent elements, and presuppositions involved in Ethics and its study.
Studying these concepts at the very beginning will enable learners to understand
the scope and significance of Ethics and also the various ethical theories, evolved
in thousands years journey of human interaction with each other and involvement
of one life into the other life and also human reflection on one’s own self and
other.
Unit 1 “Introduction to Ethics” discusses layman as well as philosophers’
understanding of ethics. It also tries to show why Ethics is a branch of Philosophy.
This unit draws a historical sketch of the development of moral philosophy or
ethics. In this unit, the learners will understand the scope and significance of
Ethical studies in our day to day life. This unit tries to show the difference between
Ethics and morality.
Unit 2 “Moral Action” deals with the concept of moral action in the sphere of
human being. This unit is an attempt to define moral action and discuss the
conditions, presumptions and constituents to make an action a moral one.
Unit 3 “Virtue and Vices” discusses virtue and vices. In this unit, the learners
will learn and understand why one action is virtuous and another is vice. This
unit also focuses on the understanding of virtue and vices in various religions
and philosophical traditions.
Unit 4 “Moral Law” is about morality as a law. Moral law means objective and
universal moral principle or understanding of right and wrong. In this unit, the
learners will see what are the implications and the consequences when we take
moral principle as a natural moral law.
Unit 5 “Moral Relativism” discusses morality as a relative phenomenon. Every
society or cultural has its own understanding of morality and moral principles.
The basic thesis of moral relativism is that, that there is no possibility to have an
objective criterion to judge an action accepted in a society or culture. Not only
moral principle, but also moral criteria or standard is culture-specific. Moral
relativism can be extended up to subjectivism.

6
 Introduction to Ethics
UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS*
Structure

1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Scope of Ethics
1.3 History of Ethics
1.4 The Methods of Ethics
1.5 Different Approaches to the Study of Ethics
1.6 Division of Ethics
1.7 Ethics and Other Sciences
1.8 Ethics and Religion
1.9 Importance of Studying Ethics
1.10 Why Should We be Moral?
1.11 Let Us Sum Up
1.12 Key Words
1.13 Further Readings and References
1.14 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this unit is to introduce you to ‘ethics’ or moral philosophy.
Ethics is a wide topic. Through the analysis of its various aspects we can learn:
 the nature and the different aspects of ethics
 how ethics developed as a systematic philosophical discipline in the western
philosophy
 the methods, different approaches and the division of ethics
 how ethics is related to other sciences
 the relationship between ethics and religion
 the importance of studying ethics in the context of today and the need for
being moral.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Etymologically the term “ethics” corresponds to the Greek word “ethos” which
means character, habit, customs, ways of behaviour, etc. Ethics is also called
“moral philosophy”. The word “moral” comes from Latin word “mores” which
signifies customs, character, behaviour, etc. Thus ethics may be defined as the
systematic study of human actions from the point of view of their rightfulness or

*
Dr. Wilson Jose, St. John's College, Kondadaba. 7
Basic Concepts 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
humans have 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. It refers to what
ought to be done to achieve what is good and what ought not to be done to avoid
what is evil.
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. As moral philosophy, ethics is
the philosophical thinking about morality, moral problems, and moral judgements.
Ethics is a science in as much as it is a set or body of reasoned truths organised in
a logical order and having its specific material and formal objects. It is a rational
science in so far as its principles are deduced by human’s reason from the objects
that concern the free will. Besides it has for its ulterior end the art by which
humans may live uprightly or comfortably to right reason. It is a normative/
regulative science in as much as it regulates and directs human’s life and gives
the right orientation to one’s existence.
Ethics is also theoretical and practical. It is theoretical in as much as it provides
the fundamental principles on the basis of which moral judgements are arrived
at. It is practical in as much as it is concerned about an end to be gained, and the
means of attaining it.
Ethics is sometimes distinguished from morality. In such cases, ethics is the
explicit philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices while morality
refers to the first-order beliefs and practices about good and evil by means of
which we guide our behaviour (e.g. music and musicology). However, in most
cases they are referred to as having the same meaning.
Ethics is not merely a set of ‘codes’. Ethics certainly deals with moral codes yet
one cannot identify ethics to moral codes. Ethics is not primarily to restrict one’s
behaviour, rather to help one to find what is good and how to get it. The obligatory
character of ethical norms derives from the very purpose of ethical enquiry, i.e.
to discover the most ultimate principles of explanation or the most ultimate reasons
why one ought to do anything.

1.2 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.

1.3 HISTORY OF ETHICS

The first ethical precepts were certainly passed down by word of mouth by parents
8 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 Introduction to Ethics
of the origins of ethics.
In as much as it is the study of human behaviour, we cannot really trace the
history of ethics. However, as a systematic study of human behaviour, we can
point out how ethics evolved as a discipline. It is not that we have first a
straightforward history of moral concepts and then a separate and secondary history
of philosophical comment. To set out to write the history of moral philosophy
involves a careful selection from the past of what falls under the heading of
moral philosophy as we now conceive it. We have to strike a balance between
the danger of a dead antiquarianism, which enjoys the illusion that we can approach
the past without preconceptions, and the other of believing that the whole point
of the past was that it should culminate with us. However, we can observe a
gradual development in the ethical thought from the beginning to our day.
In Rgveda
. (It is accepted that Rgveda
. is the first example/text of human wisdom;
the vaidika tradition was oral tradition; pass from one generation to another
generation.) we find the concept of Rta.
. Rta . means the cosmological as well as
moral law. We can consider the concept of Rta . as the first example of human
pursuit towards moral philosophy. In Indian philosophy, besides moral
codification, there is much debate on moral principles. We can see Purusartha as
the aim of human life. Human beings cannot know and attain the meaning and
the highest goal of life without moral life. For example, Sādhanachatustaya
. (śam,
.
dam etc.) must for the preparation to Moksha (See, Samkara’s advaita Vedāntā).
Buddhism, Jainism and even materialist philosophical tradition Cārvāka
developed the foundation of Moral Philosophy. Satya, Ahimsā, Astey, Aparigrah,
Brahmacarya are the basic moral pillars accepted by almost all Indian
philosophical schools, but the metaphysics to establish them is different in different
schools. Buddhist establishes and interprets them with the help of anattā (no-
soul, no external reality) metaphysics, Jainism establishes them with the help of
anekāntavāda and so on.
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. It was the time, when the philosophers began to search
for reasons for established modes of conduct. Socrates, in demanding rational
grounds for ethical judgements, brought attention to the problem of tracing, the
logical relationship between values and facts and thereby created ethical
philosophy. Plato’s theory of forms could be seen as the first attempt at defending
moral realism and offering an objective ground for moral truths. From the Republic
on through the later dialogues and epistles, Plato constructed a systematic view
of nature, God, and human from which one derived one’s ethical principles. His
main goal in his ethical philosophy was to lead the way toward a vision of the
Good. Aristotle differed from Plato in his method of inquiry and his conception
of the role of ethical principles in human affairs. While Plato was the fountainhead
of religious and idealistic ethics, Aristotle engendered the naturalistic tradition.
Aristotle’s ethical writings (i.e. 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. 9
Basic Concepts The medieval period was dominated by the thoughts of philosophers and
theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The influence of Christianity
dominated the ethical scenario. So much so that during this period philosophy
and religion were nearly indistinguishable. The rise of Christian philosophy
produced a new era of history of ethics. In 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.
The social and political changes that characterized the end of the medieval period
and the rise of the 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 we are not intending 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
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 ethical thinking in other parts of the world.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Write a short note on the development of ethics in the western philosophy.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
10
 Introduction to Ethics
1.4 THE METHODS OF ETHICS
Ethics, as a philosophical discipline, makes use of the methods used in philosophy.
Thus in ethics, both the inductive method and deductive methods are used.
Deduction is a process of gaining knowledge independently of experience through
pure logical reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a universal or general
truth and leads to knowledge of a particular instance of it. The classical form of
deductive reasoning is the syllogism in which a necessary conclusion is derived
from two accepted premises: e.g. All men are mortal, A is a man, and therefore,
A is mortal. Induction is a process of arriving at knowledge through experience.
Induction begins with the particular and moves to the universal, a generalization
that accounts for other examples of the same category or class. For instance, if a
number of ravens have been observed, all of which are black, and if no raven has
been encountered that is not back, the inferences to the conclusion that the next
observed raven will be black or to the general conclusion that all ravens are
black, are inductive inferences.
However, in ethics the inductive method (particular to the universal) is generally
preferred to the deductive (universal to the particular).

1.5 DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

ETHICS
There are basically four different approaches to the study of ethics. Tom
L.Beauchamp, in his book Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral
Philosophy presents them with the following diagram:

Descriptive Ethics

Non-normative Metaethics

Approaches

Normative approaches General normative ethics

Applied ethics

The non-normative approaches examine morality without concern for making

judgements as to what is morally right or wrong. They do not take any moral
position regarding moral issues. The normative approaches instead make
judgements as to what is morally right or wrong. They take a clear moral position
regarding moral issues.
Among the two non-normative approaches to ethics, descriptive ethics describe
and sometimes try to explain the moral and ethical practices and beliefs of certain
societies and cultures. This is what sociologists, anthropologists, and historians
often do in their study and research. In their descriptions they do not make
11
Basic Concepts judgements about the morality of the practices and beliefs but simply describe
the practices observed in the different groups or cultures. Metaethics focuses on
the analysis of the meanings of the central terms used in ethical reasoning and
decision-making. It attempts to answer questions of meaning.

1.6 DIVISION OF ETHICS

The whole study of ethics can be divided into General Ethics (nature of moral
activity, norm of morality, foundation of morality, end of morality, etc) and Special
Ethics (applies the principles of general ethics to the various actions of human
activity).
However, when we consider the ethical theories, philosophers today usually divide
them into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics and applied
ethics. Metaethics investigates the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. It
studies where our ethical principles come from and what they mean. It tries to
analyse the underlying principles of ethical values; Normative ethics tries to arrive
at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. It is a more practical
task. It is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behaviour; applied ethics
involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide,
animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, and so on. In applied ethics,
using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, one tries to resolve
these controversial issues.
Often the lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics are often blurry. For instance, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical
topic in as much as it involves a specific type of controversial behaviour. But it is
also an issue involving normative principles such as the right of self-rule and the
right to life and an issue having metaethical issues such as, “where do rights
come from?” and “what kind of beings have rights?”.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. How ethics uses deductive method?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
2. Write a short note on the division of ethics.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
12
 Introduction to Ethics
1.7 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, inasmuch 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 is as much as it is not directed towards the realization
of a definite result.
Other sciences Ethics
Psychology How a man behaves How a man MUST behave
(descriptive science) (normativescience)
Anthropology Nature of Human Beings How man’s actions OUGHT
and Its Activity to be
Social And Deals with the organization How man’s social and
Political of man’s social and political life MUST or
Sciences political life OUGHT TO BE organized in
order tobe moral
Economics Concerned with goods, i.e. Deals with those acts which
with those objects which are the conditions of the
are the means of satisfying attainment of the highest end
any human want. of life.

1.8 ETHICS AND RELIGION

Ethics has no necessary connection with any particular religion. However, it is
sometimes argued that without God or religion, ethics would have no point; and
therefore insofar as God or religion is in question, so is ethics. This is evidently
unacceptable. Although belief in God or religion can be an added reason for our
being moral, it is not necessary to relate it to God or to any religion. The fact that
ethics exists in all human societies shows that ethics is a natural phenomenon
that arises in the course of the evolution of social, intelligent, long-lived mammals
who possess the capacity to recognize each other and to remember the past
behaviour of others.
Critics of religion such as Marx and Nietzsche saw religion as a profound source
of social conformity, as a means of maintaining the status quo and keeping people
confined to their existing social and economic positions. Yet there is another
face of religion, one which suggests that religion may be a profoundly liberating
force in an individual’s lives and an important force for social change. 13
Basic Concepts
1.9 IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING ETHICS
Today, more than ever, the importance of ethics is felt at every sphere of human
living. The situation in the present world is characterised by an increasing rate in
crime, with no end to such increase in sight. Besides, the power of traditional
religions to inspire moral conduct continues to decline. Terrorism, civil wars,
industrial pollution, planned obsolescence, misleading advertising, deceptive
labelling, crooked insurance adjusting, unfair wages, crime syndicates, illegal
gambling, forced prostitution, high jacking, match-fixing… so many are the
prevailing trends. Truly, there seems to be hardly a few areas in life remain
untouched by growing demoralization. The question that one may ask in this
precarious situation is: Are we being sucked into a moral vacuum? Is this our
way to the end of ethics?
We can point out at least three reasons why we should study ethics. First, the
study of moral philosophy or ethics can deepen our reflection on the ultimate
questions of life. The study of ethics helps a person to look at his own life critically
and to evaluate his actions/choices/decisions. It assists a person in knowing what
he/she really is and what is best for him/her and what he/she has to do in order to
attain it.

Second, the study of moral philosophy can help us to think better about morality.
Moral philosophy can help us to clarify our moral positions when we make
judgements. It improves our perspective, and makes it more reflective and better
thought out. It can also improve our thinking about specific moral issues. In our
everyday life we are confronted with situations in which we have to decide what
is the correct course of action and what is to be avoided. Whether we choose to
act or to refrain from acting, we are in either case making a choice. Every decision
or choice we make we do so for reasons. However, we should agree that some of
these reasons are better than the others in judging the rightness of the decision or
choice. However, there seems to be a common agreement that we should all
strive to do the right thing, to do what is morally acceptable in a given situation
or circumstance. However, the issue of disagreement is over the question of what
exactly is the right thing to do.
Third, the study of moral philosophy can help us to sharpen our general thinking
processes. It trains our mind to think logically and reasonably and to handle
moral issues with greater clarity. Ethics becomes inevitable as by nature human
being is a ‘social’ being, a being living in relationship with other fellow beings
and with the nature around. All actions, whether one is aware of it or not, some
way or another affects the others. In order to make a decision/judgement one
bases himself on a standard of right and wrong even though the measure may not
be the same at all times.

Thus, ethical problems confront everybody. Nobody can really get through life
without ethics, even if one may not be aware of the ethical principles. Consciously
or unconsciously all of us are every day making moral decisions. Whether we are
aware of it or not, the fact is that we do have ethical attitudes and are taking
moral stances every day of our lives.
14
 Introduction to Ethics
1.10 WHY SHOULD WE 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 beings by nature
tend to be 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 a human being and is
something to do with the very nature of human being. The rational nature of
human being 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 a 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 obtain otherwise (neither a “state of nature” nor a “totalitarian state”).
The institutions which are designed to make life easier and better for human
being, 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? Should it not 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.
Check Your Progress III
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Write a note on the relevance of Ethics.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
15
Basic Concepts
1.11 LET US SUM UP
Ethics is the study of human behaviour. It studies human actions and judges
them to be right or wrong. As a philosophical discipline, ethics is the study of the
values and guidelines by which we live. In ethics we deal only with human
actions, those actions done by a human person consciously, deliberately and in
view of an end. In human history, the origin of ethics and moral consciousness
cannot be easily traced back. It is the result of a long process of rational
development and evolution.
Ethics makes use of the methods of induction and deduction. Among the different
approaches to the study of ethics, the non-normative ethics (descriptive ethics
and metaethics) which examine morality without concern for making judgements
as to what is morally right or wrong and normative ethics (general normative
ethics and applied ethics) which make judgements as to what is morally right or
wrong are the most prominent ones. Although ethics can be regarded as a science
it is distinguished from the natural sciences, inasmuch as it has a direct reference
to an end that human person desire to attain. Ethics, however, 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
free.

1.12 KEY WORDS

‘Ethics’ and ‘Morals’: Ethics is the theory of right and wrong conduct. While
ethics involves the values that a person seeks to express in a certain situation,
morals refers to the way one sets about achieving this. Ethics is concerned with
the principles of human behaviour, morals with the application of these principles,
in a particular situation.
‘Moral’, ‘Immoral’ and ‘Amoral’ Actions: An action is said to be moral when
it is done deliberately to attain the ultimate happiness. A morally good action has
to be a moral action and a human action. An action is moral only if it is done
freely and in view of an end.
Immoral : Immoral means ‘not observing a particular known moral rule’. Immoral
actions are all those actions that are morally bad actions (e.g. Incest, homicide,
etc.). ‘Amoral’ or ‘non-moral’ means ‘not relevant to, or concerned with, morals’.
We can note some of the non-moral actions: actions of inanimate objects or events
(flood, famine, etc.). They are indifferent actions and are beyond the moral sphere.
Reflex actions: they are automatic and immediate (e.g. breathing). Accidental
acts, actions of children below the age of reason/ insane persons and actions
done under the spell of hypnosis.
Habitual actions: They are moral actions as the habits are formed deliberately
or acquired voluntarily. In ethics we are concerned with ‘immoral’ actions but
not ‘amoral’ actions.
Human Act: A human act is an act done by a human person deliberately, willingly
and freely in view of achieving an end. Morality is spoken of human beings and
not of animals. An act to be a moral act, it has to be performed by an individual
16 with reason. Every human act is done in view of an end and is done willingly
with full knowledge and full freedom. Ethics deals with human actions, which Introduction to Ethics
help or prevent a person from attaining an end.
End: End of human action can be different. For a believer, in God the ultimate
end could be the eternal happiness of man (God and the beatific vision). God is
the highest end of man and God is involved in every action of man. Happiness
consists in the knowledge and love of God. For a non believer the well-being of
humanity could be the end. It could also be an act done for its own sake.
Right and Wrong: Ethics is defined as the science of rightfulness or wrongfulness
of conduct. What makes an action right or wrong? The word “right” derives from
the Latin “rectus”, meaning ‘straight’ or ‘according to norm’. An action is morally
right if it is in conformity with the moral law and morally wrong if it is not in
conformity with the moral law.
Good and Bad: The word ‘good’ denotes the attitude of mind and will. An action
is morally good if it helps one attain the ultimate end and morally bad if it does
not fulfill the purpose. The term ‘good’ is also used to signify something which
is itself taken as an end. Thus the summum bonum, or supreme good, means the
supreme end at which we aim.
Voluntary and Involuntary Actions: Acts are voluntary if they proceed from
an internal principle with knowledge of the purpose of the act. An act is free if it
proceeds from a self- determining agent. Are all voluntary acts free? Most of the
voluntary acts are free except the highest act by which man embraces his Supreme
Good.
If knowledge or free choice is totally lacking, the act is involuntary. An involuntary
act may be performed without reference to the purpose of the act. It may be done
with knowledge against the choice of the will, as when a man emerging from an
aesthetic talks foolishly but is unable to control his words. The former emphasizes
the strength of emotion with which one is choosing and the latter emphasizes
that the choice is free of emotional stress.

1.13 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Abelson, Raziel and Kai Nielsen. “Ethics, History of” in Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Ed. Donald M. Borchert, 2006, 394-439.
Bahm, Archie J. Why be Moral? New Delhi: Mushiram Manoharlal Publishers,
1980.
Beauchamp, Tom L. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral
Philosophy.2nded. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Beckwith, Francis J., ed. Do the Right Thing: A Philosophical Dialogue on the
Moral and Social Issues of Our Time. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
1995.
Billington, Ray. Living Philosophy. An Introduction to Moral Thought. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge,1993.
Bond, E.J. Ethics and Human Well-being. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy.
Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1996. 17
Basic Concepts Boss, Judith A., ed. Perspectives on Ethics. California: Mayfield Publishing
Company, 1998. Fieser, James. “Ethics”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.com, accessed on 1 July 2009.
Frankena, William K. Ethics. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 1989.
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics. A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge,1998.
Hill, Walter H. Ethics or Moral Philosophy. New Delhi: Anmol Publications,
1999.
Lafollette, Hugh, ed. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Malden: Blackwell
Publishers Inc., 2000.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. A Short History of Ethics. A History of Moral Philosophy
from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1998.
Mackenzie, John S. A Manual of Ethics. Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1929.
Norman, Richard. The Moral Philosophers. An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Oraison, Marc. Morality for our Time.Translated by Nels Challe. New York:
Image Books, 1968.
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-
Hill College, 1999.
Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. New Delhi: SBW Publishers, 1993.
Singer, Peter, ed. Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

1.14 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I
1. Ethics in the Western Philosophy developed mainly in Greece. Socrates,
the great Greek philosopher, was the first one among the Greeks to awaken
his fellow men to the need for rational criticism of their beliefs and practices.
Plato, in his famous work Republic and in other later dialogues and epistles,
constructed a systematic view of nature, God, and man from which he
derived his ethical principles. Aristotle, the greatest of all Greek
philosophers, contributed significantly to a systematic investigation of the
foundations ethics through his ethical writings (i.e. the Nicomachean Ethics,
and the Politics).
Answers to Check Your Progress II
1. Ethics, like any other philosophical discipline, makes use of both the inductive
method and deductive method. Deduction is a process of gaining knowledge
independently of experience through pure logical reasoning. It draws a
particular conclusion from a universal or general truth. For example: All
men are mortal, Ram is a man, and therefore, Ram is mortal. Induction, on
the other hand, begins with the particular and moves to the universal. For
example: Water at Chennai boils at 1000C. Water at Kochi boils at 1000C.
Water at Mumbai boils at 1000C. Therefore water boils at 1000C.
18
2. The whole study of ethics can be divided into General Ethics and Special Introduction to Ethics
Ethics. However, considering the different ethical theories, philosophers
divide it into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics and
applied ethics. Metaethics investigates the origin and meaning of ethical
concepts. Normative ethics tries to arrive at moral standards that regulate
right and wrong conduct. Applied ethics involves examining specific
controversial issues such as abortion, ecological problems, etc.
Answers to Check Your Progress III
1. The relevance and need of ethics is felt more than ever in our society today.
We can point out at least three reasons why we should study ethics. First, the
study of moral philosophy or ethics can deepen our reflection on the ultimate
questions of life. It helps a person to look critically at the most important
questions concerning our existence here on earth. Second, the study of moral
philosophy can help us to think better about morality. It can help us to clarify
our moral positions when we make judgments. Third, the study of moral
philosophy can help us to sharpen our general thinking processes. It trains
our mind to think logically and reasonably and to handle moral issues with
greater clarity.

19
Basic Concepts
UNIT 2 MORAL ACTION*
Structure

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Definition
2.3 Religious Views
2.3.1 Hinduism
2.3.2 Jainism
2.3.3 Buddhism
2.3.4 Islam
2.3.5 Christianity
2.4 Philosophical Views
2.4.1 Teleological Theories
2.4.2 Deontological Theroy
2.4.3 Virtue Ethics
2.5 Let Us Sum Up
2.6 Key Words
2.7 Further Readings and References
2.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit presents,
 the meaning of moral actions, and
 explains the philosophical implications of moral actions,
 elucidates the differences between moral and non-moral action/sciences.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Being human entails living together or living amongst others. No one likes living
in isolation, as this is witnessed from birth itself. A child longs for her mother
when she feels that her mother is not around. This longing of a child for her
mother exposes the inexplicable bond human beings indefinitely have among
each other in a society, as it is an inevitable part of being human. We cannot deny
the fact that we live in a society. Each shares a common place and a common
understanding among us. By living in a society, we inculcate some kind of concerns
like faith, trust, loyalty, etc. that creates a bond among each one of us. Life is all
about acting upon these concerns and for this, we are trained to follow certain
moral obligations in some way or the other.
The very aspect of being human is morally obligatory because morality is the
basic requirement of our life as human adults. But the way through which one
*
Ms. Lizashree Hazarika, Doctoral Research Scholar, Centre for Philosophy, Jawaharlal Nehru
20 University, Delhi.
can analyze the nature of moral obligation is by clarifying what morality is and Moral Action
how are we to act morally? This question opens up some newer dimensions to
approach the related questions like, whether all our actions are considered moral
or does an action consist of certain elements for which it is called a moral action.
If so, then what could be the elements? Therefore, to understand what a “moral
action” means or when are we supposed to call particular actions as moral actions
we need to investigate both these terms “action” and “moral” separately. For
this, let us first try and analyze what an action means and then further move on to
investigate the element of morality underlying an action. Nonetheless, to speak
of all human action as having a moral dimension should not be taken to mean
that all actions are essentially moral actions for there is something profoundly
moral that is not true in all species of action.
An action or an act is a movement done or generated by an agent to produce a
result. It does not occur like an event but is generated by the agent of the act
because of the motive or the intention the agent has. Every action consists of an
agent, a motive or will or intention, and a result. For example, “John’s gave alms
to the poor’’ is an action because it did not simply happen like, “The sun rises
every day on the east.”In this above example, the first statement is an action
because John’s acted out of an intention or a motivation to help the poor and
along with that he had the end in his mind, i.e., to make the poor happy. The
second statement is an event that happens every day without any failure because
of the calculation of time and rotation of the earth. There is no intention behind
the rising of the Sun. Only when someone is directed by an intention, a motive,
or a will then it results in action because one actively takes part and strives to
accomplish its goal. Many moral philosophers discuss that concept of motive, or
will, or intention is a peculiar element of action. Without this element, many
other moral concepts would not have been possible like that of moral
responsibility, moral ownership, etc. This does not entitle us to consider that all
actions are moral, but we also cannot deny that all our actions are evaluative to
some or the other extent. The attempt to evaluate our actions results in categorizing
it under right, wrong or moral, immoral, and amoral actions. This possibility of
evaluating an action as right or wrong is by investigating the intention, or motive,
or will of that person.
Moral action is any action that proceeds from our deliberate will, intention, or
motive. We need not contrast moral with immoral acts whenever a question is
put forth, i.eWhen can we call a particular action moral? A moral act must be our
own act, i.e., it must spring from our own will. If we act upon the direction of
others, then there is no moral content in such acts. From the earliest human history,
moral actions and religious actions are inescapably joined. In this case it is difficult
to judge the morality of action because we cannot penetrate the depth of his
mind. Different philosophers have given different theories in order to explain
how action has its moral worth- Deontology, Teleology, and Virtue. This unit
will explicate all these theories in order to understand how an action is morally
worthy and show the possibilities of immoral or moral actions.

2.2 DEFINITION
The term moral is derived from the Latin word mos that means custom or habit.
From this, it can be derived that when an action is performed deliberately we can 21
Basic Concepts judge them good or bad and this can be further clubbed into moral and immoral
actions.
By moral action, it means those actions that are within the moral sphere and are
thus objects of moral judgments. These actions are distinguished from non-moral
actions, those actions that are devoid of moral quality and scope of moral judgment.
In a wider sense the word moral means that in which moral quality, (rightness or
wrongness, goodness or badness) is present, i.e., what is right or wrong, good or
bad. And an action performed means that which is performed by a rational agent,
not through blind impulse or inclination but knowledge and free choice of means
and end. The instinctive action is not a moral action because instinctive actions
are found most explicitly in lower animals. Instinctive actions cannot be called
as good or bad, right or wrong as animals cannot discriminate between right and
wrong are non-moral. Actions of psychically uninformed, children, actions done
under the spell of hypnotic forces, actions are done under compulsion are non-
moral. For some philosophers, every human act in itself is not good but one if
done with good intention. Immanuel Kant considers that an action is morally
worthy only if done out of good will. A good will is likely to be useful, but it is
not good because it is useful. Its value would not be affected by an accidental
lack of utility. Moral action is not done for the sake of usefulness or to own any
kind of merit. Two men may have done the same thing, but the act of one may be
moral, and that of the other contrary. Take, for instance, a man who feeds the
poor out of great pity and another feeds with the motive of gaining position or
with some such selfish end. Though the action is the same, the act of the one is
moral and that of the other non-moral. When we use the word “moral” it is being
used in connection with moral goodness for indicating that we aim at goodness
of character.
It seems that most philosophers regard the motives of a person as factors that
make her action morally good or bad. Apparently, some of them think that
motives are the only relevant factors for an action’s morality. It is obvious that
motives are important for the morality of an action but not necessarily. If a
person spends money to help the poor, her motivation tends to make her action
morally good, and we recognize her to be a morally good person. But if she
spends the money only because she regards it as a lucrative investment, her
action may be prudent, but it would not be morally praiseworthy. But motive
and intention of an action cannot be distinguished in thought but practice. For
instance, if A puts poison into B’s coffee with the intention to kill him, his
motive may have been the hope to inherit B’s wealth. Electra intentionally
killed an old woman but unintentionally her mother. If she had killed her mother
intentionally, we would judge his deplorable action differently. Actions can be
morally bad even if motives are good. Suppose that a person A does something
because she thinks it will make B happy. She is however aware that her action
will harm C and D. Here, A is only concerned about B and is indifferent to C
and D. A is, therefore, acting from a good motive (she wishes to make B happy),
but what she does is nevertheless not morally good. The reason for this is not
her motive but lack of certain other motives. Due to lack of some motives
made the action in the above example bad or else it would have been good.
This points out to the idea that many actions are morally bad even when their
motives are not blameworthy. Take the case of a thief. A boy steals Rs 500
22 from the purse of a rich woman, but the woman shouts out to the crowd that he
has stolen Rs 2000 from her. On being caught by the boy, he returns the Rs 500 Moral Action
to a woman. The boy says that due to lack of Rs 500 he is unable to consult the
doctor because the doctor denies treating her without the payment. In this case,
the boy’s motive was to cure his mother and release her from pain, but this
action is morally bad because he would gain something only by taking away
someone else’s property. He is not motivated by his knowledge that it harms
the rich woman. Morality of an action is not only determined by its intention,
but unintentional actions could also be blameworthy. The goodness of an action
depends on how a person has been trained throughout life. When, for example,
toddlers are taught to avoid hurting others. Later, many children begin to
regularly say “please” and “thank you.” These do not come pre-programmed
but are inculcated through external training.
What sets moral action apart from other species of action? How do we know that
the action we perform is a moral one? Essentially, moral action is an action of
moral value such that one’s moral consciousness comes to work as one is called
to make a moral response. Moral action is not a one-time but is an ongoing,
continuous process. It can be said that by choosing the good, we become good.
By choosing to tell the truth, one becomes honest like the case of the boy who
stole Rs 500. However, honesty exhibited once does not make one honest to be
such, one has to choose consistently to be honest. It may sound straightforward
and formulaic, but actual moral action can be far more complex. Hence, becoming
good, as the word “becoming” itself connotes, involves a constant struggle. Every
action demands thinking, and decision-making and every moral action calls for
rational deliberation and affirmation of our humanity. Moral action touches on
one’s moral ideals. Our moral ideals pertain to what is believed to constitute a
life that is worthy of humans which are a product of generations of shaping via
our tradition and which come to the fore as summoned by action. Actions which
proceed from natural programming of the body such as instinctive, thoughtless
movements, mannerism, and reflex actions are not considered to be properly
moral actions as they happen outside the control of the human agent. Likewise,
any action is done by an individual out of honest ignorance hardly fits in the
criteria of moral action. Moral actions are actions that proceed from the deliberate
free will of human beings. Every individual human action that proceeds from
deliberate reason must be good or bad. Moral actions are those actions that properly
belong to conscious, rational, free human beings. Let us highlight the key elements
of moral actions:
(1) Moral actions are done by an agent with knowledge or consciousness i.e.
voluntariness as opposed to actions that are out of ignorance. Knowledge
here pertains to knowledge of facts surrounding or characterizing the situation,
the choices available and also the possible consequences of the choices. For
instance, a person unaware that her friend is allergic to onions serves her an
onion cutlet. Had she known about her allergy, she could have served a cutlet
with a different filling. Due to ignorance of his friend’s medical state cancels
out moral responsibility except when such ignorance is totally beyond remedy.
(2) Moral actions involve freedom.
Moral action is any act done by mostly accepted and deemed good values in any
society where the act is being performed. Every society has some values, some
ground rules, which determine whether something is good, or bad which is the 23
Basic Concepts result of numerous factors like history, culture, dominant religion, economical
conditions, level of education and so on. Also with time values keep changing.
The community or society we live in sets the level of morality. This also varies
with different cultures and the way people respond depending on nature and
other humans.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Write a short note on Moral Action.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

2. How is a moral action different from a non-moral action?

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

2.3 RELIGIOUS VIEWS

The religious experience provides a framework within which moral behavior is a
part. From the religious point of view, a moral action is one that helps the human
being to attain the ultimate end, i.e., the Supreme good, which is God.
Consequently, those acts are morally good for a human that brings her nearer to
God, the ultimate end of one’s existence. We shall discuss moral action according
to religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and Christianity.

2.3.1 HINDUISM
The concept of moral action has been depicted and presented in the most famous
scripture- The Bhagavad Gita. The summon bonum of Gita is realization of God
.
or the consolidation of society (loksamgraha). The means for the realization of
.
the ultimate end are following certain duties known as Varna Ashram, Nitya
dharma, and Naimittika dharma etc. There are two underlying principles in
Hinduism –Dharma, and Karma that explain moral thought and action. The central
teaching of Bhagavad Gita is Nishkam Karma. This, however, does not mean
disinterested action as it is interpreted as an action not for the fulfillment of any
selfish desire but rather for social welfare or with intention of realization of God.
It means that the allocated work done without expectations, motives or thinking
about its outcomes will purify one’s mind and gradually makes an individual fit
to see the value of reason and the benefits of renouncing the action itself. God
24 controls the results of actions, but in order to become a dynamic instrument of
divine action after understanding this order and complete self-submission to God, Moral Action
it is important to act with determination. True self-realization lies in self-surrender.
In Hinduism, Dharma is one of the all-encompassing terms; it can mean religion,
law, duty, order, morality, justice. Dharma fundamentally underlies conceptions
of morality in Hinduism. To act out of duty is, in essence, to act appropriately,
what is appropriate is determined by the content in which the action is to be
performed and who is performing it. Karma is intimately associated with dharma
in this regard. Positive actions produce positive effects; negative actions produce
negative effects. To act dharmically is to act in karmically positive manner, when
one acts dharmically only then one produces positive karma.

2.3.2 JAINISM
Jainism emphasizes on the necessity of self-effort to move the soul towards divine
consciousness and liberation. Any soul that has conquered its own inner enemies
is prescribed five moral principles to be observed, i.e., Pancha Vratas- Ahimsa,
Satya, Asetya, Brahmacharya, Aparigraha. The main teaching of Jainism is that
every soul is the architect of its own life, here or hereafter. Like Buddhists, Hindus,
Jainas believe that good conduct leads to better circumstances in life and bad
conduct leads to worse. Jainism maintains that there are triple gems ( right view,
right knowledge and right conduct) that provide the way to realization of correct
action. However, since they conceive Karma to be a material substance that draws
the soul back to its body, all actions both good or bad lead to rebirth in the body.
No action can help a person achieve liberation from rebirth. For Jainism, the
moral life is one which is free from all attachments to worldly things, including
attachment to sensual enjoyment. It encourages spiritual development through
cultivation of one’s own personal wisdom and reliance on self-control.

2.3.3 BUDDHISM
For Buddhism, a moral action is one which is devoid of suffering as it places
great emphasis on the sanctity of life. The four noble truths of Buddhism are the
guiding principles of moral thought and action, particularly as expressed in the
Eightfold path. The motivation for following the noble truths is not to be good
per se but to facilitate the realization the Buddhists call Enlightenment. The eight-
fold path is a set of guidelines for acceptable or correct behavior. The initial
precept is non-injury or non-violence to all living creatures. The eight items in
the eightfold path are often divided into three categories: Right view, Right conduct
and Right practice. Within the Right view, there are two items (1) Right
understanding and (2) Right thought. In Right conduct, there are (3) Right speech
(4) Right action (5) Right livelihood. In Right practice there are (6) Right effort
(7) Right Mindfulness (8) Right concentration. This eight fold path originally
directs an agent towards the ultimate goal of enlightenment which also is
behavioral guidelines. It never asks for blind faith, it never seeks to promote
learning a process of self-discovery. For Buddhism, moral action is one, which
holds respect, generosity, self-control, honesty, and compassion.

2.3.4 ISLAM
Islamic ethical thinking begins from the premise that the most fundamental
relationship in the life of human beings is their relationship with God. For Islam,
a moral action is one when derived from one of the five categories: the obligatory, 25
Basic Concepts the prohibited, the superogatory, the disfavored, and the indifferent. One of the
most important aspects of a Muslim’s life is to have high moral standards. The
view point of Islam is that the universe is the creation of God and everything is
functioning under his command. Unlike the commonly held beliefs that man is
evil by nature, Islam hopes that man is born with a morally good nature that
responds to faith and ethical values. Over time, it may get corrupted due to
temptations and man’s inability to exercise control over desires. For human’s
conduct to be moral as per Islam, there are two conditions which must be fulfilled:
one’s intention must be good and one’s action must be according to what God
has instructed. For example, if a wrong deed was done with good intentions that
ultimately produced good outcome, it cannot be termed as moral. If the intentions
were wrong to begin with and the outcome was accidentally good, there is no
question of moral behavior. Good intentions and good deeds must go hand in
hand.

2.3.5 CHRISTIANITY
For Christianity, life should be a worship of God, which is expressed not only in
rituals and prayers but also upon how a Christian lives. In his or her seeking to
live a moral life, a Christian tries to obey the rules for his or her behavior that
have been decreed by God and recorded in the Bible. For Christianity, morality is
derived from God and since God is a benevolent one so whatever he commands
is morally good. God is the standard that we have a reference. Moral action is
performed by sincere confession of one’s sin as such confession demonstrates
one’s acceptance of God’s will and love. Actions are morally good because God
commands them and what God commands is morally good because it was He
commanded it.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. Write a short note on the Buddhism and Jainism’s outlook on moral
action.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2.4 PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS

The philosophical views on moral action are explicated through the different
moral theories that are structured by different philosophers. This unit attempts to
explain how the different moral theorists try to understand what a moral action
is? The ultimate concern of a moral theory is to guide in making the decisions
and judgments relating to various actions viz. moral or non-moral. Moral theories
are broadly classified into three: Teleological theory, Deontological theory and
26 Virtue theory. All these moral theories have presented their moral standards from
different angles. Let us deliberate these theories with their respective principles Moral Action
of actions separately.

2.4.1 Teleological Theories

The word teleology is derived from the Greek word telos which means goal or
purpose. Teleology is the study of goals, ends, and purposes. It locates moral
goodness in the consequence of our behavior and not the behavior itself. In other
words, an action is morally right or good if the consequence of that action is
more favorable than unfavorable. According to the teleological theorists, what is
morally right, wrong, or obligatory is what produces good results. Nothing is
intrinsically good or bad. Teleological theories are based on reflective desires,
i.e., pleasure, happiness and the good of the individual. These reflective desires
of the individual are the ends and the actions should be the prime focus of ethical
deliberation. The rightness and wrongness of an action are based on the goodness
and badness of their consequences. According to teleological moral theory, all
rational human actions are teleological in the sense that we reason about the
means of achieving certain ends. For instance, the wrongness of telling a lie or
intentionally harming someone depends on whether these actions produce good
or bad results. A lie, if it prevents suffering might by consequentialists be the
right thing to do. Moral behavior is goal-directed so from a teleological point of
view, human behavior is neither right nor wrong in itself. However, from the
teleological perspective, motives really have nothing to do with rightness or
wrongness of the act. What matters is what might happen as a consequence of
those actions in any given context. Teleological moral theories must somehow
connect the consequences of human behavior to the foundational moral concepts
of good and bad, right and wrong, and moral and immoral. The hallmark of most
teleological moral theories is that they identify these moral concepts with pleasure
and pain or happiness and unhappiness. Hence, moral actions are good, right, or
moral in so far as they lead to pleasurable consequences and bad, wrong or immoral
if they lead to the painful consequences. There are three types of teleological
theories-
2.4.1.1 Ethical egoism- For this theory, an action is morally appropriate if the
consequence of an action is more favorable than unfavorable only to the moral
agent acting. Epicurus, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Adman Smith are the advocates
of this theory.
2.4.1.2 Ethical Altruism- an action is morally right if the consequences of an
action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the moral agent.
Ethical altruism inspires an individual to sacrifice personal projects and dedicate
themselves for the cause of others so that it will be treated as the most beneficent
cause of an action.
2.4.1.3 Ethical Utilitarianism- an action is morally right if the consequences of
the action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Classical or Ethical
Utilitarianism is one of the main theories brought under the rubric of teleological
ethics. This is further broken into two main components- a theory of value and a
theory of right action. Firstly, it endorses Hedonism as a theory of value. Hedonism
means happiness or pleasure as the supreme end of life. Secondly, it endorses
consequentialism as a theory of right action. Jeremy Bentham and J.S Mill are
the main exponents of this theory. They developed the position that it is the greatest
happiness of the greatest number that measures the rightness and wrongness of 27
Basic Concepts an act. Mill formulates the principle of utility that he regards as a fundamental
moral principle. By principle of utility he means the principle which approves or
disapproves of every action according to the tendency which it appears to have to
augment or dismiss happiness of the party whose interest is in question.
Check Your Progress III
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. What are the arguments forwarded by teleological theory on moral action?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2.4.2 Deontological Theory

For deontologists a moral action is essentially about following a set of rules that
forbid or require certain actions. These rules specify actions that are right or
wrong about the rule in the question. The word deontology is derived from the
Greek word deon and logos which means duty and study, so deontology is the
study of duty. Deontological theorists hold that moral goodness has nothing to
do with generating pleasure, happiness, and consequences. The wrongness of an
action is intrinsic or resides in the kind of action that is rather than the
consequences it brings about. Deontologists equate right or wrong actions with
obedience or disobedience to moral laws. They consider rightness or wrongness
as intrinsic to certain types of actions. They tend to identify the rightness and
wrongness of an action with fixed principles of conduct. It judges the morality of
an action upon the intrinsic value of the act. For deontologists what makes a
choice right is its conformity with the moral norm. Such moral norms are to be
obeyed by each moral agent. In this sense, for such deontologists, the right is said
to have priority over the good. Certain actions ought to be right even if they do
not produce good consequences for the rightness of such actions consists of certain
norms. Deontological theories are by definition duty-based. That is to say that
morality consists in the fulfillment of moral obligations and duties. Duties are
further associated with obeying absolute moral rules. Human beings are morally
required to do certain acts to uphold a rule or law. The rightness or wrongness of
moral rule is determined independently of its consequences or happiness.
Immanuel Kant’s theory is perhaps the most well-known example of the
deontological approach. For Kant, an action can have moral worth if and only if
it is done from duty. His notion of acting from duty is in standard manner
understood as doing what is right through the moral law. Whether a course of
action is morally permissible will depend on whether or not it conforms to moral
law i.e. Categorical Imperative. Categorical imperatives are the unconditional
commands. It has three different formulations:
(1) The first formulation- Act only on that maxim through which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law.
28
 (2) The second formulation- Act as to treat humanity, both in your person Moral Action
and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end,
never simply as a means.
(3) The third formulation-Every rational being must so act as if he were
through this maxim, always legislating members in the universal kingdom
of ends.
Our duties are to be understood regarding respecting this imperative. Kant
considered that the imperative should not be hypothetical, as it cannot be derived
from the consideration of any end outside of the will of the individual. The
categorical imperative has no reference to the external ends but in the right
direction of the will itself. Human beings must have access to the moral truth to
be responsible agents at all. Throughout the Groundwork of Mitaphysics of Morals,
Kant argues that a moral action is one that is for the sake of the moral law. There
is no particular content in the moral law so it cannot tell us what the matter or
content of our actions ought to be but can only instruct us. For instance, we are
obliged to keep our promises even when keeping them results in less good. Kant
believed that morality was apriori and investigating moral we need to look at
pure practical reason. For him, the reason is what makes us capable of morality,
to begin with. No conduct is regarded can be regarded as truly virtuous which
rests on feeling but reason. Kantian morality commands that we take the right
attitude in action, not just the performance of the right act. An act is morally
good for him if it proceeds from a subjective principle or maxim that is fit to be
a universal law. Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (murder,
theft, and lying) were prohibited even if it brings more happiness than the
alternative.

Check Your Progress IV

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. What is a moral action, according to Immanuel Kant?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

2.4.3 Virtue Ethics

For Virtue ethicists, an action is moral or virtuous if it is performed through
practical deliberation and not out of ignorance. Morality stems from the identity
or character of the individual rather than being a reflection of the action of the
individual. Aristotle has been the main source of inspiration of virtue ethics. In
his Nicomachean Ethics, he urged that the best life of a human is eudemonia that
occupies the exercise of virtues or excellences. He says that there is nothing
29
Basic Concepts about having a life except the exercise of virtues. This is a concept fostered by
Stoics also. Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving
force for the ethical behavior rather than rules those set by Kant. Virtue is the
primary mode of evaluation as opposed to the act evaluates such as right and
wrong. Virtue is the habit or quality that allows the bearer to succeed at his or her
or its purpose. The virtue of a knife, for example, is the sharpness and that of a
racehorse is speed. Thus, to identify the virtues for human beings, one must have
an account of what human purpose is. According to Aristotle, virtue is seen as a
quality that leads to eudemonia or well-being. He categorized virtue as moral
and intellectual.
A virtue ethicist would, however, focus less on lying in any particular instance
and instead consider one’s character and moral behavior, the decision to tell a
lie or not to tell a lie. It refers to the collection of normative acts that emphasize
being rather than doing. A virtue ethicists philosopher will identify virtues,
desirable characteristics that the moral or virtuous person embodies. Possessing
these virtues is what makes one moral and one’s actions are a mere reflection
of one’s inner morality. An action cannot be used as a demarcation of morality
because a virtue encompasses more than just a simple selection of action.
Instead, it is about the way of being that would cause the person exhibiting the
virtue to make a certain virtuous choice consistently in each situation. The
agent chooses virtue and chooses to perform the virtuous action but choosing
virtuous act the agent in choosing exhibits practical wisdom, knowledge of
what he is doing and why it is good. This entails that the virtuous agent cannot
act out of ignorance. Otherwise, he would not be genuinely choosing and would
not be exhibiting practical wisdom. Take for instance that there are two
individuals Karb and Barb- Karb is a naturally good person who enjoys helping
others-she isn’t too bright, but her nature is such that she ends up helping people
simply out of the kindness of heart. This kindness on his part is not cultivated;
it is just a part of her personality, her basic nature. Barb, on the other hand, is
also a kind of person but someone who has worked at it by developing good
habits. She is good because she chose to be; she rationally and effectively
endorsed virtue and set out on a path to be virtuous. She might have been
helped along by having good parents who instilled good values, but still, the
choice was hers to make when she grew up. She was able to rationally reflect
on her character and make decisions about what to endorse. In Aristotle’s view,
Karb is someone who has natural goodness but no true virtue. Barb, on the
other hand, has a genuine virtue because she has chosen virtue: she displayed
practical wisdom. Karb has not and so her goodness in a way is accidental
because it is operating by a kind of mindless instinct. For Aristotle, a virtuous
person is a person who functions harmoniously- his desires and emotions do
not conflict with what he knows to be right.
David Hume also wrote on virtue ethics. He views virtues as mental qualities as
pleasing: they are pleased because they are conducive to the social utility in some
respect. Thus, he places no heavy psychological requirements on virtue. Having
virtue means that one has a pleasing quality. The virtuous person does not need
to have wisdom or intelligence, though they would count as intellectual virtues
because they are pleasing and useful qualities. Hume’s account does depend on a
certain view of human nature. We are the sorts of creatures moved by feelings of
sympathy for others, as well as concern for ourselves. He believed that people
30 are motivated by self-interest but that they are also motivated by love and sympathy
for others. This sympathy forms the basis for morality. The pain of another is Moral Action
bad, and when I see this, I react sympathetically to the person. For instance, I
would probably feel pity for a person if I see him being tortured. He said that
when we make moral evaluations what we are most concerned about are the
motives. The primary focus of moral evaluation is the internal states, the agent
associated with virtue or having good character traits.
Check Your Progress V
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. What is the primary focus of moral evaluation, according to David Hume?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

2.5 LET US SUM UP

Morality is, therefore, an institution of human life under which questions such
as, ‘which conduct is right and which one is wrong?’, ‘which character is good
and which one is bad?’ are raised and answered. However, Morality is synonymous
with moral goodness or moral rightness. To say that some act is moral is not to
say in this sense that it may be judged either as right or wrong, But to say that it
is right. The essence of morality consists in promoting the welfare of others, or in
practicing non-violence or control of senses, etc. Being moral does not simply
mean being right or being of a good conduct and character but also being a moral
agent whose action or actions may be judged either right or wrong .The concept
of moral action is different according to both religious and philosophical views
as described above. Many thinkers have explained the content of morality in an
action through different formulations. Their formulations have been represented
in form of theories like, Deontology, Teleology and Virtue ethics.

2.6 KEY WORDS

Morality : Morality is a set of customs and habits that shape how we think
about how we should live or about what is a good human life.
Action : It is a deliberative movement performed by a human agent.
Intention : it is more than a mere wish, a conspicuous change that we aim to
bring.

2.7 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERNCES

Timmermann, Jens. Kant’s groundwork of the morals, Cambridge: Cambridge
University press, 2007. 31
Basic Concepts Jain, P. Ethics. Agra: Lakshmi Narayan Agarawal publisher, 2015.
Mackenzie, John. S. A manual of Ethics. Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 2016.
Tiwari, Kedar. Nath. Classical Indian Ethical Thought: A philosophical study of
Hindu, Jaina and Buddha thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers private
limited, 2014.
Harrison, Bernard. “Moral Judgment, Action and Emotion”. Cambridge
University press, 59/229, pp. 295-312.
Gert, Bernard. “The Definition of Morality” First published Wed Apr 17, 2002;
substantive revision Mon Feb 8, 2011.

2.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to check your progress I
1. Moral action is an action that is acted through one’s will or intention to
accomplish one’s deliberative goals. An act is a moral one when acted through
one’s reasoning capability. Considering that, human beings are rational agents
so their actions are always evaluative since not every human action can be
moral. Therefore, all human actions are evaluated as either morally good or
bad and right or wrong. When the word “moral action” is used, it is presented
in connection with moral goodness for indicating that we aim at goodness of
the character.
Two elements explain the nature of a moral action. They are- Knowledge or
Voluntariness and Freedom.
2. A moral action is an action of moral value such that one’s moral consciousness
comes to work to make a moral response. A non-moral action is one that is
devoid of moral quality and scope of moral judgment. Immoral action is one
that is the violation of the accepted principles of right and wrong of a given
society.
Answers to check your progress II
1. The Buddhists and the Jaina outlook on the question of moral action seem
more or lesssimilar. The eight-fold path and the triple gems are set of
guidelines for acceptable or correct behavior. Actions are good or bad not in
terms of the external consequences they produce, but the inner motive that
prompts them. For them, the only consequence does not determine the
rightness or wrongness of action.
Answers to check your progress III
1. According to teleological theory, what is morally right, wrong, or obligatory
is what produces good results. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad. Moral
behavior is goal-directed so from a teleological point of view, human behavior
is neither right nor wrong in itself. However, from the teleological perspective,
motives really have nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of the act.
There are three different teleological theories; Ethical egoism, Ethical
32 altruism, and Ethical Utilitarianism.
Answers to check your progress IV Moral Action

1. Immanuel Kant holds that moral goodness has nothing to do with generating
pleasure, happiness, and consequences. The wrongness of an action is intrinsic
or resides in the kind of action that is rather than the consequences it brings
about. For Kant, an action can have moral worth if and only if it is done from
duty. His notion of acting from duty is in standard manner understood as
doing what is right through the moral law. Whether a course of action is
morally permissible will depend on whether or not it conforms to moral law
i.e. Categorical Imperative.
Answers to check your progress V
1. According to David Hume, the primary focus of moral evaluation is the
internal states, the agent associated with virtue or having good character
traits. He believed that the basis of morality is that people are motivated by
self-interest but that they are also motivated by love and sympathy for others.

33
Basic Concepts
UNIT 3 VIRTUES AND VICES*
Structure

3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Meaning of Virtue
3.3 Socrates: Virtue is Knowledge
3.4 Plato’s Four Cardinal Virtues
3.5 Aristotle’s Conception of Virtue
3.6 Virtues in Hinduism
3.7 Virtues in Islam
3.8 Vices
3.8.1 The Christian Vices
3.9 Let Us Sum Up
3.10 Key Words
3.11 Further Readings and References
3.12 Answers to Check your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we are going to study Virtues and Vices from an ethical point of view.
After understanding the meaning of virtue, we make an effort to grasp the Socratic,
Platonic and the Aristotelian conception of virtue. Then we shall attempt to see
virtues in Hinduism and Islam. By the end of this unit you should be able to:
 grasp the meaning of virtue
 understand the virtues according to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle the three
main Greek Philosophers
 appreciate the virtues in Hinduism and Islam

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Individuals and as groups, human beings search for happiness. The means to
attain this goal was discovered by the Greeks to be in the cultivation of virtue. In
Indian philosophies also there are qualities contributing to human well-being;
however, quite often instead of focusing on human happiness as such, Indian
concepts of virtue are intertwined with the concept of salvation and afterlife.
Something similar happened in Western thought after Greek philosophy met the
Christian Revelation. In the present unit however we shall not be dealing
specifically with the religious and theological links but only with those elements
that fall under the general purview and more or less universal survey of human
reason.

*
Dr. Wilfred D’Souza, Pushpashrama College, Mysore.
34
 Virtues and Vices
3.2 MEANING OF VIRTUE
The Greek term for virtue is arête which was used for excellence of any kind.
But generally the excellence referred to is an excellence belonging to a human
being so that the virtues may be described as the forms of human excellence.
‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means moral excellence. A virtue is a
character trait or quality valued as being good. Personal virtues are characteristics
valued as promoting individual and collective well-being, and thus good by
definition. The opposite of virtue is vice. In ethics, ‘virtue’ is used with two
somewhat different meanings. (a) A virtue is a quality of character – a disposition
to do what is right in a particular direction, or to perform one of the more universal
duties. (b) A virtue is also a habit of action corresponding to the quality of character
or disposition. We may refer to the honesty of a human person, or to the honesty
of his dealings equally as virtues.
Virtues can be placed into a broader context of values. Each individual has a core
of underlying values that contribute to our system of beliefs, ideas and/or opinions.
Integrity in the application of a value ensures its continuity and this continuity
separates a value from beliefs, opinion and ideas. In this context a value (e.g.,
Truth or Equality or Creed) is the core from which we operate or react. Societies
have values that are shared among many of the participants in that culture. An
individual’s values typically are largely, but not entirely, in agreement with their
culture’s values. Individual virtues can be grouped into one of four categories of
values: Ethics (virtue - vice, good - bad, moral - immoral - amoral, right -
wrong, permissible - impermissible) Aesthetics (beautiful, ugly, unbalanced,
pleasing) Doctrinal (political, ideological, religious or social beliefs and values)
Innate/Inborn (inborn values such as reproduction and survival).
Laird has divided virtues into three classes:
(a) There are virtues of what he calls, ‘the righteous quality’. A virtue of this
kind consists in the habit of performing a duty of a particular kind and in
the quality of character which leads to this kind of action. The only distinction
that can be made between virtuous conduct of this kind and right conduct is
that the term ‘virtuous conduct’ emphasizes the habitual performance of what
is right.
(b) There are virtues of the ‘requisite quality’. These are necessary to a virtuous
character, but are also found in bad characters, and indeed may tend to increase
the wickedness of the bad. Such virtues include prudence and perseverance.
The villain who is persevering in his villainy is a worse man than the villain
who is hesitant.
(c) There are virtues of the ‘generous quality’. These are chiefly of an emotional
kind and they add something not strictly definable, but of the nature of beauty
or of moral intrinsic value, to actions that are in other respects right. They
sometimes even give a strange quality of nobility to conduct that is morally
wrong. We find this in the adventurous courage sometimes attributed to a
brigand chief and in the loyalty of often shown to people utterly unworthy of
that loyalty. Virtues of this kind seem to have some intrinsic value; this at
least is suggested by the value that we assign to these virtues in the characters
of people where no good result follows from the presence of the virtue in
their actions. 35
Basic Concepts Of the three classes, virtues of the ‘righteous quality’ are the most important in
the moral life. Virtues of the ‘requisite quality’ are clearly subordinate to the
virtues of the ‘righteous quality’, for they are of value only when they accompany
such virtues. Virtues of the ‘generous quality’ depend more on the natural
endowments than the other two classes do, and are hardly to be acquired merely
by the conscientious doing of one’s duty. Virtues of this quality have an appeal
that is perhaps more aesthetic than moral, but they do give to goodness a colour
and an adventurous atmosphere which are sometimes sadly lacking in those whose
virtues are merely of the righteous quality.

3.3 SOCRATES: VIRTUE IS KNOWLEDGE

The core of Socrates’ ethics is the concept of virtue. Virtue, according to Socrates,
is the deepest and most basic property of man. This virtue is knowledge. If on the
other hand knowledge embraces everything that is good, we shall be right to
suspect that virtue is knowledge.” If virtue is knowledge it can be known and
consequently taught. This is the meaning of the imperative ‘know yourself’. ‘Know
yourself’ means bring your inner self to light. Through knowledge humans gain
possession of oneself whereby one becomes one’s own master.
According to Socrates virtue is the highest aim and greatest good one has to seek
in life. He also insisted that if it is to be the highest aim and the greatest good it
must have universal consistency and be the same for all. Now, what is universally
consistent and the same for all is knowledge which is obtained through concept
by the use of reason common in all. The relation between virtue and knowledge
is inseparable. For, Socrates thinks that health, wealth, beauty, courage,
temperance etc., which are customarily considered to be various forms of good,
are good only if they are guided by wisdom; if guided by folly they could be
considered forms of evil.
Ethics, according to Socrates, has yet another dimension. It does not stop at mere
acquisition of the knowledge of the ideas of good. The knowledge of the idea of
the good aims at controlling all other ideas and ultimately guides the whole man,
including his will and feeling, and necessarily leads him to good actions. Hence
ethical knowledge tends to culture the soul which ultimately leads the soul towards
regaining its pure, pristine glory. For Socrates this is the reason for believing that
“no one does wrong knowingly” and “that knowledge is virtue.”
Socrates says that virtue or goodness is one, although practices differently in
different forms of good. In Plato’s Protagoras Socrates says that although wisdom,
temperance, courage, justice and holiness are the principal forms of virtue, there
is one single reality which underlies them all. Yet on another occasion, in Plato’s
Meno, we find Socrates looking for one virtue which permeates all other virtues.
Socrates explained this by means of an example of a healthy body. According to
him all kinds of bodily excellence follow from one single health of the body,
similarly, all kinds of virtue follow from the health of the soul. What is meant by
the health of the soul? The soul has different functions. The health of the soul
follows from orderly arrangement of these different functions. In Plato’s Gorgias,
we see Socrates saying that the functions of the soul are reasoning, temper, and
desire. The function of reasoning aims at attaining wisdom, temper means courage,
and desire is soberness. The health of the souls depends on the organized relation
36
that these functions hold to each other. An orderly arrangement of these functions Virtues and Vices
is something like the following. Wisdom commands and temper assists in the
execution of these commands, while desire furnishes the material basis for the
actualization of these commands. The aim of the oneness or unity of virtue is the
ultimate happiness of the individual. “A successful functioning of the harmonious
activities under the regulation of reason yields happiness.” Thus the Socratic
notion of virtue as one means is “the self of a good man is an organic unity of all
its functions.”
The Socratic notion of virtue as one leads us finally to conclude that there is one
Idea of the Good which underlies all the ethical activities of man which are
intrinsically good. Socrates speaks in the Republic of Plato that in the region of
the known the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the idea of good, and that
this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful, giving birth
in the visible world to light, and author of light and itself in the intelligible world
being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who is to act
wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.
Check your progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What is the meaning of virtue?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. Explain the Socratic dictum “Virtue is Knowledge”.

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

3.4 PLATO’S FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES

The four virtues which Plato described in the Republic were later called the
cardinal virtues. The word ‘cardinal’ is a derivative of the Latin word ‘cardo’,
meaning a hinge, and the cardinal virtues are the virtues by which the moral life
is supported as a door is supported by its hinges.
Plato describes the four cardinal virtues in The Republic:
Wisdom (calculative) - see the whole
Courage (spirited) - preserve the whole
37
Basic Concepts Moderation (appetitive) - serve the whole
Justice (founding/ - “mind your own business” i.e. “tend to your
preserving virtue) soul”/”know yourself”
Plato defines how an individual can attain these virtues: Wisdom comes from
exercising reason; courage from exercising emotions or spirit; moderation
(sometimes “temperance”) from allowing reason to overrule desires; and from
these justice ensues, a state in which all elements of the mind are in concord
with one another. Justice is described by Plato to be the founding and preserving
virtue because only once someone understands justice, can he or she gain the
other three virtues, and once someone possesses all four virtues, it is justice that
keeps it all together.

3.5 ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF VIRTUE

Aristotle said that the moral end is ‘eudaimonia’, which may be translated as
happiness, and he said that ‘eudaimonia’ consisted in the exercise of a person’s
soul in accordance with virtue. To put it in Aristotle’s own terminology,
‘eudaimonia’ is the end or what was later called the final cause of the moral
life, while virtue is what was later called the form or the formal cause of the
moral life. The form is analogous to the conception of his picture in the mind
of an artist which guides and limits one’s activity as one works, and which
gives shape to one’s creation. Aristotle defined virtue as a habit of choice,
the characteristic of which lies in the observation of the mean or of moderation,
as it is determined by reason or as the practically prudent person would
determine it.
Aristotle regarded virtue as primarily a habit of action, and so it was with him
only secondarily a quality of character. Virtue is not a mere habit, but a habit of
choice. Aristotle defined choice as the deliberate desire of things in our power
after consideration of them by the intellect. Choice accordingly is in some sense
free for it deals with things in our own power, and it is when such a deliberate
choice is repeated that it becomes the habit of action which we call a virtue.
The choice, for example, of doing what is right in the face of pain becomes,
when habitual, the virtue of courage. The mere doing of single good actions
may be accidental or merely impulsive; it is the habitual choice that counts as
virtue.
The point in Aristotle’s definition which has been most discussed is his notion
of the mean or middle course. A virtue is regarded as if it were a middle
position between two vices; courage for example, is the middle position
between rashness and cowardice, and liberality is the middle position between
extravagance and miserliness. The place of the mean relative to the vices at
the extremes depends on the circumstances of each individual. A soldier’s
courage should be nearer to rashness than that of a statesman, for it is his
business to take risks which would be criminal on the part of a statesman to
take. This conception is obviously in agreement with the Greek emphasis on
proportion and harmony in art, as expressed in the maxim ‘Nothing too much’
or virtue lies in the middle.
38
 Virtues and Vices
Check your progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Explain the four Cardinal virtues according to Plato.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. Explain Aristotle’s conception of virtue.

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

3.6 VIRTUES IN HINDUISM

Hinduism, or has pivotal virtues that everyone keeping the Dharma is asked to
follow. For they are distinct qualities of manusya
. (humankind), that allow one
to be in the mode of goodness. There are three modes of material nature (guna),
.
as described in the Vedas and other Indian Scriptures (e.g. sāmkhyakārikā,
.
carakasamhitā): Sattva (goodness, creation, stillness, intelligence), Rajas
(passion, maintenance, energy, activity), and Tamas (ignorance, restraint, inertia,
destruction). Every person harbours a mixture of these modes in varying degrees.
A person in the mode of Sattva has that mode in prominence in one’s nature,
which one obtains by following the virtues of Dharma.
The modes of Sattva are the following: Altruism: Selfless Service to all
humanity; Restraint and Moderation: This is having restraint and moderation
in all things. Sexual relations, eating, and other pleasurable activities should
be kept in moderation. It depends on the sect and belief system, some people
believe this means celibacy. While others believe in walking the golden path of
moderation, i.e. not too far to the side of forceful control and total abandon of
human pleasures, but also not too far to the side of total indulgence and total
abandonment for moderation. Honesty: One is required to be honest with
oneself, honest to the family, friends, and all of humanity. Cleanliness: Outer
cleanliness is to be cultivated for good health and hygiene; inner cleanliness is
cultivated through devotion to god, selflessness, non-violence and all the other
virtues; which is maintained by refraining from intoxicants. Protection and
reverence for the Earth. Universality: Showing tolerance and respect for
everyone, everything and the way of the Universe. Peace: One must cultivate a
peaceful manner in order to benefit oneself and those around him. Non-

39
Basic Concepts Violence/Ahimsa: This means not killing, or not being violent in any way to
any life form or sentient being. This is why those who practice this Dharma are
vegetarians because they see the slaughter of animals for the purpose of food
as violent, when there are less violent ways to maintain a healthy diet. Reverence
for elders and teachers: This virtue is very important to learn respect and
reverence for those who have wisdom and those who selflessly teach in love.
The Guru or spiritual teacher is one of the highest principals in many Vedic
based spiritualities, and is likened to that of God.

3.7 VIRTUES IN ISLAM

In the Muslim tradition the Qur’an is, as the word of God, the great repository of
all virtue in earthly form, and the Prophet, particularly via his hadiths or reported
sayings, the exemplar of virtue in human form. The very name of Islam, meaning
“acceptance,” proclaims the virtue of submission to the will of God, the acceptance
of the way things are. Foremost among God’s attributes are mercy and compassion
or, in the canonical language of Arabic, Rahman and Rahim. Each of the 114
chapters of the Qur’an, with one exception, begins with the verse, “In the name
of God the Compassionate, the Merciful”. The Arabic word for compassion is
rahmah. As a cultural influence, its roots abound in the Qur’an. A good Muslim
is to commence each day, each prayer and each significant action by invoking
God the Merciful and Compassionate, i.e. by reciting Bi Ism-i-Allah al-Rahman
al-Rahim. The Muslim scriptures urge compassion towards captives as well as to
widows, orphans and the poor. Traditionally, Zakat, a toll tax to help the poor
and needy, is obligatory upon all Muslims (9:60). One of the practical purposes
of fasting or sawm during the month of Ramadan is to help one empathize with
the hunger pangs of those less fortunate, to enhance sensitivity to the suffering of
others and develop compassion for the poor and destitute.
The Muslim virtues are: prayer, repentance, honesty, loyalty, sincerity, frugality,
prudence, moderation, self-restraint, discipline, perseverance, patience, hope,
dignity, courage, justice, tolerance, wisdom, good speech, respect, purity, courtesy,
kindness, gratitude, generosity, contentment, etc.

3.8 VICES
Vice is a practice or a habit considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in
the associated society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a defect, an
infirmity or merely a bad habit. Synonyms for vice include fault, depravity, sin,
iniquity, wickedness and corruption. The modern English term that best captures
its original meaning is the word vicious, which means “full of vice”. In this sense,
the word vice comes from the Latin word vitium, meaning “failing or defect”.
Vice is the opposite of virtue.
The term vice is also popularly applied to various activities considered immoral
by some: a list of these might include the abuse of alcohol and other recreational
drugs, gambling, smoking, recklessness, cheating, lying and selfishness. Behaviors
or attitudes going against the established virtues of the culture may also be called
vices: for instance, effeminacy is considered a vice in a culture espousing
masculinity as an essential element of the character of males.
40
3.8.1 The Christian Vices Virtues and Vices

Christians believe that there are two kinds of vice: those which originate with the
physical organism as perverse instincts (such as lust), and those which originate
with false idolatry in the spiritual realm. The first kind of vice, although sinful, is
believed to be less serious than the second. Some vices recognized as spiritual by
Christians are blasphemy (holiness betrayed), apostasy (faith betrayed), despair
(hope betrayed), hatred (love betrayed) and indifference (scripturally, a “hardened
heart”). Christian theologians have reasoned that the most destructive vice equates
to a certain type of pride or the complete idolatry of the self. It is argued that
through this vice, which is essentially competitive, all the worst evils come into
being. In Judeo- Christian creeds it originally led to the Fall of Man, and as a
purely diabolical spiritual vice, it outweighs anything else often condemned by
the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between vice, which is a habit inclining
one to sin. Note that in Roman Catholicism, the word “sin” also refers to the
state which befalls one upon committing a morally wrong act; in this section, the
word will always mean the sinful act. It is the sin, and not the vice, which deprives
one of God’s sanctifying grace. Thomas Aquinas taught that “absolutely speaking,
the sin surpasses the vice in wickedness”. On the other hand, even after a person’s
sins have been forgiven, the underlying habit (the vice) may remain. Just as vice
was created in the first place by repeatedly yielding to the temptation to sin, so
vice may be removed only by repeatedly resisting temptation and performing
virtuous acts; the more entrenched the vice, the more time and effort needed to
remove it. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that following rehabilitation and the
acquisition of virtues, the vice does not persist as a habit, but rather as a mere
disposition, and one that is in the process of being eliminated.
Dante’s seven deadly vices are: Pride or vanity — an excessive love of the self
(holding the self outside of its proper position regarding God or fellows; Dante’s
definition was “love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one’s
neighbor”). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, pride is referred to as
superbia. Avarice (covetousness, greed) — a desire to possess more than one
has need or use for (or according to Dante, “excessive love of money and
power”). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, avarice is referred to as
avaritia. Lust — excessive sexual desire. Dante’s criterion was that “lust detracts
from true love”. In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, lust is referred to
as luxuria. Wrath or anger — feelings of hatred, revenge or denial, as well as
punitive desires outside of justice (Dante’s description was “love of justice
perverted to revenge and spite”). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins,
wrath is referred to as ira. Gluttony — overindulgence in food, drink or
intoxicants, or misplaced desire of food as a pleasure for its sensuality
(“excessive love of pleasure” was Dante’s rendering). In the Latin lists of the
Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony is referred to as gula. Envy or jealousy - resentment
of others for their possessions (Dante: “love of one’s own good perverted to a
desire to deprive other men of theirs”). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly
Sins, envy is referred to as invidia. Sloth or laziness - idleness and wastefulness
of time and/or other allotted resources. Laziness is condemned because it results
in others having to work harder; also, useful work will not be done. Sloth is
referred to in Latin as accidie or acedia.
41
Basic Concepts
Check your progress III
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. List the Hindu and Islamic Virtues.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

2. What is vice? Which are the seven deadly vices?

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

3.9 LET US SUM UP

‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means moral excellence. A virtue is a
character trait or quality valued as being good. Personal virtues are characteristics
valued as promoting individual and collective well-being, and thus good by
definition. The opposite of virtue is vice. While for Socrates knowledge is virtue,
for Aristotle virtue lies in the middle; and Plato speaks of the four cardinal virtues
on which rest all the moral virtues. Every religion advocates a virtuous life and
shuns vices. We have seen how Hinduism and Islam stress on various moral
virtues and point a way to salvation. On the other hand, by looking at the vices
and the seven deadly sins we have understood the way Christianity advocates a
virtuous life. Hence the message of all the three religions: Live virtuously and
avoid all the vices.

3.10 KEY WORDS

Arete : Greek term for excellence of any kind.
Virtue : Latin term for moral excellence.
Vitium : Latin term for vice, meaning defect.
Cardinal : comes from the Latin ‘cardo’ meaning hinge. So cardinal means the
main virtue on which others are hinged.

3.11 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Lillie, William. An Introduction to Ethics. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Private
Limited, 1984.
42
Olivera, George. Virtue in Diverse Traditions. Bangalore: Asian Trading Virtues and Vices
Corporation, 1998.
Guthrie, W.K.C. Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Singer, Peter (Ed.). A Companion to Ethics. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers,
1995.

3.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check your progress I
1. The Greek term for virtue is arête which was used for excellence of any
kind. But generally the excellence referred to is an excellence belonging to
human being so that the virtues may be described as the forms of human
excellence.‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means moral
excellence. A virtue is a character trait or quality valued as being good.
Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting individual and
collective well-being, and thus good by definition. The opposite of virtue is
vice. In ethics, ‘virtue’ is used with two somewhat different meanings. (a) A
virtue is a quality of character – a disposition to do what is right in a particular
direction, or to perform one of the more universal duties. (b) A virtue is also
a habit of action corresponding to the quality of character or disposition. We
may refer to the honesty of a human person, or to the honesty of his dealings
equally as virtues.
2. Virtue, according to Socrates, is the deepest and most basic propensity of
humans. This virtue is knowledge. If virtue is knowledge it can be known
and consequently taught. This is the meaning of the imperative “know thyself.”
Know yourself means bring your inner self to light. Through knowledge
man gains possession of himself whereby he becomes his own master.
According to Socrates virtue is the highest aim and greatest good one has to
seek in life. He also insisted that if it is to be the highest aim and the greatest
good it must have universal consistency and be the same for all. Now, what
is universally consistent and the same for all is knowledge which is obtained
through concept by the use of reason which is common in all. The relation
between virtue and knowledge is inseparable. For, Socrates thinks that health,
wealth, beauty, courage, temperance etc., which are customarily considered
to be various forms of good, are good only if they are guided by wisdom; if
guided by folly they could be considered forms of evil.
Answers to Check your progress II
1. Plato describes the four cardinal virtues in The Republic. They are: wisdom,
courage, moderation, justice. Plato defines how an individual can attain these
virtues: Wisdom comes from exercising reason; Courage from exercising
emotions or spirit; Moderation (sometimes “temperance”) from allowing
reason to overrule desires; and from these Justice ensues, a state in which all
elements of the mind are in concord with one another. Justice is described by
Plato to be the founding and preserving virtue because only when someone
understands justice can he or she gain the other three virtues, and once
someone possesses all four virtues it is justice that keeps it all together.
43
Basic Concepts 2. Aristotle defined virtue as a habit of choice, the characteristic of which lies
in the observation of the mean or of moderation, as it is determined by reason
or as the practically prudent man would determine it. Aristotle regarded virtue
as primarily a habit of action, and so it was with him only secondarily a
quality of character. Virtue is not a mere habit, but a habit of choice. The
point in Aristotle’s definition which has been most discussed is his notion of
the mean or middle course. A virtue is regarded as if it were a middle position
between two vices; courage for example, is the middle position between
rashness and cowardice, and liberality is the middle position between
extravagance and miserliness. The place of the mean relative to the vices at
the extremes depends on the circumstances of each individual. A soldier’s
courage should be nearer to rashness than that of a statesman, for it is his
business to take risks which it would be criminal on the part of a statesman
to take. This conception is obviously in agreement with the Greek emphasis
on proportion and harmony in art, as expressed in the maxim ‘Nothing too
much’ or virtue lies in the middle.
Answers to Check your progress III
1. The Hindu virtues are: altruism- selfless Service to all humanity, restraint
and moderation, honesty, cleanliness, protection and reverence for the earth,
universality, peace, non- violence/ahimsa, reverence and respect for elders
and teachers. The Muslim virtues are: mercy, compassion, prayer, repentance,
honesty, loyalty, sincerity, frugality, prudence, moderation, self- restraint,
discipline, perseverance, patience, hope, dignity, courage, justice, tolerance,
wisdom, good speech, respect, purity, courtesy, kindness, gratitude, generosity,
contentment, etc.
2. Vice is a practice or a habit considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading
in the associated society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a
defect, an infirmity or merely a bad habit. Synonyms for vice include fault,
depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness and corruption. The modern English term
that best captures its original meaning is the word vicious, which means
“full of vice”. In this sense, the word vice comes from the Latin word vitium,
meaning “failing or defect”. Vice is the opposite of virtue. The seven deadly
vices are: pride or vanity, avarice, lust, wrath or anger, gluttony, envy or
jealousy and sloth or laziness.

44
 Virtues and Vices
UNIT 4 MORAL LAW*
Structure

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Defining (Natural) Moral Law
4.3 Reason and Morality
4.4 Universality and (Natural) Moral Law
4.5 Natural Moral Law and Change
4.6 Natural Moral Law and Human Dignity
4.7 Natural Moral Law and the Concept of Intrinsic Evil
4.8 Criticism of Natural Moral Law
4.9 Let Us Sum Up
4.10 Key Words
4.11 Further Readings and References
4.12 Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Unit are as follows:
 To understand the phenomenon of morality;
 To define natural moral law and understand its nature, i.e. its universality
and particularity; change of natural law, the relation of moral law to particular
laws; its relation to human dignity; to the concept of intrinsic evil, and
 To understand and respond to the criticism of (Natural) Moral law.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of moral law is as widespread as humankind itself. So also is its
critique. We can take the concept of Rta. (found in Rgveda)
. of Indian Philosophy
as an example of natural moral law. The task here is to reflect on natural moral
law. The phrase ‘moral law’ is most commonaly ascribed to, and usually used in
the context of, Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy. Our Ethics course has a
separate unit on Kant’s moral philosophy, so in this present unit our focus will be
on natural moral law. In this unit the phrase ‘moral law’ should be taken to signify
what is understood by ‘natural moral law’ unless specified otherwise. Firstly, we
will undertake a brief description of the concept of natural moral law. Then some
of the basic criticisms of natural moral law will be enumerated. Finally we will
try to address some of these criticisms.
In the light of natural reason humans distinguish between good and bad. According
to theoretical reason, wonder over the very existence of things is the beginning

*
Dr. Kuriyan Joseph, St Antony’s College, Bangalore.
45
Basic Concepts of all knowledge. The “prescribing character” or the “ought” character of the
good is the primordial ethical phenomenon and ethics begins from that primordial
phenomenon, and practical reason has also its origin here. The difference between
good and bad is in the nature of the good. The good urges the human subject
towards that which ought to be, and the bad pulls in the opposite direction. The
good makes a claim on the human, and the one who has understood this has
understood the contradiction between good and bad.
Ratio boni (the reason of the good or the call of good) is that all humans desire
the good. All desire the good precisely because the good manifests itself as
desirable. Whoever understands the ratio boni also understands the ‘ought’
character of the good. He or she also understands simultaneously the highest
norm of morality, namely good is to be done and evil to be avoided. The supreme
norm of (natural) moral law: do good and avoid evil, is born from or based on the
ought character of the good.
Good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. The power of the good to lead to the
good manifests itself in the judgement of practical reason urging humans to realize
the good. The validity (Gültigkeit) of all the norms of practical reason rests on
the primordial insight (Ureinsicht) into the meaning (Sinn) of the good. This is
open to all humans. That is to say, the light of the good is available to all humans.

4.2 DEFINING (NATURAL) MORAL LAW

The supreme principle of ethics or morality is: good is to be done and evil to be
avoided. And that one principle is grounded in the ought character of the good.
It is from this one principle that practical reason draws all its other individual
norms. All the individual laws of moral law, to the extent they refer to the one
supreme principle of moral law (do good and avoid evil), participate in the
reasonability of the supreme principle.
The presuppositions of any moral philosophy are a) the capacity of practical
reason to perceive truth and, b) a substratum (rudimentary basis) of human nature
that remains the same through all historical changes. A genuine ethical theory
must believe in the universal validity of its principles.
Natural moral law presupposes that there is a common human nature which is
constant. It is from that human nature that ethical principles are drawn. Thus the
objective foundation of natural moral law is the nature of human beings. Moral
law exists before practical reason, i.e. practical reason discovers it because natural
moral law is grounded in the basic structure of being human. Moral law, unlike
emotivism, (i.e., the theory that morality is a question of emotion), is based on
the nature of being human.
Natural Moral law, or the phrase “by nature”, expresses the minimum
presuppositions for being an ethical subject, that is, freedom and reason. Without
these, one cannot be an ethical subject. Natural law understood as the minimum
pre-suppositions for being human is same for all, in every culture and age. These
minimum conditions are protected by the negative commands of natural law.
Natural Moral law as an ethical theory proposes principles that are valid for all
people because it contains minimum indications for being human and it defends
the most basic sector (unhintergehbarer Raum) of a human being. The minimum
46
of natural law that is common to all humans is applicable everywhere and is Moral Law
independent of revelation or divine intervention. It is available to any human as
human.
Natural Moral law as a moral philosophy is against relativism and believes in the
truthfulness and universal validity of moral norms. One needs natural law to be
able to criticize the ideologies of one’s society. In the absence of natural law one
will be forced to give equal value to both cannibalism and a democratically ordered
society. Natural law must be the basis for individual moral laws and civil law,
and it should be independent of any religious foundation. It should be accessible
to any human as human.
Thomistic natural moral law is a combination of natural reason and the natural
inclinations of human towards a fulfilled life (gelungenes Leben). Natural law
and human life goals are given in the very nature of humans. There are goals in
human life and the inclinations lead one to them. The goals are recognized as
good by practical reason naturally, i.e. without any other aid.
The inclinations point to the goals that lead to fulfillment in life. Knowledge of
good and evil follows the order of the inclinations. There are principally three
types of inclinations: The first level inclinations are those inclinations in common
with all substances. These concern self-preservation. The second level inclinations
are inclinations in common with all living beings. These concern social living,
procreation and education of the young. Third level inclinations are inclinations
that are specific to humans. They concern striving for knowledge which include
knowledge about God, and desiring to live in fellowship with others. The desire
to live in fellowship calls for avoidance of ignorance. The same includes the
inclination not to hurt one’s fellow-beings.
The inclinations in humans correspond to the dictates of practical reason. But
what is the precise relationship between the two? Interpreters of Thomas, the
medieval philosopher, have proposed three types of relationship between the
inclinations and practical reason. The inclinations are just a frame-work. Practical
reason is decisive. There is a relationship of practical reason informing the
inclinations. And finally there is the position that the inclinations give detailed
goals of life and practical reason just approves them. Eberhard Schockenhoff, a
German ethicist, is of the view that practical reason cannot be seen as just a
ratifying agent. Nor can it be that the inclinations are an unlimited amount of raw
material to be given form by practical reason. According to Schockenhoff, the
supreme law of practical reason diversifies into individual ethical norms and
together with the inclinations they form a unity informed by reason. Reason is
like a music conductor who fine-tunes the inclinations. Or again, reason is like
an author who transforms the rough draft of a book (inclinations) into a coherently
written book. Reason informs the inclinations and they become norms of the
actions of men.
Natural inclinations show the fulfillment image (Vollendugsgestalt) of being human
only in an outline. Reason has to devise the means towards that goal, i.e. evolve
norms for the conduct of humans to realize the goal. Humans must, in the light of
reason, choose concrete actions to realize the life goals. To view the inclinations as
giving in detail the norms of behaviour is to go against the reservation Thomas
himself had about them. It is to read into Thomas what later Scholastics (philosophers
between 9th and 14th centuries) said after two to three centuries.
47
Basic Concepts Only those inclinations that are according to reason belong to natural moral law.
The one supreme principle of natural moral law, namely, do good and avoid evil,
splits into many individual norms so as to lead the inclinations to the fulfillment
of human life.

4.3 REASON AND MORALITY

Humans obey a law because it is reasonable. Every law must have reason in it.
The vis obligandi (the obligating or compelling power) of a law (Gesetz) does
not come from outside itself but from the internal obligating character of reason
itself. According to Thomas Aquinas the regula et mensura (rule and measure)
of human acts is reason. The only criterion of morality is whether a human act is
according to reason or not, i.e. if reason sanctions it or not.
The origin and validity of moral values come from practical reason. This is because
it is reason that makes a law that which it is. Without reason there is no law.
Reason and its law of non- contradiction finally decide about the content of any
moral system. An immoral act is one that contradicts reason. It militates against
reason. And it cannot be that a moral value is an importance in one place and a
non-importance or its contradiction in another place.
There are two aspects in the faculty of reason in humans, namely, theoretical
reason and practical reason. One is not subordinate to the other. They are not two
faculties in humans but a single capacity of the self that is directed towards different
objects; theoretical reason is directed towards truth in itself for its own sake,
whereas practical reason is directed towards truth in so far as it has to be realized
and acted upon.
The fact that both are faculties of the same soul does not rob them of their
distinctiveness. These two have their own specific goals (Ziele). They are not
subordinate to each other but they complement each other. The distinctiveness of
both is shown in the fact that each has its own non-demonstrable first principles
(unbeweisbare Prinzipien). They deduce from their own sources.
Theoretical and practical reason are complementary in the sense that the objects
of their orientation can fall either in the field of theoretical reason or practical
reason. The object of theoretical reason is the truth in itself. The object of practical
reason is the good. The object of theoretical reason is truth in so far as it is
worthwhile longing for. The object of practical reason is the good that has been
discovered under the aspect of truth or as truth.
The first principles of theoretical reason are not probable. They are self-evident
and they are understood by intuition. So also are the first principles of practical
reason. Practical reason possesses its own naturally known and non-provable
principles. They are not deduced or borrowed from theoretical reason. The first
principles of practical reason are the first principles of natural law. They cannot
be proved. They are intuitively known.
It belongs to practical reason to seek for the good in the light of its highest principle
(do good and avoid evil). But it does not end there. It seeks further the ways or
means to realize the good. Both functions belong to practical reason. Practical
reason reaches the fullness of its activity to the extent it commands the recognized
good to be realized. This is also called the law character of practical reason, i.e.
48
practical reason commands the recognized good to be executed. That is the Moral Law
difference of the universal propositions of practical reason from those of theoretical
reason.
The judgments of practical reason do not have the same degree of certainty as
those of theoretical reason because the judgments of practical reason deal with
contingent events. That does not mean that they are not valid.

4.4 UNIVERSALITY AND (NATURAL) MORAL LAW

One can think about and practice a universal ethic only if one presupposes the
universal validity and reach of reason in all men. There is a human nature that
does not change. So too, there is an unchanging moral law.
Only the top-most principles (oberste Prinzipien) of practical reason and their
conclusions are universally valid. The supreme principles of practical reason are
valid for all because they are grounded in the very reasonability (Vernunftfähigkeit)
of human beings. Secondary natural moral laws are those laws that flow from the
first three: do good and avoid evil, the golden rule (do unto others what you
would like them to do to you) and love of neighbour. The negative laws of the
Decalogue (the Ten Commandments as contained in the Bible) also belong to
them. These laws are known to all, but they admit of exceptions. The findings of
theoretical reason and their conclusions are valid for all (like the angles of an
equilateral triangle are equal). That is not the case with practical reason. Except
for the first or supreme principles, the findings of practical reason are contingent,
i.e. they are not necessarily valid for all.
Once reason discovers a truth, it is valid for all. “It corresponds completely to the
structure of historical perception of truth that such crossing of boundaries occurs
in a particular time and place. Once such a discovery or crossing has taken place
in the thought of the human spirit, it belongs to the permanent possession of
mankind and is valid everywhere” (Schokenhoff, Naturrecht, p. 139). Truth once
discovered is truth for all and it is independent of historical particularities. It is
not dependent on being historically recognized. It transcends historical times
and epochs. According to Max Scheler, as soon as a value is discovered, its
validity is for all people of all time. It is so because an essential aspect of reality
has been discovered. E. Troeltsch, another German philosopher, is of the same
view.
Not all the commands of practical reason possess the trait (Bewandnis) of a law.
Only the universal propositions/commands possess that. It is the aim of Summa
Theologica I-II, Quesstion 94, articles 4 and 5 of Thomas Aquinas to show that
the universal natural law branches (auffächert) into individual concrete norms.
It is practical reason that discovers the universal natural laws. It is again practical
reason that discovers the non-universal norms applicable to particular situations.
Thus there are grades in the judgements or laws of practical reason.
If it is true that there is a universal concern of reason, then it shows itself at the
international level as the international human rights issues. Natural moral law
expresses the dignity of the human person. Moral law lays the foundation for
rights and duties. To that extent moral law is universal and its authority is over all
humans. The idea that there is a right which belongs to all human beings is the
49
Basic Concepts possession of mankind itself. That it has not been respected at all times does not
invalidate it.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What is natural moral Law?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. Why is natural moral law universally valid?

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

4.5 NATURAL MORAL LAW AND CHANGE

The different grades of certainty of the norms of practical reason and the
diminishing certainty of individual concrete norms in different situations lead us
to believe that moral law is an outline, formed by the supreme principles, within
which reason has to find individual norms. Moral law is not a closed system with
fixed norms. Only those norms that carry the tag “according to nature” are
unchangeable. What concrete actions are to be classified as murder, theft and
adultery will differ according to both divine and human norms/considerations.
Ethics transcends history. However, its individual norms need not be valid for
every situation. The changeability and non-universality of the norms of practical
reason are not due to the inborn incapacity of some humans to perceive moral
norms nor is it due culpable ignorance. It is due to the contingency and diversity
of situations. Besides, human nature changes in a certain sense. There are many
laws of nature to which both human laws are added so as to make the true meaning
of the laws correspond to the changed situation. For example, the law of not
hating one’s neighbour was added to the prohibition of murder. Practical reason
knows the universal laws and draws out concrete norms for the realization of the
universal in the particular situation. That these concrete norms vary from place
to place and do not possess the same degree of certainty of the universal norms is
not a weakness or deficiency of moral law. It is, rather, due to the fact that reason
is a finite reality, and concrete situations do not offer a greater degree of certainty.
Reason finds particular norms for particular situations. The experience of wise
and sensitive individuals plays a crucial role here. There are exceptions to the
50 universal laws in particular situations. For example, it is universally accepted
that borrowed things or goods given for safe-keeping must be returned. But one Moral Law
would not easily return the weapon of a man who is drunk and is intent on killing
someone.
According to Eberhard Schockenhoff, a German ethicist, a list of laws that will
not accommodate to changing situations is an unreasonable thing (Unding). It is
impossible to write a catalogue of human rights that is valid for all time because
it is impossible to get a view of the total. Moral law is not a finished catalogue of
rights. It is rather the power of reason which discovers universal principles. These
principles will take different forms in different cultures.
Moral law is opposed to historicism which believes that the human is an evolving
creature and what s/he is will only be revealed by history. Historicism does not
believe in the existence of an unchanging human nature. One has to counter
historicism and say that there is a common metaphysical human nature and it is
visible only in historical forms. That nature remains essentially same all through
history. The moral norm which humans discover also takes place in a historical
situation. But that fact does not contradict the existence of a common nature nor
universal moral laws.
History is an essential dimension of humans and human nature. Because of that,
that which is permanent in human nature can only be observed in historical
manifestations. Humans live in history. One does not become human on account
of history. One makes history on account of one’s nature, on account of one’s
body-soul structure.
Nature and history are not opposed to each other. Humans are historical beings,
i.e. one realizes oneself in history as a finite being. Human reason is also a
historical reality in the sense that it realizes itself in a historical context. It does
not live in the realm of the pure spirit. History is essential to humans and their
nature. Thus natural rights, i.e. the idea of a moral criterion of good and evil that
transcends all times and ages, must manifest itself in history. However, the
dependence of reason on historical situations does not nullify its capacity to
discover truth nor does it mean that a truth discovered in a historical context is
valid only for that period.
Reason holds on to what has been achieved as experience (Erfahrung) in history.
The same reason holds humans open to the new of every situation. With reason
humans live in history. The same reason enables them to transcend history.
The flood of historical events and changes can make natural law appear as relative.
It is true that an ethical insight is valid for all time. But its historical realization is
often linked to compromises in concrete situations.

4.6 NATURAL MORAL LAW AND HUMAN DIGNITY

There is a core sector/aspect (unhintergehbarer Schutzraum) in a human being.
That centre is the person, the source of morality, and it is the aim of morality to
protect that sector. The minimum requirements of moral law are the minimum
requirements of human right and human dignity. That is to say that there is a
basic requirement for being moral. So too there is a basic requirement for
demanding and accepting human dignity and right. Human dignity and the rights
that flow form it are universal and it can be demanded from any person or 51
Basic Concepts government. Respect for human dignity is not just respect for the spiritual powers
and convictions of human. It is a respect for the totality of human, body and soul.
Humans live their lives not as angels but as embodied beings in this world.
In moral law, right and morality are closely related. Rights are the moral claims
an individual makes on another human being or human beings. To the extent that
natural law thinking sees rights arising from the supreme principles of practical
reason and since morality itself is grounded in practical reason, rights are closely
related to morality. Human rights and ethics belong together. They protect the
elementary goals and values of life. Human rights are, like values, a historical
manifestation of the principles of practical reason.
Human rights are the minimum conditions, in every age, under which a human
being can be seen as an ethical subject and can be held responsible for his or her
deeds. Natural human rights represent the minimum of being ethical.
Natural human right is the knowledge of a moral law that is independent of
human domination or despotism. International human rights are built on the basis
of natural rights. Natural rights point beyond themselves. They point to the wealth
of religions and the way they propose to fulfill human life.
The state upholds the rule of law (Rechtsordnung). Rule of law aims at the
realization of a life worthy of a human being. It guarantees the minimum space
human beings need to realize themselves as ethical beings. Rule of law recognizes
the inalienable rights of the person and his or her duty in the community.
Human rights presuppose freedom and are grounded in reason. Precisely because
of that a change in the concept of rights or the discovery of new rights is possible.
According to new insights and new situations, rights (civil rights) can change.
Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. According to Ernst Wolfgang
Böckenförde, a German ethicist, natural law and rights is a way of thinking of
the practical reason. In the light of the fundamental goals of human life, it
legitimizes the existing human rights. It also criticizes them and paves the way
for progress in human rights.

4.7 NATURAL MORAL LAW AND CONCEPT OF

INTRINSIC EVIL
If there is something intrinsically valuable, then it stands to reason to believe that
there is also something intrinsically evil, because to attack the intrinsically good
will be to create an intrinsically evil deed. It is inevitable to use the term “intrinsic
evil” when it concerns the mutual respect a human has to show to the ethical
subject.
The idea of intrinsic evil is not a special teaching of the Christian Church. It is
the common property of a moral tradition starting with Aristotle and continuing
in the teachings of Augustine, Thomas, Kant and all the non-utilitarians, i.e.
deontological ethicists of today.
One should never do an intrinsically evil act. An intrinsically evil act is one that
attacks or violates the absolute right, i.e. inalienable right of another person. An
intrinsically evil act attacks the minimum conditions necessary for being human.
This minimum condition is the possibility for free self-determination as an ethical
52
subject. An intrinsically evil act attacks the personal centre. Ready examples are Moral Law
rape and torture.
The negative commands of moral law prohibit intrinsically evil acts. Just as the
concept of human dignity may not be able to enumerate all the laws needed to
protect human dignity, so too the concept of intrinsic evil may not be able to
produce an exhaustive list of intrinsically evil acts. The concept of intrinsic evil
will remind humans of something which they should never do, without
enumerating in detail what should be avoided as intrinsic evil in every age/
epoch.
Rape, murder, torture and infidelity to one’s word (breach of promise) are some
of the intrinsic evil acts. The evil of rape consists in the fact that it violates the
dignity of a human being. That dignity is rooted in freedom and reason. Rape is
never in harmony with the respect that is due to a human being.
The innocent has an inalienable right, not to be offered as a means for the greater
good of the community. It is the dignity of the other and the “in itself” value of
the other (Selbstzwecklichkeit) that are the ontological grounds for loving humans
as our neighbours for their own sake. Torture of the innocent is one of the intrinsic
evils that cannot be done for any other good. Its evil consists in the fact that it
violates the absolute right of the individual to determine himself/herself
(Selbstbestimmung). Torture militates against the dignity of the innocent.
The prohibition of killing the innocent is valid in normal situations, and not in
borderline cases and fictitious circumstances. There may be exceptions to the
prohibition. For example, the killing of one’s wounded fellow soldier so as to
prevent him from falling into enemy hands which would mean torture and death.
So also the killing of a man who cannot be extricated from a burning car after an
accident. But even these killings are against the dictum: thou shall not kill. The
body is the manifestation of a person. The prohibition to kill refers to the bodily
existence of the human being. Humans are called to be reasonable beings. But
they cannot exist reasonably without a body. Thus the command not to kill is a
call to respect the dignity of the human as a bodily existing being.
In this context Schockenhoff refers to both teleologism and deontologism. For
one, remaining faithful to teleologism, it is not possible to defend the concept of
intrinsic evil. Teleologists may respect the command not to kill the innocent. But
that is not out of the conviction that there are intrinsically evil acts, but because
they feel that respecting the command not to kill the innocent will bring more
benefit to society in the long run. Both teleologism and deontologism are
complementary. While deciding about goods other than human beings, teleologism
is in order. But while deciding about human beings, their dignity, etc.,
deontologism is absolutely necessary.

4.8 CRITICISM OF NATURAL MORAL LAW

In the light of the supreme moral principle, - good is to be done and evil to be
avoided - practical reason orders the inclinations. The ordering function of practical
reason depends on the order of the inclinations in setting up the ordo
praeceptorum. The inclinations are pre-moral. Practical reason orders them to
the fulfillment goal of man. The inclinations receive their moral quality through
reason to the extent that reason invests in them the criterion of good and bad.
53
Basic Concepts That there are certain basic drives in humans is undeniable. Modern humans, with
an improved knowledge over descriptive or positive sciences, are in a better position
to understand the drives/inclinations than Aquinas was in the thirteenth century.
The second criticism of Thomistic natural moral law is that it commits the fallacy
of petitio principii. It reasons as follows: The concept of nature is an empty shell
that is filled with arbitrary (beliebig) contents from sociology or anthropology,
and the content is invested with the dignity of being ethical. Petitio principii is
precisely the fact that, instead of proving the ethical dignity of the content, it is
presupposed that the arbitrarily filled content of the concept of nature is ethical.
But the very existence of different grades of truth in the concept of natural moral
law contradicts this accusation of petitio principii. If the content of the term
nature was filled arbitrarily and then given ethical dignity, then every element of
the content must have the same degree of certainty. That is not the case with
Thomistic natural moral law. It is not true that Aquinas fills the empty shell of the
concept of nature with any content. Rather he enumerates the basic presuppositions
of morality in the concept of nature. They are: The human is a being of reason
and is responsible for his/her being. As rational creatures, humans ought to
recognize the “good and true” for the very being of humankind, and that very
recognition brings them to their integral fulfillment. The human’s inclinations
have an orientation towards the good and the true, and reason recognizes the
good and the true and approves them. Finally, humans realize themselves as a
body-soul reality necessarily in relation with other human beings and in harmony
with the orientation of their soul towards the good and the true. These
presuppositions are not just arbitrary principles (Festlegungen) from which
arbitrary norms are drawn. Rather these are the very conditions that make morality
possible at all.
The third criticism is that Thomas Aquinas has an unhistorical/unchanging
understanding of human nature. The answer to this is that Thomas Aquinas does
concede change in human nature. That is evident in the two levels of practical
reason. The second level does admit of change of norms in different situations
and a change in human nature in the sense of living human life differently in
different epochs/ages. When Aquinas speaks of a change in human nature he
does not mean that man becomes something other than human.
Human nature changes but an unchanging element is presupposed in every age
and culture. This is evident from the concept of human dignity which is valid for
all generations. Human dignity does not increase or decrease with the passage of
time. That humans have certain rights on account of their dignity will also remain
stable. What will change is only the way the rights are realized. For example,
women had no voting rights in certain epochs.
Human nature manifests itself in different ways in different cultures. The cave
human’s being human is different from the urban human’s being human. But
they both remain humans. Human nature has to manifest itself in a particular
culture, but no culture exhausts it. It transcends all historical manifestations.

4.9 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have discussed natural moral law and its universality. We have
54 seen how there is an essential relationship between moral values and reason. The
good manifests itself to reason. Or, it is only in the light of reason that the good Moral Law
becomes visible. The vis obligandi of any law is that it is reasonable, and the
essence of moral evil is that it is against the order of reason.
We have seen that natural moral law is the law discovered by reason in humans.
Moral law is inherent in the nature of humans, the core of which does not
change. The basis of every good positive law is natural moral law. We have
also seen that one cannot understand the concept of intrinsic evil without
natural moral law. The discovery of the good leads to the discovery of the
evil in itself.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Does natural moral law change?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. What is intrinsic evil?

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

4.10 KEY WORDS

Law : Law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions.
Nature : The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, meaning “birth.”
Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis, which originally related
to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world
develop of their own accord.

4.11 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Curran, Charles and McCormick, Richard A., eds. Readings in Moral Theology.
No. 7. New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1991.
Fuchs, Joseph. Natural Law. Tr. Helmut Recter and John A. Dowling. Dublin,
Gill and Son, 1965.
Podimattam, Felix. Relativity of Natural Law in the Renewal of Moral Theology.
Bombay: Examiner Press, 1970. 55
Basic Concepts Schockenhoff, Eberhard. Natural Law and Human Dignity : Universal Ethics in
an Historical World. Tr. Brian McNail. Washington DC: The Catholic University
of America Press, 2003.
Schockenhoff, Eberhard. Naturrecht und Menschenwürde: Universale Ethik in
einer geschichtlichen Welt. Mainz: Matthias-Gruenewald-Verlag, 1996.

4.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I
1. It is the natural moral law discovered by reason in the rational nature of man.
2. Natural moral law is universally valid because it is based on a human nature
that is universally the same.
Answers to Check Your Progress II
1. The natural moral law does not change. Its application to individual situations
changes.
2. An intrinsically evil act is one that attacks the absolute right of another human
being, no matter what the social benefit of that act is. Just as reason perceives
the most basic natural law, so too it perceives certain acts as intrinsically
evil.

56
 Moral Law
UNIT 5 MORAL RELATIVISM*
Structure

5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Definition
5.3 Different types of Moral relativism
5.4 Philosophical Views
5.5 Let Us Sum Up
5.6 Key Words
5.7 Further Readings and References
5.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

5.0 OBJECTIVES
There is no single method to understand the concept of morality. Moreover, many
a times there are varied confusions regarding morality because many philosophers
consider morality to be illusion. There are many moral positions out of which
moral relativism is one of the most popular one. It provides that we be bound at
least by practices and codes of our culture, preferences, age group, and so forth.
This unit presents,
 the philosophical meaning of the doctrine of moral relativism,
 views of various kind of moral relativism

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Philosophers have divided ethical theories into three general subject areas-
Normative ethics, Meta ethics, and applied ethics. Normative ethics is also called
prescriptive ethics as it studies the moral problems and seeks to discover how
one ought to act. It does not investigate the facts of one’s actions. More specifically,
this discipline is concerned with judgments in setting up norms for when an act
is right or wrong. It takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral
standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This might involve articulating
the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow. For
example, honesty should be inculcated and dishonesty be discouraged. Applied
ethics involves examining specific controversial issues such as abortion,
infanticide, animal rights etc. Metaethics is also called analytical ethics. This
disciple is concerned with elucidating the meaning of ethical terms. It asks ‘what
is’ e.g. goodness, excellence, right, amoral and so on. It investigates where our
ethical principles come from and what they mean. Are they human constructions
or do they involve human emotions?

*
Ms. Lizashree Hazarika, Doctoral Research Scholar, Centre for Philosophy, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, Delhi. 57
Basic Concepts Two questions that are prominent in Meta-ethics are- (1) Whether morality exists
independent of humans or it depends on humans, and (2) What is the underlying
mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct. Meta ethics is the most abstract
area of moral philosophy as it does not ask what acts, or what kind of acts are
good or bad, right or wrong; rather it asks about the nature of goodness and
badness, what it is to be morally right or wrong. Meta-ethical positions may be
divided according to how they respond to such questions. The biggest controversy
in meta-ethics is the division between moral realists and moral anti-realists. Moral
realists hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world
independent of any human attitudes. Things are good or bad independent of us,
and we come along and discover morality. Proponents of moral realism are called
as realists or objectivists. Moral realism believes that objective values or moral
facts are parts or the fabric of the universe. Moral anti-realists hold that moral
facts are not out there in the world until we put them there, that the facts about
morality are determined by us. In this view, morality is not something that we
discover but something that we invent. For anti-realists, there is no moral truth
when it comes to moral judgments and that anything goes when it comes to
morality. Moral anti-realism can involve either a denial that moral properties
exist at all or the acceptance that they do exist but that their existence is mind
dependent. There are several different forms depending on whether ethical
statements are believed to be subjective claims (Ethical subjectivism), not genuine
claims at all (non-cognitivism) or mistaken objective claims (moral
nihilism).Ethical subjectivism should not be confused with moral relativism.
Ethical relativism is broader than ethical subjectivism. Ethical subjectivism holds
that moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes or conventions of the
observers or that any ethical sentence implies an attitude held by someone. Ethical
relativism is the view that for a thing to be morally right is to be approved by the
society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right for people in
different societies and periods in history.

5.2 DEFINITION
Ethical relativism or Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison
to moral absolutism or moral objectivism. Absolutism claims that morality relies
on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Moral absolutism is the ethical
belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be
judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of
the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs
and goals of the individual, society, or culture that engages in the actions. For
example- Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our
common morality, and that it is therefore as unchanging as He is. ‘Honesty is the
best policy’ is true or correct independent of any human’s acceptance or rejection.
Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard.
Rather ethical truths depend on variables such as situation, culture, one’s feelings,
etc. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of
the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one
society but be morally wrong in another. For example, an extra marital affair is
condemnable to some societies while it is acceptable to others. For the ethical
relativists, there are no universal moral standards- standards that can be universally
applied to all people at all times. The only moral standards against which a society’s
58 practices can be judged are its own. There is no common framework in order to
resolve moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among Moral Relativism
members of different societies. For moral relativists there is no one right answer
to any ethical question. Moral relativism is a view that rejects the notion that
there is one, universally valid morality, which can be discovered by valid moral
reasoning.
Moral relativists endorse that-(1) Moral judgment is true or false and actions are
right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint. (2) No standpoint can
be proved objectively superior to other .All attempts to define morality in terms
of some common claim fails, for they all rest on premises that belong to the
standpoint being defended and need not be accepted by people who do not share
that point of view. One moral outlook cannot be conclusively proved superior to
another does not mean however that it cannot be judged superior. Moral relativism
rejects that moral values are naturalistic or non-naturalistic- are real or objective
in the sense of being independent from human belief or culture. Such a position
instead insists on the fundamentally anthropocentric nature of morality. According
to this view, moral values are not out there in the world at all but are created by
human perspectives and needs. These needs and perspectives can vary from person
to person or from culture to culture. It is difficult to imagine human beings without
the practice of evaluation and moral appraisal. What exactly does a moral relativist
claim? For illustration let us consider an example. Runa opens a letter addressed
to her teenage daughter Udeshna, written by Udeshna’s American boyfriend Smith.
Runa thinks she has a right to know about her daughter’s love life, while Smith
thinks this violates Udeshna’s privacy. Runa’s view is supported by her culture
and values, while Smith’s view is supported by his own culture and values. A
moral relativist might say that the judgment that Runa ought not open the letter is
correct relative to Smith’s system of values, and that at the same time, the same
judgment is not correct relative to Runa’s system of values. We always assess an
action or human behavior as right or wrong.
Yet, in spite of seeming significance, there are some people who are skeptical
about morality- about whether such a thinking as a truly universal moral system
and whether moral claims are true or just a matter of opinions. Some argue that
what is morally good is a matter of taste or a matter of convention. This view can
be traced back to historian Herodotus who noted that there is an enormous cultural
diversity on moral issues- in some countries cannibalism is permissible and in
others, it is immoral. Similarly, eating beef is acceptable to some while for others it
is immoral. Moral relativists do not deny that moral claims are true or false- only
that truth-value is relative. Relativism maintains that there are no universal moral
truths at all, where universalism is understood as true or false across all cultures.
The moral relativist claims not only that the correctness of moral judgments can in
this way depend on a thinker, or on the value system relevant to the thinker, but
also there is no privileged correct value system. Thus a relativist’s core claims are
(1) moral judgements are relative, (2) There is no unique authority by which the
correctness of all moral judgments must be assessed. The fact on which the
correctness of moral judgments is claimed to depend may vary. Some types of
relativists may claim that it depends on certain psychological characteristics of the
judge. Others claim that it depends on sociological facts about the judge.
Many ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while moral
practices of societies may differ, but the fundamental moral principles underlying
these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one’s parents after
they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that 59
Basic Concepts people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active
and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we
would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle- the duty to
care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental
moral principles but agree on principles. Also, it is argued that some moral beliefs
are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs
regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices,
such as slavery, torture, or political repression is governed by universal moral
standards and is judged wrong despite many other differences.
For Relativists, the truth of the moral claim depends completely on the beliefs
that are common to the culture in which the judgment is made. Readers might
confuse moral relativism with moral subjectivism. There lies a thin difference
between both these terms. Ethical subjectivism is not ethical relativism because
ethical subjectivism believes that individuals create their own morality i.e.
existence of morality can be dictated by individual experiences as there can be
no objective truth. People’s beliefs about actions being right or wrong, good or
bad, depend on how people feel about actions rather than on reason or system
ethical analysis. The truth and falsity of moral utterances depends on the attitudes
of people. A moral subjectivist would argue that the statement “ Rohit was evil”
expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things Rohit did, but it does not follow
that it is true or false that Rohit was in fact evil. Both the terms are compatible in
the sense that truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What is moral relativism?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. How is moral relativism different from moral absolutism?

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

3. Is moral relativism same as moral subjectivism?

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
60
 Moral Relativism
5.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MORAL RELATIVISM
The denial of universalism is a popular view because of the fact that some think
that in order to be tolerant of others, we need to reject universalism with respect
to truth in morality and instead ascribe to relativism. Different people arrive at
different understandings and there are no basic moral demands that apply to
everyone. When one explores the history of humankind, one cannot but be struck
by a profound lack of consensus on many questions. Different societies and
cultures and different people within the same society or culture appear to have
dramatically different moral beliefs and practices. For instance, the moralities of
some societies pronounce that abortion is unacceptable. The moral codes of other
societies permit abortion. In light of such deep differences in moral beliefs and
practices it is obvious to many that there are no universal, generally applicable
moral principles, rules, and values, valid for all places and issues. Morality has
no objective, rational basis, that there are no objective moral truths upon which
all reasonable people could be expected to agree were they fully aware of all the
relevant facts and information.When it comes to morality many say that
“everything is relative.”
Moral relativism can be understood in several ways-
(1) Descriptive Relativism- Descriptive relativism is also known as cultural
relativism. It states that beliefs or standards about moral issues are relative
to different individuals and different societies i.e. different individuals and
different societies accept different moral beliefs and thus disagree about the
answers to moral questions. For example, some societies condemn abortion;
others accept it. In some cultures, women are not allowed to enter the kitchen
in her menstruating days.
Descriptive relativism denies that there are any moral universal claims that
every human culture endorses. Richard Brandt has used the term descriptive
relativism to refer to the view that there are fundamental disagreements about
the moral beliefs or moral standards of different individuals or different
societies. It is simply a claim about how things are, it is not a normative or
evaluative judgment of any sort; the act of polygamy is morally permissible
in one culture and forbidden in another.
(2) Moral requirement relativism or normative relativism- This states that
different basic moral requirements apply to different moral agents, or groups
of agents owing to different intentions, desires or beliefs among such agents
or groups. Normative relativism states that moral requirements binding on a
person depend on or are relative to her intentions, desires, or beliefs.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each
other’s differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral
principles. For example, just because bribery is accepted in some cultures
does not mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it. Since nobody
is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others. Normative
relativism is the view that it is wrong to judge or interfere with the moral
beliefs and practices of cultures that operate with a different moral framework
to one’s own so that what goes on in a society can only be judged by the
norms of that society. Two common forms are-
(a) Individual moral requirement relativism states that an action is morally 61
Basic Concepts obligatory for a person if and only if that action is prescribed as part of
the basic moral principles accepted by an individual.
(b) Social moral requirement relativism states that an action is morally
obligatory for a person if and only if that action is prescribed as part of
the basic moral principles accepted by that person’s society. This is the
most popular form of moral relativism.
(3) Metaethical relativism- It states that moral judgments are not objectively
true or false and thus that different individuals or societies can hold
conflicting moral judgments. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to think
and act as though our own moral views or those of our society or culture
are obviously correct. It holds that moral judgments are not true or false
in any absolute sense but only relative to particular standpoints. Saying
that the truth of moral claims is relative to some standpoint should not
be confused with the idea that it is relative to the situation in which it is
made. It states that there are no moral objective grounds for preferring
the moral values of one culture to another. Societies make their moral
choices based on the unique beliefs, customs, and practices. Moreover,
people tend to believe that ‘right’ moral values are values that exist in
their own culture. They do not only believe that people disagree about
moral issues but that the terms such as good, bad, right and wrong do not
stand subject to universal truth conditions at all. Rather they are relative
to traditions, practices of individuals or of groups. Most forms of meta-
ethical relativism envision moral values as constructed for different, and
sometimes-incommensurable human purposes such as social coordination
and so forth. This view is called Moral constructivism and is explicitly
endorsed by Gilbert Harman. Another view of moral relativism states
that moral values are constructed by divine commands- idealized by
human rationality or social contract between competing interests. This
is called Divine-command Theory.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What are the different types of moral relativism?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................

2. What is the nature of meta-ethical relativism?

....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
62
 Moral Relativism
5.4 PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS
In philosophical discussions, the term ‘moral relativism’ is primarily used to
denote the meta ethical thesis that the correctness of moral judgments is relative
to some factor, i.e. relative to an individual’s or group’s moral norms. Strictly
speaking, there is more than one way of understanding this doctrine. It
encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held
over several years ago. The ancient Jaina Philosophy gives the theory of
Anekantavada. According to this theory means that reality is not absolute in
nature and there are many sides to it. There is no single point of view, which
portrays the complete truth or reality. The same principle was articulated by
the Greek sophist Protagoras (c 481-420 B.C). This principle enjoyed a revival
following the anthropological discoveries of the late 19 th century. Protagoras
asserted famously that Man is the measure of all things. It arose from the
observation that other societies survived perfectly well, in spite of having
different moral codes from those the observers were brought up in. The Greek
historian Herodotus (c 484-420 B.C) observed that each society regards its
own belief system and way of doing things better than all others do. Various
philosophers questioned the idea of an objective standard of morality. This in
turn led to doubt that there was only one correct set of values. Its guiding
thought is that there is more than just one true morality. There is no one system
of morality- say Christian or Islamic- which is binding at all times in all places.
Different cultures, at different times and places, have different ways of life and
moral practices. It is possible that all such practices are correct. A moral system
is not true absolutely, but true for a particular culture, or a particular individual.
Is moral relativism true? To answer this question, we had better be clear what
sorts of truths are meant to be relative and what sorts are not. For many people
inclined towards moral relativism end up saying that all truth is relative-not
just moral truth. According to them, there is no such thing as a detached,
objective perspective on truth: all judgment is made from within a particular
standpoint. It is inevitable that this growing uncertainty led to increased tolerance
and acceptance of other ways of life. The truth of relativism entails that we
should not morally judge others. The idea was that moral beliefs and practices
are bound up with customs and conventions, and these vary greatly between
societies. Even though moral relativism made its first appearance in ancient
times, it hardly flourished. Many scholars see its reappearance in the writings
of Montaigne. In the centuries following, further trends in modern philosophy
helped prepare the way for moral relativism. In the 17 th century, Hobbes argued
for a social contract view of morality that sees moral rules like laws, as
something humans agree upon in order to make social living possible. According
to Hobbes moral tenets are not right or wrong according to whether they
correspond to some transcendent ideas, rather they should be appraised
pragmatically according to how well they serve their purpose. In the early
modern era, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1673) notably held that nothing is inherently
good or bad. For he sees that the attribution of qualities like goodness or
perfection are errors that are based upon the false belief that nature is designed
by God with humanity in mind. This family of concepts, which includes moral
and aesthetic concepts along with concepts of sensible qualities, holds to be
produced by the imagination rather than reason. David Hume (1711-1776) in
several important respects serves as the father of emotivism and moral
relativism. He argues that prescriptions saying how we should act cannot be 63
Basic Concepts logically derived from factual claims about the way beings are. He raised doubts
about the possibility of proving the correctness of any particular moral point of
view. For him, morality is based ultimately on feelings rather than on reason.
However, he does not espouse relativism but distinguishes between matters of
fact and matters of value. He suggested that moral judgments consist of matters
of value for they do not deal with verifiable facts obtained from the world; but
only with our sentiments and passions. He famously claimed that morality has
objective standards and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to
preferences and our troubles. Nietzsche (1844-1900) emphasized the need to
analyze our moral values and how much impact they may have on us. The problem,
Nietzsche found, in conventional morality is, that it does not give scope to our
self-creating capacity. Nietzsche called it “will to power”. Therefore, conventional
morality becomes a threat to human freedom or human potentiality to create
something. His famous pronouncement that “God is dead” implies that the idea
of transcendent or objective justification for moral claims is no longer credible.
According to Nietzsche, one remains strange to oneself while one is following
the imposed rules and regulation. These imposing rules and regulations were
done earlier by religions in the name of a supernatural being (God). Instead of
using our reason, we go with religion by faith. Religion hides our real identity by
imposing rules and regulation and making us follow it. Here we simply accept
and follow what we are told to be “good,” and “bad.” Here our life lacks the self-
reflective and self-creating capacity. According to Nietzsche, “we are not ‘knower’
when it comes to ourselves.” He believed that morality should be constructed
actively, making them relative to who we are and what as an individual we think
about good and bad action, instead of reacting to moral laws made by a certain
group of individuals in power. Edward Westermarck (1862-1939), an
anthropologist ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral
relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one’s
upbringing.
Check Your Progress III
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What are the arguments given by Nietzsche on moral relativism?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

Moral relativism has became an increasingly popular view because of the

following reasons-
(1) The downfall stage of religion- Religion seems to offer the possibility that
morality was independent of us. With a turning away from religion there
seems to have come a certain amount of doubt about the possibility of
objective morality. We have, the moral relativist says, no better place to look
64 than to the individual or his society.
(2) The observing of cultural diversity- Most of us are aware that the world Moral Relativism
contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in
practices very different from our own. Given all these, there can be no single
objective morality because morality varies with cultures. This is the most
commonly cited reason given in favor of ethical relativism and is the
undeniable fact of widespread difference of opinion on important moral
questions. Some societies have considered slavery to be within the natural
order of things while others have condemned it as a moral abomination.
Many individual sees abortion as nothing short of murder, while others
condemn attempts to prevent abortion as unacceptable violations of a woman’s
right to control her own reproductive processes. In light of such vast
differences of opinions it is not reasonable to believe in an objective moral
truth. If such objective standards would not exist, there would be a good deal
of agreement on moral matters than one actually discovers.
The theory of ethical relativism has some serious disadvantages and we can point
out some arguments against moral relativism. One of the most powerful arguments
is regarding the existence of some objective moral truths. Another flaw is that
given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no
objective moral truths. Relativism tells us little or nothing about how actually
people should behave. For much the same reason, the position of the moral
reformer or critic is commonly thought to be incoherent if ethical relativism is
true. Suppose the cultures whose moral practices Rina wishes to criticize are not
someone else’s but her own. Suppose that Rina is the one who lives in a society
whose conventional moral practices clearly incorporate the institution of slavery
and that Rina rejects this terrible view completely. She sincerely believes slavery
to be morally wrong. In fact, she believes it to be an abomination, which must be
eradicated from all civilized societies. Suppose now that Rina makes the following
claim to anyone who will listen: “Slavery is morally wrong.” If moral relativism
is true, then, prima facie her claim is necessarily incorrect or false, as anyone
who cared to do so could easily demonstrate. Since slavery is, as a matter of fact,
morally sanctioned by the conventional standards of her society, it appears to
follow from moral relativism that Rina’s critical claim cannot be right. At best
she can be interpreted as saying — on some ground other than morality — that
slavery should not be moral. Perhaps she could argue, on purely prudential
grounds, that our collective self-interest suggests that we should ban slavery
because it eventually leads to serious social instability. Or perhaps she could
argue, on strictly economic grounds, that slavery is an inefficient system of
production better replaced by a fully open, free-market system in which former
slaves are economically motivated to contribute productively to the economy.
All of these are possible reasons for criticizing the practice of slavery as it is
found within Rina’s society. But none serves as a moral reason. If moral relativism
is true, it would seem that Rina cannot intelligently deny that slavery is, as a
matter of fact, a morally justified practice. Rina seems to be left with no intelligible
space in which to criticize her culture’s practices on moral grounds. Failure to
provide intelligible space for the moral reformer is a serious shortcoming of any
theory of morality.
Moreover, relativism is logically incoherent. Consider the statement: all truth is
relative. If this statement is objectively true, then relativism is false because there
is at least one objective truth- namely, the truth that truth is relative. But if the
statement is only subjectively true, then as we have already seen, this just means 65
Basic Concepts that you believe in relativism. Thus, by claiming that truth is relative you either
contradict yourself or make a trivial claim with nothing to recommend your belief.

Check Your Progress IV

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. What are the two reasons that have popularized the concept of moral
relativism?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

5.5 LET US SUM UP

Moral relativism means that a belief, idea, proposition, claim, etc. is never true
or false, good or bad, right or wrong, absolutely. According to the moral the
relativist, there exist conflicting claims that are both true. In short, ethical
relativism denies that there is any objective truth about right and wrong. Ethical
judgments are not true or false because there is no objective moral truth- x is
right –for a moral judgment to correspond with. In brief, morality is relative,
subjective, and non-universally binding and disagreements about ethics are like
disagreements about which flavor of toffee is best. And what specifically might
morality be relative to? Usually morality is thought to be relative to a group’s or
individual’s beliefs, emotions, opinions, wants, desires, interests, preferences,
feelings etc. There are three ways of understanding moral relativism- cultural
moral relativism, normative moral relativism, and meta-ethical moral relativism.
The theory of moral relativism has its roots in ancient Greek Philosopher
Protagoras and flourished through modern times from Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume,
and Nietzsche. Moreover, relativism is neither supported by our inability to know
what’s true, nor by the fervency of our belief in relativism. It is a claim that all
things are relative that are incoherent or illogical.

5.6 KEY WORDS

Subjectivism: Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that our mental activity is
the only unquestionable fact. The truth and falsity of moral utterances are
dependent on the attitudes of people.

5.7 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Fisher, Andrew. Metaethics: An Introduction. Acumen Publishing Limited, 2011.
Kirchin, Simon. Metaethic. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
66
Walnchow, Wilfrid J. The Dimensions of Ethics. Broadview press, 2003 Moral Relativism

Paul K. Moser and Thomas L. Carson (eds.). Moral Relativism: A Reader. Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Machan, Tibor. R. A Primer on Ethics. Norman and London: Oklahoma Press,
1997.
Gomans, Chris. “Moral relativism,” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
first published Feb 19, 2004, substantive revision April 20, 2015.
Emrys, Westcott. “Moral relativism” In Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy,
U.S.A.
Driver, Julia. Ethics: The Fundamentals. Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

5.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to check your progress I
1. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard.
Rather ethical truths depend on variables such as situation, culture, one’s
feelings, etc. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the
moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be
morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For example,
an extra marital affair is condemnable to some societies while it is acceptable
to others. Moral relativists endorse that-(1) Moral judgment is true or false
and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint.
(2) No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to others. All attempts
to define morality in terms of some common claim fails, for they all rest on
premises that belong to the standpoint being defended and need not be
accepted by people who do not share that point of view.
2. Ethical relativism or Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison
to moral absolutism or moral objectivism. Absolutism claims that morality
relies on universal principles inherent in the natural law, conscience or some
other fundamental source. For example- Christian absolutists believe that
God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is therefore as
unchanging as He is. ‘Honesty is the best policy’ is true or correct independent
of any human’s acceptance or rejection. Moral absolutism is the ethical belief
that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged,
and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the
act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs
and goals of the individual, society, or culture that engages in the actions.
3. There is a thin difference between moral or ethical relativism and moral or
ethical subjectivism Ethical relativism is broader than ethical subjectivism.
Ethical subjectivism holds that moral statements are made true or false by
the attitudes or conventions of the observers or that any ethical sentence
implies an attitude held by someone. Ethical relativism is the view that for a
thing to be morally right it must be approved by the society, leading to the
conclusion that different things are right for people in different societies and
periods in history. For the relativists, the concern is not about whether moral
judgments exist or not but whether they are true or false relatively i.e. 67
Basic Concepts depending either on the moral framework of the individual or groups. Ethical
subjectivism believes that individuals create their own morality i.e. existence
of morality can be dictated by individual experiences as there can be no
objective truth. People’s beliefs about actions being right or wrong, good or
bad, depend on how people feel about actions rather than on reason or system
ethical analysis. The truth and falsity of moral utterances depend on the
attitudes of people. An ethical subjectivist would argue that the statement “
Rohit was evil” expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things Rohit did,
but it does not follow that it is true or false that Rohit was in fact evil. Both
the terms are compatible in the sense that truth of moral claims is relative to
the attitudes of individuals.
Answers to check your progress II
1. There are three types of moral relativism- (1) Descriptive relativism or cultural
relativism, (2) Normative relativism or moral requirement relativism and (3)
Meta ethical relativism.
2. Meta ethical relativism- It states that moral judgments are not objectively
true or false and thus that different individuals or societies can hold conflicting
moral judgments. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to think and act as though
our own moral views or those of our society or culture are obviously correct.
It holds that moral judgments are not true or false in any absolute sense but
only relative to particular standpoints. It states that there are no moral objective
grounds for preferring the moral values of one culture to another. Societies
make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices.
Moreover, people tend to believe that ‘right’ moral values are values that
exist in their own culture. They do not only believe that people disagree
about moral issues but that the terms such as good, bad, right and wrong do
not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all rather are relative to
traditions, practices of individuals or of groups.
Answers to check your progress III
1. Nietzsche’s argument of morality sets a firm base for the theory of moral
relativism. For him, what is right or good depends on those who are in power.
He does not believe in an objective or universal morality, which he termed as
conventional morality. His famous pronouncement that “God is dead” implies
that the idea of transcendent or objective justification for moral claims is no
longer credible. According to Nietzsche, one remains strange to oneself while
one is following the imposed rules and regulation. This imposing of rules
and regulations were done earlier by religions in the name of a supernatural
being (God). Instead of using our reason, we go with religion by faith. Religion
hides our real identity by imposing rules and regulation and making us follow
it. Here we simply accept and follow what we are told to be “good,” and
“bad.” Here our life lacks the self-reflective and self-creating capacity.
According to Nietzsche, “we are not ‘knower’ when it comes to ourselves.”
He believed that morality should be constructed actively, making them relative
to who we are and what we as individuals good and bad etc.
Answers to check your progress IV
1. Moral relativism has became an increasingly popular view because of the
following two reasons-

68 (1) The downfall stage of religion- Religion seems to offer the possibility
 that morality was independent of us. With a turning away from religion Moral Relativism
there seems to have come a certain amount of doubt about the possibility
of objective morality. We have, the moral relativist says, no better place
to look than to the individual or his society.
2. Observing the cultural diversity- Most of us are aware that the world
contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage
in practices very different from our own. Given all these, diversity there
can be no single objective morality because morality varies with cultures.
This is the most commonly cited reason given in favor of Moral
Relativism is the undeniable fact of widespread difference of opinion on
important moral questions. Some societies have considered slavery to
be within the natural order of things while others have condemned it as
moral abominations. Many individual views abortion as nothing short
of murder, while others condemn attempts to prevent abortion as
unacceptable violations of a woman’s right to control her own
reproductive processes. In light of such vast differences of opinions it is
not reasonable to believe in an objective moral truth. If such objective
standards would not exist, there would be a good deal of agreement on
moral matters than one actually discovers.

69