FOUNDATIONS OF

ETHICS

1st Internal Assessment:

A SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF
MR. GEORGE
PANTHANMACKELS GUEST
LECTURE

By

S. Aishwariya

BBA LLB I Yr

Division A

Roll No.: 23

PRN No.: 13010124023

Email ID: s.aishwarya@symlaw.ac.in

An existential philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre once said, We are our choices.
To truly understand this is not easy, because it means that we must accept that there is always
a choice.
It is here that Ethics comes into the picture. Ethics, in essentials, is systematizing, defending,
and recommending concepts of right and wrong behaviour. The choice between right and
wrong is almost always guided by Ethics.
But are our Ethics fluid, or rigid? Do we have only one set of rules to go by and decide which
path is the right one to take?

Mr. George Panthanmackel took us through a long journey that was rich with knowledge of
the very many cognitive processes that went behind building Ethics as we know it today.

Today, Ethics theories are mainly classified into four areas of study: Metaethics, Normative
Ethics, Agapeic Ethics and Applied Ethics.

Metaethics is the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts.

Two primary issues come to mind when we speak of metaethics:
1. Whether morality exists independently of humans (metaphysical issue)
2. Underlying basis of ones moral judgment and conduct. (psychological issue)

Whether morality exists independently of humans is a discussion that generally takes two
directions: Other-worldly and this-worldly.
I will, here, explore the other-worldly view from the point of view of one of its main
proponents, Plato. Plato believed that moral objectives exist, are above and beyond subjective
human conventions. They exist in a spirit like realm of their own, and are eternal. They never
change and apply evenly to all living creatures. Plato was an ardent mathematician, thus
subscribing to an extreme view in this regard, that of denying the existence of the material
world.

There is, of course, an entirely different view about moralitys (existential) dependence on
humans. The this-worldly view. While Sextus Empericus, a Greek philosopher also took an
extreme view with regards to the dependence of moralitys existence on humans by denying
the objective status of moral values, other proponents of the this-worldly views took more
moderate viewpoints. They said that the existence of knowledge, or whether something is
knowable (which Sextus denied) is not fiction in itself, moral values are human inventions,
and do not exist in a spirit like realm.

Moving on to the second, widely debated issue of the basis of ones moral judgment and
conduct In this discussion one basically attempts to understand what motivates someone to
be moral. This is discussed in three areas of the psychological issues of metaethics:
1. Egoism and altruism
2. Emotion and reason
3. Female morality

Egoism vs. Altruism: When we discuss egoism and altruism, two famous British
philosophers must come into the picture: Thomas Hobbes and Joseph Butler. In the 17th
century, Thomas Hobbes said that many, if not all our actions are motivated by selfish
desires. In the 18th century, Joseph Butler argued that we are capable of showing an innate,
inherent benevolence. At least some of our actions are motivated by psychological altruism.

Emotion vs. Reason: David Hume, an 18th century British philosopher said that our moral
assessments involve emotions, and not reason. Of course, this philosophy did not go
unopposed. Later on, many rational philosophers came to argue against this view. Case in
point is Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher in the 18th century. He was of the view that
although we tend to get swayed by emotions while making a moral assessment, judgment and
conduct, we should nevertheless avoid such an influence. A true moral judgment is that
which is free from the shackles of desires and feelings, guided by the light of pure reason.

Female morality: This area of moral psychology focuses mainly on whether traditional
morality is, much like the patriarchal system, male centered, and whether there is a distinctly
feminine approach to ethics that has the potential to be moulded into a value system. The
basic idea behind this proposal (female/feminine morality), which gained momentum in the
18th century due to the belief that giving voting rights to women will lead to moral and social
developments, was that women are similar enough to have a similar belief system, rooted in
their biological capacity to be mothers. So, female morality believes that characteristically
feminine traits include boundless compassion, empathy, nurturance and kindness.
I will now be exploring Normative Ethics keeping one case in mind: R v. Dudley and
Stephens. In this case, a ship, Mignonette set sail from England to Australia with Dudley,
Stephens and Brookes as the crew members and Richard Parker, as the cabin boy. Cutting to
the chase, this vessel was shipwrecked during the voyage and after over a week without food,
the crew members thought theyd draw lots to decide who would become sacrificial fodder to
feed the rest. Although lots werent drawn, it was decided that Richard Parker, the 17 year
old cabin boy would be sacrificed, as the crew members had families to take care of. Richard
Parker was killed, and eaten by the crew members.
The ethical dilemma that arises here is whether killing Richard Parker to feed the crew
members was a morally correct act.

The key assumption behind Normative Ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion to
judge whether an act is morally correct, whether it be a set of principles or a single rule.
There are three different kinds of ethics under this umbrella:
1. Virtue Ethics
2. Deontological Ethics
3. Consequentialist Ethics.

If we look at R v. Dudley and Stephens from a Virtue Ethics perspective, it was wrong of
Dudley, Stephens and Brookes to kill and eat Richard Parker because killing is a bad thing to
do. Virtue Ethics does not lay emphasis on learning rules, but stresses upon the importance of
developing good habits and a good character. Dudley, Stephens and Brookes should not have
killed Richard Parker as it would taint their character, making it a morally wrong act. This
theory would be supported by Aristotle, a strong advocate of Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics not
only emphasizes on developing good traits, but also avoiding acquiring bad traits.

Surely, someone must have a different reasoning behind the act of killing and eating Richard
Parker at the time of necessity being a morally wrong act? Here, Deontological Ethics comes
into play. While even these principles would say that killing Richard Parker was morally
incorrect, their reasoning would be that Dudley and Stephens had a duty, an obligation to not
kill Richard Parker. Deontological Ethics says that any act is morally right if, and only if it
follows from a duty, not swayed by inclination.
While these two theories are in favour of the cannibalistic act being morally wrong, there is a
theory that favours Dudley, Stephens and Brookes: Consequentialist Ethics. Proponents of
Consequentialist Ethics, like Jeremy Bentham, would truly believe that what Dudley,
Stephens and Brookes did was right. They had families to support and it was the question of
the benefit of one boy, against the benefit of three families. Consequentialist Ethics says that
an act is morally correct if its good consequences are greater than the bad ones.

Then there is another concept of Ethics: Agapeic Ethics, which says that an act is morally
right if it promotes Agapeic love and justice.
Agapeic love is love beyond physical attraction and arising out of a mutual benefit system. It
is selfless love for someone, without expecting anything in return. Agapeic justice fulfills
Agapeic love.

The last branch of Ethics that this paper deals with is Applied Ethics. As the name suggests, it
refers to Ethics applied on controversial issues that the world today is in a dilemma about.
Issues that are mind bogglingly wide ranging Corporate social responsibility would come
under business ethics, whereas euthanasia and surrogate motherhood would come under
biomedical ethics, animal experimentation absorbed by environmental ethics and
homosexuality debated under sexual ethics.

Ethics, in my view, is subjective. No one follows one single principle from all the principles
of Ethics discussed above. Circumstances make people choose one path from the crossroads
they face while making a decision. At best, one can understand the guiding principles behind
such a decision by studying Ethics, leading us to a conclusion as to whether an act is right, or
otherwise.

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts
between two rights.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel