Ethics and Human Interface Final Notes

ETHICS AND HUMAN INTERFACE FINAL NOTES

Ethics and human interface: Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions; dimensions of Ethics; ethics in private and public relationship

Essence means intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of Ethics, especially ethics in abstract, which determine its character. Now my notes from 1 to 6 and 16, 17, 18 come under this topic. I will work on Indian tradition also and very soon write notes on them. 1. What is ethics? 2. Role of Ethics 3. Importance of Ethics 4. Why be Moral? 5. Nature and scope of ethics {Essence of ethics] 6. Morality and Ethics 16. Ethical Traditions 17. Religious Ethical Traditions 18. Secular ethical tradition Determinants mean factors which decisively affect the nature or outcome of Ethics. I didn‟t go in details here, so I think I will come back on this topic again while discussing topic of Human values and lessons from the lives and teaching of great leaders reformer and administrator in India and world; role of family ,society and educational institutions in inculcating values. 7. Determinants of Ethics in Human action 11. GOD as determinant of Human Ethics: views and criticism My notes 8,9,10 are helping tools plus some ethical concepts are precisely mentioned there which will help a lot if we will remember them. 8. Some Concepts of Ethics [PART- 1] 9. Some Concepts of Ethics [PART- 2] 10. Some Concepts of Ethics [PART- 3] Dimensions mean measurable extent of ethics or we can say level of ethics. Here I tried to discuss some topics. But I know I didn‟t touch the topic personal ethics. I think I will do it with Human values and lessons from the lives and teaching of great leaders reformer and administrator in India and world,; role of family ,society and educational institutions in inculcating values. 12. Dimensions of Ethics 13. The Ethical Dimension of Sustainability 14. Concept of sustainable development 15. Meaning of sustainability Ethics 19. Social dimension of Ethics

20. Characteristics of Ethics of sustainability 21. The ethical Principles of sustainability 22. Creating a culture of Ethics in Public sector I have discussed some question on the topic ethics in private and public life. I think this topic is related to the topic ethics and civil services. So I will try to cover those questions when I will start this topic. 23. Ethics in Public life 24. Ethics in public and private life: Questions 25. Ethics in Private sector 26. Elements of organizational ethical culture Ethics and Human Interface : What is ethics ? (Note – 1) Ethics comes from Greek word “ethos” means character, habit, culture, ways of behavior etc. ” Ethics is the systematic study of human actions from the point of view of its rightfulness or wrongfulness as means for the attainment of the ultimate happiness. “ Ethics is the science what human ought to be as the reason of what one is. It regulates and directs human life. It gives the right orientation to one‟s existence. As a theory ethics provides the basic fundamental principles of moral judgment. .As a practice it is concerned about the end to be gained and the means of attaining it. Ethics is not only general and abstract rule of action (e.g. “do good or avoid evil”), but also particular and concrete precepts (e.g. help the poor, obey legitimate authority, be truthful, adultery is bad etc). These particular and concrete precepts come from moral consciousness. Ethics deals with voluntary actions of human means the actions done by human consciously, deliberately and in view of an end. Thus, ethics is not merely set of codes. It is to help one to find what is good and how to get it. Ethics and Human interface (Note – 2 ) : Role of Ethics In human behavior ethics role is to decide how human must behave. In human activity ethics role is to decide how human ought to be act. In political and social life ethics decides how human‟s life and institution must organize to be moral. In economic life of human ethics deals with those activity which are the conditions of the attainment of the highest end of life. Ethics and Human interface (Note – 3): Importance of Ethics

1. Self – realization = It helps a person to critically evaluate his /her actions, choices and decisions. It assists a person in knowing what he/she really is and what is best for him/her. It helps a person to decide what he/she should do for the attainment of the best. This way it deepens the reflection of ultimate question of life. 2. Improves thinking, perspective and judgments = It improves our thinking about specific moral issues. It helps us to decide what should be correct course of actions and what should be avoided. This way improves our perspective and makes it more reflective and better throughout. This way one can clarify moral position in making judgment. 3. Sharpen our general thinking processes = It trains our mind to think more logically and reasonably. This way one can handle moral issues with greater clarity. Ethics and Human interface (Note – 4 ) :Why be Moral ? 1. Deep desire for good = every person want to be good. Being moral helps person to attain what is best for him / her. 2. Satisfactory human life = every institution designed for human good have some rules and regulation based on moral principles. Being moral helps a person to admire and follow rules. This way a person lives with peace and satisfaction in concern institution. 3. To live a better life= Morality enhances one‟s life. It brings peace and satisfaction which leads human being to live life better. 4. Sustains stability = Morality provides a common point of view. The common point of view among people leads to agreement among them. If a person would be moral he/she can have a agreement with other people. This way there will be stability in society and other institution. There‟s a question arise of “individual freedom “.. 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 concerned about our moral health. It seeks to enhance our lives, to help us to live better lives. It tries to discover a more objective standpoint of evaluation than that of purely personal preference. Ethics and Human interface (Note – 5) Essence of ethics We know that today there is an agreement on some general principle whether it is correct or not. So, we can say that there must be some general principles which are self-evident or first principle. There are three types of principles-

1. First principle – It is self-evident, intuitively known by all, and cannot be deleted from human heart. 2. Secondary Principle- It is derived from first principles. It requires reflection. 3. Tertiary Principle-It requires study and discursive thoughts. All moral Principles are derived from self –evident principle. It is believed that there must be some rule or law which enforces values and that is natural to human person, intuitively known. This is called MORAL INSTUITIONISM. Immediate data of moral consciousness cannot be denied, it is self-evident. If a human person is moral conscious he/she must feel a moral obligation of human interrelatedness and that the norm for moral good. This moral consciousness is an integral part of Human consciousness. Human consciousness is a process of becoming moral and aware of self. The more person become conscious and aware he/she more becomes conscious about what he/ she should be. This leads the emergence of moral precepts or values. Hence, moral precepts are derived from fundamental moral precepts. It is not mere logical deduction or immediate inference. It is always present and continuously developing in human consciousness. It is progressive development of human consciousness. If it is not found in all human then it is possible with a passage of time it can evolve when a person leads in a process of self fulfillment. Love is a basic moral activity. Love is beginning of human moral life and also the end gain. It is love for self that a person perfects himself as a human. Love is essential basis in the process of self-fulfillment. In evolutionary visions of human consciousness morality can be static and alsodynamic. It is static in completely evolved society and dynamic in more or less perfectly evolved society. . This way morality can be distinguished between absolute and relative ethics. Absolute ethics is an ideal code of conduct formulating the behavior of the completely adapted human person in the completely evolved society. Relative ethics is the nearest approximation to this ideal according to the more or less perfectly evolved society in which human person happens to find him/her. Moral intuitions are the slowly organized. They are results of experience received by the race. In other words an induction from experience handed down from one generation to the other ends up by becoming an instinctive moral reaction. Evolution is moving towards the emergence of the highest form of life.Happiness as the supreme end of human person is the concomitant and virtue is the condition for its attainment.

Morality is affected by geographical, climatic and economic conditions. It is also conditioned by religion. Almost every religion faced reform movement and then it seems that changes brought by reforms are change in religious consciousness, but indeed that is the change in religiously conditioned morality. Legal and moral are different things. It is not necessary that something legal is obviously moral. Legal means allowed by state. For example a secular state cannot promote moral belief of one section against another in a pluralistic society. Thus human and moral consciousness is always in a process of development and is depended on physiological, cultural, social, psychological, environmental and other factor. Now , in search of objective moral truth one have to carefully distinguish between Moral Relativity and Ethical Relativism . Moral relativity is the view that different people in different cultures and civilization have different moral beliefs and what is believed to be morally right at a given time may be wrong in different time and place. Ethical Relativism is the view that there is no basic moral principle , but what is morally right is relative to individual or group concerned. If it cannot give reasons but simply admits that it is strictly impossible to say what is morally right and morally wrong it can be reasonably called Ethical Skepticism. Human person‟s knowledge of self is a progressive and dynamic knowledge, always tending towards a better and better understanding. In this sense human person‟s knowledge of self is relative. And if this is true moral knowledge is also relative in so far as it is progressive and far from complete. However an attentive study of the evolution of human person‟s self-consciousness and of moral knowledge helps one discover a certain constant progression. Ethics and Human Interface ( Note – 6) : Morality and Ethics Although the words ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, moralityis more precisely used to refer to the customs, principles of conduct and moral codes of an individual, group or society. Ethics, also termed moral philosophyor the science of morals, is the branch of philosophy that studies morality through the critical examination of right and wrong in human action. Ethics and Human Interface (Note – 7) : Determinants of ethics in human action 1. Nature 2. A desire for living good 3. Childhood upbringing 4. Later life experience

5. 6. 7. 8.

Religious belief Discussions with other Moral philosopher ―a priori‖ truth, i.e. like something that we have embedded in us as ―knowledge‖ prior to any physical or social experience. 1. Self – oriented interest 10. Creation of society 11. Situation 12. Ethical insight 13. Consequences Ethics and Human Interface : (Note – 8): Some Concepts of Ethics [ PART- 1] This will help us to understand any book or article on ethics: 1. Absolute Ethics: It is an ideal code of conduct formulating the behavior of completely adapted human person in completely evolved society. 2. Relative Ethics: It is the nearest approximation to the ideal code of conduct according to more or less perfectly evolved society in which a happen to find him /her. 3. Human consciousness: consciousness of an individual or a social being. 4. Moral consciousness: It is integral part of human consciousness. 5. Moral relativity: It is simply the view that different people especially in different civilization and culture have different moral belief and what is believed to be morally right at a given time and place may be wrong at different time and place. 6. Ethical relativism: It is the philosophical theory that there is no fundamental or universal moral norm or basic moral principle but what is morally right is relative to individual or group of men. 7. Ethical skepticism: The situation in which one can‟t decide and give reason what is ethically right or wrong. 8. Moral objectivism: It holds that at least some moral principles and rules are objectively knowable on the basis of observation and human reasoning. 9. Universalism: It suggests that basic right and wrong is the same for everyone,while also allowing for some variation in individual circumstances and context. 10. Ethical absolutism: It is the view that there exists an eternal and unchanging moral law that transcends the physical world and is the same for

all people at all times and places” (Holmes, 1993). In this view, moral rightness and wrongness exist independent of human beings and unrelated to human emotions and thought. There is an absolute source of truth that transcends human rationality and choice 11. Deontology (from the Greek “deon”, meaning “duty”) refers to an ethical theory or perspective based on duty or obligation. A deontological, or dutybased, theory is one in which specific moral duties or obligations are seen as self-evident, having intrinsic value in and of themselves and needing no further justification. 12. Teleology (from the Greek telos, meaning goal or end) describes an ethical perspective that contends the rightness or wrongness of actions is based solely on the goodness or badness of their consequences. In a strict teleological interpretation, actions are morally neutral when considered apart from their consequences 13. Consequentialist : Concern for outcomes 14. Non-Consequentialist : Do not concern for outcomes 15. Principlism: Each principle represents a serious, though not absolute, moral duty that must be weighed against other duties in resolving an ethical conflict or dilemma. Ethics and Human Interface (Note – 9) : Some Concepts of Ethics [ PART-2 ] 16. Principle of Respect for Persons: It maintains that human beings have intrinsic and unconditional moral worth and should always be treated as if there is nothing of greater value than they are. 17. Principle of legal moralism: This allows society to render an act illegal on the basis of social values and judgments. 19. Welfare principle: This allows autonomy to be restricted for the benefit of others. 20. Principle of Non-maleficence: It states that we should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others. In particular, we should not cause avoidable or intentional harm. 21. Principle of beneficence: It is often simply stated as an obligation to act in ways that promote good. 22. Veracity: It is the principle of truth telling, and it is grounded in respect for persons and the concept of autonomy.

23. The principle of fidelity: It broadly requires that we act in ways that are loyal. This includes keeping our promises, doing what is expected of us, performing our duties and being trustworthy. 24. Principles of Justice: requires that we act in ways that treat people equitably and fairly. Actions that discriminate against individuals or a class of people arbitrarily or without a justifiable basis would violate this basic principle. 25. Distributive justice: This conception of justice refers to an equitable balance of benefits and burdens with particular attention to situations involving the allocation of resources. 26. Principle of equality: It requires that all benefits and burdens be distributed equally. The advantage to this conception of justice is that everyone is entitled to an equal share of resources; however the principle becomes problematic when not everyone is perceived as equally deserving of an equal share. 27. Principle of need: It suggests that resources should be distributed based on need so that those with greater need will receive a greater share. In theory, this supports the principle of equality in that everyone will end up with the same share of goods. 28. Principle of contribution: It maintains that persons should benefit in proportion to their individual contribution. Those who contribute proportionately more to the production of goods should receive proportionately more goods in return. 29. Principle of effort: It recognizes the degree of effort made by an individual as the determining factor in the proportion of goods to be received. 30. Procedural justice: It requires processes that are impartial and fair. This form of justice underlies the requirement of due process when conducting disciplinary action against an employee. 31. Compensatory justice: It involves compensation for wrongs or harms that have been done. Ethics and Human Interface : ): Some Concepts of Ethics [PART- 3] 32 .Virtue ethics : Virtue-based ethics does not rely directly on ethical principles in its formulation. In virtue ethics, the focus is on the role of character as the source of moral action. Human character is shaped over time by a combination of natural inclinations and the influence of such factors as family, culture, education, and selfreflection. This means that some people will be more likely to choose virtuous behavior than will others. 33. Utilitarianism : a moral theory that defines a moral act solely in terms of the outcome or consequences of that act. This teleological perspective is based on a single guiding principle. The principle of utility, also referred to as the Greatest Happiness

Principle, states that actions are right if they produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. 34. Natural rights : These are generally held to be a gift of nature or God that cannot be taken away. Modern notions of natural rights are most closely associated with the seventeenth century British philosopher John Locke and his contention that human beings are entitled to life, liberty and property. In contemporary theory, these and other moral claims have come to be referred to as universal human rights and form the basis for establishing and/or evaluating ethical standards within the social order. 35. Positive right :It is “a right to receive a particular good or service from others” . Therefore, a positive right assumes that someone (individual or agency) is obligated to do something for you. 36.Negative right :It is “a right to be free from some action by others”, so a negative right obligates others to refrain from action. 37. Communitarian Ethics : Communitarianism refers to a theoretical perspective that seeks to lessen the focus on individual rights and increase the focus on communal responsibilities. The definition of community varies and can refer to anything from the nuclear or extended family to the political state or nation. In this approach, ethical thought is grounded in communal values, established social standards and traditions and considerations of the larger society Ethics and Human Interface :(Note – 11 ) GOD as determinant of Human Ethics: views and criticism Divine Command Theory: Morally good actions are good because they are commanded by God. Means:  The source of morality is God. 

Something is good because it is God‟s will.



If one wants to lead good life one should do what is God‟s will.

Now the question is why does God command those morally good actions? Socrates‟ answer is that God commands them because they are good. But if this is so, DCT must be wrong, because then there must be an independent standard of goodness that God uses to decide which actions are good. Plato concluded that God desires a thing because it is good. God‟s will doesn‟t make a thing good – the thing would be good regardless of God. But what if we instead say that there is no such independent standard – that God‟s will determines which actions are good: the good ones are good because he has commanded them?

If we will avoid the problem of independent standard for morality, it will invite three new problems: 1. The problem of arbitrariness: According to divine command theory [DCT] there is no any a standard on the basis of which god is deciding his will. So, his decision seems arbitrary and he must be commanding on his whim. In general, commands issued on a whim and for no good reason do not generate moral obligations. Why think we have reason to follow the arbitrary commands of a whimsical God? 2. The problem of triviality : As DCT claims, God‟s will is the source of goodness, to say God is good-willed is just to say that God‟s will is as he wills it to be. But that seems (at least close to) tautologies – it seem like an empty claim. 3. The problem of abhorrent commands: As DCT says god is source of morality and there is no independent moral standard. DCT seems to entail that God could have commanded us to rape, murder, and pillage, and then those actions would have been good. But that seems clearly false – those actions, surely, could never have been good. Hence , it seems like once we fix all of an actions “natural” properties – how much pain it causes, and who commits it, and why, and when, and whether any promises were broken, etc., that should be enough to determine its moral properties: whether or not it‟s good. It doesn‟t seem like a good action might have had all the same natural properties but might not have been good. But DCT seems to contradict this: DCT suggests that had God willed differently, the same action that is in fact good might have been bad, despite having all of the same natural properties. The proposal that God doesn‟t command according to an independent moral standard needn‟t entail his commands are arbitrary – e.g., perhaps he commands as he does out of love; and a loving God might not have been capable of issuing abhorrent commands. And perhaps a divine command theorist could hold that if God had not loved, his commands would not have given rise to moral obligations…? (But why think this, if not because we think only a loving God‟s commands would live up to independent standards of goodness?) Ethics and Human Interface: (Note – 12) Dimensions of Ethics There are distinct levels or dimensions of ethics.  Personal Ethics  Organizational Ethics  Societal Ethics

Ethics for future world i.e., a parallel world ethics It is impossible, in the connected world of the early 21st. century, to contemplate one without recognizing the influence on and by the other two. Personal ethics cannot be separated from the organizational context in which most of us are destined to spend the majority of our lives, be it working for a multinational corporation, a government department or agency, a not-for-profit organization or simply volunteering at the local pre-school. Humans are gregarious by nature and seek out the company of other humans in communities that are increasingly focused around the workplace. Similarly, organizations have to be sympathetic to the values and expectations of the wider societal context in which they are embedded. 

The fourth dimension belongs to tomorrow‟s generations and consists of our ethical accountabilities to those who cannot speak for themselves. It includes what‟s left of the natural world as well as the health of the economic, social and spiritual orders bequeathed to them. Surely we have a duty, an ethical responsibility, to patrol the boundaries of the society we are custodians of for our children and our children‟s. There must be a philosophy of passing the baton from leader to leader. There must be ethics to protect precious flower for the next generation. World endured for over a century of change because of that philosophy and the culture remained intact for several decades. This responsibility to future generations is often referred to in the notion of inter-generational equity. In the context of sustainability it is used to describe the responsibility of present generations to safeguard the interests of future generations and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines sustainability as forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Ethics and Human interface : (Note- 13) The Ethical Dimension of Sustainability The United Nations had struggled to find a way to address global environmental problems. The industrialized countries had proposed international treaties and action, but the developing nations had prioritized the need for economic development, with little interest in environmental regulation. The commission provided the conceptual framework for coordinated action, proposing that all nations have a stake in fostering economic development, but of a new kind: sustainable. The World Commission on Economic Development brought the idea of sustainability to the global stage in 1987. The United Nations sponsored this study of the relationship between economic development and the environment, published as ―Our Common Future,‖ also known as ―The Brundtland Report.‖

―The Brundtland Report‖: It proposed sustainability as an integral framework, in which economic development, social equity, and environmental protection are seen as inseparably related goals. The Brundtland Commission advanced public understanding of the link between economic growth of the poorer nations and global environmental protection. The commission argued that poorer countries must have the opportunity to develop economically – if they are denied this opportunity it will be much harder to convince all countries to support practices that can be sustained over time – but richer countries must foster policies to favor environmental conservation with economic development. Then Brundtland Report provided a deceptively simple definition of sustainability: “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” The official U.N. definition of sustainability has 3 dimensions, or 3 pillars, also known as the ―Three Es‖ of sustainability. These are environmental protection, economic development, and social equity. Sustainability provides a positive vision for the future of the human. From a motivational perspective, few people are inspired by the notion of “being less bad” in their environmental impact. In contrast, sustainability provides a framework and markers for making positive change. Social equity: This pillar of sustainability has a clearest ethical component, that of socio-economic fairness or social justice. The lifestyles of the richest and poorest members of the human family pose the greatest threat to the integrity of our Earth‟s life support systems, but for different reasons. The wealthiest consume vastly more than their fair share of resources, more than the planet can provide for everyone. The poorest 1/3rd of human society, those living on less than $2 per day, have no alternative but to use resources in a short-sighted way, for example, cutting down trees for firewood before they are able to grow to their full height. The wealthiest countries have the capacity to make choices for a more sustainable lifestyle, while the poorest members of the human family generally do not. Thus, sustainability is built upon the practice of solidarity with the poor; fostering economic development for them will enhance sustainability. The social equity dimension suggests that sustainable development is an inherent moral good, but its consequences are likely to be ethically positive as well. Ethical concern to future generations: Sustainability challenges present day humans to consider the well-being of future generations, to view their needs as worthy of our moral concern. Modern humans are not accustomed to considering future generations, but the power of our markets and technologies threaten their quality of life. We can express a moral concern for the future by restraining our consumption of nonrenewable resources today. Note that some resources, such as minerals, are

essentially finite. Other resources, such as wind and plants, because they draw their energy from the sun, can be managed so as to provide a continuous source of goods. An ethical approach to sustainability suggests that society has an obligation to restrain wasteful uses of resources among the affluent, but it also has a special obligation to foster economic development for the poorest of the poor, all while maintaining environmental resource protection. When referring to sustainable development, one needs to define what is to be sustained, for whom, and for how long. Sustainability is not an absolute condition, but always partial. Sustainability, like justice, occurs along a continuum, and making progress along this is necessarily incremental. Restraint is its price. Questions: 1. What could you contribute to the transition to a more sustainable society? 2. What kind of ethical arguments could best persuade various sectors of society to assume an obligation for the well-being of future generations? 3. Many people only perceive two of the pillars of sustainability: environmental protection and economic development. Why do you think it is more difficult for people to recognize the role of justice / social equity? Ethics and Human Interface : ( Note – 14 ) Concept of sustainable development Sustainable development: In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development; and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. Our common interest: There are three type of country – developed, developing and underdeveloped. To promote common interest in sustainable development one has to neglect of economic and social justice within and among countries. And we know that this is not fair. Hence, there is a difficulty in promoting common interest or equity for sustainable development. Strategic Imperatives: This will require policy changes in all countries, with respect both to their own development and to their impacts on other nations‟ development possibilities.  reviving growth;  changing the quality of growth;  meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation;  ensuring a sustainable level of population;  conserving and enhancing the resource base:  reorienting technology and managing risk; and  merging environment and economics in decision making

The strategy for sustainable development aims to promote harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature. The pursuit of sustainable development requires:  A political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making.  an economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and sustained basis  a social system that provides for solutions for the tensions arising from disharmonious development.  a production system that respects the obligation to preserve the ecological base for development,  a technological system that can search continuously for new solutions,  an international system that fosters sustainable patterns of trade and finance, and  An administrative system that is flexible and has the capacity for self-correction. These requirements are more in the nature of goals that should underlie national and international action on development. What matters is the sincerity with which these goals are pursued and the effectiveness with which departures from them are corrected. Ethics and Human Interface: (Note – 15) REASON FOR DEVELOPING AN ETHICS OF SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability is commonly understood to require the balanced pursuit of three goods: ecological health, social equity, and economic welfare. It is grounded on the ethical commitment to the well-being not only of contemporary populations but also the well-being and enhanced opportunities of future generations. Sustainability is now a well-known and commonly accepted framework for guiding a wide variety of choices. Sustainability suggests that, in the decision making process, societies that have a good quality of life have an obligation to ensure both future societies and contemporary, less well off societies are also able to achieve a standard of living in which their basic needs are met. Communities are applying sustainability to solving energy problems, addressing waste disposal issues, developing greenspaces, planning urban areas, and reinvigorating the local economy. Companies are using the concept of sustainability to expand the measure of success for their endeavors from the financial bottom-line to a triple bottom line that adds social and environmental performance to economic performance.

Universities are applying sustainability to guide changes to their campuses, curriculum, governance, investments, procurement policies, and relationships to their local communities. In short, sustainability is a framework upon which can be built specific strategies for guiding decision making. For example, The Natural Step, developed in Sweden, is a sustainability-based strategy for making decisions about resources utilization and disposal. Numerous other strategies that have sustainability as their core concept have emerged and are being applied to guide decision making in the private and public sectors. The future is becoming ever more complex and it is increasingly difficult to safely navigate through the maze of issues that confront us. Humanity faces a future of much more costly energy, potentially catastrophic consequences due to climate change, shortages of potable water, the blowback of effects from the vast array of synthetic chemicals developed over the past half-century, and depleted fisheries, to name but a few. And this is occurring in the face of still rapidly increasing numbers of humans and rising per capita consumption. New technologies abound, from genetically engineered seeds, to nanobots, nuclear fusion reactors, powerful antibiotics, autonomous robots, and a vast web of wireless systems interconnected by data highways. Deploying these technologies has been driven by a cost-benefit calculus that, in light of the consequences of many of these technologies, must be considered obsolete. Sustainability can provide many of the answers to how best to treat new technologies and how to change the basis of decision making such that technological benefits far outweigh the risk, for both the short and long term and for present and future societies.

REASON FOR DEVELOPING AN ETHICS OF SUSTAINABILITY

Brundtland Report: sustainability is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Thus, responsibility of contemporary society for the quality of life of today‟s population plus the preservation of resources, the environment, and other ingredients needed for future populations to also experience a good quality of life. This is an enormous and daunting task and requires enormous changes in thinking, policy, and basic assumptions about the economy for its full implementation and basic assumptions about the economy for its full implementation. For the present, it would mean that wealthier, more technologically sophisticated societies would have to contribute materially and through a wide range of assistance programs to increase the wealth of poorer nations, to aid them in developing the capability to provide the basic needs of their population.

For future generations it means ensuring the availability of a wide range of resources: natural, cultural, mineral, educational, food, clean air and water, genetic diversity, and numerous others that support a good quality of life. Everyone on the Earth has a right to having their needs for food, shelter, and clothing met. Present people have an obligation to future generations to provide them an intact and functioning planet in at least as good state as they received it. And we are all interdependent, present and future generations, but it is the present, wealthier countries that control the fate of everyone else, present and future. The application of the sustainability framework therefore requires a better understanding of the ethical concepts which support it. Among these ethical concepts is the Precautionary Principle, the Chain of Obligation, the Distributional Principle, the Land Ethics, and the Rights of the Other Specie. Through a better understanding of the ethics of sustainability, it becomes clear why the sustainability framework is not only an approach to addressing and solving the many difficult problems facing us, but why it is in fact the right approach, the right thing to do. Ethics and Human Interface : ( Note – 16) Ethical Traditions There are different approaches in Ethics: One approach says, ethics is about individual conduct or character, and thus defined by questions such as “How shall I live?” or “What does it mean to be a good person?” Second says ethics refers to universal values and thus poses questions such as “What is the Good?” or “What rules can rightly apply to all moral actors or agents?” Another focuses on the process of moral decision-making, the characteristics of a good society, or the relationship between human goodness and the divine, among many other issues. These differing approaches depend in part on varying foundational assumptions about, for example, whether goodness stems from a transcendent power such as God or whether the source of value is nature, human conscience, or reason. A further source of divergence is the question of whether it is possible to identify a universal, absolute good or if, to the contrary, values are inevitably subjective or relative in nature.

Differences in ethical frameworks also emerge from divergent attitudes toward rationality, emotion, and science, among other matters. What unites different schools of ethics is a conviction that it is both possible and worthwhile to identify good, or at least better, ways of acting and being in the world. These approaches can be divided into Religious tradition and Secular tradition. Ethics and Human Interface : ( Note – 17 ) Western Religious Ethical Traditions : Probably religious tradition is earliest way of thinking about ethics. Western religious traditions: Religion involves ritual, symbol, community life, institutions, doctrines, and many other factors, but moral values are a central aspect of religious identity for both individuals and groups. Through religion, people think about what it means to be a good person and what a good society would entail; they find resources, support, and guidance in their efforts to live up to these values and to improve their communities. Religious values in the modern West are predominantly informed by biblical traditions. Most important is the biblical emphasis on social justice. Some important ethical guidelines include hospitality, protection of the weak from the strong, forgiveness of debts, and prohibitions on usury. Christian scriptures (commonly referred to as the New Testament) continue these emphases, adding Jesus‟ particular concerns with social groups on the margins of mainstream society, such as lepers. For both Hebrew and Christian scriptures, individuals and societies are judged in large part based on how they treat the poor, the sick, and the outcast. The biblical emphasis on social justice rests, in part, on a social view of human nature: people are related to and dependent upon one another and thus responsible for one another‟s well-being. Christian ethics insist on just distributions of social goods, especially to needy groups. For this tradition, a good society is one in which no one falls through the cracks, well-off people take care of those in need, and cries for help are answered promptly, generously, and without rampant self-interest. Contemporary environmental ethicists and theologians highlight issuessuch as the importance of agriculture and “the land” for biblical societies and the inclusion of animals and other aspects of the natural world in visions of divine fulfillment. Perhaps the most important biblical principle with regard to non-human nature is the recurring injunction to be good stewards of the land and non-human animals. A stewardship ethic begins with the premise that God has created the natural world for the benefit of all people. Humans are not the owners of this world, but rather are caretakers who have both special responsibilities and some special privileges with regard to created goods. Stewardship is intended as both a social ethic, to ensure

that all people have their just share of created goods, and an environmental ethic that helps to preserve God‟s creation. Another contemporary western religious tradition is Roman Catholic social thought . U.S. Catholic Bishops‟ 1986 pastoral letter on the economy.1 In their pastoral letter, the bishops assert that economic decisions and institutions should be judged on whether they protect or undermine “the dignity of the human person.” This dignity, they add, “can be realized and protected only in community.” People are social beings, and their most important goods require collective support and enactment, which are the responsibility of all people, of all social groups and classes. This responsibility can be fulfilled only with widespread participation in both the economic and political processes, which must be equitable and open. Finally, the bishops assert that all members of society, and especially the most powerful, have a special obligation to “the poor and miserable.” This obligation can be understood, in part, as the demand to fulfill the basic human rights of all people to food, clothing, shelter, and other economic and material conditions for human dignity, as well as political and civil liberties. The economic values outlined in “Economic Justice for All” build on centuries of Catholic social thought and are reaffirmed in Catholic statements today, not only in the U.S. but globally. Both non-Catholic Christian – Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and other – and major Jewish and Muslim organizations emphasize social justice and care for the poor and vulnerable as the major ethical principles that guide their positions on concrete social problems. Serious differences exist, certainly, on issues such as the role of government, the responsibility of individuals and families, the moral status of capitalism and other economic systems, and a range of other matters, including sustainability. Still, major Western religious traditions largely agree on the centrality of justice, equality, fairness, and charity as the most important principles for evaluating specific social decisions, institutions, and processes. Increasingly, contemporary religious thinkers and leaders are taking environmental concerns into account when discussing social and economic ethics. A wide range of religious groups have issued statements on the environment, some of them very general, such as Pope John Paul II’s calls for “ecological conversion” and his naming of Francis of Assisi as the ―Patron Saint of Ecology.‖ Other religious statements address specific problems, such as climate change, a topic to which American Evangelical Protestants have recently given a great deal of attention. For many Christian, Muslim, and Jewish thinkers, the guiding principle behind environmental concern is the “integrity of creation,” or the notion that because God created the natural world as well as humans, nature has its own intrinsic value and is not meant only to serve short-term human interests.

Ethics and Human Interface: (Note- 18) Secular Philosophical Ethical Traditions The secular tradition in Western ethics begins with the classical Greek thinkers, especially Plato and Aristotle. Social ethics, and more specifically the characteristics of a good society, is the central moral problem for these thinkers. Plato and Aristotle asked explicitly what the good life is for humans and provided answers that continue to influence both scholarly and popular thinking about ethics. Their reflections began with the notion that humans are social beings whose good is only fulfilled in community. Their work does not display much interest in the issues that preoccupy many popular discussions of morality, but rather focuses on problems of public virtue, right relationships, and good leadership. One of the most important classical philosophical themes is justice – one of the most important virtues discussed by Aristotle. Justice involves giving to each his or her due, which implies a careful weighing both of what is possible and what is deserved, as well as comparisons among different relevant cases. For Aristotle, justice is both procedural – concerned with fairness in decision-making and other social processes – and substantive – concerned with the proper distribution of actual goods. Both kinds of justice are central for sustainability today since a sustainable society requires both just political institutions and mechanisms, on the one hand, and distribution of necessary goods that avoids extremes of poverty and social inequality on the other. Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804), the father of deontological ethics defines good practices as those that identify and follow the correct rules or uphold correct duties. For deontological ethics, the likely consequences of actions do not matter in moral decision-making, and the actual consequences do not affect evaluations of the moral worth of an action. Rather, ethical judgments are based on the moral actor‟s intentions and adherence to duties or rules. Kant insisted that human reason was competent to determine ethics, and that ethics should be based and critiqued on rational grounds. Kant articulated his ethical thesis in the form of several “categorical imperatives,” moral statements that are objectively and universally true because of their intrinsic qualities (rather than because of their source or consequences). The most famous articulation of Kant‟s categorical imperative is to “Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will.” (Means an ethical action must be able to be made universal: if it is not good for all people to act in this way, it is not good for a single actor to act in this way.)

Kant‟s deontological model has strongly shaped theories about rights, one of the most important concepts in modern political and social ethics. Kant argues that persons have intrinsic value that is independent of their instrumental use to others. The assertion of intrinsic value is necessary to declarations of human rights, which assert that simply by virtue of being human, persons have rights to such things as freedom from torture or access to clean water, for example. Other persons then have the duty to abstain from torturing or polluting water (and perhaps, in some models, to protect others from being tortured). Rights theories are also important in relation to the ethics of human relations to nonhuman animals. A number of philosophers and activists have asserted that nonhuman animals have certain rights, such as the minimum right to avoid unnecessary suffering and untimely death. The other major model in Western philosophical ethics is consequentialist or teleological ethics. In consequentialist or teleological ethical systems, decisions about what to do and subsequent evaluations of the morality of an action are based on the expected or actual consequences of a behavior (from the Greektelos, meaning end). The most prominent consequentialist model isUtilitarianism, first articulated by English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (18061873). They gave “greatest happiness principle” which focus on good is happiness and the ultimate goal of ethics should be to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Mill divided pleasure into two parts : higher pleasures (intellectual) and lower pleasures (sensual). He believed that higher pleasures should be what are ultimately promoted over the lower pleasures. This led to Mill‟s effort to instill a moral education in the public sphere that would teach people how to value and promote the higher pleasures or good in society. The other tradition is pragmatism, a school of philosophical ethics that originated with the work of American philosophers C. S. Peirce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910), and John Dewey (1859-1952). Pragmatists assert that knowledge and meaning emerge from practical experience and that, in regards to ethics, value must be judged by practical consequences rather than intentions or relations to abstract goods: it is strongly empiricist, meaning that it asserts that knowledge, meaning, and values arise from practical actions and experience. For many social and environmental ethicists and thus for people concerned with sustainability, pragmatism is appealing because it represents an effort to achieve concrete, positive results without the need to find consensus about abstract philosophical issues in advance (or ever). While both pragmatism and Utilitarianism emphasize practical consequences as the measure of moral worth, they differ in their understanding of what defines the good and how people can know it.

Ethics and Human Interface : (Note-19) Social dimension of Ethics Social ethics is a sub-field in both philosophical and religious ethics that is primarily concerned with the ethical foundations, dimensions, and consequences of collective decisions, attitudes, and actions. It is social both because it looks primarily at decisions and actions that are collective rather than individual and personal and because it is concerned with goods that are collectively defined and achieved. In contrast, personal or individualistic ethical systems may be concerned with actions that do not directly affect larger groups of people, such as personal choices about sexual identity or behavior. Certainly even the most apparently personal of decisions have larger implications, if only for the people close to the individual concerned. Further, even intensely personal moral decisions are made in a larger social context and on the basis of values and attitudes that are the result of social learning, social experiences, and social relations. Thus the line between personal and social ethics is never hard and fast. Still, it is possible to distinguish between moral issues that are primarily personal and those that have immediate and unavoidable social implications. Social ethics give attention to the values that are explicitly or implicitly upheld in a given position or practice and to the moral consequences of collective decisions and actions. It addresses not only individual values and issues, but also social costs and benefits. Social ethics may also be concerned with what vision of a good society is implied in or supported by a particular instance, or which social groups might benefit or suffer the most, or which collectively-shared goods might be advanced or reduced. Some analyses can be conducted on a wide range of contemporary issues: How should the traditional just war requirement to minimize civilian casualties be modified in light of new weapons technologies that make it impossible, often, to avoid civilian deaths? Who will benefit and who will be harmed by agricultural innovations such as genetically modified crops or new pesticides? What moral duties does a society have in relation to new immigrant groups, and vice-versa? The examples are endless, and the important point is that social ethics raises and answers distinctive questions about distinctive concerns, sources, and criteria. Economic ethics is a sub field of social ethics. Economics by definition involves collective decisions and processes. Even individual financial decisions are made only in relation to and subject to the influence of larger economic forces. Economic ethics is concerned with the moral foundations, characteristics, and consequences of economic activities and institutions. Economic ethics may look at specific business practices or

industries or at broader issues such as the moral values, implicit or explicit, that under-gird economic policies and practices. When considering the ethical dimensions of economic systems, institutions, and decisions, a number of significant questions related to sustainability must be taken into account. One question concerns the definition of economic goals such as productivity, efficiency, and security. Efficiency, for example, is usually defined as the maximization of output in relation to certain inputs, and is a primary goal of many economic practices, systems, and institutions. The inputs at stake can vary, and depending on which ones are selected – e.g., labor time, energy, or capital investment – judgments of economic efficiency will vary. Economic and social goals are intertwined. Decisions about economic processes and institutions inevitably favor one social good or another, which can ultimately favor one social class over another. Ethics and Human Interface: ( Note-20) Characteristics of Ethics of sustainability: An ethic varies according to culture, context, and a host of other factors. But it is possible to outline some of the key features that an adequate ethic of sustainability should possess to some degree. First, it should be theoretically coherent. This means that the grounding assumptions, the form of argumentation, definitions of key terms, and goals should be consistent throughout, and the use of evidence persuasive. Related to this, an adequate ethic must be both clear and consistent with regard to its philosophical foundations about issues such as the definition of humanness, the source of value (transcendent, natural, or other), and the philosophical scope or aims of the ethic itself. An ethic of sustainability must also have clear and coherent interpretations of key foundational issues. Further, since the goal of sustainability is by definition oriented toward the future, an ethic of sustainability must take into account the relations between present and future generations (both human and non-human). An ethic of sustainability, like any social ethic, should address the question of rights or interests. A deontological ethic is more likely to assert that people (and perhaps non-human animals, plants, or places) have rights, while a Utilitarian ethic speaks of the interests that people or animals have in, for example, avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. In both cases, individuals and groups may incur duties or responsibilities in relation to the rights and interests of others. A coherent ethic must be clear about the foundational grounds for asserting the existence of rights or

interests, the reasons for speaking of one or the other, the particular ethical claims that will be met, and ways of adjudicating between conflicting rights or interests. Finally, an ethic of sustainability should be feasible or practical. The purpose of an ethic of sustainability is to help guide people in their efforts to address real world problems and to build more socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable institutions, practices, and societies. Ethics and Human Interface : (Note- 21) The ethical Principles of sustainability An ethic of sustainability must address a number of specific principles, which help fill out the most important values of sustainability in relation to social, economic, and environmental concerns. Obviously, not all ethics of sustainability will be identical in relation to these issues. They will develop divergent positions on these issues, rank them in different orders of priority, relate them to each other differently, and add additional points. However, an adequate and complete ethic of sustainable must deal, in some way, with the following principles. 1. Justice and obligations to future generations: According to Aristotle , Justice is the mean between two different kinds of injustice: the injustice that takes too much and that which takes too little. Building on Aristotle, classical Western ethics has come to define justice as ensuring that each receives his or her due – neither too much nor too little. Aristotle and subsequent philosophers have identified several specific types of justice: procedural (or formal) justice–which entails fair processes in governance–criminal justice, and other social practices and institutions, including the allocation of resources. Procedural justice establishes rules and standards by which these decisions are made, which is necessary to ensure both political democracy and the rule of law. Standards procedural justice are crucial for sustainability since a society cannot be sustainable, many argue, when it is characterized by unjust political systems, lack of openness and transparency, limited access to participation in decision-making, an individualistic rule – all evidence of failures of procedural justice. Distributive justice is concerned with the fair or correct distribution of goods in a society. For an ethic of sustainability, attention would have to be paid not only to social and political goods such as housing, health care, food, and political power, but also to environmental goods such as clean air and water and perhaps access to recreational or wilderness land. While distributive justice is concerned primarily with the relative allocation of goods, substantive justice refers to absolute quantities. While distributive justice might insist that a small amount of food be shared equally among starving people, for

example, the principle of substantive justice would seek to provide those people with an absolute amount of food adequate to their needs, not just with a fair share of an inadequate amount. Substantive justice has traditionally been less important in Western liberal philosophical and political traditions than formal and distributive justice, but it enters into many discussions of sustainability. A society that distributes an inadequate amount of food equally among all its members, for example, will not be sustainable, although it may be just (through distributive justice). A sustainable society must meet the principles of substantive justice by ensuring that people‟s basic material and economic needs are met. 2.In relation to economic ethics, the most important principle for sustainability concerns the regulation of markets in order to address the true costs of pollution and other social and environmental harms. This issue is sometimes summarized as the polluter pays principle, which states that the individuals, communities, or businesses that create pollution must pay for the cost of removing it rather than passing the cost of cleaning up that pollution to consumers or to society overall. The polluter pays principle reflects the values of larger ethical and political frameworks known as “natural capitalism” and “full cost accounting.” While these two models are not identical, they both seek to create a more sustainable society through a free market system. These revisions would reduce or eliminate “perverse subsidies” that help make environmentally or socially unhealthy products inexpensive. Perverse subsidies are especially widespread in agriculture, though they exist in energy production and many other industries as well. Full cost accounting would not only cut perverse subsidies but also would eliminate the public funding of clean-up for polluting industries. Were businesses to lose perverse subsidies and pay their own clean up costs, they would no longer be able to offer certain goods for low costs, including certain types of produce grown thousands of miles from where it is consumed, beef, and gasoline, among others. When unsustainable goods became expensive, market principles would dictate that people would seek out goods that are “truly” inexpensive, because they do not have previously hidden costs. In a full cost system, for example, people would find food from small local farms much cheaper than food that is massproduced far away because fuel and other costs of transporting food across country would no longer be subsidized. Eventually, a society with full cost accounting will become more sustainable as unsustainable goods become prohibitively expensive and fade away. Some economic principles relevant to an ethic of sustainability go further in their revision of the market. The social mortgage is a Roman Catholic concept that asserts that all property, regardless of ownership, is part of a divine creation that was intended by God for the good of all people. If people use their private property only

for private benefit, without concern for (or perhaps even to the detriment of) the common good, the larger society may call in the social mortgage. This means, first, that people are obliged to help the poor and needy and, further, that if such help is not forthcoming, and if a person is in extreme necessity, “he has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs.” The notion of a social mortgage places a much more severe constraint upon the market and private property than does the notion of full cost accounting. 3.A number of principles from environmental ethics must also be taken into account in an ethic of sustainability. One of the most important environmental principles for sustainability is the precautionary principle. In its simplest and most general form, the precautionary principle states that in the absence of a strong scientific consensus that an action or policy will not cause harm to human health or the environment, caution should be used in implementing that action or policy. Strict adherence to the precautionary principle would prevent the use of pesticides whose wider ecological effects are not understood, for example. It might also restrict damaging use of certain resources or landscapes – such as mining or grazing – if there is no certainty that the damage can be reversed. The precautionary principle places the burden of responsibility on those who would act rather than on those who must, after the fact, suffer from or attempt to reverse harm done by new or unproven scientific procedures. Like the polluter pays principle, it reflects larger ethical claims. It assumes that progress or innovation is not an absolute value; that individuals and organizations are responsible for the possible, not just likely, effects of their actions. The precautionary principle also reflects a particular understanding of the relationship between knowledge and morality, insofar as it identifies as immoral actions that are taken without full knowledge of their possible outcomes. The precautionary principle has been widely affirmed by environmental groups and is central to sustainability. Related to the precautionary principle is the reversibility principle, according to which scientists or policymakers should not proceed on a potentially harmful course unless its consequences can be reversed. People should not make decisions, other words that cannot be undone by future generations. A primary example of an irreversible action is the extinction of species. Again, this principle reflects larger ethical claims: that people owe obligations to future generations (and perhaps to non-human nature) and those immediate desires or interests should not be satisfied at the expense of the interests of future generations. As central tenets of sustainability, the polluter pays, reversibility, and precautionary principles all assert that those who are responsible for implementing technologies must be prepared to address the possible consequences of their

implementation. They also require decision-makers to consider as many different options as possible before acting and to consider as fully as possible not just the likely but also the possible outcomes of those actions. They assume, further, that scientists, policy makers, and other citizens must consider both future human generations and non-human nature as part of their deliberation. Individual human interests, even the collective interests of a particular group or generation, are not absolute; they are significantly limited by obligations to other people, including those not yet born, and even to non-human nature. As specific statements of some of the major values of sustainability, then, these principles add concreteness to some of the more general guidelines for ethical decision-making Ethics and Human Interface (Note-22) Creating a culture of Ethics in Public sector Ethics, the standards of behavior that tell us what we ought to do in our personal and professional lives, applies to all individuals, organizations, and society as a whole. High ethical standards are especially important in the public sector because they are keys to credibility and lead to increased support for government agencies and political leaders. Creating a culture of ethics in an organization can best be accomplished with the adoption of a values-based code of ethics. The ideal time to undertake the effort is when the individuals and the organization are unanimous in their commitment. Ethics codes cannot serve as a “flu shot” to prevent a problem, nor can the codes be used as an “antibiotic” to cure an ethics problem. Once established, the code must apply to everyone including elected and appointed officials, professional staff, and commissioners, as well as volunteers, vendors, and contractors. The simple adoption of a code will not ensure success. There are five keys to building an ethical organization: 1. Leadership: Public policy makers and top administrators call for ethics as a priority and demonstrate that in word and deed. 2. Commitment: All involved make the time, budget the money, plan the program. 3. Collaboration: All the stakeholders work to develop consensus and design the program. 4. Implementation: The program includes a strategy for making ethics an integral part of the organization. 5. Reflection and Renewal: Ongoing assessment includes annual re-

adoption of the code and exploration of ways to communicate to new employees, vendors, residents, and members of the media Ethics and Human Interface( Note – 23) Ethics in Public life

Public life is that vast collection of political, cultural, social and economic structures, including the workplace, which make up and underpin cohesive societies. People who are engaged in leadership positions in those organizations and who actually influence the lives of others are to varying degrees engaged in public life. Healthy societies depend on the widespread participation by citizens in public affairs and in the institutions that make up civil society. Each of us has the obligation to contribute to the building of social capital, that is to say, to the forces and influences which bind us in community spirit and concern for each other.

Ethics in public life have to be grounded in ethics in private life. The critical examination of „what one ought to do‟ is foundationally important because there is no universal agreement about what is right or wrong in every given situation. That is why we are called to live this examined life and to be actively engaged with the ethical dimensions of the choices we make every day. An ethical life is one where the person engages actively and rigorously with hard choices, accepts that words and actions have consequences and makes those choices in that considered light. Such choices, as we are all painfully aware, are not just between right and wrong. They can be between two alternatives neither of which is good or desirable or right, both of which may have some bad or undesirable consequences. But no other alternatives are available. One or the other it must be. Ethics involves the attempt—always striving, perhaps never arriving—to give to you a coherent framework, embedded in decency and integrity, within which to make such choices. The examined conscience enlivens our capacity to think richly and imaginatively about our lives. It also enlivens our capacity to think about how we treat other people, both on a day to day basis and in relation to the more challenging position of dealing with people in need and people outside our circle of family and friends. The work community is for many people the closest it gets to participation in community life. One should always start with the principle that we treat people as an end in them and not as a means to an end. This reasoning informs the obligation to be open and honest with people about where they stand in the organization and how they are progressing. It is also highly informative about how people should be paid.

Decent behavior is also important in how people are developed, promoted, counseled and in some cases dismissed. How one treats people on the termination of their employment is very often the ultimate test of one‟s ethical commitment to an employee. At this point the relationship is ending. It is very easy to act peremptorily and tell someone to pack their bags. It is much more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive to engage in a conversation and process which is respectful of the person‟s own sense of identity, integrity and self belief. Corporations need to ask and answer the question of „what they ought to do‟. We face many social, economic and environmental problems in India. The influence of business today is so pervasive that government on its own can no longer provide all the solutions. Business, particularly big business, does not act in a vacuum and its impact is felt in relation to many social, economic and environmental issues. The ethical challenge for business is to create a value chain beyond the interests of its shareholders and customers, and to contribute to the wellbeing of society at large. This can be achieved consistently with the best interests of shareholders, including making healthy profits and the return on their capital investments. Ethics and Human Interface : (Note-24) Ethics in private and public life : Questions A. Public Understandings of Ethics and Ethical Education for Public Understandings What does the public understand by ethical conduct? How are we educated or socialized into what ethical conduct in public life is? What is the nature, scope and limitations of ethical education in promoting an ethical public life? To what extent does moral education promote or impede ethical thinking? How do we understand and evaluate political, cultural and educational ways of inculcating ethics in the public realm? B. Ethical regulations, Codes and Scrutiny in Public Life What do ethical regulations, codes and scrutiny offer to more ethical practice in public life? What form and character should ethical regulations, codes and scrutiny take to effectively develop ethical practice in the public realm? Are current regulations, codes and scrutiny effective? To what extent do regulations, codes and scrutiny necessarily represent the cultural character and political interests of their practitioners? How can we improve regulation, code-making and scrutiny in public life and ensure its effectiveness? C. Ethics in Social and Public Policy-Making: from Governance to Implementation What do particular nations, agencies and organizations develop ethical governance for more ethical practice in public life? What form and character should ethical

governance take in informing policy and practice in the public realm? How do those involved in ethical governance ensure principles are implemented effectively in policy and practice? To what extent does governance necessarily represent the cultural character and political interests of their practitioners? How can we improve ethical governance? D. Intellectuals, Academia, the Arts, Culture and Ethical Knowledge What special issues arise from intellectuals and academics engagement with ethics in their work? How effective is the ethical governance and regulation of academia and the arts? Is all intellectual and artist work (in all disciplines and fields) necessarily subject to ethical thinking and regulation? To what extent should artists and intellectuals be exempt from ethical regulation to „speak to truth‟? In what ways can culture and the arts be ethical regulated and yet free to express themselves? E. Applied Ethics in Public and Private Life How do different industries, organizations and fields (business, health and medicine, education, politics and whatever other areas you have expertise in) perform ethically in public life? What general lessons can we learn from considering the ethical governance and regulation of particular examples in particular nations? What different areas of public life set contemporary challenges for those who seek to inculcate ethics in public life? How can ethical guidance inform ethical practice in both public and private realms? What relationship is there and should there be between ethics in public life and ethics in private life? F. Ethics and Public Life: Historical Perspectives What can we learn from historical examples of ethical governance, regulation, conduct and practice? How far are historical writings and examples of ethical principles and practice from the past applicable to the present? G. Applying Ethical Theories and Ideas to Public Problems and Issues How useful is ethical theory in guiding ethical governance, regulation, policy and practice? How is theory applied to practice and how might it be better applied? What forms of guidance on ethical thinking do theories offer to the project of ethics in public life? What contemporary debates in ethical theory and ideas offer opportunities for better ethical conduct and practice in public life? Ethics and Human Interface (Note-25) Ethics in private sector As the economy has become increasingly “global,” there should be some level of control over different industries, organizations and fields (business, health and medicine, education, politics etc) with ethics standards, and, often, the ability to assess and even sanction violations of labor codes and environmental standards.

Globalization, nevertheless, has created new opportunities for companies, which now can shift their production to parts of the world where the cost of labor is cheaper, thereby increasing profit. Opportunities notwithstanding, companies are also facing new restrictions. As people have become better informed, customer concern has become increasingly focused on the ethical, environmental, and labor standards of companies that become global by writing and calling companies to complain about human rights violations, demonstrating against the companies, supporting company anti-sweatshop organizations, filing shareholder resolutions, and in some cases, boycotting products and companies that are allegedly not respecting basic ethical. These ethical violations involve but are not limited to issues concerning child labor, employee harassment and abuse, and solutions consisting of nondiscrimination laws, freedom of association, collective bargaining agreements, health and safety standards, and adequate wages and hours of work. Customers’ rising ethical concerns have rapidly and radically reshaped the environment in which companies operate. Reputation has now become a precious assetwhich not only dictates the economic success of a company, but its survival. Not surprisingly, companies in the past years have made conscious efforts to protect their reputation and reassure their customers of their adherence to a certain level of ethical principles. Private sector ethics standards are created to respond to that consumer-based need. To do this, the private sector develops a list of obligations to adhere to human rights standards, and the beginning of what would become the Corporate Responsibility (CR) or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement. Corporate social responsibility is the commitment of businesses to behave ethically and to contribute to sustainable economic development by working with all relevant stakeholders to improve their lives in ways that are good for business, the sustainable development agenda, and society at large. Determining CSR agendas requires examining the role of business and the evolution of business thinking to reflect the new responsibilities globally, the market-based, regulatory/legal and societal pressures on business to protect and or promote human rights, and determining how companies decide what issues are relevant. Over the past decade, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has risen in global prominence and importance. Corporate governance scandals such as those at WorldCom, Enron, Parlamat, Daewoo, and Tyco profoundly affected major capital markets worldwide, and placed issues such as ethics, accountability, and transparency firmly on the business, regulation and policy agendas. Additionally, issues such as peace, sustainable development, security, poverty alleviation, environmental quality and human rights are becoming increasingly interlinked, and are having a profound effect on businesses and

the business environment. Although not traditionally responsible for finding solutions to these challenges, it is in the private sector‟s best interest to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Unfortunately, few companies, particularly in developing world,have the skills or competencies to work in this new operating environment. Strategic capacity building is imperative in educating these businesses about CSR, so they may access new markets and improve their competitiveness on a national, regional and global scale. To protect the company reputation companies are beginning to reassure their customers by adopting codes of ethics and codes of conduct, by establishing internal monitoring mechanisms and by allowing independent auditors to investigate and report whether these companies manage to meet the ethical standards that they set for themselves. Codes and monitoring systems are viewed as a strategy to reduce reputation risks in the marketplace. One poorly supplied can significantly damage a firm‟s reputation and, in turn, its sales and stock value. Informed stakeholders view firms with suppliers in countries with labor issues. Codes of conduct and monitoring systems also offer several advantages over traditional regulatory regimes in the` eyes of firms. These systems build on some of the central organizational principles of contemporary globalization – outsourcing production, monitoring, and continuous improvement – and so can advance a form of regulation that multinational firms find compatible with business strategies weak enforcement systems or poor tracking records on child labor with suspicion. These firms in turn, need independent means of establishing their “good” performance. Firms may also be advancing these programs as a strategy to preempt stricter state regulation and to undermine the legitimacy of the state in regulating. Codes of conduct and monitoring systems are intended to perform both aninternal and an external function. Ethics reforms are enacted to improve the ethical standards of firms (internal function), but these reforms are enacted to address the ethical concerns of the market (external function). Ethics and Human Interface (Note-26) Elements of Organizational Ethical Culture There are three types of Ethics related actions can have powerful influence on building an ethical culture in an organization:  setting a good example 

keeping promises and commitments



supporting others in adhering to ethics standards

How to promote organizational ethical culture?











Organizations should use their ethics and compliance programs to foster a culture committed to ethics throughout the organization. organizations should focus training not only on informing employees about compliance with regulations, but also on encouraging employees to behave in a way that is conducive to a strong ethical culture By identifying which Ethics related actions have a greater impact, organizations can better target training to promote a culture committed to ethical conduct in the workplace. Organization can encourage leadership to set a good example of ethical behavior, establishing organizational trustworthiness in keeping promises, and helping employees to make ethical decisions Upper management may need less emphasis on how to handle ethical dilemmas and more emphasis on how to engage in Ethic Related Actions, while junior employees may need instructions on how to proceed when faced with ethics challenges.

Elements of ethical culture:  Communication of ethics as a priority 

Setting a good example of ethical conduct



Keeping promises and commitments



Providing information about what is going on



Employees perceive that top managers are held accountable for ethics violations



Support employees in following organizational standards



Considering ethics while making decisions

**************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************

ETHICS AND HUMAN INTERFACE PART-2 (Note-1)Personal Ethics Ethics is a system of moral principles, by which human actions and proposals may be judged good or bad, or right or wrong.” Personal Ethics include:  Responsibility: Responsibility is taking care of your duties. It is answering for our actions. It is accountability. It is trustworthiness .It is a core value for living honorably. It is being accountable for our behavior. It is being dependable when we have things to do.  Respect: Respect means showing regard and appreciation for the worth of someone or something. It means honor and esteem. It includes respect for self, respect for the rights and dignity of all persons, and respect for the environment that sustains life. Much of the universal values and virtues that contribute to the good of the individual and society and affirm our human dignity are derived from the value of respect and the value of responsibility. We need respect to collaborate and to have a peaceful world.  Compassion: Desire to ease other suffering. Sympathetic awareness of another‟ distress combined with a desire to alleviate it. Kindness and caring are shown. Service and generosity are ways that compassion can be demonstrated.  Sharing: Sharing is giving, service, love, helpfulness. Sharing is kindness, generosity, unselfishness, sacrifice.  Perseverance: It is commitment, hard work, patience, endurance. It is being able to bear difficulties calmly and without complaint. It is trying again and again.  Friendship: Friendship is an unselfish concern for the good of another. It is our relationship with someone we like. “A friend is someone who knows you as you are, understands where you have been, accepts who you‟ve become, and still, gently invites you to grow.”  Cooperation: Cooperation is the common effort of a group for their mutual benefit. It is teamwork. It is working together peacefully.  Self-discipline: Self-discipline is self-control and self-restraint. It is selfreliance and independence.  Honesty: Honesty is telling the truth. It is straightforward conduct. It is being sincere, truthful, trustworthy, honorable, fair, genuine, and loyal with integrity. It is not being fabricate, falsify, or misrepresenting in personal , societal and professional life. It is to not deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or the public. It is that one should not make any false claims about













the skills, abilities, credentials and experience of their organization or themselves. Integrity: Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action. Accountability: The obligation of an individual to account for its activities, accept responsibility to others . Trustworthiness: Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas. Being reliable. Social awareness: Being aware of what is going on in your society and participate in every possible aspect of your society. Social responsibility: Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms Non-discrimination: Avoid discrimination against people on the basis of sex, race, and ethnicity.

(Note-2)Nature and Essence of Ethics [Part-2] Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in religion, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense or intuition. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense or intuition, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society? One plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common ethical norms but different individuals interpret, apply, and balance these norms in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences. It is important to remember that ethics and law are not the same. An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. We can also use ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, propose, or interpret laws. Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers urged citizens to disobey laws in order to protest what they regarded as immoral or unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of expressing political viewpoints. Another way of defining „ethics‟ focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. For example, a “medical ethicist” is someone who studies ethical standards in medicine. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspectivefor deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical

perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at stake. Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have norms for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These norms also help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to establish the public‟s trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical norms govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms. Ethics is important in promoting good, truth and avoidance of error. It promotes the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. In public life it helps to ensure that officials or governance can be held accountable to the public. It also helps to build public support. It promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and health and safety .It enhances quality and integrity ( Note-3) Ethical theories

(Note-4) Ethical theories Here are some suggestions about how some of the chief ethical theories would address various issues. This is all pretty tentative, in part because different ethical theories tend to focus on different issues, so it‟s not always easy to determine how one theory would address the issues that are the chief concern of another theory. Also, many of the categories in the table are not strictly parts of the moral theories, but rather views on other topics (such as personal identity or the nature of rationality) which seem to mesh well with a particular ethical theories. Consequentialism Deontology

Virtue Ethics

example

utilitarianism

Kantianism

Aristotelianism

model of

means-ends

how do I

what habits

practical

reasoning: how

determine

should I

reasoning

do I get what I

what‟s rational? develop?

want/what‟s good? personal

will & reason +

will & reason

will& reason +

identity (what

desires

(desires are

desires +

is essential to

thought of as

character

the self?)

outside forces

traits

with the potential to thwart rationality) rationality

getting what you

doing what

having the

want

reason requires kinds of desires (at a minimum,

which reason

not having

determines are

inconsistent or

best

self-

contradictory policies) central

what ought I to

what ought I to what‟s the best

question

do?

do?

sort of person

(act orientation)

(act

to be?

orientation)

(agent orientation)

primary object consequences of evaluation

acts

people (agents)

(states of affairs)

the good

BASIC NOTION right action (for most consequentialists, maximum happiness or something similar)

whatever

itself (? or

results from

possibly states

the actions of

of affairs

good people?

brought about

happiness?

by right

acquisition of

action? or

goods internal

states of

to practices

affairs in which (MacIntyre)? people who act rightly are rewarded?) the right

actions that

BASIC

the sort of

maximize the

NOTION

thing a virtuous person would do

good

in the situation virtue

being disposed to positive

BASIC

maximize utility

attitude toward NOTION

(for simple

doing one‟s

(but may be

versions of consequentialism, there will be just one big virtue; more complex versions might

moral duty(?)

analyzed, e.g. as those dispositions necessary for the attainment of happiness)

have many)

(Note-5) Ethics in India Our country is one of the oldest civilizations with a rich cultural and ethical heritage. Our Constitution as well as all our religious books is full of codes and directives on high values and ethics to be followed by the state as well as the society. „Do not do unto others as you would not be done by ‟(Atmani Pratikulani paresham na samachary), is the principle given in „Mahabharat‟. The definition of Ethics is well concretized in this maxim. This means that we should not do anything, which is a deviation from our intrinsic humanness – Swabhav. If we are able to do this, our inner core will spontaneously manifest itself. Ethics is human conduct in the light of moral principles, which may be viewed as the individual‟s standard of conduct or as a body of social obligations and duties. Our behavior outside is a reflection of our values within, which we radiate outwards thorough our action and deeds. But, there is perceptible change in the mind-set of the people towards achieving materialistic goals and prosperity irrespective of the “means” to be adopted. Ironically, the society also respects material prosperity only because of visible glamour attached with it with little regard to higher values of simplicity, honesty, hard-work, character building etc. There is a saying that a country gets the kind of government it deserves‟. This is truly reflected in our present day society and calls for a serious introspection and concerted effort towards change in the social mind-set. In our work situations, the organizational behavior theories of the west guide us. As is obvious, these theories and practices which deal with only one-ninth of the Indian population while the eight-ninth of the Indian population is traditional (normative). The men in the fields of India are guided by the insights embedded in the structure

of Indian thoughts. Thus the western thoughts have not been able to lead us much ahead. It is important to look into our own Indian thought and find solutions therein. Once upon a time India was known as Golden Bird (sone ki chidia) for all its prosperity and richness. The credit goes to all the saintly kings, from king Janaka to Ashoka, Akbar, Harshabardhan and the like; who had put into practice human values ideology as given in Vedanta and the other ancient Indian thoughts. It is because of these values that we could sustain ourselves through all adversities and cruelties of the earlier invaders and the British Rule. Our leaders like Tagore and Gandhi have lived the human values like purity and holiness, non-violence and moral courage. Gandhi forcefully and convincingly demonstrated the power of spirit over material things. His greatest leverage was his command over the Indian masses. He gained such a command because the simple folk could understand that he was inspired from within. They called him„Mahatma‟. Merely by his hunger strike, the Mahatma could control behavior of millions of people. He firmly derived his political activities from dharmic principles and refused to compromise with what was wrong. The Indian philosophy has set the ultimate goals for humans and Indian psychology provides practical methods in graded steps to march towards these goals and ethics is imbibed in it. Thus Indian psycho-philosophy deals with both of these aspects to bring in holistic development of the individual to make him/her full of values and ethical. (Note-6) Indian tradition of Ethics Ethics (nītīśāstra) is a branch of philosophy that deals with moral values. It studies human character and conduct in terms of good and bad, right and wrong. . Ethics is primarily concerned with the moral issues of the world. A true knowledge of ethics would be attained if one practices and imbibes these moral values. True religion lays stress on moral virtues. People are required to discharge their duties according to the moral code of ethics. In the knowledge tradition of India, ethics has its origin in its religious and philosophical thinking. From time immemorial, various religious faiths have flourished here. Every religious and every philosophical system of India has a prominent ethical component. Ethics is the core of all these systems. In every religious tradition, good moral conduct is considered essential for a happy and contented life. Without following the path of righteousness no one can attain supreme goal (mokṣa) of life. For this one has to perform good deeds and avoid wrong-doing. Rigveda and Cosmic order : India has a very ancient history of thinking about ethics. Its central concepts are represented in Ṛigveda, one of oldest knowledge texts not only of India but of the entire world. In Ṛigveda, we come across the idea

of an all-pervading cosmic order (ṛta) which stands for harmony and balance in nature and in human society. Here ṛta is described as a power or force which is the controller of the forces of nature and of moral values in human society. In human society, when this harmony and balance are disturbed, there is disorder and suffering. This is the power or force that lies behind nature and keeps everything in balance. Dharma : In Indian tradition, the concept of ṛta gave rise to the idea of dharma. The term dharma here does not mean mere religion; it stands for duty, obligation and righteousness. It is a whole way of life in which ethical values are considered supreme and everyone is expected to perform his or her duty according to his or her social position and station in life. In Buddhism, the word dhamma is used, which is the Pāli equivalent of the Sanskrit word dharma. The guidelines and rules regarding what is considered as appropriate behaviour for human beings are prescribed in the Dharma Śāstras. These are sociological texts that tell us about our duties and obligations as individuals as well as members of society. In the Hindu way of life, every individual is expected to perform his or her duty appropriate to his or her caste (varṇa) and stage of life (āśrama). This division of one‟s life into the four āśramas and their respective dharmas, was designed, in principle at least, to provide fulfilment to the person in his social, moral and spiritual aspects, and so to lead to harmony and balance in the society. The four āśramas are: (1) brahmacarya, stage of studentship; (2) gṛhastha, stage of the householder; (3) vanaprastha, life in the forest; and saṁnyāsa, renunciation. Apart from this, the concept of four ends of life (puruṣārthas) is also very important. These four ends of life are the goals which are desirable in them and also needed for fulfillment of human aspirations. These are (1) righteousness (dharma); (2) worldly gain (artha); (3) fulfillment of desire; (kāma) and (4) liberation (mokṣa). The fulfillment of all of these four ends of life is important for man. In this classification, dharma and mokṣa are most important from the ethical point of view. They give right direction and purpose to human life. For instance, acquiring wealth (artha) is a desirable objective, provided however it also serves dharma, that is, the welfare of the society. In the Bhagavad-Gītā, selfless action (niśkāma karma) is advocated. It is an action which is required to be performed without consideration of personal consequences. It is an altruistic action aimed at the well-being of others rather than for oneself. In Hinduism this doctrine is known as karma yoga. The concept of right and wrong is the core of the Mahābhārata which emphasizes, among others, the values of non-violence, truthfulness, absence of anger, charity, forgiveness and self realization. It is only by performing one‟s righteous duties or

dharma that one can hope to attain the supreme path to the highest good. It is dharma alone that gives both prosperity (abhyudaya) and the supreme spiritual good (niśryas). Similarly, the importance of ethics and ethical values is highlighted in epics and philosophical texts like, Upaniṣads, Rāmāyaṇa, darśana-śāstras and dharmaśāstras. The darśana śāstras are philosophical texts, which provide rational explanations of the ethical issues; the universal moral problems faced by man in daily life are placed in a philosophical context. In the dharma-śāstras, emphasis is on the social ethics. In these texts the interpersonal and social relations are placed in an ethical framework for guidance. In these texts the ethical problems are discussed in an indirect manner. Apart from these some of the texts directly deal with ethical issues: 1. Viduranītī: Attributed to Vidura, the great Mahābhārata character. A rich discourse on polity and dharma-śāstra. 2. Kamandakīya Nītisāra:A Sanskrit work belonging to c. 700-750 CE. 3. Nītivākyamṛtam: Literally the „nectar of science of polity‟ contains thirty-two discourses in simple Sanskrit prose by a Jain scholar, Somadeva Suri. 4. Ḷaghu Arhannīti: A small manual in Prakrit verse (c. 1088-1172 CE) on civil and criminal laws by Hemachandra, a Jain scholar. 5. Śukranītisara: An abridged Sanskrit text on polity which is attributed to Śukrācārya but believed by scholars to be a work of the early mediaeval period of history. 6. Nītikalpatarū: A Sanskrit treatise attributed to King Bhoja, available in manuscript only. 7. Nīti Śatakam: Bhartṛhari‟s hundred verses on ethics. (Note-7) Buddhist Ethics Buddhism gives primary importance to ethics. Sometimes it is called an ethical religion as it does not discuss or depend on the existence of God (the Supreme Being with form and attributes) but instead believes in alleviating the suffering of humanity. The ethical values in this faith are based on the life and teachings of the Buddha. These moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. According to Buddhism, the foundation of ethics is thepañcaśīla (five rules), which advocates refraining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and

intoxicants. In becoming a Buddhist, a lay person is encouraged to take a vow to abstain from these negative actions. In Buddhism, the two most important ethical virtues are compassion (karuṇa) and friendliness (maitrī). One should have deep sympathy and goodwill for the suffering people and should have the qualities of a good friend. The most important ethical value is non-violence or non-injury to all living beings. Buddhist ethics is based on Four Noble Truths. These are: (1) life is suffering, (2) there is a cause for suffering, (3) there is a way to remove it, and (4) it can be removed (through the eight-fold path). It advocates the path of righteousness (dhamma). In a way this is the crux of Buddhist morality (Note-8) Jain Ethics Jainism places great emphasis on three most important things in life, called three gems (triratna). These are: right vision (samyaka dṛṣṭī), right knowledge(samyaka jñāna) and right conduct (samyaka cāritra). Apart from these, Jain thinkers emphasize the need for reverence (śraddhā).There are other moral principles governing the life of Jains. Most important of these are ideas of puṇya (merit) and pāpa (demerit). Such deeds are very important from the ethical point of view. Pāpa is the result of evil deeds generated by vice and puṇya is the result of good deeds generated by virtuous conduct. One should take the path of a virtuous life to lead the way to spiritual growth. Right conduct is necessary for the spiritual progress of man. The most important thing in Jainism is practice of non-violence. It is required that principle of principle of non-violence should be followed in thought, word and deed. The other cardinal virtues are: Forgiveness, humanity, simplicity, noncovetousness‟, austerity, restraint, truthfulness, purity, renunciation and celibacy. (Note-9) Sikh Ethics Sikhism is most recent faith in Indian tradition.It also lays great stress on ethics in Human life. Its Founder Gurunanak dev said that truth is higher than anything else. The cardinal virtue according to Guru Granth Sahib are: compassion (daya), charity (dana) contentment (santokh), non-enmity (nirvair) and selfless service (seva). In addition to these one is morally obliged to practice the general and eternal virtues. (Note-10) The Bhakti Movement During the middle ages, the Bhakti movement arose in India. It was an all-India movement of social reform and spiritual awakening. It played a very important part in reawakening moral consciousness in India. Jayadeva, Nāmdev, Tulsīdās, Kabīr, Ravidās and Mīra are some of the prominent saints of this movement. Most of these saints came from the downtrodden sections of society. Rejecting the distinctions of caste, colour and creed, they spread the message of human equality. They were saint poets.

In their vāṇī (poetic compositions) they propagated the ideals of love, compassion, justice and selfless service. These are the ethical values which we need even today. ( Note-11) What are Case Studies? Case studies are a tool for discussing scientific integrity. Although one of the most frequently used tools for encouraging discussion, cases are only one of many possible tools. Many of the principles discussed below for discussing case studies can be generalized to other approaches to encouraging discussion about research ethics. Cases are designed to confront readers with specific real-life problems that do not lend themselves to easy answers. Case discussion demands critical and analytical skills and, when implemented in small groups, also fosters collaboration.By providing a focus for discussion, cases help trainees to define or refine their own standards, to appreciate alternative approaches to identifying and resolving ethical problems, and to develop skills for analyzing and dealing with hard problems on their own. The effective use of case studies is comprised of many factors, including:  appropriate selection of case(s) (topic, relevance, length, complexity) 

method of case presentation (verbal, printed, before or during discussion)



format for case discussion (Email or Internet-based, small group, large group)





leadership of case discussion (choice of discussion leader, roles and responsibilities for discussion leader) outcomes for case discussion (answers to specific questions, answers to general questions, written or verbal summaries)

It should be noted that ethical decision-making is a process rather than a specific correct answer. In this sense, unethical behavior is defined by a failure to engage in the process of ethical decision-making. It is always unacceptable to have made no reasonable attempt to define a consistent and defensible basis for conduct. Leading Case Discussions: For the sake of time and clarity of purpose, it is essential that one individual have responsibility for leading the group discussion. As a minimum, this responsibility should include: 

Reading the case aloud.



Defining, and re-defining as needed, the questions to be answered.



Encouraging discussion that is “on topic”.



Discouraging discussion that is “off topic”.



Keeping the pace of discussion appropriate to the time available.



Eliciting contributions from all members of the discussion group.



Summarizing both majority and minority opinions at the end of the discussion.

How should cases be analyzed? Many of the skills necessary to analyze case studies can become tools for responding to real world problems. Cases, like the real world, contain uncertainties and ambiguities. Readers are encouraged to identify key issues, make assumptions as needed, and articulate options for resolution. In addition to the specific questions accompanying each case, readers might consider the following questions: 1. Who are the affected parties (individuals, institutions, a field, society) in this situation? 2. What interest(s) (material, financial, ethical, other) does each party have in the situation? Which interests are in conflict? 3. Were the actions taken by each of the affected parties acceptable (ethical, legal, moral, or common sense)? If not, are there circumstances under which those actions would have been acceptable? Who should impose what sanction(s)? 4. What other courses of action are open to each of the affected parties? What is the likely outcome of each course of action? 5. For each party involved, what course of action would you take, and why? 6. What actions could have been taken to avoid the conflict? If consensus is not possible, then written or oral summaries should reflect majority and minority opinions. Is there a right answer? ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS: Most problems will have several acceptable solutions or answers, but it will not always be the case that a perfect solution can be found. At times, even the best solution will still have some unsatisfactory consequences. UNACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS: While more than one acceptable solution may be possible, not all solutions are acceptable. For example, obvious violations of specific rules and regulations or of

generally accepted standards of conduct would typically be unacceptable. However, it is also plausible that blind adherence to accepted rules or standards would sometimes be an unacceptable course of action

(Note-12) Ground Rules for Discussion of Case- studies on Ethics 1. The reasoning which leads to an opinion is important, not the opinion itself. 2. When discussing a case study, do not change the circumstances or the story of the study. 3. Apply structured techniques to formulate and clarify thinking. 4. Identify the ethical component of an issue (what part of a dilemma requires an ethical approach? 5. Identify the Subject related component of an issue (what part of the ethical component is unique to subject? 6. Distinguish between positive arguments (do this) and negative arguments (don‟t do this). 7. Distinguish between personal and professional ethical positions. 8. Distinguish between the requirements of logic, of law, of institutional policy, of personal preference, of social convention, and of ethics (Note-13) Philosophical system and Ethical system

Philosophical Systems

A philosophical system is a consistent set of values and criteria that apply to a wide variety of issues. We have examined four systems: Idealism: Reality is basically spirit or idea. Knowledge is gained through the mind. Value is measured by conformity to ideals. Realism: Reality is basically matter or the physical universe. Knowledge is gained through the senses. Value is measured through conformity to nature. Pragmatism: Reality is process or experience. Knowledge is gained through trial and error. Value is measured by what is of practical benefit to society. Existentialism: Reality is self-defined. Knowledge is gained through personal decision making. Value is measured by responsible individual choice.

Ethical Systems

An ethical system is a consistent set of beliefs which can be applied to a wide variety of ethical dilemmas. Some widely argued systems include:

Virtue: Ethical behavior is that which develops moral virtues. Focus on attitudes, intentions, and character traits which enable humans to develop their potential. Utilitarian (Bentham, Mill): Ethical choices produce the greatest good and the least harm. Focus on consequences of actions. Human Rights (Kant): Human rights are interests and activities which we must respect and protect as a civilization. Every person has the fundamental right to be respected and to be treated as a free and equal rational agent. This implies other rights, such as privacy, truth, and freedom from harm. Focus on actions which do not use people as instruments toward a goal. Fairness/Justice (Aristotle): Treat people consistently the same, unless there are morally relevant differences between them. Focus on fairness and consistency of actions to distribute benefits and burdens among all members of a group. Common Good (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero): Society is a community joined in a shared pursuit of common goals. The good of the individual is inextricably bound to the good of the group. Ethics advances the common good.

(Note-14) Some Techniques of Ethical Analysis in Case studies Ethical analysis tries to identify the participating parties, their respective stakes and responsibilities, and the essential issues. After this groundwork is in place, various ethical guidelines (rules of conduct) and principles (philosophical systems) are applied to the problem. Most discussion revolves around understanding the intent of the guidelines and principles when applied to a particular case. When addressing an ethical dilemma or a case study, try to answer these questions: 1. What is the ethical issue? Is something morally wrong? Is the issue deeper than personal or institutional concerns? 2. Who are the involved parties (the people and the organizations affected)? Who has an important stake in resolving the issue? 3. What are the obligations between the parties? Fidelity (a promise or a contract) Reparation (making up for a wrong) Gratitude (thanking for a right) Justice (comparative merit) Beneficence (helping a deserving person) Non-injury (avoiding harm) 4. What would each party consider to be the preferred course of action?

5. Generate several courses of action (at least three, two extremes and a compromise). Identify broad filters which might constrain the choice of options for action. 6. For any choice of action, determine the impact on each of the parties: a. Are any ethical guidelines violated? b. What are the best-case and worst-case outcomes? Are they tolerable? c. What benefits and harm will be caused? Does the good outweigh the possible harm? d. Are there rules or principles which invalidate a choice of actions? e. List the consequences, risks, and costs. 7. Choose a course of action, and identify which philosophical system it aligns with: Ethical egoism Utilitarianism Human Rights Ethical Relativism Fairness and social justice Common good 8. Which alternative actions produce the best overall consequences? Which respect the moral rights and dignity of all parties? Which treat people fairly, without favoritism or discrimination? Which advance the common good? Which develop moral values? Which recognize the cultural context? Which are the most consistent? 9. Do different ethical systems generate different courses of action? Are there issues to which none of the ethical systems apply? Which system is most compelling for resolving the particular issue? 10. Finally make a clear and definitive decision about a course of action. Suggest policy changes which will prevent the problem from recurring. Summary of Ethical Analysis 1. Specify the FACTS. 2. Define the DILEMMA. 3. Identify the PARTIES and their interests. 4. Clarify the VALUES and PRINCIPLES at stake. 5. Formulate the possible ACTIONS. 6. Identify the potential CONSEQUENCES. 7. Make a clear DECISION. (Note-15) Some Questions on Ethics and Human Interface [Notice- I have seen the sample paper which is given by UPSC. After GOOGLING i found these questions. I am not sure these will be asked. But for practice you can use this if you want. You should ask your mentor/teacher about these questions and please inform me what they said. In my view this is a new subject so questions would be not

so hard and twisting this year. Well we should be prepared for any circumstances. I think you guys should strong yours theoretical part so you would be able to solve any practical PROBLEM. All the best] 1. Answer any two the following in about 250 words each: ( 2×25) (i) “When in Rome do as Romans do”? – Explain it in the context of ethical relativism. (ii) Honest, upright, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the distribution of their personal data.” Do you agree or not? Give at least three reasons for your position and one reasonable objection to it. (iii) State the differences between deontological theories and teleological theories of moral reasoning. 2. Answer the following in about 150 words each: ( 5×10) (i) State two problems with consequentialist theories. (ii) What are the two main kinds of deontological theory? (iii) Explain the positive and negative concept of liberty? (iv) Name and describe the theories of right action. (v) What is moral autonomy? 3. Discuss the statements. You should include different and supported point of view and personal point of view. (10×10) (i) “Children are a gift not a right”. (ii) “Religious people should never be wealthy.” (iii) “Justice is more important than peace.” (iv) “It is better to starve than to earn money immorally.” (v) “If Hinduism is right, all religion must be wrong.” (vi) “You should always stand up for unjust government.” (vii) “We can treat animals in any ways we wish” (viii) “Only god has the right to take the life.” (ix) “It is duty of religious people to encourage contraception to avoid world become overpopulated.” (x) “Putting people into prison is waste of money”. 4.Globalization raises many concerns in terms of market failure and sustainable development. Discuss.(25) 5.Define ethics and emphasize its need to the contemporary society.(25)

(Note-16) ―When in Rome do as Romans do‖? – Explain it in the context of ethical relativism. Sometimes we say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” implying that this sort of acting is morally correct. We can call views of this sort Cultural Ethical Relativism (CER). According to views of this sort: Moral appraisals are essentially dependent upon the standards that define a particular moral code, the practices and norms accepted by a social group at a specific place and time. It implies, among other things, that: * “Right” means “socially approved by a give culture or society.” * We should choose moral principles by following what our society approves of. * Such terms as “obligatory”, “required”, forbidden”, “good”, “bad”, “virtuous”, etc. can be defined in an analogous way. One can support this because:  Morality is a product of culture and nothing which is such a product can be objective or universal.  Cultures and societies disagree widely about morality.  It is simply good when we have a variety of cultures One can be against this because:  It is hard to define a culture. Without such definition, we do not know what CER implies.  Sometimes an action takes place within more than one society. In such a case, would an act be right or wrong or neither or what?  If it is true, then moral decisions are either too easy or too difficult.  If it is true, then moral progress or reform is impossible. Also, we cannot learn from other cultures. Thus, Ethical Relativism holds that each situation must be judged according to its own merits, and that universal standards cannot be applied to judge the morality of a decision. A relativist believes in „when in Rome do as the Romans do‟. (Note-17) Ethics and human interface Honest, upright, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the distribution of their personal data.‖ Do you agree or not? Give at least three reasons for your position and one reasonable objection to it. Information considered as personal is financial, medical and national identity related information. Article 21 of the constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to personal liberty which includes right to privacy and by extension private data not

available in public domain. This right extends to data in electronic forms and information technology act 2000 in which there is a provision of punishment for violation of privacy, so it facilitates protection of such data. Since independence broad technological changes have taken place. The ability of organizations to collect, store and process personal data has increased. Not many digital technologies are designed to obtain detailed logs of their usage by individuals, which are then accessible for surveillance and marketing purposes. Online activities are particularly closely monitored. Even where users are not required to provide personal data when accessing services on the Internet, individuals can be identified through the Internet Protocol (IP) address of their computer, and often through digital „cookies‟ or electronic identifiers left on their browser by Web sites. Internet communication and browsing tends to leave logs of Web pages visited, email and instant message senders and recipients, voice over IP callers, goods examined and purchased, advertisements viewed and searches. What is more, this development is widespread, not only on the Internet. Cameras are used for surveillance. Mobile phones sending location information to the network providers enables contextual advertising and mapping. Debit and credit card payment systems record amounts spent and stores visited. Store loyalty cards enable databases of purchases to be compiled. Biometrics, measurements that uniquely identify individuals, such as fingerprints and photographs, nowadays also include DNA matching, and face and voice recognition. The rise of „Web 2.0‟ technologies, allowing user-to-user contact, has resulted in sites for sharing pictures, videos and movies on Web logs (blogs), and last but not least, the nowadays enormous global social networks. Data mining tools have been developed to find patterns in large collections of personal data, to identify individuals and to attempt to predict their interests and preferences. Companies use these technologies to obtain large customer bases. Governments are increasingly analyzing and exchanging information on their citizens. Individuals are shopping online and using social networking sites to share information about themselves and their family, friends and colleagues. Overall, collection, storage and usage of personal data have become a part of everyday life at all levels of society. So, nowadays it is a necessity of disclosing personal information: 1. Disclosing personal information is an increasing part of modern life 2.The government asks for more and more personal information 3.Nowadays one needs to log into several systems using several usernames and passwords. 4.There is no alternative than to disclose personal information if one wants to obtain products or services

5.Disclosing personal information in return for free services online, such as a free email address. But there are so many risks factors also: 1. Your information being used without your knowledge and information being shared with third parties without your agreement. 2. Your identity being at risk of theft online. 3. Your information being used to send you unwanted commercial offers. 4. Your information being used in different contexts from the ones where you disclosed it. 5. You can become a victim of fraud Ideally it is correct that an honest man should have nothing to fear because he has done nothing wrong. However, digital information is easily transferred – threats exist and accidents happen. Perhaps an honest man does have something to fear.