FYBA MORAL PHILOSOPHY ENGLISH – Sem II-munotes

Page 1

1
Unit -1
MORALITY OF SELF –INTEREST -
(Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand)
UNIT STRUCTURE
1.0Objectives
1.1 Hedonistic Egoism: Epicurus
1.2Psychological Egoism : Thomas Hobbes
1.3Ethics and Human Nature
1.4Motivation
1.5Self-Protection and Self -Interest
1.6The Laws of Nature and Moral Law
1.7Morality of Self –Interest
1.8Ayn Rand
1.9Summary
1.10 Broad Questions
1.0 OBJECTIVES
To understand Hobbes’ psychological egoism and Ayn Rand’s
ethical egoism.
To understand the morality of rat ional self -interest as against
the morality of self -sacrifice.
To know egoistic ethics as against altruistic ethics.
1.1 HEDONISTIC EGOISM: EPICURUS
Introduction
The term “hedonism” is derived from the Greek word “Hedone”
meaning pleasure. According to Hedonism, hedone or pleasure is
the ultimate standard of morality. It is the highest good, themunotes.in

Page 2

2
supreme end of life. According to Hedonism, an action is right when
it produces pleasure and an action is wrong when it results in pain.
Kinds of pleasure
Hedonism takes different forms. It may be psychological or
ethical. Psychological hedonism holds that we always seek
pleasure and avoid pain. Ethical hedonism holds that pleasure is
the proper object of desire, that we do not always seek pleasure but
ought to seek pleasure.
Ethical hedonism may assume two forms viz. egoistic and
altruistic. According to egoistic hedonism, the pleasure of the
individual is the moral standard. According to altruistic hedonism
‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ i st h eu l t i m a t e
moral standard.
Egoistic hedonism again may be of two types, Gross and
Refined. According to Gross Egoistic hedonism momentary
pleasure is the highest good. This view is held by Aristippus,
Thomas Hobbes and Charvaka (an Indian philosophy school).
Epicurus
Epicurus (341 -270 BC) was the Greek Philosopher. He was
the follower of Socrates in Greece. He was an advocate of Refined
Egoistic Hedonism. According to Epicurus, reason has an important
place in our moral life. It is the proper guide for the attainment of
true happiness. Momentary pleasures are not the highest good. But
a happy life as a whole is the greatest good. Thus Epicurus differed
from Aristippus.
Epicurus differed from Aristippus:
According to Aristippus, a man ought to seek the pleasure of
each moment. Without consideration of future consequences. Butmunotes.in

Page 3

3
according to Epicurus, there should be consideration of
consequences which would enable the agent to secure the greatest
possible amount of pleasure in the world course of his l ife. He holds
that man is a self conscious being and possesses reason. He
thinks momentary pleasure he cannot forget the past and the
future.
Epicurus differed from Aristippus in recognizing the
importance of prudence. All pleasures are not equal to dura tion and
intensity. Some pleasures that last long, some do not. Some
pleasures have a greater intensity than some others. So they
should be measured by both. He recognizes the necessity of giving
up pleasure if it is likely entail greater pain and so he wo uld prefer
to pain to a pleasure if in doing so there is a great prospect of
pleasure in the future and in the long run.
Pleasure means the absence of pain:
According to Epicurus, pleasure, means in absence of Pain.
Pleasure is painlessness. Epicurus the great maxim of life is that
we should cultivate a temper of indifference to pleasure and pain.
The end of life is rather a state of indifference of neutral feeling, of
insensibility than a positive state of feeling of enjoyment.
Criticism:
a) Egoistic he donism can never supply us with a uniform
standard of morality. What is pleasurable to one may be painful to
another. If pleasure constitutes rightness and pain constitutes
wrongness the moral standard is not uniform. Thus morality which
is regarded by all as uniform is abolished.
b) The refined egoism of Epicurus is more effective than the
egoism of Aristippus, because it recognizes the function of reason
in moral life. But it regards pleasure as negative feeling or absencemunotes.in

Page 4

4
of pain. Hence it does not enc ourage active life but rather an
inactive life. Free from pain. It forgets that morality consists in
activity rather than in painless inactive life.
1.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM : THOMAS HOBBES
(1588 -1679)
Thomas Hobbes was a British Empiricist. Thomas Hob bes
was born in Malmesbury, England. He studied scholasticism and
Aristotelian philosophy at oxford University. He devoted much of his
time to independent reading of literary classics. Upon graduation in
1608, Hobbes was selected as a tutor for the young s on of the
cavendish family. He had sufficient time to reflect, travel and
become acquainted with such outstanding contemporary
philosophers and scientists as Galibeo, Fransis Bacon, Kepler,
Descartes, Gassendi and Mersenne. He wrote many books but his
Leviathan treatise is very popular in political philosophy. He is best
known for his political thought. He is called the founding father of
modern political philosophy.
Hobbes was mainly concerned with the problem of social
and political order, i.e. how human beings can live together in
peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He felt that the
world in which we live is such that human authority requires
justification. He felt that society is a place where there is a social
and political equality and it is also a world where authority faces
dispute. Hobbes further felt that the world in which we live is such
that human beings have rights, moral claims which protect
individual’s basic interests. It is said that Hobbes work is a result of
two influen ces.
1)First is the influence of social and political background. Hobbes
reacted against the religious authority, especially against scholastic
philosophy.munotes.in

Page 5

5
2)The Second was the influence of science. Hobbes had a great
admiration for scientific method of Geometry. This geometrical
method is capable of giving us certain and universal knowledge.
Both these influences have affected his moral and political ideas.
1.3 ETHICS AND HUMAN NATURE
Hobbes’ moral thought is based on the view that what we
ought to do depends greatly on the situation in which we find
ourselves. According to Hobbes, where political authority exists, our
duty seems to be quite straightforwad i.e. to obey those in power.
Hobbes separates Ethics from politics. According to him ethics is
concerned with human nature, while political philosophy deals with
what happens when human beings interact.
Our fundamental rights depend on the political ground. At
that time our duty is to obey the laws and the rules of the society.
Hobbes said that the human body is like a machine and political
organization is like an artificial human being. He further says that
the truth of our ideas can be known only by self -examination, by
looking in to our characteristic thoughts and passions because it
forms the ba sis of all human actions. So Hobbes follow a method in
which he passes from emotions to thought. Hobbes’ mechanical
world view has no place for moral ideas. He thinks that the only
effective influence on our behaviour is the incentives of pleasure
and pain . On the basis of this Hobbes gives a picture of human
nature & says that we have to consider what motivates human
beings to act. Besides judgement and reasoning are equally
important.
Hobbes has several reasons for thinking that human
judgement is unreli able and it needs to be guided by science. He
says, firstly our judgement could be influenced by self -interest.
Secondly our judgement can be influenced by pleasure and pain ofmunotes.in

Page 6

6
the moment. Thirdly there could be basic passions which can
influence it. Fourt hly, various things in the world can affect all of us
very differently. Fiftly, our judgement can be based on faulty ideas
like beliefs about supernatural entities, fairies and spirits. Sixthly
our judgement can be influenced by persuasion by others. Lastl y
judgement also depends upon what we know rather than future
events because future events are unknown. Thus for Hobbes it is
only science which is the knowledge of consequences that offers
reliable knowledge of the future.
1.4 MOTIVATION
Hobbes’s account of human nature depends upon human
motivation like self -interest, egoism, because Hobbes feels that
human beings are selfish. He advocated psychological egoism.
Egoism being deeply ingrained in his nature, Man always seeks
things which can specify this do minant aspect of his nature.
According to Hobbes, it is first step men took in the direction of the
formation of a community which required the subordination of
individual interests and pleasures to the good of the whole and as
regards the growth of moral and social feelings in man. Hobbes
maintains that, with the growth of such political and social
institutions, our mental tendencies also undergo great deal of
change. Benevolence is quite necessary in society. It is a tendency
to do good to others in the h ope of getting a greater good for
ourselves. Friendship, likewise is another source which helps us in
the attainment of our good. Here Hobbes explains the origin and
growth of various social, political and moral institutions.
There are two postulates of h uman nature. 1) It is the
postulate of human nature by which each man insists upon his own
private use of common prosperity. 2) The postulate of natural
reason by which each man strives to avoid violent death. Thismunotes.in

Page 7

7
represents false view of human nature. Th ough man is selfish, he
even relies on motives which go beyond his self -interest. For
example pity, courage, honour etc. All these are cases wherein we
observe the instances of interests of others and rising above self -
interest.
Hobbes further thinks tha t beyond the notion of self -interest
man is more concerned about what others think of him. This
weakness has led to the formulation of this theory known as
‘psychological egoism’. According to Hobbes the natural condition
of mankind is a state of violence, insecurity, constant threat etc.
1.5 SELF -PROTCTION AND SELF -INTEREST
Hobbes argues that society originates out of self -interest and
fear, not out of natural feeling for one’s fellow men. He defends as
natural and reasonable the interest each man takes i nh i so w n
welfare and happiness. In a state of nature the first and only rule of
life is self -protection and men have a natural right to do anything
which serves this end.
1.6 THE LAWS OF NATURE AND MORAL LAW
According to Hobbes the laws of nature are imm utable and
eternal. Injustice, ingratitude, iniquity and the rest can never be
made lawful. For it can never be that war shall preserve life and
peace destroy it. The science of these laws is the only true moral
philosophy. Moral philosophy is a science of what is good and bad
in the conservation and society of mankind. These laws are called
natural laws. because They are dictates of reason. They are called
moral laws, because they concern men’s manners toward one
another. Hobbes establishes civil authority and law as the
foundation of morality. He is arguing that morality requires social
authority. Which must be in the hands of the sovereign. The will ofmunotes.in

Page 8

8
a sovereign power whose authority is absolute. Morality is based
upon -law and the law of the abolute sov ereign. Only the institution
of Government, which can be reward right actions and punish
wrongdoing, is moral conduct possible. Without civil authority it
would be foolish and dangerous to follow the precepts of morality.
Men are moral only it is conducive to individual security and prime
condition of security is absolute civil power. Hobbes concludes that
the laws of nature may be summed up in a rule which everyone
accepts, the Golden Rule lastly Hobbes ethical theory leads to the
political doctrine which is designed to end the natural war of every
man with every other man. Thomas Hobbes is called the founding
father of modern political philosophy.
Check your progress
1.What is psychological egoism?
2.Does psychology of human nature support psychological
egoism?
3.State Thomas Hobbes’s psychological egoism.
4.What is meant by absolute sovereignty?
5.What is the different between psychological egoism and
ethical egoism?
1.7 MORALITY OF SELF -INTEREST
Morality of self -interest is another name for egoistic ethics.
There are two types of egoism :
1) Psychological egoism
2) Ethical egoism
According to psychological egoism man by nature strives for
the satisfaction of his or her desires and fulfils one's interests. Man,
by nature, is selfish. English Philosopher, Th omas Hobbes (1588 -munotes.in

Page 9

9
1679) is an advocate of psychological egoism. According to ethical
egoism, one may or may not strive to fulfil one's desires. To say
that one ought to practice the morality of rational self interest
means that one ought to be an egoist in pursuing his or her own
rational interests. American thinker Ayn Rand (1905 -1982) was an
ardent advocate of ethical egoism in 20th century America. She
vehemently stood for the virtue of rational selfishness.
1.8 AYN RAND (1905 -1982)
Ayn Rand was an American author and thinker. She was
born in Soviet Russia. The communist revolution took place in
Soviet Russia in 1917. The communist regime suppressed freedom
and thus Ayn Rand left Russia in 1926 and went to USA. She
became a citizen of USA in 1931. Si nce then, she opposed
organized religion and dictatorship of every kind. Her philosophical
position is known as objectivism. She proudly admitted the
influence of Aristotle on her thinking.
Ayn Rand accepts the influence of Aristotle on her thinking.
At o ne place, Rand praises the American Declaration of
Independence by the founding fathers of American establishment.
This document states: Every man has a right to his own life, his
own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. She further
comments: it does not mention service to others. She was a
rationalist, atheistic, ethical thinker. The 1st principle of rationalism
is that I have the right to live. Likewise, others also have the right to
live. Secondly, rationality means context -keeping. To go by
reason means not to be guided by emotion and whims. Reason
demands the recognition of rights of all human beings. It, she says,
is based on the simple fact that man exists by means of his mind.
Sometimes it is said that reason determines only the means and
not the ends or aims of human life. That is to say that ends are notmunotes.in

Page 10

10
chosen rationally. Rand was opposed to this idea. She firmly said
that we must choose our ends by reason or we perish. Rand talks
about three modes of living. They are:
1.Plant model: Plan ts don't have to move in order to get their life -
supporting elements. They get them from the soil in which they
grow.
2.Animal model: Animals and birds have to seek their food and
water. Even the lion, the king of jungle, has to seek his food.
3.Human model: Man does not merely seek food. He has to do
productive work. For that purpose he has to choose actions. He
has to think. He has to seek knowledge. He needs knowledge in
order to live. Hence, selfishness is a virtue. Further she
elaborates: Selfishness mea ns the pursuit of one's rational self -
interest. Moreover, selfishness means to live by the judgement
of one's own mind and to live by one's own productive work
without forcing anything on others. Humans, by nature, are not
enemies of each other. Moreover, concern with one's own
interests is not evil. 'Selfishness' is also not to be identified with
evil. 'Selfishness,' according to Rand, ridicules the concept of a
self-respecting, self -supporting man who supports his life by his
own efforts and nither sacrif ices himself or others. Rand says:
"To attack selfishness is an attack on man's self -esteem."
Rand was opposed to Altruistic Morality. Altruism orders man to
sacrifice one's interest for the good of others. Altruism is
possible but it is not desirable. According to her, pure altruism
treats humans as sacrificial animals, and every kind of dictator
advocates altruistic morality, and suppresses human rights and
freedom of thought and speech.
Man is neither a mere animal nor a robot. He is a rational
anima l. Man has a right to live. Life itself is a value. So whatever
supports a happy and healthy life is good. Whatever is detrimentalmunotes.in

Page 11

11
to life is bad. One has to take decisions by one's self and also take
responsibility of one's decisions and actions. One must earn one's
livelihood. He is unjust to claim unearned wealth. Honesty is not to
deceive others and to hate lying, and not to desire what one does
not deserve. These principles are applicable to all human beings.
Even Knowledge according to Rand has only an
instrumental value. Knowledge is not a value itself. Knowledge is
good or even scientific knowledge, in particular, is a value because
it expands, enriches, and protects man's life. It is not a value
outside this context. There is nothing wrong in helpi ng others. But it
is not one's ethical duty to help others. One may try to reform
society but it is not one's moral obligation to do so. One may
choose to help others and reform society, but that is or that should
be one's choice. It must be the result of one's free and rational
choice.
Check Your Progress
1.Explain selfishness as a virtue.
2.Can one help others according to Ayn Rand?
1.9 SUMMARY
Thomas Hobbes advocates psychological egoism. According
to Hobbes man by nature is selfish. But we also observe people do
show sympathy for the sad condition of others especially one's kith
and kin or friends. Man also on occasions acts benevolently. This
fact goes againt the Hobbesian thesis that man is nothing but a
selfish animal. He seeks his own interest only. Hence most of the
social thinkers of the world have rightly asserted that man is a
social animal. He can not utterly neglect the interests of others.munotes.in

Page 12

12
Rand's morality of self -interest emphasizes the values of
rational choice. Freedom, a personal dignity, self-reliance, self -
belief, and dignity of labour are important values in her ethics. But
extreme individualism and extreme socialism are dangerous. Man
as a social animal has to take note of the existence of others and
their problems. We must hit the bal ance between egoism and
socialism or self -interest and also the interests of others. At one
point Rand rightly says that she is mainly a defender of reason and
not of individualism or capitalism. In her thoughts Ethics of
Emergencies, Rand says that "If on e's wife is in danger, one must
use one's money to save his wife. It is a 'rational' moral choice. It is
conducive to one's own happiness. If he really loves her, then it is
not a sacrifice."
Rand is an advocate of humanism. According to her,
humanism me ans faith in human talents and potentialities. Man has
to stand on his own feet. He can choose values and pursue them.
He can be the maker of his destiny. Another important point is that
man must choose his values freely and frankly and fearlessly. Rand
isopposed to altruism because it promotes parasitism. The
dictators, fascists and even communists regime preach altruism to
the people and enslave them and thereby the whole of mankind is
reduced to the status of sacrificial animals such as goats and
sheep.
1.10 BROAD QUESTIONS
1.State and critically evaluate Thomas Hobbes psychological
egoism.
2.Does psychology of human nature support psychological egoism.
3.What is the difference between the psychological egoism of
Hobbes and the ethical egoism of Ayn R and?
4.What is altruism according to Ayn Rand? Why is she opposed to
altruism?
munotes.in

Page 13

13
Unit -2
MODERN ETHICAL THEORIES
UNIT STRUCTURE -
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1Ethics of Altruism
2.1.2Nature and Origin of Morality
2.1.3Types of Virtue
2.2Categorical Imperative of Kant
2.2.1 Introduction to Kant’s views
2.2.2 Kant’s notion of good will
2.2.3 Maxims of Morality
2.2.4 The complete Good: Virtue & Happiness
2.2.5 Postulates of Morality
2.2.6 Criticism Check your progress
2.3 J.S. Mill: Utilit arianism
2.3.1 Hedonism
2.3.2 Forms of Hedonism
2.3.3 Ethical Hedonism
2.3.4 Utilitarianism
2.3.5 Jeremy Bentham’s Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism
2.3.6 Mill’s Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism
2.3.7 Criticism of Utilitarianism Check your pro gress
2.3.8 Kant’s view (Rationalism) and Mill’s view (Hedonism)
2.4 Summary
2.5 Broad Questionsmunotes.in

Page 14

14
2.0 OBJECTIVES
To familiarize students with modern moral theories of David
Hume Kant and Mill.
To become aware of the origin of morality
To develop a sens e of morality based on analysis of motive of
action and consequence of an action.
To know how ‘sense of Duty’ and ‘Happiness of many’ can
inspire our activity.
To construct ethical framework for assessing moral decisions in
different areas of life.
To b ecome aware of different moral outlooks in a globalized
world.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
There is a difference between ancient ethical theories and
modern moral theories. Modern moral theories focus either on
sentiments or duty or consequences. There is debate in moral
philosophy whether the intention of act is to be considered or
consequences of an act while giving moral judgment. Hume
focusses on sentiments; Kant emphasizes duty while Bentham and
Mill considers the consequences of an action. In this chapter we w ill
study David Hume’s altruism, Immanuel Kant’s categorical
imperative and Utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham.
Ethics is a normative science. It deals with the norms or
standards, in the light of which human actions are to be evaluated.
Every human acti on shows the sequence -the motive behind action
–the performance of chosen action ---and the consequence of
chosen action. Thus, human action can be evaluated on the basis
of motive behind the action or the consequences of action. Ethicsmunotes.in

Page 15

15
evaluates the h uman conduct with reference to the ‘Summum
Bonum’ of life; and declares the action as good or bad, right or
wrong. The concepts of ‘Good’ and ‘Right’ are extremely important
for the evaluation of human conduct. The action which is valuable
or useful for so me end is ‘Good’ action. The term ‘Good’ shows
desirability or utility of something. The term ‘Good’ indicates goals
or ideals of human life. The action which is ‘according to the rule’ is
‘Right’ action. Rules are the means to the realization of some goal .
Man lives in groups. Various groups have their own specific rules of
behavior, conduct and manners. In this way by the goals [Good]
and by the means to goals [Right] Ethics evaluates human conduct.
These two ways of evaluation are named as Teleological v iew and
Deontological view respectively. Teleological view of Ethics gives
importance to the concept of ‘Good’. This view aims at evaluation of
human actions on the basis of the consequences of the action.
Modern thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill d efine
‘Summom Bonum’ of life in terms of ‘pleasure’. Rightness of any
action is determined by the pleasure (good) produced by the action.
They advocate Hedonism which is a teleological theory.
Deontological view of Ethics gives importance to the concept of
‘Right’. Any action is to be evaluated by its obligatoriness
[rightness], irrespective of its consequences. This view regards an
action morally right not because of good outcome but because of
some characteristic of the action itself. Deontological theori es place
special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality
of human actions. Acts are inherently good or evil regardless of the
consequences of act. The theory of Immanuel Kant is Deontological
theory. It gives importance to the performanc e of duties irrespective
of the consequences.
2.1.1ETHICS OF ALTRUISM: DAVID HUME
David Hume: David Hume was a Scottish philosopher,
historian and economist. He was born on7th May 1711 and died onmunotes.in

Page 16

16
26thAugust 1776. He is well known for his empirical, ske ptical
method. He criticizes innate ideas, according to him all knowledge
derives from the experience. Some of his important books are ‘A
Treatise of Human nature’, ‘The history of England’, ‘Essays Moral,
Political and Literary’, ‘An enquiry Concerning Hu man
Understanding’ etc. Being an empiricist he held the position that
human behavior is governed by passion and not reason. His ethics
is based on his empiricist theory of mind. His main ethical thought
is found in book 3 ‘Of Morals’ of ‘A Treatise of Hum an Nature’ and
‘An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals’. Hume influenced
many philosophers and thinkers.
2.1.2Nature and Origin of Morality
According to Hume “moral decisions are grounded in moral
sentiments”. Feelings play an important role in e thical actions. The
rules of morality are not based on reason. He views sympathy as
the fact of human nature on which all social life and personal
happiness is based. Hume emphasizes on Altruism i.e.one always
aims at happiness of others and happiness of s elf. Human nature is
such that one laughs with laughing person, grieves with grieved
person.
There are different positions in moral philosophy like
rationalist, empiricist etc., rationalist position considers that moral
judgments are based on reason as co ntrast to this Hume holds a
different view according to which sentiments or feelings plays an
important role in moral judgments. It is on the basis of emotional
capacity we determine whether the action is morally right or not.
Moral evaluation depends on h uman capacity of sympathy, it is
because of this capacity we are able to understand others feelings,
emotions and beliefs. According to Hume there is a strong
connection between morality and human sociability. Our capacity ofmunotes.in

Page 17

17
understanding other’s feelings of pleasure and pain determines our
moral evaluation.
Hume’s moral philosophy is called as naturalistic as it is
based on emotions and sentiments. The source of moral
philosophy is not any religious authority or divine source. Plato,
Aristotle etc. beli eved that reason is the distinguishing feature
which separates human beings from animals. Rationalist
philosophers considers reason as the basis of moral evaluations.
Hume considers reason on its own is powerless and it needs
assistance of emotion or passi on to be effective. Hume argues that
moral assessment are not judgments of empirical facts, but they
are our feelings based on approval or disapproval. Moral approval
is emotional response. According to Hume all moral actions are
motivated by character tra its which may be virtuous or vicious.
Hume argues that although while distinguishing right and
wrong our internal feelings and emotions plays an important role
however reason is also needed to ascertain the facts about the
person. Hume denies that moral e valuation is result of ‘reason’
alone. Hume puts forward the following ‘influence argument’. (Ref:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/humemora/ )
Moral distinctions can influence human actions
“Reason’’ alone cannot infl uence human actions.
Therefore moral distinctions are not the product of “reason’’
alone.
Here moral distinction means moral evaluations which
distinguishes right and wrong, and this according to Hume can
motivate the person to do right. In the ‘influence argument’ Hume
believes that people can distinguish between what is right and
wrong or good and bad and this distinguishing capacity can
motivate a person to do right action. “Hume claims that recognition
of moral right and wrong can motivate action.”munotes.in

Page 18

18
To p rove ‘reason’ alone cannot influence human action,
Hume uses ‘the divide and conquer argument’. He divides reason
into two categories i.e., demonstrative reason and probable reason,
and then he argues that neither of these reasoning influence
human action. Therefore, reason alone cannot influence human
actions. The motivational force of an action is not these two
reasoning but the feeling of pleasure or pain or a passion. For
example, one who knows eating an apple a day keeps a doctor
away will not eat it u nless he has a passion for a good health.
According to Hume motivational force to pursue the particular goal
comes from the passion.
Reason and passion are not in conflict with one another.
Hume emphasizes that reason alone cannot be the motivation of
action. Hume’s famous statement is “Reason is, and only ought to
be the slave of passion” what he intends to say is that it is the
passion which determines or decides our goals or our action and
reason only tells us what are the different ways to achieve it.
In the judgment of moral action there are three factors i)
agent ii) receiver iii) spectator. When the action is performed by an
agent e.g. giving food to a starving person then the person who
receives it immediately becomes happy since he approves tha t
action. A spectator while passing a moral judgment considers the
persons act as right which is determined by his feeling of sympathy
of happiness which the receiver experienced. So, it is the capacity
of sympathy which plays an important role in moral ju dgment.
2.1.3Types of Virtue.
Moral agent performs moral actions as per character traits
which may be either virtuous or vicious, these traits are either
natural or acquired. There are two types of virtues i.e. natural and
artificial and Hume distinguish es between these two types. Naturalmunotes.in

Page 19

19
virtues are charity, generosity, humbleness kindness, courage,
benevolence, pride, truth etc. Artificial virtues are equality, justice,
keeping promises, allegiance and chastity etc. Artificial virtues are
those which ar e based more or less on social interaction. For
maintaining peace and harmony in society artificial virtues are
required. All those that are required for maintaining social order are
called as artificial virtues.
Hume considers that there are four irredu cible categories of
qualities that constitute moral virtues. They are i) qualities that are
useful to others like benevolence, charity etc. ii) qualities that are
useful to oneself like discipline, patience etc. iii) qualities that are
agreeable to others like wit, cleanliness etc. iv) qualities that are
immediately agreeable to oneself like good humor, self -esteem,
self-pride etc.
Short Questions
Q.1 What is the most important in moral actions according to
Hume?
Q.2 How Hume proves reason alone cannot inf luence moral
action?
Q3. Explain Hume’s influence argument.
Q.4 Explain types of virtues.
2.2 IMMANUEL KANT: CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Kant, the German philosopher, lived his life on the lines of
Categorical Imperative which he stated.Kant’s life was so
organized, disciplined, rather mechanical and time bound that
people in Konigsberg used to set their watches according to his
activities. He remained unmarried and lived his uneventful life
within Konigsberg till his death. Kant propounded criticalmunotes.in

Page 20

20
philosoph y. He reconciled empiricism and rationalism. Kant always
respected ‘Good’ will and ‘Moral Law’. The following lines are
carved on his memorial in Stoa –‘Above me is the starry Heavens
and Within me is the Moral Law’ Kant’s moral philosophy can be
stated a sb e l o w -
2.2 1 Introduction to Kant’s Views
Appearance and Reality According to Kant, the universe has
two faces -the real universe and the apparent universe. The things
as they are in themselves exist in the real universe. The things as
they appear to us exist in apparent i.e phenomenal world. The real
universe can be known through reason and human intellect can
know the phenomenal world through senses. According to Kant
man, is a creature -half sensuous and half rational. Human beings,
by the very consti tution of reason are compelled to view the
universe as purposive. Human reason centers about three
questions. 1. What may I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What
may I hope for? Kant believes that human reason has two functions
viz. theoretical and practica l. The first question, “What can I know?”
is answered by theoretical function of reason. We know the
phenomenal world through theoretical reason with senses. We also
know that over and above this phenomenal world, there is another
world of real objects kno wable by reason alone. The second
question “What ought I to do?” is answered by practical reason. To
answer this question, practical reason selects the actions to
contribute to the purpose of universe. Pure rational will, determines
the maxims in accordanc e with which moral actions are decided
upon. Practical reason is the capacity to act, rather than the insight
into the content of moral law. Practical reason imposes moral law.
Kant says, “To be is to do”. The third question, “What may I hope
for?” Kant an swers, since reason commands moral law, I may hope
for happiness. Morality and happiness are inseparably connected.munotes.in

Page 21

21
Moral knowledge makes us aware about what should be the real
nature of things that we experience. Practical reason provides a
way out of ph enomenal world of appearances. Moral experience
connects us with the world of things as they are. Kant believes that
moral law arises from pure will. It arises from free and rational will
which is self -determined and self -legislative. A person is free when
he is bound by his own will and not by the will of others. Moral law
is autonomous as the source and the authority behind the law is the
individual’s own will. The moral law does not operate through the
influence of external factors. Each person’s own rea son is the
authority, the legislator and the executor of the moral law. Morality
is autonomous, universal and unconditional. For example: An
autonomous state is one in which the laws are made by the will of
the people in that state. The laws have no legiti mate authority when
they are imposed by another state as it happened during
colonization.
2.2.2 Difference between Hypothetical Imperative and
Categorical Imperative.
Kant regards the moral law imposed by practical reason as
Categorical Imperative. Catego rical Imperative is the internal law
imposed by conscience upon itself. Kant distinguishes Categorical
Imperatives from Hypothetical Imperatives.
• A hypothetical imperative is assertories. It is an assertion of fact.
e.g. The psychological law, “All per sons act to relieve a feeling of
want”. It is a statement of fact. Moral law is an imperative or
command which should be necessarily obeyed. It is not an
assertion but a statement of standard • A hypothetical imperative is
conditional. It is a means to som eo t h e re n d .I fw ew a n tt oe n j o y
good health, we must observe the laws of hygiene. Moral law is
categorical i.e. it is unconditional. It is not a means to some othermunotes.in

Page 22

22
goals. It is an end in itself. It admits no questions. It demands
unconditional obedience.
•Ah y p o t h e t i c a li m p e r a t i v ei sd e r i v a t i v e .N a t u r a ll a w sa r ed e r i v e d
from experience. It depends upon empirical facts for its obedience.
Moral law is a priori. It is not derived from experience. It is known
through reason.
• A hypothetical imperative c an be set aside by higher laws. If the
circumstances change, it may change. Moral law cannot be set
aside by any higher laws. It is the Categorical imperative and ought
to be followed in all situations.
• A hypothetical imperative is relative and subject ive. It applies to
different individuals in different forms. Moral law or categorical
imperative is to be obeyed universally. It applies to all persons. It is
command to all rational beings.
2.2.3 Kant’s notion of Good Will -
Kant holds that Good Will is the only good. Kant says
“Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or even out of it,
which can be called good without qualification, except a good will.”
It is the only Jewell that shines by its own light A good will is one
that habitually wills rig htly. The rightness or wrongness of volition
depends wholly upon its motive. An action is moral, if its motive is
accompanied by good will. Wealth, talent and power are not good
in themselves. If they are associated with bad motive, they are not
good. When these are accompanied by good will, wealth, talent,
power etc. are good. Kant says, “Worth of moral action lies, not in
the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance with
which it is decided upon.” Good will is the rational will. It is
autonomous and self -legislative. It lays down its own laws. While
obeying the maxim of good will, man follows his own higher self.munotes.in

Page 23

23
Thus, man is truly free in Good will follows categorical imperative
i.e., moral law, laid down by it. Moral law is to be foll owed out of
pure respect for it. It is to be obeyed out of consciousness of duty
and not due to emotions, feelings or desires. Moral life is the life of
pure reason. Feelings and emotions ought to be completely
suppressed. To give way to compassion or love is irrational and
thus non moral. To lead moral life, the will ought to be guided by its
own moral law or categorical imperative. Kant says the will is free
when it acts solely from the sense of duty. The true rule of life is
“Duty for duty’s sake.” Accor ding to Kant an action is right or moral
when a) it conforms to moral law b) the person performs it out of
pure respect for moral law i.e., “duty for duty’s sake”. The moral
law, i.e., categorical imperative is a pure form without matter. It
cannot tell us what we should do or what we should not do. It
simply tells us that actions should conform to a form. Kant does not
tell us about the contents of our actions. He maintains that our
actions should be in accordance with principles of moral law. Our
actions should self -consistent. The moral law or the categorical
imperative is a pure form, devoid of content.
2.2.4 Maxims of Morality
Kant lays down following rules of conduct to make the moral
law i. e. the Categorical Imperative more definite:
1. Act only o n that principle which can be a Universal law. This
principle shows that what is right is universal. Kant says, Act in
such a way as you could wish that everyone else should act in
same way. Kant gives the example of breaking promises. This act
is wrong be cause it cannot be universalized. If everyone breaks
promise, no one can make any promise. So, no promises would be
made even to break it. If everyone commits suicide in despair no
one would be left to commit suicide. According to Kant, this maxim
states u nity of the form. This is the Formula of Universal Law.munotes.in

Page 24

24
2. Do not use any person including yourself as only means. This
maxim holds a person as an end in itself and not as a means. Man
is essentially a rational being. The rational nature is an end and has
absolute value. Thus, rationality of human beings ought to be
respected. We should respect our own personality and that of
others. Personality has an absolute worth. To make a false promise
to a creditor is to use him as a means to one’s profit and not to
respect him as a person. Similarly, we should not allow ourselves to
be used as means to others. According to Kant, this is the principle
of inherent dignity of man. This is the Formula of End in -itself.
3. Act as a member of Kingdom of ends. (Autonomy of morality) A
Kingdom of Ends, is an ideal society of rational beings following
Moral law. Rationality is universal. So, all persons following the
Moral Law should live in perfect harmony with one another. Third
maxim holds that, every human being includi ng oneself has intrinsic
value. Everyone in this kingdom is sovereign i.e., imposes moral
law upon himself and subject at the same time i.e., he obeys the
moral law imposed by himself. All rational and self -ruled beings
stand on equal grounds. According to Kant, this is synthesis of form
and matter.
2.2.5 The complete Good: Virtue & Happiness
Kant believes that virtue is the supreme Good. However, it is
not complete good. The complete Good consists in association of
virtue with happiness. To lead moral lif e, a man ought to pursue
virtue for its own sake and not for the sake of happiness. The moral
end consists in promotion of one’s own perfection and the
happiness of others. Virtue depends upon good will within our
control. Happiness depends upon the extern al circumstances which
are beyond our control. Virtue does not include happiness, nor
does happiness include virtue. The harmony of virtue and
happiness is brought about by the God.munotes.in

Page 25

25
2.2.6 Postulates of Morality
Kant Speaks of the necessary conditions for t he fulfillment of
morality. 1. Freedom of the Will: Free will is implied by morality. If a
person is not free to select any course of action, the action can
never be voluntary. Moral actions are necessarily voluntary actions.
Voluntary choice assumes freed om of the Will. 2. Immortality of the
Soul Morality involves the conflict of desires with duty. But desire
cannot be eliminated in this finite life. It will require more than one
life. The continuity between various lives is assured by Immorality
of the So ul. 3. The Existence of God The persons who follow the
moral law consistently and habitually are called virtuous. The
virtuous should be happy. But in the actual life, they are rarely
happy. So, God will reward happiness to the virtuous people, if not
in this world, then in the next world. God will harmonize virtue with
happiness.
2.2.7 Criticism
1. Kant’s theory is based on psychological dualism of reason and
sensibility. He considers reason and sensibility as contrary to each
other. But moral life implie s sensibility i.e., feelings and desires as a
necessary element in it.
2. Kant’s theory is ascetic. Kant commits mistake in considering
sensibilities as necessarily irrational. Actually, feelings and desires
are the matter of moral life.
3. Kant’s Good Will is empty will. Jacobi Says, “The pure will of
Kant is a will that wills nothing.” 4. Kant’s theory is formalistic. His
first and third maxims are purely formal principles. We cannot
deduce our duty in the concrete situations from these principles.
5. Kant ‘s Second maxim says: We should not treat ourselves as
means. But some persons should sacrifice their lives for a noblemunotes.in

Page 26

26
cause e.g., freedom of the country, progress in science, etc.
Therefore, under certain circumstances some persons should treat
themselves as means.
6. Kant’s Second maxim says they we should not treat others as
means. But in a special situation we have to treat other persons as
means. e.g., We should isolate a person who is suffering from
schizophrenia for the good of others.
7. Kant’s theory appears to be too much rigorous. According to
Kant, no action is moral if it is accompanied by feeling or emotions.
So, the acts of benevolence, bravery etc. if accompanied by love or
compassion is not moral. But generally, people appreciat et h o s e
actions which spring from love and compassion. The actions which
are performed solely by the sense of duty are not appreciated. So,
in human life, the feelings and emotions are more important.
8. Virtue and morality presuppose the conflict of des ire and duty,
passion and reason. If a man eliminates sensibility or passion,
there will be no conflict between desire and duty. Therefore, if the
conflict vanishes, there will be no virtue or morality. John Henry
Muirhead calls it the paradox of Asceticis m.
9. Kant defines ‘Good’ in terms of ‘Good Will’. Hence, according to
George Edward Moore, Kant commits the Naturalistic fallacy. When
a moral concept is defined in psychological or naturalistic terms, the
Naturalistic fallacy is committed.
Check your progress
1. What is the core idea of Kant’s ethics?
2. Which are the important questions for human reason?
3. What is the difference between hypothetical imperative and
categorical imperative?munotes.in

Page 27

27
4. What are the maxims of morality?
5. What are the postul ates of morality?
2.3J. S. MILL’S UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is the universalistic form of Ethical Hedonism.
Let us know more about the origin of J S Mill’s view.
2.3.1 Hedonism
Hedonism is a theory which believes that ‘hedone’ or
pleasure is the hi ghest Good, the supreme ideal of life. Hedonism
assumes that human beings are sensuous in nature. Reason or
intellect has secondary position in human nature. Reason points
out the best means for the satisfaction of desires, passions and
appetite. So someti mes hedonism is called as ethics of sensibility.
Hedonism assumes that human beings by nature seek pleasure
and avoid pain. Men desire various objects which ultimately aim at
pleasure. Hedonism evaluates human actions on the basis of the
consequences of ac tions i.e. pleasure and pain. Human conduct
has a value in proportion to the amount of pleasure in it. The
standard of morality for Hedonism is ‘pleasure’. A right action is that
which produces pleasure. A wrong action is that which produces
pain.
2.3.2Forms of Hedonism
There are two forms of Hedonism viz. Psychological
Hedonism and ethical Hedonism. Psychological Hedonism believes
that pleasure is the natural object of desire. Man, naturally seeks
pleasure. Psychological Hedonism is a statement of fact. Ethical
Hedonism believes that pleasure is the proper object desire. Man
ought to seek pleasure. Ethical Hedonism is a statement of value.
Ethical Hedonism has two forms viz. Egoistic Hedonism and
universalistic Hedonism or Utilitarianism. For Egoistic He donism,munotes.in

Page 28

28
individual’s own pleasure is the highest good For Utilitarianism,
pleasure of a number of people is the highest good.
2.3.3 Ethical Hedonism -
Ethical Hedonism holds that man desires many things apart
from pleasure. We do not always seek pleasure. However, pleasure
is the proper object of desire. We ought to seek pleasure.
Obviously, the question arises, “whose pleasure?” The answer of
this question leads to 2 forms of Ethical Hedonism viz. Egoistic
Hedonism and universalistic Hedonism. Egoistic He donism strives
after individual’s own pleasure. Universalistic Hedonism seeks
general happiness and not individual pleasure. Universalistic
Hedonism is also called as Utilitarianism. Ethical Hedonism,
[whether Egoistic or Universalistic] again has two vari eties viz.
gross and refined. Gross Hedonism gives weightage to the
sensuous pleasures. All pleasures are alike, and they differ only in
intensity. Present pleasures are to be preferred over future
pleasures. Refined Hedonism gives weightage to mental and more
subtle, fine pleasures. Refined Hedonism accepts the role of
reason in the attainment of pleasures.
2.3.4 Utilitarianism
Itis the altruistic or universalistic form of Ethical Hedonism.
Utilitarianism maintains that the supreme ideal of life is plea sure -
not the individual pleasure but universal or general happiness. The
slogan of Utilitarianism is, “The greatest happiness of the greatest
number”. Utilitarianism evaluates human actions on the basis of
their consequences. Actions are judged by their utility to produce
pleasure or to prevent pain. The action that leads to best
consequences i.e., produces more pleasure is right action.
Utilitarianism a teleological theory as it determines the goodness of
an action by referring to its consequences. Jerem yB e n t h a mmunotes.in

Page 29

29
advocates Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism while J.S. Mill
advocates Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism.
2.3.5 Jeremy Bentham’s Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism can be summarized as
follows: Nature ha s placed mankind under the governance of two
Sovereign Masters viz Pleasure and Pain. These masters point
what we ought to do and determine what we shall do. Bentham
argues that we do desire pleasure therefore we ought to desire
pleasure. Pleasure is the o nly desirable. All other things like wealth,
power, knowledge etc. are desired because they lead to happiness.
Bentham says weigh pleasures and pains in our actions. An action
is right if it produces pleasure. An action is wrong if it produces
pain. The wo rth of an action consists in its utility to produce
pleasure and to avoid pain. Bentham believes that all pleasures are
alike. Pleasures do not have qualitative differences. Pleasures have
only quantitative differences i.e., they are more or they are less.
Bentham argues that the quantity of pleasure remaining the same,
pushpin (a game) is as good as poetry. The quantity of pleasure
can be calculated. The quantitative differences can be measured by
seven -point scale. To calculate pleasure, Bentham considers seven
dimensions of pleasure. The Hedonistic Calculus (Calculus of
Pleasure) is as follows: 1. Intensity 2. Duration 3. Proximity 4.
Certainty 5. Purity i.e., freedom from pain, 6. Fruitfulness i.e.,
capacity to give rise to other pleasures and 7 Extent i .e. the number
of persons affected. Bentham argues that each man desires his
own happiness. Each man’s happiness is good for him. Therefore,
general happiness is good for all. Bentham asserts that by nature
man is egoistic and selfish. Man can be altruisti co n l yw h e n ,b y
being altruistic he satisfies his own desire too. Here Bentham
suggests the moral standard of “the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people.” The moral standard is not the greatest
happiness of one individual, but it is happiness of a number ofmunotes.in

Page 30

30
people. Bentham suggests the maximum happiness of maximum
number of people. Bentham’s doctrine of Hedonism becomes
altruistic by the dimension of “Extent” and by Four Moral Sanctions.
The transition from egoism to universalism is explained by Four
external sanctions. According to Bentham, pleasure and pain are
the prime, governing motives of human conduct. Our conduct is
regulated by Four Sanctions. These sanctions imply higher powers
viz. nature, the state, the society and God. There is a t hreatened
penalty i.e. pain for disobeying the related laws. 1. Natural or
Physical sanction i.e. consideration of health and fear of disease. 2.
Political sanction i.e. fears of punishment by the State. 3. Social
sanction i.e. fears of social boycott. 4. Religious sanction i.e. fear of
Divine wrath or the justice of God. Due to these Four external
Sanctions man sacrifices his extreme, selfish pleasures and thinks
about pleasures of others i.e. general happiness. Man obeys the
laws of Nature, the State, the Society and God as they operate
through pleasures or pains for individual.
2.3.6 Mill’s Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism
The theories of Bentham and Mill have many common
points. In some points Mill differs from Bentham. The Refined or
Qualitative Utilitarianism can be summarized as follows: -The
moral criterion is Utility or the greatest happiness principle. Actions
are right, if they promote happiness. Happiness means pleasure
and the absence of pain Actions are wrong if they produce
unhappiness. Unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure.
Pleasure and freedom from pain are only desirable Ends. All other
things like virtue, health, love of honor, wealth, power are desired
because they promote happiness. Mill argues that “Desiring a thing
and finding it pleasant are two names of the same psychological
fact. To desire a thing without its being pleasant is a physical and
metaphysical impossibility”. Happiness is the only desirable end.
Mill argues that we always desire pleasure therefore pleasu re ismunotes.in

Page 31

31
desirable. The sole evidence that anything is desirable is that
people do actually desire it. All person desire happiness, so
happiness is desirable. Mill holds that qualitative distinction among
pleasures is as real as quantitative distinction. Inte llectual
pleasures are better than sensuous pleasures. Mill believes that we
ought to seek satisfaction of higher capacities. The question arises,
what is the test of quality? Mill leaves it to the verdict of competent
judges. Those who are equally acquain ted with both intellectual and
sensual pleasures are competent judges. These judges prefer
intellectual pleasures to bodily and sensual pleasures. In addition to
the verdict of competent judges, Mill refers to man’s “natural sense
of dignity.” No man would consent to be changed into the lower
animals. Mill says, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than
a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied.” Mill argues that each man desires his own happiness.
Each person’s hap piness is good to that person. Therefore, the
general happiness is good to all persons. So, general happiness is
good to each person. In this way, Mill explains transition from
egoism to altruism. Mill advocates that, “The moral end ought to be,
greatest h appiness of the greatest number.” Mill further states that
utilitarianism grows out of self-love.T h el a wo ft r a n s f e r e n c eo f
interest, changes self-love into sympathy or fellow feeling. Egoist
man seeks pleasures of others, in order to relieve his own pain s.
Seeking pleasures of others is means to achieve one’s own end
i.e.,pleasure. In the course of time, means and end are transferred
and altruism develops from egoism. Mill accepts the sanction of
morality as given by Bentham. According to Mill, there are external
as well as internal sanctions. Natural, Political, Social and Religious
sanctions are the external forces. Mill accepts fifth, Internal
sanction of Conscience. Individual’s own conscience controls
selfishness and motivates altruism.munotes.in

Page 32

32
2.3.7 Crit icism of Utilitarianism
1. Utilitarianism developed on the background of industrial
revolution and in the framework of empiricism. Utilitarianism helped
in eradicating established social abuses. The reforms in the interest
of social justice were influenced by Altruistic hedonists. Their aim
was to reduce the difference between individual happiness and
common, general happiness.
2. Utilitarianism takes one sided view of human nature. Man is not
only sentient creature, but he is also a rational being. Man h as to
satisfy his total nature rational as well as sensuous.
3. Utilitarianism wrongly identifies happiness with pleasure.
Pleasure consists in the satisfaction of a single desire whereas
Happiness means totality of the satisfaction of various desires.
4. Utilitarianism wrongly believes that pleasure is ‘The Good.’
Actually, pleasure is only one of the good things of life. Apart from
pleasure, wealth, power, knowledge, beauty and virtues contribute
to good life.
5. Utilitarianism confuses ‘a pleasant choice’ with a ‘choice of the
pleasant’. Pleasure is not the object of choice; it is accompaniment
of choice.
6. Utilitarianism seeks satisfaction of desire. However, it does not
tell us, how to integrate pleasures to lead a harmonious life.
7. Kant sa ys that ‘Ends do not justify means . The criterion of utility
is an external criterion. The actions are evaluated by their
consequences and not by the intention of the agent.munotes.in

Page 33

33
8. If pleasure is the supreme goal of life, it is our duty to perform
the pleasan t actions. But in actual life, we do perform goal-oriented
actions without bothering about pleasure or pain.
9. Utilitarianism maintains that every individual seeks his own
pleasure. So, a consistent hedonism can never lead to altruism.
10. Susan Stebb ing says, “Mill is consistently inconsistent”. Mills
Utilitarianism commits following fallacies —
a) Mill says that pleasure is desirable because men do desire
pleasure. Thus, he commits the fallacy of figure of speech.
b) Utilitarianism commits the fal lacy of Composition while
proceeding from individual happiness to general happiness. What is
good of one individual is not necessarily good of the aggregate of
individuals.
c) Utilitarianism commits the fallacy of Division while proceeding
from general h appiness to individual happiness. What is good for
aggregate of individuals is not necessarily good for one individual.
d) Mills sanction of morality i.e., conscience is not consistent with
the spirit of hedonism. Pursuit of pleasure and conscience often
contradict one another.
e) According to G.E. Moore, Utilitarianism commits the Naturalistic
Fallacy. A Naturalistic fallacy is committed when a moral concept is
defined in natural, non -moral .munotes.in

Page 34

34
Check Your Progress
1. What is Utilitarianism?
2. How d oes Bentham introduce universalistic Hedonism in his
theory?
3. What are the dimensions of pleasure?
4. What are sanctions of morality in Utilitarianism?
5. How does Mill introduce universalistic Hedonism in this theory?
2.3.8 Kant’s view (Rationalism ) and Mill’s view (Hedonism)
Kant believes that the real universe is different from
phenomenal world. He points out two functions of human reason.
Kant gives importance to rational spontaneity rather than sensuous
activities. He advocates rationalism in ri gorous form. Kant’s
rationalism is different from hedonism. For hedonism, pleasure is
the supreme ideal, whereas for rationalism, moral law i.e., the
categorical imperative is the supreme ideal. Hedonism centers
round the concept of good and evil whereas r ationalism centers
round the concept of right and wrong. Hedonism decides the worth
of moral action on the consequences or intentions of actions. An
action is good if it produces pleasure. Rationalism decides the
worth a moral action on the motives behind it. An action is right if it
arises from moral law i.e., sense of duty. Hedonism gives
importance to inclinations. It aims at gratification of emotions and
impulses. Rationalism gives importance to performance of duty. It
aims at Kingdom of Ends i.e.,doma in of reason.
2.4 SUMMARY
Hume considers moral sentiments as the ground of moral
decisions. Feelings play an important role in ethical actions. The
rules of morality are not based on reason. He views sympathy as
the fact of human nature on which all so cial life and personalmunotes.in

Page 35

35
happiness is based. Hume emphasizes on Altruism i.e.one always
aims at happiness of others and happiness of self.
Kant’s moral theory advocates performance of one’s duties
as the highest good. He advocates Deontological view of mora lity.
For Kant, moral law is categorical imperative that demands
unconditional obedience. Moral law follows pure rational will i.e.
practical reason. Kant states three principles viz. 1. Act on those
principles which can be universalized. 2. Never treat hu manity,
whether in thyself, as a means only; treat it as end in itself. 3. Act
as a member of Kingdom, of Ends. Kant’s maxims of morality are
forms, without any specific detail. (Autonomy of morality) J S Mill
moral theory advocates greatest happiness of g reatest number of
people. He judges all human actions by their consequences i .e.
pleasure or pain. So,Mill holds Teleological view of morality. J S
Mill puts forth Utilitarianism which is a form of Ethical Hedonism.
Utilitarianism is called as Universali stic hedonism. Utilitarianism
seeks maximum pleasure of maximum number of people.
Hedonism was introduced in Greek period. In modern times it
appeared in Bentham & Mill’s philosophy. In spite of many
drawbacks Utilitarianism influenced social reforms. It c reated the
awareness about the happiness of other people. The slogan of
Utilitarianism, “the greatest happiness of greatest number” aroused
the sense of social justice.
2.5 BROAD QUESTIONS
Q.1 Explain nature and origin of morality as discussed by David
Hume.
Q.2 Critically discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
Q.2 Explain the features of Mill’s Utilitarianism.munotes.in

Page 36

36
Q.3 Write short notes:
1. Kant’s notion of Good Will.
2. Kant’s views on the origin and importance of moral.
Kant’s views on the origin and i mportance of moral
knowledge.
3. Kant’s maxims of morality.
4. Paradox of Hedonism
5. Sanctions of Morality
6. Hedonistic Calculus / Dimensions of Pleasure.
Q. 4 State the differences:
1. Kant’s moral theory and Mill’s moral theory.
2. Hypothetical imperative –Categorical imperative.
3.Natural virtues and Artificial virtues .














munotes.in

Page 37

37
Unit -3
ALTERNATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES .
UNIT STRUCTURE -
3.0Objectives
3.1Introduction
3.2Augustine ’sview onEthics.
3.2.1Background
3.2.2Introduction toSt.Augustine
3.2.3Notion ofhappiness andvirtue
3.2.4Love ofGod andNeig hbour
3.2.5Conclusion
3.2.6Check your progress
3.3Feminist Ethics –Carol Gilligan.
3.3.1Background offeminist Ethics.
3.3.2 Distinction between “Ethics ofCare ”&“Ethics of
Justice ”.
3.3.3 Carol Gilligan ’scritique ofKohlberg’s model ofmoral
development.
3.3.4 Gilligan’s independent study and evidence for‘Ethics
ofCare ’.
3.3.5Critical evaluation
3.3.6Conclusion
3.3.7Check your progress
3.4Existentialist Ethics :Jean Paul Sartre
3.4.1Background ofexistential Ethics
3.4.2Key concepts andprinciples inSartre ’sethical theory.
3.4.3 Sartre’s argument against conventional and
deontological ethics.munotes.in

Page 38

38
3.4.4The ethic ofauthenticity
3.4.5Critical evaluation
3.4.6Check your progress
3.5Summary
3.6Broad questions
3.0OBJECTIVES
•Tounderstand non-conventional approaches toward Ethics.
•Tobeaware ofthe different ethical models given bynon-
conventional thinkers.
•Tograsp themeaning and value ofethical models and develop
thespirit oftolerance towards each oneofthem.
•Tounder stand thefinal endofman.
•Tosee theapplication ofvarious moral principles inday-to-day
life
3.1INTRODUCTION
Itisawell-known fact that while evaluating moral actions of
people, weapply certain theoretical standards, orconcepts. The
central concepts inthe theoretical model are the result of
conventional thinking, popular culture, time etc. However, some
thinkers inthemodern tradition have tried tocritique and rethink
such conventional moral themes and moral concepts. Inthis
chapter wewoul dbestudying such ethical models, which notonly
criticise thetraditional approach ofethics butalso construct new,
and very different approaches toethical decisions, and ethical
judgments.munotes.in

Page 39

39
These three approaches are1)Eudaemonistic approach
2)Feminist approach.
3)Existentialist approach.
3.2AUGUSTINE ’SVIEW ONETHICS -
EUDAEMONISTIC APPROACH
3.2.1Background
Inreaction totheconsequentialism and deontology, virtue
ethics has developed full-fledged accounts ofvirtue that can stand
ontheir own merits. Inthissection wewillstudy theeudaemonism
developed byAugustine. The notion ofeudaemonia, akeyconc ept
inancient Greek moral philosophy, isinterpreted as“happiness ”
or“flourishing ”and occasionally as “well-being. ”But every
interpretation ofthisconcept has itsdrawbacks. The problem with
“flourishing ”isthat animals and even plants can flourish, but
eudaemonia isrealisable only byrational beings. The Problem with
the concept of“happiness ”isthat inordinary conversation, it
implies something subjectively determined. Itisforme, notforyou,
toexpress whether Iamhappy ornot. IfIthink Iamhappy then I
am because itisnot something, Ican bewrong about. The
converse case iswith being healthy orflourishing.
The concept ofAugustine ’sEudaemonia has abroader
sense ofhappiness asconsisting oftheunion ofthesoul with God
after death,where one can see the Platonic influence on
him.According toAristotle every action hassome aim. Every action
aims atsome good. Good iseudaemonia. Therefore, eudaemonia
istheHappiness which isthename ofthebest kind oflifeand
which isanendinitself.munotes.in

Page 40

40
Inthischapter, wewillstudy theidea ofvirtue ethics and its
relation toeudaemonia. Virtue ethics advocates that living alife
following virtue isnecessary foreudaemonia. ForAristotle, virtue is
necessary but not sufficient —what isalsoneeded are external
goods which areamatter ofluck. According toPlato and theStoics,
virtue isboth necessary and sufficient foreudaemonia. So,there is
arelation between eudaemonia and virtue status onacharacter
trait.
3.2.2Introduction toSt.Augustine
Saint Augustine ofHippo was one ofthegreatest Christian
theologians and philosophers oftheantiquity. Augustine was the
one who brought theChristian religious scriptures into themoral
philosophical context. Augustine was aprolific writer.Buthisworks
like Confessions, theCity ofGod and The Trinity have been an
enormous contribution inthe field such asmoral philosophy,
philosophy ofreligions and philosophy ofhistory. His most
influential work, ‘The Confessions ’,isunique intheancient literary
tradition and greatly influenced the modern tradition of
autobiography. Itisafascinating piece ofphilosophy from thefirst-
person point ofview. Histhoughts were influenced byPlatonism
and Cicero. Augustine isconsidered asthe key figure ofthe
‘doctrine ofpredestination ’.Augustine was thefirst todevelop a
Christian philosophy ofhistory. For Augustine, themost reliable
knowledge isthatoftheinner being ofman.
3.2.3Notion ofhappiness andvirtue
Letusfirstunderstand themeaning oftheterm virtue and its
relationship with happiness. Virtue ispopularly known asan
excellent trait ofcharacter. Topossess avirtue istobeacertain
sort ofperson with acertain setofthemindset that guides a
person ’sbehavior. Virtue, therefore, animportant guiding and
balancing principle foraperson ’smoral and rational outlooks.munotes.in

Page 41

41
Concerning happiness, itisclaimed that happiness isaproduct of
virtue. Most versions ofvirtue ethics agree that living alifefollowing
virtue isnece ssary foreudaemonia. Therefore, allthose who desire
happiness intheir life,they should livetheir lifeaccording tovirtue.
Augustine regards ethics asaninquiry intothesummumbonum: the
supreme good, which provides the happiness which allhuman
beingsseek. Inthisway, Augustine ’smoral thought comes closer
totheeudaemonia virtue ethics oftheclassical Western tradition.
Butthere isasubstantial difference between St.Augustine and his
predecessors about theidea ofvirtue and happiness. Forexample,
inAristotle ’smoral philosophy, virtue stands foractivities byreason,
isnecessary butnotsufficient forhappiness —what isalso needed
areexternal goods which areamatter ofluck. ForPlato and the
Stoics, virtue stands forthe right reason, which isattainable
through philosophical excellency, isboth necessary and sufficient
forhappiness.
Incontrast totheabove views, Augustine conceived virtue
asthe love ofGod or,inlater texts, asthe love ofGod and
neighbors. Forhim, happiness stands fortheunion ofthesoul with
God after death. Augustine, therefore, distinguishes between true
(i.e., Christian) virtue that ismotivated bythelove ofGod and
“virtue assuch ”that performs thesame appropriate actions butis
guided byself-love orpride. Further, heput that true virtue
guarantees true happiness, butthere isnotrue virtue that isnota
giftofthegrace ofGod. Hetook itasaxiomatic that happiness is
theultimate goal pursued byallhuman beings. Happiness orthe
good lifeisbrought about bytheknowledge ofthegreatest good in
nature which humans can attain and that one cannot lose against
one’swill.
Even though Augustine postpones thehappiness that isthe
reward ofvirtue totheafterlife, hedoes notmake virtue merely amunotes.in

Page 42

42
means toanend inthesense that virtue becomes superfluous
when happiness isreached. Onthecontrary, heinsists virtue will
persist intheform oflove. Subsequently, itwillindeed beitsreward
and identical with happiness.
3.2.4Love ofGod andNeighbours -
The idea ofLove ofGod isavery significant and the
underlying notion ofAugustine ’sethics. This isoften directly
associated with theconcept ofvirtue and plenty oftimes itisused
interchangeably with awill orintention. For Augustine, love
encompasses aforce inoursoul that attracts ustothetrue beauty
wefindinand above ourselves, which drives ustoascend from the
sensible tothe intelligible world and also the cognition and
examination ofGod.
Augu stine was deeply influenced bythebiblical command of
love ofGod and neighbor. Love isbyitsvery nature, self-reflexive.
Jesus Christ ’scommand about loving ourneighbors automatically
restrains usfrom instrumentalizing our fellow human beings.
Elabor ating onthiscommand, Augustine explains thatwemust love
ourneighbors asahuman being, forhis/her intrinsic worth, notfor
some pleasure oradvantage thatwehope toderive from him.
ButAugustine also suggested anotorious parallel between
ends and means ontheone hand and love ofGod and one’s
neighbor ontheopposite. Augustine recommended that God the
Holy Trinity isalone aproper end, while one’sneighbor can be
used asameans. This view seems contradicted bytheearlier one.
There wefind hisassertion that God alone istobeloved forhis
own sake and allother human beings aretobeloved forthesake
ofGod. The comprehensive understanding oftheterm, tobeloved
forthe sake ofGod ‘i.e., tobeused ’this term employed by
Augustine canhelp ustoresolve thecontradiction ofthisterm ‘use. ’munotes.in

Page 43

43
Hedidn’tuse“use” inthesense ofmanipulation; Rather, hetaught
usthat weshould love people forwho they areaswell asforthe
sake ofGod. Inthis sense, the love ofGod and the love of
neighbors areco-extensive and, ultimately, identical.
Augustine differentiates between lustand love. Forhim, love
means theimpulse ofone’smind toenjoy God onhisaccount and
toenjoy oneself and one’sneighbor onaccount ofGod. And lust
means the impulse ofone’smind toenjoy oneself and one’s
neigh borandanymaterial thing notonaccount ofGod.
3.2.5Conclusion -
Augustine defines thedoctrine ofthehuman being ’sradical
dependence onthegrace ofGod and philosophy asthelove of
wisdom, i.e., anattempt topursue happiness byseeking insights
into thetrue nature ofthings and living accordingly. ForAugustine
wisdom isthehighest stage ofknowledge. Hedefined virtue as
rightly ordered love. ForAugustine, virtue must never beallowed to
supersede God asthesupreme good, asthesole good tobeloved
purely foritsown sake and without reference toany higher good.
Augustine believes that love isatthe center ofour moral life.
However, weshould becautious about what welove because we
may also love thethings that wethink aregood butleadustoevil.
Philosophy and theology both are intricately intertwined inhis
thought. Augustine gives importance tointrospection over sense
perception. Heispractical inhisapproach. Forhim, Ethics focuses
ontheattainment ofhappiness. Heconsiders ethics asastudy for
the supreme good, giving contributions tothe happiness of
everyone.
3.2.6check your progress -
1.Discuss Augustine ’sview onvirtue andhappiness.
2.Explain theimportance oflove ofGod inAugustine ’sEthics.munotes.in

Page 44

44
3.How does love ofGod isidentical with love ofneighbours?
Discuss.
3.3FEMINIST ETHICS: CAROL GILLIGAN
3.3.1Background ofFeminist Ethics
Feminist Ethics isanattempt torevise, reformulate orrethink
traditional Ethics. Feminists have developed awide variety of
gender -centred approaches toethics. For ages, ethical thinkers
have talked about twogreat moral imperatives. ‘Justice ’and ‘love’.
The concept of‘love ’isreplaced bytheconcepts of‘goodness ’,
‘utility ’etc. Carol Gilligan, like afew other feminists, has
emphasised issues related towomen ’straits and behaviours,
particularly their ‘caregiving ones ’.Gilligan ’sethical theory is
essentially based onthe“communal nature ofwomen. ”The theory
istitled astheethic ofcare asagainst thetypical conventional male
oriented ethic ofjustice.
3.2.2Distinction between ‘ethic ofcare ’and‘ethic ofjustice ’.
According toGilligan under theethic ofjustice, men judge
themselves guilty ifthey dosomething wrong. Whereas under the
ethic ofcare, women arerelucta nteven tojudge theaction. This
reluctance tojudge itself may betheindicative ofthecare and
concern forothers. Thus, women notonly define themselves ina
context ofhuman relationship butalso judge themselves interms of
‘care and concern ’.Asaresult ofthis woman's judgement, her
moral deliberations become very different. Her voice isdifferent
Gilligan, however, hasn ’tcalled itawoman ’svoice, butdifferent .
voice, since she doesn ’twant tomake this theory gender biased
and wants tosuggest that there may bedifferent ways oflooking at
moral behaviour.munotes.in

Page 45

45
Gilligan further brings outthedistinction between ‘ethic of
care ’and ‘ethic ofjustice ’.Inherview thequality and quantity of
relationships isofgreat importance inboth thesystems. Individual
rights, equality before law, fairplay, asquare deal –allthese goals
can bepursued without personal ties toothers. Justice is
impersonal. Whereas sensitivity towards others, loyalty,
responsibility, self-sacrifice and peace –making allthesereflect
interpersonal involvement. Care comes from connection.
3.3.3Carol Gilligan ’scritique ofKohlberg’s model ofmoral
development.
Gilligan worked closely with Kohlberg atHarvard. But she
was notatallhappy with themethod used byKohlberg, tomeasure
moral sophistication ofyoung men, shebecame uncomfortable with
theway women arecategorised inhismodel ofdevelopment.
The hypothetical ethical dilemmas which were given tothe
subjects (young men later ontowomen) byKohlberg were quite
likemathematical problems. Plugging the right lever fetched so
called “right”answers.
Women, however, were uncomfortable responding to
hypothetical dilemmas. They asked formore information about the
characters, their history, and their relationships. Rather than giving
the“right”answer, women trytoresolve thesituation. This isn’tthe
sign ofmoral immaturity butdifferent ethical orientation ofwomen.
According toGilligan, Kohlberg issimply one ofmany
traditional thinkers (Like Freud) who have viewed women as
morally inferior tomen. Gilligan raises certain fundamental
questions about Kohlberg’s 6laddered model of moral
development. She says can weregard theKohlebergian model as
universal, invariant, hierarchical and final? She asks, why, inthemunotes.in

Page 46

46
kohlebergian schemes ofthings, women rarely climb past stage
Three whereas men routinely riseupto5thstage. Gilligan believes
that this doesn ’tmean women areless developed than men but
rather, itsuggests themoral scheme developed byKohlberg and
themethodology used byhimrequires thorough critique.
3.3.4Gilligan ’sindependent study and evidence forthe“ethic
ofcare”.
Gilligan believes that Kohlberg’s methodology ismale -
based. Itsears areturned tomale notfemale moral voices. Itfails
toregister thedifferent voice, Gilligan claims tohave heard inher
study oftwenty –nine women reflecting ontheir abortion decisions.
Onthebasis ofthis study, Gilligan arrives attheethical model
consisting of3levels.
1)Orientation toIndivid ualSurvival –(Pre-conventional Morality)
Atthis level, women who sought anabortion were ‘self-
centred ’and were looking outforthemselves. They were focusing
onthe thought ofwhether they ‘want ’or‘donot want ’the
pregnancy. They had their own reasons for terminating the
pregnancy.
2)Goodness asself-sacrifice. (Conventional Morality)
According toGilligan instead oflevel Iselfishness
conventional feminine morality isself-less. Women atthis level
define their moral worth onthebasis oftheirability tocare about
others. Such women are(asopposed to1stlevel) oriented towards
others. They search forsolutions whereby noone would gethurt,
and inthe deal, they don’tmind becoming the victims ofthe
situation. They think pleasing the signi ficant others inlife, i.e.,
caring forthem ismore important than what you think. Inthe
present study women terminated pregnancy toplease someone
else.munotes.in

Page 47

47
3)Responsibility forconsequences (Post conventional Morality)
Writing within the framework ofcareethics, Gilligan
emphatically states that the“theessence ofmoral decision isthe
exercise ofchoice, thewillingness totake responsibility forthat
choice. Inherstudy women who had reached atthis level, who
were contemplating abortion, thismeant recognising that great hurt
was inevitable ineither ofthechoice, whether they continued the
pregnancy orterminated it.However, such women made aneffort
totake control oftheir lives byadmitting theseriousness ofthe
choice and considering theresponsibilities very seriously.
The criterion ofjudgement thus shifts from self-centredness
togoodness &care forothers again towards fully assuming the
responsibility &caring forothers. Butwecanseethisgrowth noton
thebasis oftheappearance intheeyes ofothers, butinterms of
therealities ofitsintentions andconsequences.
Gilligan further supports hertheory with research ofchildren
atplay (with Janet lever) Lever found that boys likegames with lots
ofintricate rules. Girls, ontheother hand, play shorter &less
complex games. They are also ready tomend rules forothers.
Gilligan believes that this difference carries over into adult life.
Women change therules inorder topreserve relationships: men
abide bytherules andseerelationships asreplaceable.
Moreover, Gilligan maintains that differences ofidentity
shape theselection ofmoral perspective, thelinkbetween gender
and moral judgment isvery strong during theteenage, when young
men &women are highly self-conscious. ‘Justice ’isultimately
moral maturity, usually for men and “care” ,isthe ultimate
responsibility usually forwomen.munotes.in

Page 48

48
3.3.5Critical Evaluation
1)Reinforcement ofcultural stereotypes about Men &Women.
Gilligan ’sethical theory iscriticised bypointin goutthat, inan
attempt toestablishing different voices, isshe really rethinking the
conventional understanding ofmorality orshe isindirectly re-
establishing gender -typification, i.e.Men VsWomen?
2)Double standardness ofethical values.
Many ethical theorists aredisturbed attheidea ofadouble
standard morality. i.e., justice forsome &care forothers. Moral
philosophy has never suggested different ethics for different
groups. Such asituation islikely tocreate a‘chaos ’inthesociety.
However, Gilligan claims that ‘moral flexibility ’needn ’tbelabelled
asamoral chaos.
3)Gap between theresearch thetheory
Many social scientists criticise the thin research support
which Gilligan offers tovalidate hertheory. e.g., thesmall researc h
sample of29inthe“abortion study ”canhardly justify thetallclaims
of‘ethics ofcare’.
However, Gilligan points outthat even Freud ’s,Piaget ’s&
Kohlberg’s researches were based onbiased samples.
3.3.6Conclusion -
Care focused feminist approac htoethics ofGilligan doesn ’t
impose asingle normative traditional standard onwomen, rather it
offers towomen adifferent way tounderstand theway inwhich
genders, class etc.affect their moral decisions.
3.3.7Check your progress
1.Distinguish between “ethic ofcare”and``ethic ofjustice ”.
2.How Gilligan criticisedKohlberg’s ethical model?munotes.in

Page 49

49
3.State the3levels ofmorality propounded byGilligan inthe
framework ofcare ‘ethic ’.
4.Critically consider theethics ofcare.
3.4EXISTENTIALIST ETHICS: JEAN PAUL SARTRE
3.4.1Background ofExistentialist Ethics
Existentialism iswidely considered tobethephilosophical
and cultural movement which holds that the starting point of
philosophical thinking must betheindividual and theexperiences of
the individual. Existentialists generally believe that traditional
systematic oracademic philosophies are tooabstract and away
from concrete human experience.
Jean Paul Sartre isone ofthebest-known philosophers and
agreat existentialist ofthe20th centu ry.Heisoften regarded as
thefather ofExistentialist philosophy. Inhismost famous lecture
“Existentialism isHumanism ”(delivered totheParisian crowd on
28th Oct. 1945) Sartre inanextremely lucid (simple) style has
discussed theexistentialist theory ofEthics.
Keeping ‘human experience ’,atthe Centre ,this ethical
theory views ethics inatotally nonconventional manner, Sartre ’s
unique forceful style ofwriting directly appeals toany genuine
reader. (irrespective oftime, space).
3.4.2Keyconcepts andprinciples inSartre ’sethical theory
1)Existence precedes essence.
Man, firstofalljustexists. Man encounters orsees himself in
this world and defines himself afterwards. Man, simply is.After
realising hisexistence man starts willing andthen becomes what
hewills. This man isnothing butwhat hemakes ofhimself.munotes.in

Page 50

50
2)Subjectivity ofMan
According toSartre ‘man ’isaproject which possesses a
subjective life. This subjective lifeprecisely makes man different
from other objects oftheworld. (mag beanimate orinanimate) Man
alone iscapable ofwilling and becoming. Inother words, man is
alone capable ofchoosing amode ofaction over theother. Man,
alone iscapable ofmaking aconscious decision. Subjectivity of
man isnothing butthishuman condition bywhich heconstantly
becomes new, through hischoices.
3)Man, incomplete possession ofhimself
What follows directly from the principle ofsubjectivity is
man’spossession ofhimself /herself. Inother words, man istotally
respon sible forwhat heisand what hebecomes. Man keeps willing
&keeps onmaking choices. Hisexistence isrenewed every time
through these decisions, made byhim. Needless tosay, healone is
responsible forhisdecisions andhislife.
4)Universality invol vedinsubjectivity
Inview ofSartre, theword “subjectivism ”istobeunderstood
intwosenses. One isalready mentioned above i.e.,thefreedom of
theindividual subject. Second isanindividual ’slimitation togo
beyond human subjectivity. This isthe deeper meaning or
contention ofexistentialism. Insimple words when aman chooses
himself, itimplies that everyone must choose himself and indoing
soheisalso choosing something forallmen. This issobecause
while making achoice anindividual tendstomake thebest choice,
since weareunable tochoose theworse. Assuch naturally aman
prefers aparticular value over theother and creates aparticular
image ofhimself which may suggest avalue while choosing
alternatives forallmen. e.g., IfIdesire togetmarried &have a
family, then Iamcommitting, notonly myself, buthumanity asa
whole, tothepractice ofmonogamy.munotes.in

Page 51

51
5)Experience of‘anguish ’
“Anguish ”,isthe concept which commonly occurs in
existential writings. Itisgenerally held tobeanegative feeling
arising from theexperience ofhuman freedom and responsibility.
Anarchetypal example isoften given inthis context. Itisthe
experience when one isstanding onacliffwhere one notonly fear
falling offit,butalso dreads thepossibility ofthrowing oneself off.In
thisexperience “nothing isholding meback. ”One senses thelack
ofanything that predetermines one toeither throw oneself offorto
stand stillandoneexperiences one’sown freedom.
However, itisimportant tonotethat notevery choice is
perceived ashaving dreadful possible consequences, but that
doesn ’tchange the fact that every action proceeds through
freedom. Inview ofSartre, anguish becomes more intense, when a
man realizes that when heischoosing aparticular action, over the
other, heisdoing itfortheentire mankind. Toquote Sartre “–Every
man ought tosay,”AmIreally aman who has theright toactin
such amanner thathumanity regulates itself bywhat Ido.”
6)Thenotion of‘despair ’
The word‘despair ’isgenerally defined as‘–loss ofhope ’.In
existentialist ethics theword ‘despair ’,ismore specifically related to
the reaction when anindividual starts weighing the possibilities
involved inaparticular decision, which isgoing toaffec this‘selfor
identity ’.e.g., Anarmy chief orders toattack. Anindividual islikely
tofeeldespair because there isnoGod oranydivine voice toguide
theright path ofaction and hence thewhole responsibility ofan
action liesonthatperson.
7)Thenotion ofAbandonment God doesn ’texist, and whatever
logical consequences arelikely tobedrawn from thisarenecessarymunotes.in

Page 52

52
tobedrawn. Toquote Dostoevsky, -“IfGod didn’texist, everything
would bepermitted. ”
Itfollows from this, that man isleftalone without anyexcuse
tobehave inthisorthat fashion. Hence Sartre declared “–Man is
condemned tobe free. ”Precisely from the realization of
Abandonment thefeeling ofdespair arises.
3.4.3Sartre ’sargument against conventional deontological &
Consequential ethics
Inorder tobring outthecase ofexistential ethic ofhuman
freedom and free self-commitment, Sartre demonstrates thefutility
ofconventional ethic ofdeontology and consequentialism, which
have dominated theworld ofmoral philosophy forthepast two
centuries.
Ethic ofDeontology
The word deontology isderived from theGreek word “duty”.
Deontologists argue that Iought toperform those actions which are
myduties and avoid those which arenotmyduties. Itisbyfocusing
ontheintrinsic character oftheactthat Iought tobeguided by
Kant's ethics ofimperatives, isthetypical example ofdeontological
ethics. Ethic ofconsequentialism (Result oriented)
As the name suggests (as opposed todeontologists)
consequentialists arguethat weought todecide how toactby
reference totheconsequences ofthevarious courses ofactions
open tous.Inother words, from thevarious alternatives available
tome, Iought toselect that actwhich has thebest consequence.
Utilitarian Hedon ismisthetypical example ofresult -oriented ethic.
(Since itfocuses onthemaximum amount ofhappiness forthe
maximum number ofpeople.munotes.in

Page 53

53
With theexample ofayoung man, (who isconfronted with
thedilemma ofwhether tojoin theArmy ortostay with amother
who istotally dependent onhim). Sartre shows how both the
conventional systems ofethics can't guide him. Hefurther states
that even theinstincts orsentiments ofethics can't guide him. He
further states that even theinstincts orsentiments oftheyoung
man, about hismother ormotherland cannot guide him, beyond a
point totake theactual decision. The young boy then realizes how
heiscondemned tobefree and how hehas toassume the
responsibility ofchoosing onealternative over theother.
3.4.4Theethic ofauthenticity
The ethic ofauthenticity isatthevery heart ofexistentialism.
Itemphasises theabsolute character ofthefree commitment by
which every man realises himself inrealising atype ofhumanity.
Sartre very emphatically states that “Freedom, ”“Choice ”,
and “Self-Commitment. ”,arethethree pillars onwhich theethic of
authenticity iserected.
Hefurther states that what isnotpossible forany individual
isnottochoose. Because notchoosing anything, itself isachoic e.
When hemakes achoice, naturally thecomplete responsibility of
that action lies onhim, and precisely through this man goes on
achieving his‘new identity ’.
Sartre compares themoral choice with theconstruction ofa
work ofart.Does one ever askwhatisthepicture that heought to
paint? Aseveryone knows there isnopredefined picture forhimto
make; We are inthe same creative situation. When we are
confronted with amoral choice what action hewillchoose isn’t
predetermined andcannever bepredetermined.munotes.in

Page 54

54
Sartre takes thisanalogy astep further andmaintains thatas
apainting isjustone ‘episode ’intheentire lifeofthepainter, sois
themoral action, butone action inthelifeofthemoral agent. Aswe
cannot saybefore thepainting thatitisgoing tobegood orbad so
wecannot sayabout theaction aswell.
The only caution which Sartre gives inthis context is“bad
faith”.Bad faith isself-deception .”Tobelieve that Iamnotfree, ’orI
amforced todoaparticular action, ’isnothing but“Self-deception ,”
One should notfallin“badfaith”.
3.4.5Critical evaluation
1)Quitism ofdespair
According tosome thinkers existential ethics gives people a
kind oflicense toremain inthestate ofdespair orhopelessness.
Sartre has veryeffectively answered thiscriticism. The essence of
which may bestated as,despair isn’tthefinal destiny, butitisjust
one stage intheethic ofauthenticity, which every individual has to
overcome through making achoice andthrough self-commitmen t.
2)Man inisolation
Existential ethic Considers man inisolation. Man has
alienated himself from his society and culture, and asifhis
decisions arenothaving anyeffect onothers. Again, Sartre points
outthat, while making adecision, aman iscommitting fortheentire
humanity andnotforhimalone.
3)Danger ofloss ofmoral order leading tochaos insociety. Ifeach
individual who iscondemned tobefree decides tochoose asper
hiswhims and fancies ignoring theeternal human values; then
human society may witness moral chaos.munotes.in

Page 55

55
The ethic ofauthenticity never says ignore theconventional values
but itonly recommends tomake aconscious choice and then
remaining committed toit.Toconclude wemay say that Sartre
supports existentialist huma nism.
3.4.6Check your progress
1.•What isthemeaning oftheethic ofAuthenticity?
2.Distinguish between Deontological and consequentialist views
ofethics.
3.Describe thekeyconcepts ofSartre’s ethical theory.
3.5SUMMARY
Asstated inthe introdu ction, this chapter has given us
insight into three important noconventional systems ofethics.
Augustanian ethics has given adifferent approach to
Eudaemonistic ethics inthe Middle Ages, by synthesising
Christianity with Philosophy. Feminists have deve loped awide
variety ofgender -centred approaches toethics. Carol Gilligan ’s
care ethic isone such example. Sartre ’sexistential ethics have
dominated the 20th century and especially the field ofmoral
philosophy. Even though both thesystems have been criticised by
thethinkers, itismore than evident that they are theresult of
original thinking and intellectual boldness. They also commonly
underline one fact that weneed toquestion whatever isjustgiven
tousand weigh thevarious options inlifeifwereally want to
emerge asgenuine moral beings.
3.6BROAD QUESTIONS
Q1. Explain Augustine ’sview onEthics .
Q2. Explain andillustrate Sartre ’sethic ofauthenticity.
Q3.Critically evaluate Gilligan ’s‘ethic ofcare’.munotes.in

Page 56

56
Q4. Write short notes on:-
•Gilligan ’s3level model offeminine morality.
•Gilligan ’scriticism ofKohlberg’s theory ofmorality.
•Notice of‘Anguish ’anddespair.
•Concept ofsubjectivity.
•Notion ofLove ofGod.
•Moral Action asapiece ofArt.
Q.5State thedifferences
•Ethic ofcare andethic ofJustice.
•Deontological ethic andconsequential ethic.

munotes.in

Page 57

57
Unit -4
THEORIES OFPUNISHMENT
UNIT STRUCTURE
4.0Objectives
4.1Introduction
4.2Distinction between sin,crime andpunishment
4.3Need forPunishment
4.4Theories ofPunishment
4.5The Retributive Theory ofPunishment
4.6The Deterrent orPreventive Theory ofPunishment
4.7The Reformative ortheEducative Theory ofPunishment
4.8Rule ofLaw andJustification ofCapital Punishment
4.9Summary
4.10United Questions
4.0OBJECTIVES
•Tounderstand themeaning ofpunishment
•Tounderstand theneed andjustification ofpunishment insociety
•Tobeaware ofthe difference between different theories of
punishment
•Tobeable todecide whether civilized society needs capital
punishment ornot
4.1INTRODUCTION
Itisafactoflifethat when man progresses towards amoral
ideal, heoften commits mistakes either deliberately orunknowingly.munotes.in

Page 58

58
Such moral lapses (errors) may beconsidered either from aninner
point ofview asflaws ofcharacter –orfrom anouter point ofview –
astheviolation oflaws, resulting inevildeeds ormoral sickness or
moral illhealth. Itimplies that inmorality, wedonothave consistent
progress, moral perfection ormoral healt h.The evilorvice present
intheindividual, may result either insinorcrime. Inthat case
punishment isnecessary asaremedy forthisoffence orsickness.
Punishment isimposed because some person has done wrong. In
the legal context this iscalled acrime oroffence and inthe
theological context itiscalled asin.The twoterms arebynomeans
interchangeable. The problem ofpunishment isaproblem which
belongs tomoral pathology.
There arevarious reasons why crimes arecommitted:
1.Ignorance oflaw
2.Influence ofpassions orimpulses –aperson may besomuch
overcome byanger, lust orrevenge, that hebreaks thelaw
even when heknows thathewillattract punishment.
3.According toMackenzie, every individual lives intheuniverse of
desires. Whe nthe universe isvery narrow toinclude the
individual himself oratthemost, hisfamily members, hehasno
regard forthedesire and wishes ofothers. Such anindividual is
likely tocommit crime. Astheuniverse becomes wider and
wider and includes moreand more individuals, theindividual is
less likely tocommit crime. Punishment isnecessary forvarious
reasons:
1.Itteaches anindividual nottocommit thesame crime again. It
also sets anexample forothers insociety.
2.Ithelps inreforming thecharacter oftheindividual.
3.Itisanatural demand ofourconscience. Itdesires that people
who commit crimes bepunished because they are acting
against humanity.munotes.in

Page 59

59
4.The State can ensure peace and order insociety only ifthe
laws arepowerful and obeyed bypeople forfear ofpunishment.
Without punishment, laws willbelikecommandment.
4.2DISTINCTION BETWEEN SIN, CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT
Letusdistinguish between sin,crime and punishment. Sinis
awrong overt action. Itisatrait ofinner character. Sinisanevil
deed. Itiswilful violation orneglect ofduties. Itiseither the
commission ofwrong deeds oromission ofright deeds. We are
never lacking ingood intention. Butwemay nothave thestrength
ofwilltoconvert them into overt acts. Bad inten tions also are
frustrated byinfirmity ofpurpose and donotissue evildeeds. And
thus, they areharboured inthemind and stain theinner character.
Ifthey issue indeeds, sometimes they exhaust themselves. Thus, a
good intention isnotsogood asagoodact,while abad intention is
onthewhole, worse than abadact.
Crime, onother hand, issaid tobecommitted, when the
laws have been violated. Itinvolves punishment byanobjective
authority such astheState orgovernment, appointed bythecourt
oflaw. Crime thus refers totheoffence against society, which are
recognised bylawand liable tobepunished. Ingratitude e.g., would
beasinand notacrime. Murder orstealing isacrime. That iswhy
TSEliot writes inhis‘ElderStatesmen ’,“Whereas crime isin
relation toalaw, sinisrelation toasinner ”.
Punishment: Acrime ought tobepunished. One who suffers
wrong isnotdegraded. Hissoul isnothurt byit.Butone who does
wrong lowers himself inthescale ofmoral perfection. Aman is
rewarded forhisgood deeds and similarly aman should bemunotes.in

Page 60

60
punished forhisevildeeds. Ifacriminal hasdeliberately broken the
moral law, themajesty and theauthority ofthemoral lawdemand
that heought tobepunished. “Punishment isthejustretribution for
deliberate breach ofmoral law”.Wrongness oftheactisbrought
home tothe criminal bypunishing him. This isthe ethical
justification ofpunishment.
4.3NEED OFPUNISHMENT
Inoursociety, wereward aman who does good deeds. We
give prizes and awards toastudent who does allgood actions,
right behaviour byfollowing discipline. Thus ifanaction ofaman is
right wepraise, ifitiswrong, wecensure itorpunish theman. Just
asaman isrewarded forhisgood deeds, similarly one should be
punished forone’sevildeeds andactions.
Human being isrational and therefore heismore free and
capable ofchoosing hisacts. Heisresponsible forthefruits that
aretofollow from theselection ofhisacts. Because man chooses
voluntarily evilacts orbecause hechooses toviolate themoral law
forulterior motive, heshould bepunished. Wepunish acriminal not
togive him pain buttoimprove him, prevent him and reform him.
Thus, theaim ofpunishment isbetter and hence punishment is
justifiable.
Punishment isoften known asakind ofnegative reward paid
tothecriminal. Because ifwedonotpunish thecriminal, then there
willbenoharmony, equity and uniformity insociety. There will
remain norespect formoral laws and moral persons. Moral laws
willlook likeatype ofadvice possessing novalue. Therefore, in
order topreserve themajesty, supremacy, authority and dignity of
moral laws –acriminal should bepunished because anoffendermunotes.in

Page 61

61
deliberately violates themoral lawand disregards theauthority and
supremacy ofmoral laws.
The offender ought tobepunished from anethical viewpoint.
Punishment willmake him aware ofthedignity and majesty of
moral laws. Hence from theethical point ofview, ourdesire isto
improve him byvindicatin gthemajesty and supremacy ofmoral
laws. Therefore, wecansaythatpunishment isethically justifiable.
Itstands tothereason that ifagood actdeserves tobe
praised orrewarded, then abad actshould bepunished. According
toAnthony Hew punishme ntimplies following things:
1.Itshould begiven foranoffence –injuries can beforgiven;
crimes canonly bepunished.
2.Itmust bethework ofhuman beings –apersonal agency (evils
occurring asaresult ofmisbehavior, butnotonly byhuman
agency, may becalled apenalty –notpunishment. Thus V.D.
(Akind ofdisease) must beapenalty forsexual promiscuity not
punishment (through abeliever inpersonal God, itmight appear
aspunishment).
3.Punishment istobeimposed byanobjective authority, becaus e
ofthe violation ofthelaw orrule. But direct action bythe
wronged person isrevenge, notpunishment. Thus, discussing
theproblem ofpunishment, three things must bekept inmind.
•Meaning anddefinition ofpunishment
•General justifying aimofpunis hment
•Distribution ofpunishment, which includes thequestion ofliability
who should bepunished (children, mentally ill,those who are
forced, threatened orcompelled todowrong acts may be
excluded) and how much ofthepunishment have tobegiven. It
must beremembered that ignorance oflawcannot begiven asan
excuse foravoiding punishment. Amurderer cannot tellthat hemunotes.in

Page 62

62
didnotknow that killing was wrong, norcan aman claim tobe
excused saying that hedidnot know that driving under the
influen ceofliquor was wrong.
Ofthe above three aspects ofpunishments, weshould
concentrate onthesecond aspect, thejustification ofpunishment.
What issought tobeachieved bypunishing anindividual? What
should betheaimofthepunishment?
Check yourProgress
1.Differentiate between sinandcrime?
2.State thereasons forcrime totake place.
3..Doyou think that punishment isessential foraperson who
commits crime?
4.Give theethical justification ofpunishment
5.Doyouassociate punishment with nega tivereward? Justify.
4.4THEORIES OFPUNISHMENT
•There arethree main theories ofpunishment:
•Deterrent (orPreventive) theory, believes that punishment is
given, sothat potential criminals can learn alesson and not
commit thesame crime again.
•Retributive theory believes that punishment isgiven, because itis
deserved andfornoother reason.
•According totheReformative (orEducative) theory Punishment is
given toreform the criminal. Each theory has itsown basic
principle. The first order princ iple ofDeterrent theory isto
maximize thetotal amount ofhappiness insociety byreducing the
crime rate, that ofRetributive theory isjustice and the basic
principle ofReformative theory istomake thecriminal amorally
better individual.munotes.in

Page 63

63
•Deterrent
•Maximum happiness ofmaximum number ofpeople
•Punishment
•Retributive
•Justice
•Aristotle, Kant, Hegel
•Reformative
•Reformation ofthecriminal
4.5THE RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OFPUNISHMENT
The Retributive theory believes that punishment must be
inflicted because itisdeserved and noother reason. The first
principle isjustice, andtheassumption isthatifaright acthastobe
rewarded, awrong actmust bepunished, forpunishment issimply
thereward ofthewrong act. Bypunishing thewrong doer, weare
treating him asequal. Aretributive theory sees the primary
justification inthefact that anoffence has been committed which
deserves thepunishment fortheoffender. That iswhy Kant, a
deontologist, (adeontologist isone who believes that anaction is
right orwrong initself, irrespective oftheresults itproduces) also
argues that retribution isnot just anecessary condition for
punishment butalso asufficient one. Punishment isanend initself.
Retribution could also besaid tobethe'natura l'justification, inthe
sense that man thinks itquite natural and just that abad person
ought tobepunished andagood person rewarded.
Aristotle and Hegel areoftheopinion that punishment isa
kind ofnegative reward paid toacriminal. Hegel says that violation
ofmoral lawisthedemand forpunishment and hence weshould
punish acriminal. Punishment follows asafruitofhisevildeeds.munotes.in

Page 64

64
Just asvirtue isrewarded, acrime should berewarded ina
negative manner. Thus, punishment isanegative reward.
Bradley says, “Wepay thepenalty because itismerited by
wrong. Itisagross immorality, acrying injustice. Punishment is
inflicted forthesake ofpunishment.
Some people doobject byarguing that punishment isthe
hidden passion oftaking revenge. Butpunishment isnotrevenge
as revenge isdue topersonal prejudices, grudges and
malevolence. Acourt awards punishment toacriminal with strict
impartiality and according tothe law. We punish acriminal for
justice andnotoutofanypersona lmalevolence.
Retributive theory isoftwokinds:
a.Rigoristic theory: Rigoristic view believes inpunishing acriminal
according tothecharacter ofthecrime. This theory does nottake
into consideration thecircumstances, while punishing aman. The
motto oftheview is“–eye foraneye”and “tooth foratooth ”.We
should give punishment equal tothenature ofcrime irrespective of
any other circumstances. e.g., Aman who has killed aperson
should behanged todeath irrespective ofanyother circums tances.
b.Mollified theory: Mollified view takes into consideration the
character ofanoffence aswell asthecircumstances. Werefer to
circumstances which compelled acriminal and also thecharacter of
acrime fore.g., we consider the age, economic andsocial
condition, mental state, intention and theprovoking circumstances
intoconsideration before wepunish acriminal.
CRITICISM:
The above discussion on punishment may give an
impression that theretributive theory believes ininflicting pain and
encouraging wicked emotional revenge. This isfarfrom thetruth.munotes.in

Page 65

65
Butlet’stake each objection separately. InSpite ofstrong support
from thephilosophers, Dean Rashdall (being theman ofchurch)
opposes thistheory.
1.Rashdall says Retributive theory isunchristian and unethical in
character, because itencourages revenge. Hefeels that the
theory isbased onthelawof“eye foraneye and tooth fora
tooth ”.ButRashdall ismistaken. Had webeen living inprimitive
societies then hisobjection should bevalid. Buttoday it’snot
theinjured party that metes outpunishment. Today justice is
given bythethird party, anobjective court oflawwhich need
notexperience any feeling ofrevenge. Asone writer puts in
“such acourt simply accords toaman what hehas deserved.
Hehascommitted acrime and itisreasonable that punishment
should come upon him aswages ofhissin”.Revenge is
different from thefeeling oftherighteous indignation, revenge is
private, personal, and itrequires noauthority ofany person or
institution over another whereas punishment requires awhole
system ofauthorities.
2.Secondly Rashdall points out, thetheory does notwork inthe
case ofhardened criminals, forsometimes, themore they are
punished, themore determined they aretocommit crimes -they
willonly take care tosee that they donotgetcaught. This is
true toalarge extent, butthat innoway shows that itisthe
drawback ofthetheory. Asithas been said earlier -thetheory
isdeontological -notconcerned withtheconsequences -itmay
ormay notwork inthecase ofhardened criminals -butthat is
notitsconcern. The theory only wants tosee that justice is
done -ifthegood aretoberewarded, thewicked must be
punished.munotes.in

Page 66

66
3.Rashdall also feels that thetheoryisnotsatisfactory, because
crimes often spring from mental disorder ordiseases, and a
disease requires treatment notpunishment. But theobjector
forgets that every crime does notspring from adisease. Many
crimes such asmurder, rape arecommitted deliberately, cold
bloodedly after careful planning, knowingly and wilfully.
Besides, even granting forthesake ofargument that crimes do
notspring from adisease, itispossible that insome cases
punishment must beaform oftreatment.
Toconclude Rashdall says that wecan’texactly judge
punishment inequal proportion tothecrime. There isabsolutely no
commensurability between them, yetwecansaythat thistheory is
sound and useful theory sofarasmoral law (from anethical
viewpoint) isconce rned.
Check your Progress
1.State thebasic principle ofRetributive Theory ofPunishment.
2.What isKant ’sargument with regard toretributive theory of
punishment?
3.Give theopinion ofAristotle and Hegel inconnection with
punishment.
4.Point outthedifferences between rigorist and mollified view of
punishment.
5.Give any two opinions ofRashdall forhis opposition to
Retributive Theory ofPunishment.
4.6THE DETERRENT ORPREVENTIVE THEORY OF
PUNISHMENT
The Deterrent theory ofpunishment isutilitar ianinnature, for
itbelieves that man ispunished, notbecause hehasdone awrongmunotes.in

Page 67

67
actorcommitted acrime but inorder that crime may not be
committed. Itisbest expressed inthe word ofajudge, who
famously said, “You are punished notforstealing sheep, butin
order that sheep may not bestolen ”.Bymaking the potential
criminals realize that itdoes not pay tocommit acrime, the
Deterrent theory, hopes tocontrol thecrime rate inthesociety, so
that people may have afeeling ofsecurity. The firstorder principle
ismaximum happiness ofthemaximum number ofpeople inthe
society. Jeremy Bentham isthepromoter ofthistheory.
This theory willbeeffective ifthecentral conditions arefulfilled:
a.Every crime must befollowed byapunishment ,i.e., nocriminal
should escape punishment, only then the potential criminal will
think twice before committing acrime.
b.Though thepunishment should beinproportion tothecrime,
sometimes aslightly severe punishment begiven toserve asa
deterre nt.
c.There must beaminimum ofthetime gap between thecrime
committed and punishment followed. This istheonly way toensure
that theimpact ofpunishment isfeltbymembers ofthesociety, for
justice delayed isjustice denied.
d.Wide publicity should begiven topunishment that follows the
crime. This canbedone through various mass media, such astalk
shows, newspapers, films, TV, etc. Itisonly then that the
prospective criminals willrealize that itdoes notpay tocommit a
crime.
This theory also recognizes capital punishment orhanging
onetodeath. This theory hascertain defects:munotes.in

Page 68

68
1.This theory isnottenable, because acriminal ispunished sothat
others donotrepeat theact.Here instead ofreminding themajesty
and supremacy tocriminals, wepunish him forthefuture good of
society. Our aim ofpunishment should betoeducate and atthe
same time tomake him once again aware ofmoral laws and its
supremacy.
2.This theory treats human beings asameans. Forpunishing a
person, wetreat him asameans orathing oraninstrument to
prevent others from doing similar crimes, sotheaimofpunishment
isnotpurely ethical. From theethical point ofview, weshould treat
every human being asanendinhimself butnever asameans.
3.Inthis theory allindividuals arepunished tosetanexample to
other potential criminals. That means ifatall,they desist from
committing crimes itisbecause they areafraid ofbeing punished.
Butfear ofpunishment isanon-moral motive. Itmeans whenthere
isnopunishment there isevery possibility that anindividual may
commit crime.
4.The purpose ofthetheory istodeter potential criminals. Itis
quite possible that intrying toachieve this aim, itmay make the
punishment severe, acting ontheassumption that themore severe
thepunishment, greater isthedeterrent effect. Thus, thetheory
tends tobeacruel theory, forthe punishment may not bein
proportion tothecrime.
The deterrent theory also isnotavery satisfactory theory of
punishment.
Check your Progress -
1.State thenature ofdeterrent theory ofpunishment?
2.What ismeant by‘justice delayed isjustice denied ’?
3.State anytwodefects ofdeterrent theory ofpunishment.munotes.in

Page 69

69
4.7THE REFORMATIVE OR THE EDUCATIVE
THEORY OFPUNISHMENT
Having considered the two theories Retributive (where
punishment isgiven simply because itisdeserved and fornoother
reason) and the Deterrent (according towhich the criminal is
punished sothat other potential criminals may deter from
committing thosecrimes) wenow discuss the third theory, the
Reformative theory.
Asthename suggests, punishment isgiven forthepurpose
ofreforming thecriminal. This isthefirst order principal, sothe
theories like theDeterrent theory areout. The supporters ofthis
theory believe that aman commits acrime because, either heis
ignorant, orbecause hehasdone awrong, hemay beinposition to
improve. Inwestern countries therefore theprison chaplain visits
thecriminal inprison, explains tohim thediffer ence between right
and wrong, with ahope that once heunderstands this, hewill
refrain from doing thewrong. Butperhaps this appears tobetoo
optimistic, butthesupporters areconvinced that itispossible to
reform acriminal, and that punishment isone ofthe ways of
doing it.
Traditionally, Plato has been regarded asthefather ofthe
Reformative theory and hisposition can besummarized inthe
following three positions:
1.The state isrelated tothedelinquent asparent toachild.
2.Wick edness isamental disease.
3.Punishment isamoral medicine forwicked acts, and however
unpalatable itmay be,itisabsolutely necessary.munotes.in

Page 70

70
The magistrate thus acts asthephysician ofthesoul and
tries tosolve itsmorally sick wrong doer. This may soundvery
edifying, buthow close istheanalogy between theworking ofthe
medicine and surgery onthebody and working ofthepunishment
onthemind and character. Can moral improvement bebrought
about thisway? When wepunish, wemean tohurt and cause pain,
mental ifnotphysical.
How will this pain and suffering, transform the mental
disposition oftheman and make him abetter individual? Onthe
contrary itmay lead himtolose hisself-respect and stifle hismoral
aspiration, which would make him ahardened criminal. Asone
writer says, topropose thepunishment and toreform bythesame
operation, isliketreating aman with pneumonia byfirst stripping
him naked and inthat condition making him stand allnightstand in
thesnow andthen getting adoctortoadminister hiscough.
This theory also holds that most ofthecrimes aredue to
pathological phenomena i.e.,one commits crime due tosome
mental deficiency orinsanity orphysiological defect. Therefore,
criminals ought tobecured and ought tobereformed. Mental
diseases and physiological defects compel thehuman beings toan
offence fore.g., Aman suffering ofhomicide impulse has an
uncontrollable urge tokillsomebody inhismind and this strong
desire compels him tostab somebody. Similarl y,aboy who isnot
given proper education may indulge inpick-pocketing due toevil
company. Inallthese cases, wesee that thecause ofcommitting
crime issomething other than inner volitional desire. Thus,
punishment should betocure acriminal from hismental and
physiological defects, oritshould betoprevent acriminal from
repeating thesame crime bygiving him proper education and for
that prisons should be replaced by mental hospitals and
reformatory schools tocure andreform acriminal prope rtreatment.munotes.in

Page 71

71
Perhaps itisnecessary tomake adistinction atthis stage. Many
people speak oftheState ’sduty ofreforming bypunishing, which
actually means reform aswell aspunishment, forasBernard Shaw
rightly says that two activities together may counteract with each
other. Toquote him, “ifyou aretopunish aman retributive, you
must injure him. ’’Ifyouaretoreform him, then youshould improve
him. And men arenotimproved byinjuries.
Well, then how ispunishment supposed toreform? There
aretwoextreme views, which canberejected immediately.
•‘Beat itoutoftheperson. ’This model seems tobealiontamer
with awhip. This type ofpunishment does noteradicate evil
habits, itonly drives them underground.
•Suffering issupposed tohaveamoral value; itbrings thesoul
under good influence. This view also cannot beaccepted. For
suffering does notautomatically reform oreducate, often ittends
tobedemoralized. Atthemost, punishments induce fear and that
cannot reform aperson. Man cannot befrightened outofbadness
intogood. Nodoubt, weareobliged topunish something, butthat
cannot make aperson abetter individual.
That explains Dr. Ewing ’sfamous paradox, “ifitis
punishment that reforms, then aman isnotreformed and ifaman
isreformed then itiswithout punishment ”.This means true
reformation means achange ofheart, and punishment cannot bring
thechange. Itcanonly induce fear and that isanon-moral motive.
Aslong asthere ispunishment, aman may desist from committing
crimes; overtly itcan never reform him orbring about achange in
heart. However, Dr.Ewing feels that punishment isthesense of
“thebeating down oftheevil”willbypain isanessential stage in
reformation.munotes.in

Page 72

72
Under what circumstances, can punishment reform inthe
realsense oftheterm? According toSirWalter Moberly:
•There must besome response from theperson punished. Ifthe
process only inflicts pain, there canbenoreformation. The wrong
doer ’sconscience should bearoused insome sense.
•Hehimself has torealize that hehas transgressed amoral
standard. The court ’sverdict ofguilty must beratified byhisown
conscience.
•Punishment must beimposed byanauthority, which herespects.
The person punished therefore feels bound bythejudgment of
authority. When thiscondition isabsent theintended moral effect
ofthepunishment isdestroyed. This happens inthecase ofhard -
hearted criminals who donot accept any authority. Italso
happens incase ofthose who accept some other autho rityorwho
areconvinced thatthey arekilling foracause.
Thus, ifthepunishment needs tohave fullmeaning, the
offender must have some kind ofconscience, some latent sense of
guilt and some respect fortheauthority (court) that punished him
i.e., ifpunishment istoreform, itmust enable theoffender tosee
theoffence, theway that society sees it.AsKant puts it,“however
benevolent thepurpose ofgiven punishment may be,yetitmust
first bejustified initself aspunishment and theperson punished
must admit thejustice was done tohim and that ishisreward for
perfectly suitable tohisconduct. Inevery punishment itmust first
beretributive, ifitistobecome reformatory ”.
The wrongdoer must regard hispunishment asjustareward
ofhisdeeds. Hisreformation begins with accepting theverdict ofa
righteous authority. The criminal must realize that thesociety is
morally bound topush him. AsTHE Green puts in“hesees that the
punishment ishisown actreturning onhimself, inthesense ,that itmunotes.in

Page 73

73
isanecessary outcome ofhisactinsociety governed bythe
conception rights, aconception which heappreciates and towhich
hedoes involuntary reverence ”.
Criticism
1.Doubtlessly wecan saythat thistheory ismore advanced and
satisfactory; yetitisnotsufficient toaccept it.This theory does
notserve theoriginal aim ofpunishment. Allmen docommit
crime due tomental diseases. Acrime isnothing but a
deliberate violation ofthe moral law and the insult ofthe
majesty ofthe moral law. Sowhoever violates moral law
voluntarily issubject topunishment and therefore heshould
suffer thepain ofpunishment.
2.Ifwesay that allcrimes aredue tosome mental diseases or
physiological diseases aredue toabsence ofproper education
then the entire society isnothing but the mass ofinsane,
handicapped and uneducated people. Hence noneed ofmoral
laws and punishment forman because there isnoone who is
sound inmental condition orphysiological faculties or
education.
3.Itistrue that some crimes are due tounfavorable social
circumstances, poverty, inequality, maladjustment, corruption
and exploitation. Therefore, some improvement toprevent all
these things insociety isneeded. Butthisispossible only ifwe
punish those who are creatin gallthese unfavorable social
circumstances onthebasis ofjustice and equity. Thus, even to
reform the society, itisimpossible without punishment to
improve thepeople who arethecause ofallsocial and moral
disturbances.munotes.in

Page 74

74
Ofthethree theories, whichtheory isthebest, willdepend
onthefirst order principle one accepts. IfitisJustice, then the
retributive theory which believes inpunishment because itis
deserved, and noother reason isbest. Ifone’saim istohave
maximum happiness insociet ythen thedeterrent theory, according
towhich deterring potential criminals from committing crimes,
brings about happiness, and that isthebest. Finally, ifone believes
that thepurpose ofpunishment istoreform thecriminal and togive
himasecond chance, then Reformative theory should beapplied or
accepted.
However, formany the Retributive theory ofpunishment
seems tobethecorrect view. Itincludes thetwoother theories. If
vindication ofthe authority ofthe moral law isthe aim of
punishme ntitwillbepartly done bythereformation ofthecriminal
and partly bythenon-commission ofcrimes byothers, butneither
reformation ofthenon-commission crimes byothers. But neither
reformation ofthecriminal norprevention ofthecrime ispossib le,
unless itisrecognized that punishment isavindication ofthe
authority's moral law. Itisonly when acriminal realizes that heis
punished tovindicate theauthority ofthemoral lawand that itishis
right togethisdesert that herepents and isreformed. Again, the
recognition ofthis fact leads others also torecoil from crimes.
Retribution also brings about prevention and reformation.
Check your Progress
1.What according toyouisPlato ’sview onReformative Theory?
2.State theaimofReformative theory ofpunishment.
3.Do you think that conscience plays animportant role in
reformation ofcharacter ofacriminal?
4.State anytwolimitations ofReformative theory ofpunishment.munotes.in

Page 75

75
4.8RULE OFLAW AND JUSTIFICATION OFCAPITAL
PUNISHMENT
Capital punishment means death byhanging. Itisgiven as
anultimate penalty forgrave offence, ormajor crimes such as
murder. Atone time, this punishment was given forvery minor
offences, fore.g. In1815 inEngland, itwas acapital offence to
steal goods tothevalue ofRs.5/-from ashop ortosteal Rs.50/-
from adwelling house. In1816, capital punishment was given ifone
destroyed machine orstole ahorse orasheep orpicked pockets.
Today, capital punishment has been given upinmany civilized
countries, because they feel itiscruel tokillsomeone inthis way
and there should beabetter way ofpunishing anindividual than
practicing themaxim of“lifeforlife”.After all,asone writer says -
“Wedonotmaim aman because hehasmaimed others orburn his
house, because hehascommitted arson, orsteal from athief. Why
then should wekillakiller? ”
The justification ofdeath penalty isoften done inmany ways: -
Sometimes thecapital punishment isimposed toeliminate
someone who has become aliability oramenace toasociety.
Sometimes theaimofsuch punishment istogive aterrible warning
toothers that iswhy death byhanging has tobegiven inorder to
gethisdue.
The following alternatives willbeconsidered separately: -
a.Initssimplest form, thecriminal isregarded asapest and a
menace tosociety and therefore, has tobegotridof.This implies
that:
i.Ifthecriminal isnotregarded asaperson, asanend inhimself,
butasathing that has, bythisone actofhis,forfeited once and for
all,hisright tolive.munotes.in

Page 76

76
ii.That likeamalignant tumor hastoberemoved and destroyed in
theinterest ofpublic health.
iii.That hisoperation istobeperformed incold blood without taking
intoconsideration theextent orintensity ofthepain.
b.The second reason and avery strong oninfavour ofcapital
punishment, isthedeterrent aspect. The execution isexpected to
serve asawarning toother potential criminals against indulging in
such evilacts. Fear ofdeath canwork asastrong deterrent. Here,
however, there isadifference ofopinion. Students ofcriminology
feelthattwogeneral maxims must bekept inmind:
i.Whenever punishment follows crime certainly and immediately
even amild punishment isenough todeter.
ii.And where the prospect ofbeing punished isdoubtful and
remote, theutmost severity isoften noteffective. And often extreme
and indiscriminate severity isworse than ineffective. Itdefeats its
own end -itarouses public opinion and evokes sympat hyforthe
criminal. Asone writer puts it:-thelawbydeclaring that thecrime
(an insignificant one) shall not bepunished with death, has
declared that itshall notbepunished atall.The bow hasbeen bent
tillithassnapped.
Inmany cases, many criminals arepersons oflowintellect.
Anintelligent criminal isoften agambler. There isalways achance
that hemay not bedetected, that ifdetected, hemay not be
convicted, ifconvicted, hemay notbehanged. Tosuch acriminal,
species ofdanger maybeanincentive rather than adeterrent. Yet
inmany countries today, death byhanging isdone inpublic areas,
soastoteach alesson tothepotential criminals.munotes.in

Page 77

77
c.The third factor thatjustifies capital punishment isretribution. The
criminal must getwhat hedeserves. Hehas taken someone ’slife,
and hemust repay thedebt bygiving uphisown. This isnot
vengeance -itisaform ofjustice.
Like crime, punishment has adual character. The penalty
thecriminal incurs isnotsimply death -itisdeath indisgrace. The
criminal isnotonly sentenced todeath buttodieshamefully, tobe
hanged bytheneck tillheisdead. Ofcourse, theculprit need not
bepunished inthesame form ofviolence. What retributive justice is
felttorequire isacounte rstroke ofthe same moral order and
magnitude asthe offence. AsAristotle put it-just retribution
consists not insimple but inproportionate relation, that is,in
receiving inreturn forawrongful actnotthesame thing butits
equivalent.
Whatever isthereason insupport ofthecapital punishment
itisequally true that ifmany countries have given itup, itis
because thedrawbacks aremany.
a.Inprinciple, capital punishment hasgrave defects. Itfails totreat
thecriminals asaperson and asanend inhimself. AsSirWalter
Moberly says, “our concern with thecriminal ’spersonality ought
always tobeconstructive inintention. Even if,ingiven conditions,
toputhim todeath may conceivably betheleast evilalternative
open tosociety, itisalways aconfession ofsocial failure ”.
•Many feel that giving aperson alifeimprisonment iswasting
public money forcriminals and ismaintained atthe public
expenses. Itisbetter togetridofhim once inforall,through
capital punishment. Others, however, feel that aman may not
necessarily beabad person; circumstances may have made him
so.Hence itisnecessary togive himasecond chance, necessarymunotes.in

Page 78

78
tobring thegood sight ofhischaracter and thereby help him to
rehabilitate himself.
•But perhaps the strongest objection isthat there might be
sometimes mistakes indelivering thecourt judgment. The so-
called criminal may beareally innocent person. Once hehas
been puttodeath bycapital punishment itwould beimpossible to
rectify themistake.
One feels that capital punishment begiven tosome criminals
like murderers, rapist and terrorist who end upkilling innocent
people. However capital punishment isnotjustified.
4.9SUMMARY
Punishment istheuniversal response tocrime and deviance
inallsocieties. Different types ofpunishment areused fordifferent
purposes.
One ofthe problems which moral philo sophers are
concerned with isthat ofpunishment. Almost everybody agrees
that some kind ofpunishment should beinflicted upon those who
violate the laws ofthe state. The apt justification given for
punishment is,ifagood actdeserves toberewarded abad act
should bepunished.
Philosophers state three main theories ofpunishment. They
areDeterrent, Retributive and Reformative. Allthese theories have
their own advantages and disadvantages. The best theory seems
tobeRetributive theory.
Capital punishment means death byhanging. Itisan
ultimate penalty given forgrave offences. There aresupporters andmunotes.in

Page 79

79
critics ofcapital punishment. Today many civilized societies have
given upcapital punishment though supporters ofthetheory states
that itshouldbegiven tohardened criminals liketerrorist, rapists
andmurderers.
4.10UNITEND QUESTIONS
1.Discuss thethree theories ofpunishment.
2.What isthedifference between sin,crime andpunishment?
3.Explain retributive theory ofpunishment.
4.Briefly bringoutthepoints ofcriticism ofRetributive theory of
punishment.
5.Bring outtheimportance ofreformative theory ofpunishment.
6.Do you think Deterrent theory ofpunishment can bring
maximum happiness ormaximum number ofpeople? Discuss.
7.What accordin gtoyou isthe most satisfactory theory of
punishment? Discuss.
munotes.in