Moral Thinking: Introduction to Values and Ethics PDF

MORAL THINKING: AN INTRODUCTION TO VALUES AND ETHICS Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences IIT Kanpur  INDEX S.NO TOPICS PAGE.NO Week 1 1 Lecture 01 3 2 L...

MORAL THINKING: AN INTRODUCTION TO VALUES AND ETHICS Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences IIT Kanpur  INDEX S.NO TOPICS PAGE.NO Week 1 1 Lecture 01 3 2 Lecture 02 12 3 Lecture 03 18 4 Lecture 04 27 5 Lecture 05 35 6 Lecture 06 40 Week 2 7 Lecture 07 48 8 Lecture 08 57 9 Lecture 09 62 10 Lecture 10 73 11 Lecture 11 78 12 Lecture 12 87 13 Lecture 13 103 Week 3 14 Lecture 14 110 15 Lecture 15 131 16 Lecture 16 141 17 Lecture 17 150 18 Lecture 18 159 19 Lecture 19 168 Week 4 1 20 Lecture 20 175 21 Lecture 21 183 22 Lecture 22 196 23 Lecture 23 206 2  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -01 Introduction to Philosophy - 1 Hello everyone. Today we are about to start. This is the first lecture of the course on moral thinking, introducing values and ethics. Let's start in the beginning by talking about philosophy and before that also about the humanities and social sciences. Now many of you might be coming from different backgrounds to talk about to this course. Some of you may be may have some experience in industry, some of you may have worked elsewhere, some of you may have may be coming here out of curiosity, some of us may be here out of need for an examination, for accreditation. So there would be various needs. Now the need that I would be most happily catering to is the need for out of curiosity, that why should you do this particular course, why should you engage in moral thinking. And to start with, there are many hesitations that you come out with this course on moral thinking or whenever in general we talk about values or philosophy. So the word that we are always looking for is values and that's one of the few things that I will write on the board right now. So when we are looking at values, we always have a difficulty that well, the specter of relativism comes to us that well, values are relative and can we at all talk about it, can there be theory about it, can there be a course about it. This is a question we will be tackling in detail in a subsequent lecture. But to start with and place the background why we are here and what is it that we hope to do when we are here is, first, what are the humanities and social sciences. So to many of you who may be unfamiliar to the humanities and social sciences, let me start by introducing a little bit about the humanities and social sciences as disciplines of study. So we are all knowledge bodies are seeking or all academic disciplines are seeking knowledge. That's a common factor between all the disciplines that we come across in universities, institutes, in schools, textbook studies and in general also we are seeking knowledge. That's the most generic thing that we are coming about. Humanities in particular deals 3 with knowledge that happens to be emerging from us being humans. That also seems generic. That well, everything we come to know as humans. As humans we inhabit a world, we have lived experience, we inhabit a world in which we have friends, relatives, we have societies. Unlike the natural world that we inhabit where we have rocks, stones, gravity and an abstract world in which we have straight lines, numbers, digits. So all of these worlds also interact with each other and they have certain things common amongst them. Say abstractions and concepts theorization. So all the worlds have a certain level of theorizations. What is theorization? When we look at the particular instances and we abstract something general out of it. So in a very simplistic manner, this is what we do in theorization. So the humanities is peculiar unlike any other disciplines because it looks at the lived experience that comes to us from being human. That is what is humanities looking at it. And perhaps if we look at it differently that what does science do, what does social science do and why is social science a social plus science is when we are looking at the scientific method. The scientific method is typically about looking at the world out there. The third person perspective on the world out there and abstracting theories out of there, looking at patterns out of there. Social sciences does that for using the same instruments for society. Whereas sciences does it for the natural world out there of rock, stones, flowers, asteroids and meteors. Social sciences does it for societies as a person. Now this is a wide general simplification for you to just get an idea what this particularly means. In humanities we have various disciplines and in every study there is a component of humanities when we look at the component of interpretation. Let me give you an example. Say history can be both a science and a part of humanities. Humanities say when an archaeologist digs up and finds out artifacts from the past. Now that is scientific. They carbon dated, they find that these are the pieces that were around this particular era. But the humanities component steps in, when we interpret or weave the story around it. What was the kind of life that people were living. So you can see archaeology in particular can be both humanities and science, when it looks at third perspective information trying to abstract features of the objects found. That is scientific. But when it tries to weave the story as how those objects connect to the life lived in that time, that is humanities. This is basically humanities and social sciences just a cursory glance at it. And now let me come to philosophy. Philosophy which is a part of humanities like languages, like history. 4  These are all parts of humanities and every discipline also as a part of humanities. And again with this I would like to leave you with a caveat that looking at water tight boundary lines between disciplines is a rather futile task because what every discipline mingle when you are at an advanced level of study and if you can look at how India's national education policy is also evolving and blurring the boundaries between disciplines because we are learning there is a component of one discipline in another. So to look at disciplines as water tight boundaries would be trivializing knowledge and this classification is only required for you to make sense of what these disciplines are of where they are coming from. Now let's start with philosophy. What whys and hows. What is philosophy? We will go through it in three parts that what is philosophy? Why should we philosophize? And how do you philosophize? These are the three components of the scheme of things under which we will go ahead. Okay, so what is philosophy? Now philosophy many of you must have heard a lot of funny to dark interpretations of what philosophy is. And very often more often than not there is a grain of truth in of course what is being said like when I chose to study philosophy my father told me that philosophy was the study for the lookout for a black cat in a dark room which does not exist. So it's actually a meaningless search for something. So those were the teasing words of my father in the beginning of my study of philosophy and I will be charitable to it and also try to interpret that there is a point in that that when we look at methodologies or frame of references and if you are looking at absolute answers right then our pursuit of knowledge is not in sync with the way knowledge is. So any discipline or at the beginning of the journey of any discipline if you are looking at absolute answers that is perhaps you are going to be disappointed sooner or later because there will be a change belief systems are revised and knowledge per se is also eternally revisable. So anyway let us come back to philosophy. So philosophy is a method or an attitude to examine the foundations to question the current obvious and to articulate why the self-evident is self-evident. Let us go over these issues one by one. Philosophy is not a body of content that is given to you. It is rather or more accurately an attitude. And what is that attitude? That attitude is to examine the foundations. The foundations of what seems to be the current or obvious frame of reference that we are surrounded with and then to articulate why the self-evident is self-evident. Let me put this in a simpler relatable perspective. Now we all have a default mechanism of going through life. For some child could think that homework is boring. That is a default mechanism that we come across and that is how the child will go through perhaps their homework. But 5 when we pause and question why is the homework boring or what can be made to done to make it interesting or what is the nature of being bored is monotony boredom or is lack of visuals and actions boring then we are starting a philosophical pursuit because we are trying to interrogate that what is the meaning of boring over there. So whenever we look at things which are self-evident, say in today's political milieu we hold democracy as a desirable political goal. Now why is democracy as a desirable political goal and here is where is also the lure and the, if I may say disappointment with philosophers because they are not very grounded in what is the current state of affairs. So it's not that they are looking at the world from a frame of reference. So those of you or at those moments when you have the keen insight to question why are things the way they are, you are wearing the philosophers cap and that is the moment you are being a philosopher. So philosophy is quite a generic enterprise and when you are questioning that why are things the way they are and articulating thereby that this is the position that we have that is the role of a philosopher. The second point listed here is philosophy as a second order study, as a philosophy of something, philosophy of education, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of biology. So when we look at a second order study, what is a second order study? A second order study is when one looks at the foundations of the first order study. So think of an example that we are taught of numbers in school. We are taught of digits right from the beginning but then to explain what is a number or the concept of number it doesn't exist anywhere in the world. So we are entering into a second order study of mathematics. What is this concept of number? That is a second order study. When we look at philosophy of education, it is not what is to be transferred in education but how is it to be transferred and what is the point of education. When we ask second order questions is when we are looking for foundational questions, foundational justifications, when you are looking for reasons. What does philosophy do? As the third point lists out, to believe in the possibility of articulation and argumentation, to look for the fundamentals of learning and knowledge. So to believe in the possibility of articulation and argumentation. Now very often you would see that discussions amongst friends or committees or groups of people tend to become or tend to end at loggerheads and people are disagreeing with each other and their final parting statement is we agree to disagree. And so debate, so there is one strain of thinking that says that well there is no point of debate because each one is committed to their own views. And that means when you come into a committee or in a group discussion or in a debate or in the parliament, if each one is just arguing for their view, then one is not being philosophical. One ought to argue for one's view but also be open to learn from the 6 other's view. So to be philosophical is to be open to new views, to argue and to believe in the power of argumentation both to convince and to get convinced. So when we are looking for the fundamental questions, we are being philosophical. And finally as listed here, transcendental. Now transcendental is a word that may be a little heavy weight but it is appropriate in this concept that to be or philosophy is transcendental in the sense because it is transcending in time and perspective. Let me take a moment to explain that to you. What is it to transcend in time and perspective? Well connecting to the first point mentioned here is that when we look at a frame of reference that exists today. Let us think of, see how Youngers address Elders. Now one way as you are embedded into a society or as an organisation or a family, you find that well there is a particular way that Youngers address the Elders, in whichever society or organisation that you are a part of it. And you quickly adapt to it, even very often probably unthinkingly or naturally without thinking why it is the way it is. And what does it signify? So philosophy being transcendental is to transcend that immediacy of the moment, and to look at why certain practices come into being. So when there are practices, there is a reason why these practices evolve. And to understand, you have to liberate yourself from the present moment, from the way the practice has to be followed. So why did this practice evolve? What does this practice signify about the broader values of the organisation, or the system, or the family. So whenever we are able to transcend in time and perspective, not think and work in the short run, and to place our little bubble of existence in the larger scheme of things, we are being philosophical. So it's very, the moments and perhaps many of you who have a literary flare, can relate to this very easily. When in one of your literary moments, you seem to have a feeling of finiteness, when surrounded or when comprehending the infinity of the world around you. That is transcendental. That is when one looks at one's little position, in the whole world around us. So if that sounds too poetic, well some of you may be able to relate to it, and for some of you it may be abstruse. The crux that you can take from here is that, to transcend the immediate frame of reference, to look beyond the frame of reference, to question the existing practices. If democracy is a valuable goal today, why is it so? Now, the big question that, why philosophise? Why at all should one philosophise? Well, first, can we help, but not to philosophise. To be aware of oneself, and one's awareness of this ability, also known as self-consciousness, is the foundation of philosophy. So the first argument is that, the one that I even referred to, or eluded to right at the beginning, is that, we do 7 philosophise, because we are fundamentally curious creatures. We want to understand things. Right. So, the desire to philosophy is a desire, to make sense of the world around us. Curiosity. Curiosity is the fundamental motivation to philosophise. So, if many of you have seen, typical statues of Socrates or Plato, you see them in a thinking mode, sitting and thinking and reflecting. So, that is when one particularly has transcended the immediate needs of the moment, and trying to make sense of the world, and one's place in the world. So, philosophising is inevitable to the thinking person. Curiosity about the world, our place in it, and the structure of it. That is the spark to seek. To make sense of it all, to reconcile and revel in the human condition. So, what does it mean to make sense of it all, to reconcile and revel in the human condition. Whether to reconcile or to revel, that is of course an option, depending on the philosophical position that you hold. That whether world is something that you should revel in, or you should reconcile. These are two world views. Right. A Philosopher has a world view. So, Philosophical content can be contradictory to each other. So, Philosophy per se, does not give you advocate a body of content. So, when we say, even talk about, in this particular course about Moral Thinking, we are not going to tell or talk about, what is the right thing to do. But, more importantly, we are trying to understand, what are the value assumptions of each side of the argument. That will help us to debate better, to argue better, and then to arrive at a conclusion. If there is a annoying trouble, let me address it right away, that well, if everybody has their point of view, then how are we at all going to arrive at a position. Look at our parliaments. The parliaments of the world argue and debate to arrive at policies. Now, is there a singular way of arriving at a policy or at a debate? No. So, different parliamentarians come together, put forth their points, and try to argue, and to come up with a policy, that is best suitable to the immediate requirement. Is that policy, eternal or absolute? No. It can always be reversed, in the next session, or in the next decade. So, policies change, does not mean that, policies are self-contradictory. So, to look at truth in human condition, in absolute terms, can lead us to the folly of scepticism or cynicism, that well, nothing is for sure. Things are for sure. But, things are for sure, in their epoch, in their time, in their frame of reference. And that is what, we need to understand. So, more of this, when we come to the topic ahead. Why Philosophy? And now, if these reasons do not convince you much, well, 8 and if you would like to have reasons of the world, that means in the world, that why should one philosophise at all. The practical reason to philosophise, is to bring about a change, to understand, why are things and systems, the way they are, and then, how to make them better. So, Philosophy is the primal urge to learn and make sense of the world, both outer and inner. And thus, this is the foundation of all knowledge endeavours. Okay, let me now put forth that, what do we mean by change. So, there are leaders, there are organisational leaders, there are national leaders, there are world leaders, who try to bring some change. And, I am assuming an individual leadership, trying to make a change. How is change brought about? Change is brought about by, discontent with the present. Change is also brought about people, or individuals, who have reflected on, that why the current assumptions do not work, or can be bettered. Right. So, anybody who looks for a change, a thinking change, not just fuelled by the discontent with the present, but with a more thorough understanding of, what are the policies of the present, and why they do not work, and why they should be changed, at a core level. Say, I can think of immediately, Martin Luther King, trying to do away with arguing for fighting against Slavery. Now, when such visionaries, they are philosophers for sure, they are wearing the Philosopher's cap, when they have looked at the world around them, and unlike most others, have not reconciled to the immediate frame of reference, as the inevitable and final frame of reference. So, what is it not to be Philosophical, is when one unquestioningly reconciles, or unquestioningly accepts the frame of reference, in which one is thrown into. Thrown into is typically a Philosophical word, is means that when the world that we are born into, we do not choose the governments, we do not choose the society, we do not choose the civilization, but we are thrown into it per se. So, we know that, okay, at this time, individual of the world, if you are born in say, 21st century, you will think individual liberty, and privacy are sacred values. If you were born say, 400 years back, you would think community and the collective are more cherished ideals. Only when one understands the frame of reference, can one think of making a change. So, that is a reason, why one would like to change. And Philosophical thinking should empower you, to look at a change, that is not just an immediate discontent with the present, but also a thought through transition, from a current frame of reference, to another frame of reference. So, Visionaries. Visionaries, world leaders, statesmen, founders of great institutions, and organisations, and companies, have always had that visionary Philosophical streak in them, where they have been able to envision a new world order. And that is possible, 9 because one has thought through the existing world order, and understood its Philosophical, or its assumptions, and then the need and desire to change it. Now, to the next question that, how to philosophize. Now that is, well, if you would see till now, questions about Philosophy, or this talk about Philosophy, may appear vague to some, and I understand where that comes from. But when we look at questions of knowledge, techniques are less effective. So okay, let me put that in perspective. Now, if I give you a body of techniques, these are easy to apply. The typical difference between Techne, and Episteme. As let me put it down here. Now, Techne is to do with technique, that when one gives techniques of an way of doing something, one is learning techniques, and that techniques can when implemented, can lead you to that skill. But Episteme is when we look at knowledge. Let me think of an example. The first example that comes to my mind is, when you are learning to drive, or ride a motorbike, or drive a car, the techniques of it are explained to you by the instructor. There is a clutch, if it is a manual vehicle, there is an accelerator, there is an accelerator that increases the engine that drives you, the way you turn. So these are all techniques, techniques which you master, you are able to drive. But Episteme is to look at it that, why should one stick to one side of the road. So in one part of the world, you should stick to the left lane, in another part of the world, you should stick to the right lane. But what is the point of this, to understand the theory of an internal combustion engine. When we are looking at knowledge for knowledge sake, not as a set of techniques. So when we are looking at techniques, it gives us simplicity, it gives us a few instruments, that we can use to achieve our goal. But when we look at Episteme, and philosophy is characteristic Episteme, which looks at knowledge per se, knowledge by itself. So where you can look at, why things are the way they are. So if you look at a session on techniques, it is generally about the way of doing things. There are very rarely, the why questions answered there. So when we look at Episteme, the why questions are handled in detail. So the first prerequisite to philosophize is to have an open mind, to think for oneself. Question question and question. So those of you, we are all born philosophers, as children, we have so many questions. An average child may be asking a 1000 questions a day, to the point of their parents being baffled. But some parents also encourage and enjoy those questions. So we look at, we start with a questioning apparatus. With time, we see the inefficiency of questioning and maybe we slow down that apparatus. 10 So questioning is fundamental to philosophers and throughout the history of the world, philosophers have known to ask very embarrassing, difficult and provoking questions, questions that have landed them into deep trouble also. Once you question, look at the established answers, but do not follow them blindly. So all questions are answered, or questions of life are answered, in the life that we exist. A world order, a civilization performs, has answers embedded in those questions. So one should be cognizant of those answers. And that means, the role of reading and knowledge is tremendous in Philosophical Thinking. Because one knows, what are the answers there. Then to resist simple explanations, and then come up with your answers, to what are the possibilities elsewhere. Stop for now, and we will talk about the Art and Craft, in the next session. Thank you.. 11  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -02 Introduction to Philosophy - 2 So, coming to Art and Craft. That is an example, that I would like to use, to explain the difference between, Technia and Epistemia. So, we have heard these two words, together, almost taken, almost always together. Art and Craft. But, there is a difference between the two. Craft is governed by techniques. There is a way of doing it. There are techniques of doing a piece of art, of craft. But, art on the other hand, has intuitive leaps. So, you are particularly, or one must particularly be aware, or heard of artists, breaking moulds, breaking techniques, and doing something new. So, art is not bound by techniques. Because, techniques that give us simplicity and clarity, can also be techniques, that bind us, that do not allow us to push the envelope. So, when we want to do out of the box thinking, or we want to do something unusual, somebody who is very technique driven, will find it difficult to push the envelope, or go beyond techniques. So, art typically, art and craft together is of course, always a subject in schools and colleges. But, they are two distinct methods of doing things. Art is about following a technique, and art is about not being limited by the technique, and letting the intuitive process take its own way. So now, summing up, let me read out, what Philosophy is. Well, one, Philosophy deals with the most fundamental questions. It is questioning the obvious. And what makes the obvious, obvious. So, Philosophy is dealing with the most fundamental questions. So, there can be Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Life, when we look at, especially let me take a lived experience example, that perhaps many of us have had. In conversations, when somebody has lost something, or is in a state of despair and defeat, one tends to be Philosophical. What does it mean there, to be Philosophical? So, to be Philosophical about life. So, to be Philosophical about life, is to look at, what is the point of life. 12  Is success the point of life? Is victory the point of life? What is the point of playing the game? So, whenever we ask such existential questions, that are fundamental questions in human life. So, being Philosophical about life, is asking existential questions of life. What is the point of life? What is the point of fighting, not fighting, winning, losing, cheating, not cheating, point of sticking to the rules. So, when we ask these questions, we are also asking fundamental questions, and this is in the domain of the human life. The same questions, or the same fundamental questions, can be asked in various domains. So, in Social Sciences, in Physics, in Language, we all have, when Philosophy of Language looks into the Philosophical underpinnings of Language, Language as a life form. Second, Philosophy is a study of foundations of knowledge, and various knowledge endeavours. Hence, Philosophy is a second order study. That is, Philosophy is a study of foundations of knowledge. So, what is peculiar, or when you want to look at, is this Philosophical, or is this not Philosophical. The first filter that should come to your mind is, whether this is asking a foundational question or not. So, asking a foundational question, is very often a Philosophical question. Then, what is not a Philosophical question. That might again be well, if this seems too widespread and exhaustive, what kind of questions are not Philosophical questions. And here, Philosophical questions are questions, that are not Empirically Resolvable questions. Although they help, and are helped by Empirical enquiries. But they are not Empirically Resolvable questions. So, if you look at, and here you can see the commonality between theory and philosophy, is when we look, say going back to the example of the Archaeologist, who has dug up certain artefacts. Well, those are Empirical content. But those Empirical content, do not tell the story of the way people were living their lives then. That requires a theoretical leap. That requires a story. That requires an interpretation, to connect these Empirical artefacts, to what kind of life people were living then. Philosophy attempts at articulating assumptions, making the implicit, explicit. Now, what does that mean. Well, as a Philosopher, when you wear the Philosopher's cap. I am wearing a cap today. But this is not a Philosopher's cap. Just a cap. So, when you are a Philosopher, you are articulating assumptions. You are able to look at the assumptions of a position. Right. So, when somebody does 13 something, or when there is a policy, or when there is a decision made, you should be able to, or analyse, what is the value position, or what is the position from which this decision is being made. Say a Welfare state, where there is an increase in taxes. So, you need to understand that well, where is this coming from. Perhaps, the Parliament has debated, and the Parliament, which echoes the Philosophy of the nation, is more inclined to being a Welfare state, and therefore justifies increasing taxes, or if a real politic explanation that comes to be. If you look at newspaper editorials, they are classical cases of Philosophical pieces, connected to day to day life. Sometimes, they unearth the assumptions of decisions made, and policies given. So, making the implicit explicit. That means, everything that is understood, that we know implicitly, we articulate it, and make it explicit. And, in this process of making it explicit, we understand it much better. So, if those of you perhaps, who are used to writing a Life Journal, or a Life Diary, your day to day reflecting, and writing on your experiences in life, would understand the value of making this implicit explicit. We all go through life. Right. But then, when you think over your experiences of the day, and write it down, or make it explicit, there is a newer understanding to yourself, that emerges. That is when, you make the implicit explicit, and some knowledge is created. That is more of an introspective knowledge for your own self. Philosophy is also the spirit, as a core motto of any project. It articulates the fundamental values of the project. So, when you say a philosophy of a company, or a philosophy of an organisation, or a philosophy of a nation, is what it means, that it is the abstract, it is the core or the motto of any project, or any say a school has a motto. The motto determines the philosophy of the school. So, philosophy articulates the fundamental values of the project, no matter what the project be. Philosophy as an ever self-correcting endeavour, and that is the property of knowledge too. Not looking for an eternal absolute answer, but rather the best possible answer, under the current situation. It accepts the fallibility of knowledge. So, philosophy as a self-correcting endeavour. That is true also for knowledge, that knowledge has to be falsifiable, it has to be revisable. That means, we are not looking at eternal knowledge claims, but we are looking at knowledge claims that fit the bill now. And if you look at the history of knowledge, knowledge claims have always been revised, in various disciplines that you look at. Say, at one time, the world was supposed to be Geocentric, then Heliocentric. 14  Look at Biology, once we looked at milk as the most nutritious food available. Now, we look at, the tendency is to understand milk as not a very suitable food for nutrition source for human. So, that knowledge is revisable, is epitomised in philosophy, that we are open to revision. That is an ever correcting endeavour. And then, the question, why philosophise? Now, the question to why philosophise is, let me counter question, why climb the Everest? Now, those people who are climbing the Everest, or any mountain peak, or any adventure, there is always an easier way to reach there. You can take a helicopter ride to that place, or you can watch a film, the details of that place. Why is it that, powers this sense of adventure, in people who undertake these tasks, for which there is a very safe, comfortable alternative path to reach. Well, curiosity and the experience. So, philosophising, like many Greek philosophers would have it, is something which is being, which we are embedded with, just by virtue of being human. Curiosity, making sense of the world, and oneself, as an individual, a community and species. So curiosity, yes, that is a fundamental drive for philosophy. At the existential level, it is to make sense of the world, and to make sense of one's own self, both independently and within the world. But if that is not enough, and we should pay heed to, how it affects the world out there, lest this sounds too esoteric, and unconnected to the world we inhabit. To philosophise is to reach, and articulate the axioms of any knowledge endeavour, and having a better understanding of the foundations, one can know better. So, the whole point of articulating, what is foundational. This process leads to, more accurate description of knowledge, and lays the foundations for a revision, whenever that is required. Fallibility of knowledge, what we talked about is, a philosophical outlook, that strongly resists Dogmatism. Dogmatism is unquestioned belief. And what we just talked about is, knowledge being fallible, being revisable. It is ever open to revision, when presented with better, and more compelling evidence. This is fallibility of knowledge, that is a crux of philosophical method. Conflicts often occur, when dogma prevails. With fallibility of knowledge as a background, conflicts lessen, and knowledge enhances. So, this is, if we are looking for a practical takeaway from doing philosophy, is societies, which are less philosophical, or companies, or organisations, or families, which are less philosophical, tend to have more dissatisfaction. Because, dogma prevails, and one fights for one's dogma, without being open to understand, or the other's position, or to revise one's position, in light of new knowledge. So, conflicts often occur, when dogma prevails. With the fallibility of knowledge as a 15 background, conflicts lessen, and knowledge enhances. Knowledge has a seesaw history, seesawing between paradigms, or what many of you may have heard of as, paradigm shifts. It results from a perpetual conceptual examination. So, there are paradigm shifts in the story of knowledge, in history that we see, that where at one point, one paradigm was held as extreme, and there was a paradigm that we change. So, when one, and this is why history is important to make sense of the world, is when one looks at the way, ideas have seesawed all through the history. Once gaining enormous prominence, and at one other time, being condemned. And then again, coming back into vogue. So, to look at this seesawing nature of knowledge, is also promotes a perpetual conceptual examination, that philosophy as a discipline moves to. Now, as a student of philosophy, what should you be doing, or as a budding philosopher, not just as an academic philosopher, but a philosopher in spirit. You should be able to, and this will also be hopefully, the takeaway, the learning outcomes from this course. You should be able, one, to identify foundational philosophical positions, in the most empirical of all questions. So, to identify assumptions, that is going to be your fundamental question. Then, unearth the foundational assumptions of any claim, and become aware of the limitations, owing to the assumptions, connected to the previous claim, that once we arrive at the foundational assumptions, then we can be aware of the limitations, owing from these assumptions. And what does this ultimately do? Three, finally is, debate better, and more importantly, gain from debate. So, now before I end, I would share the wisdom of philosophy. Wisdom is a word used in philosophy. Wisdom studies is a part of philosophy. To look at debate, not as a platform to only advocate for the views one holds, but also as a learning platform. And till there is debate, and I can understand, there will be a lot of disappointment, and impatience with debate, because debate delays processes very often, or sometimes does not get resolved, and leads to a standstill. But if you look at the alternative to debate, it is coercion, it is force. So, that is where debate sounds better. And that is where debate is a better method of engaging with differing opinions. And to be philosophical, is to be able to debate. And debate, not just in arguing for what one is convinced of, but being open to revise what one has earlier held as convincing. So, with this, I invite you all into a journey of philosophy, and hope it is useful, and self-revealing to you, to make sense of the positions that you hold, and to understand 16 others, and to exercise your intellect, and spirit, to make sense of the world of values that we inhabit. Thank you.. 17  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -03 Philosophy, Ethics and Moral Thinking Hello everyone. Welcome to this part of the course on, Moral Thinking- Introduction to Values and Ethics. In this lecture, we lay the foundation, we understood, what Philosophy is, in our last lecture. And in this lecture, we will try to locate Ethics, Values, Moral Philosophy, within the domain of Philosophy. So, where does that locate. And then, introduce you, or to introduce the notion of, Moral Thinking, Ethics and Values, what are the similarities, what are the differences, and how it goes about. So now, Philosophy itself, can broadly be divided into three categories. So, one is Metaphysics. The second is Epistemology. And the third is, Axiology. And within Axiology, again there are two divisions. One is Ethics, and one is Aesthetics. Now, let us briefly know, what are the various parts of Philosophy. So, to start with Metaphysics. Metaphysics is, as the name implies, it is Meta-Physics, going beyond the Physics. Physics meaning the physical. So when we look at Metaphysics, we are talking about the problems of substance, the problem of the foundations of the physical world, to look at, what is the basic structure of the world, the physical world, and questions that are not answered by Physics, or that are not tackled by the physical realm. So, we look at the metaphysical assumptions. So what is, let me give you some examples, so that it makes sense to you. Problems in Metaphysics include, problems of Monism, Dualism. So say, the mind-body dichotomy. Now, there is one school of philosophy, that will argue for mind and body, as two separate entities, two separate kinds of fundamental entities, and they interact. Now, this is called, Dualism. Monism on the other hand, as an Ontology, which is a part of Metaphysics. Ontology would be, minimum set of existence. Right. So, let me just put that down here. Ontology, as a part of Metaphysics is, talks 18 about the existence. That means, what are the minimum sets of existence, independent existence, for a system to proceed. So, Monism, Dualism are examples of Metaphysics. Monism argues that, there is only one fundamental entity in the world. Monism argues that, there are two fundamental entities in the world, mind and matter. Pluralism can argue that, there are multiple entities in the world, foundational entities of the world. Right. And depending on one's metaphysical assumption and situation, one makes sense of the broader picture of the world. So, if you would remember from the last lecture, when we talked about philosophy questioning foundations and to understand why foundations are important is, depending on the foundational position we have, we look at and interpret the world around us. So, for instance, let me think of an example, which can help you see the distinction. And very often, one's own metaphysical position can be thought through, can be unthought through, can be implicit. But one has to have an metaphysical position, either implicitly or explicitly, either thought through or just arrived at from the embedding one, depending on the society or the civilisation one is embedded into. So, when one looks at, suppose I am a Monist and I think I am a physicalist, in that sense, my metaphysical assumption is that, everything in the world can be reduced to matter or matter and energy, physical entities. Then I would look at mind and consciousness as, some things that are derived from physical entities. And let me proceed with a rather simplistic example. But perhaps, that will make you comprehend the difference between Monism and Dualism. And how does that make a difference in the world, that we inhabit. Let us look at medical sciences. Now see, a typical Allopathic Medical Sciences would have a, in a preliminary sense, a very physicalistic assumption. So, it would believe in the ontology or of Physicalism. That means, the metaphysical position is that of Physicalism. That means, if the matter determines everything else. So, if one takes physical medicines or alters the physical realm of the human body, the body can be recovered from ill health to health. Right. Now, if you look at other contrary or other different medical systems, say Ayurveda or Homeopathy. Now, they have a different assumption. Ayurveda in particular, has an assumption of, definitely not a Monistic assumption. It is a, at least a dualist, if not more. That if one treats one's behaviour, if one treats one's spirit, how mentality or the mental life is crucial to physical health. That prescriptions can also involve in alternative medical systems, which have a different metaphysics as compared to the classical Allopathy. The prescriptions can be 19 looking at, or recommending one to hold certain mental attitudes, moods, emotions, that will either help healing, or harm healing. So, at a much higher level, they look at a different metaphysics. So, those of you who have encountered different medical systems, and probably most of us had, there is a mainstream medical system, but there is also, there are competing medical systems, and they have been working. So, how do we distinguish between these medical systems, instead of rubbishing one as trash. One can look at, what are the metaphysical assumptions, where to understand the difference. Because when you look at the world from one set of metaphysical assumption, the other world system looks as meaningless. As a simple analogy, if I can say, your metaphysical system is a language dictionary, that you carry. And when you use that dictionary, suppose you carry a dictionary of English, you can make sense of the English language. But when you look, carry a dictionary of Sanskrit, can you make sense of the English language. And contrary, if you are bound to a dictionary of English, can you make sense of Sanskrit, or any other language, German, French, Malayalam, Oria, any language that you come across. So your metaphysical position is crucial to determine, what you discern as meaningful and meaningless in the world. So that is basically metaphysics. Epistemology is about the theory of knowledge, that what we can count as knowledge, what is the proofs of knowledge, what is empiricism. Now these are terms that you would come around in the, in many philosophical literature, but it is something that you should be aware of. So empiricism means, something to do with experience. And this we are talking, under the ages of Epistemology. So one of the system of Epistemology could be Empiricism, where it looks at truth, can be ascertained only by empirical experience, or empirical reality. That means, experiential reality. So realities that are not experienced, or claims that cannot be experienced, can be held as false. This is one Epistemological position. If you find the terms a little too overwhelming, it would do good to get yourself a dictionary of philosophy, so that you are constantly aware of the exact meaning of the words, that we come across. There is Oxford, Cambridge, Penguin, all of them have very good dictionaries of philosophy, that will help you. And, I will recommend you, if you are serious about thinking sharper, and thinking harder, to do going for one of these dictionaries. Because the words, or the concepts used in philosophy, are also very often concepts used in day-to-day language. But the accuracy of meaning understood from the usage of these terms. We, Empiricism is a term, that we use in our day-to-day world, or at least in classes and theories. We talk 20 about lab theory. So to understand the very foundational, and clear distinct meaning of such notions, which are both day-to-day usage terms, and also profoundly philosophical terms. Truth, Logic, Experience, Empiricism, Rationality, these are all terms, which are both terms that we use in the world, out there, and also philosophical terms. So, if you have a good grip on the meanings of these terms, that will always help you to think clearer, harder, and better. So epistemology, we talked about as the theory of knowledge. Now, Axiology talks about values. So, Axiology is when we, and that will be the thrust of the course, that we are doing now. Axiology is about values. And values are again split into, Ethics as moral values, and Aesthetics as values of beauty. Truth, as the value in Logic, Truth, Beauty, Good, are three fundamental values classically regarded in Philosophy. So, Beauty is an Aesthetic value, Truth is a Logical value, and Good is a Moral value. So these are values, that we come across here. Let me proceed now, to this word that we will now, is crucial to us, Values. That's a word that we have used in every day-to-day language. And I want to spend some time, delving on this concept called Values. Now, Values are something which are a part of the world, that we inhabit. We make sense of the world by valuing. And for a moment, I am pausing, and not looking at values just as moral values. But values can be in various domains, that we come across. So, when we look at, say you go ahead, start your day. Now, whether you decide to wake up as your alarm goes off, or snooze it, is a value decision that you are making. A decision to allow yourself to pamper yourself a little more, or to be rigid about the time that you decided to wake up. When you make choices about what to eat, you are making a value decision. So when you make a choice of where to invest, that's a value choice. So values are something that is prevalent in all disciplines. We are making those choices. Values are foundational. So when you look at, you are a... Okay, let me talk about say investments. You are a growth investor, or a value investor. I think that's how it is classically regarded in finance. In economics, you are regarded as whether you are free market economist, or you are a welfare economist. So that means, what are the values that you hold as foundational. So the value that you hold as foundational is axiomatic. It is the values are the axioms we start with. Then we devise the best ways or processes, by which these values can be 21 attained. So policies or processes, as to how these values can be achieved. So, now you have a set of values. And I will invite you to think of various ways, in which you can find value assumptions in an enterprise. And let me think of an example. When we look at, okay, let us say governments. Governments have certain values, right. There is a welfare government, or there is a free market government, or economic systems have certain fundamental values. And how one best attains those values. So what are the policies that are to be designed, to get those values. Will determine, what kind of policies are framed. But ultimately, the values that are held, are something that are held by the, held as foundational, which show the direction. So this is a moral compass, or a value compass, that what kind of a government one wants to be. Let us, if governments and politics sounds too distant, let us look at the individual, you yourself. You have certain values of life. And you would like to, you make decisions, so as to be governed and advocate, or achieve those values, right. So suppose you believe in freedom over equality. That is a value choice you are making. That means, if somebody, and this is typically of course used in the political philosophical framework, a classical debate between freedom and equality. The more of freedom means, there will be inequality. And the more we target equality, crushing inequality, that means some people have their freedom compromised, right. So say taxation, taxation is a classic example that, when we tax more to attain equality, we are being unfair to the people, or we are curtailing the freedom of people who are earning more, to subsidise the people who are earning less. That is an equality driven approach. A freedom driven approach would be that well, that anyone who earns, how much ever they earn, is earning on their own ability. And therefore, that should not be curtailed, and we should champion freedom over equality. Now, this again is further based on a metaphysical assumption, that well, equality has an assumption that nobody, and I am doing these analysis for you to get a knack of how this can be done, how philosophical analysis is done. So equality tends to have a metaphysical assumption that human beings do not operate in isolation. And somebody who is having an advantage today, is having an advantage, because something accrued to that person, which was not his or her own creation. And therefore, that person owes something to the society to bring an equality. So, some advocates are likely to have a metaphysics of individuals as relatively much more isolated and self-created, than being a result of the environment, or the advantages or disadvantages that have accrued to them. 22  The debate can be put out that well, everybody goes to school. So there is an equality of opportunity. But, not everybody gets the same environment at home. Not everybody is born with the same intellectual abilities. So, freedom advocates would say that well, that is a coincidence. And therefore, those who are doing well, deserve to get better in life. And the equality advocates would say that, no, the starting line is never equal. And therefore, we need to subsidise this difference in performance. The point here being is, value debates or moral debates are rarely between right and wrong. Those are clear-cut cases. The real debate is between two competing rights. So, the debate is generally between two competing rights. So, both freedom is desirable, equality is desirable. But which one shall we prefer, over the other. That is what is a value debate, that comes about. That articulates the philosophy of that company, organisation, institution, family, individual, government, or whatever collective we talk about, our individual. So, the point now, what you would like to take away from this brief discussion, is that values pervade our world. And we make value choices, in every discipline. Say as a scientist, when you are looking for a process, or as a product, or an entity, as fundamental, you already are making a value position. That you are looking at processes as fundamental, or you are looking as products or entities as fundamental. So, you are making this as fundamental value position, that you are taking. Now, I invite you to think over various fields, and where you can find, what are the value assumptions or value to analyse, in terms of values of various companies, policies, organisations, institutions, or everything that you come around. In the last lecture, we talked about, even the user interface of a mobile phone, is also a value preference implemented. Whether one wants a simpler, neater looking interface, or one wants a comprehensive interface, with as many options as possible, at the first page. There is no need to negotiate to the second page. So, this is also a value decision, being taken up by the designer over there. Okay. Now, with this idea of values, let me go ahead and talk about, Moral Thinking and Moral Values. So, when values are in the domain of the moral world, we call them as Ethics. Right. So, values in the domain of the moral world, are called Ethics. Okay. I lost the screen there then. So, when we look at ethical values, we are actually debating, what kind of moral values, interpersonal values, which are related to the moral world, that we 23 inhabit. So, when we do a course called, Moral Thinking, is trying to look at, how values exist. That is Metaethics, of course. That, what are the value assumptions of different policies, different institutions. How do we at all, get into this moral debate notions. And before that, let me also clarify that, what is it that we do. Three terms, that I would like you to focus on. There is Moral Philosophy. There is Moral Science. And, of course, Moral Thinking, which I will equate as, Moral Philosophy. Right. And then, of course, there is this domain called Ethics, which very often, for the purpose of the course, you can take it as the same thing as, Moral Philosophy or Moral Thinking. Ethics, if you want to be very exact, it would mean as a code of conduct. Right. So, when you have a business ethics situation, it is all about designing the code of conduct. It is not about, going to the fundamental questions. Whereas, Moral Philosophy is going into the fundamental questions. But now, we need to know, what is the difference between these two terms, Moral Philosophy, Moral Science. And, you should know, what is the objective of the course that we are entering. Is this course in Moral Philosophy, going to make you a moral person? Well, that is a question, I am sure it has occurred to many of you. Do you think, doing a course in Moral Philosophy, makes you a better person? Right now, as an academic Philosopher, I am also advocating the debate to you. And, I also have a position on this. So, I will try to keep them separate. But, very often, when I am expressing my position, I will let you know that. So, the assumption of this course is very Socratic. Okay. Now, for those of you, who may have not heard, Socrates was almost the first Greek Philosopher, in the ancient tradition, which was the teacher of Plato, then Aristotle. So, that is the lineage that comes on. Okay. Many of you must have done a course in Moral Science. So, one, doing a course in Moral Philosophy, will not immediately make you a better person. And neither is it, designed in that sense. Because, it is not going to tell you, what to do, what not to do. For that, you need to look at the rule book of the institution, the government, or that you are a part of, or at an individual level, at your conscience. So, whether it makes you a better person, or what is the right thing to do. Well, if you want edits or codes, this is the wrong place to look for it. No Moral Philosopher, no Philosopher will tell you that, this is the right thing to do, period. 24  What a Moral Philosopher will help you, or what Moral Philosophy will help you to do, is to understand the debate threadbare, so that a position can be taken. Right. Moral Science, on the other hand, science as we saw, was something that depended a lot on techniques. So, if it depends a lot on techniques, then it will give you a set of desirable values. So, most of us, who have read Moral Science in school, would see that, these were probably studies, or fables, small tales, something, to inculcate certain values in us. So, the set of values was given, and how best it could be inculcated in children. Moral Philosophy is on the contrary, not giving you a set of values, but asking you, helping you, and provoking you, to interrogate the set of values, that you come across. So, Moral Philosophy, Moral thinking is about interrogating values. It is about, doing a Philosophical Analysis about values, and trying to find out, which values are worthwhile. So, if you look at that well, what does Ethics say about, say Euthanasia. Well, the question is, one kind of Ethics would say something, another kind of Ethics would say something. So, then what is the point. If there is a difference, is it that, to each his own, and therefore there is no universal view possible. No, there is. Look at, let me place it in the level of the Parliament of a country. That the Parliament needs to decide, whether Euthanasia would be legal or illegal. The Parliament is the representation of the general will of the people. So, it debates, whether what are the values, that are to be held sacred, and what are not to be held sacred, depending on the context of the time. So, the Parliament debates, whether we need to have values as sacred, life as sacred, or we need to have dignity as sacred. Putting the debate of Euthanasia, as a choice between longevity, and living with dignity. So, cultures that will argue for living with dignity, will probably be lenient to Euthanasia, and cultures that see life intrinsically valuable, will see Euthanasia as tampering with something, which is sacred and not human formed. So, these are some of the strands of the debate. So, as a moral Philosopher, you will be able to do a Philosophical Analysis, and try to see, why who holds which position. So, a Parliament is a location for a Philosophical debate, to arrive at the policies that we go for. Once those policies or the values are concrete, embedded, enshrined, we would like the nation to follow that particular policy. It is same with communities, with families, with cultures, organisations. However, to think of the values as rigid, absolute, and eternal, would again be a folly. Because the same Parliament, the same families, or the thinking communities, and thinking families, are always open to revision. So, look at Homosexuality. 25 Homosexuality was illegal, at a few decades down the line in India. Now, it has become legal. Then, it again becomes illegal. So, this is the notion of change, that is embedded in all knowledge systems, not just a moral philosophy. So, there is a revision in various values, that we come across. Okay. Now, the reason I mentioned Socrates, and Socratic way of thinking is, then what is the point of doing moral philosophy. Socrates was a Greek philosopher, who did not write anything much, but was out there on the streets, provoking, sparking debates with the young people, and asking definitions and knowledge, questions that made the people, especially the younger ones, think for themselves. So, and Socrates again was seen as a threat to the nation at that time, and was even sentenced to death, for this particular act of inciting young people, for questioning established beliefs. But, and as a part of this course, when I say we use the Socratic method, it is a method of questioning and debating. So, generally in a class, I would be debating, or opening up the questions from various views from students. But today, we are in this particular mode, we do not have that luxury. So, I will have to go extempo. But I am sure, we will be able to have some meeting sessions, where you can raise these questions. So, Philosophical classes generally do progress, as a debate, as a monthan, as they would say, where contrary opinions come together, and we learn and inform from each other. I will try my best to incorporate views, and counter views, so that you can get a perspective of the debate. So, I may miss out some things. Please do, voice them over, or write them in comments, or make it available. Because, the point of it is also, it informs others, about perspectives that I may have missed, and that helps us to think better on that. So, Moral Thinking is a continuous process. And, we start with it, we look at analyse debates, we analyse policies, we look at fundamental concepts used, and go ahead with forming a understanding of the moral world, that we inhabit. Right. Thank you.. 26  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -04 Moral Relativism Hello everyone, today we are going to look at two obstructions to moral thinking, moral relativism and egoism. Now as you proceed, or as you begin the journey, in moral thinking, moral philosophy, there are two obstructions that you are bound to face, or many of us do face. And this is, Moral Relativism and Egoism. And let me briefly tell you, what these two basically mean like. So, when you say that well, to each his own, you are actually being a moral relativist. And this especially concerns, moral philosophy and moral thinking, because a very compelling argument that especially youngsters face, or most of us face, but especially it is compelling in the case of youngsters, is when we look at moral relativism, claiming that well, values are all relative, and to each his own. So there is no way, we can talk about values, or we can debate about values. So everyone has their own values, and therefore there is no point, or there is no scope for arriving at any value, that can be argued for or discussed and debated. So if you have succumbed to, or you have encountered such tendencies, then that is what is a moral relativist. And if one is a moral relativist, then there is no possibility of moral knowledge. So something like, moral knowledge, that is a, is that even possible. Now if, let me use this portion. Yes, okay. So, is moral knowledge at all possible, for to proceed on the journey of moral knowledge. And we are not talking about moral opinions, or moral views, but moral knowledge. Knowledge meaning, that is something that can be argued for, that is something that has a compelling rational force within it. So if one succumbs to the notion of moral relativism, one is probably not prepared to go ahead and discuss about moral notions, or moral thinking. That's the first obstruction that we face, when we on the journey to moral relativism, or first or the most dominant obstruction. And the second one is what philosophers called Egoism, and which simply means that, I do what I wish to do, and 27 that is how things are, and that is how things ought to be. So there is no scope for discussion. So I do what I want to do, and that's a common pop phrase that we come across, that do what you want to do, listen to your heart, do what you wish for, or finally I do what I want to do. So if this is an approach that one holds, then one is also not on a journey of moral theorization, because in this sense, we are all doing what we want to do, or what we wish to do. The catchphrase here is, what does one want to do? Is that something which is coming out of nowhere, or is that a scope of deliberation. So there is this excellent chapter on Ethics, and as you can see on the screen, it talks about the fundamental, in the John Shands book called Fundamentals of Philosophy, there is a chapter called Ethics written by Pierce Ben. So this is a chapter from which these two arguments have been sourced, and of course I have added some of it from my own teachings in class. So this is a chapter that can help you visit, and understand these two obstructions more carefully. So let's begin. Now, when we look at Moral Relativism, when we look at the world around us, we find values, and practices, and rituals, and conventions, all of them are so different, right. What is known as Cultural Relativism. Say in one culture, we find that we are looking at certain practices as valid, and in another culture, we are looking at other practices are valid, or rather the contrary to those practices as valid. So when we look at practices that are contrary, and simultaneously followed in different parts of the world, or in different cultures, we tend to think that well, there is nothing intrinsically right, or wrong about this practice. And each practice, or each practice is relative to the part of the world, or the part of the culture, or family, that we come across. Now this variation in practices can be across cultures, across nations, across families, across communities, across even individuals, or even across various phases of an individual's lives. If there is, if Moral Relativism holds, if from Cultural Relativism, we argue for Moral Relativism, then the whole possibility of Moral Philosophy, ceases to be. So whether this is the case or not, that is what we are going to examine. Before that, now what I ask for is, who is a Moral Fundamentalist. A Moral Fundamentalist is one, who holds certain things as absolute, and non-negotiable, or universal. If that is the case, then because the moment we hear the name, the word Fundamentalist, we tend to connect it with Extremism, or a Terrorist, or somebody who uses extreme forms of violence. But conceptually, that is not true. Somebody who uses, or who holds to one value as supreme, is a Fundamentalist about that value. Now a point to note here, is that, one can be a Fundamentalist about one particular 28 value. One doesn't have to be a Fundamentalist, one doesn't have to be a Fundamentalist about all the values, what one holds, but about at least one value, that is held as foundational, or universal. So if I say that Mahatma Gandhi was a Fundamentalist, now that would might sound alarming right at the front, right at the start. But if you think through it, well when he used non-violence as something, which is foundational, and fundamental, he can very well be regarded as a Fundamentalist. So now, this is what a Fundamentalist is. Having this background clear, let us try to frame out, what is meant by Moral Relativism. Now if you look at Moral Relativism, it is the doctrine that, there is no one true moral system binding on all people, at all times. Now with such a definition, it seems very tempting, and the lure is that well, there is perhaps this is the way to look at it, and there is no one true moral system binding at all people, at all time. And therefore, there is no point talking about moral philosophy, and there is no point coming out to debate, or look for something called moral knowledge. So is a Transcultural perspective possible, in Moral Relativism. No. Moral Relativism, a Transcultural perspective, is just not possible. But then, let us go ahead and look at Moral Relativism, in a little bit more detail. What does Moral Relativism, really lead us to? So till this point, maybe the arguments sounds in favour of Moral Relativism. Because there is no single frame of reference, that is true across cultures. But now, let us think of it. If I say that well, if there is a dispute between two people, let them fight it out, and settle it. If I say that, aggression or physical violence, is a value of the perpetrator, and there is no way, we can check them morally, that physical violence is fine with them. So, it is a acceptable value. Now, let me pull up something, which is more significant, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And in there, there is one claim, that says, and of course, all of them are Universal Declarations. And that is a biggest testimony, in the search for a Universal Human Value. One of the declarations is, that no one can be punished, or can be given a verdict, without the chance to present their point of view. That means, the very notion of the system of Judiciary, where one has a chance to defend oneself. The classical case of, say Ajmal Kasab undergoing a trial. Now, for some of us, it may have been wastage of time and resources, and quite impatient. But to look at it as a value, that the Indian Constitution holds, that no one can be punished, without a trial, or no one can be judged upon, without a trial, where that person gets the ability to represent, his or her own self. So, Moral Relativism, now it 29 starts to seem, difficulty here. And what we are going to establish over here, or trying to establish in this argument, is that what the lure of Moral Relativism, is actually not what is meant by Moral Relativism, but it is intellectual humility, and moral toleration. That seems to be, what we really value, or what significantly people value, but term it rather inaccurately as, Moral Relativism. So, let us see, what is intellectual humility. Now, not being dogmatic, or being open to revision, or the impossibility of knowledge. So, what does the meaning of intellectual, or what is, when we unpack the phrase, intellectual humility. We mean, well, if one looks at the lure of Moral Relativism, we are saying that well, the temptation of Moral Relativism is, that we really do not know, what is the right thing to do. And therefore, we are intellectually humble, and we are not making a judgement. Right. But, is that what, we are Relativists do. Relativists say that, there is no judgement possible, rather than there being a scope of error. So, when we unpack this word called, Intellectual Humility, we see that, it really does not mean, Moral Relativism. So, intellectual humility is not equal to, Moral Relativism. So, intellectual humility is not equal to, Moral Relativism. Whereas, we tend to think that, intellectual humility is the same thing as, Moral Relativism. So, to be intellectually humble, is not to be dogmatic. It is to be open to revision. Or, does it mean impossibility of knowledge. No. If you call yourself, intellectually humble, then you do not deny knowledge. But what you say, that the knowledge that I have, may be revised. Right. Now, the other crucial phrase that we come across, which is disguised as, Moral Relativism, is Moral Toleration. Now, what is Moral Toleration. Moral Toleration, we all would like to, or many of us would like to be, known as tolerance. So, does it reject Judgementalism, factoring our own non-rational intake. Or, does it mean something else. And there is a lovely example, that the text offers, that listen to say, a racial banter of your cab driver. You are not responding to the cab driver, but you are nevertheless making a judgement of disagreement with that. So, we are making judgement. So, what is toleration. An analysis of the concept of moral toleration, has to be understood. Does someone who tolerates a value, that one does not approve of, is one being a Relativist about it. Or is one being, making a judgement about it, but not expressing it. Let's say, this particularly comes into the case, when the threshold is low. 30  So, if you find somebody with a practice. And here, I will make a distinction between, moral practice and moral values, in a moment. But, when you come across moral practices, you would take a look that well, certain things that you do not approve of. Let's think of, say somebody who is, let's think of a mildly low threshold moral practice. Let's say, stick to, Castist claims. I think something that we can connect to much more in the Indian milieu, rather than, so or regional claims. That when you find somebody in conversation, is making, Castist claims. Well, you may not approve of it, but you do not make a protest, unless until it crosses a threshold. So, you are being tolerant of others views. But to the point, that you are, it is not that you are indifferent to the proposal at hand, but you are finding the threshold not high enough to react to. So, the point is that, the one who is practicing tolerance, is making a judgement, is making an absolute claim, but is not expressing it. How would it be, if you are a Relativist? A genuine moral Relativist, would look at any practice, without judging it at all. Because, a genuine moral Relativist, would look at a person squashing a puppy, or a group of kids trying to play football with a live puppy, as a curious, unjudging way of looking at things. So, for the tolerant, this may be the threshold crossed, and they would immediately intervene, as to why this should not be done. So, agreed that, there are a lot of moral differences. But that, we live in the same world, is also a testament that, we have to arrive at some agreed upon values. Now, let me give you one more example, that perhaps seals the deal totally. If you look at the law books of the world, Constitutions, laws, judiciary, how are laws made? That why is killing a fellow human being, punishable? Now that is something, as a Relativist, you cannot make that claim. You would like to, a genuine Relativist, would say that well, that is right from that person's perspective. Murder is right from your perspective, and it is not right from my perspective. So, what right do I have to impose, my views on yours. So if that is how a genuine moral Relativist would be. So, in a moral Relativist framework, there can be no laws, that well cheating is right, or cheating is wrong. That well, somebody could say that, no this is my way of looking at the world, that I can lie, cheat, for my own gain. These are my values. And, they are different from your values. The whole possibility edifice of the laws, stands on the assumption of Moral Universalism. That there are some values, that are universal. There are differences in a lot of values. But there are some values, that are universal. So the very fact that, we have laws, is a 31 proof that, Moral Universalism holds. These laws are revisable. These laws are not laws, that are eternal, that always stand with what, are not eternal, or absolute across times and places. These are open to revision. So that, laws can be open to revision, depending on societal consensus, is again a value that has been universalised. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a value that has been universalised. So when we look at Moral Relativism, however tempting the hat of Moral Relativism is, one should know very carefully, what it implies, and what it means, before one commits oneself to a Moral Universalistic position. So to a Moral Relativistic position. So a Moral Relativist, will be the one who is unable to make any judgements, on what one comes across. So it is a strange way of looking at the world, that which most of us do not look at. So let me stick my neck out, and say that, in popular culture, when we claim that, we are not being judgmental. Are we really not being judgmental, or are we being tolerant. Of course, there are some practices, in which one can be non-judgmental. But in many practices, or in a few practices at least, one is making a judgement, but not expressing it. And that is not Moral Relativism. That is Moral Tolerance. What we have been understanding as, intellectual humility, or what we have been understanding as, Moral Relativism. And the lure of Moral Relativism, is because of the lure of intellectual humility, and moral toleration. But intellectual humility and moral tolerations, these are not Moral Relativism. So analogically put, well, you tend to say, fall in love with someone. And because, you think they have these qualities. But when you find out that well, you have fallen in love with these qualities. But these qualities are really not there, in that person. So then, you realise that, here this love affair is a failed love affair. So in a jocular way, of course, that is to emphasise that, what the lure of Moral Relativism is intellectual humility, and moral toleration. But both of these, do not entail, Moral Relativism. Now, summing it up in a form, that we can understand, that when I talk about, is Moral Relativism a claim about the process of moral reasoning, or a claim about the conclusions of moral reasoning. The answer is, formal. Because, Moral Relativism is a claim about, the conclusions of moral reasoning. And what is the conclusion? That there can be no conclusion. So, one needs to distinguish between, I may be wrong, vis-a-vis, there is no right answer. And that is where, the notion of Fallibilism comes into existence. The Fallibilist accepts, the uncertainty of her frame of reference, but does not accept, that all frames of 32 reference, are morally equal. So, when somebody claims to be a Moral Relativist, is probably being a Fallibilist, where one is open to revision, one is unsure of one's position. But to be a Moral Relativist, you have to hold the view, that there can be no right answer, that there can be no right conclusion. So, this is what a Moral Relativist hold. All cultures, are they morally equal. Because, when you look at cultures being morally equal. For a Moral Relativist, all cultures will be morally equal. Right. And for a Moral Absolutist, or a Moral Fundamentalist, that will not be morally equal. So, when we look at say, cultures, if you go through the text, it will talk about female genital mutilation. Now, would you hold those cultures, at par with, or morally equal with, other cultures that do not follow it. So, once we look at, we are making judgements, we can converse. So, we arrive at laws, is when we look at, where can we have consensus. So, to be a Moral Fundamentalist, or to be a Moral Relativist, is to discard the possibility of laws. The Moral Fallibilist says, there is a best way to live, but I may be mistaken as to what it is. The Relativist says, there is no best way to live, because the very idea is inherent, culturally relative. This is a crucial takeaway, quoted from the text itself, that when we look at the conclusion, for the Fallibilist, the conclusion has still not been reached, the journey is on. But for the Relativist, the journey is without a destination. Yes, I think that will be an appropriate way of putting it. For the Fallibilist, the journey is on, with the belief that, there is a destination. For the Relativist, there is no destination. Because, that idea is itself inherently culturally relative. In passing reference, before we end our discussion on Moral Relativism, I will talk about self-reflexivity, which is the bane of any Relativist commitment. This is of course, a logical fallacy with Relativism, which is of a simple format, that any self-reflexive system will contradict itself, in the sense that well, if the Relativist says that, all values are relative, then this claim itself, that all values are relative, is this itself, the claim in this box itself, is it relative, or is it absolute. Now, that is a tricky little logical problem, that all self-reflexive systems face. Because, they have to have one axiom as absolute. So, for the Relativist, if they counter argue, they would say that, this particular axiom is the truth, and it has to be held true, and the rest can all be held as relative. So, to sum up our discussion on Moral Relativism, we talk about, well, the lure of Moral Relativism, actually the lure of Fallibilism. And to be a Fallibilist, is not to be a Moral Relativist. To be open to revision, is not to 33 deny that, there is a right answer possible. So, as put up in the earlier slide, to be open to the possibility that, I am wrong, is one position. But to believe that, there is no right answer, is another position. And the Moral Relativist, sticks to this other position. Okay. Now, we come to this catch-all theory called, Egoism. Now, Egoism is a catch-all theory, because it holds that, all actions are motivated only by desire. Right. And that seems fairly reasonable, that well, all actions are motivated only by desire. But isn't there a distinction between, self-interested desire, and other interested desire. Right. Now, if I act, in only what gives me satisfaction or happiness, but then what is it to act otherwise, or are these random acts. I do what I wish to do. So, to be an Unegoist, do I have to act, contrary to my wishes. Let us play it out, what is this talking about. So, the Egoist talks about, all actions are motivated only by desire. That means, I do what I wish to do. But what I wish to do, is something that does not happen automatically. Right. So, a classical question asked is, why do you give to a beggar, assuming that you give arms to a beggar. Now, one way could be that, I just feel good, that is why I give to a beggar. So, anybody who feels good about something, gives something to a beggar. But then, what is it that makes me feel good about it. And here is where, the folly of Egoism comes into play. That Egoists mention that, whatever I do it only for, which gives me satisfaction. But what gives me satisfaction, is quite a broad area. Right. So, I can see the happiness in helping the needy, can give me happiness. By looking after or aggressively pursuing my own hedonistic pleasures, can also give me happiness. So, the difficulty that the Egoist, as in catch-all theory faces, is that, looking at happiness as something which is very narrow. Because, what and also looking at what one wishes, as something very narrow. When we look at, what I wish for, that wishing itself is a contemplative deliberative process. It is not a process, that just happens autonomically. There is a school of Philosophers called Emotivists. In fact, not a school, but a strain, which talks about that well, whatever feels good, I do it, and that is right. And whatever I do not feel good about, I do not do it, or I find it wrong. So emotions as the, and primitive reactive emotions, not deliberated thought through emotions. We will continue the discussion of Egoism, in the next session. Thank you.. 34  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -05 Ethical Egoism Hello everyone. Let us recapitulate, what we mean by Egoism. Egoism, as you would remember, is the second obstruction to Moral Theorising. Egoism here, is frequently regarded as a catch-all theory. What is a catch-all theory? A catch-all theory is one, which apparently explains all the phenomena, in a very simplistic solution, which inevitably is inaccurate. So, what is Egoism? And now, here one should distinguish it, from what we mean by Egotism, which is understood by an excessive usage of I, in the sentences that we use. When we have all come across people, who use a lot of I, in their sentences. What is also frequently known as the I problem. Egotism and Egoism are two different claims. And, we are looking at Egoism. What is Egoism talking about? Egoism claims that, all actions are motivated only by desire, seems fairly normal. But therefore, we do what we wish to do. Now, look at this. Now, this is typically what I have found a very young thinkers fixation, that well, there is no such thing as the moral domain. And we all do, what we wish to do. And therefore, we are all Egoists in that sense, that all actions are motivated only by desire. And the catch here, as we discussed is, what do we mean by desire. Desire has a broader term as something that doesn't happen to us, that we can also mediate and decide. But, let's go through the argument of Egoism. For Egoists, there is little or no distinction between, self-interested desire, and other interested desire. So, my desire to go out and watch a movie for my entertainment, vis-a-vis my desire to take my sick roommate, or sick neighbour to hospital, are both seen as desires, and I am quenching my desire. So, in that sense, every desire that we quench, we become an Egoist. So, Mother Teresa is also an Egoist, because she is quenching her desire to serve the needy, serve the poor, serve the unwell. So, of course, we act out of our desires. But, 35 desire itself is a very broad domain, that what do we wish for. And, that is the catch, that the Egoists tend to miss. I act in only what gives me satisfaction, or happiness. But then, what is it to act otherwise, random acts. So, this is crucial to understand that well, if the Egoist is arguing that, I do only what gives me satisfaction. But then, what is it to act otherwise, random acts. Because, we all act, or we all choose to act, or to choose actions, that give us satisfaction. It is only the crazy person, or the irrational person, who acts without looking at satisfaction. So, this satisfaction is a broad term. Sometimes, the satisfaction is a self-interested satisfaction, or sometimes it is an other interested satisfaction. And, that is very crucial in making sense of Egoism. So, as per the Egoist, we all work for satisfaction. But that satisfaction, is an unthought through domain. So, I do what I wish to do, that is what a Egoist would claim. But then, if I do what I wish to do, what can I do to be an un-egoist. Do I have to act contrary to my wishes. If you take a moment to reflect on this particular condition, it shows that well, what the Egoist says is trivially true. The claim of the Egoist is trivially true. Because, we all act towards our own satisfaction, towards the satisfaction of our own wishes. But, what are the wishes, is a quite a broad domain. Some wishes are self-interested, some wishes are other interested. Now, to put this formally, the structure of the Egoist, as depicted in the text also, is that one, all I do is motivated exclusively by my desires. One, so whatever I do is motivated exclusively by my desires, seems obvious. Okay, agreed. All my desires are for the satisfaction of my interests. Now, these are the two premises that they hinge on, and concluding thereof, that my actions are exclusively self-interested. Right. Now, the first premise is well, talks about, can be understood in terms of Hume and Kant, two particular philosophers from opposing traditions in the Western tradition. Hume, who regarded reason as rather inert, and Kant, who regarded reason as freedom. Right. That, the desire that we have, how do we reason out our desires. For Hume, our desires are primary, and there is no reason to arrive at the desires. And reason is inert, therefore. And for Kant, of course, reason is freedom, that when we can reason through, and arrive at our desires. So, the second premise talks about, I act in only what gives me satisfaction, or happiness. But, then what is it to act otherwise. And that is the crucial factor, which makes the difference. 36  That, what is it to be a non-egoist, what is it to act otherwise. Is it random acts. So, I do what I wish to do. And most of us would agree to be that. But, to be the un-egoist, do I have to act contrary to my wishes. And this is where, that punctures the boat of the egoist. That for the egoist is trivially true. That it is trivial. It is repeating, what we function at. So, we all function for our own desires. We all function towards, the satisfaction of our own desires. But, these desires are formed differently, in different people. Some people narrowly work for hedonistic satisfaction of their own desires. Whereas, some people are altruistic, and look for satisfaction of others. So, we look at this self-satisfaction, can be both hedonistic. You start with an edge, and altruistic. We will talk about these two philosophies, moral philosophies later. But hedonistic and altruistic. Hedonistic is looking at one's own bodily pleasures. And altruistic is looking at the happiness of others, as giving happiness to one. So, this is basically the egoist argument, which we can see is only trivial. Because the egoist is simply saying that, we all act according to our desires. Or, we act as to what gives us satisfaction. Of course, we all act for what gives us satisfaction. Mother Teresa acted because, healing or serving the sick, gave her satisfaction. And many hedonist, who is a serial murderer, acts because, killing unknown people, or killing people, gives her or him satisfaction. So, both of them are working towards their satisfaction. And in that, the egoist is very much right, that we work for the satisfaction of our desires. So, what kind of desires are to be satisfied, or what kind of desires one has, or thought through desires that one has, is a very broad domain. So, for Mother Teresa, it is other interested. For the Hedonist, it is self-interested. So, we see that, the egoist fails here. Because egoist makes a trivial assumption, that we all work for our own satisfaction, that does not go deep into analysing, that satisfaction can also be self-directed, or other directed. Right. Looking after one's own entertainment, we survey, looking after others wellness. Because, no matter, even you ask the person, the altruist, that why does she or he do, what she or he does, as we started with an example, that why does one give to a beggar, if one gives to a beggar. So, there can be many reasons, and the altruist's reason would be that, just to alleviate the suffering of the beggar, or why does one give charity, why does 37 one make donations. So, these are all things, that give one satisfaction. But this satisfaction, cannot be the same satisfaction, as one does for one's own hedonistic pleasures. Right. So, it is essential for us to know, a little more vocabulary around Egoism. Psychological Egoism holds that, all our motivations are exclusively self-interested, whether or not we acknowledge the fact. And Ethical Egoism states that, one ought to work only in self-interest. Yes, we need to look out for our own interests. But is it all, that an individual should be connected with. Right. So, the moment of transcendence, or the point of transcendence lies here, that we all look out for our own interest. But is it at all, that an individual should only be concerned with. So, connection that holds here is that, if Psychological Egoism is true, then Ethical Egoism loses force. Or there is little point in recommending, that we be self-interested, if we have no other choice. Right. So, if we see that, Psychological Egoism says that, we are made in this way, that all our motivations are exclusively self-interested, whether we acknowledge it or not. So, if this is a fact of our natural existence as human persons, then Ethical Egoism becomes redundant. So, if this is true, if one is true, then two becomes redundant. And, I mean, these are trivial simplifications, but that one should be aware of the theatre of functioning. Right. So, now we come to the end of our discussion of the two obstructions to moral thinking. Namely, first was Ethical Relativism. And then, we talked about Ethical Egoism. That when we tend to morally theorise, we need to have two options clear. That first, moral theorisation is possible. And what are the two general obstructions that come to it. One is relative, that every person has their own opinion, and there is no way, that we can have a universal moral claim. And second is that, we only do what satisfies us. So, what is there to think about it. So, if you remember the whole, we discussed the possibilities of the laws, human laws, the law codes that human societies are governed with, those are essentially moral claims. They are only possible, because there is moral theorisation possible. So, the plurality and the fallibility of moral claims, may prompt us to think that, well, there is no way to morally theorise. So, because if there were no way to morally theorise, how would a judiciary be making judgments. How would parliaments be making laws. The whole point of parliaments and judiciaries at the collective level, is to morally debate and arrive at the most agreeable path, that we want to go ahead with. 38  So, moral theorisation is possible. And, Ethical Egoism or Ethical Relativism, do not hold an obstruction to it. And this is not a normative claim only, because this is also quite a factual claim. The very fact that, we have codes of conduct, moral laws formulated, constitutions formulated. These are all examples of where, we have been able to theorise, universalise, and form moral codes. These may be revisable, and thereby not be eternal. But they are nevertheless constructed as a moral claim, a moral philosophy, that we come forward. Countries differ in their constitutions, because of the different laws that they follow, the different moral philosophies that they follow. Some countries may be championing individual liberty. Some countries may be championing community. So, the difference in laws in different countries also means that, different countries have different laws. But does that mean that, therefore no laws can be made. No. Laws are like the human world laws that we inhabit. An analogy that would perhaps help you make sense of this. Look at the human language. Now, all speakers of a particular language, say English. All English speakers understand each other. So, when all Indians or all Sudanese follow their country's constitution, they are vouching for a particular philosophy, moral philosophy of governance. Right. When one looks at an English speaker, who cannot speak say, German, or Japanese, will not be able to follow German or Japanese conversations. Similarly, we have segments of moral laws, can be loosely seen as language communities, one makes sense of moral laws in a particular community. And when one switches community, learns new laws, and makes sense of it. So, these are valid in the groups, in which they operate. So, moral laws are not eternal, absolute, unquestionable, but nor are any knowledge claims. All knowledge claims are bound to revisions. All knowledge claims also function in their frame of reference. In the terms of moral theorisation, the frame of reference comes out to be a community, a moral community, a society, that is a single moral frame of reference. Right. So, with this, we end our conversation, on the usual two obstructions of moral relativism. Thank you. Thank you. 39  Moral Thinking: An Introduction To Values And Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur Week - 01 Lecture -06 Value Theory Hello everyone. So, today we will talk about, Value Theory. And, the very introduction to it. I am not using a text today. But a free thinking session, both for me and for you, about what is Value Theory, and what is it to value. So, we have been talking about Ethics and Values, in the introductory sessions earlier. So, now let us stick to, what do we understand by Value Theory. And, what is it to value. We as human beings, or human persons, have this peculiar ability to value things. So, in a typical argument, if you look at a logical argument, there is a premise. And then, from there, we reach a conclusion. Right. And, this process is the logic of the argument. So, if the logic of the argument is valid, then the conclusion follows from the premise. And if the premise is true, and the logic is valid, then the conclusion, which is not just true, but also the entire argument is sound. But that is the logical basis of it. Now, why are we talking about this here. We are talking about this here, because it is this premise, which is the core of value. Right. That the weight assigned to the premise, comes from the value one holds. So, let us make it simpler, and start from basics. So, what is particular about human beings is that, we value. between different entities that we come across in life, between concepts, between preferences. So, we make these preferences, and we make these values. And these values, which is again a separate question, how exactly do we do that. But for now, let us focus on the fact that, human beings do value things. And when we study about, or theorize on these values, we come out to be doing value theory. Now, let us start with seeing, where do we value, these examples of valuations. Right. Money is an example of valuation. 40  We value, price is supposed to be a value of an commodity in the market. Right. So, how is the price of a commodity determined in the market. It is determined by many factors, that economists and financial experts would analyse in terms of. So, I have come across, I have listed down a few examples of valuations, where and how it takes place in different disciplines. So, w