Moral Education Short Note PDF

**CHAPTER ONE: UNDERSTANDING CIVICS AND ETHICS** **What is Ethics?** The word ethics is derived from the Greek word *ethos*, which means character and from the Latin word mores, which means customs. Ethics is the science of conduct. It considers the actions of human beings with reference to their...

**CHAPTER ONE: UNDERSTANDING CIVICS AND ETHICS** **What is Ethics?** The word ethics is derived from the Greek word *ethos*, which means character and from the Latin word mores, which means customs. Ethics is the science of conduct. It considers the actions of human beings with reference to their rightness or wrongness. Ethics is the study of what is right or good in human conduct or the science of the ideal involved in conduct. So, it is clear that ethics is the study which determines rightness or wrongness of actions. So, Ethics discusses men's habits or customs, or in other words their characters, the principles on which the habitually act and considers what it is that constitutes the rightness or wrongness of these principles, the good or evil of these habits. **Ethics** is a normative science. It is concerned with what ought to be done rather than what is the case. It differs from positive science. A positive science, natural science or descriptive science is concerned with what is. It deals with facts and explains them by their causes. In positive science there is no question of judging its objects in any way. But ethics does not deal with fact. Rather it deals with value. Therefore, it is clear that ethics is concerned with judgments of value, while positive science deals with judgments of facts. That is why ethics is not a positive science but a normative science. Normative ethics deals with standards or norms by which we can judge human actions to be right or wrong. ##### **What is Morality?** The term morality comes from Latin word *moralitas* which means manner, character, and proper behavior. It refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong also referred to as good and evil. It can be used to mean the generally **accepted code of conduct in a society, or within a sub-group of society**. It relates to values expressed as: a matter of individual choice, those values to which we ought to aspire and those values shared within a culture, religious, secular, or philosophical community. This definition is clear when morality is spelt out and agreed upon by others. Morality and ethics are often used interchangeably in everyday speech as referring to justified or proper conduct. But ethics is usually associated with a certain conduct within a profession, for example, the code of ethics for the teaching profession. Morality is a more general term referring to the character of individuals and community, while ethics is used to refer to the formal study of moral conduct. It can be claimed that morality is related to **praxis, but ethics is related to theory**. **The difference between Morality and Ethics** Morality and ethics are closely related concepts, but there are some subtle distinctions between them. While there\'s a distinction, morality and ethics often work together. Your personal morals can influence how you interpret and follow ethical codes. For instance, a doctor with strong morals against harming anyone would be even more compelled to follow their professional medical ethics. **Morality** **Internal compass:** Refers to your personal sense of right and wrong. **Individual beliefs:** Shaped by your upbringing, experiences, values, and potentially religion or culture. **Subjective:** Can vary from person to person. For instance, some people might believe lying is always wrong, while others might see it acceptable in certain situations. **Ethics** **External framework:** A set of principles or rules that guide behavior within a particular group, profession, or culture. **Standardized:** Provides a common understanding of right and wrong within a specific context. **Objective:** Aims to be more universal within a specific situation or group. For example, a doctor\'s ethical code outlines their professional obligations and how they should treat patients. **Ethics and Law** Ethics and law are two important systems that influence our behavior, but they function in distinct ways. **Source and Enforcement** **Ethics** stem from a society\'s or individual\'s moral beliefs. They aren\'t formally enforced by law enforcement, but rather by social pressure, conscience, or professional codes, while law established by a governing body (like a legislature) and enforced through a legal system (courts, police). Breaking the law comes with penalties like fines or imprisonment. **Focus and Specificity** **Ethics is** broader in scope, addressing questions of right and wrong, fairness, and justice. They can be subjective and vary based on culture, profession, or personal values. Law is more specific, outlining clear rules and regulations that govern behavior. Laws are objective and apply to everyone within a jurisdiction. **Similarity between Law and Ethics** Law and ethics often work together. Many laws are based on widely held ethical principles, such as protecting people from harm or upholding fairness. Following the law is generally considered ethical behavior. However, there can also be tensions between them. Sometimes, what is legal might not be considered ethical. For instance, a loophole in the law might allow a company to pollute the environment even though it\'s considered unethical by many. **Moral relativism** Moral relativism is a philosophical position that challenges the idea of universal moral truths. **Central Tenets** **Varying Moral Codes:** Moral relativists argue that moral right and wrong are not absolute or objective. Instead, they believe morality is relative to a particular culture, society, or historical period. Each group develops its own set of moral codes based on its values, beliefs, and social context. **No Universal Standards:** Moral relativists reject the idea that there\'s a single, universally correct set of moral principles that applies to everyone. What might be considered right in one culture could be wrong in another. **Tolerance and Understanding:** A key implication of moral relativism is the importance of tolerance and understanding different moral codes. It encourages us to avoid judging other cultures based on our own moral standards. **Example1:** In some cultures, offering a gift is a way to show respect and appreciation. In others, it might be seen as a bribe or an obligation. **Example2:** Vegetarianism might be a moral stance for some cultures due to religious beliefs, while in others; meat consumption is an integral part of the traditional diet. **Example3:** Monogamy is the prevalent marital structure in many societies, whereas some cultures practice polygamy. **What Makes an Action Moral?** Sometimes we think of moral means morally good. Philosophically, it refers to an action which comes within the scope of morality, an action which is morally significant either in positive way (because it is good or right) or in a negative way (because the action is good or bad). Not all actions have a moral sense. Many of the actions we perform in life such as putting on a raincoat, sharpening a pencil, or counting apples, standing on your head, are not in themselves either **good or bad acts.** Such actions are morally neutral or non-moral. By contrast, stealing from your libraries, punching people or helping the disadvantage are considered as morally significant actions. The following are features that make an action moral. A. **A moral act involves an agent**: If something is a natural event or an action performed by animals, then it is morally neutral it does not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be moral agents, or any creatures that can freely and thoughtfully choose its actions will count as a moral agent. B. **A moral act involves intention:** An intention here refers to our motives that are important to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. If an action is done accidentally, it may be counted as a morally neutral action. However, some unintentional acts, such as those done through negligence, can be moral. Neglecting our duties, even accidentally, make us morally culpable. C. **A moral act affects others:** A moral action needs not only an agent and to be deliberate but also needs to affect others (those we might call moral patients) in significant ways, that is, an action that has harmful (be it physical, psychological, emotional, or depriving others of happiness) or beneficial consequences for others. **What is Moral Education?** Moral education is all about equipping individuals with the tools they need to navigate right and wrong, and become ethical, contributing members of society. It\'s like building a compass to guide your choices and actions. Here are the key aspects: **Understanding moral values:** This involves exploring concepts like fairness, honesty, empathy, and responsibility. It\'s about grasping what these principles mean and how they apply in real-life situations. **Developing moral reasoning:** Here, you learn to think critically about ethical dilemmas. You consider different viewpoints, weigh the consequences of choices, and use frameworks to make responsible decisions. **Building strong character:** Moral education helps you cultivate positive traits like integrity, respect, and self-discipline. It\'s about taking ownership of your actions and striving to be a well-rounded person. Moral education isn\'t about simply memorizing rules. It\'s about developing a moral compass that helps you navigate complex situations throughout your life. **What is Civic Education?** The word civics is derived from the Latin word *civi-tates;* which means citizens. Therefore, **civics** is the study of the theoretical and practical aspects of [**citizenship**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship) including its rights and duties. Civics deals with citizenship which is about state-individual relationship-it is a citizenship study. Therefore, Civics can be defined as a general study that speaks about everything surrounds human beings as well as leadership system that govern people. It speaks of **internal and external affairs of the state** including the history of human struggle as well as social, economic and political advancement and transformation in human history. ***In short civics is the study of participation, self-determination, negotiation, respect and tolerance in a democratic system.*** Civics is not just about memorizing facts and figures; it\'s about equipping individuals with the **knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary** to be active and informed participants in their communities and government. **The Goals of Moral and Civic Education** Moral and Civic Education (MCE) aims to cultivate well-rounded individuals who can navigate the complexities of life as responsible citizens. Here are some key goals of Moral and Civic Education: A. **Moral Development** **Develop Ethical Reasoning:** Moral and Civic Education equips students with the ability to analyze complex ethical dilemmas. They learn frameworks for making informed decisions, considering different perspectives, and weighing potential consequences. **Instill Positive Values:** The program fosters core values like honesty, fairness, empathy, and respect. Students develop a strong moral compass that guides their choices and interactions with others. **Build Strong Character:** Moral and Civic Education encourages the development of positive character traits like integrity, self-discipline, and responsibility. Students learn to take ownership of their actions and strive to be well-rounded individuals. B. **Civic Participation** **Empower Informed Citizens:** Moral and Civic Education helps students understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens. They gain knowledge about government structures, democratic principles, and the importance of civic engagement. **Prepare for Active Participation:** The program equips students with the skills to participate effectively in their communities. They learn about communication, collaboration, and advocacy. This empowers them to engage in the democratic process through voting, volunteering, and promoting positive change. There are three kinds of political cultures: **parochial cultures, subject cultures, and participant cultures.** In parochial cultures citizens have low cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation regarding the political systems, government powers and functions and even their privileges and duties. In such political culture, the role of citizens in the political sphere of their countries is insignificant since individuals thinks of their families advantage as the only goal to pursue. In subject cultures, there is high cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation towards the political system and policy outputs, but orientations towards input objects (like political parties) and the self as active participants are minimal. Thus, orientation towards the system and its outputs is channeled via a relatively detached, passive relationship on the part of the citizen. Subject cultures are most compatible with centralized, authoritarian political structures. In participant cultures, members of society have high cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation to the political system, the input objects, the policy outputs, and recognize the self as an active participant in the polity. Largely, participant cultures are most compatible with democratic political structures because the qualities and attitudes of citizens determine the health and stability of a country's democracy. Democracy can only thrive when citizens understand and participate actively in civic and political life from the perspective that participation is important, but informed and educated participation is more important. In active citizenship, also, participation is not restricted simply to the political dimension rather it also includes socio-cultural and environmental activities. This understanding of active citizenship is ethically-driven where activities should support the community and should not contravene the principles of human rights and the rule of law. The role to be played by civics and ethics is, therefore, acculturation learners with the attributes of active citizenship, democracy and equip them with the skills of participation in civil society, community and/or political life to ensure that the young possesses a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values at their disposal. So that they can develop and practice civic skills, offering opportunities for open discussions about political and social issues, fully discharges their role as citizens, and make informed and educated decisions about candidates and public policy. Generally, the subject plays undeniable role in democratization process through solving societal problems, socializing and re-socializing individuals by instilling desired values, helping individuals develop feeling of respect to others, develop a sense of belongingness and patriotism, and the like. **Foster a Sense of Community:** Moral and Civic Education encourages students to develop a sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community and the wider world. They learn to appreciate diversity, respect others\' viewpoints, and work together for the common good. Overall, Moral and Civic Education strives to create a society where individuals can make responsible decisions, contribute positively to their communities, and actively participate in shaping the world around them. It\'s about **nurturing not just knowledge**, but also a sense of civic duty and moral responsibility. **CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING ETHICAL THEORIES** **General Ethical Theories** Ethical theories provide part of the decision-making foundation for decision making when Ethics are in play because these theories represent the viewpoints from which individuals seek guidance as they make decisions. Ethical theories are attempts to provide a clear, unified account of what our ethical obligations are. Different ethical theories provide a unique perspective in ethical analysis when a person is on the path of decision making. Ethicists often disagree about the nature of those standards and desirable qualities and follow different paths in establishing standards and discovering which qualities are desirable. There are three categories of ethical theories: normative ethics, non-normative ethics and applied ethics. **Normative Ethics** The word 'normative' is an adjective which comes from the word 'norm', which means a standard or a rule, so moral norms are standards or principles with which people are expected to comply. People have different ideas about what these standards are, so the various normative theories of ethics therefore focus on what they claim makes an action a moral action: on what things are good or bad, and what kind of behaviour is right as opposed to wrong. Normative Ethics involves an attempt to determine precisely what moral standards to follow so that our actions may be morally right or good. Normative ethics classified into two branches: teleological (consequentialist) and deontological (non-consequentialist) ethics. **Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)** Teleological Ethics (consequentialist) referred as the end justifies the means. It believes in purposes and goals of an action. It stress that the consequences of an action determines the morality or immorality of a given action which means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what happens because of it. One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but if the result, moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act. An act is right if and only if it or the rule under which it falls produces, will probably produce, or is intended to produce at least as great a balance of good over evil as any available alternative, and an act is wrong if and only if it does not do so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So as to consequential ethical theory a moral right or moral wrong is dependent on **the outcome of an action.** Thus, in teleological ethics, consequences drive the moral decision. For example, most people believe that lying is wrong, but if telling a lie do no harm and help to make a person happy or save someone, this action would be right in teleological ethics. However, it is not always easy to determine the possible outcomes or consequences of our actions. Hence, this is a weakness teleological ethics. **Forms of Teleological (Consequentialism) Ethics** A. **Hedonism** Hedonism is the term derived from the Greek word *hēdonē,* which means delight. Hedonism is the belief that **pleasure** and the avoidance of **pain** are the ultimate goods in life. Actions are judged morally right if they maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Hedonism is the general term for those theories that regards happiness or pleasure as the supreme end of life. Hedonism is a school of thought that argues pleasure is the only intrinsic good. It differs from utilitarianism in focusing more on **individual pleasure** than collective good. The claims that pleasure and pain are the only things of ultimate importance is what makes hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure and minus pain. For example, if eating a certain food will bring an individual pleasure but harm others, it is considered moral according to this theory.  **Core tenets** **Pleasure as the Ultimate Good:** Hedonism posits that pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the fundamental values in life. All actions are ultimately driven by the desire for pleasure and the aversion to pain. **Maximizing Overall Well-being:** Borrowing from utilitarianism, hedonistic utilitarianism argues that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest net pleasure (pleasure minus pain) for all those affected by the action. Essentially, it aims for the greatest happiness for the greatest number, but defines \"good\" in terms of pleasure. According to the nature of seeking pleasure hedonism can be divided broadly into two. These are psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. **As to psychological hedonism** men always do seek pleasure i.e. that pleasure in some from is always ultimate object of desire. This theory holds that this is not the way people ought to be; this is the way people actually are they naturally seek pleasure. It is called psychological hedonism because it simply affirms the seeking of pleasure as a psychological fact. Psychological hedonism is simply a statement of fact. This theory suggests that everything we do, from brushing our teeth to pursuing a career, is ultimately motivated by this fundamental desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. **Ethical hedonism** also known as normative hedonism. It proposes that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain should be the **guiding principle** for our actions. In simpler terms, it suggests that the most ethical course of action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. While psychological hedonism explains **why** we might seek pleasure, ethical hedonism prescribes **how** we should act morally by maximizing pleasure. B. **Ethical Egoism** ### Ethical egoism is a normative theory in ethics that argues that **promoting your own self-interest is the only moral course of action**. In other words, it suggests that you should always act in ways that benefit you the most, regardless of how it affects others. A real-life example of this would be someone who chooses to invest in stocks with higher potential returns, even though doing so has the potential to have unintended consequences on other investors or markets in general. Imagine you find a wallet with a large sum of money. An ethical egoist would argue that keeping the money is the most moral choice because it benefits you directly. ### Ethical Altruism ### **Ethical altruism carries the opposite sentiment from ethical egoism.** It looks at scenarios where individuals' actions are motivated by the desire to benefit others rather than themselves and places value in those acts regardless of their outcome or consequence. For instance, according to this theory, choosing to donate money to charities without expecting anything back other than knowing you helped make someone's life better would be considered an act of altruistic behavior. Ethical altruism promotes a noble ideal of putting others first. However, navigating the balance between helping others and maintaining your own well-being is crucial. While some argue for a more moderate approach that considers both self-interest and the needs of others, ethical altruism offers a valuable perspective in ethical discussions, highlighting the importance of compassion and social responsibility. Utilitarianism -------------- Utilitarianism has been an influential, widely held and challenging moral and political theory over at least the last two centuries. Utilitarianism is a teleological (goal-based) theory in that it judges the morality of actions or rules according to the extent to which they serve the goal of maximizing utility. Utilitarianism claims that, what is good is utility which defined as pleasure or happiness or the satisfaction of desires or of interests. It claims that, morality is concerned with maximizing utility, that is, happiness or welfare. Whichever way the good is defined, utilitarianism holds that it is rational to maximize it. Utilitarianism claims that fundamental principle of morality is that the right action or rule is the one that **would maximize utility**. In calculating which actions or rules would maximize utility, the utility of everyone affected must be taken into account and treated equally. Benefits to some may outweigh harms to others. For utilitarianism, whether an action, policy, rule or institution is right or wrong depends on whether its overall consequences are good or bad for all affected. An action which has the best consequences is right. For example, killing one person to save five others would be considered moral according to this theory because it would result in greater overall happiness than if no one was killed. **Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism** Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were the main founders of utilitarianism. A. **Bentham's Utilitarianism (1748--1832)** It emphasizes maximizing **pleasure** and minimizing **pain** to determine the morality of an action. **Core principles** **The Principle of Utility:** Bentham\'s central tenet is the \"principle of utility,\" which states that actions are morally right insofar as they promote **happiness** and wrong insofar as they promote **unhappiness**. **Hedonistic Calculus:** Bentham proposed a \"hedonistic calculus\" as a way to weigh the potential pleasure and pain caused by an action. This involved factors like the intensity, duration, certainty, and number of people affected. While the concept is interesting, it\'s acknowledged as difficult to implement in practice. **Key Ideas in Bentham\'s Utilitarianism:** **Focus on Outcomes:** Similar to utilitarianism in general, Bentham emphasizes the consequences of an action to judge its morality. **Quantitative Approach:** He aimed for a more objective approach to ethics by attempting to quantify pleasure and pain. **Equality:** Bentham believed everyone\'s well-being counts equally in the utilitarian calculus. **B. Mill's Utilitarianism (1806--1873)** John Stuart Mill\'s (1806-1873) utilitarianism builds upon the foundation laid by Jeremy Bentham but adds some crucial nuances. **Core Principle** **Maximizing Well-Being:** Similar to Bentham, Mill emphasizes maximizing **happiness** or **well-being** for the greatest number of people. However, his definition of happiness goes beyond just pleasure and pain. **Key Ideas in Mill\'s Utilitarianism:** **Quality of Happiness:** Mill argued that some forms of pleasure are more valuable than others. Intellectual pursuits, creativity, and meaningful relationships contribute more to a good life than fleeting physical pleasures. **Individual Liberty:** Mill championed individual liberty and autonomy. He believed people should be free to pursue their own conception of a good life, as long as it doesn\'t harm others. **Harm Principle:** Mill introduced the \"harm principle,\" which states that the only time society is justified in restricting individual liberty is to prevent harm to others. **Act-utilitarianism and Rule-utilitarianism** Act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism are two prominent approaches within utilitarianism, both aiming to maximize overall happiness or well-being. However, they differ in how they determine the morally right course of action. A. **Act-Utilitarianism** **Focus:** Act utilitarianism emphasizes the **consequences of each individual action**. **Decision-Making:** In every situation, we should choose the option that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even if it means breaking a rule or going against tradition. **Core Tenets** **Cost-Benefit Analysis:** Act utilitarians weigh the potential benefits and harms of each possible action before deciding. The action with the most positive outcome is considered the most ethical. **Flexibility:** This approach allows for adaptability in different situations. There might not be a one-size-fits-all solution, and the \"right\" action can vary depending on the specific context. **Example:** Imagine a doctor facing a situation where they can only save one patient out of two. An act utilitarian would analyze the factors like age, health status, and potential future contributions to society to decide who to save, prioritizing the outcome that creates the most well-being. B. **Rule-Utilitarianism** **Focus:** Rule utilitarianism emphasizes following **moral rules** that, in the long run, tend to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. **Core Tenets** **Importance of Rules:** Certain moral rules, like \"do not steal\" or \"keep promises,\" generally lead to a more stable and predictable society with greater overall well-being. **Efficiency:** Following established rules provides a more efficient decision-making framework, avoiding the complexities of analyzing every situation. **Example:** Consider a rule against lying. A rule utilitarian would generally support this rule because honesty fosters trust and cooperation, leading to greater societal well-being in the long run. However, they might acknowledge rare exceptions where a lie could prevent a greater harm. **Criticisms of Utilitarianism** 1. **Difficulty in Measuring Happiness** **Subjectivity:** Utilitarianism aims to maximize happiness, but happiness is subjective and can be difficult to define or quantify objectively. What brings joy to one person might not be fulfilling for another. **Comparing Happiness:** Even if we could measure happiness, how do we compare the well-being of different individuals? Is the increased happiness of 10 people inherently better than the greater happiness of 5 people? **2. Potential for Tyranny of the Majority** **Minority Rights:** Utilitarianism could lead to sacrificing the well-being of a minority group for the benefit of the majority. For example, a utilitarian might justify restricting the freedoms of a small religious group if it promoted greater social stability for the majority. **3. Ignoring Individual Rights and Justice** **Focus on Outcomes:** Utilitarianism primarily focuses on the consequences of actions, potentially neglecting the importance of individual rights and principles of justice. An action that creates the greatest good might still violate someone\'s rights or be unfair. **4. Challenges in Predicting Consequences** **Unforeseen Outcomes:** Accurately predicting the consequences of an action, especially the long-term impact on happiness, can be very difficult. Our actions can have ripple effects that are hard to anticipate. **5. Difficulty in Applying in Real-World Situations** **Complex Calculations:** The act utilitarian approach, which requires weighing the consequences of every action, can be time-consuming and impractical in real-life situations where quick decisions are necessary. **Blind Following of Rules:** The rule utilitarian approach might lead to blindly following established rules, even if those rules are outdated or unjust in a specific situation. **Deontological Ethics (Non-Consequentialist)** Deontology is referred as the **means justifies the end**. Its name comes from the Greek word *deon*, meaning duty. This is a theory that the rightness or wrongness of moral action is determined, at least partly with reference to **formal rules of conduct** rather than consequences or result of an action. It is an emphasis on the intentions, motives, moral principles or performance of duty rather than results, as the sign of right action/morality and immorality. It is a duty based and according to this theory, the consequences or results of our action have nothing to do with their rightness or wrongness. **Core Principles** **Focus on Duty:** Deontological ethics emphasizes the importance of **following moral rules and duties**, regardless of the consequences of our actions. There are right and wrong actions in themselves, independent of their outcomes. **Intrinsic Morality:** The morality of an action is determined by its inherent nature, not the results it produces. Actions are seen as morally good or bad based on whether they fulfill a duty or violate a moral principle. A. **The Divine Command Theory** Divine command theory, also known as **theological voluntarism**, is a meta-ethical theory that proposes a unique source for morality. **Core Principles** **Morality Stems from God\'s Commands:** This theory suggests that actions are morally good because they are **commanded by God**, and conversely, actions are wrong because they are prohibited by God. God\'s will, not human reason or social norms, defines what is morally right or wrong. **Criticisms of Divine Command Theory** **Subjectivity across Religions:** Different religions have varying moral codes. If morality comes from God, whose God is the ultimate moral authority? **Euthyphro Dilemma:** This philosophical challenge asks: Are things good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? If good actions are only good because God commands them, then wouldn\'t God have the power to make cruelty good simply by commanding it? B. **Right Theory** Right Theory\" itself isn\'t a single, established theory in ethics. This theory emphasizes the existence of inherent, fundamental rights possessed by all humans, independent of laws or social norms. These rights are considered universal and inalienable, meaning they belong to everyone from birth and cannot be taken away. This theory highlights the importance of **individual rights** as a cornerstone of morality and just societies. **Example:** Imagine you\'re writing a research paper and need to use a quote from a classmate\'s work. Rights theory would tell you to respect their right to intellectual property and seek their permission before using it. C. **Kantian Moral Philosophy** Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a hugely influential philosopher who developed a unique approach to ethics known as **Kantian moral philosophy**. Central to this philosophy is the **categorical imperative**, a universal principle that guides moral decision-making. **Core Tenets of Kantian Ethics** **Reason as the Basis of Morality:** Kant believed that reason, not emotions, desires, or religion, should guide our moral compass. Through reason, we can discover universal moral laws that apply to everyone. **The Good Will:** The only thing inherently good, according to Kant, is a **good will**. A good will is motivated by a sense of duty and a desire to do what is right, not by personal gain or self-interest. **The Categorical Imperative:** This is the core principle of Kantian ethics. It states that we should only act according to maxims (principles behind our actions) that we could want to become universal laws. In simpler terms, we should ask ourselves: \"If everyone acted this way, what would the world be like?\" To illustrate this distinction, let's take the example of three young men who see an elderly woman needing help across the street. Man A decides he will help the woman across the street because if he didn't he would feel guilty all day. Man B decides he will help the woman across the street because he recognizes her as his neighbor, Mrs. Bontu. Bontu makes the best cookies in the neighborhood. So, Man B helps her because he reasons that he will be rewarded. Man C decides he will help the woman across the street because it is the right thing to do; he understands that he has a moral obligation to help others in need when he can. The results of all three individuals are the same the woman is helped across the street. If we were looking at this from a utilitarian perspective, all three of the young men would be morally praiseworthy because in all three cases, happiness or well-being is increased (or pain is relieved). However, for Kant, only one of the young men's actions have moral worth and it is Man C; he understands what his moral duty is and he acts from it. **Key Points to Remember in Kantiam Moral Philosophy** **Universality:** The categorical imperative emphasizes acting in a way that could be a universal law, ensuring fairness and consistency for everyone. **Focus on Motives:** Kant focused on the **motivations** behind actions, not just the consequences. Even if an action has a good outcome, it\'s not necessarily moral if the motivation was selfish. **Respect for Humanity:** By following the categorical imperative, we treat others with respect and dignity, acknowledging their inherent value as rational beings. D. **Virtue Ethics** Virtue ethics, also known as **aretaic ethics** (from the Greek word \"arete\" meaning excellence), stands out from other prominent ethical theories by focusing on character and virtue development rather than following rules or maximizing consequences. The virtue ethicist argues that what matters morally is not what we do at a time, but what we become over time. To the virtue ethicist it is the acquisition of a good character that is or should be our moral aim. Importantly the virtue ethicist rejects the idea that we should: follow rules try to produce certain consequences. For instance, despite his fear a fireman judges that running again into the burning house might enable him to save a child. He springs into action. Sadly he fails to save the child and injures himself in the attempt. Virtue ethics is about developing a well-rounded character that will guide your choices based on the specific context of a situation. There might not always be a single \"right\" answer, but by cultivating virtues, you\'ll be better equipped to make ethical decisions. **Example1:** A doctor, guided by compassion as a virtue, would treat all patients with empathy and care, regardless of their background or ability to pay. **Example2:** A teacher who values justice would strive to treat all students fairly, giving them equal opportunities to learn and participate, and ensuring that consequences for rule-breaking are applied consistently. **Criticisms of Virtue Ethics** **Subjectivity in Defining Virtues:** There can be disagreement about what constitutes a virtue and how to achieve the \"golden mean\" in different situations. **Lack of Specific Guidance:** Virtue ethics might seem less clear-cut than rule-based ethics, especially in complex situations where guidance on specific actions is needed. **Cultural Differences:** Ideas about virtues can vary across cultures, making it challenging to have a universally applicable framework. ### Ross' (1877-1971) Theory of Prima Facie Duties W.D. Ross\'s (1877-1971) theory of **Prima Facie Duties** is a unique perspective in ethics that emphasizes the importance of multiple moral obligations. **Key Points** **Prima Facie Duties:** Ross argues that there are several fundamental moral obligations we inherently possess, known as prima facie duties (Latin for \"at first glance\"). These duties are self-evident and morally binding, but they can sometimes conflict with each other. **Non-Consequentialist Approach:** Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing happiness or good outcomes, Ross\'s theory doesn\'t prioritize consequences. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the duties it fulfills or violates, not the results. **Pluralism of Duties:** Ross identified seven core prima facie duties, but acknowledged this list might not be exhaustive. Additionally, the relative importance of each duty can vary depending on the specific situation. **The Seven Prima Facie Duties** 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. **Here,** you might consider both duties (justice and compassion). Justice suggests the store owner can press charges, but compassion might prompt you to intervene. You could offer to pay for the stolen food or connect the person with resources to help their situation. **Non-Normative Ethics** Non normative ethics consists of either a factual investigation of moral behavior or analysis of the meaning of the terms used in moral discourse and an examination of the moral reasoning by which moral beliefs can be shown to be true or false. Meta-ethics is therefore a form of study that is beyond the topics considered in normative or applied ethics. Meta-ethics is a major field of enquiry in philosophy. It doesn\'t tell you what to do, but rather explores the \"what\" and \"why\" of morality. Instead it equips us with the tools to analyze these complex issues from different perspectives, understand the reasoning behind moral judgments, and engage in thoughtful discussions about what constitutes right and wrong. Some typical meta-ethical questions are: - When we say something is morally good, what do we mean? - If the claim that euthanasia is morally wrong is true, what makes it true? - If moral claims are sometimes true, what methods do we use to access these moral truths? A. **Semantic Cognivitism** Semantic cognitivism is a theory within **metaethics**, a branch of non-normative ethics that focuses on the meaning and nature of moral language. It proposes that moral terms like \"good,\" \"bad,\" \"right and \"wrong\" function similarly to other descriptive terms, but refer to properties that are objective and mind-independent. **Core Tenets of Semantic Cognitivism** **Moral Facts Exist:** Semantic cognitivism argues that there are objective moral facts about the world, independent of our opinions or beliefs. Just like the statement \"the grass is green\" describes an objective property of grass; moral statements describe objective moral properties of actions or situations. **Moral Meaning is Descriptive:** Similar to descriptive language, moral terms like \"good\" refer to properties that can be objectively true or false. An action can be objectively good or bad, independent of personal feelings. **Moral Knowledge is Possible:** Since moral properties are objective, it\'s possible to gain knowledge about them through reason and observation, just like acquiring knowledge about any other objective fact. B. **Psychological Cognivitism** Psychological cognitivism, unlike semantic cognitivism which focuses on the meaning of moral language, is another theory within **metaethics** (a branch of non-normative ethics) that explores the foundations of morality. However, it takes a different approach, delving into the psychological processes behind moral judgments. Psychological Cognitivism is the view that when we utter a moral statement we give voice to a belief, rather than any other type of non-belief attitude. So, when I utter the statement Saint George won the Ethiopian Premier League in 2015, I express my belief that this happened. According to the psychological cognitivist, I also express a belief when I make claims such as murder is wrong or helping others is right. **Core Tenets of Psychological Cognitivism** **Moral Judgments as Mental States:** Psychological cognitivism argues that moral judgments are based on specific mental states or cognitive mechanisms that have evolved in humans. These mechanisms allow us to distinguish between right and wrong. **Evolutionary Basis of Morality:** This theory proposes that our moral sense evolved to promote cooperation and social order within groups. Moral judgments help us navigate social interactions and ensure the well-being of the group. **Universal Moral Grammar:** Some proponents of psychological cognitivism suggest a possible existence of a \"universal moral grammar\" -- a set of core moral principles that are hardwired into our brains and guide our judgments across cultures. However, there\'s also recognition of cultural variations in how these principles are applied. C. **Realism** Moral realism is a theory that argues for the **objectivity of moral facts**. Moral realists believe that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human opinion, culture, or religion. These truths are \"out there\" in the world, waiting to be discovered, just like scientific facts about the universe. **Example1:** Stealing is objectively wrong, according to moral realism, regardless of cultural norms or personal beliefs. **Example2:** helping others in need is objectively good, independent of any social expectations. D. **Anti-Realism** Ant-realism argues against the existence of objective moral facts. By questioning the existence of objective moral facts, it prompts us to consider the role of subjectivity, culture, and individual values in shaping our moral judgments. **Example:** In some cultures, eating cows is considered taboo, while in others, it\'s a common practice. A non-cognitivist anti-realist might argue that statements like \"eating cows is wrong\" simply express the cultural aversion in a particular society. They don\'t describe an objective moral fact, but rather a subjective preference. **Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgment** **Lens for Decision Making** Ethical decision making is not solely based on our feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science. So, many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us to answer this critical question. #### The Rights Lens The Rights Lens, also sometimes referred to as the **Rights and Duties** **Lens**, is a framework for ethical decision-making that emphasizes **respecting the rights of all people**. The Rights Lens holds that everyone possesses certain fundamental rights that deserve respect and protection. These rights can be moral, legal, or both. **Example:** A government is considering implementing mandatory data collection on all citizens, claiming it\'s necessary for national security. In this cenario, the Rights Lens doesn\'t provide a one-size-fits-all answer. Through open discussion and considering the potential impact on all parties involved, the best course of action can be determined. B. **The Justice Lens** The Justice Lens, also referred to as the Fairness Lens, is a framework for ethical decision-making that emphasizes **fairness and justice** for all involved. The Justice Lens focuses on ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and impartially according to some defensible standard. This standard could be based on merit, need, equality, or a combination of factors. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment). **Example:** A city is facing a severe shortage of affordable housing, leading to rising rents and evictions. So, in decision making you need to consider justice. Accordingly, in decision making you need to ask yourself, are low-income residents and families having fair access to safe and affordable housing within the city? (**Distributive Justice)** Are landlords who engage in unfair eviction practices or neglect their properties held accountable? (**Retributive Justice)** C. **The Utilitarian Lens** The Utilitarian Lens, rooted in consequentialist ethics, is a framework for ethical decision-making that emphasizes **maximizing overall well-being and happiness**. The Utilitarian Lens argues that the most ethical action is the one that results in the greatest overall happiness or well-being for the most people involved. It\'s a kind of cost-benefit analysis applied to ethics. **Example:** The development and implementation of self-driving cars. From a utilitarian perspective, the development of self-driving cars might be considered ethical if the safety features are robust enough to minimize accidents, and if job retraining programs are implemented to address potential displacement. Additionally, open discussions and clear guidelines are needed regarding ethical dilemmas programmed into the car\'s algorithms. The goal would be to minimize harm and maximize safety for the greatest number of people on the road. #### The Common Good Lens The Common Good Lens is an ethical decision-making framework that emphasizes the **well-being and flourishing of the entire community**. It focuses on actions that benefit society as a whole, not just individuals or narrow interests. The Common Good Lens recognizes that we are all interconnected and have a shared responsibility for the well-being of the community we live in. Our actions should contribute to a just, sustainable, and prosperous society for all. **Example:** A city is deciding whether to invest in public transportation or expand highways. In this scenario the Common Good Lens would encourage prioritizing public transportation, considering its long-term benefits for the environment, health, and overall well-being of the community. E. **The Virtue Lens** The Virtue Lens, rooted in virtue ethics, differs from the other lenses you\'ve explored as it focuses on **developing good character traits** to guide ethical decision-making. The Virtue Lens emphasizes cultivating virtues, which are positive character traits that dispose us to act ethically. Examples of virtues include honesty, courage, compassion, fairness, and prudence. **Example:** A manager observes an employee taking office supplies for personal use. In this scenario, the manager could consider virtues like honesty, fairness, and integrity in decision making. A virtuous manager might first have a private conversation with the employee, reminding them of the company\'s policies and the importance of honesty. F. **The Care Ethics Lens** The Care Ethics Lens, a feminist approach to ethics, emphasizes the importance of **relationships, empathy, and responsibility** in ethical decision-making. It prioritizes care for others and the interconnectedness of all living things. This lens views moral obligations as arising from our relationships with others, not from abstract rules or principles. Our moral responsibility lies in caring for those we have connections with and for the wider web of life. **Example:** A doctor is treating a patient who refuses a life-saving medical procedure due to religious beliefs. In this scenario, the Care Lens would encourage open communication, exploring all options with the patient and their family, respecting their wishes while also fulfilling the doctor\'s responsibility to promote health and well-being. **CHAPTER THREE: FUNDAMENTALS OF STATE, GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENSHIP** Defining State -------------- The term state has been used to refer to a bewildering range of things: a collection of institutions, a territorial unit, a philosophical idea, an instrument of coercion or oppression, and so on. The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the state has four features: a defined territory, permanent population, an effective government and sovereignty. **Features of State** **A. Population:** Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it is the people. No exact number can be given to constitute state a question. The fact is that the states of the world vary in terms of demographic strength. There are states with a population of greater than 1 billion like that of China and India, and with a constituency of few thousand people like Vatican and San Marino. Another question that comes up at this stage is whether the population of a state should be homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any factor like commonness of religion, or blood, or language or culture and the like. It is good that population of a state is homogeneous, because it makes the task of national integration easy. But it is not must, because most of the states have a population marked by diversity in respect of race, religion, language, culture, etc. All problems of nation building are solved and people of a state, irrespective of their differences, become a nation. It signifies the situation of unity in diversity. In short, it is to be noted that without population there can be no state, it goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the earth, take in itself, cannot form a state. **B. Defined Territory:** There can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a state includes land, water, and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20 miles. The territorial authority of a state also extends to ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and legations/diplomat's residence in foreign lands. As seen in the case of the factor of population, so here it should be emphasized that the size of a state's territory cannot be fixed. There are as large states as China and Russia and as small states of Fiji and Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up. It is certain that the boundary lines of a state must be well marked out. This can be done either by the geographical make up in the form of division by the seas, rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc., or it may be done by creating artificial divisions in the form of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing. **C. Government:** Government is said to be the soul of the state. It implements the will of the community. It protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintains law and order and makes good life possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy. It is universally recognized that as long as there are diverse interests in society, some mechanism is needed to bring about and maintain a workable arrangement to keep the people together. The government of a state should be so organized that it enforces law so as to maintain the conditions of peace and security. The form of government may be monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic, or dictatorial and the like, what really needed is that if there is no government, there is anarchy and the state is at an end. **D. Sovereignty:** Sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of the concept state. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of human beings. Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is for this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is resulted with suitable punishment. It is universally accepted that a sovereign state is legally competent to issue any command that is binding on all citizens and their associations. In addition to the essential attributes of the state agreed in the 1933, the contemporary political theorists and the UN considered recognition as the fifth essential attribute of the state. This is because, for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an international personality of its own, it must be recognized as such by a significant portion of the international community. It is to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the international stage; other actors (such as other states, international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations etc.) must recognize it as a state. **Types (forms) of State** There is profound disagreement about the exact role the state should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state and civil society. Among the different state forms that have developed are the following: - Minimal states - Developmental states - Social-democratic states - Collectivized states - Totalitarian states - Religious states A. **Minimal States** The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is rooted in social contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially negative view of the state. From this perspective, the value of the state is that it has the capacity to constrain human behavior and thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties of others. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they think best. First and foremost, the state exists to maintain domestic order. Second, it ensures that contracts or voluntary agreements made between private citizens are enforced, and third it provides protection against external attack. The institutional apparatus of a minimal state is thus limited to a police force, a court system and a military of some kind. Economic, social, cultural, moral and other responsibilities belong to the individual, and are therefore firmly part of civil society. B. **Developmental States** A developmental state is one that intervenes in economic life with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth and economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a socialist system of planning and control but, rather, to an attempt to construct a partnership between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by conservative and nationalist priorities. The classic example of a developmental state is Japan. During the Meiji Period (1868--1912), the Japanese state forged a close relationship with the Zaibutsu, the great family-run business empires that dominated the Japanese economy up until World War II. A similar model of developmental intervention has existed in France, where governments of both left and right have tended to recognize the need for economic planning, and the state bureaucracy has seen itself as the custodian of the national interest. In countries such as Austria and, to some extent, Germany, economic development has been achieved through the construction of a partnership state, in which an emphasis is placed on the maintenance of a close relationship between the state and major economic interests, notably big business and organized labor. More recently, economic globalization has fostered the emergence of competition states, examples of which are found amongst the tiger economies of East Asia. Competition states are distinguished by their recognition of the need to strengthen education and training as the principal guaranteeing economic success in a context of intensifying transnational competition. C. **Social Democratic (Welfare) States** Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic progress, social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social restructuring, usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, equality and social justice. In countries such as Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by both developmental and social democratic priorities. Nevertheless, developmentalism and social democracy do not always go hand-in-hand. The key to understanding the social-democratic state is that there is a shift from a negative view of the state, which sees it as little more than a necessary evil, to a positive view of the state, in which it is seen as a means of enlarging liberty and promoting justice. The social-democratic state is thus the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists. Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the social-democratic state is an active participant; in particular, helping to rectify the imbalances and injustices of a market economy. It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In practice, this boils down to an attempt to eradicate poverty and reduce social inequality. The twin features of a social democratic state are therefore Keynesianism and social welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to manage or regulate capitalism with a view to promoting growth and maintaining full employment. Although this may entail an element of planning, the classic Keynesian strategy involves demand management through adjustments in fiscal policy; that is, in the levels of public spending and taxation. The adoption of welfare policies has led to the emergence of so called welfare states, whose responsibilities have extended to the promotion of social well-being amongst their citizens. In this sense, the social-democratic state is an enabling state, dedicated to the principle of individual empowerment. D. **Collectivized States** While developmental and social-democratic states intervene in economic life with a view to guiding or supporting a largely private economy, collectivized states bring the entirety of economic life under state control. The best examples of such states were in orthodox communist countries such as the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. These sought to abolish private enterprise altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered by a network of economic ministries and planning committees. So called command economies were therefore established that were organized through a system of directive planning that was ultimately controlled by the highest organs of the communist party. The justification for state collectivization stems from a fundamental socialist preference for common ownership over private property. E. **Totalitarian States** The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an all-embracing state, the influence of which penetrates every aspect of human existence. The state brings not only the economy, but also education, culture, religion, family life and so on under direct state control. The best examples of totalitarian states are Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR, although modern regimes such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq arguably have similar characteristics. The central pillars of such regimes are a comprehensive process of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a pervasive system of ideological manipulation and control. In this sense, totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil society and abolish the private sphere of life altogether. This is a goal that only fascists, who wish to dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are prepared openly to endorse. F. On the face of it, a religious state is a contradiction in terms. The modern state emerged largely through the triumph of civil authority over religious authority, religion increasingly being confined to the private sphere, through a separation between church and state. The advance of state sovereignty thus usually went hand in hand with the forward march of secularization. Although, strictly speaking, religious states are founded on the basis of religious principles, and, in the Iranian model, contain explicitly theocratic features, in other cases religiously-orientated governments operate in a context of constitutional secularism. **Classification of State: territorial basis** All modern states are divided on a territorial basis between central (national) and peripheral (regional, provincial or local) institutions. The balance between centralization and decentralization is shaped by a wide range of historical, cultural, geographical, economic and political factors. The most prominent of these is the constitutional structure of the state, particularly the location of sovereignty in the political system. Although modified by other factors, the constitutional structure provides, as a minimum, the framework within which centre--periphery relationships are conducted. The two most common forms of territorial organization found in the modern world are the federal and unitary systems. A third form, confederation, has generally proved to be unsustainable. Confederations are the loosest and most decentralized type of political union by vesting sovereign power in peripheral bodies. The confederal principle is, most commonly applied in the form of inter-governmentalism, as embodied in international organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU) and the Commonwealth of Nations. Examples of confederations at the nation-state level are, however, far rarer. A. Federalism (from the Latin *foedus*, meaning pact or covenant) usually refers to legal and political structures that distribute power territorially within a state. Federal systems of government have been more common than confederal systems. Over one-third of the world's population is governed by states that have some kind of federal structure. These states include the USA, Ethiopia, Brazil, Pakistan, Australia, Mexico, Switzerland, Nigeria, Malaysia and Canada. Although no two federal structures are identical, the central feature of each is a sharing of sovereignty between central and peripheral institutions. This ensures, at least in theory that neither level of government can encroach on the powers of the other. In this sense, a federation is an intermediate form of political organization that lies somewhere between a confederation (which vests sovereign power in peripheral bodies) and a unitary state (in which power is located in central institutions). Federal systems are based on a compromise between unity and regional diversity, between the need for an effective central power and the need for checks or constraints on that power. **Why federalism?** When a list of federal states (or states exhibiting federal-type features) is examined, certain common characteristics can be observed. This suggests that the federal principle is more applicable to some states than to others. In the first place, historical similarities can be identified. For example, federations have often been formed by the coming together of a number of established political communities that nevertheless wish to preserve their separate identities and, to some extent, their autonomy. This clearly applied in the case of the world's first federal state, the USA. Although the 13 former British colonies in America quickly recognized the inadequacy of confederal organization, each possessed a distinctive political identity and set of traditions that it was determined to preserve within the new, more centralized, constitutional framework. A second factor influencing the formation of federations is the existence of an external threat, or a desire to play a more effective role in international affairs. Small, strategically vulnerable states, for instance, have a powerful incentive to enter broader political unions. A third factor is geographical size. It is no coincidence that many of the territorially largest states in the world have opted to introduce federal systems. This was true of the USA, and it also applied to Canada (federated in 1867), Brazil (1891), Australia (1901), Mexico (1917) and India (1947). Geographically large states tend to be culturally diverse and often possess strong regional traditions. This creates greater pressure for decentralization and the dispersal of power than can usually be accommodated within a unitary system. The final factor encouraging the adoption of federalism is cultural and ethnic heterogeneity. Federalism, in short, has often been an institutional response to societal divisions and diversities. Nigeria's 36-state federal system similarly recognizes major tribal and religious differences, particularly between the north and south-east of the country. More or less Ethiopia's 11 states federal systems are also consider ethnic components as a basis. **Features of Federalism** **Two relatively autonomous levels of government:** Both central government (the federal level) and regional government (the state level) possess a range of powers on which the other cannot encroach. These include, at least, a measure of legislative and executive authority, and the capacity to raise revenue; thus enjoying a degree of fiscal independence. However, the specific fields of jurisdiction of each level of government, and the capacity of each to influence the other, vary considerably. **Written constitution:** The responsibilities and powers of each level of government are defined in a codified or written constitution. The relationship between the centre and the periphery is therefore conducted within a formal legal framework. The autonomy of each level is usually guaranteed by the fact that neither is able to amend the constitution unilaterally. **Constitutional arbiter:** The formal provisions of the constitution are interpreted by a supreme court, which thereby arbitrates in the case of disputes between federal and state levels of government. In determining the respective fields of jurisdiction of each level, the judiciary in a federal system is able to determine how federalism works in practice, inevitably drawing the judiciary into the policy process. The centralization that occurred in all federal systems in the twentieth century was invariably sanctioned by the courts. **Linking institutions:** In order to foster cooperation and understanding between federal and state levels of government, the regions and provinces must be given a voice in the processes of central policy-making. This is usually achieved through a bicameral legislature, in which the second chamber or upper house represents the interests of the states. B. The vast majority of contemporary states have unitary systems of government. These vest sovereign power in a single, national institution. In UK for instance, Parliament possesses, at least in theory, unrivalled and unchallengeable legislative authority. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes; its powers are not checked by a codified or written constitution; there are no rival UK legislatures that can challenge its authority; and its laws outrank all other forms of English and Scottish law. Since constitutional supremacy is vested with the centre in a unitary system, any system of peripheral or local government exists at the pleasure of the centre. At first sight, this creates the spectre of unchecked centralization. Local institutions can be reshaped, reorganized and even abolished at will; their powers and responsibilities can be contracted as easily as they can be expanded. However, in practice, the relationship between the centre and the periphery in unitary systems is as complex as it is in federal systems political, cultural and historical factors being as significant as more formal constitutional ones. **Understanding Government** In its broadest sense, to govern means to rule or control others. Government can therefore be taken to include any mechanism through which ordered rule is maintained, its central features being the ability to make collective decisions and the capacity to enforce them. A form of government can thus be identified in almost all social institutions like families, school, businesses, trade unions and so on. However, government in our context is to refer to the formal and institutional processes that operate at the national level to maintain public order and facilitate collective action. It is a body or organ that administers a country and main organization dealing with affairs of the whole country. Thus, government is one of the most essential components and also an administrative wing of the state. **Authority:** In politics, the word authority implies the ability to compel obedience. It can simply be defined as legitimate power. While power is the ability to influence the behavior of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore, based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. Thus, authority is the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. Authority can be expressed as naked force and terror as was the case in many undemocratic governments or through a series of more or less transparent public hearings as in the case of most democratic states. **Legitimacy:** The term legitimacy (from the Latin word *legitimare*, meaning to declare lawful) broadly means rightfulness. Thus, legitimacy is the attribute of government that prompts the governed to comply willingly with its authority. It confers on an order or commands an authoritative or binding character, thus transforming power in to authority. Thus, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as an authority. Legitimacy is considered as a basic condition to rule; without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government will deadlock or collapse. Thus, as long as legitimacy stays at a certain level, stability is maintained, if it falls below this level it is endangered. For instance, most of the times regimes are seen as requiring the consent of a large proportion of the population to retain power, but this is not necessarily be the case, since many unpopular regimes have been known to survive provided they are seen as legitimate within a small but influential elite. Therefore, legitimacy is gained through the acquisition of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles. That is to say that a legitimate government will do the right thing and therefore deserves to be respected and obeyed. The concept legitimacy differs from legality in the sense that the term legality does not necessarily guarantee that a government is respected or that its citizens acknowledge a duty of obedience. **Models of National government** There are two models of government in liberal democracy. These are parliamentary and presidential government. The key principles that distinguish parliamentary and presidential government entail the *origin* and the *survival* of the popular branches. Under parliamentarism, only the assembly is elected, so the origin of the executive is derivative to that of the assembly. The requirement of parliamentary confidence means that the executive's survival is similarly tied to approval of an assembly majority. In most parliamentary systems, moreover, this dependence is mutual, and the executive may dissolve the assembly and call new elections prior to the expiration of its maximum constitutional period. Thus, parliamentarism is frequently distinguished from presidentialism on the grounds that powers are fused, rather than separated. The main difference between a parliamentary and presidential system of government is that in a presidential system, the president is separate from the legislative body, but in a parliamentary system, the chief executive, such as a prime minister, is part of the legislative body, or parliament. A presidential system separates the executive and legislative functions of the government and provides what are commonly called checks and balances to limit the power of both the chief executive and the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the legislature holds the power, and the chief executive must answer to the legislature. Another main difference is that in a presidential system, the chief executive and members of the legislature are elected separately by the people, but in a parliamentary system, the legislature is elected by the people and then must appoint or recommend for appointment one of its members to be the chief executive. A. **Parliamentary Model of Government** In the parliamentary system the chief executive of the state (Prime Minister) is not elected directly by the people, but he is normally the leader of the majority party in the Parliament. He chooses his/her own Cabinet which again, normally should be out of the Parliament only. The entire Cabinet is accountable to the Parliament and as soon as it looses confidence of the Parliament, it has to resign from the, office. As against this, in the Presidential system, the chief executive i.e. the President is elected directly by the people for a fixed term and he chooses his own ministers. **Features of Presidential form of government** 1. In a Parliamentary system powers are centered in the Parliament, the Legislature takes the responsibility of government. 2. The executive is divided in two parts Head of the state i.e. Monarch or the President, and the head of the Government i.e. Prime Minister. The former, is the titular head and the latter is the real executive head. 3. The head of the State appoints the head of the Government. In case of Majority Parliamentarianism, the President or the crown has no option but in minority Parliamentarianism the President or the crown may enjoy prerogative in this matter. 4. The head of the Government has full say in appointment of his Ministry. Ministers are formally appointed by the crown but Prime Minister alone is responsible for the composition of the Ministry. 5. The Ministerial responsibility is collective. It indicates both the cause and the effect of the cabinet solidarity. The Government can remain in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of popular house. 6. Collegiate Nature of the executive indicates that a decision making process has been shifted to a collective body. 7. Ministers are usually members of the Parliament. 8. The head of the Government may advice the head of the State to dissolve the Parliament. 9. There is a mutual dependence between the government and the parliament. 10. The government as a whole is only indirectly responsible to the electorate. 11. Though the ultimate power to control and supervise the executive rests with the Parliament, in practice, it is the Prime Minister who has become all powerful. 12. This system does not represent truly the principle of separation of powers. There is no separation of personnel between the executive and the legislature. B. **Presidential Model of Government** The presidential system is a form of government in which the president is the chief executive and is elected directly by the people. In this system all three branches executive, legislative, and judiciary are constitutionally independent of each other, and no branch can dismiss or dissolve any other. The president is responsible for enforcing laws, the legislature for making them, and the courts for judging. Each is given specific powers to check and balance the others. It operates on the principle of separation of powers and the legislative and executive are independent of each other. The executive head of the state enjoys real executive powers. He is neither the member of legislature nor accountable to it for its actions and policies. The continuance of the executive head in the office does not depend on the sweet-will of the legislature. He holds office for a fixed term and can be removed from his office before the expiry of his normal term only through the cumbersome process of impeachment. **Features of Presidential form of government** 1. The head of the state enjoys real powers. These powers are vested in him by constitution or ordinary laws and can exercise these powers on his own. 2. The presidential form of government is based on separation of powers. The three organs of government stand independent of each other. The president and his ministers cannot be the members of the legislature nor are they accountable to it. 3. The cabinet under presidential system consists of nominees of the president. They remain in office as long as accountable to the president rather than legislature. 4. The president can appoint secretaries or ministers to assist him, but they are merely advisors and act according to his instructions. The president can also remove them from their post any time he likes. 5. Under presidential system the head of the state enjoys a fixed tenure and cannot be removed from office before the expiry of the fixed tenure. He can be removed from the office through a very special and complicated procedure of impeachment. 6. Under presidential system the legislature cannot dissolve it. Like the executive head the legislature also enjoys fixed tenure and cannot be dissolve before the expiry of his term. **Understanding Citizenship** Citizen is a person who is legally recognized as member of a particular, officially sovereign political community, entitled to whatever prerogatives and encumbered with responsibilities. The means by which state determine whether a person is legal member of it or not is called citizenship. **Theorizing Citizenship** A. **Citizenship in Liberal Thought** Liberal theory of citizenship begins with the individual person (the self). The self exists as the true symbol of liberal theory. Accordingly, it gives a strong emphasis to the individual liberty of the citizen, and rights that adhere to each and every person. The self is represented as a calculating holder of preferences and rights in a liberal society. Hence, in liberalism the primary political unit as well as the initial focus of all fundamental political inquiry is the individual person. Liberals insist that individuals should be free to decide on their own conception of the good life, and applaud the liberation of individuals from any ascribed or inherited status. Advocators of this though argue that individual citizens act rationally, corresponding to the constitutions and laws of the State, to advance their own interests. If individuals act irrationally, it means that they debase their natural faculties and misapprehend what natural law requires. Locke argued that natural law and the reason to apprehend compel individuals to consider their own and others interests, to enter into civil and political society, act in the community and thus to value social cooperation and self-restraint. Thus, the individual is morally prior to the community: the community matters only because it contributes to the well-being of the individuals who compose it. If those individuals no longer find it worthwhile to maintain existing cultural practices, then the community has no independent interest in preserving those practices, and no right to prevent individuals from modifying or rejecting them. Generally, the bedrock principles of liberal theory of citizenship are: individuals are free to form their own opinions, pursue their own projects, and transact their own business untrammeled by the State's political agenda and coercive power, except in so far as individual actions implicate the interests of other members of society. Liberal citizens are thus left to their own devices without much guidance from the state. They must decide for themselves how to use their constitutionally secured freedoms, decide what kind of citizen to be including the possibility that they will decide to forswear any political activity at all, preferring to retreat into an entirely private world of family, friends, market transactions, and self-absorption and gratification, into a world largely indifferent to any public goods not generated within these parochial domains. Citizenship cannot be defined based on shared identity or a common culture; the individual chooses his own affections, and any identification with other individuals is rather a product of their legal status as citizens. Equal rights bind citizens together in a legal community of free individuals. This does not imply the complete rejection of culture and identity as such, but identity and culture are not a priori foundations for citizenship. ### Citizenship in Communitarian Thought Communitarianism is as an approach emphasizes on the importance of society in articulating the good. The communitarian (also known as the nationalist) model argue that the identity of citizens cannot be understood outside the territory in which they live, their culture and traditions, arguing that the basis of its rules and procedures and legal policy is the shared common good. The political subject, above all, belongs to a community, a community to which he/she owes allegiance and commitment. Thus, rather than viewing group practices as the product of individual choices, communitarians view individuals as the product of social practices. Moreover, communitarians often deny that the interests of communities can be reduced to the interests of their individual members. Privileging individual autonomy is seen as destructive of communities. A healthy community maintains a balance between individual choice and protection of the communal way of life and seeks to limit the extent to which the former can erode the latter. As a result, the good of the community is much above individual rights and citizenship comes from the community identity, enabling people to participate. The State must provide a policy for the common good, according to the way of life of the community. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good are formed, transmitted, justified and enforced. The two defining features of communitarian perspective are: first, no individual is entirely self-created; instead the citizen and his/her identity is deeply constructed by the society where he/she is a member. Newcomers such as children and immigrants to a society must assimilate themselves in order to participate in community activities. Only when an individual successfully assimilates can the society achieve its common goals and become effective. Second, as a consequence of assimilation, a meaningful bond is said to occur between the individual person and his/her community. Insofar as an individual understands that what is good for the community is good for him as well, he will also understand that if he does not participate in the community, the common good will be diminished. Communitarian citizenship thought has been criticized for various reasons. Communitarianism is hostile towards individual rights and autonomy even that it is authoritarian since it melts the self into the society. A community pushes people to sacrifice large parts of their individual differences in order to follow shared values. Other critics argue that communities are dominated by power elites or that one group within a community will force others to abide by its values. Communitarian theorists tend to emphasize the communal construction of social individuals and social formations, and of values and practices. A problem is that these constructive processes themselves need to be analyzed in terms of power which can account for when individuals manage to reconstruct their circumstances, when they move from context to context, when they get trapped, when they rest content. C. **Citizenship in Republican Thought** Republican citizenship theory put emphasis on both individual and group rights. Means republican though attempts to incorporate the liberal notion of the self-interested individual within the communitarian framework of egalitarian and community belonging. Like communitarian thought, it emphasizes on what bind citizens together in to a particular community. Citizenship should be understood as a common civic identity, shaped by a common public culture. It requires citizens to bring together the facets of their individual lives as best they can and helps them to find unity in the midst of diversity. However, republicans do not pressurize individuals to surrender their particular identities like the communitarian thought. Instead, it is underpinned by a concern with individual obligation to participate in communal affairs. It encourages people to look for the common ground on which they stand, despite their differences, as citizens. At this juncture, an effective balance between toleration and obligation is required. Toleration involves citizens participating politically as advocates of particular interests, with their concern focused on 'fairness between different sections of the community and the pursuit of common ends. Just like liberal citizenship though, republican school advocate self-government. Yet, republican thought do not agree with the case that all forms of restraints deprive people's freedom. Liberalism, advocates absolute freedom of individuals and gives insignificant consideration towards nurturing the public virtues that lead people to do their duties as citizens. In contrast to liberalism, individuals must overcome their personal inclinations and set aside their private interests when necessary to do what is best for the public. Republicans, thus, acknowledge the value of public life. To them, public life draws people out, and it draws them together. It draws out their talents and capacities, and it draws them together into community into connection and solidarity, and occasionally conflict, with other members of the public. In view of that, there are two essential elements of the republican citizenship: publicity and self- government. Publicity basically refers to the condition of being open and public. The public is not a mere collection of people but a sphere of life where people joined by common concerns that takes them beyond their private lives. Besides, public affairs such as politics, as the common concern of the public, must be conducted openly in the public for reasons of convenience. In this case, the rule of law and civic virtue are central elements. Politics requires public debate and decisions, which in turn require regular, established procedures -- the rule of law is the standard formula for the republicans. The citizens and governments in a republican State shall not act arbitrary, impulsively, or recklessly but according to the laws of the State. However, without citizens who are willing to take an active part in the government, a republic State could not survive. True citizenship requires commitment to the common good and active participation in public affairs civic virtue. Republics must thus engage in a formative politics that cultivates in citizens the qualities of character that self-government requires. Constitutional safeguards may be necessary to resist corruption in the forms of avarice, ambition, luxury, and idleness, but they will not suffice to sustain freedom under the rule of law in the absence of a significant degree of virtue among the citizens. To say that Amare is a citizen of a republican State, it is to mean that he enjoys the protection of the State's laws and is subject to the laws. It is also to say that, as a citizen, Amare is supposed to be on an equal footing with other citizens. The rule of law thus requires not only active and public-spirited participation in public affairs the civic virtue of the republican citizen but also the proper form of government. **Modes/Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship** **Ways of Acquiring Citizenship** The common ways of acquiring citizenship can be grouped in to two: citizenship by birth and citizenship through naturalization/law. **A. Citizenship from birth/of Origin:** individuals can get citizenship status of a particular State either because he/she is born in the territorial administration of that or his/her mother and/or father are citizens of the State in question. That is, there are two principles of citizenship from birth commonly known as *Jus Soli* (law/right of the soil) and *Jus Sanguinis* (law/right of blood). Whereas *Jus Soli* is a principle whereby an individual is permitted to obtain citizenship status of a particular State because he/she was born in the territorial administration of that country, *Jus Sanguinis* is a norm where citizenship acquired claiming one's parents citizenship status. **B. Citizenship by Naturalization/Law:** is the legal process by which foreigners become citizens of another country. The common sub-principles of acquiring citizenship through naturalization are the following. Political case (secession, merger and subjugation), grant on application, marriage, legitimatization/adoption, and reintegration/restoration. Citizenship by political case is a process by which an individual person acquires citizenship of a certain State following the conquest or cession of a territory. In case a particular territory is merged to or subjugated by another country, people domiciled in that territory would acquire a new citizenship. Besides, in cases of secession option may be given to individuals to choose either country's citizenship**.** **Modes of Acquiring Ethiopian Citizenship** The 1930 Ethiopian nationality law called Ethiopian Nationality Proclamation NO. 378/2003 was adopted in 2003 by the House of People's Representatives. This proclamation is enacted in accordance to article 6 and 33 of the 1995 FDRE constitution and affirmed that a person can acquire Ethiopian citizenship either by birth or naturalization. **A. Acquisition by Descent:** the 1930 Ethiopian nationality law asserted that any person born in Ethiopia or abroad, whose father or mother is Ethiopian, is an Ethiopian subject. In its Article 6(1), the 1995 FDRE constitution stated that any person of either sex shall be an Ethiopian national where both or either parent is Ethiopian. In line with this, Article 3 of the 2003 nationality proclamation ascribed two principles under the acquisition of Ethiopian citizenship by decent. One, any person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where both or either of his/her parent is Ethiopian; second, an infant who is found abandoned in Ethiopia shall, unless proved to have a foreign nationality, be deemed to have been born to an Ethiopian parent and shall acquire Ethiopian nationality. According to the proclamation, any person can't acquire Ethiopian citizenship through the principle of *Jus Soli* (law of soil). It means that children born in the territorial administration of Ethiopian do not have the right to acquire Ethiopian citizenship. Birth place of a child is not a requirement to acquire Ethiopian nationality. Wherever a child was born, he/she has the right to attain Ethiopian citizenship if, and only if, he/she is born from an Ethiopian father or mother or both Ethiopian parents. **B. Acquisition by Law (Naturalization*)****:* Article 6(2) of the 1995 FDRE constitution also avers that aliens can get Ethiopian citizenship. Under naturalization, there are various ways of acquiring Ethiopian citizenship in accordance with of the amended Ethiopian nationality proclamation of 2003 recognized by the provisions of Articles 5 to 12 of the 2003 nationality proclamation. These are Citizenship status of the country in question. However, host countries, including Ethiopia, do not simply grant citizenship status to those who apply unless they fulfill certain requirements. The common ones are applicant's age, length of residence in the host country, criminal conviction, income and moral character. But the criteria vary from country to country. For instance, according to Article 5 of the 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation, an applicant shall get Ethiopian nationality if, and only if, he/she (1) reach the age of majority, 18 years; (2) lived in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years;(3)has sufficient and lawful source of income (economically self-reliant); is able to communicate in any of the indigenous languages spoken in Ethiopia; (5) has a good character; (6) has not recorded criminal conviction; (7) has been released from his/her previous nationality or the possibility of obtaining such a release upon the acquisition of Ethiopian nationality or that he/she is a stateless person; and (8) takes the oath of allegiance indicated in Article 12 of the proclamation*:* I, solemnly affirm that I will be a loyal national of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia and be faithful to its constitution. **C. Cases of Marriage*:*** an alien who is married to an Ethiopian citizen have the possibility of acquiring Ethiopian citizenship. Yet, there are certain preconditions set in Article 6 of the proclamation in which the marriage and the alien married to an Ethiopian citizen must fulfill just to allow the foreigner acquire Ethiopian nationality by law. One, the marriage shall be thru in accordance with the laws of Ethiopia or the State where the marriage is contracted; second, the marriage shall lapse at least for two years; third, the alien married to an Ethiopian citizen have to live in Ethiopian for at least one year preceding the submission of the application; and fourth, the alien have to reach the age of majority, be a morally good person, and lastly take the oath of allegiance stated under Article 12 of the proclamation. **D. Cases of Adoption (Legitimating*):*** this process whereby an illegitimate child get citizenship status of his/her caretaker's nationality. In this case, Article 7 of the nationality proclamation asserts that a child adopted by and grown under the caretaker of Ethiopian citizen has the right to acquire Ethiopian citizenship. But, the child could get Ethiopian citizenship if the adopted child has not attained the age of majority; lives in Ethiopia together with his/her adopting parent; and has been released from his/her previous nationality or the possibility of obtaining such a release upon the acquisition of Ethiopian nationality or that he/she is a stateless person. However, where one of his/her adopting parents is a foreigner, in writing, such a parent has to express his/her agreement that his/her adopted child gain Ethiopian nationality. **E. Citizenship by Special Cases*:*** as it is labeled in Article 8, an alien who has made an outstanding contribution in the interest of Ethiopia may be conferred with Ethiopian nationality by law without undergoing the pre-conditions stated in Article 5 (sub-articles 2 and 3) of the 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation. That is, he/she is not required to live in Ethiopia for a total of four years and may lack the ability to communicate in any of the languages spoken in Ethiopia. **F. Re-Admission to Ethiopian Nationality (Reintegration/Restoration):** this is a process by which a person acquires his/her lost citizenship. The 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation acknowledges this principle in its Article 22. That is, a person who has lost Ethiopian citizenship status may get back Ethiopian nationality. However, there are requirements in which the person is expected to fulfill. In this case, the person could be readmitted to Ethiopian nationality if he/she applies to the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority for re-admission. In addition, he/she has to return and domiciled in Ethiopia and renounces his foreign nationality to get back Ethiopian nationality. **G. Dual Citizenship**: Dual citizenship is the condition of being a citizen of two nations. Duality/multiplicity arises because of the clash among the *Jus Soli*, *Jus Sanguin*i and naturalization. For example, a baby born to a French family visiting the United States would acquire U.S. citizenship by *Jus Soli* and French citizenship by *Jus Sanguinis*. A child born from a mother and father of two different countries could acquire dual citizenship through decent. Besides, on the one hand, a State may allow its naturalized citizens to keep their original citizenship, an on the other, a State may refuse