EVERYDAY ETHICS

AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
VALUES

END TERM ASSIGNMENT

SHIKHA BISEN_M2021ODC035
 Question 1

Ans: Consequentialism is an ethical theory that emphasises the end result rather than just the
means. It is concerned with the outcomes of an action rather than the act itself. According to a
consequentialist, the value of free speech is in its outcomes. A consequentialist restricts individual
freedom if the outcome is unfavourable. According to consequentialists, every action that causes
more good than harm is a good move. When the greater good occurs more frequently than the
bigger harm, consequentialists regard the action to be good.

Deontology emphasises the correctness or incorrectness of actions rather than the correctness or
incorrectness of the outcomes of such actions. As a result, the emphasis is on moral law norms that
permit and prohibit action regardless of the outcome or goal. Deontological theories are classified
into numerous types, including agent-centered deontological theories, patient-centered
deontological concepts, and Kantian ethics.

Ethics according to Kant: Kantianism is a universal morality that applies to all humans regardless of
context or circumstance.

In the preceding case study, there is a conflict between development and the displacement of village
residents as a result of the construction of a big dam. The dam will provide electricity to lakhs of
people, but it will also displace many others from the same socioeconomic background.
Furthermore, despite the government's offer of compensation, many residents are unwilling to
migrate to other areas. The case's stakeholders include the villagers who must be relocated, the
government, the people who will benefit from the dam, the environment, wildlife, and aquatic
animals. One can see the government's plan of electrifying lakhs of homes, which will result in
villages being displaced. However, the government sees things from a utilitarian standpoint, where
the displacement of a few benefits the larger group.

Applying Kantian ethics to the preceding case study, different disputes about the impact of dams on
the economy, society, ecology, and environment could ensue. These approaches have generated
arguments for the construction of this massive dam from both a consequentialist and a
deontological standpoint. Among the arguments are:

a) Resistance and Displacement

Large dams have provoked more opposition than approval. Despite the government's promise to
compensate them for their property, the majority of locals are opposed to the dam-building idea.
Many people are concerned about dam construction and compensation payments because, in the
past, lakhs of acres of land were seized from the local tribal community in the guise of minor and
major irrigation projects. Thousands of people have been displaced from their houses and are
looking for work in mines and factories in neighbouring districts.
b) Ecological Consequences

The most evident ecological impact of big dams is the permanent destruction of vast expanses of
forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. The dam would bury vast expanses of lush forest. The lesser-
known ramifications, on the other hand, are equally alarming. The woodlands serve as migration
pathways for many species, the wetland attracts a variety of migratory birds, and the river serves as
a corridor for migrating fishes. Disruption of animal, bird, and fish migratory routes has an influence
not only on the ecology but also on the lives of the local population. Fish are a vital element of the
locals' diets; the embankment stops them from migrating downstream and disturbs their spawning
cycle.

c) Human Consequences

One of the most obvious and visible unintended consequences of dam developments is the
displacement of people from their natural habitat. This means that people living in and around dam
sites are being asked not only to leave their homes and relocate, but also to give up their land, the
homes they have nurtured their entire lives, and the surroundings they have grown accustomed to
in order for the dam to be built for the unknown beneficiaries.

The displaced find it difficult to understand the benefits of dams and how they might potentially
generate prosperity and well-being. In search of work, a large number of individuals will be
compelled to go to already congested and overburdened towns and cities, where they would dwell
in dreadful urban conditions. Many individuals make a living by working on the dam site. They are
subjected to difficult working conditions.
Even those who will be involved in the dam's construction. The site is particularly sensitive to
infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and influenza, which can be fatal to them and their
families. When the dam is finished, the locals are frequently violently evacuated from the site.

Apart from the number of people displaced by dam projects, it is important to note that in large-
scale dam construction, the majority of individuals relocated belong to tribes or are rural poor with
marginal or no land. According to a document published in 1996 by the Ministry of Rural
Development of the Indian Government, around one crore sixty lakh people have been relocated as
a result of mining, dams and canals, industries, sanctuaries, and national parks. Thirty-nine lakh of
these have been rehabilitated. According to the findings of the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste
Commission (1990), approximately 40% of the displaced population is from a scheduled tribe.

d) Financial Consequences

Massive financial investments have been required for large dams, which are by far the most
uneconomical undertakings. The expected cost of building the dam does not include other expenses
and ongoing costs that will be incurred as a result of the treatment of the catchment region, project
delays, compensatory afforestation, and a variety of other factors throughout the years that the
project must be completed.

The consequentialist approach of large dams seeks to answer environmentalists' and social activists'
concerns about the efficacy of major dam construction as the sole practical option for delivering
power to lakhs of residences in the vicinity.

Consequentialists say that massive dams are the best solution to the crisis in irrigation, drinking
water, and electricity generation. With nuclear energy's safety in terms of radiation and thermal
energy's use of non-renewable resources being questioned, water resources are the only sustainable
source of renewable energy. The most affordable, cleanest, and renewable energy source is hydel
electricity. Because there aren't enough solar energy technologies, the only option is to use hydel
power. If this alternative is also rejected, the consequentialist claims that the country's energy needs
will be met by no other viable choice.

Conclusion

Finally, a consequentialist will support dam development because it will benefit the people and
national society more. It contributes to the greater purpose of development because the dam's
construction will give power to thousands of people, and those displaced will receive government
compensation. Consequentialists believe it is an ethical act because the outcome is better than
harm. A consequentialist will consider the dam's building from the aspect of helping lakhs of people,
arguing that the result justifies the means, even if it causes displacement or other ramifications as
mentioned above. According to consequentialists, every action that causes more benefit than harm
is a wise choice.

Deontological approaches not only provided arguments against large dams, but also saw them as a
means to an end. However, there is a compelling utilitarian rationale for massive dams. Economic
experts, engineers, development planners, and agronomists have all defended the construction of
massive dams.

The deontological viewpoint, on the other hand, will consider the conduct unethical because the
means are causing hardship to the people rather than convenience. Though the procedure benefits
millions of people, it has a negative impact on a small number of people. There are many other
repercussions that the deontological viewpoint will evaluate before deeming the conduct ethically
sound.

Question 3

Ans: A doctor's role in an execution is one of end-of-life care. An individual is dying as a result of a
court order, rather than a terminal illness or euthanasia, but he is nonetheless dying. Medical
practitioners are trained to avoid causing injury and to save lives whenever possible. This is the
Hippocratic Oath and everything it stands for in medicine. Many medical organisations have
published strongly worded statements condemning physician participation in executions. Even if one
is opposed to capital punishment in principle, the presence of a doctor or a physician at executions is
consistent with the need to alleviate suffering. Excluding doctors from executions will only increase
the probability that inmates will suffer unnecessarily.

Discouragement of physician participation, as advocated by the American Medical Association, may

result in the return of more severe techniques of execution that do not require medical skill, such as
electrocution or firing squad death. Several states have already agreed to employ these technologies
as potential substitutes.
Doctors are responsible of pain management. Nobody would object to a doctor delivering spiritual
or narcotic comfort to a terminally sick patient approaching the end of his or her life. It's hardly a
stretch to imagine death-row inmates who have exhausted all of their appeals suffering from a lethal
disease with a one-hundred percent mortality rate. Participating in executions does not suggest that
the doctor is the executioner, just as providing palliative care to a terminally ill patient does not
imply that the doctor is the disease carrier.

Inmates on death row, like dying patients, have unique metaphors, such as 'Death is approaching.'
There is nothing a doctor can do to help. All that can be provided is competent care in the final hours
of life, which should provide some solace to those who have been sentenced. The fact that
physicians are entitled to participate in executions does not imply that they must. It should,
however, be an option for those who believe they have a responsibility to alleviate suffering, which
includes caring for those who will perish at the hands of the state. Involving a physician in the fatal
injection process can make capital punishment less grisly, more acceptable, and even normal.
However, as long as the state uses physician-assisted executions, those who want to interfere to
guarantee that executions are, at the very least, properly managed should be permitted to do so.
Anything else is death penalty politics at the expense of individuals who have already been
sentenced.

Other viewpoint on the ethical dimension of participation in execution is that, regardless of one's
beliefs regarding death penalty, it is disturbing for physicians to function as state agents in assisting,
supervising, or contributing to a legally sanctioned execution. Physicians are fundamentally healers
who strive to save lives when there is still hope. Physicians' experience and talent should only be
used for care, compassion, and healing. Having the state demand that a physician's talents be used
against a human person contradicts a core ethical tenet of medicine - first, do no harm.

The debate over capital punishment has raged for centuries and remains a contentious social,
political, and legal matter. An individual's attitude on the death penalty is a matter of personal moral
decision. A physician, on the other hand, must not participate in a legally sanctioned execution as a
member of a profession dedicated to preserving life while there is still hope of doing so. States must
recognise physicians' ethical commitments, which preclude them from participating in capital
punishment. Because the Hippocratic Oath indicates that a medical practitioner owes duties to all
people, regardless of their status as a patient. It further states that medication will only be used to
heal the sick and that it is wrong for a clinician to 'play God.'

In view of these ideas, participating in executions would be a violation of the bioethical framework
and the profession's ethical responsibilities. One can only hope that the Court or state recognises
the significance of these ethical principles (not being involved in any stage of the execution of the
death penalty) and that correctional physicians are not included in the legal apparatus for carrying
out an execution.
 Question 4

Ans: In many ways, the death penalty is problematic. It gives the state control over the lives of its
inhabitants by allowing it to decide who can and cannot die. The lower one is on the socioeconomic
ladder, the more probable one's fate is related to the state's decisions. This hierarchy is complicated
in many ways: one's position in the social hierarchy is defined by criteria such as gender, caste, social
class, and religion, among others. In India's criminal justice system, crime is prosecuted by the state.
It brings charges in the name of the people. The punishment is decided by the state, not the victim,
through the courts. As a result, the question of the aim of punishment becomes relevant. Jurists have
proposed a variety of goals, including retribution, deterrence, incapacity, and rehabilitation.

Retribution, the earliest sort of punishment, has an element of revenge. This ferocious kind of
vengeance has its roots in the Mosaic Code of the Old Testament and is encapsulated in the concept
of lex talionis ('an eye for an eye,' the cornerstone of Hammurabi's Code, which authorised the victim
or the victim's family to seek retribution for destructive behaviour." This system has evolved over the
years. Crime is now viewed as a societal issue rather than a problem between two individuals. As a
result, punishment is no longer a private affair between the victim and the perpetrator, nor should
vengeance play a role in public policy; rather, punishment should be used to discipline people's
behaviour.

However, it has been established that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on sexual offences;
its entire purpose is revenge. This argument should be enough to declare capital punishment illegal,
and it is also the reason that many countries have abolished the death penalty. When the death
penalty is used, society bears a moral cost in order to provide relief only to the victim. If crime is a
social problem, a retributive view of punishment will create more harm to society, which has already
suffered as a result of the crime, by perpetuating the cycle of violence. And this will continue unless
we tackle the truth that patriarchy creates the conditions for a rape culture.

The state's premeditated use of the death penalty brutalises us all. "The death gives the erroneous
notion that eliminating these men will eliminate, or at the very least significantly reduce, sexual
violence." Indeed, the state's employment of ritualised violence has the ability to prolong and develop
a general predilection for violence. "In order to honour her, we must face our society's systemic origins
of gender violence and criminality."

We have discarded the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" system. As Mahatma Gandhi pointed out,
such a system would blind us all. So, what picture of justice can we present? The execution of the
inmates will not bring back the victims who have died. It will also not prevent another rape. Such
points of view include a great deal of truth, and they must be fully considered before determining
whether or not to abolish the death sentence. However, the death penalty should be kept for those
who perpetrate the most horrific crimes, such as child rape, group rape, terrorism, and so on. As a
result, the court has determined that the death penalty should only be utilised in the most heinous of
instances.

BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980: -

The concepts of what constitutes the "rarest of rare" have been put down by the Supreme Court in
the landmark decision Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab. The Supreme Court established broad
illustrative parameters and stated that it should be granted only when the option of giving a life
sentence is "unquestionably foreclosed." The court was granted broad freedom to make this result.
Despite the fact that the death sentence is "lawful" under the current court system, Supreme Court
Justice A.K. Ganguly has branded it as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic, and reckless." The concept of
the "rarest of rare" crime in imposing the death penalty was a "grey" area since it was interpreted
differently by each court.As several years later, the Supreme Court admitted to mistakes in inflicting
the death penalty. The Supreme Court confirmed in 2009 that it had erroneously sentenced 15 people
to death over a 15-year period.

The Delhi Gang rape case/Vinay Sharma v. Union of India (2020): -

The Vinay Sharma v. Union of India (2020) case, as known as the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, enraged
the entire country's conscience. The awful and horrible incident occurred on a bus in Delhi's frigid
weather. Six of the accused severely raped the girl, culminating in her death. One of the accused in
the case was 17 years old at the time the crime was committed. Because of juvenile laws at the time,
the child received a less severe penalty than other rapists. Other rapists were condemned to death.

The juvenile's case was the most contentious because of the heinous act he committed and the
punishment meted out to juveniles by the Indian justice system.As a result, people urged that the
juvenile rapist be treated as an adult in the case because it was a terrible or one of the most unusual
of crimes. The massive anger in 2015 resulted in changes to laws imposed on minors who breached
the law. Later, the Lok Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Juveniles) Act, which
declared that juveniles aged 16 to 18 might be handled as adults if they were charged with serious
offences.

Reference

Truog, R. D., & Brennan, T. A. (1993). Participation of Physicians in Capital Punishment. In New
England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 329, Issue 18, pp. 1346–1350). Massachusetts Medical Society.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199310283291812

Waisel, D. (2007). Physician Participation in Capital Punishment. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 82,
Issue 9, pp. 1073–1080). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.4065/82.9.1073

Gawande, A. (2006). When Law and Ethics Collide — Why Physicians Participate in Executions. In
New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 354, Issue 12, pp. 1221–1229). Massachusetts Medical
Society. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp068042

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1980 SC 898

India. Law Commission of India, Report No.262 on Death Penalty, August 2015, pp.52-53.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/nirbhaya-case-four-convicts-to-be-
hanged-on-march-20/articleshow/74491448.cms
Ethics unwrapped. (2022) Consequentialism. McCombs School of Business- The University of Texas
at Austin. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism

Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being
consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 79(August), 200– 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004

Misselbrook D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and deontology. The British journal of general practice : the
journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 63(609), 211.
https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665422

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