Ethics: Nandan Sir

Lecture IV
Ethics and Human Interface
Broad Topics: Ethics and Human Interface- Essence/Determinants/Dimensions of
Ethics/Ethics in Private & Public Relationships/Human Values-Lessons from Thinkers from
India & World.
Concrete Themes:
I. Determinants of Ethics:
❖ Custom
❖ Conscience
❖ Intuition
❖ Law
❖ Pleasure
Paradox of Hedonism
The Ethics of Charvaka
Utilitarianism: Bentham & J.S. Mill.
II. Determinants of Ethics:
❖ Action as a determinant: Deontological Ethics
❖ Consequence as a determinant
❖ Character as a determinant
❖ Motive as a determinant
Consequentialist Ethics & Teleological Ethics.
Virtue Ethics
The Ethics of Kant
The Ethics of Bhagavadgeeta.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Determinants of Ethics
What enables us to characterize an act as moral or immoral? How to ascertain the rightness or
wrongness of an action. The question has been answered differently by different thinkers and
traditions. For some, Custom is the determinant or standard, for some it is Law. Others suggest
that actions are right if they are conducive to Pleasure. Few others claim that an act is good if it
results into the Perfection of Character and so and so forth. Some of the important determinants
are as follows:

Custom:
At the level of custom, an action is considered to be right if it has always been done, and an
action is considered to be wrong if it is not always done. Customary morality is not personal
morality. It does not involve the pursuit of the personal good. Custom consists in group ways of
acting. Customary morality is basically group morality. Customary conduct is largely
instinctive and partly reflective; it is conscious or unconscious imitation of others’ behaviour.
The members of a group behave according to the custom which is approved by the group. The
group as a whole, the priests, the chiefs and the ancestral Gods are the custodians of customs. It
depends upon social pressure to maintain social order. Public approval and physical force are
the means of enforcing customs.
Merits of customary morality: Customary morality fosters sympathy and co-operation,
encourages concerted action, and discourages selfishness and isolation. It promotes peace and
harmony, strength and solidarity, fellowship and security.
Defects of customary morality: The moral standards of custom are only partly rational. Many
customs are irrational, some are injurious. Customary morality cannot satisfy the demands of
Page | 1
human nature for a long time.
Moral progress demands transition from group morality to personal morality. It demands
transition from unreflective morality to reflective morality. The social and the individual, both
are rooted in human nature. The individual identifies himself with the group, shares common
emotions and acts in obedience to custom. But the individual has self-reliance and autonomy.
Thus, at times revolts against the group and asserts one’s independence. Collision between the
group authority and the individual’s independence, and the collision between social order and
the individual’s progress bring about profound changes in morality and prepare the way for
reflective personal morality.

Conscience:
At the level of customary morality the moral authority is outside the individual; it is the
authority of group. But at the level of personal morality the moral authority is inside the
individual; it is the authority of conscience. Initially, the inner voice of conscience may be an
echo of public morality. But gradually with the growth of the power of reflection, the voice of
conscience may contradict the commands of the group.
Customary morality is unreflective while personal morality is reflective. In personal morality,
the individual asserts the authority of one’s conscience and regards one’s moral life as one’s
personal matter. One’s political and social behaviour may be governed by the political and
social laws. But one’s moral behaviour is governed by the moral principles dictated by the
conscience.
According to some thinkers, conscience is a moral faculty of the self by which it apprehends the
rightness or wrongness of an action. For them, there is no distinction between conscience and
moral faculty. Intuitionists regard it as an innate faculty.

Intuitionism:
Intuitionism claims that conscience, immediately and intuitively, perceives the rightness or
wrongness of an action without reference to their ends and consequences. The moral quality is
unique and sui generis; it is not reducible to truth, beauty, pleasure or social utility. It is original
and underived, and apprehended intuitively by conscience.
Intuitionism is a kind of ethical objectivism. It regards moral qualities as objective characters of
actions. Conscience is the universal faculty in all persons. It is not the conscience of this or that
individual. Some Intuitionists regard conscience as the “moral sense”, while others regard it as
the “aesthetic sense”. Thus, Intuitionism takes two forms: (a) The Moral Sense Theory and (b)
The Aesthetic Sense Theory.

The Moral Sense Theory: According to this theory, conscience is a faculty of internal
perception, we perceive the moral qualities of actions immediately through the internal moral
sense; just as we perceive the sensible qualities immediately through the external senses.
Criticism: Critics point out that the moral sense theory cannot account for the sense of duty. The
mere fact that an action excites in us a feeling of approval does not explain why we should be
under moral obligation to perform it.

The Aesthetic Sense Theory: According to this theory, beauty is the ultimate standard of
morality. It reduces rightness to beauty, and wrongness to deformity. Thus, beauty and good are
one and the same.
Criticism: Critics point out that the moral sense cannot be reduced to the aesthetic sense. The
obligatoriness of the moral sense is not sufficiently brought out when it is reduced to the
aesthetic sense.

Page | 2
Law:
According to some, to be moral is to discern whether a particular action is, or is not, in
conformity with the prescribed law. There is nothing naturally and essentially right in actions;
whatever is right, or wrong, must be imposed upon us externally (from without) by the will and
command of a superior power, namely, God/society/government. Thus, an action is called right,
if it agrees with the law; wrong, if it does not agree with the prescribed law. This theory has
three forms:
I. Divine Law: According to some, actions are right or wrong simply because God has
commanded or forbidden them. Divine command is the test of rectitude. The distinctions of
right or wrong depend on the will of God.
Criticism:
1. The objection to this theory is that the motive for virtue or avoidance of sin, consists simply
in the hope of reward or fear of punishment. Acts performed out of fear of punishment or
expectation of reward may be prudent but not virtuous. Such an act cannot have any moral
value.
2. The theory assumes that the distinction of right and wrong is created by an act of arbitrary
Divine will. God is above moral law. His nature is morally blank. He is an object of fear rather
than of veneration.
3. Instead of supposing that acts are right or wrong simply because God commands or forbids
them, we must suppose that He commands or forbids them because they are right or wrong.
II. Political Law: According to some, Political Law is the determinant of right and wrong.
Morality consists in obedience to the laws of the state. Hobbes claims that the civil law alone is
the Supreme Court of appeal in all cases of right and wrong.
Criticism:
1. The theory abolishes the distinction between virtue and prudence, morality and self-interest.
2. A system of political laws cannot constitute the ultimate moral standard, since such laws
themselves are open to moral scrutiny.
3. Political laws cover only a fraction of our active life and, therefore, cannot be the standard
with reference to which we may judge every possible case.
III. Social Law: According to some, the real standard of morality is constituted by the
opinions, manners and customs of society. What is in conformity with these is right, what is
contrary to these is wrong. The society enforces its rules, manners and customs, through public
sentiments of approval and disapproval, honour and dishonour. One may be excommunicated
for not obeying the rules of society. Thus, society and morality are based on an implicit contract
which everyone is tacitly pledged to observe. Nothing is right or wrong in itself, but only by
social rule and covenant.
Criticism:
As a matter of fact, social opinion is variable. The social customs accepted in one period are
often condemned as wrong in another. What is customary may not be moral. The conventions
and customs of a society are often questioned and are subjected to moral scrutiny. We speak of
customs and practices as good or bad, as moral or immoral.
Thus, law cannot be regarded as the ultimate standard. A law without reference to an end is
arbitrary and insignificant. The question of the moral standard is not solved so long as we do
not determine the true end of life, the highest good or the Summum Bonum. Acts are to be
judged good or bad with reference to the supreme end of life.

Pleasure (Hedonism):
According to some, pleasure is the supreme end of life or Summum Bonum. This theory is
called Hedonism, because it makes ‘hedone’ or ‘pleasure’, the ultimate end or good.
Hedonism is based on two assumptions- a metaphysical assumption and a psychological
assumption. Metaphysical assumption regards self as purely sensuous in nature; it has
Page | 3
sensations, feelings, appetites and instincts. Though it has reason, but it is not supreme in
human nature; it is a mere slave of passions. As David Hume says that the reason is the hand-
maiden of passions.
Psychological assumption holds that human beings naturally seeks pleasure and avoids pain.
Hedonists like Bentham, J. S. Mill and others maintain that pleasure is the ultimate end and we
desire everything else as a means to pleasure.
Hedonism assumes many forms, two important forms are Psychological Hedonism and Ethical
Hedonism, the former is a statement of an actual fact while the latter is a statement of an ideal
or end.
Utilitarianism of Bentham
According to Utilitarianism, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”, is the ultimate
moral standard. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) advocate this
view. However, Bentham recognizes only quantitative distinction of pleasure, whereas J. S.
Mill admits their qualitative distinction as well. This theory is called Utilitarianism, because it
judges all actions according to their utility, as means for the promotion of general happiness or
prevention of general pain.
Bentham is an advocate of Psychological Hedonism, he says, “Nature has placed mankind
under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” “It is for them alone to
point what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.” Bentham argues that
because we do desire pleasure, therefore we ought to desire pleasure. He bases ethical hedonism
on psychological hedonism.

Hedonistic Calculus:
Bentham believes in hedonistic calculus. He says, “Weigh pleasures and weigh pains, and as the
balance stands, will stand the question of right and wrong.” An action is right if it gives
pleasure or excess of pleasure over pain. An action is wrong if it gives pain or excess of pain
over pleasure. Bentham believes that pleasures can be valued only in terms of quantity, but
quantity takes different forms. It has seven dimensions: 1. Intensity, 2. Duration, 3. Certainty, 4.
Propinquity, 5. Fecundity, 6. Purity and 7. Extent.
Thus, of pleasures otherwise equal, the more intense pleasure is preferable to a less intense
pleasure. Of pleasures otherwise equal, the more durable pleasure is preferable to a less durable
pleasure. A certain pleasure is preferable to an uncertain pleasure. A proximate pleasure is
preferable to a remote pleasure. A fecund pleasure is preferable to a barren pleasure which does
not give rise to other pleasure. A pleasure is pure when it is free from pain; it is impure when it
is mixed with pain. A pure pleasure is preferable to an impure pleasure. Again, a pleasure of
greater extent is preferable to one of less extent.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism may be called gross or sensualistic, because he does not admit
qualitative differences among pleasures. He says, “Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is
as good as poetry.”
Though Bentham is an advocate of altruistic hedonism, he clearly recognizes the natural egoism
of human. He says, “Dream not that men will move their little finger to serve you, unless their
own advantage in so doing be obvious to them. They will desire to serve you, when by so doing
they can serve themselves.” Thus, Bentham clearly admits that human is egoistic by nature. He
says, “Each is to count for one, and no one for than one.” This is the democratic principle of
justice, according to him.
Moral Sanctions:
Bentham explains the transition from egoism to altruism by means of four external sanctions- 1.
Physical or Natural sanction, 2. Political sanction, 3. Social sanction and 4. Religious sanction.
They operate through the principle of pleasure and pain.
The Physical sanction is constituted by the physical pains, which result from the disregard of
natural laws, such as the laws of health. It is a law of nature that we should satisfy the appetites
Page | 4
moderately; if we violate this by over-indulgence, the violation is followed by diseases and
pains.
The Political sanction consists of those pains which follow upon the penalties inflicted by the
authority of the State. Thus, these pains prevent the individual from violating political laws. The
hope of reward from the State prompts one to perform actions that are beneficial to the State.
The Social sanction consists of those pains which follow upon the penalties inflicted by the
society upon the individual, for example, excommunication. The idea of such pain dissuades the
individual from acting selfishly.
The Religious sanction includes the fear of punishment in hell and the hope of reward in
heaven. Thus, the external sanctions are external pressures which compel the individual to pass
from egoism to altruism.
Criticism:
Bentham’s Gross Utilitarianism is open to the following objections:
1. Bentham is an advocate of psychological hedonism. Psychological hedonism does not
necessarily lead to ethical hedonism, there is no necessary connection between the two.
Moreover, even if we naturally seek pleasure, it does not follow that we ought to seek pleasure.
2. According to Sidgwick, psychological hedonism is vitiated by Paradox of Hedonism. He
points out that the more we seek pleasure, the less we get it. So, the best way to get pleasure is
to forget it. We require a certain degree of disinterestedness in order to obtain pleasure. If we
consciously aim at pleasure, we are sure to miss it.
3. The Hedonistic Calculus proposed by Bentham is impracticable. He seems to regard pleasure
and pain as concrete things which can be added and subtracted. But feelings of pleasure and
pain are purely subjective states of the mind and cannot be measured quantitatively like coins.
4. Bentham introduces altruism into his doctrine by taking into account the extent of pleasures,
i.e., the number of persons affected by them. But he gives no reason why the pleasures of
greater extent are preferable to those of smaller extent.
5. The external sanctions can never explain the transition from egoism to altruism. We choose
to obey the laws of Nature, State, Society and God not for their sake but for prudential
considerations. These external sanctions can create a must or physical compulsion, but never an
ought or moral obligation.
6. Bentham does not recognize the qualitative difference of pleasures. For him all pleasures are
alike in terms of quality. But, intellectual pleasures, artistic enjoyment and spiritual bliss are
believed to be superior in quality than the pleasures of eating and drinking.
Utilitarianism of J. S. Mill
According to Mill, pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends.
All desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to
the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. Mill uses ‘pleasure’ and ‘happiness’ as
synonymous, he does not distinguish between the two.
Mill bases his hedonism on psychological hedonism. He maintains that to think of an object as
desirable, and to think of it as pleasant, are one and the same thing. Mill is an advocate of
ethical hedonism and it is based on psychological hedonism. He says, “The only proof capable
of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound
is audible, is that people hear it, the sole evidence that anything is desirable, is that people do
actually desire it.” Thus, according to him, since all persons desire pleasure, so, pleasure is
desirable.
Mill recognizes the qualitative distinctions among pleasures. Earlier, Epicurus has emphasised
on the distinction between the pleasures of the body and those of the mind, and has given
superiority to the latter on account of their greater durability and their comparative freedom
from painful consequences. But he did not recognize the qualitative superiority of the mental
pleasures. Mill, for the first time, holds that the distinction of quality is independent of quantity,
and that the qualitative distinction is as real as the quantitative. Hence, Mill’s doctrine is called
Page | 5
Refined Utilitarianism as contrasted with Bentham’s Gross Utilitarianism. Sometimes, Mill’s
doctrine is called Qualitative Utilitarianism as distinguished from Bentham’s Quantitative
Utilitarianism.
Test of Quality:
To test the quality of pleasures, Mill appeals to the verdict of competent judges. According to
him, of two pleasures, competent judges always prefer intellectual pleasures to bodily and
sensual pleasures. However, if there is a conflict of opinion among the competent judges, we
should abide by the verdict of the majority of them. He maintains that from this verdict of
competent judges, there can be no appeal.
When Mill is asked to give the ultimate reason of preference for intellectual pleasures by
competent judges, he refers to “sense of dignity”, which, according to him, is natural to human.
He points out that no man would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals capable
of sensual pleasures alone. Mill says, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.
Altruistic Hedonism:
Mill offers the following argument for altruism. He says, “No reason can be given why the
general happiness is desirable except that each person desires his own happiness. Each person’s
happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate
of all persons”. A’s happiness is a good to A. B’s happiness is a good to B. C’s happiness is a
good to C. Therefore, general happiness is an aggregate of all persons’ happiness and is a good
to all.
Mill maintains that there are two kinds of sanctions for altruistic conduct, external and internal.
To the external sanctions: physical, political, social and religious, Mill adds the internal
sanction of conscience; it is sympathy, fellow-feeling, social feeling of humankind, a feeling for
the happiness of mankind, a desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.
Criticism:
1. Bentham and Mill fail to recognize the distinction between pleasure and happiness.
Happiness is not the same thing as pleasures. Happiness can be a feeling of the whole self, as
opposed to pleasure, which is a feeling of some aspect of self. Happiness is permanent while
pleasure is temporary, and is related to a particular activity. Happiness lies in the harmony of
pleasures while pleasure arises from the gratification of a single isolated desire.
2. Mill bases his Utilitarianism on Psychological Hedonism, even if we do desire pleasure, it
does not prove that pleasure is desirable. Psychological Hedonism does not necessarily lead to
Ethical Hedonism.
3. Mill commits the fallacy of figure of speech in his proof for the Ethical Hedonism. He argues
that an object is visible if people actually see it, an object is audible if people actually hear it.
Likewise, an object is desirable, if people actually desire it. He confounds the word ‘desirable’
with ‘capable of being desired’; ‘desirable’ means ‘what ought to be desired’ or ‘deserves to be
desired’, it does not mean ‘able to be desired’ as ‘visible’ means ‘able to be seen’. Thus, what is
capable of being seen is visible. What is capable of being heard is audible. But, what is capable
of being desired is not desirable. What ought to be desired is desirable.
4. Critics point out that Mill introduces an element of rationalism into his doctrine by
recognizing the qualitative distinction of pleasures.
5. Mill appeals to the sense of dignity to explain the test of quality. The critics remark that the
sense of dignity is not a desire for pleasure. The sense of dignity natural to human is the dignity
of reason, not of sensibility. Thus, here again, Mill introduces an element of rationalism into his
doctrine.
6. Mill’s argument that each person’s happiness is a good to him, therefore, the general
happiness is good to the aggregate of all persons, commits two fallacies- 1. The fallacy of
composition and 2. The fallacy of division.
1. Mill argues that each person’s happiness is good to him, therefore, the general happiness is a
Page | 6
good to the aggregate of all persons. A’s happiness is a good to A, B’s happiness is a good to B,
C’s happiness is a good to C. Therefore, A’s happiness, B’s happiness and C’s happiness are a
good to A+B+C. This argument involves the fallacy of composition. The aggregate of pleasures
is not pleasure. The aggregate of persons is no person. Pleasures cannot be added to one
another. The minds of persons also cannot be rolled into one and made into an aggregate.
2. The general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons. Therefore, the general
happiness is a good to each person. This argument involves the fallacy of division.

Significance of Utilitarianism:
Bentham and Mill extended invaluable services to legal and political reforms by stressing on
the doctrine of greatest happiness of the greatest number. Also, the slogan of ‘each is to count
for one and no one for more than one’ played vital role in social reforms and justice. However,
Utilitarians identified social progress with material and bodily comforts; they identified
happiness with material happiness. They put insufficient emphasis on the intellectual, aesthetic
and religious values; they did not recognize the intrinsic worth of character, love and friendship.
Human good does comprise economic goods, that is, wealth and material comfort; but it
includes knowledge and virtue as well.
The Ethics of Charvaka
Charvaka is the school of Indian materialism. Out of four purusharthas (human values), only
Kama (sensual pleasure) is regarded as the end and Artha (wealth) is regarded as the means to
realize that end. Dharma (virtue/justice) and Moksha (liberation) are altogether rejected. The
Charvaka maintain that death itself is liberation (Moksha).
They propagate the ethics of Eat, Drink and be Merry. According to them, it is true that there is
no pure pleasure, that is, pleasure is indeed blended with pain. But that does not mean we
should run away from pleasure. The aim of life should be to minimise pain and maximise
pleasure. One should strive to enjoy as long as one lives, one shall not even hesitate from
borrowing and shall drink clarified butter (ghee).
A distinction can be made between crude and refined Charvaka. Vatsyayana, the author of
‘Kamasutra’, has recommended a harmonious cultivation of the three human values- Dharma,
Artha and Kama, known as Trivarga. However, as a system, Charvaka could not flourish and
sustain itself for long, gradually its downfall started
The Deontological Ethics of Kant (1724-1804)
Kant’s ethics is deontological, that is, duty should be performed for the sake of duty alone,
without regard for the consequences. He asserts that morality must be based solely on reason.
He maintains that apart from theoretical aspect (Pure Reason), reason has a practical component
as well, which guides us in deciding our course of action. He calls it Practical Reason.
Kant points out that morality does not depend on external institutions- social, cultural or
religious. Morality does not depend on feelings or desires. Morality, for him, consists solely in
rational principles.
Good Will:
Good Will is the moral will, it is the power of rational agent to act for the sake of duty alone.
Kant believes that human beings are partly perfect, they have desires, instincts etc. which act as
obstacles in the path of Good Will. Good Will is different from Holy Will. God alone possesses
‘Holy Will’, there are no duties for God. There are no obstacles to prevent the manifestation of
Holy Will.
According to Kant, Good Will is the only thing which is good without qualification. Good Will
is good in itself, not because of its effects. It is unconditioned good. Wealth, intelligence and
talents are not unconditionally good. They can be abused by a bad will. They can be good only
when they are used by a Good Will.
Duty:
Kant points out that agent shall have highest regard for the duty or law. But duty or law must
Page | 7
not be imposed by external authorities (Heteronomy of will). An action, according to Kant, has
no moral significance if it is based on an external law. We act morally only when we act in
accordance with a law that we freely accept and impose on ourselves (Autonomy of will). But
how can we formulate such principles of action (duties) or laws?
Kant answers through the principle of Universalizability: Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kant maintains that
a law must be universal; it must be applicable in all cases without any exception, like the laws
of nature.
Thus, a subjective principle of action (maxim) can become a law (objective principle of action)
only if the agent grants that everyone under the given circumstances should be doing the same.
For instance, breaking a promise can never become a duty or law, since it cannot be
universalized. Again, suicide is morally wrong because it cannot become a universal law.
Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives:
Kant regards moral law as categorical imperative. It is called ‘categorical’ in the sense that it is
‘universal’ and ‘unconditional’, that is, it must be obeyed without any exception. It acts as an
imperative to us, because human beings are only partly rational. Performance of duty is not part
of our nature.
Kant distinguishes between categorical and hypothetical imperative. Unlike categorical
imperative, hypothetical imperative is conditioned by some end/goal/purpose. It has ‘if – then’
form, for example, ‘if you want to become a civil servant then you should study tenaciously’.
Hypothetical imperative has nothing to do with morality. Categorical imperative, on the other
hand, asks us to do our duty for the sake of duty alone, there is no further end to be achieved.
Formula of the End:
According to Kant, human beings are end in themselves and not means. He says, we should
treat humanity, both in our own person as well as in the person of every other, never simply as a
means but always as an end.
Thus, it would be wrong to commit suicide, since it would be inconsistent with the ideal of
humanity as an end in itself. Likewise, making false promise is equivalent to treating one as a
means.
The principle of human dignity can play an important role in contemporary debates on issues of
human rights, female-foeticide, euthanasia, capital punishment and so on.
Formula of the Kingdom of Ends:
Kant says, act as a member of a Kingdom of Ends. He envisages ‘Kingdom of Ends’ as an ideal
society in which every person would act in a rational way, follow the categorical imperative and
thereby live in perfect harmony with others.
Postulates of Morality:
The postulates of morality are the fundamental assumptions which, according to Kant, are
required in order to develop a consistent moral system.
1. Freedom of the will: According to Kant, freedom of the will is necessary for voluntary action
and moral responsibility. He says, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, that is, morality implies freedom of the
will. If the will is not free, morality becomes impossible. Thus, freedom is presupposed by
moral obligation.
2. Immortality of the soul: Morality consists in overcoming the conflict of desire with duty, but
desire cannot be eliminated in a finite life. One needs to be persistent through an infinite life in
order to become virtuous. Further, there must be an afterlife where there will be a perfect
harmony of virtue with happiness and vice with pain.
3. Existence of God: According to Kant, morality necessitates that virtue should be rewarded
with happiness and vice be punished with pain. Virtue is the moral good and virtue and
happiness constitute the complete good (highest good) or Summum Bonum. Thus, Kant states
that there must be a God, who will harmonise virtue with happiness in future life.
Critical points:
Page | 8
1. Kant does not recognise the significance of sensibility in moral life. He maintains that reason
and sensibility are completely opposite to each other. However, there are many thinkers who
have acknowledged the role of positive emotions, such as love and compassion, in ethics.
Perhaps Kant is not absolutely justified in maintaining that sensibility is necessarily irrational.
2. Kant makes his ethics too rigorous by excluding all exceptions to moral laws. However,
some actions are right simply because they are exceptions, e.g., martyrdom and celibacy are
moral because they are exceptions. Also, in some cases, it can be ethically permissible to lie in
order to save lives.
3. According to some, we cannot act in blind obedience to the law, after all the law is, made for
the sake of people and not people for the sake of the law.
4. According to some, Kant’s conception of the Complete Good as the harmony of virtue with
happiness implies his recognition of moral ends. In other words, Kant’s deontological ethics
also contains elements of teleological ethics.
5. According to critics, Kant’s second formula states that people should never use other human
beings as a mere means to their own ends. But it does not say anything about animals and the
environment. Does that mean people can use these as means for their ends? Perhaps Kant’s
position needs to be understood in a broader perspective to ward off such wrong implications.
The Ethics of the Bhagavadgeeta
The ethics of Geeta is anti-hedonistic. The Geeta condemns the Charvaka’s hedonism.
According to the Geeta moral life consists in the regulation of base emotions and instincts.
Hence, one must strive to conquer these.
Literally ‘Bhagavadgeeta’ means ‘The Lord’s song’, that is, the discourse of Lord Krishna to
persuade the reluctant Arjuna to perform his Sva-dharma. It is contained in the Bhishma-Parva
of the Mahabharat.
The Geeta represents a unique synthesis of action, devotion and knowledge. It teaches
karmayoga (the path of action), gyanyoga (the path of knowledge) and bhaktiyoga (the path of
devotion). These three paths are the means to realize the Highest Ideal of life. The literal
meaning of ‘yoga’ is ‘union’, that is, the union of the individual with the Ideal. It also means
equanimity of mind and excellence of action, which come through detachment. An Ideal yogi
(Sthita-pragya) is one who is able to regulate passions and remains calm in pleasant as well as
adverse conditions. One is like a flame which does not flicker in a windless condition. One
remains unmoved by the winds of joys and sorrows.
The ethics of Geeta resembles Kant’s rationalism, but it differs from Kant’s ethics in a
significant way. In the ethics of Geeta, duties ought to be performed for the attainment of the
Ideal, but in Kant, duty ought to be performed for the sake of duty. The Geeta enjoins the
performance of duties for the welfare of humanity (lokasangraha). The ideal aspirant has to
work for the humanity in the spirit of perfect detachment, with no desire to reap the fruit. Just as
a liberated ‘cave-dweller’ in Plato goes back into the cave to free others. Kant’s conception of
the ‘kingdom of ends’ comes close to this.
Kant’s ethics is deontological, but the ethics of Geeta is teleological. Kant enjoins the
renunciation of all feelings and emotions. But the Geeta talks about renunciation of only base
emotions and passions. It does not negate love and compassion for the creatures. Selfishness
shall be renunciated but selfless humanism ought to be cultivated.
The Geeta’s classification of the specific duties in accordance with one’s capability and aptitude
comes close to Plato’s classification of duties for the different classes of humans in an Ideal
Republic.
According to some critics, absolutely disinterested action is a psychological impossibility. But,
the Geeta does not recommend the annihilation of all desires. It prescribes the merging of all
desires in one profound supreme aspiration - the attainment of self-realization or the Ideal.
Some critics argue that the Geeta propagates a ‘cult of violence/murder’. However, the basic
teachings of the Geeta suggest that it is the duty of an individual to rise above selfish
Page | 9
consideration and to perform one’s duty without getting moved by base emotions and passions.
Also, one shall be working for the welfare of humanity and shall have the determination to fight
against all forms of evil.
Questions From Previous Mains:
2013: Q 5 (a): What do you understand by the term ‘voice of conscience’? How do you prepare
yourself to heed to the voice of conscience? (150 words)
(b) What is meant by ‘Crisis of conscience’? Narrate one incident in your life when you were
faced with such a crisis & how you resolved the same. (150 words)
2013: Q 7: “The good of an individual is contained in the good of all.” What do you understand
by this statement? How can this principle be implemented in public life? (150 words)
2014: Q 3 (b): “Human beings should always be treated as “ends” in themselves and never as
merely ‘means’. Explain the meaning and significance of this statement, giving its implications
in the modern techno-economic society. (150 Words).
2016: Q 8: “Max Weber said that it is not wise to apply to public administration the sort of
moral and ethical norms we apply to matters of personal conscience. It is important to realise
that the State bureaucracy might possess its own independent bureaucratic morality.” Critically
analyse this statement. (150 Words)
2017: Q 10: Case Study: You are aspiring to become an IAS officer and you have cleared
various stages and now you have been selected for the personal interview. On the day of the
interview, on the way to the venue you saw an accident where a mother and child who happen
to be your relatives were badly injured. They needed immediate help.
What would you have done in such a situation? Justify your action. (250 words)
2018: Q 4 (b): With regard to morality of actions, one view is that means are of paramount
importance and the other view is that the ends justify the means. Which view do you think is
more appropriate? Justify your answer. (150 words)
2019: Q 3 (b): What is meant by ‘crisis of conscience’? How does it manifest itself in the
public domain? (150 words)
2020 Q 2 (a): ‘Hatred is destructive of a person’s wisdom and conscience that can poison a
nation’s spirit.’ Do you agree with this view? Justify your answer. (150 words)

Representative Questions for Practice (Answers will also be provided):

Q. 1. Do you think a Good End can justify the Means? If the End justifies the Means, what
justifies the End? Explain your position with due justification. (150 words)
Q. 2. What, according to you, shall have moral precedence- Right or Duty? Explain your
position with reason and illustrations. (150 words)
Q. 3. Do you consider war moral or immoral? Explain your position with examples. (150
words)
Q. 4. Some people maintain that ‘good is prior to right’, while others hold that ‘right is prior to
good’. What is your position in this regard? Explain with due justification. (150 words)
Q. 5. Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
“Dream not that men will move their little finger to serve you, unless their own advantage in so
doing be obvious to them”. – Jeremy Bentham. (150 words)
Q.6. Analyse the moral and political significance of Rousseau’s conception of General Will in
the Indian context. (150 words)
Q.7. Discuss Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay’s concept of ‘Integral Humanism’. (150 words)

Q.8. “The only stable state is the one in which all humans are equal before the law.” (150
words)
Q.9. Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
“The root cause of our social and national degradation is our treatment of women.” (150

Page | 10
words)
Q.10. What is meant by ‘deep ecology’ and ‘eco-feminism’? Why is it important to study these
viewpoints? Explain with due justifications. (150 words)
Q.11. Practices like ‘Polygamy’ and ‘Triple Talaq’ are acknowledged by some Religious and
Cultural Institutions. Do you think Secularism and tolerance require us to condone such
practices? Explain your position with due justifications. (150 words)
Q.12. Do you believe that a moral system can be established without any reference to religion?
If not, then why not? If yes, then what could be the basis of such a system if not religion?
Explain your position with due justification. (150 words)
Q.13. Case Study: Ayesha is a Medical student, one morning she hires a cab for the College.
En route, the cab-driver, Joginder, initiates a conversation with her. He says “Madam jee, you
must be very intelligent since you study in one of the most prestigious Medical Colleges of the
Country. Can I seek your advice with regard to a personal matter?” Ayesha nods her head in
affirmation. Joginder tells her that an Uncle of his, who is a farmer, has come to the city from
his native village to donate his kidney to a patient. The uncle says that Doctor has assured him
that his health would not be affected at all after the removal of one kidney and that he can lead a
normal healthy life and, most importantly, the family of the patient has offered him 10 lakhs
rupees for this noble act. The Uncle says that he is completely debt-ridden, he has no money left
in the wake of the successive crop failures. Moreover, he has a daughter to marry and for that he
has to arrange huge sum of money to pay as dowry. His Uncle has confessed that, in fact, he
was so distressed that, at one point, he was even thinking of committing suicide. But now all his
problems would be solved, the amount is so big that post operation not only he would be able to
pay back all his debts, but he would be able to marry her daughter and, at the same time, could
feel contented for saving a life as well. Thus, the Uncle is convinced that it is a win-win
situation for both the parties. However, Joginder states that somehow, he is not comfortable
with the idea, firstly, because he feels it will have negative impact on the health of his Uncle
and, secondly, he thinks there is something intrinsically wrong because such an act is not going
to be an act of donation but it is more like a distress selling of body organ.
(a) Write a moral critique of the above case.
(b) Do you think Organ donation can be moral? Discuss. (250 words)
Q.14. Case Study: Saraswati has a domestic maid, Janaki. Saraswati has been very happy with
the sincerity and punctuality of Janaki; she has been working at Saraswati’s house for more than
two years and she has always reported for the work at the scheduled time and has never taken
an off without prior intimation. But for the past 3 days Shanti has not reported for the work and
her mobile has also been switched-off. When Janaki does not report for the work even on the
fourth day and Saraswati does not get any information regarding her whereabouts then she feels
concerned and decides to visit the house of Janaki. Reaching there Saraswati starts to admonish
janaki for her sudden disappearance. Janaki pleads for forgiveness and tears well up in her eyes.
In an attempt to regain her composure Janaki offers a chair to Saraswati and sits on the floor in
front of her. Janaki points out that recently she had also started to work at Flat No. 103, where,
the house lady, while appointing her had asked categorically whether she belonged to any lower
caste to which she, despite being a dalit, replied in negative, since she was in need and was
unable to make her ends meet with the existing income. After few days the house lady asked
her to bring ID-proof for verification, though initially she dilly-dallied. But after her insistence,
she brought her papers to her. The moment the lady read the surname of janaki’s husband, she
became too angry and started to yell at her hysterically. Furiously she accused her of
desecrating the sanctity of her kitchen and of profanizing the purity of her dharma by lying
about her caste. The lady has threatened Janaki that she would register an FIR implicating her
of stealing valuables from the house in case she is ever seen around her flat. Moreover, once an
FIR is lodged she would never be able to work anywhere in any capacity. The lady stated that
while she would be able to deprofanize her kitchen and house through havan, Janaki would be
Page | 11
cursed by God, she would have to pay for her unholy act.
(a) Bring out and discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
(b) Write a moral critique of the above case.
(c) What measures can you suggest for the eradication of caste-based discrimination? Discuss.
(250 words)
Q.15. Case Study: Narayan is a young man, who is unemployed and resides in a small village.
One morning, he is informed by the Village-Pramukh that a dam is proposed to be built on a
nearby river. Narayan is told that the construction of the dam would result into the employment
of many young men like him and after its completion, the dam would produce hydroelectric
power which will further augment the economic development of the region. However, the very
next day a village elder, who is a credential environmentalist, convenes a sabha (meeting) of all
the villagers and appeals to them to protest against the planned dam. He states that the dam
would cause ecological imbalance in the region with repercussions beyond anticipation. To
begin with, many species inhabiting the river would become extinct and eventually this entire
region would become vulnerable to natural disasters. Thus, he is of the view that dam is not
going to bring any economic boon rather it is going to be like a bane. Listening to all this,
Narayan is completely disillusioned and does not know who to go for the right advice.
(a) Consider that Narayan comes to you for the advice, what advice will you offer to him?
(b) Do you think the only and major reason for preserving and protecting nature is to protect our
own good, or do you feel that we have a moral obligation towards nature because it is
intrinsically valuable? Explain your position with due justification.
(c) Do you think animals have rights? Why or why not? If you believe that they do have rights,
what are they? Discuss. (250 words)
Q.16. Case Study: One morning Saraswati receives a phone call from her younger sister,
Mehak, who is studying in a premier University of our Country. Mehak is crying inconsolably
over the phone and she is not able to speak coherently, eventually she manages to communicate.
She mentions that she had put up a post on her social networking site few days ago, wherein she
questioned the patriarchal and the chauvinistic social structure. And since then there has been a
deluge of responses from all and sundry. Except for few, all posts are sexist and hostile in
nature. People have been using abusive and offensive language against her, she has been termed
as an unscrupulous and shameless woman, who is a blot on the women folk. Some people have
threatened her with rape, while others have acrimoniously termed her as an anti-national.
Ironically, some eminent people have also reacted to her in a satirical way and tried to have
some laugh at her expense. Mehak says, she is being stalked and trolled, she has also received
phone calls from unidentified and anonymous numbers. Listening to her ordeal, Saraswati is
horrified to her wits’ end, she is perplexed with disgust and unable to comprehend such an
intolerant and cruel reactions to an innocuous post of her sister.
(i) We are witnessing an increase in the instances of brutality against women from real to
virtual worlds, while incidents of rape, female foeticide, acid attack and sexual violence are
going on unabated, now women are not spared even in the virtual world. What according to you
is the root cause of this barbarism? What measures can you suggest to heal the situation?
Discuss.
(ii) Do you perceive it as a legal or moral offence? Explain your position with due justification.
(iii) Do you think ‘freedom of expression’ implies ‘freedom to offend’? Discuss. (250 words)
Q.17. Case Study: Consider that a friend of yours appears appalled and perplexed, after your
persistent cajoling the friend confides in you. The friend tells you that there are some people
who are trying to convince him that people of their community are lesser in number in the
village and are thus very vulnerable. Your friend points out that they are of the view that there
is a widespread movement and conspiracy to harm people of their community, to vitiate and
alter community-laws pertaining to social-life involuntary, people are being coerced to change
community, they are being attacked and killed because of their distinct food habits, they are
Page | 12
being stereotyped and alleged to be a threat to womenfolk. Your friend submits that he is being
persuaded by them to be a crusader and to wage a war against injustice. He says he is being
offered hefty sum of money and a life of luxury in return for such a missionary work.
(a) Bring out and discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
(b) How would you respond to your friend? Explain your position with due justification.
(c) What, according to you, is ‘radicalisation’? Discuss. (250 words)
Q.18. Case Study: Sangeeta is an IAS aspirant and preparing for the civil services exam. After
writing Prelims she visits her native village to see her parents, she is their only child. After
exchanging pleasantries, her parents apprise her of forthcoming Panchayat elections and express
the wish that they want her to contest the election and to serve the villagers. They point out that
their constituency is reserved for women and that the native women-folk are not educated and
qualified enough to fit the bill. Her parents are of the view that if she wants to serve humanity
by becoming a civil servant then the same end can be realized by becoming a Sarpanch as well,
and what can be better than serve the people of your native village. At the same time, such a
way of life will enable them to live together as a family, she will be able to take good care of
them and thereby she will not merely remain a daughter but shall become more like a son to
them. Moreover, they claim that she can easily win the election because of her academic
credentials, caste configurations and her equations with the villagers; on the other hand, so
much uncertainties are involved in the Civil Services Exam which is a multi-layered national
level competitive exam with very low success rate.
However, Sangeeta has always believed that reservation is unethical, whether given on the basis
of sex, caste or economic criteria. She is of the view that such measures degrade the merit and
perpetuate mediocrity. Also, rather than integrating people into a cohesive society, such
enactments aggravate the discriminations and proliferate subjugation and hostilities. Also, she
is of the opinion that conscientious people shall not join politics since it is the sphere of life that
is immune from moral considerations.
(a) Examine the ethical issues involved in the above case.
(b) What would be your advice to Sangeeta? Explain with suitable illustrations and due
justifications. (250 words)
Q.19. Case Study: You are preparing for the Civil Services exam and residing in the State
Capital. After Prelims you visit your native village for few days to meet your parents. While
being there, you get to know that Community Panchayat has issued a Charter of Duties for the
girls and women of the village. As per the dictates, the women folks ought not to wear jeans
and shall not carry personal mobiles. You also learn that the sex ratio of girl child vis-à-vis boy,
in the age group of 0-5, is dismal. At the same time, there have been alleged cases of honour
killings for marrying among the taboo gotras. All these developments outrage you to the core
and you resolve to make amend. However, your family advises you to focus on your
forthcoming Mains exam rather than wasting time in the futile exercise.
(i) What would you do under the given circumstances?
(ii) Bring out and discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case.
(iii) What do you understand by empowerment? Suggest measures for women empowerment.
(250 words)
Answers of Representative Questions (Lecture III)
Q.1. Why do you want to be a civil servant? What attributes, do you believe, a civil
servant ought to possess? Justify your answer with illustrations.
Ans: I have conceptualized my ideal self as a civil servant primarily because I believe
individual, society and nature are organically related. An individual’s happiness and personal
aspirations can never be realized in isolation or at the cost of society or nature. The prevailing
socio-economic- political disparities and educational backwardness will not enable us to realize
our potentialities to the optimum. That is, the good of one is contained in the good of all. We
must strive to flourish together harmoniously by synchronizing aspirations of every individual
Page | 13
across sections and strata of society, somewhat on the lines of Aristotle’s Eudaimonia. I believe
as a civil servant I will have access to the resources and wherewithal, whereby I will be able to
empower weaker and marginalized sections of people more efficiently and effectively,
compared to other possible avenues. By becoming a civil servant, I will be able to disseminate
‘Service to Humanity’ in true sense of the term and thereby shall attain a life of meaning,
substance and contentment, personally as well as collectively.
Some of the important attributes that I believe a civil servant ought to possess are - integrity,
perseverance, compassion, accountability, temperance and courage.
‘Integrity’ in terms of ‘honesty’ and ‘strength of the character’ are the essential prerequisites,
one must uphold the Constitutional ideals and duties on the lines of Plato’s Philosopher–King,
without having the temptation to misuse one’s power.
‘Perseverance’ is needed since it is possible that despite one’s best intent and effort, intended
result may not always be realized at once. Thus, one is expected to strive continuously on the
lines of Bhagavadgeeta’s sthita-pragya. Again, service to humanity can never be disseminated
unless one extends it with a sense of love, compassion and regard for people. Responsibility and
accountability are integral to humane existence, a Civil servant shall never even think of
evading responsibility. One shall be voluntarily ready to account for every act of omission &
commission whether done wittingly or unwittingly. One should have firm faith in the theory of
karma- ‘as you sow, so shall you reap’. One should be temperate and courageous like Gandhi’s
Swarajist, who is able to rule over oneself. One must be self-disciplined, must practice self-
restraint and must not have craving for unjust bodily and sensual pleasures. Such an individual
alone will have the soul-force and competence to be a Sarathi who can guide the chariot of
human development along the right path and can create our State as a Welfare State on the lines
of Gandhi’s Sarvodaya.
Q.2. Do you think it is practically possible for human beings to be moral all the time? Why
or why not? Explain your position with illustrations.
Ans: I firmly believe that being moral is not only practically possible but it is essential for all of
us to be moral, all the time. Life cannot be envisaged without morality. Moral principles impart
meaning, substance and direction to human life, they inspire us to replace existing state of
affairs with a better scheme. Thus, it is not optional to be moral, in fact being moral is akin to
living life in true sense of the term. By life, I understand a life of self-respect and dignity, a life
of self-responsibility and accountability, and the moment one thinks of suspending morality,
effectively one is degrading human existence to animal existence. Life is primarily a quest for
truth, beauty and good, and such a quest can culminate into a life of integrity and self-
contentment only through the path of morality. A life lived in violation of morality is bound to
result into a life of self-condemnation and self-disintegration.
Indian traditions exemplify life through Purusharthas, namely, Dharma, Artha, Kama and
Moksha. Artha and Kama are not wrong per se, they become immoral only when we pursue
them in contravention to dharma, that is, economic well-being and sensual fulfillment be sought
through the path of justice.
One is ignorant who believes by opting out of moral life, one will be able to serve one’s self-
interest. On the contrary, being moral is in our own self-interest. Thomas Hobbes, despite being
an egoist, has emphasized in the ‘Leviathan’ that only a law governed life will enable us to
meet our aspirations in best possible manner, a life without morality is like a life in the state of
nature and it is characterized as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Similarly, Bentham, an
egoist, has propounded Utilitarianism, where greatest happiness of the greatest number is
sought and not the greatest happiness of one individual.
Life without morality will become a life of vicious cycle, it will become a monotonous and
insipid life, where happiness would always elude us. Buddha has emphasised that the life is full
of suffering and the only way to minimize pain and suffering is to opt for a life of morality.
Buddha’s dictum ‘Be a light unto yourself’ suggests that we ought to take a resolve to have a
Page | 14
life of self-reliance by conquering greed, envy and anger. A life of ahimsa and karuna can help
us attain peace and tranquility, but any digression from this will be a life of arrogance, anger,
greed and violence, and that would further aggravate our misery.
Thus, I maintain that moral principles are the foundational principles of life and every sphere of
human existence shall be structured in accordance with these cardinal insights. Socrates’
dictum, ‘’The unexamined life is not worth living’’ unequivocally claims that life and morality
are integral and we cease to exist in true sense of the term, the moment we deviate from the path
of morality.
Q.3. Bring out what this quotation means to you in the present context:
“The morality of the individual and the morality of the state are one and the same”. –
Plato.
Ans: Plato’s view that morality in every sphere of human life must have the same nature and
character can help us resolve moral dilemmas of various kinds very effectively. It is often
argued that there can be different guidelines for private sphere of human life as well as social,
professional, economic, political and religious spheres, but in the light of this statement we can
see that ethical principle is the most fundamental principle of human existence and every sphere
of human life shall be designed in accordance with fundamental moral insights. Plato’s view
also strengthens feminist’s argument that ‘private is also political’.
Plato, like his teacher Socrates, has a very positive idea about human being. In his text the
Republic, Plato has argued that justice can be realized at the level of individual as well as at the
level of State by establishing the rule of reason. Reason must prevail upon unjust bodily desires
and vested interests. Thus, it can be argued that first and foremost an individual has to fight
against one’s own inner forces and once one is able to conquer oneself thereby one has the
competence to deal with the challenges of every other spheres of life in most just manner. The
Socratic dictum, “The unexamined life is not worth living” reiterates that morality is integral to
life. We cease to exist in true sense of the term the moment we start to undermine moral ideals
of life.
Q. 4. Case Study: Narayan is an unemployed and uneducated young man. He has an ailing
mother and is too poor to afford her medical expenses. Meanwhile, he gets to know about
a forthcoming marathon race with a cash prize of rupees 3 lakhs. Narayan is athletically
well endowed and he believes that with proper training he can have a fair chance to win
this race and, thereby, change his fortunes forever. Although he is training very hard for
the race which is going to take place after 2months time, yet he is bit apprehensive since
he has never participated in any athletic event so far. One morning when he is resting
after his practice session, a man approaches him and introduces himself as a Coach and
former athlete. He tells Narayan that he has obtained a new drug that can improve his
performance exponentially and that the drug has been tested with no bad side effects. He
assures Narayan that the drug is not on the list of banned drugs and, also, that it will not
show up on drug tests. He offers a very tempting deal to Narayan, he says in return for
giving that drug he would charge Narayan rupees ten thousand only if he wins the race,
that is, in case Narayan does not win the race, Narayan does not owe him anything.
(a) Should Narayan take the drug? Why or why not? What would be the right course of
action for you to undertake in this case.
(b) What, according to you, shall be the relation between means and end? Explain with
due justification.
Ans: (a): I am of the view that Narayanan should not take the drug, since such an act can be
immoral and unjust, it will vitiate the fairness of the marathon race. The right course of action
would be to train diligently rather than be tempted by such a nefarious deal. I would draw
inspiration from Buddha’s dictum ‘Atmadipo bhavah: Be a light unto yourself’, that is, one
shall strive to become self-reliant. One shall develop a sense of self-belief and shall pursue
one’s aspiration earnestly, with a sense of perseverance.
Page | 15
There can be no shortcut to success. As Socrates maintains that an unjust path can never lead to
happiness, such an act is bound to aggravate our pain. It may result in to a life of regret,
remorse and self-condemnation. An unscrupulous life, lived in complete disregard to principles
may eventually result into the disintegration of the self. One can be happy or unhappy in exact
proportion to one’s integrity. Justice is the only means to happiness, justice and happiness are
essentially one and the same.
One shall not adopt a myopic world-view, life is not about winning a single race. Narayanan
may manage to win this race through drug abuse but, I believe, thereby he would lose the race
of life forever. Such a win will essentially be a defeat in disguise. One can win the race of life
in true sense only through the path of rectitude, by upholding responsibility and accountability.
Further, by invoking Kant’s principle of universalizability, it can be established that an act of
doping is immoral since it can never be universalized and it will be akin to treat humanity
simply as means.
Moreover, it is quite unfortunate that we have not been able to ensure education, employment
and medical care across the various strata of society. But that does not mean that resorting to
unjust path can therefore be condoned, we must recall that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
Again, one shall develop a critical outlook towards life and shall not fall prey to the vested
interests of some people. The dictum of Mill, ‘It is better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than pig satisfied’ can motivate us to
listen to our progressive self and as a competent Sarathi guide the chariot of human
development along the right path to create a Welfare State.
(b) I would like to understand the relation between means and end on the lines of Gandhi, who
emphasises on the purity of means and end, that is, even a good end cannot justify a wrong
means. He says, ‘Truth’ is the end and ‘Non-violence’ is the means. He suggests that Satya and
Ahimsa are integral to each other and cannot be separated from each other. Thus, we shall
believe that means and end form a continuum. One should strive to opt for a life of self-
restraint, control and discipline, and metamorphose oneself in the form of a Swarajist.

Page | 16