Ethics

Lecture Notes Introduction to Ethics HS30070
Developed and submitted by C Chakraborti Dept of HSS
C Chakraborti IIT KGP
Intro to Ethics, A-2008
Ethical Language
In terms of should, ought,

should not ought not
Prescriptive: JUDGMENTAL,
EVALUATIVE
One should not steal
We should be loyal to our nation.
Contrast: Descriptive: PASSIVE

DESCRIPTION, FACT REPORTING, NO VALUE LOADED JUDGMENT
Today is Monday New Delhi is Indias capital.
IIT KGP
Intro to Ethics, S-2010
ETHICS
Ethics is : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong or with moral duty and obligation (Websters Third International Unabridged dictionary) Ethics is a part of Philosophy ethics refers to the ways that we SHOULD treat others, behave with others and be treated by others, based on beliefs about rightness or wrongness of behavior A provisional definition: Ethics is a normative / prescriptive study of behavior of individual or individuals Generally limited to human conduct: Presumes freedom of choice A social or communitarian context: Actions that may affect others
IIT KGP
Also: 1. With ethical problems / questions / issues, there is no single correct answer; but some answers may be better than the others 2. Need to ground our justifications on some acceptable bed of values a. b. c. Policies Rules Principles
IIT KGP
What ought I, or what ought we to do?

But the ought has a different sense once we are no longer asking about the rights and duties that everyone ascribes to one another from an inclusive we-perspective, but instead are concerned with our own lives from the first-person perspective and ask what is best for me or for us in the long run and all things considered.Such ethical questionsare wedded to questions of identity: How should we understand ourselves, who we are and want to be. Obviously, there is no answer to such questions that would be independent of the given context and thus would bind all persons in the same way. [Jurgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, Cambridge, UK, Polity, 2003, p.3)
IIT KGP
What Habermas means: 1. That the ethical ought also has a personal, first person, I oriented meaning: What I should do, what is good for me 2. That these questions are intertwined with who I am, who I want to be, and how I understand myself 3. That such personal ought is context-dependent, so cannot always be universalized.
IIT KGP
Habermas: Famous for modern discourse ethics Core idea: that validity of ethical norms cannot be justified by an isolated person reflecting on the norms That the validity of ethical norms must be justified intersubjectively, i.e., by open communicative action among individuals in the society. Through dialogues, through argumentations.
McDonald has said that its fries are free of all common allergen such as gluten, milk, or wheat allergens, but under pressure admitted that the flavouring agent is derivative of wheat and dairy ingredients (TOI, Feb 15, 2006) What should have been done? What McDonalds should not have done? What is/are the ethical issues ? Proper Disclosure or reporting, information to customers :FOOD SAFETY
LPG cylinders : Scope for ethical language? Room for Ethics in it? LPG cylinders are often not filled to capacity and weigh much below the prescribed figures. ---??
Value for money Consumer rights Consumer awareness Responsibility of business
Not all ethical should are easy to determine:

CADAVER ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
Harvesting liver, kidney, and other organs in time from the dead and in special cases from the brain dead can save many lives. However, the process, though available, suffers in our country because of administrative delays. State of West Bengal, though has adopted Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA) in 1994, still has not been able to decide a panel of 21 experts who can certify and authorize cadaver organ transplantation. (HT, Monday, June 11, 2007)
C Chakraborti
Intro to Ethics S-2010
Plus: Living donation: from relatives, friends Exchange of organs: Compatible living donors Lots of complex ethical issues: 1.Consent for the harvesting and transplantation 1.1. Who should give the consent? (To avoid organ theft, forced organ harvesting, organ trade) 1.2 And how? 2. Compensated donation: Is it right? Only Iran allows sale of kidneys. 2.1. If right, how much compensation should be fair? Benefits of the recipient and burdens of the donor should be equitably shared. 2.3. Medical tourism from developed countries to developing countries: Is that exploitation? Should it be encouraged? 3. Health and safety of recipient: Should be compatible and disease screened
C Chakraborti
Spain continues to lead world in organ donation Jan 15, 2010 | For the 18th year in a row, Spain leads the world in the number of deceased organ donors per million people -- 34.3. This is a commonly used benchmark of the effectiveness of a donor system and other countries lag far behind. Average for European Union: 18.1., US: 26.3, UK:14.7 and Australia 12.1 donors per million. The Spanish record was achieved despite a steady decrease in the number of traffic deaths, a major source of organs.
C Chakraborti
What is the secret of the Spanish system? Dedication and teamwork In 1989 the government set up a national network of transplant coordinators. They work in all hospitals and closely monitor emergency wards to be aware of potential donors. When they learn of a death, they tactfully try to persuade relatives to allow the person's organs to be harvested. Only about 15% of families refuse consent nowadays, a huge drop from 40% before the system was set up. At a few hospitals the refusal rate is nearly zero. ~ AFP, Jan 12; Organizacin Nacional de Trasplantes
1.
Through these analyses, looking for: Action Principles: Policies, General rules
guiding principles
Based on facts, but not induced from facts
Includes considerations about what would be right, or what would be good
Hidden values
Through these values ETHICS come in
MONEY AND FRIENDSHIP
Kalyan and Soham, two young men in their midtwenties, have been close friends since they met during their college years. They share numerous similar interests and greatly enjoy each other's company. Kalyan gratefully acknowledges to himself that Soham has been a fine friend in every respect that counts. Soham has listened patiently, and responded empathetically, on the many occasions Kalyan needed to talk about major issues in his life concerning, for example, career plans, job opportunities, or romantic matters. Soham has always been there when Kalyan needed encouragement. He has provided assistance in large and small matters - e.g. helping Kalyan move his belongings from one apartment to another, and putting up Kalyans relatives from out of town when Kalyan didn't have room for them in his apartment. This is not to say, however, that the friendship has been one sided in any way. Kalyan also has provided similar kinds of support, encouragement, and assistance to Soham over the years. Kalyan does not view all the things he and Soham have done for one another as at all like a sequence of quid pro quos, but instead he views a deep reciprocity between Soham and himself flowing from the nature of their friendship.
Recently Soham has asked Kalyan to loan him Rs 25,000 for the down payment of a laptop. The request takes Kalyan by surprise. Over the years of their friendship neither of them has asked the other for a loan until now. Monetary affairs have not played a significant role in their relationship as friends, either directly or indirectly. Both grew up in families where discussion of personal financial issues outside of the family was disapproved of strongly. For this reason, neither has discussed their personal finances with each other. Kalyan, who works as a project manager for a large engineering firm, can afford to loan the money to Soham. Kalyan is not sure, however, exactly how Soham plans to repay the loan on his earnings as a freelance journalist. Kalyan feels acutely uncomfortable raising issues with Soham such as how he plans to repay the loan, what might be a reasonable repayment schedule, and so forth.
What should Kalyan do? And why?
What is it that we are trying to decide? What Kalyan should do i.e. Kalyans behavior / conduct
What is our prime value concern about Kalyans behavior? What would be the right thing to do
How are we trying to decide that? Looking at the facts first Then trying to generate Action-rules Trying to support the rules by facts and more facts
But the interesting point is that to establish what would be the right thing to do: we need to unpack what we mean by right
Action / Decision Rules: Principles

Guidelines (a) Case Based: In this case, Kalyan should : SITUATIONAL PRINCIPLE (b) Generalized: In all situations, anyone, when in Kalyans position or in relevantly similar situation, should do.: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
More than one principles: it is possible that there may be conflict

Rule A Rule B
One may override the other Override: Supercede, rule over
Rule A
Rule B
But with justification: Reasons for overriding must be clearly acceptable
Rule 1: Money is more important than friendship (in this case) / (Always)
Value of hardearned money
Value of friendship
Rule 2: Friendship is more important than money (in this case) / (Always)
Value of Friendship
Value of hard-earned money
Important question is: WHY?
A provisional definition of Ethics: Ethics is a normative / prescriptive study of behavior of individual or individuals Limiting to human conduct: - Humans (because they appear to act voluntarily: as per their free will, not necessarily what they are told to do) - Only those human actions which a person could have done differently if he / she had so chosen. -Not all human actions are to be considered: e.g. automatic, reflex actions are out. -Humans living in a community or society : a social context makes normative analysis of actions meaningful -Actions that affect others
Good and bad? Right and wrong?

Usage type 1:
Ambiguous in common language: good food made a good deal from the last tax evasion right shoes for running bad choice of an actor for the role
Usage type 2:
It is not good to abandon your parents when they are old Bonded labour is not right A business which is sensitive to consumer rights and is ecofriendly is good. If a different sense of good and right: what is that sense?
C Chakraborti
Questions to settle: 1. What is the ethical 'Good' or

'right? (Definitional)
2. How is it decided what is ethically good and what is right? (the procedure) 3. Is there any one, universal answer
to what is ethically good, bad, right,wrong ? Or, is it all relative?
Why should definition? normativity)
accept your (questioning
4. How can we tell if an action is ethically right or wrong? (Criterial)
Ethical Relativism: There are no universal ethical standards that are absolutely true and that apply or should apply to all people of all societies.
Whats right for you may not be whats right for me. Whats right for my culture wont necessarily be whats right for your culture. .Varies from society to society and culture to culture.
E.G. It is wrong for a girl in society A to marry outside of community, but not wrong in society B. Polygamy, abortion, infanticide.
C Chakraborti
This position would assert: 1. Our ethical norms are nothing but social codes, and they evolve with time as societies change. So, there are no ethical absolutes. Subjective ethical relativism: Truth of ethical norms is relative to the individuals. Individual decides how she should live her life.
But few questions: 1. Cross-cultural studies also indicate that there are certain ethical beliefs that are present in practically all societies: Norms about injuring or killing other members of the society, norms against unauthorized taking of personal goods of other members 2. Many apparent ethical differences among societies mask deeper underlying similarities. -Parsi Community & Tower of Silence -Alaskan Inuit community and their old
Global survey of Anthropologists Shweder and Fiske: a sense of fairness: that one should reciprocate favors, reward benefactors and punish cheaters They value loyalty to a group, sharing and solidarity among its members and conformity to its norms. They believe that it is right to defer to legitimate authorities and to respect people with high status. And they exalt purity, cleanliness and sanctity and loathe defilement, contamination and carnality.
C Chakraborti
Jonathan Haidt: Psychologist, studies morality across cultures. Claims: 5 fundamental ethical values are shared more or less by different societies, cultures and individuals: 1. Care (for others, to protect them from HARM) 2. Fairness / justice 3. Loyalty to group, family, nation (Ingroup) 4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority 5. Purity (avoiding disgusting things, food, actions)
Haidt (psychologist): 5 common ethical responses: harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity 1.Stick a pin into your palm.
2. Stick a pin into the palm of a child you dont know. (Harm.) 1. Accept a TV from a friend who received it at no charge because of a computer error. 2. Accept a TV from a friend who received it from a thief who had stolen it from a not-sowealthy family. (Fairness.) 1. Say something bad about your nation (which you dont believe) on a talk-radio show in your nation. 2. Say something bad about your nation (which you dont believe) on a talk-radio show in a foreign nation. (Community.) 1. Slap a friend in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. 2. Slap your minister in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. (Authority.)
3. Just because different communities or societies have different ideas about an issue, does it follow that there is no objective truth about it? -Society A may think earth is flat, society B differs. From that, can we say there is no absolute truth in geography on this? 4. Is ethical relativism a consistent position? If true, then we are depriving ourselves of all powers of legitimate criticism. Slavery, child abuse, Nazi medical experiments with human prisoners: all become just local acceptable practices
Indian villagers 'killed witch' [BBC News, Thursday, 27 March 2008]
Police in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh say they have arrested 17 villagers over the killing of a woman suspected of being a witch. The 40-year-old woman, Phool Kunwar, was dragged from her home on Monday night, was beaten with sticks and sharp rods,and burned with a hot iron, and pushed into a burning pyre in the village of Dhawalpur, Police say. Villagers are reported as saying that the trouble started after a woman in a trance during a religious ceremony stated that Ms Kunwar was a witch. There were 160 such cases reported in Chhattisgarh last year.
Ethics are beliefs about right and wrong behavior: a special set of belief system -But it need not be anyone individuals beliefs But where do the rules or moral convictions come from? Different answers possible 1. Biological basis of moral convictions Sociobiological basis 2. Religious basis 3. Social basis
Edward Wilson : Biological Basis of Morality (1998) 1. Human nature is biologically based 2. Causal explanations of brain activity and evolution, while imperfect, already cover most facts known about behavior we term "moral. 3. The person is predisposed towards certain choices biologically a. Commonness in responses 4. Through social and cultural reinforcements, they become precepts, laws, codes.
Frans De Waal (primatologist), 2006:

1. How human morality has evolved can be found from simpler blocks present in our biological ancestors and close relatives. 2. Building blocks: behavior towards kins and sympathy for other members of the group, related or not. 3. 3 kinds evidences: Neuroscientific (moral dilemmas activate brain areas connected with emotion), from psychology, that morality has a strong emotional component in humans; and from comparative biology, with its mounting evidence concerning the appearance of components of moral behavior in non-human primates.
THE TROLLEY PROBLEM (Phillippa Foot & Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philosophers)
You see a trolley hurtling fast down a track. In its path, 5 people are working, unaware of the danger. You are standing near a fork, and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley on to a spur (branch line). But the trolley would then run over one person who is working on the spur. Is it ethically permissible to throw the switch, kill 1 man to save 5? Survey says; almost everyone
says: YES
Consider a modified scenario (Case 2):

And the only heavy object within your reach is this fat man standing next to you. Is it ethically permissible to throw the man off the bridge, kill 1 man to save 5? Almost everyone says: NO, two cases are not equivalent.
Who are these almost everyone? Web-based experiment survey done by psychologists Fiery Cushman, Liane Young and Biologist Marc Hauser: Nearly 200,000 people from 100 different countries, from Europe, Asia, North and South America, men, women, blacks, whites, browns, young and senior citizens,Hindus, Muslims, Christians,Jews, Atheists, low literacy, high literacy.
WHY THESE STRANGE COMMON RESPONSES? HOW TO EXPLAIN?
Joshua Greene (philosopher, neuroscientist), and Jonathan Cohen et al (psychologist team in Princeton): fMRI tests show: when considering heaving/ handling /killing someone with bare hands (case 2), different network areas in the brain light up. Medial parts of frontal lobe: emotion about others Dorsolateral surface of frontal lobe: ongoing mental computation Anterior cingulated cortex: registers conflict between two sets of signals But when considering hands-off solution (case 1), brain reacts differently: only the mental, rational computation area stands out.
Greenes hypothesis: Evolution has equipped us with an instinctive, emotive repulsion against manhandling/ killing by hands /sacrificing by hands an innocent person. This overrides the rational cost-benefit calculation.
Hypothesis of Marc Hauser (biologist) & John Mikhail (Legal scholar): We are born with a moral sense, rooted in the design pf normal human brain Till date: No gene identified for moral sense, but circumstantial evidence: Identical twins (share genes), separated at birth (not sharing environment) show remarkable correlation in exhibiting characteristics of conscientiousness.
Hanna, Antonio Damasio (Neuroscientists): Children with severe injuries in certain parts of frontal lobe grow up to be callous, irresponsible adults, though with normal intelligence. They easily lie, steal, ignore punishment, endanger their own children. People given diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy) show signs of morality blindness from childhood. Often despite normal family background, they tend to bully, torture, habitually lie, seems incapable of remorse, seems incapable of empathy
De Waal: 4 basic blocks: 1. Emotional contagion: Emotional state of one induces similar state in others 2. Personal distress: generates behavior towards self to feel better. 3. Empathy: Primates help each other in need (when in a fight) putting an arm around one who is attacked 4. Sympathy: An emotional response in which the animal feels concern for the others. Evolutionary roots against harming an innocent fellow being also seen among rhesus monkeys: They would rather go hungry than pull a chain that would deliver them food but send an electric shock to another monkey.
1.1.Sociobiological theory
1. Term coined by E O Wilson
2. An expansion of standard Darwinian evolutionary theory to a new domain: namely, animal sociality 3. Main claim : many social behaviors have been shaped by natural selection for reproductive success 4. De Waal and others want to extend it to ethics also.
5. General premise: Human behavior x exists because it maximizes biological fitness
Moral behavior shaped by natural selection

Consider: apparent altruism and cooperation in certain animals societies (sterile workers in insect
colonies, warning calls, resource sharing) But actually these maximize biological fitness of the close kins.
We are born with certain tendencies, and then socially trained self-interest maximizers. Calculated responses. Ethical sense is a result of that.
Robert Trivers (biologist): A suite of moral emotions are implemented in the brain architecture.
Natural selection can push one to appear selfless: Favor-givers prefer most generous reciprocators. So,it pays to have a reputation of being fair and generous. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene: Our noblest motives are Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes Acc. To these theories: Fairness is close to reciprocal altruism: I am willing to be nice as long as it helps me more than the recipient of my favor, and the recipient returns the favor when the situation reverses. Sympathy: Prompting to make the first favor to someone in need
Anger: protects from cheaters who would accept favors without returning Gratitude: Compels a recipient to reward those who helped in the past Guilt: Prompts a cheater to behave better in future Many experiments on who helps whom, who prefers whom, who punishes whom etc confirm this.
Observations against biological/ sociobiological explanation of origin of ethics: 1. Sociobiology has been less successful in its application to human behavior than in its application to non-human systems. According to many critics of human sociobiology, standard sociobiological models are inadequate to account for human behavior, because they ignore the contributions of the mind and culture. Its reliance on genetic determinism, especially of human behavior, provides tacit approval of the status quo over which about which we have little control.
2.
3.
Advocates of sociobiology tend to see humans as just another species of animal and as part of nature, whereas its critics tend to envision humans as radically different from animals and as separate from nature
3. RELIGIOUS BASIS OF MORALITY Religion is the source of our ethical convictions: Historically religion and morality have been intertwined Jain ethics Hindu ethics Buddhist ethics Confucian ethics Daoist ethics Shinto ethics Christian ethics Islamic ethics Jewish Ethics
Only recently they have become separable: Possible to be ethical without subscribing to any religion
-Secular ethics Among the religions, the theistic (those which believe in God) ones claim: Ethics come from revealed truths from divine sources.
3a. As the creator of all of us, God has put our ethical convictions in us Divine Command Theory: An act is ethically obligatory because (iff) it is commanded by God, it is the will of God. An act is unethical iff it is prohibited by God, it is not the will of God.
Usual Objections: Plato on 3a. : Did God have a good reason to designate some acts as good and right and some as bad and wrong? If not, then these are divine whims, why should we take them seriously? If yes, then why not appeal to those reasons directly? How does one come to know the will of God? Usual answer: Scriptures. How scriptures come to know the will of God? And what if God had since then changed His will?
Fear of Indoctrination
4. SOCIAL BASIS OF MORALITY

Ethical beliefs are not any one individuals invention or discovery for personal guidance, but are products of social enterprise Social in functions origin, sanctions and
-As is language -As is Government Individuals participate in it to belong to the society, and internalize it Ethics is more than our inherited moral sense. Its root is in societal concern about communal well-being: a good life for the people in a society.
On the origin of social order: Many theories but an important one is 1. Hobbes Social Contract theory: A society without order is in a state of war where every man is against another. To avoid this, a social contract among men to comply with certain common codes is the origin of social order in a society A common code is evolved: value systems Assumption: We are not just rational, self-preserving types, but also are able to discern common good.
Similar theories: 2. Rousseau: When men began to live in a permanent neighborhood, a property system is introduced. Then, too much ambition and avarice of man who has possessions compel him to propose the formation of a political institution, providing social order which enables him to keep his possessions. Projects ethics originating from egoistic prudence: Calculated self interest. In a social set-up, in many cases two parties are both better-off if both act non-selfishly than if each of them acts selfishly. Pre-ethical state: State of red and raw nature
Requires interchangeability of perspectives: Looking at things from the others point of view, from a holistic point of view
Ethics is sometimes defined as an instrument of society as a whole: a social system of regulation
This makes ethics culture-specific But that does not preclude overlapping, common items in different value systems. Then how is it different from law, also a socially created instrument for regulation? 1. Unlike law, ethics is not created by a legislative, judiciary act. 2. It is not backed by any one countrys constitution 3. The enforcement of legal should is by force, the enforcement of ethical should is supposed to be internal.
More on Ethics and Law: What is legally permissible still

may be morally wrong. Law of country x may allow wage difference for same work among different religious groups, but that is not morally right. What is morally unobjectionable may be legally wrong. BBC once reported that in British Law it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament! The Ethical is supposed to be extralegal
Some objections against Social basis of morality theory:

1. This makes ethics = social customs. Then no scope remains to criticize or morally object against a social practice. Statements such as My society practices human sacrifices but I find human sacrifices morally wrong become contradictions in terms. 2. This makes social correctness or prudence, compliance to social codes the same as being ethical. But that is counter-intuitive.
Ethics : both universal and yet flexible
If so universal, then why there is so much difference? What is right in country A is not right for countryB, what is good in community C is not acceptable in community D? Many factors differences: responsible for
An individuals interpretation of ethical behavior may be influenced by family influences, life experiences, culture, religion, education, peer pressure etc.
Ethical and non-ethical standards Consider examples of nonethical standards: traffic rules game rules social etiquette.
The should is not a ethical should
Our expectations from an ethical rule is that: (a) it pertains to what can seriously damage or benefit human beings (Murder / Benevolence) (b) it is not simply what is legally right or politically correct, but it is driven by deeper value commitments (c ) it overrides / rises above petty self-interest (d) it takes universal or impartial viewpoint (Fairness) (e) it employs and evokes special terms (e.g. should) and feelings (approval, disapproval, righteous anger)
Ethical Analysis of Behavior: The Key Factors Action or behavior Agent: The doer. One who has done something good or bad. The criterion or standard Moral judgment
AGENT ACTION ACCOUNTABILITY

CAPABLE OF FREE CHOICES RESPONSIBILITY
When considering the ethical quality of an action by an agent: One may do the ethically right thing by actually doing something: an act of COMMISSION -e.g. casting vote One may do the right thing by actually refraining from doing something: an act of OMISSION -e.g. not taking what is not yours Similarly, one may do the ethically wrong thing by COMMISSION or by OMISSION
Some technical concepts: RESPONSIBILITY (as in X can be held morally responsible for doing / not doing this) RIGHTS (as in X has / does not have the moral right to do this) DUTY ( as in It is Xs duty to do this / not to do this) JUSTICE UNFAIR / INJUSTICE/ FAIR/
Responsibility:
In personal context, x is responsible means: (a) x has knowingly and freely performed or has brought about the act (by commission) (b) x has knowingly and freely failed to perform or to bring about the act (by omission) Two prima facie excusing conditions: (a) ignorance (b) inability Extended application of responsibility to collective bodies: Army, Government, business
Factors mitigating responsibility circumstances that make it difficult but not impossible for the person to avoid to do circumstances that make the person uncertain but not totally unsure about what he is doing circumstances that minimize the person's involvement in the act seriousness of the act done.
Causing Harm
Intentional Criminal intent (mens rea)
Not intended Negligent Reckless Selfish Ignorant
Responsibility varies due to different moral considerations with respect to different circumstantial factors Accordingly, moral credit or blame also varies.
Attributing moral responsibility X (a person) is responsible: Different meanings: (a) we may mean x is a responsible person. X can be counted on. (b) Where Y is an action yet to be done, X (a person) is responsible for Y means X has the responsibility / obligation to do Y. Y is assigned to X. * (c) X (a person) is responsible for Z: Where Z is a past action, X is and was responsible for it (X did it, X caused it to happen).
Under what conditions is it right to hold someone responsible in sense (c)?
Aristotles answer: X (person) may be held responsible for Z (action) if and only if it was a voluntary act: X was not forced, compelled, coerced externally to do Z, and the cause is internal to X (beliefs, desires) And Doing Z was not a result of Xs ignorance When Both conditions met: Xs doing Z was voluntary, and hence X can be held responsible. FREE CHOICE RESPONSIBILITY
A person is morally responsible for an injury or wrong if: 1. the person did so of his known free will (in absence of external coercion) 2. the person caused or helped to cause it, or failed to prevent it when he could and should have 3. the person did so knowing what he was doing Absence of any one of the elements will be an excusing condition. When one merely fails to prevent, still can pin responsibility (Nike case) If someone chooses to remain ignorant (negligence, deliberately created ignorance)
When does a death become amurder? Stefan Golab, a 59 year old Polish immigrant, who spoke little English, collapsed and died after inhaling cyanide fumes after working for 2 months over open vats of fuming cyanide for Film Recovery Systems (FRS), a Chicago-based company that recovered silver from old films. Golabs visa had expired in 1981 but he illegally stayed in US and obtained the FRS job in 1982. The 1981 gross revenue of FRS was $13 Million. In a landmark case (1984), a court judged the president of the company, along with the plant supervisor and the plant foreman, responsible for Golab's death on charges of murder.
Chakraborti IIT KGP
The Cook County medical examiner called his death a homicide when the investigation showed that neither Golab nor his mainly Polish coworkers have been provided with protection from the gas or with adequate information about about the dangers of the gas. Testimony showed that the managers maintained the hazardous workconditions knowing the life-threatening effect of breathing the cyanide fumes. Sick and vomiting workers were a common sight at the plant. After a month and half of joining, Golab and another worker requested, without success, a better job assignment. It was argued in court that the plant officials failed to warn or protect workers like Golab who could not read English.
Chakraborti IIT KGP
There were skull-and-crossbones warning symbols on the cyanide drums but on the order of plant managers the symbols were scraped off the barrels. In 1985, the grand jury indicted 5 company executives for murder: VP-FRS, President (FRS), FRS Manager, FRS Plant manager, FRS Asst Plant Manager and Foreman, and for 21 counts of reckless conduct. Later, in 1993 only three company executives were sentenced for manslaughter to upto 3 years in jail. This was the first time corporate executives have been convicted for maintaining unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
Chakraborti IIT KGP
Questions: 1. Explain the factors that could be used to argue that they were legally and morally responsible. 2. Was it murder or manslaughter? Was there mens rea? Justify. 3. Do you consider all 5 executives equally responsible? Explain. 4. Is Golabs death different from the death of a worker who dies from a fall on site? Explain. 5. What ethical considerations are involved in this case? How do you know these are present?
Chakraborti IIT KGP
USA formed Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970 India? OSH Legislation:
The Factories Act 1948, amended 1954, 1970, 1976, 1987 The Mines Act, 1952 The Dock workers (safety, health and welfare) Act, 1986 The Plantation Labour Act, 1951 The Explosives Act, 1884 The Petroleum Act, 1934 The Insecticide Act, 1968 The Indian Boilers Act, 1923 The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 The Dangerous Machines (Regulations) Act, 1983 The Indian Atomic Energy Act, 1962 The Radiological Protection Rules, 1971 The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989
In 1991, a fire that killed 25 people and injured 56 in a chicken processing plant in Hamlet, NC, led to the indictment of 3 officials who were accused, among other things, of having locked these employees in the plant. One plant owner was sentenced to a 20-year term in prison.3133 Recently, a superior court judge in Oakland, Calif, sentenced the owner of a chrome plating company to 16 months in jail and fined him $500000 for instructing an employee to crawl through an entry hole and clean sludge from the bottom of a tank filled with acids and cyanidean act that led to the deaths of 2 workers.
Teenager kills 10 yr old for iPOD

(HT, Kolkata Live,Tuesday Aug 19, 20, 2008, p.1 )
Arka Das (a 14 yr old class VIII student in Suri), son of a Group D staff, was a neighbour and friend of Sagar Dolui. Few days ago, Sagars father (a painter) had bought his children an iPOD with MP4 player and camera. Sagar and his sister Sheuli loaded it with latest Bengali and Hindi songs. Neighbors said that Arka had an obsession about hi-tech gadgets, and that earlier he stole two costly cellphones belonging to the neighbours. His father made him return those. Arkas father bought Arka an iPOD, but it was sent for repair. Arkas brother said that Arka was seen by a psychiatrist for his obsession. On Aug 17, 4 PM Arka went to Sagars house and found Sheuli (a class III student), and asked her to come along
with the iPOD. Sheulis mother said that when Sheuli refused saying that Sagar would scold her, Arka reasoned that they would be back before Sagar returns. Sheuli never returned home. When Sheuli did not return home, family members asked Arka. Arka first said he dropped Sheuli off outside her house, and joined in the search for Sheuli. Around 11 PM, when grilled Arka said Sheuli has slipped and had fallen into a local canal. Locals searched the canal for six hours, but found nothing. At 5 AM, next morning, when search team members decided to hand over Arka to police, Arka told them Sheuli has slipped into a bush on the bank of Mayurakhsi river. The locals found the body there inside a bush. Arka told police that he had pushed her down the slope when she refused to hand over
the iPOD. Then, he went there and strangled her to death. But Police sources say that he had smashed her head to ensure she was dead. The iPOD was later recovered from Arkas house inside a basket full of his clothes. Postmortem and forensic reports are awaited, but Police has charged Arka with murder, kidnapping, and destroying or hiding evidence.
Nature of Rights: Rights are justifiable claims on legal or moral grounds to have or to get something, or to act in a certain way. - Frankenna, p. 259
Alternatively: Rights are powers granted by an agreement or by law. Rights are privileges a user has in a system.
Rights and Duties

Rights are entitlements to something. Rights when empowered by legal system are legal rights: limited in scope Right to information, IPR, Tax laws Some rights are wider in scope: Moral rights: free choice, equality before law Human rights: Right to liveable environment X has a RIGHT others have a DUTY to protect that right. Duty and Rights: tightly correlated
Civil rights: Rights bestowed by nations to their citizens within their territory
Six fundamental civil rights mentioned in Indian Constitution (Part III) : Right to equality (before law, job opportunity, against discrimination)
Right to freedom (against forced labor, free speech, privacy)
Right against exploitation (human trafficking)

Right to freedom of religion Cultural and educational rights Right to constitutional remedies
Right to life, Right to personal property
Rights are powerful devices to enable the individual to make choices and to protect those choices. But they assume that others would do their duty. Negative Rights: x has a negative right if others have a negative duty NOT to interfere with xs right
e.g. My right to privacy as a citizen, as an employee
Positive Rights: X has a positive right if others have (more than the mere negative duty) the positive duty to provide X the opportunity to enjoy the right
e.g. Right to work / livelihood
United Nations (1985): 8 basic Consumer rights: Right to safety, to be informed, to choose, to be heard, to be satisfy basic needs, to redress, to consumer education, to a healthy environment to live in and work in Universal and inalienable Human rights (1948): Right to liberty, equality, development, livelihood, education, food, healthy environment, good governance, against discrimination, torture, undue imprisonment..
Moral rights, human rights are based on ethical norms, and are not limited by jurisdiction They: Identify activities or interests that an individual is empowered: -to pursue - or, must be left free to pursue as the individual chooses They also impose restrictions, prohibitions on others And thereby enable individuals to choose if they wish to pursue the activities or interests
E.g. Freedom of speech, practicing religion
Moral rights are also tightly correlated with duty. But, they may impose collective duties (i.e. not on one specific individual): all members in a society through public agencies have the duty to honour that right. e.g. Right to suitable standard of living: not possible if governments do not do their duty to ensure
The Telegraph, Issue Date: Saturday , Feb 6 , 2010
Church wrath on Vedanta

OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Feb. 5: The Church of England has sold its shares in Vedanta Resources, owned by NRI businessman Anil Agarwal, saying it is unhappy with the way the company is pursuing a project in south Orissa against the wishes of a local tribe. The Church sold its 2.5-million stake today after its representatives visited the Niyamgiri hills in poverty-ridden Kalahandi. The area is considered sacred by the Dongria Kondh tribe. Vedanta intends to mine the disputed area for bauxite but has met with resistance from the 8,000-strong tribal community, which believes the region is the abode of their deity Niyam Raja.
The Church said: We are not satisfied that Vedanta has shown, or is likely in future to show, the level of respect for human rights and local communities that we expect of companies in whom the Church investing bodies hold shares. Vedanta expressed disappointment. Vedanta remains fully committed to pursuing its investments in a responsible manner, respecting the environment and human rights. The Church decided to sell out on the advice of its ethics watchdog, which was of the opinion that its engagement with the company had produced no substantive results and continuing relations would be inconsistent with its ethical investment policy. John Reynolds, the ethics investment advisory group chairman, has been quoted, saying: Our concern is that a
company registered and listed in the UK should conform to the established environmental, social and governance norms expected in the London market. Vedanta shares were down 4.5 per cent at 2,306 pence in midday trading on the London Stock Exchange. The company said: We will continue to engage closely with the Church of England to address the concerns they have raised. In November 2007 A $350 billion (Rs13.76 trillion) sovereign wealth fund run by Norway has sold its entire stake in Vedanta Resources Plc, because of what one Norwegian government official referred to as environmental and human rights violations by the firm
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Vedanta's bauxite mining: clearance after MoEF finding

Press Trust of India / Sunderbans (wb) January 13, 2010, 14:15 IST
The government today said Vedanta's bauxite mining project in Orissa would be given a final clearance only if it doesn't violate the Forest Conservation Act. A final clearance would be considered only after the ministry does not find any violation of norms under the Forest Conservation Act and locals have agreed to the project after their rights are settled, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh told PTI here. "Already a month has passed since I have written a letter to the Orissa government and asked the chief conservator of forests to
probe into it," he said adding that he will receive the report soon. Mining behemoth Vedanta's bauxite mining project at the Niyamgiri Hills has been vehemently opposed by the locals, who regard the place as sacred. The ministry had issued a binding guideline to all the state governments last August that application for diversion of forest land for other purposes would be considered only after all due processes contained in the Scheduled Tribe and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Rights) Act, 2006 have been fully and satisfactorily completed, Ramesh said. Vedanta had got in-principle approval in December 2008 for 800 acres for bauxite mining at Niamgiri hills, out of which 350 acres were in the reserved forest area, he said. According to the norms, a company cannot begin construction even in non-forest
areas unless it receives a final clearance from the ministry. However, there are allegations that the company has already begun construction. The minister said that since October he had done away with the system of two-stage approval (in-principal and final approval). "Since October, we have introduced single clearance system. While considering projects for approval, environmental issues and local interest are kept in balance," he said.
NON-HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Do only humans have rights? 2. If so, is it discriminatory to argue: Because of a certain property that only humans have, only humans have right? Can the same argument be extended to other species with unique properties they alone have? Animals / chimpanzess used in pharmaceutical research: sold, not given any palliatives during procedures, euthanized when no longer needed Trees? Plants? Other natural objects?
The Rights-based framework 1. is a powerful device to ethically analyze a situation. For: (a) It confers an individual or a group certain choices / entitlements / privileges (b) Allows us to determine if these choices etc are respected or deprived (c) Enables us to allocate accountability for respecting or violation of these choices. 2. Gives us valuable leverage to examine individual cases, specially in case of conflicting claims, grounds why one has to be compromised also uses rights framework.
Duty: obligation, what is morally (legally) required. Not doing a duty is a moral lapse. e.g. Duty to our parents, Duty to our nation, duty to children Legal duty: To provide a healthy and safe working place
Positive Duty: x has a positive duty to Negative duty: x has a negative duty not to
The child has a positive right to education The parents and the Government have a positive duty to ensure that the child can enjoy this right. Others have a negative duty NOT to create obstacles in the enjoyment of this right. A social contract or tacit agreement The Indian Railways has a right to be paid for transporting its passengers. The passenger has the duty to pay the proper fare Similarly the passengers have rights that it is the duty of the Railways to honour.
RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY Two Important points: 1. When discussing rights, it is important to be as specific as possible. E.g. Right to minimum wage. Sometimes a broad-based accusation of human rights violation may not be effective enough. Instead, what is desirable is to draw distinctions to see what sort of rights is owed to whom and by whom, with due reference to the cultural and local situations. 2. Also need to decide where the moral onus should lie when it comes to the duty of protecting and preserving the right.
Understanding something as a duty: Committing oneself -A social force that binds you to certain actions
(1) Military model: Externally imposed, by force, fear, power asymmetry (2) Self-imposed: the source of the sense of obligation is within the agent
The Precautionary Principle
states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the people or to environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Effectively, this principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is evidence of potential harm in the absence of complete scientific proof. There is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk.
Justice : generally understood to mean what is right, fair, appropriate, deserved. Justice is achieved when an unjust act is redressed and the victim feels whole again.
Justice also means the offender is held accountable for his behavior.
Often treated as same as Fairness It is a criterion by which good laws and policies of a group/ society / country are evaluated
A possible definition: That treatment to each individual in a situation which results in each person getting what each deserves (giving desert, the due)
LEGAL JUSTICE, Criminal Justice, Civil Justice The guilty charged is given a due process The guilty proven is punished in proportion to the severity of the crime Those who have done nothing to deserve punishment should NOT be punished. There is also SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely in legal system. -Progressive taxation -Social Welfare system..
GOI, The ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: entrusted with the welfare, social justice & empowerment of disadvantaged and marginalized section of the society viz, Scheduled Caste, Backward Classes, Persons with Disabilities, Aged Persons, and victims of Drug Abuse etc.
Issues of justice: Basic 3 categories DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: Fair distribution of societys benefits and burdens -Income distribution Public Policy -Taxation policy matters -medical care RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: Just imposition of penalty, punishments for doing wrong -Penalizing the polluters, and not penalizing those who are affected -Penalizing for food, medicine adulteration COMPENSATORY JUSTICE: Just restoration / compensation to people who have been wronged, unfairly treated. -Natural calamity / Accident compensation
Distributive justice India : Food security issue

Household food security: Is it merely an issue of availability of food grains? Or, is it an issue about accessibility of the available food grain? A matter of purchase power available with each household? India has ample foodgrain stock (Food Corp of India).Yet est. 200 million people are underfed and 50 million on the brink of starvation, resulting in starvation deaths Without adequate food, the vicious cycle of poverty cannot be broken Distribution: Access purchase capability to Food, Food
Distributive Justice (DJ) : distributing societys benefits and burdens
Benefits: jobs, food, housing, educational opportunities, healthcare, infrastructure, income and wealthmaking opportunities
Burdens: Unemployment, unpleasant jobs, unsafe jobs, substandard housing, non-existent or inadequate infrastructure, health hazards. If enough resources and enough people willing to share the burdens, then DJ not needed.
But, usually: benefits are scarce burdens are many Peoples desires and aversions exceed the adequacy of resources so conflicts arise Hence some fair / just principles required for allocating scarce benefits and undesirable burdens in ways that are fair and resolve conflicts in a just way.
One common example: First come first served
Some just social arrangement for allocation of social benefits and burdens (does not have to be absolutely perfect, but as perfect as possible)
In the form of some policy (plan of action), law, or convention For, it encourages social trust
Distributive justice takes on a different significance in situations where: The need is most basic, and the needy cannot be made to wait for his/her turn, or there is scarcity of resources Food Potable water Shelter Primary health Livelihood
Some distribution policy that would be just/ fair
Basic and Prioritization
Non-basic
needs:
-Food or shelter needs? Basic and basic needs: Prioritization
Environmental distributive justice principle across the species in Sustainable Development: Basic needs of harmless plants, animals vis--vis non-basic needs of humans Habitat destruction (building resorts) Pollution (Dumping in waterbodies) Direct killing (hunting sports) Animal Fur (Fashion needs)
Does this EQUITY?
mean
Equality
or
Everyone gets a fair share
Everyone gets equal share

Aristotles principle: Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally
Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism (French : Egalit)

Egalitarianism: Equality among humans is the goal of justice. all
It is unjust and unfair for some to be worse than others through no fault of their own. There are no relevant differences among people which can justify unequal treatment. History: Until about 18th CE in the western world, people were assumed to be inequal by nature: The Royals, the peasants. Etc. Since French Revolution: Equality is a leading ideal in body politic. Not numerical equality, but social equality. Enlightenment ideas led to human rights.
C Chakraborti
Intro to Ethics S 2011
Egalitarians claim: All fundamentally the same.
humans
are
Everyone should get exactly equal share of societys/ communitys/familys benefits and burdens. Just as each child should get same share of goods parents make available to them. Criticism: Good ideal, but : (a) Critics claim we are more different than equal: our abilities, talents, physical and mental traits differ (b) If everyone gets equal, then where is the motivation to excel?
C Chakraborti
Egalitarianism (Justice as equality): A pillar for socialism Concepts that follow: Treatment as equals in society, with same dignity and respect Equality before law: Same laws for everyone, equal protection from the laws Equal rights Equality of Opportunity Equality of Opportunity: In spite of existing social hierarchy, all members of society should be eligible to get opportunities: Income opportunities, education opportunities Usually means Equality of competitive opportunities
C Chakraborti
Equality of Competitive Opportunity: 1. Opportunity is competitive. For, positions of advantage are limited. 1.1 Most desired positions are fewer than people who aspire for them 2. Each should have an equal opportunity to compete for these positions without being disadvantaged by anything irrelevant to ones suitability for that position. Ideal presuppositions: (a) Each enters the competition with equal opportunity to succeed (b) No ones aspiration is such that they do not want the most desirable position.
Intro to Ethics,A-2010
Equality of Opportunities: Level Playing Field

The distribution of opportunities, goods is just / fair in a society iff it is a level playing field for all 1. Inequality of circumstances for which the individual cannot be held responsible and happen before one gets a chance to make a responsible choice, e.g. where they are born, what environment their parents could provide, their genetic makeup, should not be decisive factor in distribution. 2. Given the initial equal conditions, inequality that arises from individual choices, e.g. if things do not turn favorably, should not be removed from decisive factor in distribution. 3. The environment in which people are making the choices is fair: free, not hostile, etc.
Equality of opportunity usually means: Equality of competitive opportunity 1.Opportunity is competitive because there are limited positions of advantage 1.1. Most desired positions are fewer in number than the people who aspire to them. 2. Each should have an equal opportunity to attain those positions without being disadvantaged by anything irrelevant to ones suitability for the position 2.1. Ideal is that each person enters the competition with an equal opportunity to succeed and no ones aspirations are such that they do not aspire for the most desirable position.
Example We should level the playing field in case of: Basic Education Socialization: who can mix with whom Access to primary healthcare
C Chakraborti
Issues in Inequality in non-income dimensions Example: disparities in Health, in Education among population groups Severe inequality in nutrition status o Human development indicator: Life expectancy, average life span Severe inequality in basic shelter status Severe inequality in gender based treatment
Cost of unequal opportunities: Selective unfairness in society

Year Country Item 1999 USA Life expectancy Disparity Black women 5.2 years lesser than that of white women Back men 6.8 years lesser than white men Among blacks twice than that among Whites
Unemployment rate Access disposable income Poverty rate to
Access to quality healthcare
Cost of inequal opportunities: Selective unfairness in society: India (Deogaonkar 2004, 1. Infant mortality rate: 2.5 times higher in the poorest 20% of population than the richest 20%. Under 5 yr Child born in tribal belt is 1.5 times more likely to die than children in rest of the country. Under 5 yr Girl Child is 1.5 times more likely to die than a male child. Under 3 yr Child in scheduled caste or tribe is 2 times likely to be malnourished than a child in any other group. 2. Access to healthcare: The poorest 20% is 6 times less likely to access hospitalization, despite health problems, than the richest 20%. A tribal mother is 12 times less likely to be attended by a medically trained person.
3. Nutrition status: A tribal woman 1.5 times more likely to suffer from chronic malnutrition than women in other categories.
Contemporary version of Justice: Persons should be treated the same, unless differences, relevant to the situation, exist So, equal treatment: Egalitarianism Unless, different treatment EQUITY Equity: Inequal but fair is justified:
But what would be a fair ground for inequal but justified distribution? The bases for desert: Contribution? Effort? Need?
Equality Equity Sometimes equality can lead to injustice -because our needs and abilities differ e.g. Each of us shd carry a 5 Kg bag, when one of us is a 2 yr old child, and another is a 90 yrs old. (ability differs) Everyone shd get the same level of healthcare, when some of us sicker than others (needs differ) (inequal distribution of benefits and burdens will be fair)
-all of us are not socio-economically positioned equally (unequal targeted capacity building will be fair)
Equity: inequal allocation but fair But, what would be a fair ground for the inequal but justified distribution? The bases for desert
C Chakraborti
Key questions: What does fairness mean in a situation? By which criteria can we decide what a person deserves? Possible answers: Two main conditions (Beauchamp and Bowie, 1997): 1. Fair procedures: Procedural justice 2. Fair outcomes: Whether the effects are distributed ina just manner acc. To some basis. E.g. Need, merit : Distributive Justice. Most theories of justice recommend us to achieve both.
C Chakraborti IIT KGP 2008
Intro to Ethics, A-
So, Equitable distribution Different conceptions of equitable share: 1. Distribute the benefits of the work as per the value of the individuals contribution to the work / society / group (CAPITALIST notion of Justice)
e.g. profits made from a sale distributed to those who contributed to the sales by the ratio of their contribution
How to measure value of contribution? Work effort? But not all efforts lead to success. Unsuccessful efforts are not contribution? Productivity? Market value? What about disadvantaged groups: ill, handicapped, untrained, immature?
2. Justice based on needs and abilities (Socialist notion): Benefits: Distributed acc. to peoples needs (neediest member gets more) Burdens: Distributed acc to peoples abilities (able members bear more) Society is a like a very large family Physically disability act (1995) Critics: (a) Then no incentive for working more, against self-interest (b) Against personal freedom, paternalistic. A persons ability and desire do not go together always
3. Justice as Fairness (John Rawls) The method of allocation shd be fairness. To ensure this, two basic principles: (a) Principle of Equal Liberties:
Every member of society has equal right to primary social goods (education, freedom, healthcare) irrespective of how they are socially positioned because of natural lottery and social lottery
(b) Principle of Difference : A productive society will have socio-economic inequalities, but it must arrange distribution of benefits and burdens in such a way that: (i) the least advantaged gets the greatest benefit (ii) and everyone gets fair equality of opportunity
C Chakraborti
Rawls on social primary goods (A Theory of Justice): Liberty and opportunity Income and wealth All other bases of self respect Whether you get these or not is outcome of a social lottery: Distribution within control, so fair or unfair should be ensured. Natural primary goods: Intelligence Physical disposition Psychological disposition..etc. Whether you get these or not is the outcome of a natural lottery: Distribution may be unfair, but not within control.
C Chakraborti
3. Justice as Fairness or Equity: John Rawls (1921-2002) Key Concepts: Veil of ignorance 1. Principle of equal liberty 2. Principle of Difference Both principles safeguard equity in society Key idea: How to organize the social institutions to achieve a fair arrangement in society? All societal goods or bases of self respect, e.g. liberty, opportunity, income, are to be distributed equally. And where not possible equally, distribute equitably.
C Chakraborti
Distributive Justice Example: Business How should a company pay its shareholders, executives, other staff so that each one gets fair compensation for his/her inputs? (Benefit distribution) How should a company allocate work to employees in an important project? (Burden distribution) More examples: Societal Context How should a Government allocate its resources (money, people, infrastructure)? How should a government distribute the tax money among different sections of society? In a resource-poor set-up, how to set a fair process of allocation? E.g., not enough ICCUs in hospitals, who should get priority to beds in ICCUs?
C Chakraborti
3. Justice as Fairness (John Rawls) The method of allocation should fairness To ensure this, two basic principles: 1. Principle of equal liberties:
be
Every member of society has equal right to primary social goods (education, freedom, income), irrespective of how they are socially positioned because of social and natural lottery.
C Chakraborti
If inequalities exist, then: (b) Principle of Difference: A productive society may have socio-economic inequalities, but it must arrange distribution of benefits and burdens in such a way that: The least advantaged are most benefited. But not at the cost of those who are advantaged. For them, at least status quo should be ensured. So, even those who benefit the least from the arrangement should be better-off from it than without it. For example, Business Context: Everyone (despite social and natural inequalities) should have a fair chance to climb the corporate ladder, not just a privileged few, but not at the cost of merit.
C Chakraborti
Basic considerations: Are we treating everyone fairly in this situation x? Have processes been set up to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance / equal opportunity? Are there major disparities between the winners and the losers? Are these disparities relevant, and if not, how fairly are you addressing them? Are these disparities widely pervasive?
C Chakraborti
The Test of Justice as Fairness: How do we know if a system of social policies is just and fair? Rawls: See (imagine) whether these are principles that an imaginary group of (a) Rational (b) Self-interested People at a pre-policy time (t0) would choose to live their lives by (Original position) If they knew: (a) That they themselves have to live in that society obeying these policies (b) But they did not know what their own position will be in that society (working under a Veil of ignorance) Veil of Ignorance: Imaginary committee of rational, self-interested, but not negative, people devising policies without the knowledge of their own future in the society with the policies
C Chakraborti
Critique of theory of Rawls: 1. Amartya Sen: In his principles, Rawls looks at the opportunities / goods / liberties that people should be given, without considering the differences they may have as real people to CONVERT that good/ liberties into GOOD LIVING for themselves. But that difference is very important. E.g. Same income, same level of primary goods, still a disabled person can do far less with these than a normal, able-bodied person. So, mere equitable distribution of primary goods does not ensure a just social order. We need to look at capability to convert goods into various value-added life choices. This capability differs due to many factors, sometimes due to social neglect. Justice is building these core capabilities equitably.
C Chakraborti
Idea of Justice (Amartya Sen): Justice for Rawls is just arrangement of social systems, institutions, and then a fair order will prevail (Arrangement-based approach) But, justice is also about the human condition, and the existing state-of-affairs About what it does for the human lives About whether it helps humans to achieve the things that they consider good in life About whether it helps one to reach a certain chosen quality of life (capabilities) Justice is also about removal of manifest, preventable injustice from the world, in the existing actual societies. Injustice is allowing the preventable capability deprivation to happen.
C Chakraborti
Idea of Justice (Sen): 3 children and 1 flute case (Against Rawls assumption that impartial
agreement, veil of ignorance would always succeed in identifying the just arrangement)
Only one flute, but Anna says she deserves it. For, she is the only one who can play it (the other two agree) Bob says: He deserves it. For, he is the only one among these 3 who is so poor that he has no other toy that is his won (the other two agree) Carla says: She deserves it because she is the only one who has been working diligently to make the flute, it is the fruit of her labor. Heard separately, each seems to be the decisive reason. Heard together: There is no one straightforward solution here. Sen: Shows that there may not always be any one identifiable social arrangement on which impartial agreement would emerge.
C Chakraborti
Capability approach: Means: Approach to justice through looking at a persons capability to do things that he or she values in life Accepts: that there is inequality in individuals capabilities Goal is: To achieve various combinations of functionings so that people with different capabilities achieve what they have reason to value, make choices about the kind of life that they want to live.
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
BASIC AMENITIES (INDIA) 1. Primary School 2. Primary Health Center (PHC) 3. Post office 4. Bus Stop 5. Permanent paved road
BASIC AMENITIES FOR URBAN INDIA 1. Access to safe water supply 2. Full coverage of Toilet facility 3. Full coverage of Sewage 4. Full coverage of Electricity
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Table 1:
Large Hindu majority village Primary School India 98.7% West 98.5% Bengal PHC India West Bengal
Large Muslim majority village
96.8% 97.8%
73.5% 81.2%
62.2% 73.1%
Post office
India West Bengal
83.7% 76.4%
62.2% 59.7%
Large: >2000 population Hindu majority village : < 9% Muslim population Muslim majority village: >40% Muslim population
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Critique from Capability Approach What we need is not just fair opportunities to compete, but developed capabilities to utilize the opportunities to compete So, keep human capabilities as the developmental goal. Some functions are central to human life (being in good health, being adequately clothed and sheltered, etc) Governments should ensure that: every citizen should have capabilities to engage in these, and should have a choice in deciding which activities to pursue.
4. Capability Approach (Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum) Justice / fairness models which focus on
equal distribution of goods (e.g. Rawlsian primary goods) are myopic, because they do not take note of diversity of human beings. Fair distribution shd also look at the relevant personal characteristics / capabilities to convert the primary goods to further the persons ends.
E.g. A paraplegic person may have an equal, or larger, basket of primary goods, but still may have lesser chance to lead a normal life than able-bodied person with smaller basket of goods. So, Ultimate end of public policies: should aim at developing human capabilities, and not just at distributory fairness.
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Capability approach: Nussbaum Real opportunities: 1. Living a full life: Ability to live to old age with quality of life, not to die prematurely, not to have life reduced to something not worth living 2. Physical Health: To have enough nourishment to start with 3. Physical integrity: To be able to live securely without violence / injury, to be able to have reproductive choices 4. Being able to put thinking power in an informed and cultivated way: To have adequate and enough training 5. To be able to afford emotions: To love and care for those who we
want to care for, to be able to grieve for them 6. To be able to form a discerning and critical idea of what is good in life plan 7. To be able to establish relation with nature and other species 8. To be able to enjoy, laugh, play 9. To have control over ones environment: To have right to participate politically, to have right over property 10. To be able to have bases of selfrespect and dignity, and to have the provision of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin and species
Capability approach is: Agent-oriented It emphasizes the importance of peoples ability to live the life they value. Requires improvement of conditions under which individuals are free to choose their life strategies and conditions for themselves and for future generation. Empowerment of individuals to be active agents of change, both at individual and collective level. Critical for policies, commitments. and social
Capability to participate in trade, production, national wealth-making
Capability to avoid economic vulnerability
Capability to attain higher education Capability to be literate and numerate Capability to get access to adequate nutrition Capability to avoid preventable morbidity (disease incidence) Capability to avoid preventable mortality (death)
India Slips on Child Health Indicators

Hindustan Times, Feb 21, 2007 National Family Health Surveys -3 (NFHS -3 conducted in 29 states between December 2005 and August 2006.) says:
1.The country has more malnourished children than sub-Saharan Africa., widely considered to have the largest number of malnourished people. 2. 79.1% children in India are anaemic, which is almost 5% more than the last count of 74.2%. Anaemia in women too has gone up from 51,8% in 1998-99 to 56.2% in 2005-2006. 3. Malnourishment has fallen a meager less than 1% in the past seven year from46.7% in 199899 to 45.9% in 2005-2006. 4. Routine immunizations of children has declined in 11 states, including. in socioeconomically progressive states such as Punjab and Maharastra.
Post-Capability approach: Welfare economists now claim that there are two basic dimensions of well-being: (a) Income dimension (b) Non-income dimension: Nutrition level, education level, availability of shelter, access to medical care, access to legal assistance, etc, i.e. quality of life. James Tobin proposes Specific Egalitarianism (1970): Certain specific scarce commodities should be distributed less inequally than the ability to pay for them. E.g. Social conscience is more offended if basics e.g. food, shelter, are not distributed more equally. But not so offended if luxury items e.g. cars, are not distributed so equally in society.
Welfare economists claim: 2 ways to measure inequality in non-income dimension: (a)Measure by observing variation across individuals (b)Measure by recording disparities across various socio-economic groups. E.g. disparities in income level, in infact mortality rate, in average years of schooling If average attainment of a certain group systematically lags behind the other groups in the same society, then we have reason to be ethically concerned about the state of justice in that society.
(c)
C Chakraborti IIT KGP Intro to Ethics, A-2008
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING How to decide which action is right? How to decide which action is good? -Presumes alternative choices exist -Selection of one course of action among many -An exercise in probability BEFORE the action / policy is decided: Weighing uncertainties -Necessarily abstract as a general schema Answers offered by some Ethical Theories Utilitarianism Kants Deontological Ethics Ethics of Virtue Principles of Justice Care theories
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
ETHICAL THEORIES Consequentialist NonConsequentialist
Decide whether a course of action is ethically right or wrong by its consequences
Decide whether a course of action is ethically right or wrong by considerations other than its consequences
Consequentialist ethics: An action is good/ consequences are good. Results Outcome Moral worth of an action is determined by the consequences. solely right iff its
Decides the ethical quality of the action, and finally makes a judgment about the agent.
Utilitarianism approach
is
an
example
of
this
Utilitarianism
First proponents:
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill Says: That action is right which will produce the greatest good for the greatest number The purpose of ethics is to guide peoples action to produce a better world good value, utility, benefit,
happiness Greatest number all persons concerned, affected by the action (stakeholders)
Intro to Ethics
A-2010
Utilitarians believe: Though happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, joy etc. are not synonymous, they represent intrinsically valuable good for well-being of individual (s) Similarly, pain, suffering", "unhappiness", "agony" etc are all of negative value for well-being of individual (s) But, it is worthwhile to endure a certain amount of suffering now, if it ensures a greater amount of happiness later. So, How should we live? A life committed to creating greatest good for greatest number.
Intro to Ethics
A-2010
Act Utilitarianism: When faced with choice, consider the possible actions and their likely consequences Ex: To make my parents happy, should I do A or B? Rule utilitarianism: When faced with choice, consider the rule behind the choice, and what would happen if that rule is followed always. Ex: On relevantly similar occasions, would doing A be a better option than doing B? Negative Utilitarianism: The only thing which is seen as "good" is the reduction of suffering (even if no pleasure can be produced)
The Diagram
Cost and benefit calculation for action 1

Result 1
Possible course of action 1
Result 2
Possible course of action 2
Result 3 Result 4
Result 5
Cost and benefit calculation for action 2
C Chakraborti IIT KGP Intro to Ethics
A-2010
Classical Utilitarianism: Hedonism: Pleasure as an intrinsic value Utility of an action is defined as a balance between happiness and unhappiness produced by the action An action is obligatory if produces greatest net utility / value by its outcome in comparison to that of the other choices Ultimate goal of ethics is: Maximize the aggregate utility Mill: Quality matters. Not all pleasures are at par. Life of a dissatisfied Socrates is ethically better than that of a happy fool.
A-2010
Example of Utilitarian practice:

Vaccinations : MMR (Measles, mumps and Rubella) vaccine is given in childhood to prevent a disease which is relatively benign to the person receiving the vaccine. Actual aim is to prevent the spread of Rubella etc to pregnant mothers and causing very serious congenital defects to their unborn. Everyone is the society takes a small risk to insure well being of the greater society. Harm if justified by maximization of utility. Decision to prohibit the CFC technology and its product: Because, though cheap and easy to manufacture and use, it depletes the ozone layer and thus endangers greatest good for all.
Features: Among possible choices of actions, that action whose net benefits are greater by comparison to all other alternatives is the right action.
Requires: Knowing the alternatives available
For each alternative, direct and indirect benefit and cost calculation Comparative estimate to determine the one with the greatest net utility or benefit.
A-2010
Strengths of Utilitarianism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Common sense approach Egalitarian Focus on human well-being A decision-procedure Widely used
Limitations of Utilitarianism Problem of measurement: subjective element in benefit, some benefits & costs cannot be measured by numerical value Unpredictability of consequences Has no importance for intention or motive, which is often morally significant Problem of defining cost, benefit satisfying all Too impartial: Who should you save when you cannot save all? No clear answer. Concerns only for the greater number of people may override minority RIGHTS
Problem of measurement: 1.1. Are all pleasures, pains quantifiable? E.g. Value of life, health, etc. 1.2. Problem of measuring interpersonal comparisons: your happiness vis-avis my happiness. How far egalitarianism in this respect is defensible? 1.3. Is it plausible to think that sum maximization of all different kinds of pleasures and pains, which may not be really comparable, can always be attained? E.g. What is the sum total of benefit from jobs, cost from health hazard in the Clemenceau case?
If not happiness, Welfarism is indicated by certain factors: Human Development Index (HDI) Human Happiness Index (HHI)
Problematic questions for Utilitarianism:

1. Is happiness, or well-being the only value to be counted in deciding the moral worth? 2. Greatest good for greatest numbers: is always a worthy goal to pursue? 3. Is very low, practically negative value a very large number of people better than moderate benefit for a lesser population? 4. Harms are consequentially more important than benefits. So, should we not try to promote least amount of harm? (Negative utilitarianism) 5. Is happiness of one comparable to anothers happiness? 6. Should consequence be the only factor to determine moral worth of an action? What about motive?
7. action? What about motive?to Ethics, A-2008 Intro
THE TROLLEY PROBLEM (Phillippa Foot & Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philosophers)
You see a trolley hurtling fast down a track. In its path, 5 people are working, unaware of the danger. You are standing near a fork, and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley on to a spur (branch line). But the trolley would then run over one person who is working on the spur. Is it ethically permissible to throw the switch, kill 1 man to save 5? Survey says; almost everyone
says: YES
Consider a modified scenario (Case 2):

Now you are on a bridge overlooking the hurtling trolley, the five unaware people down the track. Now no lever, no switch, and the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within your reach is this fat man standing next to you. Is it ethically permissible to throw the man off the bridge, kill 1 man to save 5? Almost everyone says: NO, two cases are not equivalent.
Seaman Holmes and the Longboat of William Brown Case Moral Quandary: A real incident that occurred in 19th Century. The USS Williams Brown foundered in rough seas and sank off Newfoundland in 1841. Life boats were there, and they were manned. One of them, a long boat that could take in 60 passengers and crew, was overloaded with 74 passengers. It was taking on water and the First Mate thought it would sink soon in the rough seas. He ordered a sailor, Seaman Holmes, to throw 14 people out of the boat. Thirteen men were thrown out, and a woman leapt over to be with her lover. The sea was freezing and the people thrown out did not survive. Few hours later the long boat and its passengers were rescued on another ship. Seaman Holmes was later arrested on charges of unlawful homicide. He was found guilty in a Philadelphia court and was sentenced for life. His defense used the utilitarian argument: when you cannot save all, you save some at the cost of others. Why the First Mate who first ordered the homicide was not charged was never made clear. During the trial the criteria of selection was under discussion. It was found that all the crews were spared on the presumption that they could row. Children, married men and women, single women were also spared. But single men were considered expendable.
Martha Nussbaum: Utilitarianism
Limitations
of
Utilitarianism is insensitive to matters of justice. Because maximum good is its goal, distribution is unimportant. It allows some individuals to be used merely as means to promote overall welfare. Can yield injustice in individual cases
Non-Utilitarianism position: Justice must be

done, individual rights must be protected (even if does not increase sum total of happiness).
Application to Human Rights: Each individual is repository of certain inalienable rights, which must not be denied. No person is to be used as merely means to promote maximum good for maximum people.
Application to Animal Rights: Miyun Park (Peter Singer Anthology):

Hens are cramped for their entire lives in wire cages stacked on top of one another. They stand on wire-mesh flooring so unlike the earth that their nails, which would normally wear down while scratching the ground, curl around the bars. Feather loss is common as hens rub against cages until many appear to have been plucked, their bodies raw with sores. They cannot roost at night, dust-bathe to clean themselves, feel sunlight, breathe fresh air, build a nest, raise their young, or even freely stretch their wings ... (Singer, 176) (1) An egg-laying hen requires 290 square inches of space to flap her wings, yet each bird is allotted an average of 52 square inches--smaller than a single sheet of paper--in which she eats, sleeps, lays eggs, drinks, and defecates. All this is so that the egg prices remain low for humans.
Bringing Real Life into Responsibility

[BMW Nanda gets five years- Age no excuse, Legal Correspondent, The Telegraph, Kolkata, Sept 6, 2008]
New Delhi, Sept. 5: A court today sentenced Sanjeev Nanda to five years imprisonment, saying he should have known the consequences of drunk-driving since he had got his license in the US. The judge rejected Nandas plea to let him off on probation as he was only 19 at the time of the incident and his family had compensated the victims. A person who got a driving license from the US can be considered to be having a higher degree of knowledge of the consequences of drunken driving. Therefore, on account of his young age, no benefit can be given, he said. That Nanda had tried to win over witnesses also merited the high quantum of punishment, the judge said. Two of Guptas employees, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh, were sentenced to six months in jail and fined Rs 100 each for washing off bloodstains and removing pieces of flesh from Nandas BMW. Nanda, was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for mowing down six persons while driving his BMW in 1999.
The question is whether a man on the road is safe and whether drunken drivers would keep on committing such offences. This accountability to society can only be suitably answered if a substantial jail term is provided to him, the order said.
Non-consequentialist position:
To know if the choice of an action is good/ right, not consequences, but criteria other than what the choice brings about should be looked into. 1.Some actions, no matter how ethically good their consequences are, are unethical. Choices cannot be judged by their results.
Deontological Ethics (Gk. Deon (duty)): An action is ethical iff it is done in conformity with an ethical norm.
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Non-consequentialist position:
judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences
Praiseworthy goals can never justify immoral actions Ends do NOT justify the means
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP
Examples of relevant properties intrinsic to an action:
1. Does the chosen action uses / exploits another person in any way? 2. Is the chosen action fair / just to all concerned? 3. Would the decision-maker like to be at the receiving end of the action? 4. Does the chosen action show enough human sensitivity? 5. Does it violate fundamental right? anyones
Kants Deontological Ethics: An action is ethical iff it is done out of the duty motive (the agent).
Different Conceptions of DUTY A. DUTY as compliance to given orders -Military model -Duty is externally imposed B. DUTY as self-imposed obligation -A choice made by the agent himself B is Kants conception of an ethical duty I should do this I should NOT do this Orders to commands
oneself:
Imperatives,
C Chakraborti
IIT KGP Intro to Ethics, A-2010
Kants view of the Moral Agent
1. Human beings are part of the causal nexus of the world of physics. 2. Yet, they are also capable of FREE WILL or will power. In this aspect, they escape the net of causal determinism that rules the world of physics. 3. They can impose on themselves a rule, a sense of obligation or DUTY by their free choice. 4. Moral duties are one of a kind, selfimposed rules. 5. This ability to be governed by selfdecided rules is something that sets humans apart.
Kants Classification of DUTIES Self-imposed Imperatives or duties may be of two kinds: First type: Hypothetical or Conditional Imperative: Selfimposed Duty conditional upon what I seek If I want to go to IITs, then I should prepare for JEE. (Then your duty is to prepare for JEE) If one wants to study at the IITs, then ought should prepare for JEE. It is NOT binding if (and when) the condition is removed. -What if one does not want to study at the IIT-s?
Kant: This occasionally binding, contingent imperatives are not DUTY per se. (Anyone claim exemption at any time) Whatever goodness there may be in these choices are qualified good, and not good in the ethical sense. -Prudence, shrewdness, worldliness may be good, but these are not ethical qualities. DUTY: The RIGHT action done from the RIGHT motive What Kant will not consider as right motive: Self-interest: Kant does not consider it morally worthy to do the right action out of self-interest -Grocers example: not cheating because that harms his business Paying to charity to impress others, or to get a tax break
Feelings or impulses: Kant considered these as unstable, unreliable as basis of duty One day I feel pity, and I help a person, next day I dont feel like.
THE MORAL DUTY Categorical Imperative or Unconditional ought: Moral judgments bind us with an ought of this kind. No clauses, DUTY no matter what. I should do this because I realized it as the duty.
DUTY: The RIGHT action done from the RIGHT motive
The moral imperative, or DUTY, is unconditional and should be done because it is recognized as the duty. Live by rules that you yourself see as duties.
The only thing unqualifiedly good is the good will

How to find what is a duty (a categorical imperative)? 1st Formulation: I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Universalizability: What if everybody did that? Reversibility: How would I like to be in his/her shoes? If I cannot will my action to be universal or reversible, then I have some amoral or non-moral motive.

C Chakraborti IIT KGP Intro to Ethics, A-2008
First formulation says: What is fair, should be fair for all, and not just for the agent: Universalizable 2nd Formulation: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether yourself or others, never simply as a means. People are persons, not means or tools for advancing one's own interests. Respect and help to develop the other person's capacity to choose freely. A morally right action will not involve using others as mere tools for selfinterest.
C Chakrabort IIT KGP Ethics, A-2010
Intro to
Implications What is morally right is universally right: holds for everyone including me. Moral right or wrong is not decided only by the results of action, but also by the right motive: motive: of realizing the action as a DUTY. Tight correlation with RIGHTS Moral personhood: Being specially endowed to live by ones chosen principles, every human as a moral self is of equal value. In a moral community we must respect each other, and each others free choices. HUMAN RIGHTS
C Chakrabort IIT KGP
Personhood:
1. Respecting Autonomy: Choices Informed Consent Veracity or the duty of truth-telling 2. Sanctity of life
3. Other Human Rights
C Chakrabort IIT KGP Ethics, A-2010
Intro to
Problems with Kants Ethics Universalizability: Can human nature be so standardized? What is universalizable and reversible to a psychopath, may not be moral. How do we resolve conflicts, if everyones right has equal value? Sometimes circumstances matter a lot. Kants theory seems to ignore that.
Deontological recommendation: Right and wrong-making characteristic of a choice may be independent of the consequences Example: Bhagavadgita : NISHKAMA KARMA (action without any desire for consequence). Arjuna is in profound indecision because the war will lead to so many deaths.(Consequentialist) Krishna advises that priority must be given to duty irrespective of consequences, irrespective of the fruits of the action.(Deontologist)
Other Non-consequentialist answers: 1. Justice theories:
The right and wrong-making characteristic of a chosen action /policy is whether it is just or unjust. Equality for all Equity or Justice as Fairness Equal opportunity Level playing field Capability Approach
Gender Gap (India) 1. Equal Remuneration Act 1976: No discrimination to be made while recruiting male and female workers for the same work or for work of similar nature, or in any condition of the service subsequent to recruitment, such as remuneration, promotion, transfer, except where employment of women is restricted or forbidden by law of that time. But Govt informs Lok Sabha, March 10, 2008: Rural women get less wages than men for equal hours of work, in spite of Equal Remuneration Act 1987 : Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Audrey DCosta, 1987, claim for equal remuneration between Confidential Lady Stenographers and General Male Stenographers.
Women and job opportunities (India): Womens overall literacy rate (54.16%) much lower than that of Mens (75.86%) 2001 Census Data Primary education Enrollment rates increased for boys & girls, but upper primary drop-out rates more in girls. 48% girls stay till secondary level More advanced and specialized training as in IT remains out of reach for poorer women Women constitute only 31% of official workforce. Women employees constitute only 23% of the corporate India: Lowest percentage among all countries (World Economic Forum Corporate Gender Gap Report 2008) .
GENDER GAP REVIEW 2009 WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM:

.
Out of 134 countries surveyed, India is among the lowest ranked countries at the 114th position in terms of gender gap.
Economic Participation and Opportunity: 0.412 (Rank 127) Corporate sector: No woman CEO, only middle or entry positions Educational Attainment: 121) 0.843 (Rank
Health and Survival: 0.931 (Rank 131) lowest, worst sex ratios Political Empowerment: 0.273 (Rank 24)
Other Non-consequentialist answers:
2. Virtue Ethics: Concerns with right and wrong behavior is about the central question: How should we live?
(entire life) And not about what is the right thing to do? (a specific dilemma)
It is about the good life and the kind of person we ought to be to get it right all the time throughout life. ARISTOTLE: Ethics and ethical actions are for Character building, and unethical actions are for undoing goodness in us.
Character: a state of being (having certain psychological dispositions and being a certain state) No one is born good, or bad. People are born with all kinds of tendencies. These can be encouraged or thwarted by influences around (parents, teachers, peer group, role-model, appreciation etc) A character is built through repeated choices and behavior (a habit) over a long period of time. And it is important to develop the right habits, and wean the wrong ones: moral development
Character traits are stable, reliable. Ex: someone with character trait of kindness is expected to act kindly in appropriate situations, even when it is difficult to do so. Similarly, with the character trait of cruelty. Ex: Kindness as a virtue requires (a) realization that kindness is the right response to a certain situation, and (b) the disposition to act kindly. It is not a mechanical action, involves recognizing kindness as a virtue and choosing to act in a certain way. Virtue lies in a mean because the right response to each situation is neither too much nor too little, but appropriate (situation-specific, role-specific).
Virtues lead to Eudaimonia (blissful existence, human flourishing and wellbeing) : a good life. Vices lead us away from that. Feminist theorists: In addition to Being fair, being brave, being rational, there are other feminine virtues from caring for others which are often marginalized: such as virtue of being patient, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc.
The aim Is to develop good virtues, so that the right choices become more of a habit, followed by right actions Involves prohairesis: a virtuous person will choose to do the virtuous things To avoid the vices, which also will rule our choices, actions, and eventually who we are. Institutions too can be evaluated as virtuous or vicious.
The Six Pillars of Corporate Wisdom -N.R.Narayana Murthy

Importance of being trustworthy in your dealings. Fear is natural, but do not let your actions be totally governed by it. A supportive family is the bedrock upon which lives and career are built. Learn how to manage yourself, separating the merits and demerits of a decision from the feelings accompanying it. Live your life and lead your career in a way that makes a difference to your society. Choose a dream and go after it confidently, but always ensure that you are following your bliss
Causing Harm
Criminal Intention (Murder) (culpable homicide) Manslaughter X did by commission or omission so-and-so to Y with the intention, or with the knowledge that thereby X is likely to cause the death of Y X did by commission or omission so-and-so to Y without the intention, or without the knowledge that thereby X is likely to cause the death of Y.
Abetting a murder Abetting culpable homicide
What is Applied Ethics?
Easy answer: Application (and also discovery ) of ethical concepts, criteria, and reasoning to concrete problems
APPLIED ETHICS
BUSINESS ETHICS
CYBERETHICS
BIO ETHICS ENGINEERING ETHICS
LEGAL ETHICS
Generally two ways to apply: 1. Theory extended to facts: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue theory, Justice, Care _ revised and reinterpreted to adequately understand and explain current ethical problems
2. Casuistry or Case-based reasoning: Does not begin with theory, but starts with a particular case and asks what theoretical and practical ethical considerations should be considered in this case. E.g.: Medical Ethics Board and a problematic medical case (withholding medical support)
1. If Theory extended to facts approach: 1.1. May choose one selective theory to generate the recommendation or the rule, but then: (a) show why NOT the other theories (b) show what is so special with this theory
1.2. May try to analyze the situation from the perspectives of several theories, and show what the available solution are, then adopt a relative weighted approach to select a particular solution, Or, do a perspectives scoring system from all
(a) If there are conflicting solutions, whether there is any overriding concern to resolve the conflict
Stakeholder analysis: tool for identifying ethical issues
A stakeholder: any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives (Freeman 1984, 46) Shareholders Suppliers Customers Employees Banks NGOs Society FIRM Government
Example: Ethical Checklist* for addressing ethical dilemmas/decisions (* Fulcrum Group, Twin Cities) Scale of 1-5: 1: Not at all, 5: Totally yes
1. Relevant Information Test: Enough for informed decision ? 2. Involvement Test: All, who have a right to be involved, are involved? 3. Consequence Test: Anticipated foreseeable consequences? Accommodated measures for all significantly affected by it? 4. Reversibility Test/Original Position Test: If we were any stakeholder, would we see it as essentially fair, given the circumstances? 5. Enduring Value test: Does it uphold my/our priority enduring values relevant to the situation? 6. Universalizability Test: Would I/we want it to become a universal law applicable to all similar situations, even to myself/ourselves? 7. Light-of-day Test: How would I/we feel and be regarded by other if the details are disclosed for all to know? Total Confidence Score: 7-14: Not so confident 15-21:Somewhat confident 22-28:Quite confident 29-35:Very confident
Other example: Ethics for Decision-making Case: Bovine Somatotrophine (bST) Core values chosen: 1. Well-being Utilitarianism: Benevolence, Non-maleficence 2.Individual Rights Deontology: Respect for Autonomy, reversibility 3.Justice:Equality, Equity, Fairness, Procedural justice, Distributive justice 4.Specific virtues 5.Care: Compassion, empathy Goal: To produce a grid with identified stakeholders in an issue To try to give equal weight to each value / principle If not, justify overriding factors with contextual considerations
Step 1. First Table:
Facts 1. bST is a hormone
Plus when injected in cattle stimulates milk yield Average increase in milk yield 12-15% Higher metabolic demands in cattle
Minus Any side effect on cows?
Initial Comment Need to know more
2. Injected every two weeks to cows
3. Increase in milk concentration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I ): a potent mitogen
Any effect No on significant consumers change in ? nutrients Probability Does not of increased look good rate of illness in cattle If Likelihood significantly of health high, may risk for lead to consumer health risk s for consumers
Step 2: Identifying Issues and Stakeholders

Dairy Concerns Concerns of other stakeholders
Cost, affordability
bST manufacturer
Economics
Actual use
Purchase by Dairies,farmers
Social implications
Injection into cattle
Animal welfare
Profitability
Milk production
Animal welfare
Labeling, Information sharing
Milk purchase
Affordability, Choice, consent
Sustainability
Milk consumption
Food safety, health
Use of Ethical Matrix
Respect for Well-being Autonomy

Dairy farmers, bST manufacturers Satisfactory income, working conditions Food safety, health, food quality, price, quality of life Freedom of choice
Fairness
Fair trade laws and practices
Consumers
Free and informed choice of food
Access, affordability and availability of product, participation in the decisionmaking Intrinsic value as part of ecosystem
Dairy cattle
Animal welfare, exploitation, effect on health
Behavioral freedom
Biosphere
Conservation, Biodiversity Sustainability, effect on balanced coecosystem existence
Ethical Assessment Stakeholder Dairy business, farmers Well-being Economic data shows profitmaking is not clear Indiv.rights Opportunity to exercise free choice, but peer pressure Justice
Consumers
Dairy Cattle
Biosphere
Non-bST using business is given the choice to label milk as so, but at their own cost Healthrisk, Consumption Not all but may not of bST-used information is shared be milk is left at significant choice (WHO) Not allowed Increased Not considered disease rates (lameness, digestive disorder uncertain Uncertain, More grazing may lead to may mean larger dairy loss of farms, more biodiversity pollution, more green house gas
EU banned it, on grounds: (a) violation of animal welfare. Animal sentience and welfare recognized in EU 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam. Swiss Govt bans genetic modification of animals taking dignity of living beings into account (Wurde der Kreature) (b) Probable public harm: Precautionary Principle
Environmental Ethics
Ecology: First use attributed to German

biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1860s. Two Greek words:
Eko (home, household) + Logos (Study, discourse) It is the logos / study of living organisms in their home / natural habitat
Earlier ecology used Organic (Cowles, Clements in late 1800s):
model
Assumed a part to whole relationship among every individual species (e.g. animals, plants) and environment. Analogy: as organs are related to a body. eye, nose to a human body Assumes: a single common purpose among species
Ecologists job was thought to be like that of a doctor: to diagnose and treat problems to ensure a healthy and balanced state between the parts and the whole.
By early 1900s, many ecologists came to reject this model: Natural biotic communities (Lifezones, Biomes) : E.g. Alpine region of Sikkim, Sunderbans, They do not always develop towards a single organic whole (e.g. Plants Vs Animals). More complex interaction among species, within the species, with abiotic natural factors exist (Soil, water, weather) British ecologist Arthur Tansley first introduced the term ecosystem (a physical system)
Ecosystem: A complex system of relationships among living resources, habitats and residents of a region. -not just linear relations, but very complex relationships within particular species, and across the species [In Origin of Species, Darwin referred to web of complex relationships] -not parts and whole -not just causally connected in one direction, but also there are feedback loops, and marked interdependence among various forms of life, and non-living elements WEB OF LIFE
A pond: fish, other marine animals, bacteria, insects, waterfowls, fungi, weeds, planktons, plants, sediments, water temperature, oxygen level, , [the human impact] The Rivet argument: Change one may affect the entire ecosystem No Fungi decomposer of dead matter lost natural recycler lost water quality deterioration diseases in water plants, fish diseases in birds . A river: ,[human impact] A forest: trees, animals, microorganisms living off the trees and animals, the interaction among the trees and animals, among the animals and the animals, the abiotic elements: climate, rainfall, soil, nutrients ..[human impact]
Natural ecosystem: the food chain Soil plants herbivores (rabbits, elephants, humans) carnivores (hawks, wolves, humans) carcasses beetles, insects, microorganisms nutrients soil
80% of land plants depend on the symbiotic root fungi which fortify the plants root system The Rivet argument: Remove one component (drought, loss of habitat, overhunting, extinction), there may be considerable impact on the Food web Dung beetles (14,000 species) clear out the droppings of herbivores : without them African savannah would be wastelands No bees (pollination crisis): fall in agricultural crops less food for humans
Mangroves of Indian coastlines:
Sunderbans. Mangroves are salt-tolerant plants which are highly productive but extremely sensitive and fragile. Besides mangroves, the ecosystem also harbours other plant and animal species. the presence of mangrove ecosystems on coastline save lives and property during natural hazards such as cyclones, storm surges and erosion. These ecosystems are also well known for their economic importance. They are breeding, feeding and nursery grounds for many estuarine and marine organisms. Hence, these areas are used for captive and culture fisheries. The ecosystem has a very large unexplored potential for natural products useful for medicinal purposes and also for salt production, apiculture, fuel and fodder, etc.
C Chakraborti
IITKGP Intro to Ethics A 2011
Environmental Ethics: Extension of ethics and moral community to include non-human beings and elements in natural environment. Expanding circle of moral worth: Peter Singer It is a movement that gained momentum in the Western World from the works of: Rachel Carson (American marine biologist, conservationist: author of Silent Spring (1962)) Lynn Whites article in Science (1976): Anthropocentrism as the root problem Garret Hardins (Professor of Biology, UCSB) Tragedy of Commons (1968), Exploring New Ethic for Survival. Aldo Leopold: The Land Ethic Writings and activism of Arne Naess: Deep Ecology New duties: Conservation, Recycling, care.
C Chakraborti
IITKGP Intro to Ethics A 2011
Rachel Carson and the Silent Spring: The controversial topic is: Environmental poison from Synthetic pesticides, mostly developed with military funding in the US. The DDT Story: 1957, DDT was used as aerial spray in USA for fire ant removal on vast fields. Carson showed the dangers of that to humans (carcinogenic effects) and to wildlife. That spring the bird population declined. A Silent Spring:: Metaphor for a future world without birds. She continued her research despite denials and fierce criticisms from chemical (Du Pont) and pesticide industries. Ultimately, US Congress pesticide report came out confirming her claims. Result: Great impact on grassroot environmental movement in 1960s. Ban on DDT in the US, also bolstered Ecofeminism, creation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US in 1970.
C Chakraborti
IITKGP Intro to Ethics S 2010
The Aftermath: 1. Public mistrust of research done with military and industry funding 2. US Surgeon General issuing report on smoking and its bad effect (1964) 3. The Cuyahoga River catching fire (1969): River pollution from discharged effluent, debris, trash dumped. Led to water pollution control activities. 4. Ban of DDT usage in agriculture, 1970s, 1980s: In most developed countries. DDT is a persistent organic pollutant, strongly absorbed by soil. Goes to food chain easily. 5. Stockholm Convention, 2004: Indiscriminate usage of DDT to be stopped. Restricted DDT usage only for vector control for Malaria, etc.
C Chakraborti
The Story of DDT in India Early history: DDT first introduced in India in 1944 by US and British armies in Orissa and Karnataka for malaria, mosquito control. 1948-1952: Unprecedented Malaria control. success in
1953: India introduced indoor spray of DDT, Hindusthan Insecticide Ltd (HIL) established to produce DDT. Meantime, mosquitoes evolved and became DDT-resistant. 1960s: Malaria became urban disease for the first time. After 2004: DDT is banned in 26 countries, but restricted use in many others. still manufactured in India and China. Agricultural use of DDT is officially denied, but is known to continue in India, North Korea.
C Chakraborti
Garret Hardin, Tragedy of Commons, Science, 162 (1968): 1243-1248. Growing population problem, finite resources, and the desire to maximize good for all. Problem: The world and its resources belong as a common to all of us and are finite. Here lies the tragedy. Imagine a common pasture in a village that is open to all herdsmen to feed their cattle. \ In long-term interest, each herdsman should try to minimize overgrazing and keep the depletion of the commons lower than its carrying capacity. But, each is free and will argue: No diminished utility if I add just one more animal to the commons. Each one will try to increase his herd without limit in a limited commons: Tragedy of the Commons.
C Chakraborti
Concept of Carrying Capacity: The maximum number of species that can be supported by a particular habitat, allowing for seasonal and random changes, without degradation and diminishing capacity of the habitat in the future. A time-bound future-oriented concept
Challenges conventional belief about shortterm gains. Long-term and sustainable consumption. Alerts about overexploitation of natural resources and its dire consequences: Nothing left for anyone. So, disciplined consumption.
E.g.: Overfishing in ocean makes certain species extinct and others endangered.
C Chakraborti
Hardins Tragedy for Commons : Shows the fault in greedy, short-term thinking., asks for conservation, maintaining a balance between consumption and regeneration. Example of unthinking consumption in commons: Famine in Sahel, West Africa, before 1970s (Between Sahara and Sudanese Savannas): Due to desertification. Not caused by climate, but by overgrazing, overfarming, and overpopulation.
Not just because of future of humans, but also for non-human species.
ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECTS / HUMAN IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: Climate Change:

Ex. In the level of activity of tropical cyclones: frequency, intensity, geographical distribution. Greenhouse gases might cause increased intensity
Ozone layer depletion: the shield between Suns harmful UV rays, more harmful wavelengths, and earths beings Greenhouse gas emission: from various human activities (chemical processes etc) through use of Ozone depleting substances (ODS), e.g. CFC compounds Carbon footprints: a way to measure the impact human activities on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced (measured in units of CO2) Applicable to individuals, societies, nations, organizations
From Ecology to Ethics:
When we start looking at ecosystems as part of the moral community When we start conferring rights to nonhuman creatures and things When we start to ponder on what ought to be the relation between humans and natural environment When environmental problems (e.g. pollution) are framed in terms of social justice
From Ecology to Ethics

Ethical and policy implications rising from environmental concerns
ORGANIC MODEL:
Ecosystems are (and can be) understood as independent living organism, with moral standing. James Lovelock (Brit. Scientist) & Lynn Margulis (Am. Biologist): The GAIA hypothesis
1. The entire earth could be understood as a SINGLE living organism with humans just as a part 2. GAIA, the Greek goddess of Earth = Earth is a living entity, a goddess, Mother Nature 3. Human activities that degrade and pollute the entire planet are morally condemnable Rolston (1996): humans are a kind of planetary cancer
Ideological Change: Ecological Ethics We, humans, are part of a much larger ecological system. It is our ethical duty to protect the welfare about not just humans but also that of non-human parts of that system Corollary: Well being of all the parts have value in themselves, independent of their usefulness for human purposes Humans have no special right to interfere or adversely affect this rich and diversity of life forms
Environment, Ecology and Ethics: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: Q1. The relation between humans and nature: How should it be? Q2. Do humans have moral obligations towards the environment? If so, what? Q3. Is it morally wrong to pollute soil, water, and air? Q4. Why should we conserve? Do humans have moral duties to future generations to conserve natural resources? Q5.What kind of moral obligations do humans have to the nonhuman forms of life? Why? Do the beings and things of nonhuman world have intrinsic value, or worth? Q6.Is it morally wrong to be cruel, or to abuse non-human animals?
Q7.Can we extend the boundaries of the moral community to the entire natural world, so that rights can be ascribed? Environmental ethics say yes to most of the questions above It debates how to balance the claims: -of the present and the future -of humans and non-humans -of sentient and non-sentient -of individuals and wholes
And strives for a sustainable relationship [Q1]
ANCIENT VIEW: Human-centeredness: ANTHROPOCENTRISM *That the world belongs to humans alone *That everything else that is there is to serve the humans or for their use *Nonhuman beings and objects have only instrumental value, or utility value in so far as they are useful to the humans. -Instrumental value: valued only as a means to some other goal (e.g. a pen) Only humans have intrinsic value and unique worth. -Intrinsic value: valued for its sake, inherent worth, independent of its value for something else (e.g. friendship, talent)
Idea can be found in ancient thinking, religions
For example: Aristotle: nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) Judaic-Christian beliefs: God created man in His own image. God said unto them: Fill the earth & subdue it, have dominion over fish & birds, & over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Genesis, Bk.I) Men are God-made stewards of the earth, and rest of the beings (women, slaves, animals, plants) are put there to serve men. BUT, that animals are there to serve human end has become increasingly untenable with Darwinism. Similarly, adverse effects of human activity on environment have steadily undermined the idea of nature merely as a resource
Criticisms: Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. It places animals and nature at the feet of humans. Thus the main strands of Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of nature --The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis, Lynn White, 1967, Science, 55:1203-1207
Christianity encouraged certain attitudes to nature: that it exists primarily as a resourcethat man a right to use it as he willthat mans relationships with it are not governed by moral principles [Philosopher John Passmore]
But, it is not an exclusive flaw of Christianity
Though Asian religions have religious sanction for treating every life as sacred (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc) and teaches oneness with the world, YET, China, India : destroying forests systematically, desertification, dumping into the riverways Japan: whaling industry, purchases lumber from rainforests, Cadmium and itai-itai disease, Minemata Bay mercury poisoning Thus, anthropocentrism is an attitudinal problem: an illusion, a false presumption ECOLOGICAL ETHICS: No ground for anthropocentric attitude, it should be replaced by bio-centric egalitarianism: everyone in a ecological system has equal right to be there,
and non-human parts of the environment deserve to be preserved for their own sake, regardless of whether they are of any use to humans So, environmental values: A. Intrinsic value: (a) value as an individual organism (BIOCENTRISM) (b) value as a component, biotic or abiotic, of the ecosystem to which it belongs (ECOCENTRISM) -Does not make a distinction between biotic and abiotic entities B.Respect for Biodiversity Biodiversity: Variety of life forms (gene diversity, species diversity in a given ecosystem. It is a measure of health of biological systems. Natural diversity is to be preserved.
The case of New Zealand The European settlers brought with them new crops, new animals, but also came new parasites and new diseases. And the lowland forests were brunt, drained. Logged and cleared for farms and cropland. By 2005, forest cover was reduced to 24.8% of the total land area. In the 1970s and 1980s, large areas of coniferbroadleaf forest, particularly on the West Coast, were clearfelled for timber and replanted with introduced pine. By the early 2000s, only 10% of New Zealands original wetlands remained. When the settlers cleared the bush for farming, they removed tree stumps and the protective cover of ferns and scrub . The loose soils in hilly areas became very vulnerable to erosion, especially during heavy rain.
Principal focus of Biodiversity is on: Species diversity

Abt 1.5 million species of plants and animals are known to biologists, but that is only est. 1/10 of the total number existing. In 500n Mn yrs, 5 times major species extinction had happened. Before the arrival of humans, one species became extinct every 1000 years. Now the annual rate is between 1000 to 27000
[Carpenter, S R, 1998, Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, (ed.) Chadwick R., San Diego, Academic Press, Vol. 4., 275-293.]
Terrifying rate if remains unchecked 5 basic causes for biodiversity loss: 1. Overhunting and harvesting: animals for shell, skin, fur, bones. 2. Pressure of population growth and their increased needs 3. Habitat destruction: drive to increase agriculture, taking over forests, oceans, land, rivers for commercial purposes 4. New diseases that affect indigenous species 5. Pollution, and climate change, and their collective effect
Olive Ridley Turtles, India
From the 1970s, the largest gathering for egg laying (Arribada (in Spanish)) of Olive Ridley Turtles (olive colored, smallest of the sea turtles) was seen in few beaches of Orissa (Gahirmatha, Rushikulya etc) . Once a year, roughly at the same time, hundreds of thousands of Olive Ridleys gathered to form a huge floatilla a few miles from the coast. Over a few nights, the turtles clamber in to lay the eggs on the beach. Between March 23-27, 1999, est. 230,000 females have nested in one place alone. Each female returns to the same beach, which perhaps alos is where it was hatched. Between each return, the turtle travels thousands of miles. Olive Ridleys are highly endangered species for many reasons. 1. Harvesting of eggs, meat (by stray dogs, jackals and humans).
Olive Ridley Turtles and Conservation 2. Death by entanglement in the nets of illegal fishing trawlers. 4. Uncaring business activities: Megaports being built by Dharma Port Co. in Dhamra (in which Tata Steel and L & T are involved), POSCO for offshore drilling for oil. Greenpeace research lab points out that the port is very close to the two environmentally protected areas, and poses unacceptable risk for the turtles. The port is only 5Km from Bhitarkanika Sanctuary (Indias second largest mangrove forest), and about 15Km from Gahirmatha Sanctuary. The port itself is the habitat of rare species of reptiles and ambhibians.
Massive decline of Seal population in the seas around Britain [Severin Carrell, Seals disappear,
Scientists worry, HT, Kolkata, Oct 22, 2008, 5]
In the worst affected areas, Orkney Islands, decrease by 10% a year. It is as if the entire population has stopped breeding. The cause? Climate change? Not known for sure. Also seen: Plummeting sea bird population, decline in number of sea eels (food for birds and mammals). Warmer water plankton and large fish are moving up north. Overhunting, seals killing seals etc causes could be localized, cannot adequately explain the global decline.
Why preserve biodiversity? Consequential ethics answer: Because human welfare and survival is inextricably intertwined with the welfare and survival of the non-human beings and things. Plus biodiversity is a source of many cures. It is a resource that we shd not want to lose. Ex: Discovery of alkaloids in Madagascar Periwinkle which treat Hypertension, Lymphocytic Leukemia. Non-consequential ethics answer: Because all the members of the biotic and non-biotic community have rights which are to be respected So, Q7. Certain legal and moral rights must be extended for protection and conservation of living beings such as non-human animals (animalia), trees, flora and fauna, forests, insects, and of non-living things such as rivers, mountains, deserts, wetlands, and other natural objects.
12 mega-diversity Ecological Hot Spots in India: North-East India, Western Ghats, Eastern and Western Himalayas, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Sikkim, etc. India with 2.4 percent of worlds area has 8 percent of global bio-diversity.
From Ecology to Ethics Basic argument A

P1. Destruction / impairment of natural environment is largely due to anthropogenic effects or human impact P1.1 What is at the root of this reckless human behavior?
A1.1. The worldview of Anthropocentrism or Human centeredness (DEEP ECOLOGY) A1.2. Patterns of social domination of one class over can foster ideology of domination of nature (SOCIAL ECOLOGY, Murray Bookchin) A1.3 The same social structures which serve to oppress women in a society are closely liked with the domination and abuse of nature (ECOFEMINISM) P2. [Those who cause damage, injury, harm,
ought to bear the responsibility / obligation / duty to repair, compensate, restore where possible.] Ethical principle based on Justice, Fairness. C. Hence, Humans ought to bear the responsibility / obligation / duty to repair, compensate, restore the natural environment where possible.
Deep Ecology: Radical Environmental Ethics Deep Ecology: Arne Naess, (1973) Norwegian philosopher, Bill Devall, George Sessions Radical cure suggestion: Rejection of anthropocentric attitude and adopting a holistic, nonanthropocentric outlook Naess first introduced a distinction: Shallow Vs Deep Ecology Shallow ecology movement: Ecology movement at a superficial level looking at pollution, resource depletion as isolated events. Ultimately it is an anthropocentric fight with the central objective of how to maintain the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.
Deep ecology movement: A relational, total-field perspective. Looks beyond outcome into the social and human practices that cause them (e.g. pollution, resource depletion. -Affluent, easy lifestyle promotes overconsumption Forsake it, go for a simpler, less technology-driven lifestyle, Asian religions - Greed of businesses lead to overutilization of resources curb consumerism, block overambitious ecounfriendly business moves - Self-centered individualism allows for false distinctions from the nature and from other human beings Change to a holistic, relational perspective A PRACTICAL ETHICS: Significant change in outlook, behavior at individual and organizational level
Deep Ecology Principles: 1. Human and non-human life have intrinsic value, irrespective of their utility to human purposes 2. Biodiversity is to be preserved, humans have no right to reduce this diversity except to satisfy vital needs 3. Principle of biospheric egalitarianism: no humans have special right, our needs cannot override needs of other creatures. Change human economic, technological & ideological structures. By: A new self-realization based on Spiritualism, Buddhism, Gandhian thoughts An agenda of political action, civil disobedience, and eco-sabotage.
Greenpeace : Its earlier days June 1990, under pressure US Fish & Wildlife Service barred Timber Industry from logging old forests in North California (Wilderness conservation, plus Habitat of Spotted Owl). Loss: 36,000 lumber jobs, price of furniture, musical instruments soared In 1980s, members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society sabotaged plants, sunk ships & thus imposed costs on commercial whaling industry (depletion of whales)
GREENPEACE Business
:Deep
Green
and
Dec 2007 : IFC, Worldbanks lending arm , sells its equity stake in Olam International, for illegal timber trading in Congo. 2007: EUs ban on energy-wasting incandescent lightbulbs 2007: deep-sea bottom trawling method no more allowed for fishing industry in South Pacific 2006: Food companies, supermarkets, suppliers sign a zero deforestation policy : no purchase from newly deforested land
The world is today more aware of conservation of wilderness, protection of natural resources and biodiversity
Criticisms against Deep Ecology:

1. What is to be done when human interests conflict with the interest of the elements in nonhuman natural world? There seems to be no clear answer 2. Ramachandra Guha: Deep Ecology is Utopian. It may prove disastrous for poor and agrarian population (tribals) of less developed countries (India) who live in fine balance with nature. A policy of wilderness preservation and biocentric equality would effectively result in direct transfer of wealth from poor to rich and a major displacement for the poor (ecological refugees).
3. Social Ecology and Ecofeminism: Deep

ecology is concerned with factors that are too abstract while ignoring the human and social causes of the environmental destruction. E.G. It overemphasizes value of wilderness while ignoring the human costs of environmental harm. The focus should be on social justice.
Ecofeminism: Connects environmentalisms with feminisms Root of ecological problems lies in certain social factors: A power issue Social injustices based on race, gender and class are related to the ideologies that sanction the exploitation and degradation of nature. Nature is an analogy to women: There only to serve the needs of men. Uncaring use, dominate, exploit and then discard The attitudes towards women in a society reflect in attitude towards nature Also, many ecological damaging issues have more detrimental effect on women, if the women are involved more in the household management: Food, desertification, deforestation, flooding, access to safe water, etc.
Male chauvinism: The belief that men are superior to women Assumed precept: Those who are superior have this right to be the master of the inferior class There is violence inherent in that assumption, power politics is an integral part of the art of conquest Ecofeminism: Environmental destruction and degradation is yet another expression of male chauvinism The ideology that authorizes oppressions based on race, class, physical disability, also sanctions the oppression of nature.
Women affected change:
worst
by
climate
70 per cent of the world's poor, who are far more vulnerable to environmental damage, are women 75 per cent of environmental refugees are also women. severe water scarcity : women are more likely to be the unseen victims of resource wars and violence as a result of climate change.
More on Ecofeminism: 1. Male ownership of land a culture of domination and exploitation, abuse of land (overcultivation, overgrazing) and of other humans (serfs, bonded labour), abusive land ethic where the land and animals in it are valued only by economic value (a certain kind of capitalism) 2. Environmental degradation harms women more when agriculturally productive land is taken away for cash crops, when fertile forest is deforested for timber (money) or for real estate (money) 3. Vandana Shiva (Physics, IISc-B): (a) how societies look mistakenly at both women and nature taken as passive and submissive, and take that as a signal to be misused. (b) A river, e.g. is perceived as unproductive if it is simply there fulfilling thirst. Unless it is
a source of hydropower, it is not Intro to Ethics, A-2008 valued.
Vandana Shiva & Ecofeminism (Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development) Women have a way of taking from the forest that is distinctly different from that of men. Women give back also to the forest. They care and see to it that the forest regenerates and is conserved. At 6000 ft altitude, in Balganga Valley of Garhwal lies the Kangad, a hamlet of 200 families. In 1977, the already degraded forest of Kangad was marked for felling by forest dept. The women, who had to walk long way to gather fodder, fuel and water, were determined to same the last patch of trees. The men of Kangad were employed by the Forest dept for the felling operations. With the gender fragmentation within the village, it was not easy to launch Chipko. The women contacted Bimla Bahuguna in Silyara (15 kms away from Kangad), and she came with Chipko activists Dhoom
Singh Negi and Pratap Shihar. After 4 months of resistance, the women succeeded in saving their forest. The womens orgn. (Mahila Mandal) then decided to regenerate the forest. On the basis of cattle owned by each family, contributions were raised to employ a forest guard (Rs 300 p.m) to deter gathering of wood and fodder. It worked for three years, after which the watchman became corrupt and allowed some people to gather wood and fodder. When the women came to know of this, they abolished the watchman post and guarded the forest themselves. 10-12 women were on duty, and it was rotational in a cycle of 15-20 days. As one woman said: On these days we leave our own work and protect the forest because our oak trees are like our children. Oak trees are now regenerating naturally in Kangad. Once a Gujjar allowed his goats to graze in regenerated area, and the women fined him Rs 200. Once during a forest fire the women joined hands to put out fire. As one woman said: The men were at home, but they
decided to stay back rather than join us. The men are least bothered about saving the trees. In 1986 Mahila Mandal decided to assist Forest Dept in tree planting. They dug 15000 pits but when they found out that Forest Dept wants to plant only exotic Poplars, they refused and forced Forest Dept to bring back the diverse indigenous fodder species. The strength of nature and the strength of women is the basis of recovery of forest in Kangad. The market is not the guiding factor. The capital is not debt and aid from World Bank. The energy of women and nature is the capital, and the principle is conservation for a sustainable living with the forest. Shiva: The chipko struggle is a non-violent struggle to recover hidden and invisible productivity of vital natural resources and that of women, to recover their entitlements, and to create ecological insights (social forestry) and political spaces which do not destroy fundamental rights to survival.
Ethics of care Ethics need not follow only the dictates of rationality (consequence calculation, authoritarian concerns for justice and fairness, duty, or rational ideals of universalizability and reversibility) For, rationality is not the only element that humans are made of. Feelings and emotions play an equally important role in defining who we are. The extra emphasis on reason as the defining characteristic of humans as a species (by Plato, Aristotle, etc) is a male bias, which presents a distorted view of human nature. It overlooks the role of softer emotions in our decision-making, and in our moral judgments. Ethics of care, i.e. ethics based on care, is an ethic from that viewpoint.
Carol Gilligan: The standard (male) viewpoint in ethics is adherence to abstract, universal rules. Cold and shrewd reasoning drives the moral reasoning. Objectivity is extolled but long-term self-interest is advocated, and the motivating factor is how in a moral community every moral agent has equal worth. In contrast, there is another perspective (Gilligan: often feminine) possible on why we ought to do something. This viewpoint derives its moral imperatives from the contextual and unique details of certain situations and certain individuals. [E.g. the unique bond between a degraded forest
and local women in Kangad case]
The substantive concern in this perspective is CARE and RESPONSIBILITY that ensue from caring (for fellow human beings, for nature and natural elements)
Feelings of empathy, compassion, friendship, kindness, and the self-imposed moral obligation that one assumes because of that feeling, particularly when considerations of short-term or long-term benefit, or reparation of injustice, apply. The moral task is not to follow only universal and impartial principles, but to fulfill situation-specific obligations to specific individuals or groups based on a sense of care An accident trauma patient, no one else survived
Ethics of care: person-to-person, or person to group, or within society Radical examples: -Obligations that a mother (parents) feels for caring for a child with terminal illness - Obligations towards the bereaved family of a departed, very good friend Moderate examples: Obligations towards the underprivileged Extension: A society is an web of relationships, our well-being cannot be an isolated affair We have an extra obligation to take special care towards those with whom we have special relationships, such as dependency. - caring for old parents, sick patients, friends or relatives going through a rough patch - Caring for sick animals
Ecofeminism of a certain kind speaks of environmental obligations because of: (a) Non-exploitative, non-oppressive emotional bond with nature (e.g. the valley that you grew up in), (b) Asks for a change in the outlook towards nature (not as resources) (c) In a sense, much of degradation and its reparation stands in an asymmetric dependency with humans It suggests a different sustainable living. paradigm for
Shiva on Women in the food chain Historically nature and women have been primary food providers thorough natural farming The feminine principle of food production: intimate, reciprocal links with crops, trees and animals. Food production is not a distinct process from forest, water, animal management. The male paradigm of food production: Green revolution, scientific agriculture, scientific dairy / animal farm . -Food became a commodity for profit - Displaced women, peasants, and nature from the process - Manipulation of nature to yield more. -Efficient but not sustainable Resulting in eco-degradation. Commodization of food either destroys the basis of womens work in food production or devalues it.
Bina Agarwal [Neither
Sustenance nor Sustainability: Agricultural Strategies, Ecological Degradation, and Indian Women in Poverty, in Structures of Patriarchy, Delhi: Kali for Women, 1988]
Commercial prosperity through taming of nature and the resulting devaluation of women In the heart of Green Revolution region of Punjab, the food abundance in the market has not been translated into nutrition for the girl child in the house. A 1978 study shows that within the same economic zone in Ludhiana district % of undernourished girl children is higher than % of undernourished male children. This region was the first to turn to amniocentesis for selective termination of female fetuses.
Bandopadhyay & Moench womens knowledge production
[Basic Needs and Biomass Utilization, in J. Bandopadhyay et al, Indias Environment, Dehradun: Natraj, 1987.]:
Value of the base in food
In Garhwal Himalayas, 2/3 of fodder for farm animals from the straw of cereal crops (wheat etc). This is stored to provide animal fodder during low periods. The shift to plants vegetables for export earns cash. But destroys food and fodder source on the farm. Pressure on the forests for fodder increases threefold, as if population has grown threefold. Invisible costs: women have to spend more energy to get fodder from forests, resulting forest degradation, soil erosion etc.
THE CHIPKO MOVEMENT
Chipko is taken from the Hindi word for hugging. In Garhwal region, for generations people have survived by depending on the forest. Traditionally the women do most of the work. In addition to domestic chores, they cultivate crops, tend live-stocks, and gather firewood for heat and cooking. The men by increasing number leave the area to find jobs in the plains. The women therefore have to bear greater responsibilities. Until 19th century enjoyed unrestricted access forest and existed in a stable economic and ecological relationship with them. But starting from 19th century, the government took control of the national forest with the primary aim to manage the forest as a commercial resource. Starting from early 1970s local people recognized that the wide spread logging and deforestation occurring under government
policies was intensifying the flooding, landslides and erosion throughout the region. Many people died, homes were destroyed and crops and live-stocks were lost. Because women were responsible for most of the household works, these events were especially hard on them and their children. The government kept on auctioning of logging rights for major forest throughout the region in spite of major protests against commercial logging. In Reni forest, while most of the men were away to attend the meeting with government, the loggers moved into the region to begin cutting. Noticing this, a local woman Gaura Devi, organized the village women to go to the forest to protest. Gaura Devi and her followers used the non-violent chipko technique and forced the loggers to retreat without cutting down any trees. This incident forced the government to re examine its logging policies. When a study concluded that the Reni forest is
ecologically sensitive, the government imposed a ten year moratorium on commercial logging. Subsequently, the chipko movement spread to other regions and succeeded in preventing the massive commercial logging.
Male and Female Morality From the field of moral psychology: Whether there is a distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and women. According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. They claim: Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and acts caringly within that context.
This stands in contrast with male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems.
From Ecology to Ethics: Environmental Justice and Social Ecology Basic argument B
P1. Destruction / impairment of natural environment is largely due to anthropogenic effects or human impact by certain advantaged populations or societies, but the burden is placed on the least advantaged (minorities, poor). Example: Race is the best predictor in which neighborhoods the toxic waste sites will be (1982 study, Toxic Wastes and Race in United States). Health and safety risks are always higher in the poor areas. Poor countries are more likely suffer the brunt of environmental degradation than wealthy countries. A1.2. Patterns of social domination of one class over can foster ideology of domination of nature (SOCIAL ECOLOGY, Murray Bookchin) P2. Disproportionate burdening is unfair and is social injustice [Ethical principle based on Rawls Distributive Justice, Fairness]. C. Hence, the populations who enjoy more benefits ought to bear the more burden / obligation / duty to repair, compensate, restore the natural environment where possible.
Environmental Justice: Key issue is the inequity in the distribution of burden of environmental degradation + depletion borne by certain groups (the poor, the women, the racial minorities, the less developed countries) And also the inequitable access to the environmental benefits of certain groups (the poor, the women, the racial minorities, the less developed countries) Goods: Livable environment, better health, better healthcare, nutrition from food, safe water, clean air, safe living zones, safe recreation zones, natural resources And also participation in the decisionmaking Burden: Pollution, ozone layer depletion, fossil fuel cost, proximity to unsafe waste, health problems, violence, crime, etc. The aim is: To redress this inequity
A community is forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of a harmful industrial practice or an environmental policy, or is unjustly deprived of a resource. Within the victim community it is noticed that their voices are not heard and that their values, interests, and identities are not respected. Those communities that are repeatedly denied a fair hearing within the policy process are often left feeling despair or anger Bhopal and its lessons for the poor Indian tribals and the forests Environmental refugees: displaced are typically the voiceless poor, the socioeconomically peripheral people The negative environmental impact of this economic growth is felt much more by the poor and powerless than by the rich and powerful within nations as also across nations.
Acc to this view, The root causes of environmental injustices include : An institutionalized form of discrimination (race, gender, class, caste, wealth, less developed countries): a dominating attitude, a power issue. Making the vulnerable groups more vulnerable. Power structures that foil the attempts of more equitable environmental reform Advocates of this view demand: That governmental policies (public policies) be based on respect for all (without discrimination) That natural resources should be ethically used That there should be universal protection from harm That right to participate in every level of decision-making should be equitably awarded
Sikkim The scrapping of the Rathong Chu hydroelectric power project in Sikkim is an example of environmental activism. It was the faith and reverence of the people of Sikkim for their sacred land Yuksom, where the project was to come up, which led to its scrapping. The protest against the Rathong Chu project was novel in more ways than one. Firstly, it was the first time that the people in any part of the country demanded the halting of a project due to spiritual and religious reverence for the place where the project was to come up. Secondly, It was one of the rare instances where the monks and Lamas of Sikkim came out of their religious hibernation and demonstrated against the project. The Government also appointed a one-man committee under Prof. P.S Ramakrishnan to
consider the viability of the project. The final report of the committee stated that "although the Rathong Chu may be viable on biophysical-environmental consideration, on socio-cultural and religious consideration, alone, keeping the strong sentiments of a large cross section of the Sikkimese society in mind, the Project should not be implemented. Although the government still refused to stall the project it was the sustained agitation by the Lamas and monks together with the tribals that ultimately forced the government to stall the project.
EXPORTING TOXIC WASTES:THE WORLD BANK MEMO The following memo was circulated at the world bank in 1991.Lawrence Summers was the chief economist of world bank at that time, and went on to become the president of Harvard University. Date :December 12,1991 To Distribution From Lawrence H Summers. Dirty industries: Just Between You And Me, should not the world bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs (less developed countries)? I can think of three reasons: 1. The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depend on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view, a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the
country with the lowest wages. I think, the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic wastes in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face upto that. 2. The costs of pollution are likely to be nonlinear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low costs. I have always thought that under populated countries are vastly UNDERpolluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico city. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by nontradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3. The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive
to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a nontradable. The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
[Source: Laura Westra, A Transgenic Dinner? Ethical and Social Issues in Bioetchnology and Agriculture, Journal of Social Philosophy 24, Winter 1993, 215-32.]
Waste-recyclers, waste-pickers, Wasteprocessors: India & Social Ecology There are hundreds of thousands of them. They bear the brunt of a citys consumption behavior and offer it important waste-processing services (thereby they eke out a living) Given that a major environmental problem for an Indian city is garbage and toxics, practically no environmental benefits are awarded to this informal sector.
Manmohan Singh in China : Call to Work Together on Environment [HT, Kolkata, Oct 26,
2008, 3]
PM called upon European nations to do more to fight climate change. He said that the developing nations are committed to do their share, but climate change cannot be tackled by perpetuating the poverty of the developing nations or by preventing their industrialization. He said GHG emissions from developed nations have actually increased by 2.6% in 2000-2005.
Why not pollute? Consequential answer: Because lack of breathable air, potable water, liveable shelter, edible food poses a great threat to human survival (Anthropocentric). Ecological answer: Because all of this endanger the existence of everything, including the humans (non-anthropocentric), and violates the rights. Non-consequential answer: Because it is unfair to all. No one has the right to endanger the well-being and existence of any other individual, be it human or nonhuman, living or non-living. (nonanthropocentric)
Environmental rights: environment
Right to livable
-a normative concept, living conditions vs livable conditions Mainly from a human perspective Essential to permit him to live a human life (Blackstone) But arguably can be extended to other life forms -Loss of habitat argument: leads to extinction or threats survival. E.g. at least 120 out of 620 living primate species (apes, monkeys, lemurs and others) will go extinct in the wild in the next 10 to 20 years, at current rates of habitat loss.
Minimize pollution
CASE #1: WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE, NOT A DROP TODRINK?
Towards the middle of 2003, the residents of village Belda, in West Midnapore (Southern district of the state of West Bengal), started to complain about a foul smell in the water of their tubewells. They claimed that this is being caused by the waste dumped from a chemical factory nearby. Environmentalists made a few trips to Belda. At first they opined: The villagers are after money and job from the factory. The factory owner did not comply to their request, therefore they have found a new way to put pressure on the owner. The factory has been there for the last 15 years with no complain. Why all of a sudden now the complaints are being lodged? The comments did not deter the villagers. They kept running from pillar to post in the offices of the BDO, the village panchayat,
the District Magistrate and the district environmental affairs office. The applications started to pile up in various offices. Finally, the environmentalists admitted that the factory does not have any arrangement to treat the water coming out from it. Toxic waste water was untreated and left to be absorbed into the earth causing aquafiers and the subterranean supply of water to be polluted. So, some action must be taken. The trial started, the factory was asked to close down. However, after a few days it started to operate again. The villagers swore that the condition of their drinking water is getting worse with time. They requested the Central Government to intervene. But, Government offices work in their own pace, and by now powerful voices started to support the factory owner. In due course of events, the villagers reached the Appeals Court for Environmental Claims (empowered by National Environment Appellate Authority Act gazetted in 1997).
The Appeals court formed a committee with experts. The experts visited Belda and concluded that the claim of the village residents was 100% true. The water and the soil around the factory by now have become toxic. They further stated that the probability of cancer from the water, if used for drinking, cannot be ruled out. Perhaps the factory would now close down permanently.
[Source: B.Mukhopadhyaya, WBPCB, 2006]
Legal Framework Constitution of India, Articles 21, 32, 48A and 51A(g). Environment Protection Act, 1986 The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974)
M.C. MEHTA v. KAMAL NATH AND OTHERS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (1997)1 SUPREME COURT CASES 388 KULDIP SINGH, J.
Introduction The Court took notice of an article which appeared in the Indian Express stating that a private company "Span Motels Pvt. Ltd.", to which the family of Kamal Nath, a former Minister of Environment and Forests, had a direct link, had built a motel on the bank of the River Beas on land leased by the Indian Government in 1981. Span Motels had also encroached upon an additional area of land adjoining this leasehold area, and this area was later leased out to Span Motels when Kamal Nath was Minister in 1994. The motel used earthmovers and bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas, create a new channel and divert the river's flow. The course of the river was diverted to save the motel from future floods. Legal Framework
Constitution of India Articles 21 and 32 Forest Conservation Act of 1980 Held The Supreme Court of India held that prior approval for the additional leasehold land, given in 1994, is quashed and the Government shall take over the area and restore it to its original condition. Span Motels will pay compensation to restore the environment, and the various constructions on the bank of the River Beas must be removed and reversed. Span motels must show why a pollution fine should not be imposed, pursuant to the polluter pays principle. Regarding the land covered by the 1981 lease, Span Motels shall construct a boundary wall around the area covered by this lease, and Span Motels shall not encroach upon any part of the river basin. In addition, this motel shall not discharge untreated effluents into the river. This ruling is based on the public trust doctrine, under which the Government is
the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The Court reviewed public trust cases from the United States and noted under English common law this doctrine extended only to traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing, but how the doctrine is now being extended to all ecologically important lands, including freshwater, wetlands and riparian forests. The Court relied on these cases to rule that the government committed patent breach of public trust by leasing this ecologically fragile land to Span Motels when it was purely for commercial uses.
Cases Cited
City of Milwaukee v. State 193 Wis. 423 Crawford County Lever and Drainage Dist. No. 1 182 Wis 404 Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission 350 Mass 410 (1966) Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois 146 U.S. 387 (1892) Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212: JT (1996) 2 SC 196 Marks v. Whitney 6 Cal. 3d 251
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County 33Cal.3d419 Philips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi 108 S.Ct. 791 (1988) Priewev v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement Co. 93 Wis. 534 (1896) Robbins v. Dep 't of Public Works 244 N.E. 2d 577 Sacco v. Development of Public Works 532 Mass 670 State v. Public Service Commission 275 Wis l12
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN INDIA
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)

1985 1. THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (EPA) 1986
BUT it is mainly about pollution EPA 1986 gives power to the central government i.e., the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to take all measures that it feels is necessary to protect and improve quality of the environment and to prevent and control environmental pollution. To meet this objective the Central Government can restrict areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards.(Refer section 3(2)(v) of the Act.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,amended 1988

prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water bodies beyond a given standard, and lays down penalties for non-compliance
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) lays down the standards
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
2. Conservation Central Govt is empowered to declare some areas as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) or Ecologically Fragile Areas (EFA) and thereby granting it a special protection status. -1989,
[prohibits
Doon
Valley,
Uttaranchal
the setting up of an industry in which the daily consumption of coal/fuel is more than 24 MT (million tonnes) per day in the Doon Valley.] -1989, Murud-Janjira (fragile coastal ecology & heritage), Maharashta, -1992, Aravalli Hills, to save from large scale mining -1996, No development zone 15 km radius of Numaligarh refinery, to save Kaziranga National Park, Assam
-2001,
Mahabaleswar, Panchgani and 2003 Matheran, to save from human impact and unplanned tourism
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Amendment 1991 Protection to listed species of flora and fauna and establishes a network of ecologicallyimportant protected areas. Empowers the central and state governments to declare any area a wildlife sanctuary, national park or closed area. There is a blanket ban on carrying out any industrial activity inside these protected areas. Regulate the hunting of wild animals; protect specified plants, sanctuaries, national parks and closed areas; restrict trade or commerce in wild animals or animal articles; and miscellaneous matters The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Restricts the powers of the state in respect of de-reservation of forests and use of forestland for non-forest purposes (the term non-forest purpose includes clearing any forestland for cultivation of cash crops, plantation crops, horticulture or any purpose other than reafforestation).
Other notable notifications and rules issued under EPA: Taj Trapezium Notification (1998): no power plant could be set up within the geographical limit of the Taj Trapezium Disposal of Fly Ash Notification (1999): to conserve the topsoil, protect the environment and prevent the dumping and disposal of fly ash discharged from lignite-based power plants. Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, amended 2000 Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 Municipal Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 Factories Act, 1948 and its Amendment in 1987
contains a comprehensive list of 29 categories of industries involving hazardous processes, which could Cause material impairment to health of the persons engaged
Result in the pollution of the general environment
The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 the establishment of a National Environment Appellate Authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industry operation or process or class of industries, operations or processes could not carry out or would be allowed to carry out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Other Govt strategies: Particulate matter emission standards Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Lower Carbon emission (complies to Kyoto Protocol 2002) Incentive for Non-conventional, renewable energy: Solar, wind
Other Govt Initiatives: Fiscal incentives to the industry: customs waivers, soft loans, to help installation of pollution abatement equipments Fines on old, inefficient coal-fired plants Recycling: deposit refund system Bicchri Case, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 1996: Supreme Court laid down the rule:
Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) 1996: Absolute and strict liability for harm to the industry who caused the pollution
Bicchri case, Rajasthan 1996
In Bichhri, a nondescript village 15 km away from Udaipur in Rajasthan, the wells contain a brownish cocktail of iron, gypsum, H-acid and other pollutants; known as coca-cola by local farmers (Sebastian 1997).The highly acidic contaminant corrodes the rock walls of the wells and seeps into the surrounding areas. Bichhris woes began in 1987 with the emergence of the Silver Chemicals factory to manufacture H-acid, a naphthalene-based dye intermediate. A few months later, villagers found their well-water turning brownish-red due to seepage of effluents from the unit. The H-acid sludge had been dumped on bare ground and chemicals from the sludge had seeped into groundwater. The groundwater aquifers and nearly 90 wells were polluted. The damage caused by the untreated, highly toxic wastes resulting from the production of H-acid and the continued discharge of highly toxic effluent from the sulphuric acid plant has inflicted untold misery upon the villagers and long-lasting damage to the soil, underground water and to the environment of the area in general.
Most of the land affected by the water remains barren or with substantially low production. Even the water that seeps into farms through irrigation canals from the Udaisagar lake, turns brown as it percolates through the contaminated soil. Vegetable and wheat crops show stunted growth. The fodder in the area is not fit for use and the milk yield from cattle has gone down drastically. The contaminated drinking water can cause liver damage and cancer. It is estimated that about 400 farmers distributed among 11 hamlets have been directly affected by the groundwater pollution. Incidences of skin diseases in the area are reported. Most of the wells in four directly affected villages and in 20 neighboring villages are in a state of disuse. The water and solid contamination was found to be persisting even several years after the incidence. Though the Supreme Court in Writ Petition 967/1989 (1996.02.13) provided for rectification of environmental damage in its judgment of 1996, it did not address the real problem of the villagers no compensation was offered to the
victims of Bichhri. While the Bichhri units have been seized and sealed, the owner has set up a similar unit in Vapi, Gujarat, which continues to function. [Kothari, Ashish and Anuprita Patel, Toxics
Underground: The Story of Bicchri, Environment and Human Rights, National Human Rights Commission, 2006, p.58-59]
In Spite of the laws, the facts show a dismal picture: Uncaring Industrialization is worsening the situation
State of West Bengal All of 15 major rivers are badly polluted. Pollution load is more from rural and domestic sources than from urban sources. Groundwater level in Kolkata has gone from 3m to 9m (Highrises) Arsenic ( 7 districts very badly affected) and fluoride contamination (4 major districts) Illegal coal mining in Asansol-Ranigunj area has turned the land over 110 mines into wasteland. The KMC and Howrah Muni. Corp produce 120+tonnes of hospital solid waste without a proper system of waste disposal. West Bengal Industrial Dev Corp (WBIDC) and West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Corp (WBIIDC) have no link with State Environmental Dept or State Pollution Control Board.
[HT, Kolkata Live, Growth Demon fouls up Bengal Green Scene, Subhomoy Chatterjee. Oct 13, 2008, p.4)
Foremost Environmental Responsibility / duty : To practice sustainability Sustainability: the capacity building to maintain a state or a process indefinitely In ecology, sustainability: how ecosystems can remain functional over time In business, sustainability: how businesses can remain functional over time Originally from forest, animal management: -How many trees can be cut without hampering forest growth: (Maximum sustainable cut) -How many fish can fished and still have a fishery functioning at the end of the time period? (Maximum sustainable yield) But, Sustainability for a species sustainability of the ecosystem
Even when these maximums are observed for certain elements, e.g. these trees, fish etc, the ecosystem may not remain sustainable.
So, ecological sustainability is a great challenge. Since for certain reasons humans have contributed to the environmental problem by unsustainable ways of living, they have the onus to find ways to address this challenge: Principle of justice Ways suggested: Control and curb consumption rates and patterns to achieve sustainability Innovate new technologies Innovation on living conditions. Also, short-term sustainability long-term sustainability
Concept of sustainability used also for development paradigms: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: How to have the cake and eat it too? -To bridge the gulf between development and environment Concept of Sustainability used in the context of a community or society: Sustainability is a communitys strategy to build capacity to maintain the quality of life : -economical quality -ecological quality, -and socio-cultural quality -Healthy, productive, enriched life for all
E.g. If in last 10 yrs, less jobs, less affordabilityeconomical loss in quality of life If in last 10 yrs, more crime, more violence, more insecurityloss of social quality If in last 10 yrs air quality, water quality, food quality gotten worse, loss of environmental quality of life The piecemeal approach to each is the traditional way. Now, it is an idealization about achieving balances among all these three parts: Triple Bottom Line approach how to live long, dignified, comfortable, and productive lives, satisfying their needs in environmentally sound and socially just ways so as to not compromise the ability of other human beings from doing the same now and into the distant future.
Some theoretical considerations: A. Mathusianism or Doomsday argument Economist Thomas Malthus (in 1798) predicted that population when unchecked grows in geometrical ratio and subsistence for man in arithmetical ratio. Ergo, there is a limit to any growth (Malthusian limit). Critics: How has it been possible to have six-fold increase of population since 1798 and still able to more or less feed the population? Neo-Malthusians: In 1973, Club of Rome published a book Limits to Growth predicting dire consequences for the next 30 years. Most of them have not come true. But the overall lesson is good: Continued profligate consumption rate could sooner or later get us into trouble.
B. The optimist Cornucopians: Ester Boserup (1981) and others claim that population pressure is not necessarily bad, it acts as incentive and pressure for more innovation in technology, for more production of food. Population declines when developmental needs are met. Who is to be believed and what is to be done? We still do not have a consensus how impaired worlds ecosystems are, or what is our potential for continued development for the growing population. So, sustainability remains a core issue today.
A rejoinder: The population explosion argument often points a finger at China and India for global resource and biodiversity depletion (recent comment of Bush: Indias middle class is causing the recent world food crisis). Sahotra Sarkar: What is critical is not the size of the population, but the resources that it consumes, the patterns of consumption and thereby the human impact that it leaves on nature. The resources that are consumed and the rate by which they are consumed by an average Canadian is different and is several times higher than the rate of consumption by which they are consumed by a resident of Bangladesh. So, a much higher population growth rate of Bangladesh is perhaps statistically irrelevant to the environment when compared to the much modest population growth rate of Canada.
Sustainable Development Defn 1. Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987)
Mohan Munasinghe (1993, World Bank Economist): Survivability Sustainability. The former requires welfare to be above a threshold at all times, and the latter requires that the welfare does not decrease at all times Newer Defn 2. Improving the quality of life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. (Jacobs, 1996, Politics of the Real World, Earthscan, p.26)
Has 3 components or 3 bottom lines: 1. Economic (development) 2. Environmental (ecology) 3. Social (equity)
Brundtland report suggested 7 initiatives for sustainable development: 1. Reviving growth; 2. changing the quality of growth; 3. meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation; 4. ensuring a sustainable level of population; 5. conserving and enhancing the resource base; 6. reorienting technology and managing risk; 7. merging environment and economics in decision-making
Guiding steps towards sustainability: 1. Develop an environment which supports human dignity through gender and racial equality and promotes intergenerational respect. 2. Develop honesty and integrity in daily life. 3. Encourage the fair distribution of wealth. 4. Work to strengthen local communities and safeguard the health and safety of all. 5. Commit to maintaining and enhancing the integrity and biodiversity of the natural environment 6. Use natural resources, such as water and land wisely and aim to reduce consumption. 7. Refuse, reduce, reuse, repair and recycle. 8. Where possible buy green products, locally produced with reduced packaging. 9. Understand the synergies between advances in technology and behavioural change to achieve sustainability.
10.Encourage ethical business practices. 11.Develop business strategies which promote good corporate governance. 12.Encourage financial success through openness and transparency.
The ecological approach to Sustainability: 1. Responsible consumption particularly for non-renewable resources (mainly for western lifestyle, consumerist culture): -Curb overconsumption wherever possible, -Control waste, recycle and reuse wherever possible Ex. EU in 2007 mandated that 20% of EUs energy requirements must come from renewable source by 2020. Current rate is 8.5%. 2. Maintain the essential ecological processes and life support systems: Prevent decimation, prevent or manage harmful pollution at the source, help regeneration
3. Preserve genetic biodiversity BUT Not an easy task
SAHEL: An example of how good intentions are not enough
Sahel, the narrow area of land south of Sahara desert, has been the home of nomads for centuries. It has never been an easy place to live in, but the nomads have survived amazingly well. In recent years, people acting for organizations like the Un decided to improve life for the nomads. These organizations did two major things: First, they introduced modern medicines. They vaccinated the nomads against smallpox and measles, thereby bringing malaria and sleeping sickness under control. Modern medicine greatly increased the life-span of the nomads. Animal diseases also were controlled. Secondly, more water was made available. There are great supplies of underground water in the Sahel, which the nomads hand-dug wells never reached. Deep wells were drilled using modern machinery. This large new supply increased the number of animals
possible for nomads to own. Although the animals had water, the soon ate or trampled the little grass available. A six-year drought further decimated the grass and the animals began to die of starvation. Because of the drought and loss of animals, many nomads starved. The UN was faced with a more severe problem than the one it originally wanted to solve.
[An example of the Tragedy of the Commons, first published by Hardin (1968). The article describes the dilemma in which multiple individuals acting out of self-interest can eventually destroy a shared limited resource, even though it is not in anyones long-term interest]. It is also an example of ethical implications of carrying capacity (Hardin, 1977) of an ecosystem.
Green Concepts and India: The real estate industry is one of the biggest emitters of Green House gases in India. In the next 3-4 yrs, 200 Million Sq.Ft of commercial space and 45 Million Sq Ft of retail space is expected to be constructed in major cities in India.
20-25% of electricity consumed by Govt offices is wasted due to inefficient design (A 2004 report by Ministry of Power, GOI)
Rising cost of energy So, green buildings are being considered
Green Buildings: Needs special materials and sustainable systems Green raw materials: fly ash cement aerated blocks recycled aluminum, steel, tiles, and wood low VOC (volatile organic compounds) or zero VOC paint Organic products (bamboo ..) Tangible benefit: Short term economic benefit not immediately visible, but lifetime payback is higher than conventional buildings in operations cost, reduced carbon credits, possible higher renter values. Cost: Higher Construction costs, lack of technical knowhow, lack of resources Certification: (1) LEED-Gold (2) GRIHA3
The History: Early 1970: 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment, attended by only two national leaders . PM of Sweden (Host) and PM of India. Key outcome of that conference: UN Environment program (UNEP) [Took India 34 years to have its own National Environment Policy: Approved by Union cabinet in May 2006]
Other relevant existing national policies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. National Forest Policy 1988 Environment and Development 1992 Abatement of Pollution Policy 1992. National Population Policy 2000 National Water Policy 2002
NEP 2006 is supposed to extend the coverage and fill the gaps in earlier policies
Q: Is there a limit to that preservation policy? In case of a potential conflict with interests of other species, what shd be done? Ex: Accidentally introduced brown tree snakes have almost decimated the bird population in Guam (1994). To conserve birds, the snakes have to be removed. Wild elephants cause havoc in the sugarcane fields of Midnapore. In Kruger National Park, Africa, African elephants had to be culled to protect the habitats of other species. Sterilization could be a solution, but is a costly process. Genuine efforts to conserve may lead to additional costs and efforts. We have to accept that. Ex: Tropical rainforests in Central America have been destroyed only to create unsustainable pastures for the production of cheap beef.This cheap beef has decreased
the price of the hamburgers in the US only by about 5 cents. An affluent nation shd be ready to pay that much extra [Caufield, 1984]
4. Sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems
5 identified areas of sustainable development: 1. economic growth to a limit 2. equitable allocation of resources to sustain growth 3. more democratic systems: more participation in developmental decisions and policies 4. adoption of lifestyles within the planets ecological means (aimed to developed countries) 5. population levels within the productive potential of ecosystems (aimed at Less developed countries).
Apart from the 1972 UN conference, in 1974 World Council of Churches convened a Conference in Science and Technology for Human Development: For, they found the link between social justice and growing ecological problems. They espoused the concept of democratic participation (which became a mainstream sustainable development concept in Earth Summit in Rio,1992) 1980, World Conservation Strategy (International Union of Conservation of Nature) was published: which first coined the term sustainable development: Caring for earth 1982, UN established the Brundlandt Commission: finding ways to translate environmental concerns into greater cooperation among developed and developed countries
1987: Publication of Brundtland Report Criticism against Brundtland Report: Acceptable, but too vague, and simplified and not enough action-oriented 5 yrs later from the report: 1992: Earth Summit in Rio More than 100 national heads, and over 30000 people met to address environmental problem along with socio-economic development Outcomes: Signing (a) Convention on Climate Change, (b) Convention on Biodiversity Endorsed: Rio Declaration Effort to repair the ozone layer Adopted Agenda 21: 300 page action plan for achieving sustainable development in 21st CE
Agenda 21: A bottom up approach involving local stakeholders, particularly the previously excluded citizens such as the women, NGOs, the indigenous people Not a "one-size fits all approach Indias NEP 2006: Sustainable development is to be understood in terms of human well-being (a) Human beings shd be able to enjoy a decent quality of life (b) Humans shd become capable to respect the finiteness of biosphere (c) Neither aspiration for good life nor respect for biophysical limit shd preclude the greater justice in the world [Preamble, NEP 2006]
Some positive grassroot level effort:

At present as many as 70 small and big lakes have come up in Sikar and Alwar districts. These lakes, however, have nothing to do with the water-harvesting projects conceived and executed by Rajinder Singh, a Magsaysay award winner (2001) who is known as "waterman" in Rajasthan.
Environmental Sustainability: Sustainable rate of use for different types of resources: 1. Renewable types (forests, fish): Rate of use ought to be < rate of regeneration Norway: An Example Minke Whaling and Sealing: Ancient source of livelihood for coastal Norwegians. Whale meat and blubber sold for human consumption Coastal population has a right to their timehonored livelihood: Right to exploit renewable natural resources available But, concerns about Biodiversity, Sustainability, Integration against depletion Control measures: Stop overfishing and stop pollution (oil spill, chemicals, dumping) Catching within an annual quota: for 2001 it was 549 marine animals Use of selective equipments (low-energy, no drag nets) and trained gunners
Norway: Other Environmental Measures Environmental Taxes: Government has raised the CO2 Tax for petrol and mineral oils Polluter pays for the environment damage: both in Industry and Transport Waste Management & Recycling Controlled fertilizer and pesticide use
2. Non renewable resources (fossil fuel, mineral ores): rate of use < the rate at which a renewable resource can be sustainably substituted for it [profits from Oil companies for tree-planting or for solar panels] 3. Pollutants: rate of use < than the rate at which it can be recycled, absorbed or made harmless
The knowledge base on which the calculation of the relative rates is based is often unreliable, hence there is need for precaution.
Algae farming (Holland): For animal feed, skin treatment, for biodegradable plastics, and possible biofuel Algae grows almost everywhere where there is water and sunlight, and under he right condition can double its volume within hours. Has no roots, no leaves. So, farming it is easy and does not take up a lot of space, or cropland (like corn, rapeseed, palm do). It can even grow in polluted water, and sea water. It can purify sewage while feeding on the nitrogen from the human waste. It consumes CO2 (the greenhouse gas held responsible for climate change) nearly twice of its size, and produces oxygen. 2% of the manmade carbon emission is blamed on aviation. This could be reduced by using algae-based aviation fuel. And it is rich in oil. Common types have 30% oil content, but that can go up to 70%.
A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT , Times Of India (New Delhi)
Ganga clean-up gets Rs 1,394cr boost (06/03/2010)

$1bn WB Loan Also On Cards: Ramesh
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: In a boost to the Ganga cleaning programme, the government has cleared projects worth Rs 1,394.11 crore for the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Uttarakhand. While the Union government had allocated Rs 500 crore for the 2010-11 fiscal, the empowered steering committee of the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) as part of the first phase of the project has provided Rs 800 crore to Uttar Pradesh, Rs 440 crore to Bihar, Rs 105 crore to West Bengal and Rs 45 crore to Uttarakhand. The money will be spent by the states on projects that include development of sewer networks, sewage treatment plants and sewage pumping stations, electric crematoria, community toilets, development of river-fronts, resuscitation of canals, and public campaigns. Union environment and forest minister Jairam Ramesh said, In addition to these measures, we are negotiating a major loan of about $1
billion with the World Bank for Ganga cleaning, which is progressing on track. The first meeting of NGRBA was held on October 5, last year, with Prime Minisiter Manmohan Singh as chair at which it was decided that no untreated municipal sewage and industrial effluents would be allowed to flow into the Ganga by the year 2020. In December 2009, the authority created the empowered steering committee with the environment and forests secretary as chair to sanction projects. The committee includes members representing other Union ministries, Central Pollution Control Board, Central Water Commission and the states concerned. Ramesh said, These measures signify the importance and urgency that we are placing on the river Ganga.
Health, Healthcare and Ethics Bioethics Medical Ethics
What is health? How do we know it when we see it? Who, or what, is responsible for good health, and bad? Can different people (or groups of people) have different definitions of health? Some definitions of health: (a) the absence of serious physical disease or symptoms Merely negative (b) a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being (WHO) (c) A basic capability which allows an individual to avail the opportunities that may exist in a given society (d) a state of well-being that Includes moral and spiritual health.
[Anandabazar, Sept 4, 2008, Health News] On May 25, 2006, Swati Das was admitted in Tara Ma Nursing Home, Uluberia, to deliver her child. After her delivery, while giving hot compress to the mother of the newborn the nursing home staff burnt her feet so very badly that Swati lost the ability to walk. Later, she had to undergo plastic surgery on her feet. Howrah consumer court has asked the nursing home to pay a fine of Rs 5 Lakhs for negligence in treatment. In case the fine is not paid within one month, 12% interest on the fine will be accrued per year.

Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Notes Introduction to Ethics HS30070

Developed and submitted by C Chakraborti Dept of HSS

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

In terms of should, ought,

One should not steal

We should be loyal to our nation.

Contrast: Descriptive: PASSIVE

Today is Monday New Delhi is Indias capital.

Intro to Ethics, S-2010

Intro to Ethics, S-2010

Intro to Ethics, S-2010

What ought I, or what ought we to do?

Intro to Ethics, S-2010

Intro to Ethics, S-2010

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Value for money Consumer rights Consumer awareness Responsibility of business

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Not all ethical should are easy to determine:

Intro to Ethics S-2010

Intro to Ethics S-2010

Intro to Ethics S-2010

Based on facts, but not induced from facts

Includes considerations about what would be right, or what would be good

Through these values ETHICS come in

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

MONEY AND FRIENDSHIP

What should Kalyan do? And why?

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Action / Decision Rules: Principles

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

More than one principles: it is possible that there may be conflict

One may override the other Override: Supercede, rule over

But with justification: Reasons for overriding must be clearly acceptable

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Value of hardearned money

Value of hard-earned money

Important question is: WHY?

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Good and bad? Right and wrong?

Intro to Ethics S-2010

Questions to settle: 1. What is the ethical 'Good' or

Why should definition? normativity)

accept your (questioning

4. How can we tell if an action is ethically right or wrong? (Criterial)

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Intro to Ethics S-2010

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

C Chakraborti IIT KGP

Intro to Ethics, A-2008

Intro to Ethics S-2010