Ans 2)

Having gone through the various facts and figures related to demonetization,
both current and of the past, we would like to specify that we feel that in an
overall holistic context, the government of India (in tandem with the monetary
bodies, mainly RBI) is the morally correct entity here. Speaking broadly, our
reasoning behind this is that it was high time that the country launched a
significant war against black money. Also, in the recent past, the government
had provided ample opportunities to the black money holders. Despite these
schemes, the people with black money didnt come forward and hence it was
justified on the part of the government to take a step of the magnitude this big.

To further magnify upon the thinking process, we explain how the following value
sets were used:

SET A: A set of normative ethical theories:

To start off, we know that one of the key selling points from Prime Minister Modis
election campaign was the recovery of black money. Once elected, he was
morally bounded to come true on his promise. Also, as the PM of India, it was
anyways his duty to help reduce black money. In terms of deontological ethics,
we can see how the PM has adhered to his duty by taking this drastic step of
demonetization.

This topic of black money had been a hot one since a long time. It is logically
bound to be so because at the end of the day, each Rupee of black money that is
recovered will lead to positive investments by the government on the common
man. This is expected to help positively transform the lives of millions across
India and eventually bring about a happier state of affairs. This is how teleology
explains the action taken.

Now, looking from a macro view, we can see the act of recovering money as a
modern day Robin Hood Act ie. take from the rich, give to the poor. Basically,
the government aims at taking away unethically earned money from those who
own it and eventually use it in its daily practices to benefit the mass. So herein
we can see how distributive justice is derived from the process. Also, we see
by this process, the money that is collected by sources such as bribes, scams,
extortion and overall corruption is recovered. This way the money, in some or the
other proportion would get indirectly (through the government) returned to the
individual who was a victim of the corruption in the first place. This way we see
how corrective justice would get implemented in this process.

SET B: A set of moral principles derived from set A

SETC: A set of moral standards derived from sets A and B

SET D: A set of moral rules derived from set C

The principles, standards and rules that one derives from the theories explained
in the above text are as follows:
From deontological perspective, we adhere to the principle that a leader must
not make false promises or promises that are hard to keep up. In fact as a moral
standard, it is absolutely imperative for him/her to stand by their word. In our
example, Narendra Modi has exactly done this by taking an extreme measure to
help curb the black money problem. So finally we define the moral rules as: Do
not make a false promise or a promise you cant keep up since it is absolutely
necessary for a leader to stay true to his word.

Interesting becoz black money looks inchibvalblle but modi steps have tuned
around the situatin looks achievable

From the teleological perspective, we implement the principle that the

government must do all that its powers allow to improve the lives of the
commons. The standard derived from it is that a government is in place to
ensure public welfare and happiness. In the present case, we see that the influx
of the funds from recovery of black money would be used in multiple ways by the
government to instil public welfare by providing more jobs, direct subsidies, cuts
in taxes as well as infrastructure and resource oriented spending. Hence the rule
followed here is that the government must ensure, within the limits of all its
power, that it takes all possible steps to improve the lives of people as its job is
to ensure public welfare and happiness.

From the distributive justice perspective, the principle is that a society must work
towards removing the skew in resource distribution. The moral standard that it
will help uphold is that a truly good society is one that provides to every member
all that is necessary and only what is adequate. In our case we see the
government moving towards collecting the black money which would be further
invested into projects, used to provide subsidies and for overall welfare of the
people. Also, potentially more jobs would be created when more wealth is at
hand and hence further upliftment of the economically backward can be
expected. Hence we shape the rule that a leadership must work towards
removing skew of resource distribution in society as an ideal society must
provide enough, but only what is adequate (no more), for all.

From corrective justice perspective, the principal we adhere to it is that any

resource, obtained by an individual by illegal or unfair means must be returned
back to the true owner. The standard derived from it is that A society must not
tolerate theft of any kind. In the case of demonetization, we see how the various
scams (where public funds are in use) and bribes taken from the mass is a large
contributor to the black money. These are sources of money that have been
unfairly taken away from the commons and hence must be returned back
(indirectly through the government). Note that money lost through activities like
betting, which is still black money, must still be returned back to the
government. However, in such cases, the one who lost the money does not
necessarily deserve it back. So overall, we can establish the rule that a
government must work towards taking back all that was obtained unfairly as
stealing should never be tolerated in a society.
SET E: A set of moral judgments resulting from applying sets A, B, C or
D while assessing concrete actions

Taking into cognizance, all of the above stated, we return back to where we
started this text, i.e. making the moral judgment that the government of India is
the morally correct entity in this case. We have explained how it has firmly
entrenched within its domain, all the above principles and conformed to all the
standards. This way it follows the set of rules that vary in nature from
teleological to deontological to corrective justice to distributive justice. Whilst
doing all this, it has ensured that it takes the necessary steps, howsoever
extreme they may appear, to fight the battle against black money.

1 MORE PAGE GAS ON THE ABOVE

REVERSE MORAL JUSTIFICATION:

Step Reverse Moral Justification Assessment of Justification

E Moral Judgment: The Government of
India is morally correct in
implementing the demonetization
policy in its war against black money.
As soon as Narendra Modi came into the frame as a
potential PM candidate, one of the key areas of
promises was recovery of black money. A clear
message was sent out by him that the GOI
(government of India) would do everything in its
power to help recover the black money residing
inside and outside the company.

Once in power, there was a serious effort made in

this direction. The government even launched
schemes where one could declare their black money
and still get away with little punishment. Despite
such a generous opportunity, the declarations were
way below the estimates. Now, such a situation
warrants a leader to stand firm and take an impactful
decision.

Agreed that the step was considered by many to

have been implemented a bit abruptly. However one
should note that it is precisely this feature that made
it a potent weapon to curb black money. The
reaction time for the hoarders was nearly zero. In
the short term, businesses suffered losses, country
became a bit illiquid. However, this was a necessary
step considering the long run. In fact the same
businessmen who suffered such large losses are the
biggest endorsers of the movement.

D What specific moral rules justify this
moral judgment and why? [See Set D
above].
To analyze this case, it is absolutely important that
one reaches to a consensus as to whether the GOI
was right in its decision or not. This is necessary
because any further justification for the judgment
will be based upon the answer. For example, if one
wants to justify the governments action, they will
bring out the positive impact demonetization and the
significant recovery of black money will have on the
society. However, one who goes against the
government here may hint at the hardship caused to
innocent common people as well as the businessmen
who suffered huge losses in the period.
Since we have made our mind up on a moral
judgment, we proceed to step B to test it using
Reverse Moral Justification.
First of all from the deontological perspective, we
see that the rule being followed here is that a leader
should not make an unachievable promise since it is
important for him to stay true to his word. Narendra
Modi stayed true to his word, despite it requiring
very harsh and abrupt steps to implement the
scheme.
From the teleological perspective, the rule followed
is that the government should do everything in its
power to ensure improvement in lives of the people
since its job is to ensure public welfare and
happiness. Here again we see the government
stamping down on the black money hoarders by
taking an extreme step such as demonetization.
From the corrective justice point of view, the rule
followed is that the government must work towards
taking back all that was obtained unfairly as
stealing/theft should never be tolerated in a society.
Black money is money taken away from the mass in
direct forms such as bribes, extortion or indirect
forms such as scams. The government aims to
recover it and then provide it to the mass in form of
direct benefits such as subsidies and indirect
benefits such as infrastructure spending.
From the distributive justice point of view, the rule
being followed here is that a leadership must work
towards removing skew of resource distribution in
society as an ideal society must provide enough, but
only what is adequate (no more), for all. Here we

C What specific moral standards justify
this moral judgment and the rules it is
based on, and why? [See Set C above].
B What specific moral principles justify
this moral judgment and the rules
and standards it is based on, and
why? [See Set B above].
see government taking the black money with the
intention of investing back into the society. This will
help in redistributing the wealth in the society more
evenly and hence will decrease the skew. Removing
the skew, however is a much more difficult and
complex task. Also, the redistribution ensures that
people have money, but not to an extent that they
have so much of it that they need to hide it.
As shown above, our judgment has been shown to
being consistent with this rule and hence we move
on to the next step that is step C.
Basing on the above text, the moral standards being
confined to are: First of all it is imperative for a
leader to stay true to his/her word. Secondly, the
government must ensure the happiness and welfare
of all individuals. Thirdly, the government must not
tolerate theft at any cost. Lastly, the government
must provide for all members what is necessary and
only what is adequate. All of the examples covered
in the above answers have been shown to being
conforming to these standards and hence our
judgment passes this test and we are able to move
on to the Step B.
The moral principles that are being applied to our
current case are: The first principle is that a leader
should not make false or unachievable promises.
This principle is visibly applicable in the case when
we see that Modis promise on black money, which
looked far-fetched initially, was actually a planned
one with well-defined strategies. Even the step of
demonetization, was planned for months before
being rolled out.
Secondly, the principle that the government should
do all that it can, within the scope of its powers to
affect the happiness and well-being of the people.
The sheer audacity of the government in terms of
forcing such a big step shows its commitment
towards the people and for their well-being.
Also, the principles that the government and society
must work towards removing the skew in resource
distribution in a society and that any resource
obtained by unfair means or tactics must be
rightfully returned to the true owner are both visible
in the basic logic behind recovering black money. In
simple terms, this process is taking money out of the

A What specific moral or ethical theories
justify this moral judgment and the
rules, standards and principles it is
based on, and why? [See Set A above].
Steps What have you learnt in this iterative
moral reasoning and backward
E-A
judgment and justification process?
hands of those who have illegally obtained and
hoarded it and give it back directly or indirectly to
the common man.
In light of the above, we can safely say that our
judgments and views are consistent with this step
and hence we can move on to step A of the
assessment.
To answer this set of questions, we simply
recapitulate all that we have stated so far.
In general, how would you frame, compose, and
formulate your considered moral judgment
about a given case so that it is morally justifiable
(backward) to the greatest number of affected
persons in the Case?