Jacob Bauer

This thesis examines Mahatma Gandhi's ethical views on nonviolence from the perspective of contemporary philosophical ethics. Gandhian nonviolence is situated in the field of contemporary ethics by using the concepts and terminology from Shelly Kagan's work, Normative Ethics. Three questions are asked that classify and clarify Gandhian nonviolence. First, is nonviolence primarily instrumentally or intrinsically significant? This question is closely tied to the second, does Gandhian nonviolence belong to which type of ethical theory, consequentialism or deontology? And third, is nonviolence an absolutist constraint or a high threshold that allows for exceptions? Gandhi views nonviolence as both instrumentally and intrinsically valuable; however, of the two, Gandhi considers nonviolence to be primarily intrinsically significant. As such, Gandhian nonviolence is properly considered a deontological constraint. Even though he admits that nonviolence is often an impossible mandate, Gandhi considers the moral law of nonviolence to be absolute. This work concludes that Gandhian nonviolence should properly be considered as an absolutist deontological principle.

Today it is commonly believed that capitalism is driven by greed. However, greed is condemned by various religious traditions. In this paper we compare how Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, and Michael Novak, a Catholic, see the possibilities of engaging in competitive business practice without the motive of greed. This discussion suggests a need to distinguish greed from self-interest. We therefore analyze whether it makes a difference in moral evaluation to claim that the real driving force of capitalism is self-interest but not greed. Our analysis makes use of the rational-care theory of self-interest developed by Stephen Darwall, the discussion of which has been absent in the business ethics literature. Our conclusion is that there is a quantitative but not qualitative difference between the two.

In this article, I argue that Gandhi can prefer violence in cases, but still morally object to all forms of violence. Even though this can seem to be a contradiction, nonetheless, one can prefer an action without thinking that action is morally justified. Next, I explore the objection that preferring a violent act, such as violent self-defense, over a act that is not violent, such as running away, seems to prefer an action that is more violent to one that is less violent. I argue that because Gandhian nonviolence is a much broader concept than simple "no violence," violent self-defense is actually closer to a nonviolent act than running away. This is done by making a distinction between nonviolence (positive state of love and virtue) and un-violence (simple lack of physical violence).