Prasasti Pandit

This paper aims to develop a comparative analysis of the place of emotion from Indian and Western philosophical perspectives. Both Eastern and Indian philosophy consider three mental states as being involved with the arousal of emotions, i.e., cognitive (epistemic), conative (desire), and affective. In Indian philosophy, there is no such single term or specific equivalent definition to the Western term ‘emotion.’ Further, there is no clear dichotomy (cognitive & non-cognitive) between reason and emotion in Indian culture. In Indian scriptures, there are various, at times intermingled conceptions of emotion. From a religious standpoint, emotion can be an expression of religious devotion (bhakti), and often emotions are viewed as barriers to having true knowledge and are considered a cause of attachment and an obstacle to liberation. After comparing a large amount of discussion on emotion following Western and Indian conceptions, and analyzing some real-life experiences where emotion plays various roles (intellectual, personal, and spiritual) within each philosophical tradition this paper concludes that it is critical to engage in a comparative, collaborative study of emotion.

This paper explores the value of benevolence as a cardinal virtue by analyzing the evolving history of virtue ethics from ancient Greek tradition to emotivism and contemporary thoughts. First, I would like to start with a brief idea of virtue ethics. Greek virtue theorists recognize four qualities of moral character, namely, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Christianity recognizes unconditional love as the essence of its theology. Here I will analyze the transition within the doctrine of virtue ethics in the Christian era and afterward since the eighteenth-century thinkers are immensely inspired by this Christian notion of love consider universal benevolence as the cardinal virtue. Later, Hume introduces an emotivist turn by considering the moral worth of sympathetic emotions in his ethical doctrine. In this paper, I aim to discover the cardinality of the virtue of benevolence following the evolutionary history of virtue ethics.

This book critically analyses the basic questions regarding the principle of beneficence within its moral domain, to suggest and work out a more credible form of Principle of Beneficence. The Moral Quest for a More Credible Principle of Beneficence evolves from the common goodness of the three major confronting theories of ethics, i.e., Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. After analysing and exploring the common ground of the three views, the aim is to prescribe a more convincing form of the principle of beneficence. The book starts with a brief discussion of the principle of beneficence and then critically analyses previous views related to the principle of beneficence, virtue of benevolence, and their relationship, and proposes a more credible form of the Principle of Beneficence. The Moral Quest for a More Credible Principle of Beneficence aims to provide a significant contribution towards the theory of beneficence.

This paper explores the value of benevolence as a cardinal virtue by analyzing the evolving history of virtue ethics from ancient Greek tradition to emotivism and contemporary thoughts. First, I would like to start with a brief idea of virtue ethics. Greek virtue theorists recognize four qualities of moral character, namely, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Christianity recognizes unconditional love as the essence of its theology. Here I will analyze the transition within the doctrine of virtue ethics in the Christian era and afterward since the eighteenth-century thinkers are immensely inspired by this Christian notion of love consider universal benevolence as the cardinal virtue. Later, Hume introduces an emotivist turn by considering the moral worth of sympathetic emotions in his ethical doctrine. In this paper, I aim to discover the cardinality of the virtue of benevolence following the evolutionary history of virtue ethics.

Richard Schusterman’s book, Ars erotica: sex and somaesthetics in the classical arts of love (Schusterman, 2021) is a path-finding, innovative contribution that breaks the silence around the long-held body-shying academic deprivation to erotic ideas with its free-flowing comprehensive discussion on carnal desire and erotic thoughts. Schusterman provides a panoramic yet vibrantly profound analysis of the aesthetic inclusion into erotic love following the culture of Asian and Western thoughts from the ancient era to the Renaissance. The book’s scope shows the author’s deep inclusive com-mendable research into erotic study. Schusterman is renowned for his original approach to defining popular art and philosophy as an embodied art of living. He is also famous for his trailblazing concept of somaesthetics, rooted in pragmatist aesthetics, with Ars erotica being a fruitful product of his expertise in both.

India, despite being the world's largest vaccine manufacturer is now struggling with various unprecedented social, legal, moral issues with the ongoing Covid-19 vaccination program for 1.3 billion people, the largest democracy in the world. With three major vaccines including Covishield, homemade vaccine Covaxin, and Russia's Sputnik V, India is still facing acute scarcity of vaccines and raw material supply. This is not only unfortunate but also reveals the ethically-triggered facts about the imbalanced healthcare system between public and private sectors, ineffective inequitable healthcare policies, unaccountable data reports that raise mistrust and confusion, and a deeper concern about global unfair distribution. In this paper, I have briefly discussed some unparalleled ethical issues raised from the vaccination program of India.

My objective of this paper is to suggest and workout a more credible form of the Principle of Beneficence from the common essential elements of the three major ethical theories (Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics) that will try to overcome the over-demanding objection of Utilitarianism and the rigorism of Kant’s Deontology. After analyzing these three moral systems, I find that beneficence lies within the very essence of humanity. Human beings are superior to other creatures in the world due to rationality and humanity. From the humanitarian ground, a common goodness lies within every human. Beneficence, as a moral principle, is derived from this inner humanity of every individual. Despite their initial differences, utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics recognize this fundamental humanitarian disposition of doing good for all as a part of being a morally better person. The principle of beneficence as I suggest, is different from its consequential utilitarian notion suggested by Mill. This version of beneficence is more credible as it does not impose excessive demands upon an individual to develop any maximum beneficial outcome following utilitarian calculation of beneficence over cost, and it also strives to overcome the rigorous duty-based theory of Kantian deontology by appealing to the fundamental virtue of humanity. Finally, the credibility of this form of beneficence comes from the underlying transcendental humanism which is the chief feature of Indian tradition.

This paper aims to search the question ‘whether the ethical issues of infectious disease, which has been so long considered as a problem in the discipline of bioethics, can be brought under the purview of public health ethics’. To explore the problem I begin with a brief description of the evolution of bioethics. I elaborate the six reasons of neglecting the discussion of infectious diseases in early bioethics as highlighted by Selgelid (2005). Then I analyse the view of Bayer and Fairchild (2004) that how infectious diseases by its own ethical questions, make the shift from the autonomy-centred bioethics to common welfare focused public health ethics. However, I would like to conclude that although the ethical discussion of infectious diseases makes a moral shift from the discipline of bioethics to public health ethics, the latter should not always be solely guided by the principle of beneficence to avoid harm for the sake of community welfare. Public health ethics needs to be guided by the balance of the four biomedical principals, such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice.

In this article, I argue that the principle of benevolence occupies a unique place in moral theory where duty and emotion both have equal importance, and moral philosophers generally are divided into two camps regarding the role of emotion in morality. Kant clarifies his position while introducing the deontic notion of benevolence. He only regards the moral value in which the duty of benevolence has been performed with ‘good will’. Some defenders of Kant’s ethics are Herman, McMurray, Meyers, and Tannenbaum who argue that acting purely based on duty is far more superior to acting from emotions. On the other hand, several contemporary theorists such as Bernard Williams, Blum, Oakley, Stocker, Stohr, Foot, Korsgaard, Hursthouse, and Sherman refute Kant’s views towards emotion in the domain of morality. Following this Kantian and Non-Kantian debate, this article aims to explore the role of emotion and rationality in the moral context of benevolence.

Currently whole world is facing immense crisis caused by the unprecedented pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This pandemic with its unique features has raised distinct ethical issues and the whole scenario has altered according to its pressing novel features. This paper aims to analyze the emerging ethical issues raised by the recent worldwide pandemic outbreak of SARS-COV-2. I have differentiated and analyzed the unprecedented emerging ethical issues from three aspects. First, there are ethical issues which arise due to the sudden imposition of preventive measures such as isolation, quarantine, and social distancing by public health authorities. It is indeed problematic to suddenly adopt the ‘new normal’ in our usual social life. Secondly, there are moral dilemmas which occur when physicians and health care workers try to maintain just allocation of the limited medications to treat large number of patients. Finally, the challenge of policy makers on the effective implementation of the policies that gain trust from people. Here, the role of administrative policy makers is to recognize the moral values in decision-making within the ethically challenging situations when the usual approved behaviors are dangerous to others. I analyze the importance of the virtue of solidarity, benevolence, honesty, and equity to deal with this crisis.