Shashi Motilal

Many philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition have held that the predominant modern western theories of ethics like Kant’s deontological theory and Mill’s Utilitarianism have failed to deliver as a “theory” of ethics. In other words, they are not successful as “decision procedures” whereby one can determine which action from a multitude of actions open before the agent would be right and therefore morally obligatory for him to do. In fact, the basic concepts of moral obligation, impartiality, and objectivity of moral standards has been questioned and pitted against the “personal point of view” of the agent. It has been held that the “moral goods” have to be given up for the sake of the “personal goods.” Is this a systemic fault which is linked with the normative nature of ethics? Or, can we understand ethics in a manner where it can be objective and yet not have to give up on the plurality of moral and nonmoral goods? Can ethical theory in this sense function as an “action guide to moral practice”? These are some questions that will be taken up in the paper against the backdrop of the views of the critics of ethical theory.

PurposeThis paper presumes that a public policy document must aim at protecting human rights. The question being raised is- what kind of moral reasoning or grounding can we afford to the idea that human rights are important for the whole framework of public policy. The paper aims at looking at the moral and political philosophy of Immanuel Kant as we find it in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Metaphysics of Morals for providing this background.MethodThe paper provides an exegetical account of some of the key concepts in Kant’s moral philosophy and the application of these in socio-political contexts.Result and DiscussionThe processes involved in the framing of the document, the document itself, as well as the persons framing the document must aspire to respect and protect human rights. The implication itself rests on the principle that a moral end cannot be achieved by immoral means and protecting human rights is a moral end that all societies must seek to achieve. Hence not only the end, which in this case is the policy document itself, but the means, i.e., the processes of framing the documents and intentions of those responsible and accountable for it, must also be moral.

Eradicating poverty is one of the prime goals included in the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations in its Post-2015 Development Agenda. Clearly, this is a mission set for the world to achieve but do humans have a moral obligation to fulfill it? In other words, is there a moral obligation on the part of the affluent of the world to help the needy poor? Drawing on the relation between a moral obligation and a moral right, one view is that if there is a moral obligation to help the needy poor of the world, then we can say that those afflicted by severe poverty have a moral right (human right) to be free from poverty. But being an example of a socioeconomic right, it is writ with problems leading some philosophers to doubt that there is such a right. On the other hand, many attempts have been made to justify such a right. The paper looks at some attempts that have been made to justify the existence of such a right on the metaethical principles of justice, humanity and the concepts of karma and dharmic duty. It further delves into the nature of the moral obligation to eradicate poverty where this philosophical exercise provides the vision and the insight into the extent and scope of the mission. Lastly, the paper suggests how in view of the complex theoretical issues involved, one can attempt to generate the conviction that there is a human moral obligation to eradicate poverty.

In what sense must global ethics be global? In one sense, it must deal with global issues. In another, it must not be parochial but inclusive of normative views from around the world. So far, global ethics has met the first standard much better than the second. Authors based in the global South contribute approximately 5% of the internationally published research on global ethics. With this in mind, the co-editors of this special issue sought to bring more perspectives, experiences, and authors from India into the international global ethics conversation, and so they launched the Indian Global Ethics Initiative. Their first step, this special issue, presents Indian experience and authors on topics including urban development, care ethics, women’s empowerment, fair trade, distorted policy research, poverty, and health. Much of this work is grounded by the authors’ experience in policy-making and advocacy for social and global justice. The co-editors invite contact from interested readers who would like to join and continue this Indian Global Ethics Initiative, as well as readers who would like to take similar initiatives in other regions.

The Ethics of Governance: Moral Limits of Policy Decisions offers a toolbox drawn from normative ethics which finds applications in public governance, primarily focusing on policy making and executive action. It includes ethical concepts and principles culled from different philosophical traditions, ranging from more familiar Western theories to non-Western ethical perspectives, thereby providing a truly global, decolonized and expanded normative lens on issues of governance. The book takes a unique and original approach; it demonstrates the use of the ethical toolbox in the context of actual examples of governance challenges. Taking three major case studies each representing an aspect of human-human and/or human-nature and/or human-animal relationship, the book attempts to show the significance of public practical reasoning in policy decisions with the aim of arriving at reasonable responses. Acknowledging the challenges that policy makers often face, the book highlights the fact that policy making is hardly an exercise yielding a black-or-white solution; rather it involves finding the most reasonable normative outcome in a given situation, especially employing an expanded understanding of values including well-being, sustainability, interdependence and community. This effort that helps bridge the gap between ethical theorists and policy practitioners exemplifies the necessary role of ‘engaged philosophy’ in public governance. In the major case studies, Boxes offer facts and figures along with pertinent ethical questions that have been raised and discussed. Aiming to aid the engagement of a diverse audience including non-philosophy readers, each chapter also includes Boxes containing examples, shorter case studies, at-a-glance charts, and tables with comprehensive ethical tools for a quick recap.

This paper aims at understanding Sustainable Development Goals as normative ends to be achieved by normative means in the context of global ethics. It distinguishes the descriptive and the normative senses of sustainability and development and puts forward a case for exploring the role of human moral obligations as the normative means to attain the goals of sustainable development. It argues that it is only when basic human moral obligations and role-related obligations are fulfilled that human well-being and that of the non-human elements of the eco-system can be achieved. Furthermore, it also explains how such a concept can be inclusive, diverse and integrative

It is an indubitable fact that our thoughts are always about something or some state of affairs in the world. Again, it is true that we use language to express some of our thoughts, and that in such a use of language which philosophers call a speech act, language also comes to be about something or some state of affairs in the world. E.g., when someone asserts that Peter is married to Mary, the sentence, 'Peter is married to Mary', comes to be about the state of affairs of Peter's being married to Mary. This property of being about something which characterizes our thoughts and speech acts is called "intentionality" by philosophers. ;In Intentionality, John Searle claims that the Intentionality of language and the Intentionality of speech acts performed by using language is derived from the intrinsic Intentionality of mental states which accompany the speech act. In the dissertation I propose to examine this claim of Searle's. ;Searle's view regarding the Intentionality of speech acts is incomplete and wrong. Searle does not show how the Intentionality of referring and predicating in a speech act is to be derived from mental reference and mental predication in the corresponding mental state. In this sense his theory is incomplete. Further, his theory is false. Taking the case of belief, I propose to show that it cannot be the source of the Intentionality of the corresponding assertion. Either a belief is a disposition and does not have any Intentionality or it is a mental act of accepting a proposition in which case the Intentionality of the belief and the Intentionality of the assertion have the same linguistic nature and the former cannot be the source of the latter. We are faced with a dilemma which shows that Searle's view cannot be correct. In the dissertation it will be argued that the Intentionality of a speech act is as intrinsic to it as the Intentionality of a mental phenomenon is to the mental phenomenon. The nature of speech act referring and predicating, mental referring and predicating, linguistic concepts and linguistic acts using those concepts will be discussed