Gaurav KumarAIR 34 · CSE 2017 · 287 wordsTheir whole copy
Opening · a figure
Reports say that 1/3rd of Indian forests are prone to forest fire. This case is of forest fire near ESA.
Body · points and prose
Stakeholders:
→ Me (DM) → Tribal volunteers → NGO, media, police, medical staff. → ESA villages
Options available
(1) Wait for reinforcement, do not hire the volunteers
Merit: → Rule of law (Weberian bureaucracy) → Objectivity & procedural integrity → Threat to volunteer life (saved)
Demerit: → ESA village burn threat → Ecosystem loss → Volunteers expertise: unutilised
I will take this option.
(2) Hire the volunteers & Douse the fire
Justification
Discretion must be for public welfare → Ethical & moral governance allows use of discretion. (eg) Silkyara Tunnel - Rat hole miners used.
Discretion is allowed to save public lives (Art 21) & environment (Art 51 A(g))
Reinforcement is delayed, hills, disasters demand full use of own judgement & go beyond call of duty.
DM is trustee of district environment & ecosystems.
Own moral compass says use of so.
→ Compassion, humanity, tribal rights & justice are cardinal virtues.
- Ethical relativism, here Teleological ethics can be way forward. Ultimately 'loksangraha' matters.
Ethical dilemmas
(i) Objectivity (want of reinforcement) V/S discretion use of volunteers
(ii) Rule of law (as medic will punish) V/S public safety
(iii) Environment & animal life under Environment Act, Wildlife Act
(iv) Sthitaprajna? - equanimity under emergency like fire in forest
(v) Effective use of personnel & Community participation in governan[ce]
- beyond Weberian bureaucracy
(vi) Tribals to volunteer life in danger (no insurance) V/S whole village lives & property.
Close
Therefore, I shall be ready to use DDMA fund to give ex-gratia / solatium if they die in doing fire. (Utilitarianism of Bentham)
1 more topper’s answer to this question, part by part, and how they all approached it: open the question.