Gaurav Agrawal: GS4 answer copy

• Dentological ethics: One must do the right thing not because of its consequence but because it is the right thing to do and one's duty to do. Kant championed it and believed they are universal. • Consequential / utilitarian ethics: One must do the thing which brings maximum good to maximum number of people. Ends justify means and ethical action will depend on the situation. Benthem and Mill were philosophers behind it. ◆ Characteristic features of Indian setup • We have democracy which means rule of majority and majority will prevail. • We have lot of marginalised people who can't be overlooked by any humane system. • We have diverse society and minorities. Their rights must be protected. ◆ Is consequential ethics approach better? • One can argue democracy is rule by majority will and hence consequential ethics system is more suited since it seeks to achieve maximum good for maximum people. • But we cannot allow the tyranny of the majority. The minority rights must be protected and weak protected. • Rule of law has to be upheld and for that means are as important as ends. • eg. take the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. Even if she was a terrorist, is it correct to stage fake encounter of terrorists? A utilitarian may agree, but this is wrong. Moreover, in the long term, it is harmful. • Protection of minority rights: To enhance our security from Islamic terrorism, a utilitarian may support arrest of muslim youth on even on slightest suspicion. But denying natural justice and discriminating against them is clearly wrong and we cannot support such a policy. • Mining in tribal areas: while such activities may increase economic growth and benefit larger population (and hence winning utilitarian approval), we cannot approve of it unless tribals are properly rehabilitated and environment protected. • Crony capitalism: A utilitarian may argue its ok to bribe someone to get even the legitimate work done. But no. Such a thing is wrong. It'll discredit govt itself.