In the broadest sense, ethics can be defined as the philosophical study of morality. It seeks to answer fundamental questions like:
- What is the nature of good and bad?
- What kind of person ought I to be?
- And, is morality objective or relative?
Most major thinkers throughout the history of philosophy who have explored metaphysical or epistemological questions have also addressed ethics. A philosopher’s metaphysical beliefs often guide their ethical framework, much like their epistemology may inform their metaphysics. For example, Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy is rooted in mechanistic materialism, the belief that everything that exists is ultimately composed of matter in motion. This worldview logically required him to reject the idea of an incorporeal, non-physical soul separate from the body. Consequently, without an immortal soul, the need to worry about long-term moral repercussions vanished. Thus, for Hobbes, the morally right action is simply the one that promotes the agent’s own self-interest. This position is known as Ethical Egoism.
All theories of normative ethics can be classified into the following three groups.
- Teleological Ethics (or Consequentialism): This framework judges an action solely based on its consequences (the telos or “end”). An action is morally right if it produces the best overall results or “end.” For example, telling a lie is not necessarily a morally wrong action if it leads to a good outcome. Similarly, if a truth ends up causing more harm than good, then speaking that truth is not a morally good act. This approach often holds that “the ends justify the means.”
- Deontology: This approach focuses on the action itself and whether it adheres to moral duties, rules, or obligations, regardless of the consequences. The morality of an action is therefore intrinsic to the act. For example, telling the truth is always right, even if it leads to a bad outcome.
- Virtue Ethics: Morality is centered on developing a good character rather than focusing on specific actions. Instead of asking “What should I do?” (as Deontology and Teleology do), Virtue Ethics asks, “What kind of person should I be?” An action is right if and only if it is the one a truly virtuous agent would perform in that circumstance. Different philosophers, of course, define this “virtuous agent” differently. For Socrates, for instance, knowledge is virtue; thus, a truly knowledgeable person is also truly virtuous, as he believed no one does evil intentionally.
Immanuel Kant was a major proponent of Deontology. He argued that a good will is the only thing in the world that is good without qualification. Everything else, such as money, knowledge, courage, or intelligence, can be used for evil purposes. Therefore, nothing else can be considered good in itself or good under all circumstances except a good will. This immediately raises a critical question: How do we identify a morally good will when evaluating our own character or the chracter of others?
Kant establishes what doesn’t matter when determining the goodness of a person’s will:
- Can we use a person’s accomplishments to assess if they have a morally good will?
Not according to Kant. Consider someone who risks their life to save a drowning child but fails. We cannot possibly conclude that they lacked a good will because the effort was unsuccessful. The actual consequences or success of our moral efforts simply do not determine the goodness of the will driving them. - Does the intention to act rightly imply a good will?
Not necessarily. Kant points out that we might intend to perform the right action, but do so for morally compromised reasons. For example, a person might try to save the child only for the publicity needed to boost their political career. The mere intention to act correctly, therefore, doesn’t automatically ensure a good will. - Can the person’s emotions or feelings prove that their will is good?
Emotions and feelings, which Kant calls inclinations, are ever-changing. If morality were derived from feelings, a person might be inclined to do the right thing today but not tomorrow. Furthermore, morality often requires a person to do things that they don’t feel like doing. Thus, Kant concludes that morality must be based on rational principles, not on shifting feelings.
Kant thus eliminated actual consequences, intended consequences, and inclinations as sources of the will’s moral goodness. For Kant, a will is morally good only when it is moved to act on the basis of moral duty. A person with a morally good will, therefore, is concerned to do the right thing from the sole motive that it is the right thing to do. This motive is purely to conform to the moral law and is not driven by any selfish reason. A morally good will performs actions out of a sense of moral obligation, and this obligation is conformity to the moral law itself.
But, how do we know what this moral law is? Thinkers advocating deontology have given different answers throughout history. For some, moral duties are derived from the commands of a divine being, often revealed by sages in sacred texts. For the Stoics, acting according to the moral law simply meant acting with the right intention.
Kant, however, wanted to make morality secular. His rationalist side demanded that moral principles be universal. Thus, he rejected all hypothetical imperatives (also called technical imperatives), which are of the form, “If X, do Y.” Such imperatives make what we ought to do (Y) contingent on a prior condition (X). A genuinely moral “ought,” Kant argues, cannot be based on subjective or conditional circumstances.
For Kant, a genuinely moral command must be a Categorical Imperative, which is of the form “Do Y!” It is not preceded by any prior conditions, subjective desires, or other qualifications. Kant aimed to make moral laws as universal and rationally consistent as mathematical rules, like 2 + 3 = 5. It doesn’t matter who does the math, what their circumstances are, or whether they like the consequence; the rule holds for anyone who wishes to be rational.
For Kant, there is just one Categorical Imperative serving as the ultimate principle of morality, which he formulated in three different ways. In its most direct formulation, known as the Formula of Universal Law, this imperative states:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Consider a classic example: Person P borrows money while fully aware they won’t be able to repay it. Here, Person P is acting on the maxim: “It is permissible to make a promise (a contract) with no intention of keeping it.” Now, we apply the test: Can this maxim be willed as a universal law? Kant argues that if everyone were to follow this maxim, the very institution of promising (or contracting) would be destroyed. No one would believe a promise, as they would know no one intends to keep one. The concept of making a promise would become meaningless. Person P’s deceitful promise is accepted only if others have respect for promises. A rational person must, therefore, conclude they have a moral obligation not to act on it. This Kantian test shares similarity with the popular Christian Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The most influential Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, provide a comprehensive treatise on many ethical questions. Dharma, loosely translated as righteousness or duty, is central to both. Rama is portrayed as the embodiment of dharma in the Ramayana due to his unwavering adherence to his duties as a son, a brother, a husband, and a king. His life story is presented as a model for navigating the complexities of duty. Such is his commitment to moral values that his decisions during ethical dilemmas sometimes result in him losing his loved ones.
While specific instances from the story invite endless debate over the rightness or wrongness of his actions, deontological ethics seem to be the central focus of Rama’s moral reasoning. The consequences of his actions appear irrelevant to him in a moral dilemma. Could he not have guessed that his aging father, who loved him dearly, would not survive his 14 year banishment? Yet, he chose exile to uphold his father’s promise. Later in the story, he tragically loses his brother Lakshmana because he honors a promise made to the deity Yama to execute anyone who disturbed their private meeting.
The Mahabharata presents a contrasting figure in Krishna, who often appears to bend established rules and conventions. Does this mean Krishna rejects dharma? To understand his perspective, we must turn to the Bhagavad Gita, where he advises Arjuna to focus on karma (action) and not the outcome. This is a direct rejection of consequentialism. He further explains that the outcome is dependent on a multitude of external factors over which we have no control (a key point that aligns with Kant’s rejection of consequences). Thus, Krishna’s rule-bending shouldn’t be interpreted as being against dharma. Instead, it suggests that he viewed righteousness not as a fixed set of prescribed actions or “to-dos.” Similarly, Rama in the Ramayana does not quote any book or manual when confronted with ethical dilemmas, reinforcing the idea that morality isn’t a fixed list of actions we should blindly follow.
While it is difficult to identify the exact imperatives Rama and Krishna followed in their respective narratives, we can observe that none of their major actions seem to disobey Kant’s Categorical Imperative. They act as if the maxim underlying their decision could become a universal law. Furthermore, they consistently set aside their personal wishes, emotions, and feelings when acting in accordance with their moral duty. This has made many readers criticize some of their acts: we tend to judge an action based on its outcome but this perspective is completely misaligned with the deontological basis of their decisions. Their adherence to moral imperatives is at times marked by such extreme dispassion that they can appear emotionally numb. For instance, would the Rama who wept upon hearing his own life story been emotionless when living that very life? Would he not have cried when sending his wife into exile?
Ethics remains a malleable and subjective territory, making every act subject to criticism from some perspective.
While deontology appears to be the favored path for personal morality by Kant and the writers of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, is consequentialism of no practical use? In a society, we cannot reasonably expect every individual to consistently prioritize reason and rationality over their personal wishes and inclinations. Therefore, to maintain order and justice, we need legal and societal systems that necessarily judge an action based on its consequence. While we can strive in our personal lives to act out of dispassionate moral duty, it is an unrealistic expectation for the general population.
Thanks for reading!