Discussions and debates on principle and acts of morality and ethics is not new.We were posed with the same question while discussing Fraiser case. It started with the cliched question on how are ethics and morality different. After a lot of layman definitions, arguments professor finally said that ethics deals with Right or Wrong while morality is about Good or Bad. Ethical judgments take their cues from context i.e. it depends on the matter at hand. For example, Law of the country are based on ethics and it this law which justifies killing of person in some "context" (Self-defense). While morality is independent of context and their 'unsaid' rules are prescribed by the society we live in. Morality deals with Good or Bad and it varies across societies, cultures and nationalities.
However a fundamental question arises, How do you know if something is good or bad?. What is the objective way of defining it ? German Philosopher Emanuel Kant gave the theory of "categorical imperative" in which he described "Universal good" and "Universal Bad". He explains that 'universal good' is an act which will make the universe a better place to live if everyone else will start doing it and vice versa. But then how you know what is better universe. To explain this we use the Darwinian concept of 'natural selection' which says if the human act increases collective chances of survival then it is good otherwise bad. For instance 'killing' is a universal bad as it reduces the possibility of survival of entire human race.
Where will you put the acts of "Homosexuality", "Abortion", "Bachelorhood" in good/bad dichotomy of morality? Easy one eh, clearly such acts are universal bad as they would lower the chances of survival of entire mankind. But are these acts right or wrong when seen through the prism of 'ethics' is an entirely different question. I will try to answer this philosophically complex and ethically intriguing question through an anecdote of Ramayana in the subsequent post.
However a fundamental question arises, How do you know if something is good or bad?. What is the objective way of defining it ? German Philosopher Emanuel Kant gave the theory of "categorical imperative" in which he described "Universal good" and "Universal Bad". He explains that 'universal good' is an act which will make the universe a better place to live if everyone else will start doing it and vice versa. But then how you know what is better universe. To explain this we use the Darwinian concept of 'natural selection' which says if the human act increases collective chances of survival then it is good otherwise bad. For instance 'killing' is a universal bad as it reduces the possibility of survival of entire human race.
Where will you put the acts of "Homosexuality", "Abortion", "Bachelorhood" in good/bad dichotomy of morality? Easy one eh, clearly such acts are universal bad as they would lower the chances of survival of entire mankind. But are these acts right or wrong when seen through the prism of 'ethics' is an entirely different question. I will try to answer this philosophically complex and ethically intriguing question through an anecdote of Ramayana in the subsequent post.
