MMP - 2024

Ethics in Human Interface - Handout 1

1 ETHICS IN HUMAN INTERFFACE

ESSENCE

• At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people
make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for
individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is
derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or
disposition. Ethics covers the following dilemmas:
1. How to live a good life
2. Our rights and responsibilities
3. The language of right and wrong
4. Moral decisions - what is good and bad?
C
PS

•
_U

Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and
nt
ge

cultures. They infuse debates on topics like abortion, human rights and
A
-@

professional conduct.
ID
am

• If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human
gr
le

beings behave. Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that
Te

if a person realises that it would be morally good to do something then it would

be irrational for that person not to do it.
• But human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even
when their head suggests a different course of action. However, ethics does
provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.
• Ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our
way through difficult issues. They offer us ethical rules and principles that enable
us to take a cooler view of moral problems.
• Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can
often find that what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue,
and that they broadly agree on everything else. That can take a lot of heat out of
the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to resolve their
problem.
• Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate
confusion and clarify the issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to
their own conclusions.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 • Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They
find moral ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the
'right' thing, and even if they can't work out what that right thing is, they like the
idea that 'somewhere' there is one right answer. But often there isn't one right
answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least worst answers -
and the individual must choose between them.
• For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take
responsibility for their own choices and actions, rather than falling back on
convenient rules and customs. But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with
the sort of help that they really want.
• Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a
single right answer - just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases
to give those involved some clear choices.
• Ethics is about the 'other' - Hand holding and supporting another hand. Ethics is
concerned with other people. At the heart of ethics is a concern about something
or someone other than ourselves and our own desires and self-interest. Ethics is
concerned with other people's interests, with the interests of society, with God's
interests, with "ultimate goods", and so on. So when a person 'thinks ethically'
C

they are giving at least some thought to something beyond themselves.

PS
_U

• Ethics as source of group strength - One problem with ethics is the way it's often
nt
ge
A

used as a weapon. If a group believes that a particular activity is "wrong" it can

-@
ID

then use morality as the justification for attacking those who practice that
am

activity. When people do this, they often see those who they regard as immoral
gr
le
Te

as in some way less human or deserving of respect than themselves; sometimes

with tragic consequences.
• Ethics is not only about the morality of particular courses of action, but it's also
about the goodness of individuals and what it means to live a good life. Virtue
Ethics is particularly concerned with the moral character of human beings.

APPROACHES TO ETHICS

A. Consequentialism (Utilitarian approach)

• Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a
particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action.
Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, morally right action is one that
produces a good outcome, or consequence. Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill are
considered to be advocates of this theory. According to it, something is right
mainly because it produces the right results. It produces maximum happiness for
a maximum number of people. Here, ends are given importance.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 • Jeremy Bentham talks of Individual Utility. An action is moral if pleasure derived
from the action is more than the pain for an individual. On the other hand, J.S.
Mills talks of Community or Social Utility which says that an action is moral if it
has utility to society, i.e., the act should bring the greatest good for the greatest
number. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed
a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is
more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.

B. Non-Consequentialism (Deontological approach)

• According to this, the rightness or wrongness of an act, system of rules, etc., in
no way depends on the (non-moral) goodness or badness of the
consequences. (e.g., Kant's moral theory is anti-consequentialist). It depends
upon the intrinsic moral worth of the decision irrespective of the consequences.
Immanuel Kant is considered to be advocates of this theory.
• According to Kant, any act is considered ethical not because of the consequences
it will cause but because of the rightness of the very act itself. Here, means are
given importance and not ends. In fact, according to this theory, if means are a
right end will inevitably be right.
• For example - Being honest is ethical not because it earns one more reliable
C
PS
_U

friend in life, but because one must not be anything, but honest. One is honest
nt
ge
A

because it is right, and not because it will give her/him anything in return.
-@
ID
am

Debate of Moral Subjectivism

gr
le
Te

• Moral relativism can be stated in two forms: moral subjectivism and cultural
relativism. Moral subjectivism argues that in the sphere of human behaviour what is
true for one individual is not true for everyone else or even for anyone else. In this
view, right and wrong is a matter of personal opinion. There is no way in which we
can evaluate the views on moral questions held by people. If X says that same sex
marriage is abhorrent and Y says that it is eminently desirable, there is no way of
settling the dispute. It is morally unacceptable to X and morally acceptable for Y.
There are no objective criteria to which we can appeal for settling the dispute.
• Cultural relativism asserts that within a given culture there may be moral standards
that are true for that culture. But there is no objective standard of morality which
transcends individual cultures and which can serve as a basis for evaluating
individual cultures. Cultural relativism is also known as conventional relativism.
• This view is widely prevalent among anthropologists, sociologists and others but not
among philosophers. Cultural anthropology began at the Columbia University and its
chief proponents are Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Melville
Herskovits. These writers argue that various cultures of the world disagree on their
conceptions of right and wrong. Some cultures practise polygamy whereas others
condemn it. Eskimo culture permitted infanticide. This led cultural anthropologists to

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 conclude that there are no moral standards which transcend a culture and by which
the standards of a culture can be judged.
• There may be moral truths within a society but they are relative to and valid for that
culture. There are two ways of stating cultural relativism. One form is that what is
considered as morality varies from culture to culture. The second form is that
morality changes from society to society. These two formulations need to be
considered against the following two positions.
1. There is a universal standard of morality which transcends individual
cultures and which enables us to judge the moral standards of any
culture.
2. There is no universal standard of morality by which we can judge the
moral standards of individual cultures.

• According to (1), we can look at the practices of a culture and determine whether
they correspond to the universal standard. If slavery or infanticide is practised in a
culture, it can be regarded as failing to measure up to the universal standard of
morality. According to (2), no such evaluation is possible.
• One needs to understand this debate and logically favour constitutional morality in
C

form of ethics in public administration. It is over and above religious or individual

PS
_U

morality.
nt
ge
A
-@
ID

DETERMINANTS OF ETHICS
am

•
gr

In the light of the above classification and sub -categorisation, determinants of ethics
le
Te

should be understood as varying according the dimension of ethics. for example, the
determinants for meta ethics are different from the determinants of normative
ethics.
• Nonetheless, certain common underlying features should be seen as follows:
1. The intention behind the actions - The most important factor in judging
the action on ethical ground is the intention of the actor behind the act.
If the actor violated any of the ethical value, it would be judged as an
unethical act. Whereas if it upholds any of ethical value, it will be
treated as an ethical one. It is notable that intention acts as a
determinant presupposing those human beings are free to take action.
A similar point is highlighted by St. Aquinas in Summa Theologica where
he argues that ethics in human actions is concerned with actions taken
out of free will. He points out three main points
2. Involvement of knowledge – It’s an essential requirement since we
can’t will unless we first know it.
3. Voluntariness – Action must proceed from will. It controls the
performance of external actions—the will is the cause of our actions.
For instance, if someone places a gun in my hand and pulls the trigger,

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 it is obvious that my will does not control or cause that action and
therefore the shooting is not voluntary, thus not a human action.
4. Free will – Human beings have free will, that is, the capacity to act or
not to act. It offers human beings to have choices.
5. Society/Culture of the day: Here the set of values as ethical value is
decided by the values system the society or culture of the day holds as
an ethical value. Another concrete form of these values is formalised
and codified as law. It is enforceable through the institution of the
state.
6. Individual value system and beliefs: Set of value the individual believes
in also helps us to judge the action to be ethical or not. If it upholds any
of ethical value according to that individual, it will be treated as ethical
action.

• One needs to understand that these factors may not work in water tight
separated silos but in tandem with each other.

CONSEQUENCES OF ETHICS
C

•
PS

Morality in human actions can be understood at two levels- At the level of

_U
nt

individual and at the level of an organised group of individuals:

ge
A
-@

society/nation/institutions/organisation. These levels share an intricate and

ID

intimate relation with one another.

am
gr

1. At the level of individual: It is argued that human beings have an

le
Te

inherent desire to be good. Morality acts as an instrument to manifest

that goodness. As moral beings, human beings find themselves at peace
and experience inner harmony when they act morally. It adds value to
their meaning of life. Acting in a moral framework enhances quality of life
for one self and such an individual can aim at maximum personality
development through self-actualization. Moreover, such an individual is
best suited to contribute and participate in the progress and
development of society.
2. At the level of organised group of Individuals-
Society/Nation/Institutions/Organisations:
i. Integrity and Unity - When individuals act in the larger
framework of ethics, they develop a sense of solidarity
with each other. Solidarity is manifested in form of
coordination and cooperation which in turn is a result of
rule-based order. Ethics establishes a system for
individuals to act and expect other to act in well
determined ways to achieve a common ideal. For example,
DMRC metros and the stations are well disciplined and

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 they follow strict norms that all passengers have to follow.
Consequently, it is well known that I will maintain proper
queue before boarding, expecting the same from my
fellow passengers and thus everybody can board or de-
board without any hustle. Ethics creates rule-based
systems characterised by the cooperation and
coordination resulting in unity and integrity.
ii. Realization of Equality, Liberty and Justice - Ethics based
systems form a quintessential condition to realise the idea
of equality, liberty and justice. These ideals are in context
of group of people. It is well known that individuals are
born with varied capacities and yet they have to cooperate
with one another in different ways in order to maximise
their own personality development. For this they need
autonomy to act according to their free will guided by
ethical norms restricted only by the freedom of their
fellow beings. Thus, liberty becomes essential. Similarly, by
providing individuals equality of opportunities, they can
participate in social, political and economic equality and
C
PS
_U

there by aim at justice for everyone.

nt
ge

iii. Antithetical to corruption-Individuals acting in orientation

A
-@

of ethical framework would annihilate tendencies for

ID
am

corruption. Absence of corruption would make systems

gr
le
Te

efficient and promote honesty and probity for all.

iv. Quality of life- An organised group of people oriented in
rule-based systems, free of corruption, allowed with
maximum liberty possible by presupposing their equality
and aiming towards justice naturally creates a high quality
of life. Societies can manifest inclusive and sustainable
development with each individual aiming for their self-
actualization. All of this possible due to morality in human
actions.

DIMENSIONS OF ETHICS
• There are four broad areas of ethical study. This sub categorization in ethics
should be clearly understood in order to place oneself in right footing.
1. Meta-ethics - Focuses on the meaning of ethical terms themselves (for
instance, ‘what is goodness?’), and on questions of how ethical
knowledge is obtained (for instance, ‘how can I distinguish what is good
from what is bad?’), rather than on the more applied question of ‘what
should I do in a particular situation?’. Meta-ethics is therefore concerned

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 with the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes and
judgments. Meta-ethics examines such themes as what moral questions
mean, and on what basis people can know what is ‘true’ or ‘false’.
2. Normative ethics - In contrast, is the study of ethical acts. It therefore
focuses explicitly on questions of ‘what is the right thing to do?’ in
general. Normative ethics is concerned with questions of what people
ought to do, and on how people can decide what the ‘correct’ moral
actions to take are.
3. Applied ethics - Is concerned with how people can achieve moral
outcomes in specific situations. Therefore, it is concerned with the
philosophical examination of particular – and often complex – issues that
involve moral judgments. Areas such as bioethics, environmental ethics,
development ethics and business/corporate ethics may be regarded as
areas of applied ethics. (The distinction between normative and applied
ethics, however, is becoming increasingly blurred.)
4. Descriptive ethics - Can broadly be thought of as the study of morality
and moral issues from a scientific point of view. It can be thought of as
the branch of ethics that attempts to develop conceptual models and test
those models empirically in order to enhance our understanding of
C
PS
_U

ethical or moral behavior, moral decision making, and more broadly

nt
ge

moral phenomena. This area or branch of ethics might also be referred to

A
-@

as behavioral ethics. Descriptive or behavioral ethics, then, describes and

ID
am

explains moral behavior and phenomena from a social science

gr
le
Te

perspective or framework.

• However, the lines are blurred between normative, descriptive and applied
ethics. A broader classification can be found Tom L. Beauchamp’s book
Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy which presents them
with the following diagram:

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 • The non-normative approaches examine morality without concern for making
judgements as to what is morally right or wrong. They do not take any moral
position regarding moral issues. The normative approaches instead make
judgements as to what is morally right or wrong. They take a clear moral position
regarding moral issues
• Among the two non-normative approaches to ethics, descriptive ethics describe
and sometimes try to explain the moral and ethical practices and beliefs of
certain societies and cultures. This is what sociologists, anthropologists, and
historians often do in their study and research. In their descriptions they do not
make judgements about the morality of the practices and beliefs but simply
describe the practices observed in the different groups or cultures.
• Meta-ethics focuses on the analysis of the meanings of the central terms used in
ethical reasoning and decision-making. It attempts to answer questions of
meaning.GS Paper-IV is not concerned with meta-ethics per se.
• An interplay of normative, descriptive and applied ethics is more prominent.
Moreover, applied ethics in form of ethics in public administration is to be
particularly emphasised.
C

ETHICS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS

PS
_U

• A human being engages in various dimensions in his life term. One categorization for
nt
ge
A

such engagement could be- socially, politically, religiously, etc. Another

-@
ID

categorization may encapsulate the dichotomy of public and private engagement.

am

• For a civil servant, it becomes extremely important to maintain a sustained work-life

gr
le
Te

balance by proper management and regulation of public and private relationships.

Not only does it offer complete justice to his/her position in Public Administration
but also it helps to allocate adequate efforts for nurturing private relations. The
latter in particular is crucial for emotional support and personality development.
Thus, ethics in public and private relationships becomes an important aspect of Civil
Services.

What are public and private Relationships?

• A private relation is one in which an individual shares a bond characterised by
intimate and emotional experiences. These are informal and the individual relatively
experiences a higher degree of autonomy and freedom. Notably, Right to Privacy is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Public relations are formal in nature guided by well-established and recognised
institutions like state, organisations, universities, etc. There are formal ways of
behaviour including acts of omission and commission.
• Consider the following examples:

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
ETHICS IN PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS
• Openness: Public relationships require transparency in their dealings. All parties
are expected to provide complete information on all matters to each other for
the sake of fairness. Openness also increases confidence of parties in each other.
For instance, companies are expected to publish their annual reports with all
their financial details for the shareholders.
• Honesty and integrity: Generally, it is expected that true information will be
provided in public dealings without any errors or deception. Parties are also
expected to remain true to their word and not break promises. For instance, in
politics, promises given by politicians to people or other politicians must be kept
or otherwise, they lose their credibility.
• Respect: Due respect and courtesy is expected in public relationships in
accordance with conventions, code of conduct etc. For example, we should
behave politely and respectfully with our neighbours, strangers on the road etc.
in order to ensure a stable and harmonious social order.
• Rule of law: Parties in a public relationship must mutually abide by the law of the
land and conduct their dealings accordingly. Rule of law is necessary to ensure
equality and fairness among different entities and also to ensure justice in case
C

of wrongdoing. For example, relationship between a consumer and seller is

PS
_U

regulated by the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

nt
ge

• Equality and uniformity: In public relationships, one must treat everyone equally
A
-@
ID

and uniformly. This is necessary to ensure a level playing field, fair competition,
am

quality service etc. For example, civil servants must treat all individuals equally
gr
le
Te

irrespective of their caste, class, religion etc.

• Accountability: In public dealings, we must hold ourselves accountable with
same standards as we expect from others. Accountability is essential to enforcing
the norms of public relationships. People want their administrators, politicians,
industries to be accountable to them.

ETHICS IN PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS

• Love and care: These emotions are the bedrock of private relationships and also
sustain them. Such relationships are not driven by rules or quid pro quo but by
human emotions. For instance, one can always find family by their side regardless of
the circumstances.
• Confidentiality: Private relations require secrecy and privacy, as opposed to public
relationships. It is required to maintain sanctity of the relationship. For example,
politicians in India shy away from disclosing their personal lives to the public and
keep it separate from professional life.
• Truthfulness: Private relations are based upon truth and trust. Since there are no
rules and regulations, trust matters the most. Trust also strengthens the bonds in

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
 private relationships. For instance, husband and wife expect each other to be
truthful to each other above all else.
• Responsibility: Our private life often creates responsibility for us towards different
people. This is because people have some emotional or practical expectations from
each other. For example, spouses, friends etc. expect certain kinds of behaviour from
each other. In some private relationships, there are social responsibilities which
must be fulfilled. For instance, parents are responsible for the upbringing of their
children.
• Perseverance: We must ensure stability and harmony in our private relations. This
often requires persistent effort by both parties during the times of discord. For
instance, spouses often get into fights after which they are expected to cooperate to
preserve the relationship.

Challenges to Ethics in Private and Public Relationships

• Corruption- It pervades in almost all spaces. It not only rewards those who accept it
but also punishes those who do not. It also causes moral, social and economic
degradation. It appears that it offers an easy way out in an already divided society on
lines of money, language, caste, religion, etc. It marked by serious ignorance,
C

insensitivity, selfishness and lack of compassion, love and fraternity.

PS
_U

• Challenging Working conditions- Nature of civil services in general is challenging.

nt
ge
A

There are numerable responsibilities by virtue of the public office one holds. One has
-@
ID

to work and engage beyond general working hours, in different and alien regions.
am

• Political Pressure- In democracy bureaucracy shares an intimate and intricate

gr
le
Te

relationship with the political party in power and its ideology. This creates myriad
ways of approaching an issue and finding out a workable solution. This often creates
pressure on bureaucracy in general and civil services in particular.
• Lack of Effective Training in Emotional Intelligence- Although emotional intelligence
is a part of popular discourse yet it is not effective and adequate to sensitise officers
in an inclusive manner. They find it very difficult to strike balance in their private and
public relationships. Emotional Intelligence is very often taken for granted and just
reduced to classroom discussions without realising its practical application.
• Lack of Inclusive Dialogue on Ethical Conduct- It is very often seen that ethics is
taken to be subject of classroom study than an actual way of practically
implementing it through actions and robust work culture. This may be due to lapses
in pedagogical ways or lack of understanding about the effects and importance of
ethics in private and public relationships. One should aggressively engage with
questions like Why should I be moral?

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
Should there be separation of public and private relationships?
Arguments for:
• Nature of aspects: Private and public relationships are conducted in very different
ways and hence, must be treated separately so that one can behave as per the
context.
• Established distinction: Both public and private relationships must remain
unaffected by the problems of the other. Private problems should not affect
performance in public sphere. For instance, people expect public servants to be at
their best regardless of problems in their private lives. Ups and downs in public
relationships should not affect our behaviour in personal life. For instance, a police
officer’s work situation must not affect his behaviour at home.
• Challenging amalgamation: Mixing the two kinds of relationships often leads to
certain problems. Entry of private relationships in public sphere leads to nepotism
and favouritism. Entry of public relationships in private sphere undermine the
sanctity, privacy and intimacy of private life. For instance, Mahabharata- conflict
took place because Dhritrashtra mixed his public and private relationships. He let
private relationship with his son affect his public decision making when he wanted
his son to be the king despite being unworthy.
• Societal perspective: Society tends to judge people separately in their public and
C
PS
_U

private sphere, and hence it’s better to keep them separate. For instance, Mahatma
nt
ge
A

Gandhi is respected as the ‘Father of the Nation’ but he is not judged for his troubled
-@
ID

relationship with his own son.

am

• Addressing conflicts of interest: Keeping public and private relationships separate

gr
le
Te

helps in preventing conflicts of interest. For instance, Ranjit Sinha, former CBI chief,
met accused in a case at his residence (due to personal relations) and his integrity
was questioned. This could have been avoided by separating public and private
relationships.
• Work life balance: Sometimes public relationships are so complicated and intense in
nature that they cannot be mixed with private relationships so as to maintain
sanctity of private life. For example, politicians often keep their private lives separate
from public as their public life is heavily scrutinised and criticized.

Arguments against:
• Not feasible: Public and private relationships often naturally overlap and mix with
each other and hence, cannot be kept separate. For instance, the President of USA
and his wife, the First Lady, are also in a crucial public relationship. Family life and
married life of politicians is publicly discussed in USA.
• Not desirable: Rigid separation between public and private relationships might
become counter-productive. The two types of relationships can be used to enrich
each other. For instance, support from family and friends help people to excel
professionally. Friends at workplace help people in staying motivated and satisfied.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]
• Not manageable: Treating public and private relationships differently may create
confusion and mental stress for individuals. For instance, police officers who behave
differently at work and home (toughly and nicely respectively) might face confusion
and feel like hypocrites.
• Not separable: Some values and ethics are common to both public and private
relationships and hence, both kinds of relations require similar behaviour. For
example, honesty and politeness is desirable in both family and workplace.

C
PS
_U
nt
ge
A
-@
ID
am
gr
le
Te

***

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151, | Email: [email protected]