Dr George Panthanmackel (born on 19 January 1959) is Professor of Philosophy at Suvidya

College, Bangalore. He has also been a Visiting Professor to several other Institutes teaching
both graduates and postgraduates. In 2009-2010 he worked at Indira Gandhi National Open
University (IGNOU) as Senior Consultant of Philosophy and organized its BA Philosophy
Syllabus, especially by editing the entire 238 Units (Chapters). He has published about 70
research Papers / articles in national and international Journals. He has learned 11 languages
and 1 dialect: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, English, French, Hindi, Telugu, Tamil,
Malayalam, Kannada, Lotha (dialect).
He was Dean of Suvidya College from 1993 to 1996, and Registrar of the same College from
2004 to 2009. He had been the President of the Association of Christian Philosophers of India
(ACPI) from 2006 to 2012. He became a member of the same Association in 1992 and was
on its executive Committee from 1994 to 2002, and as its Secretary from 2002 to 2006. He is
currently an editor, appointed by the MSFS Superior General., of the History of the
Missionaries of St Francis de Sales.
He has been the chief editor of the Fransalian International since 2004. He is also on the
editorial boards of Indian Journal of Spirituality, Suvidya Journal of Philosophy and Religion,
and the Associate Editor of the ACPI Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2010. He has presented
Papers at national and international conferences, some of which he has organized.
He

has

been

a

teacher

for

24

subjects: Metaphysics, Epistemology,

years.

He

has

Philosophy

Philosophical Anthropology, Methodology, Sociology,

Public

taught

several

of Religion,
Administration,

Political

Science, History of Western Philosophy, Contemporary Indian Philosophy, Marxism, Trinity,
and English Literature. He holds three Doctorates: Doctor of Philosophy, Western (Innsbruck,
Austria),

Doctor

of

Philosophy,

Indian

(Bangalore,

India),

and

Doctor

of Theology (Bangalore, India). He has authored nine books.
Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining
what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures". Today ethics is mainly divided into 4
subject areas which are meta ethics, normative ethics, agapeic ethics and applied ethics.

Thomas Hobbes held that many.  Psychological issues – It is mainly concerned with the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct. Subjective morality however is where moral laws are based on personal feelings and thoughts and therefore without any human emotions there will be no morality. Morality is the set of principles which helps a person to distinguish between right and wrong. For me morality can never be objective since the very basis of morality is human feelings and reasoning and so it can never exist irrespective of humans. The later is mainly followed by sceptical philosophical tradition. emotion and reason. if not all. So moral values for me are always subjective. There are some people who think that moral values are objective while the other think that they are subjective. This view is called psychological altruism. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler argued that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others. David Hume argued that moral assessments involve our emotions. female morality. such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus. There are two kinds of thoughts in this regard. and not our reason. Objective philosophy here deals with the idea that there are universal moral laws like good and bad. Several reasons given by philosophers on this point are egoism and altruism. It is mainly concerned with two main issues:  Metaphysical issues – It is mainly concerned whether morality exists independently of humans. Morality is something on which the entire well being of the human society depends. But this philosophy was opposed by rational .META ETHICS Meta ethics may be defined as the study of origin and meaning of ethical concepts. And how something can guide us to think what is wrong and what is right without giving concern to the thoughts and reasoning of humans. If we consider morality to be objective then there will be so many questions unanswered. It is the topic of the society which is yet unanswered. How can we see a person with intense pain without any reason? It is his right to get an end to his life if the life is not worth living. of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. right or wrong and therefore these exist irrespective of any personal thought more like the laws of science. For example it can be said that killing somebody is wrong but what can we say about mercy killing.

such as cowardice.minded philosophers. The decisions taken on the basis of emotions are always biased toward some particular notion and are not impartial. Therefore the correct answer to the question: “why are we moral” is the unbiased thoughts of human towards a particular situation. These are eros and philia. Three kinds of ethics will be noted here:  Virtue ethics – It gives emphasis on developing good habits instead of learning a set of rules. whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Although emotional factors often do influence our conduct. I believe that it is the correct reasoning behind all the doubts which inspires us to become moral and not the emotions. In addition to advocating good habits of character. is love based on friendship between two persons.Duty ethics bases morality on specific. . true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. There are two terms for love in classical Greek. foundational principles of obligation. Instead. injustice. such as to care for our children.  insensibility. An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable. NORMATIVE ETHICS The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct. It is based on . It deals with the attraction which is the first step in manwoman relationship. we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Philia. and vanity. Consequentiality ethics – This says that correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences. Eros is based on strong feelings toward another. he argued. or vices. and to not commit murder. Deontological ethics . For ex many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as  human beings. AGAPEIC ETHICS It is also called ethics of love. virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits. It promotes those moral actions which promotes agapeic love.

It is a branch of ethics which most common in today’s world. It is a higher type of love than eros. where two people enrich each other in a mutual relationship. Whether the love given is returned or not. Agapeic love takes place concretely through agapeic justice. It is further divided into biomedical ethics. the person continues to love even without any self-benefit. business ethics. sexual ethics and social ethics. It answers those questions which are now the heart of our contemporary social and cultural life. environmental ethics. Agapeic justice fulfills agapeic love. BIBLIOGRAPHY . It is a love that is totally selfless. There is also a third Greek term ‘agape’. it is love above philia and eros. APPLIED ETHICS Applied ethics is that branch of ethics that deals with controversial moral issues which have significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand."give-and-take". where a person gives out love to another person even if this act does not benefit her/him in any way.

 Kant.2307/20445435?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid . ed. J. John Stuart. James W.jstor. Websites: James Fieser “Ethics.” in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. 1985). tr. “Utilitarianism.edu/ethics http://www.. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.org/discover/10.” www. Mill. Ellington   (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.iep.M.utm. Immanuel.