Christ (deemed to be) University

End Semester Examination -2021

SEMESTER 1
Global Ethics and Contemporary Societies -BENG191B

Radhika Kiran Kitturkar

2123374
1BBAH -D

Submitted to: Abhishek Chatterjee

1)

Introduction

Rationalist theories suggest that humans’ behaviour is based on the reason. Rationalism
theory states that knowledge comes through reason and the reason is the source of knowledge
and just (Hasa, 2016). These rationalist theories are based on the practical determination to
achieve one’s objective. These ethical theories dictate the objectives to be prioritised. These
theories include utilitarianism, contractualism, deontology and discourse ethics.

Meanwhile, non-rationalist ethics are based on the belief that the knowledge is
acquired by observing the outside world. These ethical thinkers don’t believe in the reasoning
as basis of knowledge, they assume and imply on the moral judgement and action in general.
This non rationalist ethical approach can be largely divided between virtue ethics, feminist
and post-modernist ethics.

Rationalist ethical theories

1. Utilitarian ethics: These ethical theories suggest that the moral worth of adopting
these theories is based on the goodness or the badness of the outcome. They are based
on the assumptions on the nature and motivation of the behaviour and are claimed to
be derived from the moral truths and beliefs. The founder of utilitarianism (Bentham
1748-1832) argues that human beings are naturally driven towards pleasures and
away from pain. According to him, if the objectives are achieved morally without
being selfish, it will lead to happiness of large number of people. According to
utilitarian thinkers, everyone’s happiness is equally important and there is no reason
to prioritize one’s interest over the other.
2. Contractualist ethics: Hobbes argues that the behaviour of an individual is based on
his personal notion of right or wrong. He also states that human beings are a matter of
motion and are driven by negative and positive energy. In his opinion, there are
various ways because it is individualistic but one common fear manifested by every
person is the fear of death. He also suggests that if there ae no external guiding rules
or ethics, there might be a war of all against all; this might happen due to fear of death
and not because the mindsets are evil. He believes that there is no reason for an
 individual to trust another without a concrete base and that there is a need for a social
contact to prevent war of all against all.
3. Deontological ethics: in deontological ethical theories, the rights and wrongs of an
action are defined based on ground rules and morals. It emphasises on the difference
between the morality and duties of human action. According to Kant, the righteous of
an action is not only on the result but also if the method accords with the defined
morals and whether it is universal. These ethics are absolutist, all the morals adhere to
certain universal rules and if an action does not adhere, those are considered as
exceptions.
4. Discourse Ethics: it refers to type of argument that attempts to establish normative or
ethical truths by examining the presumptions. Habermas’s discourse ethics implies the
importance of communicative rationality with the grounds of moral rationality and
normality.

Non-Rationalistic Ethics

1. Virtue Ethics: It suggests the idea of what kind of people are good or bad. Aristotle
argues that human beings’ nature of life could be defined based on if they are good or
bad. He further suggested that depending on what kind of human a person is, his
better or worse could be defined accordingly. For him, virtue meant to find a way
between the excess and the lack.
2. Feminist ethics: It also has various ways but the most common one to define it is the
ethics of care, it locates the moral value in practises, relationships and responsibilities
of care on which the public sphere depends.it denies the oppression of women
considered weak.
3. Post-Modernist Ethics: These theories deny the existence of ground moral or rules to
be followed by an individual in the course of his action. According to Nietzsche , there
is always politics and power influencing any decision. The post-modernist thinkers
also argue that there is always pre assumptions that can’t be accounted.

Argument for capital punishment;

Capital punishment refers to the penalty of death, it is killing of a person by the state as a
punishment of a crime. According to utilitarianism, the actions leading to benefit of larger
number of people is morally right and so capital punishment leads to benefit of larger group
of people, the citizens who are benefitted by the killing of one criminal. This can also be
supported by the ethics of virtue which defines if the person is good or bad, a criminal is
always a bad person in view of the states and hence it is morally right for the state to punish
him to death.

Hence, I conclude by saying that capital punishment is a good deed whilst being
supported by utilitarianism and the ethics of virtue.

References
Hasa. (2016, July 31). Difference Between Rationalism and Empiricism. Retrieved from
PEDIAA: https://pediaa.com/difference-between-rationalism-and-empiricism/
Hutchkings, K. (2018). Global Ethics an introduction. Cambridge : Polity Press.
Matt. (2006, 06 28). Rational and non-rational approach to life. Retrieved from Mind of
matt: Rational and non-rational approach to life
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Capital Punishment . Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
2)
Climate change is both individualistic and global concern. Science informs about the policy
by forecasting the extent of damages, if the right measures aren’t taken but it doesn’t tell the
humanity what is to be done. People gradually involve with ethics when decide on what is
right or wrong.

While finding the solutions for after effects of climate change, the decision is made by
considering what is ethical and what is unethical to benefit all the interests. The decisions we
make as individuals or as an authority depend on the basic framework of ethics and welfare in
the society. While finding solutions to the global climate change, we also seek to redefine the
responsibilities and accountability of people towards the welfare, all this is possible only
because there is an ethical framework defining the right and the wrong. Climate change,
along with responsibilities also questions the burden of mitigating and adapting to it.
Although effects of climate change are borne in the present, we still tend to predict and
consider it effects in the future, being our obligation to forward the legacy of good life to the
younger generations.

Hence, the climate change is ethical, and ethical considerations of justice, rights,
welfare, virtue, political legitimacy, community and humanity’s relationship to nature.
Considering the evidences from above, we can state that climate change is an ethical concern
because it questions the righteousness and asks the deciding party to be considerate about the
future morally whilst in welfare in the present.

In the wake of global warming, permissible use of fossil fuels by the developing
countries is unethical, the use of fossil fuels by the developing countries will lead further
deterioration in the conditions of climate as it emits large amount of non-fixated carbon
dioxide. According to the global studies about pollution and global climate change, the rise
in temperature or the change in climate changes are caused mainly due to the gases emitted
by the fossil fuels. The decision makers wanted to prevent deforestation, which they
considered unethical, encouraged the burning of fossil fuels. The decision makers neglect the
problems that are likely to unfold in the future due to lack of pure air.

The authorities state that the fossil fuels are a by-product and can benefit the countries
because they are abundant but they fail to address the problem of its distribution. They deny
the changes in climate are the results of excessive emission of carbon and components in the
air, instead will state that climate change is natural because of aging of the planet earth which
is a false claim because in the earlier years with lesser human pollution, the climate would
change but at a smaller rate, now climate is unpredictable and that is because of the
intervention of human in order to make their present life at ease and forget the future.

Hence, in my opinion, use of fossil fuels in the wake of global climate change is
unethical.

References
Hayward, T. (2012, october 14). Climate change and ethics. Retrieved from Academia:
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/31542103/nclimate1615-with-cover-page-
v2.pdf?
Expires=1638532897&Signature=MGOHC0D~VccgMIHBSNYTk77Di7QSbJv4pe1
WhSRgt9jdHS~GuZlKi589~AvCAJeeG6TGwXcvO1dKU9BJhgUWFOmZE-
CjkTS3mu5ojSoXP6Mh3So~x8WXGig9djvxGlDw6PDhwrDl5F57XV9
Rapier, R. (2021, February 1). How Fossil Fuels Are Saving Lives In Developing Countries.
Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2021/02/01/how-fossil-
fuels-are-saving-lives-in-developing-countries/?sh=2b687213763f
3)

Jus ad bellum

When the higher authorities or leaders took the decision on war on terrorism, they ought to
consider the following principles;

1. Just cause: According to Just cause, the cause must be rightful and justified. U.S.
was right to go to war because it was defending itself from another attack like than on
the world trade centre resulting in roughly killing 3000 and injuring 6000 or more
people. This step of U.S. going to war is justified because it was defending itself and
fighting against the ill terrorism attacks.
2. Competent authority: Thie principle forces the wars to be regarded by authoritative
bodies and not just anybody, the war by the U.S. was formulated only after proper
consideration and vote in the house, the act was also passed as a bill to ensure safety
in the country.
3. Right Intention: The reason U.S. lime lighted this war was with the intention to
prevent further attacks like the 911 and bring justice to the people who lost lives in the
unjust.
4. Last resort: this focusses on suggesting peace and resolutions. Although the U.S.
didn’t promote or ensure any kind of peace or resolution, the war is considered ethical
because it was it view of self-defence.
5. Probability of success: When the U.S. went for war, the probability of their success
was high because they went against the guerrilla group who didn’t have e a
systematised military system nor did they have an authoritative support.
6. Proportionality: This principles states that the peace acquired after the war is greater
than the destructions caused, the war on terrorism looked like it would cost more lives
without the actions being taken, this also helped the citizens feel safe again and
helped in preventing further attacks.

Jus in Bello

The following are the ethical ways in which the combatants are expected to conduct
themselves in the theatre of war;
 1. Proportionality: This principle for Jus ad bello requires that the methods or weapons
used by the combatants doesn’t exceed the ethical benefits. In the U.S. war field, the
military ensured to safeguard its citizens by the methods used and not cause further
destruction in the society.
2. Discrimination: according to this principle, it is necessary for the combatants to be
able to distinguish between the civilians and the trouble makers. The double effect
also portrays that is any civilian is hurt during the attempt, it shall be permissible if it
were necessary and proportionate. Keeping this at the greatest interests and the
restrictions of the materials used, the U.S. was able to safeguard and ensure only the
target group was in the binoculars of the army.

Jus Post bellum

This guides the termination phase of war along with the phase of rebuilding, this
suggests that the civilians and the country should be immune to the after effects pf the
peace-making system. The just was theory suggests the just methods, just decisions
and just peace to ensure welfare of the country. In context of the war on terrorism ,
the U.S. was able to bring in just peace in its territory by ensuring zero tolerance to
any extremist group and had special forces work for the maintenance of the country’s
and world’s peace.

References
Cameron and Hunter. (n.d.). War on Terror. Retrieved from
https://waronterrorhuntandcam.weebly.com/jus-ad-bellum.html
Costi, A. (2019). JUS IN BELLO AND THE WAR ON TERROR: ARE
EXTRAORDINARY. Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers, 42.
Maiese, M. (2003, June ). Jus In Bello. Retrieved from Beyond Intractabilty:
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_in_bello#:~:text=%20Jus%20in
%20Bello%20%201%20Fighting%20Well,assume%20combatant%20status%2C
%20they%20do%20not...%20More%20
Schwenkenbecher, A. (2017, october 24). Terrorism, jus post bellum and the Prospect of
Peace. Retrieved from SpringerLInk:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-57123-2_7
The Ethics Centre. (2016, Jul 19). Just War Theories. Retrieved from The Ethics Centre:
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-just-war/
5)
Global journalism ethics refers to communicating the right information to the citizens and not
using any mean to manipulate the sources or references to a gain greater profit margin.
Global journalism is different from news from all over the world, global journalism focusses
on collecting different views, news and ideas regarding social, economic, and political and
connecting them with the domestic country and letting people know that there are
commonalities among the various issues around the globe.

Media ethics deals with ethical principles and standards of media, including broadcast
media, film, theatre, print media and the internet. The media ethics acts as a guiding force to
all the media being published world-wide keeping them informed about the way the sources
and references should be published. The internet is a free medium for anybody to post and
talk about anything and it is difficult to keep a track of mishaps, the awareness of usage of
information and spreading information can be achieved only if the ethics are based on strong
grounds.

During the age of digital media journalism, there rise various questions about how
freedom on the internet has led to confusions between the mainstream journalists and the
pseudo journalists who post any information online without being sure about its happening
and sources. This era also questions journalism itself; the question is unanswered because it is
difficult to define the journalist himself, of what history depicts, journalism stands as an act
of journalists but here journalists themselves are undefined. The question also follows the
ideas of anonymity, people tend to be anonymous when scared about the information being
presented, internet gives them the opportunity to stay anonymous while the information is
being spread. But is it all beneficial, according to the experts, anonymity of information has
led to false claims and accusations like some of the cases of #Metoo in India. While the
information is online, it is difficult to identify its source and verify if it’s true. This task of
verification consumes time within which the news might go viral, again questioning
journalism. The news on internet spreads like a wild flower and doesn’t hold justice to the
duty of journalists being impartial to the information. This questions the lines being parallel
with the true ethics of journalism. This new era has also allowed reporter to explore the new
media stream but they should proceed with it keeping in mind the traditional customs and
ethics.

All the above instances clearly question the ethical issues of journalism in the digital
era.

References
Deepshikha. (2020, April 29). Media Ethics and Responsible Journalism. Retrieved from
Legal Bites: https://www.legalbites.in/media-ethics-and-responsible-journalism/
#:~:text=1%20Accuracy%3A%20Accuracy%20has%20a%20vital%20reference
%20and,on%20behalf%20of%20special%20interests.%20More%20items...%20

St.Bonaventure University online. (2021, August 09). Journalism and digital era. Retrieved
from St.Bonaventure University online: https://online.sbu.edu/news/journalism-in-
the-digital-age