Public Section Preview
Western Moral Thinkers — Modern
3.1 Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) — Deontological Ethics
Major works: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
Kant is the most-tested moral thinker in RPSC exams — appearing in 2016, 2018, 2021 (all), and 2023. Every candidate must master his framework.
The Categorical Imperative (Three Formulations):
1st Formulation — Universal Law:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Test: Could the principle of my action be universally applied without contradiction? If I make a false promise to get a loan, can I universalise this? No — if everyone made false promises, the institution of promising collapses, making my false promise self-defeating.
2nd Formulation — Humanity as End:
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only."
Human beings have intrinsic dignity (Würde) — they cannot be treated as mere tools for others' purposes. This generates human rights, prohibition of slavery, torture, instrumentalisation of citizens.
3rd Formulation — Kingdom of Ends:
"Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends."
Imagine a community of rational moral agents, each treating the others as ends — what rules would they rationally agree to? This anticipates Rawls' social contract.
Goodwill (PYQ 2023 — Kant's concept of Goodwill, 2 marks):
"Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world... which can be called good without qualification, except a good will."
A good will is one that acts from duty (aus Pflicht), not merely in accordance with duty (pflichtmäßig). An officer who is honest because he fears punishment acts in accordance with duty but not from duty — moral worth requires acting because it is right.
Kant vs Consequentialism:
| Kant (Deontology) | Bentham/Mill (Consequentialism) |
|---|---|
| Rightness of act determined by the duty/maxim | Rightness of act determined by its consequences |
| Cannot lie even to save lives | Lying permissible if produces better outcome |
| Acts have intrinsic moral value | Acts have only instrumental value |
| Human dignity is inviolable | Aggregate welfare can justify individual sacrifice |
| Rigid, rule-based | Flexible, outcome-oriented |
Administrative application:
- Categorical Imperative → rule of law (procedures apply universally — no exceptions based on who you are)
- Humanity formula → human rights-based governance; citizens as ends, not statistics
- Deontological constraint → some actions prohibited regardless of outcome (torture, false imprisonment)
2021 PYQ: "Kant's categorical imperative" — answer must include both the formula and application.
3.2 Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) — Classical Utilitarianism
Major works: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)
Principle of Utility (Greatest Happiness Principle):
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."
Felicific Calculus (Hedonic Calculus): Bentham proposed measuring pleasure and pain by: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (immediacy), fecundity (tendency to be followed by more pleasure), purity (absence of pain following), and extent (number of persons affected).
All pleasures equal: Bentham treated all pleasures as quantitatively equivalent — no quality distinction (famously: "pushpin is as good as poetry" if equal pleasure). Mill criticised this.
Panopticon: Bentham designed the Panopticon prison — a circular design where prisoners could be observed at all times without knowing when they were being watched — a surveillance architecture that Foucault later analysed as a model of modern power.
Administrative relevance: Cost-benefit analysis, welfare economics, policy evaluation by aggregate outcomes — all reflect Benthamite utilitarian logic.
3.3 John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) — Liberal Utilitarianism
Major works: Utilitarianism (1863), On Liberty (1859), The Subjection of Women (1869)
Refinement of Bentham:
Quality of pleasures: "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Higher pleasures (intellectual, moral, aesthetic) are intrinsically superior to lower pleasures (physical). The competent judge — who has experienced both — recognises this.
Harm Principle (Liberty Principle):
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This limits state power — paternalistic restrictions for a person's own good are impermissible. Classic liberal principle still invoked in debates about drug legalisation, seatbelt laws, etc.
Proof of utilitarianism: The only evidence that something is desirable is that people desire it — a controversial argument (Naturalistic Fallacy critique by G.E. Moore).
Justice: Mill argued utilitarianism could accommodate justice — justice is a subset of utility, but a peculiarly urgent subset because it concerns security, the most vital of all interests.
Difference from Bentham: Mill is qualitative (some pleasures superior); Bentham is quantitative (all pleasures commensurate). Mill preserves individual rights better; Bentham is more aggregate-focused.
3.4 John Rawls (1921–2002) — Justice as Fairness
Major works: A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993)
Social Contract Tradition: Rawls revives the social contract tradition (Locke, Rousseau, Kant) with a distinctive original position device.
Original Position and Veil of Ignorance:
Imagine choosing the principles of justice for society from behind a Veil of Ignorance — you do not know your race, gender, class, natural talents, or what your conception of the good life is. What principles would rational persons choose?
Two Principles of Justice:
Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to have the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all. (Liberty > Equality)
Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society; (b) attached to offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Priority: First principle takes priority over the second; within the second, (b) takes priority over (a).
Implications:
- Inequalities (e.g., higher salaries for skilled professionals) are justified only if they benefit the poorest
- Access to positions must be genuinely open (meritocracy)
- Basic liberties cannot be traded off for economic gain
Rawls vs Utilitarianism:
| Utilitarianism | Rawls |
|---|---|
| Maximise aggregate welfare | Prioritise the least advantaged |
| Can sacrifice minority for majority | Difference Principle protects minority |
| No priority to liberty | Equal Liberty Principle is lexically prior |
| Aggregative | Distributive |
Administrative relevance: India's reservation system (SC/ST/OBC) embodies Rawlsian logic — structural inequalities corrected in favour of those worst-off. DPSP Article 38 — "minimise inequalities in income, status" — reflects Rawlsian concern.