ASPIRE IAS

Ethics
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another. Eg: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something); "he has very conservatives values" Morals:Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values. Eg: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong Ethics:You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people. If you accuse someone of being unethical, it is equivalent of calling them unprofessional and may well be taken as a significant insult and perceived more personally than if you called them immoral (which of course they may also not like). Eg: The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

Areas
What is it?

Ethics
The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are according to the rules. Because society says it is the right thing to do. Social system/External Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary between contexts. We will face peer/societal disapproval, or even be fired from our job.

Morals
Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. It define how things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles. Because we believe in something being right or wrong. Individual/Internal Usually consistent, although can change if an individuals beliefs change.

Why we do it? Source Flexibility

What if we don't do it?

Doing something against one's morals and principles can have different effects on different people, they may feel uncomfortable, remorse, depressed etc.

What is Ethics? Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on. It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT: Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard. Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.
Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems. Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard. Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it. Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow: 1. On what do we base our ethical standards? 2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face? If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use. Five Sources of Ethical Standards The Utilitarian Approach Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affectedcustomers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done. The Rights Approach Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that nonhumans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

The Fairness or Justice Approach Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair. The Common Good Approach The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerableare requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. The Virtue Approach A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" Putting the Approaches Together Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however. The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm. The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps. The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations. We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action. Some essentials about ethics
Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard. Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it. . Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard. Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face. Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems. 5 principles of Ethics Legality: We observe the laws and regulations governing our profession. We meet the terms of contracts we undertake. We ensure that all terms are consistent with laws and regulations locally and globally, as applicable, and with STC ethicalprinciples. Honesty: We seek to promote the public good in our activities. To the best of our ability, we provide truthful and accurate communications. We also dedicate ourselves to conciseness, clarity, coherence, and creativity, striving to meet the needs of those who use our products and services. We alert our clients and employers when we believe that material is ambiguous. Before using another person's work, we obtain permission. We attribute authorship of material and ideas only to those who make an original and substantive contribution. We do not perform work outside our job scope during hours compensated by clients or employers, except with their permission; nor do we Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

use their facilities, equipment, or supplies without their approval. When we advertise our services, we do so truthfully. Confidentiality: We respect the confidentiality of our clients, employers, and professional organizations. We disclose business-sensitive information only with their consent or when legally required to do so. We obtain releases from clients and employers before including any business-sensitive materials in our portfolios or commercial demonstrations or before using such materials for another client or employer. Quality: We endeavor to produce excellence in our communication products. We negotiate realistic agreements with clients and employers on schedules, budgets, and deliverables during project planning. Then we strive to fulfill our obligations in a timely, responsible manner. Fairness: We respect cultural variety and other aspects of diversity in our clients, employers, development teams, and audiences. We serve the business interests of our clients and employers as long as they are consistent with the public good. Whenever possible, we avoid conflicts of interest in fulfilling our professional responsibilities and activities. If we discern a conflict of interest, we disclose it to those concerned and obtain their approval before proceeding. Professionalism: We evaluate communication products and services constructively and tactfully, and seek definitive assessments of our own professional performance. We advance technical communication through our integrity and excellence in performing each task we undertake. Additionally, we assist other persons in our profession through mentoring, networking, and instruction. We also pursue professional self-improvement, especially through courses and conferences.

Ethics and Governance (Aspire IAS) Part 1 ******************************** Sometimes it's easy to see when things go wrong in government: Elected officials take bribes; candidates lie about their opponents; city officials make important public decisions in secret meetings. Other times, the right Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

thing is not so obvious: Should a council-member represent the wishes of the majority, even when he or she thinks the majority is wrong? Is it acceptable for a governor to appoint a family member to his or her cabinet if the appointee is the best person for the job? Whether the ethical issues are obvious or complicated, they are easier to address if public servants have given some thought to the kinds of dilemmas they will confront before a crisis occurs. The materials in this "primer" on government ethics are intended to provide elected officials, government workers, and ordinary citizens with an introduction to the basic questions that are likely to come up in the conduct of public business. Whistle Blowing and Ethics (Very Important for upcoming examination) ************************************************ What is the definition of whistle blowing? Whistle blowing means calling attention to wrongdoing that is occurring within an organization. The Government Accountability Project lists four ways to blow the whistle: 1. reporting wrongdoing or a violation of the law to the proper authorities. 2. such as a supervisor, a hotline or an Inspector General 3. refusing to participate in workplace wrongdoing 4. testifying in a legal proceeding 5. leaking evidence of wrongdoing to the media But because government, by its very nature, is supposed to be open and transparent, full disclosure of unethical or illegal behavior in the public sphere is particularly important. Not all of the problems in the public sphere are, however, generated within the government organization; outside vendors, contractors, and individuals can participate in and even breed government corruption. What does whistle blowing have to do with ethics? A whistle blower once testified in a California court about how his boss had regularly ordered him to discard some of the companys toxic waste into a local storm drain rather than dispose of it properly. Why, the judge wanted to know, had the man finally decided to step forward after having participated in this illegal dumping for years. Well, the man explained, I was fishing with my grandson, and it suddenly occurred to me that the waste I was dumping was going to pollute the water so that he might never be able to go fishing with his grandson. Whistle blowing has to do with ethics because it represents a persons understanding, at a deep level, that an action his or her organization is taking is harmfulthat it interferes with peoples rights or is unfair or detracts from the common good. Whistle blowing also calls upon the virtues, especially courage, as standing up for principles can be a punishing experience. Even though laws are supposed to protect whistle blowers from retaliation, people who feel threatened by the revelations can ostracize the whistle blower, marginalizing or even forcing him or her out of public office. On the other hand, there have been occasions when the role of whistle blower has actually catapulted people into higher office and has earned the respect of constituents. (eg?)

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Whistle Blowing and Ethics (Very Important for upcoming examination) ********************************************** How can government encourage whistle blowing?

In an article about whistle blowing in a business context ,LilanthiRavishankar makes a useful distinction between external and internal whistle blowing. She argues that companies should encourage internal whistle blowing so that problems are solved within the organization before employees feel they must go outside to get action. The same is true for government bodies, which need to know about problems early before illegal contracts must be renegotiated or aquifers have been polluted or the publics money has been squandered or unethical behav ior has become front-page news. She makes several suggestions about how to encourage internal whistle blowing in companies. We repeat some of them here, with slight modifications for a government context: Create a policy about reporting illegal or unethical practices, which should include: Formal mechanisms for reporting violations, such as hotlines and mailboxes Clear communications about the process of voicing concerns, such as a specific chain of command, or the identification of a specific person to handle complaints Clear communications about bans on retaliation Get endorsement of the policy from top officialsmayor, manager, councilmembers, boardsand publicize the organizations commitment to the process. Elected and administrative leadership must encourage ethical behavior and hold everyone within the organization to the highest standards, including the disclosure of activities that would have a negative impact on the publics business. Investigate and follow up promptly on all allegations of misconduct. Report on these investigations to the council or board. What ethical dilemmas does whistle blowing present? When a person encounters wrongdoing in the public sphere, his or her first step should probably be to use the organizations internal whistle blowing mechanisms. William Black, professor of law and economics at University of Missouri-Kansas City, was himself a whistle blower when he worked as a Savings and Loan regulator in the 1980s. During a term as visiting scholar at the Ethics Center, he wrote about his experience: Whistle blowers in the public sector often face the unique problem that their disclosure may constitute a crime. This can create an ethical dilemma when the ongoing misconduct is severe and there is no reasonable prospect that the abuse will end absent blowing the whistle.I would still recommend trying to get the responsible organs (e.g., your agency's/department's congressional oversight committees and/or inspector general) to take action first unless the threat to public safety was imminent. All government bodies should have fairly straightforward lines of authority. For example, if a councilperson has a problem with city staff, he or she would go to the city manager. If an employee of the water district sees wrongdoing, he or she would start with a supervisor and move up the chain of command, and so forth. Its always best to start with the mechanisms the organization has set up to deal with problems because these represent the best chance at an amicable solution. If this process does not produce results, however, its not enough to say, Well, I did my best. If wrongdoing is not being addressed within the organization, it may be time to move outsideto the district attorney, the grand jury, or to the press. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

Kirk Hanson, Ethics Center executive director, and Jerry Ceppos, former vice president/news, Knight-Ridder, have written on the ethics of leaking information to the press and suggest these considerations: The first thing a potential leaker should ask is the status of the information itself. Is the information classified, proprietary, or otherwise protected? Is there a system in place which clearly considers this information restricted? If the information is clearly intended to be protected, then the leaker must meet a stiff test if he or she wants to leak it. The second consideration is whether the potential leaker has a specific obligation, legal or ethical, to protect the information, or has the information only because another person violated his or her obligation to keep it secret. If so, then it is a much more serious matter to reveal it. The third consideration is whether the information is about public or private matters. Information about anothers sexual orientation, about his or her private finances, or about personal phone calls has more of a claim to privacy than information about a persons actions as a corporate executive or a government official. The difficult cases, of course, are those where the private life of individuals arguably influences their public actions. Hanson and Ceppos also argue that potential leakers must assess the good and harm their leak may do. When lives are at stake or millions of public dollars are being misappropriated, those concerns for the public good trump the harm to personal privacy or government secrecy. On the other hand, a leaker must determine if the conduct he or she is exposing represents actual wrongdoing or if it is simply represents a policy disagreement. Of course, much of the publics business should be debated in public, and speaking up about disagreements on most issues is not only acceptable but also desirable. Closed-door sessions, however, are secret for a reason. Revelations about a citys interest in a particular piece of property may boost the price of that parcel. Exposure of sensitive information about a hiring or firing decision may needlessly cause harm to an individual. As much as council or board members views may differ on these issues, they should remain secret if the problem does not rise to the level of misconduct. Gifts and Bribes and ETHICS --------------------------------------------------What are gifts and bribes? Defining gifts and bribes may seem like a simple-minded activity, but, try posing the question another way, and you will see why this is an important issue in government ethics: What is the difference between a gift and a bribe? A gift is something of value given without the expectation of return; a bribe is the same thing given in the hope of influence or benefit. Because it is often impossible to determine the expectation of the giver, all federal, state, and local officials, both elected and appointed, are governed by rules restricting gifts. In some cases, gifts over a certain amount are disallowed; in others, they must simply be reported. These rules can vary significantly from locality to locality, indicating disparities in each legislature's understanding of when a gift becomes a bribe. (A summary of each state's regulations is offered by the National Conference of State Legislatures.) Gifts and bribes can be actual items, or they can be tickets to a sporting event, travel, rounds of golf, or restaurant meals. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

In this context, it is well for government officials to remember the old saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch," or even a free pencil. While many scoff at the idea that a pencil or notepad from a developer may influence political decision making, one question needs to be answered: Why does the developer go to the trouble and expense of making these items? To answer, we can look at analogous experience from another field. E. HaaviMorreim has studied the influence of drug company marketing on physicians' prescribing habits. Her observation: When you ask doctors whether this kind of drug marketing is effective, the answer is always the same: "It doesn't influence me at all. They're not going to buy my soul with a laser pointer." The truth isthis kind of advertising is crucial to sales. A doctor is not going to prescribe something he or she has never heard of, and it's the drug representative's job to get the products' names in front of the physicians." Similarly, a member of the zoning commission who has been keeping a notepad from XYZ Builders next to his phone will remember the company when XYZ brings a matter before the commission. While no one is suggesting legislation that would prevent doctors or government officials from accepting inexpensive doodads, ethical politicians will recognize that any gift from someone with business before him or her is intended to exert an influence. What do gifts and bribes have to do with ethics? Political decisions are supposed to be made on the merits of the case, not based on whether or not the decision maker has received a lovely case of wine from one of the parties. This is a simple matter of fairness. When decision makers take gifts, even if their votes are not influenced, they give the appearance of being on the take, which undermines public confidence in government. What ethical dilemmas do gifts and bribes present? People do not go into government work to make a lot of money. Especially at the local level, elected officials may receive only token payment for the number of hours they put into the job. In this context, it is tempting to say that tickets to the local performing arts center or sporting arena are well-deserved perks of office. Some even argue that attending such events is part of the job and crucial to understanding the experience of citizens who use these venues. On the other side, such gifts may well influence officials when they need to determine whether the performing arts center should expand or whether the arena can add retail outlets that local businesses oppose. Also, such gifts can create a slippery slope, with officials coming to expect VIP treatment and making local businesses feel coerced into offering it so that they can receive a fair hearing. By the same token, it is incumbent upon businesses to comply with government regulations on gift giving. While it may be common in the private sector to acknowledge important customers with extravagant holiday gifts, this practice is disallowed in the public sphere; the gravel company that tries to reward the mayor of a city that has made a big purchase with 10 pounds of expensive chocolate simply puts the mayor in the awkward position of returning the gift.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Lessons from Lives& Teachings of great Leaders. Reformers & Administrators

10

I am only one, but still, I am one. I cannot do everything but I can do something. And, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do what I can. Edward Everett Hale, American clergyman and writer (1822-1909) We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts.... Self-government means self-reliance. Calvin Coolidge, 30th U.S. president (1872-1933) There can be no high civility without a deep morality. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), American essayist and poet We can really respect a man only if he doesnt always look out for himself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German playwright, poet, novelist (1749-1832) We need to restore the meaning of that old word, duty. It is the other side of rights. Pearl S. Buck, American writer (1892-1973) It is better to be kind to our neighbors than to cross the world to offer incense to our ancestors. African proverb We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. Martin Luther King Jr., American civil rights leader (1929-1968) The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others. Mohandas Gandhi, (1869-1948) What do I owe to my times, to my country, to my neighbors, to my friends? Such a re the questions which a virtuous man ought often to ask himself. Johann KasparLavater, German poet and physiognomist (1741-1801) Public virtue is a kind of ghost town into which anyone can move and declare himself sheriff. Saul Bellow, American novelist (b. 1915) In a time of social fragmentation, vulgarity becomes a way of life. To be shocking becomes more important and often more profitablethan to be civil or creative or truly original. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Al Gore, politician and U.S. vice president (b. 1948) Without civic morality communities perish; without personal morality their survival has no value. Bertrand Russell, British mathematician and philosopher (1872-1970) The essence of morality is the subjugation of nature in obedience of social needs. John Morley, British statesman and writer (1838-1923)

11

Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. Reinhold Niebuhr, American theologian (1892-1971) This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. Theodore Roosevelt, American adventurer and 26th president (1858-1919) Happiness is knowin' you've done a good job, whether it's professional or for another person. Elvis Presley, American rock 'n' roll icon (1935-1977) Lying can never save us from another lie. Vaclav Havel, Czech poet and political activist, first president of post-Communist Republic (b. 1936) If men were angels, no government would be necessary. James Madison, American Founding Father, U.S. president (1751-1836) [Because power corrupts] Societys demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases. John Adams, American Founding Father and second U.S. president (1735-1826) Character is the only secure foundation of the state. Calvin Coolidge, 30th American president (1872-1933) With all the power that a president has, the most important thing to bear in mind is this: You must not give power to a man unless, above everything else, he has character. Character is the most important qualification the president of the United States can have. Richard Nixon, 37th U.S. president (1913-1994), Politics ruins the character. Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor, founder of the German nation state (1815-1898) Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right. Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father and U.S. president (1743-1826), You can only govern men by serving them. Victor Cousin, French philosopher (1792-1867) Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds. Henry Adams, American historian, memoirist and diplomat (1838-1918) Since a politician never believes what he says, he is surprised when others believe him. Charles de Gaulle, French general and president, founder of the Fifth Republic (1890-1970) Washington is a place where men praise courage and act on elaborate personal cost -benefit calculations. John Kenneth Galbraith, North American economist, novelist and diplomat (b. 1908) Never create by law what can be accomplished by morality. Charles-Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu, French jurist and political philosopher Politics is the art of controlling the environment. Hunter S. Thomson, 20th-century American journalist and satirist Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors. Ralph Waldo Emerson, American essayist, public philosopher and poet (1803-1882)

12

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead, American anthropologist (1901-1978) We live in a stage of politics where legislators seem to regard the passage of laws as much more important than the results of their enforcement. William Howard Taft, 27th American president (1857-1930) I sometimes wish that people would put a little more emphasis upon the observance of the law than they do upon its enforcement. Calvin Coolidge, 30th American president (1872-1933) To insure the adoration of a theorem for any length of time, faith is not enough; a police force is needed as w ell. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

13

Albert Camus, French existentialist novelist (1913-1960) There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people. Hubert H. Humphrey, 38th American vice president (1911-1978) Who will protect the public when the police violate the law? Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General (b. 1927) There is, and always has been, one tremendous ruler of the human race and that ruler is that combination of the opinions of all, the leveling up of universal sense which is called public sentiment. That is the ever-present regulator and police of humanity. attributed to Thomas B. Reed The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. Sir Robert Peel, British Prime Minister (1788-1850) The police must obey the law while enforcing the law. Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1891-1974) The duties which a police officer owes to the state are of a most exacting nature. No one is compelled to choose the profession of a police officer, but having chosen it, everyone is obliged to live up to the standard of its requirements. To join in that high enterprise means the surrender of much individual freedom. Calvin Coolidge, 30th American president (1872-1933) Without commonly shared and widely entrenched moral values and obligations, neither the law nor democratic government will function properly. Vaclav Havel, President, Czech Republic Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Sir Robert Peel, British Prime Minister (1788-1850) It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. William Blackstone, British jurist (1723-1780) Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches people by example. If the government becomes the law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law and invites every man to become a law unto himself. Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941) My, my, my! Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains ... put it down, Joe. Humphrey Bogart, American actor (1899-1957), from The Big Sleep Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
He thats cheated twice by the same man is an accomplice with the cheater. Thomas Fuller, English divine and author (1608-1661) Provision for others is the fundamental responsibility of human life. Woodrow Wilson, 28th U.S. president (1856-1924) To protect those who are not able to protect themselves is a duty which every one owes to society. Edward Macnaghten

14

Emotional intelligence (Part 1) Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. It can be divided into ability EI and trait EI. Criticisms have centered on whether EI is a real intelligence and whether it has incremental validity over IQ and the Big Five personality traits. We all have different personalities, different wants and needs, and different ways of showing our emotions. Navigating through this all takes tact and cleverness especially if we hope to succeed in life. This is where emotional intelligence becomes important. Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize your emotions, understand what they're telling you, and realize how your emotions affect people around you. Emotional intelligence also involves your perception of others: when you understand how they feel, this allows you to manage relationships more effectively. People with high emotional intelligence are usually successful in most things they do. Why? Because they're the ones that others want on their team. When people with high EI send an email, it gets answered. When they need help, they get it. Because they make others feel good, they go through life much more easily than people who are easily angered or upset. The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Charles Darwin's work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and, second, adaptation. In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E.L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people. Currently, there are three main models of EI: Ability model Mixed model (usually subsumed under trait EI) Trait model Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap different constructs. Ability model Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth." Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

15

The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment. The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model claims that EI includes four types of abilities: Perceiving emotions the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts including the ability to identify one's own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible. Using emotions the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand. Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time. Managing emotions the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals. The ability EI model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in the workplace. Measurement The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items. Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a person's abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual's answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers. Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other challenges, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally "intelligent" only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led some cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.[citation needed] In a study by Folesdal, the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness. Folesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

16

Mixed model The model introduced by Daniel Golemanocuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines five main EI constructs (for more details see "What Makes A Leader" by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review 1998): Self-awareness the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions. Self-regulation involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances. Social skill managing relationships to move people in the desired direction Empathy - considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions and Motivation - being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement. Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies. Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere "pop psychology". How to learn the five key skills of emotional intelligence -----------------------------------------------------------------The five skills of emotional intelligence can be learned by anyone, at any time. There is a difference, however, between learning about emotional intelligence and applying that knowledge to your life. Just because you know you should do something doesn't mean you willespecially when you become overwhelmed by stress, which can hijack your best intentions. In order to permanently change behavior in ways that stand up under pressure, you need to learn how to take advantage of the powerful emotional parts of the brain that remain active and accessible even in times of stress. This means that you cant simply read about emotional intelligence in order to master it. You have to experience and practice the skills in your everyday life. 1. Rapidly reduce stress High levels of stress can overwhelm the mind and body, getting in the way of your ability to accurately read a situation, hear what someone else is saying, be aware of your own feelings and needs, and communicate clearly. Being able to quickly calm yourself down and relieve stress helps you stay balanced, focused, and in control no matter what challenges you face or how stressful a situation becomes. Stress busting: functioning well in the heat of the moment Develop your stress-busting skills by working through the following three steps: Realize when youre stressed The first step to reducing stress is recognizing what stress feels like. How does your body feel when youre stressed? Are your muscles or stomach tight or sore? Are your hands clenched? Is your breath shallow? Being aware of your physical response to stress will help regulate tension when it occurs. Identify your stress response Everyone reacts differently to stress. If you tend to become angry or agitated under stress, you will respond best to stress-relieving activities that quiet you down. If you tend to become depressed or withdrawn, you will respond best to stress-relieving activities that are stimulating. If you tend to freezespeeding up in some ways while slowing down in othersyou need stress-relieving activities that provide both comfort and stimulation. Discover the stress-busting techniques that work for you The best way to reduce stress quickly is by engaging one or more of your senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Each person responds differently to sensory input, so you need to find things that are soothing and/or energizing to you. For example, if youre a visual person you can Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

17

relieve stress by surrounding yourself with uplifting images. If you respond more to sound, you may find a wind chime, a favorite piece of music, or the sound of a water fountain helps to quickly reduce your stress levels. 2. Emotional awareness Being able to connect to your emotionshaving a moment-to-moment awareness of your emotions and how they influence your thoughts and actionsis the key to understanding yourself and others. Many people are disconnected from their emotionsespecially strong core emotions such as anger, sadness, fear, and joy. This may be the result of negative childhood experiences that taught you to try to shut off your feelings. But although we can distort, deny, or numb our feelings, we cant eliminate them. Theyre still there, whether were aware of them or not. Unfortunately, without emotional awareness, we are unable to fully understand our own motivations and needs, or to communicate effectively with others. What kind of a relationship do you have with your emotions? Do you experience feelings that flow, encountering one emotion after another as your experiences change from moment to moment? Are your emotions accompanied by physical sensations that you experience in places like your stomach or chest? Do you experience discrete feelings and emotions, such as anger, sadness, fear, joy, each of which is evident in subtle facial expressions? Can you experience intense feelings that are strong enough to capture both your attention and that of others? Do you pay attention to your emotions? Do they factor into your decision making? If any of these experiences are unfamiliar, your emotions may be turned down or turned off. In order to be emotionally healthy and emotionally intelligent, you must reconnect to your core emotions, accept them, and become comfortable with them. Developing emotional awareness Emotional awareness can be learned at any time of life. If you havent learned how to manage stress, its important to do so first. When you can manage stress, youll feel more comfortable reconnecting to strong or unpleasant emotions and changing the way you experience and respond to your feelings. 3. Nonverbal communication Being a good communicator requires more than just verbal skills. Often, what you say is less important than how you say it, or the other nonverbal signals you send outthe gestures you make, the way you sit, how fast or how loud you talk, how close you stand, or how much eye contact you make. In order to hold the attention of others and build connection and trust, you need to be aware of, and in control of, this body language. You also need to be able to accurately read and respond to the nonverbal cues that other people send you. These messages dont stop when someone stops speaking. Even when youre silent, youre still communicating nonverbally. Think about what you are transmitting as well, and if what you say matches what you feel. If you insist, Im fine," while clenching your teeth and looking away, your body is clearly signaling the opposite. Your nonverbal messages can produce a sense of interest, trust, excitement, and desire for connectionor they can generate fear, confusion, distrust, and disinterest. Tips for improving nonverbal communication Successful nonverbal communication depends on your ability to manage stress, recognize your own emotions, and understand the signals youre sending and receiving. When communicating: Focus on the other person. If you are planning what youre going to say next, daydreaming, or thinking about something else, you are almost certain to miss nonverbal cues and other subtleties in the conversation. Make eye contact. Eye contact can communicate interest, maintain the flow of a conversation, and help gauge the other persons response. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

18

Pay attention to nonverbal cues youre sending and receiving, such as facial expression, tone of voice, posture and gestures, touch, and the timing and pace of the conversation. 4. Use humor and play to deal with challenges Humor, laughter, and play are natural antidotes to lifes difficulties; they lighten your burdens and help you keep things in perspective. A good hearty laugh reduces stress, elevates mood, and brings your nervous system back into balance. Playful communication broadens your emotional intelligence and helps you: Take hardships in stride. By allowing you to view your frustrations and disappointments from new perspectives, laughter and play enable you to survive annoyances, hard times, and setbacks. Smooth over differences. Using gentle humor often helps you say things that might be otherwise difficult to express without creating a flap. Simultaneously relax and energize yourself. Playful communication relieves fatigue and relaxes your body, which allows you to recharge and accomplish more. Become more creative. When you loosen up, you free yourself of rigid ways of thinking and being, allowing you to get creative and see things in new ways. How to develop playful communication: Its never too late to develop and embrace your playful, humorous side. Try setting aside regular, quality playtime. The more you joke, play, and laughthe easier it becomes. Find enjoyable activities that loosen you up and help you embrace your playful nature. Practice by playing with animals, babies, young children, and outgoing people who appreciate playful banter. 5. Resolve conflict positively Conflict and disagreements are inevitable in relationships. Two people can't possibly have the same needs, opinions, and expectations at all times. However, that needn't be a bad thing. Resolving conflict in healthy, constructive ways can strengthen trust between people. When conflict isn't perceived as threatening or punishing, it fosters freedom, creativity, and safety in relationships. The ability to manage conflicts in a positive, trust-building way is supported by the previous four skills of emotional intelligence. Once you know how to manage stress, stay emotionally present and aware, communicate nonverbally, and use humor and play, you'll be better equipped to handle emotionally charged situations and catch and defuse many issues before they escalate. Tips for resolving conflict in a trust-building way: Stay focused in the present. When you are not holding on to old hurts and resentments, you can recognize the reality of a current situation and view it as a new opportunity for resolving old feelings about conflicts. Choose your arguments. Arguments take time and energy, especially if you want to resolve them in a positive way. Consider what is worth arguing about and what is not. Forgive. Other peoples hurtful behaviour is in the past. To resolve conflict, you need to give up the urge to punish or seek revenge. End conflicts that can't be resolved. It takes two people to keep an argument going. You can choose to disengage from a conflict, even if you still disagree. How to Improve Your Emotional Intelligence: GOLEMAN ****************************************** The good news is that emotional intelligence CAN be taught and developed. Many books and tests are available to help you determine your current EI, and identify where you may need to do some work. You can also use these tips: Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

19

Observe how you react to people. Do you rush to judgment before you know all of the facts? Do you stereotype? Look honestly at how you think and interact with other people. Try to put yourself in their place, and be more open and accepting of their perspectives and needs. Look at your work environment. Do you seek attention for your accomplishments? Humility can be a wonderful quality, and it doesn't mean that you're shy or lack self-confidence. When you practice humility, you say that you know what you did, and you can be quietly confident about it. Give others a chance to shine put the focus on them, and don't worry too much about getting praise for yourself. Do a self-evaluation. What are your weaknesses? Are you willing to accept that you're not perfect and that you could work on some areas to make yourself a better person? Have the courage to look at yourself honestly it can change your life. Examine how you react to stressful situations. Do you become upset every time there's a delay or something doesn't happen the way you want? Do you blame others or become angry at them, even when it's not their fault? The ability to stay calm and in control in difficult situations is highly valued in the business world and outside it. Keep your emotions under control when things go wrong. Take responsibility for your actions. If you hurt someone's feelings, apologize directly don't ignore what you did or avoid the person. People are usually more willing to forgive and forget if you make an honest attempt to make things right. Examine how your actions will affect others before you take those actions. If your decision will impact others, put yourself in their place. How will they feel if you do this? Would you want that experience? If you must take the action, how can you help others deal with the effects? Daniel Goleman FIVE elements that define emotional intelligence: 1. Self-Awareness People with high emotional intelligence are usually very self-aware. They understand their emotions, and because of this, they don't let their feelings rule them. They're confident because they trust their intuition and don't let their emotions get out of control. They're also willing to take an honest look at themselves. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and they work on these areas so they can perform better. Many people believe that this self-awareness is the most important part of emotional intelligence. 2. Self-Regulation This is the ability to control emotions and impulses. People who self-regulate typically don't allow themselves to become too angry or jealous, and they don't make impulsive, careless decisions. They think before they act. Characteristics of self-regulation are thoughtfulness, comfort with change, integrity, and the ability to say no. 3. Motivation People with a high degree of emotional intelligence are usually motivated. They're willing to defer immediate results for long-term success. They're highly productive, love a challenge, and are very effective in whatever they do. 4. Empathy This is perhaps the second-most important element of emotional intelligence. Empathy is the ability to identify with and understand the wants, needs, and viewpoints of those around you. People with empathy are good at recognizing the feelings of others, even when those feelings may not be obvious. As a result, empathetic people are usually excellent at managing relationships, listening, and relating to others. They avoid stereotyping and judging too quickly, and they live their lives in a very open, honest way. 5. Social Skills It's usually easy to talk to and like people with good social skills, another sign of high emotional intelligence. Those with strong social skills are typically team players. Rather than focus on their own success first, Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

20

they help others develop and shine. They can manage disputes, are excellent communicators, and are masters at building and maintaining relationships. Why is emotional intelligence so important? As we know, its not the smartest people that are the most successful or the most fulfilled in life. You probably know people who are academically brilliant and yet are socially inept and unsuccessful at work or in their personal relationships. Intellectual intelligence (IQ) isnt enough on its own to be successful in life. Yes, your IQ can help yoy be selected for Civil Services but its your EQ that will help you manage the stres s and emotions when facing challenges of Civil Service as an ADMINISTRATOR. Emotional intelligence affects: Performance at work. Emotional intelligence can help you navigate the social complexities of the workplace, lead and motivate others, and excel in your career. In fact, when it comes to gauging job candidates, many companies now view emotional intelligence as being as important as technical ability and require EQ testing before hiring. Physical health. If youre unable to manage your stress levels, it can lead to serious health problems. Uncontrolled stress can raise blood pressure, suppress the immune system, increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, contribute to infertility, and speed up the aging process. The first step to improving emotional intelligence is to learn how to relieve stress. Mental health. Uncontrolled stress can also impact your mental health, making you vulnerable to anxiety and depression. If you are unable to understand and manage your emotions, youll also be open to mood swings, while an inability to form strong relationships can leave you feeling lonely and isolated. Relationships. By understanding your emotions and how to control them, youre better able to express how you feel and understand how others are feeling. This allows you to communicate more effectively and forge stronger relationships, both at work and in your personal life. How to raise emotional intelligence : ***************************** All information to the brain comes through our senses, and when this information is overwhelmingly stressful or emotional, instinct will take over and our ability to act will be limited to the flight, fight, or freeze response. Therefore, to have access to the wide range of choices and the ability to make good decisions, we need to be able to bring our emotions into balance at will. Memory is also strongly linked to emotion. By learning to use the emotional part of your brain as well as the rational, youll not only expand your range of choices when it comes to responding to a new event, but youll also factor emotional memory into your decision-making process. This will help prevent you from continually repeating earlier mistakes. To improve your emotional intelligenceand your decision-making abilitiesyou need to understand and control the emotional side of your brain. This is done by developing five key skills. By mastering the first two skills, youll find skills three, four, and five much easier to learn.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

21

What is aptitude ************ Acquired or natural ability (usually measurable with aptitude tests), for learning and proficiency in a specific area or discipline. Aptitude is expressed in interest, and is reflected in current performance which is expected to improve over time with training. An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained.

Ethics of war (An Introduction) (Aspire IAS) ************************************************ Human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long.The Ethics of War starts by assuming that war is a bad thing, and should be avoided if possible, but it recognises that there can be situations when war may be the lesser evil of several bad choices. War is a bad thing because it involves deliberately killing or injuring people, and this is a fundamental wrong - an abuse of the victims' human rights. ************************************************ Purpose: The purpose of war ethics is to help decide what is right or wrong, both for individuals and countries, and to contribute to debates on public policy, and ultimately to government and individual action. War ethics also leads Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

22

to the creation of formal codes of war (e.g. the Hague and Geneva conventions), the drafting and implementation of rules of engagement for soldiers, and in the punishment of soldiers and others for war crimes. ************************************************ The theory of Just War: Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just: 1. The war must be for a just cause. 2. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. 3. The intention behind the war must be good. 4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first. 5. There must be a reasonable chance of success. 6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve. A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate. 1. Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed. Only appropriate force should be used. 2. This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used. 3. Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed. Just war theory (2nd article related to War on Ethics) (Aspire IAS) ************************************************ The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: 1. taking human life is seriously wrong 2. states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice 3. protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought. Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none. ************************************************ Purpose: The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war). Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars. The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. ************************************************ 'Just', or merely 'permissible'? ************************************************ The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing. But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil. Origins

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

23

The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Elements ************************************************ There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names: 1. Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified. 2. Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought. Ethics and War comparative analysis (Aspire IAS) ************************************************ War is a peculiar human activity, in that it can bring out some of our best traits, such as courage and self-sacrifice, yet also elicit tremendous cruelty and suffering. Its therefore a prime candidate for ethical reflection. Although each of the worlds major faith traditions preaches compassion and justice, many of the most horrendous wars in human history have ironically been fought in the name of religion. Even now, at the beginning of the 21st century, people are still strongly divided by religion. Religion continues to be a catalyst for war in places as diverse as Nigeria, Ireland, Yugoslavia,and Indonesia. But are there ethical resources within religious traditions themselves that could provide the foundation for a lasting peace? Some arguments: 1) Each of the major religious traditions contains moral rules or principles bearing on war that contradict one another to some extent. 2) Believers within those traditions cannot act in accordance with contradictory moral rules, since that would entail performing an action and not performing it at the same time, which is impossible. 3) Therefore, believers must choose to reject at least some of their own traditional rules. 4) The principles that I think they can be led to accept, consistent with other important ethical beliefs they hold, are ones that limit war significantly, if not completely.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
Ethics and War comparative analysis (Aspire IAS) Part 2 ************************************************ Religions:

24

1. Jains and Buddhists, who generally reject the caste system and consider the ethic of nonviolence to be binding on all people (Ferguson chs. 3-4), nonetheless do not completely prohibit the taking of life. They avoid killing sentient animals, but they accept the killing of plant life even though they consider plants to have souls. More to the point, some Buddhists also think it can be right to kill an unjust human attacker if necessary to save the lives of two or more innocent people. 2. The Hindu tradition contains a very strong ethic of reverence for life. To kill or harm another creature is a serious offense that corrupts ones soul and delays ones achievement of enlightenment. But Hindu ethics have also been strongly influenced by the caste system with its fatalism and narrow role expectations. One of the main castes is that of the warrior. If a person is born into the warrior caste, he is obliged to kill enemy soldiers if needed to defend the religious community. On the other hand, total war in the sense of indiscriminate killing seems to have been prohibited fairly consistently. Hindu soldiers are not to kill prisoners, the wounded, deserters, or noncombatants. Why not? Apparently out of a sense of fairness or chivalry: it would be "unprofessional" to attack non-soldiers (Klostermaier 230). 3. Turning now to the Jewish tradition, one of the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20 is "Thou shalt not kill." Was that meant to be an absolute prohibition of all killing? Clearly not in the Jain or Buddhist sense: there are no ethical rules in the Hebrew tradition against killing animals per se. We might think that the Hebrew Commandment applies to all killing of people, especially if we consider the idea expressed in Genesis 1 that human beings are created in Gods image or likeness. That would seem to imply that they have infinite dignity and value, and should never be killed. But apparently the Hebrew Bible did not intend to prohibit killing people completely: the proper translation of the Exodus passage is "Do not commit murder," which presumably covers some killing but not all. Also, in Exodus chs. 21-22 and elsewhere, God is said to command killing-in the form of capital punishment--for many offenses including murder, kidnapping, and striking or cursing ones parents. But given that murder is prohibited, we might assume that the ancient Hebrews would have considered total war to be morally unacceptable. But that was not the case. The first of the Commandments prohibited the Israelites from worshipping any other gods but Yahweh. God demanded purity and strict obedience. Idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death. Non-Israelites who lived within the area believed by the Hebrews to have been promised to them by God were seen to pose a great temptation to them to abandon their faith. This led them to justify the slaughter of entire cities and "everything that breathed" in them. Its somewhat surprising that a slightly different set of rules was prescribed (in Deuteronomy 20) for dealing with Israels external enemies (Bainton 43). An ultimatum was given to them to submit to forced labor, or all men would be killed and the rest enslaved. Thats not much of a choice, but somewhat different from killing "everything that breathed." Unfortunately for us in trying to interpret this text, no reasons are given to explain this difference. Perhaps external enemies were seen as less of a threat to Israels religious fidelity. (But foreigners would be considered idolaters, too.) 4. In the Islamic tradition there are also precedents for total war. Although Muhammad was said by an early biographer to have taken the path of non-violence at first, he soon came to justify the use of force not only in defense of his growing religious community but also in the form of offensive war to expand the territory of Islam. Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

25

And the rules he set for fighting such wars were fairly harsh: although women, children and the elderly were not to be directly attacked, Muhammad permitted his warriors to kill all captured soldiers and male civilians. Also, when foreign women and children were killed by Muslim soldiers in battle, Muhammad denied that they were responsible, placing blame on the enemy leaders instead. This is a claim which unfortunately continues to be made today by leaders of Islamic terrorist groups, who accept no moral guilt for killing innocent civilians (Kelsay 21-22, 59-60, 63, 104). On the other hand, there are other ethical ideas within the Hebrew and Islamic traditions that tend to rule out total war. Both traditions believe God to be compassionate and merciful, and urge people to imitate God in those respects. They also prescribe punishments in some cases only for those who are guilty of offenses, which would prohibit the use of force against innocent noncombatants. And there are many Jewish and Muslim authorities today who argue that war should only be waged as a last resort, and that only the minimum degree of force necessary should be used. For example, the "Ethical Code of the Israeli Defense Forces," which incorporates many Jewish ethical values, requires soldiers to "prevent unnecessary harm to human life and limb, dignity and property with special consideration for the defenseless." There are also influential Muslim leaders today who completely condemn terrorism against innocent civilians, and limit the recourse to war to defense alone. In the Christian tradition, one finds the full range of ethical views on war, from pacifism to limited war to total war. Historically, thats roughly the order in which those views developed (Bainton 14). Jesus set very high standards for his followers on love and forgiveness, including non-retaliation against evil and love of enemies: "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist those who wrong you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also. You have hear d it said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for your persecutors." (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44; compare Luke 6:27-29.) Most early Christians seem to have interpreted Jesus's order to prohibit all uses of force, even in defense of the innocent. According to Matthew 26, when a mob of armed men came to arrest Jesus, one of his disciples (assumed to be Peter) "drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" Many early Christians also noted that Jesus allowed himself to be unjustly executed without putting up any resistance. Paul echoed Jesus's nonviolent message in his letter to the Romans, ch. 12: "Repay no one evil for evil ... never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God." On the other hand, some New Testament passages were interpreted by later Christians as affirming the military profession and its use by the state. Roman soldiers who met Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul were apparently not asked by any of them to abandon their roles. And in Romans 13, Paul wrote: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." He who is in authority "is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." Paul seems to permit the state to use force, but not individual Christians. Many other Christians in the first three centuries after Christ advocated pacifism (Swift 34-60). Justin Martyr urged Christians not to take part in wars but to pray for their enemies and not resist those who imprison or kill them because of their faith. Athenagoras said that Christians must allow themselves to be hit and robbed without retaliating either physically or through the courts. Tertullian thought that holding public office and being a soldier would inevitably require actions forbidden to Christians, and connected personal non-retaliation with abstaining from government and military service. "Will a son of peace who should not even go to court take part in battle?" he Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

26

asked rhetorically. For Christians "it is more permissible to be killed than to kill." And in disarming Peter, Jesus "disarmed every soldier thereafter." Hippolytus thought that Christians should not join the army; but if they were already in the army, they must disobey orders to kill. That of course would not have gone over well with their military superiors, and might have resulted in their execution. Origen was aware of Old Testament holy wars, but said that "the Christian Lawgiver [i.e., Jesus] made homicide absolutely forbidden." "The law of gentleness and love" precluded vengeance and violence. Although the pacifist stance is strong during this early period, there are also hints of some permissible uses of military force. Curiously, considering their otherwise strongly pacifist stances, Tertullian prayed for imperial Rome and its "brave armies," and Origen prayed on behalf of soldiers "doing battle in a just cause and on behalf of an emperor who is ruling justly." (Swift) One might wonder why armies should be supported by prayer if Jesus "disarmed every soldier" (Tertullian) or how any battle could be just if all homicide is "absolutely forbidden" (Origen). Their stance may be consistent with that of Paul, though, i.e., prohibiting violence by individual Christians but seeing God's purposes in some uses of force by governing authorities. Although some Christians served as Roman soldiers during the Churchs early history, a very significant shift in Christian thinking about war occurred in the fourth century when Emperor Constantine began to use the Roman state to support the Church. According to an influential bishop named Eusebius, Christian pacifism was from then on to be strictly for clergy, monks and nuns; lay Christians, by contrast, were obligated to defend the empire with force (Swift 82-89). Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, believed that Christians may not use force in personal self-defense, apparently in light of Jesus' commands in the Gospels not to resist or retaliate against evil. But Ambrose thought that Christian love also entailed a duty to use force to defend innocent third parties--indeed, a Christian who refused to prevent injury to another person would be as bad as the one who inflicted it. Ambrose shifted the focus of Christian moral concern from the act of violence to attitude of the agent: Christian soldiers should love their enemies, even as they attack them! (Is that possible psychologically?) In effect, he "baptized" Roman military virtues for Christian purposes: risking one's life to defend the empire became courageous, just and noble for Christians. Ambrose believed that there should be moral limits on war, however. (Swift 96-110) With Ambrose and his student Augustine appears the first significant Christian development of just-war principles. They stipulated that war must only be waged by a legitimate governmental authority; it must be intended to restore peace and justice; it must be avoided altogether if justice can be achieved by nonviolent means, i.e., war should only be used as a last resort. There were also limits on the conduct of war: reprisal killings and massacres were forbidden (Bainton 95ff.). Even in cases where Augustine considered war to be the lesser of evils, he regarded killing as ultimately tragic, always requiring an attitude of mourning and regret on the part of Christians. Partly due to his influence, throughout most of the medieval period, killing in war was considered a very serious sin. If a Christian soldier killed an enemy soldier, even in a war that was considered just overall, that soldier would have to do penance for the killing, usually by fasting and prayer for a year or more (Bainton 98, 109). But later efforts by medieval popes to reduce conflict among European princes ironically led to larger wars against external enemies: the Crusades. In the year 1095, Pope Urban II urged European leaders to stop quarrelling among themselves, and to rescue the Christian holy lands from their non-Christian occupiers. He referred to the Turkish Muslims who had invaded Palestine as a "cursed race" and an "unclean nation" that had polluted Christian holy places. Killing Muslims became itself a form of penance for Christians for remission of their sins. Moral rules Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

27

governing war were abandoned, and unlimited tactics were permitted. No one was immune from attack by Christian crusaders; whole cities were slaughtered. (Bainton 109-112) There seems to be a tendency in human societies to believe that one's own enemies are the enemies of God, and need not be treated with the same sort of respect that one is required to show to ones fellow citizens. In some cases people are led to believe that the impurity or evil of their enemies is so deep that they ought to be exterminated. There are still people today who believe that their faith has a monopoly on the truth. And many of them are quite willing to use force, even total war, to spread their faith at the expense of others. What the advocates of aggressive religious war cannot legitimately claim, though, is that their position is the only authentic expression of their faith. Every major religious tradition contains ethical principles that are incompatible with total war. Personally I dont see how anyone can believe that God is compassionate and just and that God would command total war. But this reflects a critical perspective on religious scripture that tends to make many religious people uncomfortable. Its not easy to convince them that they can analyze their scriptures critically, perhaps even coming to reject some ideas contained in them, without necessarily blaspheming God or abandoning their faith. But I think its imperative for people to come to grips with contradictory ideas that exist even in their most sacred books. Im encouraged by the fact that leaders of the major religious traditions have engaged in sincere interfaith dialogues, in part to reduce the ignorance, fear and hatred that often leads to war, but also to seek areas of agreement on ethical matters even if they cannot agree theologically. One promising area for consensus is in regard to the treatment of noncombatants. People of all faiths can agree, I trust, that innocent civilians should never be directly targeted by military forces, that indiscriminate weapons and tactics should never be used against military targets in ways that would produce large civilian casualties, and that captured soldiers should not be tortured or executed but treated humanely. If a belief that God is compassionate and just is incompatible with advocacy of total war, is it also incompatible with war of any kind? Should religious people be strict pacifists? I dont think so. I can understand why people might see nonviolence as the logical extension of compassion. It seems impossible to reconcile love of enemies with killing them, as Ambrose and Augustine tried to do. But I think (with A & A) that an absolute refusal to kill is inconsistent with compassion and justice for innocent people threatened with violent attack. Consider, for example, the continuing need to use military force to stop "ethnic cleansing" and genocide. I also think (against A & A) that people have a right to defend themselves, not only an obligation to defend others. An unjust, violent attacker in effect forfeits his right not to be killed by others. On the other hand, its a very grave thing to kill any person. Given the potential for mass killing thats inherent in all modern war, we must take on the burden of wrestling with the ethical criteria that war must satisfy if it is ever to be permitted

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

28

Pacifism (Aspire IAS) www.aspireias.com (Ethics and WAR) ************************************************ There are several different sorts of pacifism, but they all include the idea that war and violence are unjustifiable, and that conflicts should be settled in a peaceful way. he word (but not the idea) is only a century old, being first used in 1902 at the 10th International Peace Conference. People are pacifists for one or some of these reasons: 1. -religious belief in the sanctity of life 2. practical belief that war is wasteful and ineffective 3. religious faith. Many believe that pacifism is more than opposition to war. They argue that it must include action to promote justice and human rights. (Consider for example whether the preservation of peace throughout the British Empire justified the human rights violations of that colonial regime.) Levels of pacifism It's important to see the difference between the morality of pacifism as it applies to an individual, and the application of that morality to the behaviour of a nation-state. ot appreciating this difference can lead to real difficulties in discussing pacifism and non-violence. Consistency Pacifists are often thought of as totally opposed to killing, but they don't have to be. A pacifist can logically support euthanasia and abortion, although they would need to have thought their position through very carefully. Types of pacifism Aspire IAS 10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394 www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS
___________________ Absolute pacifism

29

An absolute pacifist believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. To stick to this principle consistently is hard. It views it as unethical to use violence to rescue an innocent person who is being attacked and may be killed, and this is not a comfortable moral position. Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence. Conditional pacifism Conditional pacifists are against war and violence in principle, but they accept that there may be circumstances when war will be less bad than the alternative. Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles - it's the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence. Selective pacifism Other pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree, and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass destruction nuclear or chemical and biological weapons - either because of the uniquely devastating consequences of such weapons, or because a war that uses such weapons is not 'winnable'. Active pacifism Pacifists are heavily involved in political activity to promote peace, and to argue against particular wars. During a war many pacifists will refuse to fight, but some will take part in activities that seek to reduce the harm of war; e.g. by driving ambulances, but other pacifists will refuse to take part in any activity that might support the war. Not all pacifists are brave enough to act according to these beliefs and to refuse to fight, but many have, bravely choosing punishment, and even execution, rather than go to war. Nowadays most democratic countries accept that people have the right of conscientious objection to military service, but they usually expect the objector to undertake some form of public service as an alternative. Arguments against pacifism ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Pacifism cannot be national policy Pacifism as national policy for a nation is almost unheard of, for the obvious reason that it will only work if no-one wants to attack your country, or the nation with whom you are in dispute is also committed to pacifism. In any other circumstances adopting a pacifist stance will result in your country rapidly being conquered.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

30

However, the idea of pacifism, and of seeking non-violent solutions to disputes between nations, plays a significant part in international politics, particularly through the work of the United Nations. The logical case against Pacifism Those who oppose pacifism say that because the world is not perfect, war is not always wrong. They say that states have a duty to protect their citizens, and that citizens have a duty to carry out certain tasks in a Just War. It doesn't matter that pacifists are motivated by respect for human life and a love of peace. The pacifists' refusal to participate in war does not make them noble idealists, but people who are failing to carry out an important moral obligation. A second argument says that pacifism has no place in the face of extreme evil. The war against Nazi Germany was a war against extreme wickedness, and in 1941 an editorial in the Times Literary Supplement wrote: We have discovered that there is something more horrible than war - the killing of the spirit in the body, the Nazi contempt for the individual man. The world reeks with the foulness of the crimes in occupied Europe, where a Dark Age has begun anew. Pacifism and remembrance Because most societies regard going to war as fulfilling a citizen's ethical duty, they honour and remember those who give their lives in war. If we believe that war is governed by ethics we should only honour those who give their lives in a Just War, and who followed the rules of war. So, for example, it should be wrong to honour dead soldiers who killed the enemy or wounded or raped enemy women. (But this distinction is not usually made about those who fought on 'our' side.) A more tricky moral dilemma is presented by the case of soldiers who died while fighting 'justly' for an unjust war. Many soldiers died fighting honourably and decently for Germany in World War II. But since the war was a blatantly aggressive and unjust war would it be wrong to honour such soldiers for their sacrifice? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Some religions, such as Buddhism, promote pacifism. Others have strong pacifist elements, such as Christianity, but have accepted that war is inevitable and sought to provide moral guidance in dealing with conflict. Judaism, like other religions, is strongly opposed to violence, and where violence is permitted the minimum necessary should be used.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com

ASPIRE IAS

31

But Jewish law does occasionally argue that violence may be the only solution: it imposes a moral obligation to save the life of a person who is being killed, even if the only way of doing so is to kill the attacker. (This demonstrates that Judaism regards going to the aid of someone who is being attacked as a higher moral duty than not injuring people.) Jewish law also specifically obliges Jews to use violence on the Sabbath as a response to an invasion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------The UK Experience ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Pacifism became widespread as a reaction to the scale of killing in the First World War and the use of universal male conscription, and gained further support after the creation of nuclear weapons. However, the Holocaust, and other industrial scale abuses of human rights, caused many to think that there could be cases when war was the least-bad course of action. In World War 1 those who refused to fight were known as 'conscientious objectors'. They numbered about 16,000. While the name was intended to make it clear that it was conscience not cowardice that kept pacifists out of the military, it was rapidly shortened to 'Conshie' and used as a term of abuse. Some pacifists were prepared to work in non-combat roles as medical orderlies, stretcher-bearers, ambulance drivers, cooks or labourers, while others refused to do anything that might help the war effort. Over 500 of these were imprisoned under harsh conditions. There were two major pacifist organisations in World War 1: the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the NoConscription Fellowship (both founded in 1914). In 1923 a Christian Pacifist MP was elected to parliament. In the middle 1930s the Peace Pledge Union gained wide support. Pacifism gained great publicity from a 1933 student debate in the Oxford University Union that voted for a resolution that 'this House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country'. In World War 2, there were 59,000 British conscientious objectors, who received rather better treatment than in the previous war.

Aspire IAS

10/70 ORN New Delhi 60 9999801394

www.aspireias.com