 So, welcome back and we were discussing about environmental ethics and we had initiated this idea that environmental ethics has to be understood from two points of views. One is the scientific understanding of the environment which is grounded on causal relations. Another is the intentional relationship which talks about environment as a field of significance. Now the whole idea about talking about environment and nature, environment and human engagement, bringing them together into one fold is something important because that creates a larger scope that actually extends the domain of the morals. So, the moral extensionism talks about the ecological sensibility of human beings and that helps in enlarging the scope of the morals within the discourse of environmental studies. So therefore, it is important that we need to talk about a radical shift in our approach and that radical shift is about a concept of self. What kind of self will really help us in understanding this oneness that we are talking about? So that is what I will be talking about in my next lecture and the ultimate reconsideration of values is something is also important when we talk about the oneness of the reality. So there are two books which I have referred in this talk and the previous talk and I also had referred to David Cooper's essay on the idea of environment which is of course not been written here but I will be posting you with that. I was as I was mentioning about a new of my study on environmental ethics that is on the ecological self and understanding. I would be in fact interested to bring in this concept of ecological self to you and how do I conceive this idea? I see a big kind of a departure is necessary when we talk about the notion of ecological self, the notion of oneness between the environment and the human life. Now to conceive that oneness to construe a kind of a holistic environmental ethics we perceive a kind of a change is necessary that is the change is from a each conception of nature to thou conception of nature. This shift is very important, this shift is important in this sense that whenever we talk about nature we use to conceive it that as an object nature is treated as an object that is what I call an each conception of nature and when nature is conceived as a subject as subject at par with the individual being I talk about a thou conception of nature. In fact, these two terms are borrowed from a famous philosopher Martin Boeber whose essay is I and thou I will talk about I will elaborate upon it in my towards the concluding section of the notion of ecological self. But this basic idea has to be clarified here is that that the classical understanding of environment treats environment as an object whereas the concept of ecological self tries to make a shift stating that the environment is not treated as an object it is at par with the subject who is valuing it and that is how it is called an I thou relationship. And to understand that we need to talk about values in nature and nature of values these two things are have to be clarified values in nature we know that there are specific values in nature. Say for example, human beings as a species are valuable similarly animals are also valuable plants are also valuable so there are there valuable because they have some specific features there are characteristics which are very important for their way of living and we cannot undermine those values and once you undermine that we try to reduce them to something else which we often do in the case of an eat conception of nature. So, our if we are looking for an alternative theoretical framework of understanding environmental ethics we also need to look at reexamine the nature of beings the values of beings and the nature of values values in nature and nature of values now when we talk about nature of values there are two ideas here one is the values are sometimes intrinsically associated or necessarily associated with the being or thing or we find that values are externally associated with the things. So, when we talk about nature of values these two concepts are to be analyzed one is the notion of intrinsic value that is the value in itself a thing having value in itself and another is the concept of extrinsic value the non intrinsic value is something very important then the other concept is about moral agents and moral subjects this subject object dichotomy is indeed a consequence of the modernist vision of the reality we treat the individual as a subject and the world the rest of the world or the other as an object. So, this whole engagement with human beings with nature is treated in this framework in a dual framework this. So, the dichotomy exists like the self and other dichotomy the self and the world dichotomy I and U dichotomy. So, this division is has to be reached and that can be reached theoretically provided we try to bring in a new concept called moral agent and moral subjects some philosophers have used talked about the difference between agency and patient agent-patient relationship. So, that we have to be understood then as one of our fellow participants were pointing out in the previous section we find that this idea is an of what kind of alternative vision that environmental ethics in 21st century is conceptualizing the alternative vision is about an eco-centric ethics or eco-centric world view I treat them as synonymous life-centric or eco-centric they may be there may be terminological differences, but for our understanding let us treat them as a kind of a synonymous term that life is at the center and that is important for you know establishing the relationship with everything that is there in the universe. So, this intentional connectedness or the familiarity that I was discussing with reference to the notion of intentional field can be brought in if we put life at the center life is the basic principle on which we need to develop an alternative outlook. Now, this shift from anthropocentrism to life-centric world view will have will not ignore this idea of what is objectively valuable. Now, this objective objectivity has to be understood little carefully because very often we try to reduce values either to our individual interest or to the group's interest or the community's interest and that causes a serious harm or that becomes a threat to our environmental concern or ethical concern because what is good for an individual may not be good for the other individual what is good for one community may not be good for the other community as you know we are discussing that whether environmental ethics would talk about moral principles that are relative or whether we need to talk about environmental principles that are universal. Here I am suggesting that we should have an objective understanding of those moral principles which are suitable for the entire humanity. So, it is in that sense a basic sense of objectivity needs to be granted or to be opted for so that we do not the second point is that there is a tell us in this whole conceptualization of a moral world and ecological world the tell us is that every individual being has a purpose. Now, this is typically an Aristotleian thinking which I am trying to address to Aristotle believed that every being has a purpose. So, every being has a purpose means there is a tell us it is to our form of life and we need to unfold that tell us we need to uncover that so that we leave a meaningful life. So, it is in that sense there is a teleological perspective to be attached because otherwise we cannot really propose this notion of ethics why I am saying this is that this whole concept of environmental ethics or to live in an ethical world is very important for everyone it is a perspective that we need to develop it is a perspective that we not only need to develop, but also live with it. Now, unless we talk about that perspective unless our approach is perspective we cannot talk about values that are required for a sustainable development or values that are required for meaningful life because a new world is to be conceptualized from the point of view of a perspective there is a perspective associated with it. So, it is in that sense it is Aristotleian and it is teleological the other one is the notion of community and systems as I said earlier there are various types of communities there are various types of being say for example, an animal world and the human world and the other endangered species which is also one kind of a community. So, and you have there are various many ecosystems are connected with each other. So, we need to thread them we need to neatly connect them so that they become part of a holistic teleological study of environment. So, nothing has to be to be left out. So, it is the point is we need to become inclusive not exclusive in our approach. The second the other point which really justifies to this idea of ecological self is that that when we talk about a self self has various dimension. So, and that it has to be you know seen the biological dimension as my fellow participant pointed out earlier during the questionnaire session that there is an economic dimension. Now, in today's society our basic concern has becoming more and more economic rather than anything else. And so, it is in that context economic is a very important aspect of a human life. See we are and there is also a social concern and all these to be integrated together the biological purpose of life the economic purpose of life and there is a social purpose of life. And they together will you know form a larger tell us that together will define a larger you know tell us of human life. So, it is in that context one can think of why we need to integrate them the need of integration and that has to be deeply felt and unless we feel that it is necessary such a perspective will be you know will not be possible. Now, Cooper whom I referred in my earlier session talk talks about when he defines this oneness he writes I quote him given man's capacities for speech and self reflection for instance slogan to the effect that people are as part of the nature as mountains, feasts, clear need to be balanced by ones which recalls people's transcendence of the nature. So, you look at the human life human life as I pointed out that is always progressive it always you know look at development as something its priority. So, therefore, there is always a vision for an ideal and there is always a vision for a utopia society. I am not saying that whether that utopia is possible is realizable but what I am trying to suggest here is that such an utopia is part and parcel of a human existence and it is inevitable that human being will not it is inevitable that we will not escape from this utopian vision of reality. Now, utopia is always a kind of a always gives a transcendence feeling because that which is existing is not something ideal that which is an ideal is not something ideal. Is not existing out there or that which is an ideal I am not living with living in that world. So, my ideal is always a new world the ideal is always a better world hence there is a sense of transcendence attest to it. Now, the other point is that human being human life human abilities is something very unique they are unique in this sense they are speaking beings their linguistic beings and their self conscious beings. Now, language is something very uniquely associated with human life it is not that the other species do not share do not communicate no, but in the case of human you find a kind of a new facet of life in which we communicate with each other we share with each other and that sharing is based on certain normative conditions say for example a human beings do make promise when I say I will pay you 100 dollars I do mean it such a promise is in fact a kind of performative utterances it is as good as you know making a case of paying 100 rupees note and if I disown it then it is a moral lapse on my part. So, a philosopher called named John Searle refers to this idea of human beings that is that in while speaking we not only perform activities, but we perform a rule governed activities. So, human intentional attitudes are therefore deontic in nature human intentionality or human intentional attitude per se is intrinsically deontic in nature that is what Searle says you know makes a kind of a big difference when we compare human life with the life of the other species and human beings are self-reflective beings they not only have not only conscious of themselves, but also they are conscious of what kind of self they have or they try to reform their self. Now, this reformative attitude this transformative attitude is an attitude based on this deontic power of their intentionality is something which is important. Now, Searle does make a claim that the other species will have some kind of a self identity, but that will be a lesser kind of a self identity than the human beings the human identity is something grounded on certain normative consciousness. So, it is not just merely a self conscious attitude, but it is self conscious normative attitude. This is something I think we need to keep in mind when we talk about an ecological self a transformative self which is possible. Now, when I say what we are we are and why we should care for nature the two things come to mind which is again taken from one of the very eminent scholar of environmental ethics of our time today Derek William Postama. Postama says that we need to care for nature we have a duty towards environment or we are committed to restore or preserve environment because we are all human beings. So, we are human beings is something very unique one can justify it from the perspective of Searle's idea that how human intentional attitudes are deontic attitudes. In other words, human beings intentional engagement with the world has been valued and is from a moral perspective. So, there is a sense of commitment there is a sense of obligation which is expressed in every human engagement. Now, whether you talk with your friends or we make a promise now Searle's basic idea is about assertions. So, when we assert we make you know a strong we express a strong sense of commitment and obligations. So, the whole human linguistic engagement is therefore value laden it is from that point of view that we are all human beings and being a human is not you know not a human simple thing. The other point is that that we are all citizen when we become citizen our responsibility increases I mean we own a tremendous sense of responsibility towards other citizens or towards other members of the community. So, it is in that context now how individual is because he is a human being or she is a human being and she is also a citizen and I think that is to be kept in mind when we talk about an ecological self the possibility of realizing the notion of ecological self. Before getting into this idea I did mention that we need to talk about the shift that is taking place between an id conception of nature to the thou conception of nature and the shift is in a id concept of nature what are the presuppositions what are the logically presuppositions when we talk about an id concept conception of nature. The response is humans are the centers of the universe in the case of id conception of nature where human beings treat the entire nature as an object because they think that the everything is for their use everything has value because it is for them. So, it is in that context we start developing a human centric world view and not a life centric world view. So far right from Aristotle onwards even in Kant we will have a discussion in that in Kant we have been seeing that we are living in a human centric world. And in a human centric world humans are only morally significant and other creatures are not. So, it is in that context human beings treat themselves as a tutelure God. So, because they are made in the image of God. So, this is a kind of a temperament this is a kind of a normative attitude which every human agent carries with them. So, that attitude need to be reformed. Now, if we keep that attitude on then we will be destroying nature as and we have already destroyed it and that is how the crisis are are encountered in our everyday life. So, destruction of nature can only be seized can only be freezed rather if we start believing that everything in the world are meaningful everything in the world has a purpose and every individual has the responsibility to care for other individual to care for other non human beings and other entities in the world. Because we are all together here we are all together here existing to realize a common purpose and that is where we can succeed in freezing the destruction that has been happening to the nature. So, the natural world exist only for the benefit of human beings is something wrong it is a moral failure rather to consider this concept where human are at the center and natural world is only for the benefit of the human beings. I am not saying that we should stop using things what I am trying to suggest that the way we have been using that needs to be reformed. So, and that is where we need to treat the other something intrinsically valuable as it is in the case of human beings. Every human beings think that they are valuable beings every individual believe that he is valuable or she is valuable and nobody undermines their own existence. If everybody starts believing that then that will spread the message of individualism and which is wrong in a society in a holistic society where we try to talk about a purposeful living living for a better world or living for a meaningful life societal normative framework we need to consider we are morally obliged to the other entities. We are morally obliged to other living beings we are morally obliged to all beings that is what it is. Now that will help us in understanding what good life means that will help us you know creating a better world now I also mentioned in my previous lecture referring to this idea of Socrates who said an unexamined life is not worth living. Now Socrates lived in a world where slavery was prevailing in Athens. So, but Socrates believed that every individual that is one negative aspect of the society where you know slavery was existing, but think of this statement independent of that kind of form of life, but think of this statement relating to individual life that every individual has this responsibility to care for you know to re-examine one's own life. Now unless we re-examine ourselves then we will not be able to perform our duties, rights etc. So it is in this context I would like to narrate a story of a story which Plato mentioned in one of his famous parable called the Parable of Cave. Now this parable is important because it helps us you know changing our conception of the world. Now Plato's story of the cave says that there is a cave and there are prisoners kept inside the cave. The prisoners feet and hands were very tightly you know rope in such a way that they cannot even turn and see what is behind the cave. What is what is happening behind? Behind the cave there is a there is a small path leading to the entrance of the cave and there was also a fireplace. The prisoners are used to see that there is some kind of a movement which was happening on the wall of the cave. Now the prisoners have believed that those movements those are real. Now this is what is you know Socrates is trying to prove. Now once you start believing that something is real then you cannot change the framework. We cannot change the way of thinking like my fellow participant was saying that how do you know arrest this corruption? How do you eliminate corruption? Now because it is me who is not doing corrupt others are doing how to do that? At this point I would try to relate you know Plato's prisoners who believed that nothing is real what is real is only those reflection those shadows which were you know shown in the on the wall of the cave. Plato believes that one of the prisoners this is how the story goes one of the prisoners tries to turn and turn in such a way that he succeeded eventually freeing himself and he works out to the entrance of the cave. Now this is a very important statement of Plato. He says that one who tries and one who tries again and again and he succeeds eventually reaching at the entrance and once he reaches at the entrance he is not able to see things because there is so much of light outside that he is not able to open his eyes. Slowly he succeeds in you know opening his eyes and sees things as they are. This is something very meaningful for all of us because if we try to reform ourselves at an individual level and this becomes a part of our habit this then we will definitely succeed in seeing things as they are which Plato's prisoner ultimately succeeded in seeing things as they are and the other aspect of the story goes like this and once the prisoners saw that there is a difference between the shadows and the things which are out there in the world then he felt that it is his responsibility that he should go back to the cave and tell his fellow prisoners that the reality is out there these are only appearances and appearances are not real. So Plato makes an important distinction between appearance and a reality. So the kind of life the consumeristic society in which we all live kind of life that we have accepted as something very significant is needs to be questioned and questioned from our personal perspective from a rational perspective and that will help us seeing things as they are and therefore this the fellow prisoner who was you know who had gone out felt that it is his responsibility to go back inside to the cave and tell his fellow prisoners. Now this responsibility is the responsibility of all enlightened citizens those who are enlightened citizens they must they have double sense of responsibility and that is where you know I was talking about the our responsibility for the future generation. So duties, rights, care, affection, love, compassion become important to live a good life the life that the fellow prisoners try to live when he tried to move out and also felt equally sympathetic for his own friends who are living inside. But unfortunately this is the end of the story unfortunately when the fellow prisoners comes in the other prisoners were not able to understand what he was speaking. So everything had changed his language so had changed so he felt to communicate to his fellow prisoners. Now one thing has to be kept in mind the life centric ethics tries to speak in a new language in a new language of ethics where values are grounded on a sense of care values are grounded on sense of compassion and divisions of love and compassion so that everybody lives happily to realize their purpose. So the teleological view of life can only be realized if you talk about a holistic life centric ethics. Can I have some question here? Sir how we can motivate the students in the classroom to follow the environmental ethics? How to motivate the students we should cite the examples of people who are doing well for or who have done good for the environment so for example Sundar Lal Bahuguna will be a moral example so far as environmental ethics is concerned. So if you can cite an example like that or look at the Bishnois of Rajasthan the kind of life that they live with other non-human beings that could be an example. So there are n number of examples such examples who have done something valuable for the environment so I think they are our motivation source of motivation. Thank you sir. Sir one more question. Sir when we are talking about different type of ethics for the holistic development of the particular subject I think during this lecture your lecture is very related and informative related with the environmental ethics sir. When we taking the particular lecture during this is my personal experience of one decades about the related with the environmental studies why this particular subject not be giving extra value, focus like other subjects why we provide only the grades this is the reason according to my opinion this is the reason students cannot be much more attractive particular this particular subject. You are agree with this view sir. I do not know why it is not there but this has been one of the topic which is much discussed in the environmental studies component in IIT Bombay and but why it is not there as a independent course called environmental ethics is something has to be a particularly you know look at by our policy makers I have no idea why it is not there but it will be good really good if it is there. Sir my concern is that sir we not only in India although whole global whole universe we are talking about the universe we are in the whole universe we are talking about the environmental study global warming different types of ethics related with the development of the environmental science but but in particular curriculum we are giving less important because this is just like a grade a student can understand that oh the environmental science just we have to pass we have to grade A B C D blah blah blah but when we providing the particular marks like 28 20 percent 80 percent 70 percent 30 percent 50 50 and so on then I think according to me we all are technocrat we all are active we all are responsibility fundamental responsibility and fundamental duty that how we can save our environmental science and particular earth particular universe in our particular area but we we giving less importance what is your view sir on this particular environmental ethics. Time has come to change ourselves and I am sure the society will change so the kind of crisis that we are facing today like global warming or pollution etcetera climate change that has become a topic of research and study in many universities in the world many universities in the world eminent universities and fine research scholars are working on these areas so India is always late you know to adopt so maybe we need to know wake up ourselves and case the train which is already started running so that is why we are doing this that is what I want to say. Celebrating just environmental day in 2015 and our theme is 7 billion dreams one planet consume care consume with care but we we how we can fulfill our dreams forthcoming dreams futuristic dream for this particular saving sir. We can always realize our dream provided we try like the Petosa you know the prisoner who tried and tried his best to move out and eventually he succeeded similarly if we start reforming ourselves if you try changing our attitude towards the environment then I am sure you know all of us if not we in reality but our future generation will you know see that such a world was given to us and we need to be doubly responsible for making it possible for the next generation. So I think every this attempt will be a fruitful attempt so I am not sure that we will be able to realize in this you know in a coming 30 years or coming 10 years it is a long route and I think it is but it is a difficult route and it is possible that we can make our journey better and suffer if we you know if we show our promise and if we change our attitude and then eventually the next generation will reap the consequence. What is the environmental ethics behind deforestation? You are cutting the trees for so many purposes for paper industries and then during some of the process what is the ethics behind that process? First of all see deforestation cutting down the rainforest is something definitely very very wrong that is the wrong thing that we have been doing if the rainforests are abolished cutting down trees without proper plantation program is another thing shifting trees from one place to another for various developmental purposes is yet to be you know adopted by our policy makers. So we do not have proper technology to replant trees when we make say for example when we make a good road you know that we just go randomly cut the trees we do not replant them we do not have the mechanism to you know transplant trees. But when we talk about deforestation which is exclusively cutting down the rainforest at the high altitude that is something which is not pardonable at all I mean nobody can create a rainforest you know in 20 years or 30 years time. So that is something wrong and that is where we need to talk about a new way of looking at environmental ethics. We need to treat the trees as moral subjects so they are part and parcel of human form of life. So we cannot say that the trees are trees and humans are humans and they are to be used only for the benefit of the human beings. Sir actually in case of pollution control what actually happening is those who can really execute it they are not doing it properly and those who understand they cannot execute. So the actual thing is the politicians are the pollution control board they are not showing enough ethics to control it and they are so much bribe and corrupted so these are not getting executed. So this is the lack of motivational factor to tell to the students so because in the Bhopal gas tragedy also since the actual person is not at punish debt so we do not have the solid example to motivate the students and you have any word on this. The previous question if you recollect somebody was looking for how to motivate our students. Now motivation should come from the good examples. I agree with you that the Bhopal tragedy and such events are part and parcel of our society in which we all live. Society has become a corrupt society but we also live in a society which has good examples. Like we have Bandana Siva, we have Sundar Lal Bahuguna, we have Panduranga Hegde who was very deeply inspired by Sundar Lal Bahuguna program and Sundar Lal Bahuguna himself was Gandhian. So if you look at them or if you also look at the Bishnois of Rajasthan who have really protected their environment not only protected their physical environment but also the other non-human beings who are living like antelope and others they really breast feed them, they take them as a part and parcel of their family. So if you look at their form of life then we have good examples and Sundar Lal Bahuguna's that Padayatra was a very successful Padayatra where he could really stop the deforestation which was happening at the high altitude. So therefore the basic urge is that we need to act, awareness is something fine but awareness itself is not enough, it is important that we act against it. So therefore we need to have or locate that in Kerala there is this movement silent valley movement which was one of the successful movement where many poets Kerala Sahitha Parishad was very active, it is not about the science not only the scientists but also the poets the other intellectuals who actively participated to restore the silent valley project. So now the question is there are number of examples but we only need to set good examples and cite the case of good moral exemplars to motivate our students and motivate ourselves as well. That is really right sir but in one of the industrial cases I will tell you sir that actually when there is a rainy time that industrial effluents and all they do not treat also but for the pollution control board even if they come everything will be on paper so only for the documentary but they will take the bribe money so until that stop it is very difficult to happen sir. Yes, yes I agree I fully agree with you that unless we change ourselves nothing is possible we will be only setting bad examples that is very very true so therefore we need to awareness we need to create a movement a collective movement if 10 people speak if 100 people speak then thousands will join so that environment has to be created. Environmental crisis or ethical crisis yes it is I feel that due to change in the changes in our priorities yes we have become more self centred yes and in fact we are what we feel that career centric our first priority is our career. Not career exactly we are becoming more money centric so the entire relation we see we made now through money yes not career centric actually money centric. Okay sir so we can money centric then second comes second priority comes our family. Yes. And then last comes the nature or God. Yes. Whereas if we can reverse this whole aspect upside down if we keep the nature or God our first priority family second priority and our you know what is called that money centric or our you know that earning and all those things. Yes sir. And the last if we keep society before us then I think we can set right the environment the ethic moral everything. Yes. Now I will tell you we unfortunately we bring God for our wrong priorities in the case of money priorities God is also brought but in a wrong way so that is very unfortunate one but you are extremely right in saying that nature itself is God. Look at this Sankara's whole idea of you know Brahman okay Sarba Khalidam Brahman everything everywhere God is present including all beings okay it is not that God is present in human beings alone but he is manifested everywhere okay so this manifestation has to be realized is not it. And if we do not have this basic concern of realization then things will go wrong. We are thankful to you for a very inspiring lecture thank you very much sir. Thank you. Sir as like IS code is there any codes related to endometrics is there any codes or rules or anything. There are books on environmental ethics but whether the course is there I am not very sure whether the there is a you know this course environmental ethics course is taught you know in the departments like philosophy okay as a one of the applied philosophies or applied ethics like you have engineering ethics you have medical ethics similarly you have environmental ethics as one of the applied subject. Now ethics as you all know like logic and things like that are taught in the discipline called philosophy it is a branch of philosophy. So therefore such course is existing in the in the department of philosophy but whether it is been taught in all the institutes or not I am not very sure but it is one of the component of environmental studies which is been taught here in IIT Bombay and as we had seen the UGC syllabus we found that such component is existing in the curriculum. One more question. Okay hello yes sir is there any laws or regulations that is amended by the government for environmental ethics as we know that environmental ethics leads to sustainable development of our community we cannot do this by only studying or motivating to students we have to do something more than that what is the feasibility of it and your suggestions sir please. In where we talk about environmental ethics we try to morally reform the whole attitude of our policy makers our fellow citizens okay. So we all are included you know in that category that is my first response second response is that there is no yes or no principles that this ought to be followed and nothing else. So if a pollution control board makes a kind of a principle that this is when an industry starts polluting and that has to be stopped and that becomes a principle that becomes a moral principle. Suppose we form a kind of a principle that at the high altitude like say now 11000 altitude onwards we will not cut the tree for any business purposes then that becomes a principle that has to be followed. So similarly all the principles are to be practically formulated by the community or the society okay and that has to be strictly followed. Now otherwise here with me there is no you know categorical principles that this is what is to be followed we all know that pollution is happening we all know that you know deforestation is rampantly happening is not it and that is bad. So good and bad is something which is which one can judge but sometimes like our fellow participants were pointing out sometimes our policy makers ignore this our engineers are ignoring this okay when they can take a decision or our politicians are ignoring this and that is where we set wrong examples. If they show moral concern for the society for the environment then we can change our environment and that we can see that how it is possible say for example Ganga cleaning activity which is the Prime Minister's great project now to be initiated. Now I think if we succeed in doing that we will be able to set a good example is it not. So I was discussing about that how we treat environment as an object and whether it is possible to treat environment as an subject and with reference to this we had a couple of questions but now I would like to reflect upon that how during the modern period or during the enlightenment period this species politics was also part of the entire philosophical and intellectual history. In the species politics you will find that you know individual human beings benefit is always you know looked after whereas others were been not part of the ethical discourse. So others here mean that non human beings have not been included in the core of environmental ethics program. So Kant is one of the examples though he says that human beings are to be treated as an end in itself okay and every individual has an end but he does not really include the other inferior beings the less rational beings in this category. Marx for example is one of them who also talks about the defecation of nature. The nature becomes the first time simply an object of mankind purely a matter of utility. So I was talking about utilitarians and we will talk more on this tomorrow when we talk about animal ethics but Marx himself had looked at the nature or the objects in the world from a utilitarian perspective and so also Freud said Freud suggested that the right way of to sublimate human aggression was to direct it away from other people against the rest of biosphere. See this whole western world which was you know this is what Freud's observation is that if it is constantly engaged in fighting in the war then that can be that negative attitude can be shifted to the non human beings to what we call the rest of biosphere by becoming a member of human community and with the help of a technique guided by science going over the attack against the nature by subjecting her to the human will. So therefore everything that exists in the universe is for the benefit of human interest only. So this is the debate continues even in 90s by Passmore. Passmore writes I quote it is easy to foresee that in the future when science and technology have attained have attended to a perfection which we are as yet unable to visualize nature will become soft wax in the man's hand which will be able to cast into whatever form he chooses. So this whole enlightenment project is try to control have a control over nature. We are not only predicting the nature and natural objects the whole scientific approach or technological advancement has been to you know has been there to control nature and that is something wrong in a sense that I mean not in absolute terms of course but that is something possibly that human society has taken a wrong route to you know live with nature because nature is our home we live in nature and we need to treat nature at par with the human. So that is the basic approach. So therefore a new science that we are talking about the new scientific rationality that is necessary for the development of an ecological self will say that will destroy the classical symbolism that man is not a tutelure god man is not just made in the image of god rather man is an accidental man's arrival in the universe is an accident. So and that is what the biology conforms us the evolutionary biology tells us that this is how man is been connected to man has a history the arrival of man has a history and we are all connected and that connection has to be you know scientifically stressed. So therefore in this in that context one can one can think of a connecting principle and integrating principle which will be a guiding force for all of us. Then we all know that everything in nature are valuable values in nature we have valuable human beings animals other organisms valuable species and valuable ecosystems all these are valuable. And if somebody has read a philosopher called Rene Descartes Descartes says that I think therefore I am and he also says that I doubt that I think and therefore I am now this whole debate about the I the existence of I the supremacy of the self is something very important and that is important because I cannot doubt that I value in the same line of Descartes one can argue that I cannot doubt that I value. So, man is always a source of valuing agent and similarly in the classical period you have you have a protagoras who had a very famous slogan during the time of Socrates that man is the measure of all things. Human values have been always part of our discourse in ethics or but it is also important it is also equally important that we should see the values in the case of animals and other biotic beings. Because an organism is self-sustaining an animal who also looks for his or her self-identity within its community it has its own form of life and many activities that the animal performs or the mammals do like bait we cannot perform that. So, they the species are having some specific qualities specific features which is not reducible to human beings alone. So, therefore what I am trying to suggest here is that every biotic being has a value there is a value in nature whether it is about mammals whether it is about the endangered species whether it is about any organisms like plants and any living creatures all beings in the which are living in the ecosystems are valuable. So, I would also like to point out that there is an inherent worth in everything there is as I said that there is a tell us and the teleological perspective has to be re-enchanted. Then we need to see that every being has an end to realize there is an end in itself and this idea of end in itself will take us to the difference between what is intrinsic value and what is instrumental value or extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is something that there is a value in itself value if it is good and desirable in itself like according to Kant whom we refer to talks about that every individual has an end in itself. So, the existence of an individual does not depend on other beings in the in the universe. So, every individual has a purpose every individual performs activities which is a desirable that ability itself defines the end. So, every individual human beings have intrinsic value. Now, the objects the things in the world have instrumental value because according to the classical ethics you have or a human centered ethics everything is to serve the purpose of or everything has to fulfill the desire of the human beings. So, therefore, it is important that we need to reconsider the things that are existing around us with this idea that they also have an intrinsic value. So, therefore, this difference has to be taken into account when we study what is intrinsic value whether the non-human beings have an intrinsic value or not like I as I said there is this difference between subject object that dichotomy that exists between the subject and the object has to be eliminated has to be resolved and that can only be resolved provided we ascribe certain values certain intrinsic values rather we not only ascribe we see some intrinsic value in those biotic beings or in all biotic beings that are existing in the universe. So, this is a quotation from by Kostama from Oranel who writes nature is regarded to have intrinsic value if and in so far as the value of nature is not limited to the instrumental use we make of it nature is valued not merely as a means to some further end but as an end in itself good for its own sake as an end as distinct from good as a means to something else unquote. So, this idea of Oranel is something very interestingly dealt into the discourse of environmental ethics because unless we unless an individual or unless a policy maker or unless a moral agent sees the values of nature or the environment having an intrinsic value we cannot we cannot change or we cannot formulate a life centric ethics that is the that is the message I would like to keep. Now, this is an example that I was talking about see when we when a builder starts making building around the power lake we have we look at the lake having an instrumental value because that makes my building profitable business because we can see it to the lake from your house. Now, here we give any instrumental value or we attribute an instrumental value to the water body and but water body in itself has intrinsic value because so many living creatures are dependent on water bodies. So, like lake and river and things like that so we therefore we need to change our attitude and that will help us in construing whether the biotic beings rather than excluding the human beings have intrinsic value. There is also this notion of objective value which I talked about in the beginning of my talk in this session where from the point of view of epistemology that is the theory of knowledge we make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value but this distinction is not only epistemological but it is an epistemological distinction that something which is objective something which is subjective. Subjective in this sense that I evaluate or my family values it or my students value it or my community value it that makes value subjective or relative as I was talking about. So, this kind of objective subjective distinction in the case of value is a matter of a epistemological distinction. Another point which I would like to bring to your notice that when we talk about such an epistemology when we talk about such a knowledge and knowledge shift in the knowledge framework we also need to look at how such a teleological thinking is possible and that is what one of the contemporary philosophers or 20 century philosophers like Carl Pepper could be related to the Aristotelian ideas of teleological thinking who argue for a theory called evolutionary epistemology where nature is seen as an inherently purposeful entity. So, it is not that only human beings have a purpose in their life but nature in itself has a purpose and that is inherent in it. So, that is what I would like to talk about.