 So, this idea of unification or integration that I am talking about referring to these thinkers is to construct a sense of self called ecological self. The moral extension that I am talking about is will exhibit the sense of identity between individual human being and the other beings. So, it is in that context one can conceptualize this transition which has happened from a kind of a it concept of nature to a thou concept of nature. Nature is used or understood as an it an object and through that we have understood our self. We have come to know what we are. So, this interaction as I mentioned earlier when we talk about intentional field. Now, this engagement which is an intentional engagement is also a dialogical engagement. There is this philosopher called Martin Boober. I am sure my poet friend must be aware of it. Martin Boober writes in a text called I and thou that a human engagement with other quote and unquote other refers to the world, other refers to another individual being non being an object. So, this relationship that an individual shares with the other is a dialogical relationship. We are always in a mode of a dialogue and dialogue can happen even without speaking to each other. Professor Satti says you speak to each other. Now, why he says you speak to each other because we do not really speak to each other. We do not really want to communicate things which were serious, which are matter of grave concern to the humanity. We can talk where you have come from, what you have written that is not the thing that we should discuss. Our dialogue should have matters which are grave concern today, which we are really think are the problems is not it. Now, when Boober consider this that we do not really understand my other because I do not have enough communication with the other. Only when I communicate things to the other, only when I make serious attempt to understand how the others is living then possibly I will make myself better, I will project myself better and the other will also have an opportunity to understand me is it not. So, animals and other biotic beings will be friendly to you if and only if you exhibit that kind of gesture, that kind of caring attitude from your end and try to engage them then we will have a different world. Now, this dialogical relationship that Boober is talking about will reconstitute the human. He says that there are two ways one is a each concept of nature where we talk about something the other is an object. Suppose I am looking at Mr. X and I try to understand Mr. X what Mr. X would do if I say something. So, the X is become an object of my observation. X is no more a subject similarly when I try to understand an animal what it is really seeking from me I look at it as an object. The anthropocentric world view have considered nature as an object and hence given or has put it in the framework of an I eat relationship. Boober says that is not the real way of looking at the problem the real way of understanding the other would be to look at or to engage with the other taking other as a doubt. So, when you treat other as is equal to you then you have what a chance to identify yourself with the other. You will be really protecting the other you will be really making an attempt a genuine attempt to understand other. So, it is in this context how this transition happens I would like to show a clipping which will justify this concept of how an ecological self to be understood. This clipping is about the Bishnois of Rajasthan. Bishnois are exemplars of ecological self. You have seen how they take care of animals, antelopes, deers, the kids of them, they breast feed them that is the moral extension which I was talking about. Shivko movement which Amrita Devi is a great inspiration when he started hugging the tree I was giving this example of embracing and hugging the tree is to identify oneself with the other. So, these are the examples one can think of when we talk about the notion of ecological self. So, it is in this context it is very important for us to understand the difference between not only this each concept of nature to the concept of nature why how this transition is happening, but also to understand the nature of values and values in nature the distinction between that. So, you have a reading material which I have given based on this particular point how nature of values and values in nature are different. And I have also spoken about moral agents and moral subjects who are moral agents and who are moral subjects and the kind of ethics that I will be discussing or interested in from the right from the beginning is about a life centric ethics. Now, I will briefly point on another concept called objectively valuable and a teleological presence. Telos in is a Greek term used by Aristotle means purpose now every living being when we consider them as moral subject we ascribe an objective value to that particular entity or that section of or a community of beings. So, every being in the world has got an objective value and every being is existing because there is a purpose and the purpose is lying in the being itself. So, therefore, the humans being moral agents have no right to deny that purpose. The human on the other hand have the responsibility to help those beings to realize their purpose. So, that is how we can talk about or conceptualize a deep ecological self present in us and it is in that context this integration is necessary. So, the deep ecological self talks about a kind of an urge to cultivate sense of oneness, sense of identity, sense of oneness and how does one cultivate that sense of oneness. This philosopher I refer to earlier he says given man's capacity for speech and self-reflection for instance slogans to the effect that people are as such part of the nature as mountains, feasts, clear need to be balanced by ones which recall people's transcendence of the natural. So, it is the human who has the ability to transcend its moral subjecthood and this transcendence takes him to the realm of the other where the other is existing. It is not only necessary always that we rationally self-reflectively try to understand things, but there are many ways of transcending oneself. I think that kind of moral sensitivity one has to inculcate or one has to articulate within oneself to transcend the dichotomy that exists, the difference that we find in the world. So, therefore, when we ask this question to ourselves, who are we and why should we care for the environment? The basic answer which one of the very eminent scholar on environment gives Derek William Postama. I am not using this paper here, but one who is interested further to read some of the writings of Derek Postama. Post office, if somebody wants to remember Postama is the name one can type and find out from the web. He has a very interesting answer to this question why we should care for nature because we are human. That is the fundamental idea. The other fundamental idea here is because we are citizen. Most of the time we do not realize that we are human. Most of the time we do not act as a citizen. When the environmental crisis is in front of us, we are not either working as a citizen nor we work as a human beings. So, I would request you to reflect on these two terms. What is it to be human and who is real a citizen because this is how we have understood, ascribed that this value to the nature that nature is an object and the hand of human beings. Either we call it now destruction of plants and animals are not sinful. We do not really consider it a sinful activity when we destroy them. The last point which I would like to reflect upon is whether nature has an intrinsic value. So, this debate on the whole ethical debate is confined to the analysis of intrinsic value versus non-intrinsic value. Human beings consider themselves or those who have considered human ethics so far in enlightened society have drawn upon this idea that humans beings are end in themselves. They have a purpose and they act to fulfill that purpose. So, their meaningful existence is drawn upon this idea that every human beings are end in itself. So, that is what is is conceived by the eight conception of nature. But when we try to understand the Biosentric Ethics we try to argue that animals and other biotic beings also have intrinsic value. They are not only so far the idea was they have non-intrinsic value meaning thereby we can use them as our means to fulfill our ends. So, environmental resources beings other than humans are used as instrument as a means. So, there it is called instrumental value. So, one can think of non-intrinsic value as instrumental value where something is used to fulfill the desire or the need of the humans. So, this division that we have created in an each concept of nature has caused this damage. I will also like to reflect here on this question that who has taken this responsibility? I have certainly not taken this responsibility to tell you that what is moral and what is immoral? If you follow this, this, this then you become a moral being and if you follow that then you become an immoral being. There is no equation like this that either you follow this or you follow that this kind of understanding perhaps will not help us in conceptualizing the Biosentric worldview which I am interested in. Rather if we talk about good life, if we talk about that we should understand what goodness is, what is good about the environment and how human life can flourish within this ethical framework, then it is important that we remind this great Socrates slogan that an unexamined life is not worth living. Every individual as a human being and as a citizen, Socrates says that must analyze what he or she is doing. What is that I am interested in? What is that I am doing? Is it not? So, unless we critical about ourselves, we cannot reform the society. There are so many social laws and these laws do not really fit into our kind of ethical framework that is been suggested here or at least my urge is to contemplate on that ethical framework. The suggestion is that if we critically look at our own activities being a local citizen of wherever we are and try to do something, something may be very little, but somewhere the beginning should happen. If the beginning happens somewhere then probably we will realize, we will have a hope that we will realize and everybody I think believes in you know hoping something good. We are all hopeful about better future. We are hopeful about a better world is not it? A peaceful world is it not? So, if we are hoping for the peaceful world then you have to act towards that. So, action is necessary. Excuse me sir. Do you think land acquisition act will bring the ethical environment or unethical environment? Because now we are in that stage that is why I am telling. No, I told you sir and my suggestion was that there is not this is what is I should prescribe. No, my job is not to tell you whether we should do this. I am not here to suggest any such thing. Those are policy makers and we can hope at least. I would say that question should be answered by policy maker not by the environmentalist. No, no he said hope it will bring no. So, some hope something will bring no. So, this will bring any hope. No, no the intent of your question is centered around this concept of hope that we are that is not it. Now, the environmental ethics is trying to argue that where should we begin? Where we can correct things? There must be some starting point. Who will be engaged in correcting things? Correcting the mistakes which has already happened. There must be somewhere somebody should begin. Is it not? And that is the point. We should begin because we are hopeful about a better planet. We are hopeful about a better society. We are hopeful about that our future generation will live either livelihood will be much better than ours. That is the hope. It is not related to environment. Do you think the future generation environment is not related to us? Suppose we live in a polluted place. Will not that affect people? Diseases will not happen. Will that be a peaceful thing or we are adding to human suffering? In the beginning I told about human suffering. If you recollect in the first slide itself, I have pointed out about human suffering. So, who is causing this suffering? Are we adding fuel to that? Suffering prevails and go on in this prevailing in this world, in this earth. Then how is it that we will be hopeful? Now, very interesting example comes from Buddha. I hope everybody knows about Bhavtama Buddha. One of the philosophers and environmentalists in a Norwegian scholar Arne Ness, who argued about a deep ecology movement was greatly influenced by Buddhism and Gandhian philosophy. Now, Buddha's search for a truth was not an ordinary venture. Is it an ordinary venture? Was it ordinary or was it for oneself, for his own self? Buddha was not certainly individualistic. He had a social responsibility. He was enlightened. That would have been enough. Is it not? So, whether it is Buddha or somebody else, we need to realize this fact that we have some responsibility for others. And only when we realize this, we will create hope for others. Otherwise, we will all live in a world where we will treat ourselves as unique individuals and superhumans as I was talking about. We will be more monadic in our engagement. There is another story. The story is very important here. Now, this story is about Plato. I am sure many of you might have seen this in YouTube or might have heard of the story of Plato's Parable of Cave. Have you heard of Plato's Parable of Cave? Now, stories when it is not heard and new, it will be interesting. I will just briefly tell you. Plato's Parable of Cave goes like this. Plato says there was a cave. Imagine that there was a cave. And in the cave, there were few prisoners who were kept for a long time. And these prisoners' hands were tied. So, the hands and feet were tied so that they cannot turn and see what is behind them. These prisoners were only able to see the things which were appearing on the wall of the cave. Behind these prisoners, there was a lane, there was a passage where people used to carry their loads, they carry their animals and things like that. And there was a fireplace. So, whenever people used to carry something, then the shadows used to have a reflection on the wall of the cave. Or whenever these prisoners tried to move a little, their shadows were also appearing on the wall of the cave. Since these prisoners were kept inside for a long time, they assumed that the shadows were real. They are as real as they are. And they have accepted that as a reality. Now, Plato says one of the prisoners later on goes out, tries to move and somehow he is making himself free and moves out from the cave. And when he goes out of the cave, what will happen? He tries to see things, is not it? But since the prisoners were kept in the dark for a long time, he could not see things. Obviously, outside it was so much of light, he could not see things as they are. But after some time, when he opened his eyes, he saw things as real as they are and understood the shadows which were appearing on the wall of the cave are not real. So, reality is something which is different than appearance. Now, Plato's this story is very interesting for all of us that most of us take things for granted. Now, this is what is the law. This is what somebody has, my father has told me or some gentleman has told me, I have to accept it or the media has been flossing it. Therefore, it is true. So, many times we encounter reality which are been constructed like the shadows that was those who were appearing on the wall of the cave. They did not make any distinction between shadows and reality. But then this prisoner when he thought that I should have, I own this responsibility since I know like Buddha after the Enlightenment, he goes back and spread this message. These are the causes of suffering. Similarly, Plato's prisoner who moved out came back and when he tried to speak to his fellow prisoners, nobody could understand what he was speaking because his language has changed. So, people were thinking that no, no, this is not. They didn't recognize him. They didn't give importance to him. So, I am assuming that we should not treat ourselves as prisoners. Plato's appeal is that we should think. We should start thinking that it is possible, it is realizable and that will be the ground of our hope for a better planet. If we accept and go on accepting things, things will become us and nothing will happen. So, no change will happen. So, I think there is a need, there is a time now why people are talking about sustainability or other ways of defining or preventing the crisis or preserving the environment whatever is precisely to think right now. If we don't think right now, then it is, it will not help us for a better future. So, to have a better future, we need to correct ourselves and nobody else will correct us. We have to correct us ourselves because we have to attempt, make an attempt. That is the, you know, the essence of the story of Plato's prisoner. So, it is in that context. We need to talk about life-centric ethics where we try to understand that we, human beings are not only valuable, but there is a inherent worth in the other beings as well and we need to realize this fact that the others should be treated as an end in itself. So, it is in this context, we need to make this distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value or non-intrinsic value. Sometimes people use this term non-intrinsic value. See, if something is intrinsically valuable, then it is good in itself or good and desirable in itself. When we talk about instrumental value, we accept that something is a means to achieve my end or to realize my end. So, that is the distinction that the crisis has happened because we have accepted that nature is or having only instrumental value, not intrinsic value. I will just one example. Somebody was talking about real-life example as giving an example of the housing facilities around the lake. You have seen the Pawai Lake here? Is not it? The housing around the Pawai Lake, the apartments which have come up, they treat lake view apartment. You can see lake. See, here lake is a kind of a means for making that apartment more significant to us, more lucrative. It is valuable because there is lake. So, lake is used as a kind of a means. Lake has no value in itself. But if you look at it, how many spaces depend on this lake? So, many spaces depend on that lake. For them, it has an intrinsic value. It is not it. So, it is that kind of a difference one has to make or the farmer who was, you know, the skit when it was played, the farmer who did not, I mean, could not think of that the land should be sold out to any company for the plant. So, that kind of attachment, not because somebody likes it or dislikes it, but because the land has got some intrinsic value. It is in that sense. This is what I was discussing with you about Martin Boeber's idea of I eat and I dhow relationship. Anybody has got any question on this which were discussed? The first line was first sentence. There is no independent. I am saying that there is no independent I or an independent self. In an individualistic world, I am just telling you for your reference, there is this thinker called Charles Taylor. Charles Taylor says one of the malaise of 21st century is that individualism. We consider ourselves as independent being. My needs and preferences are mine and I exercise my freedom and interest, my self-interest in such a way that I get what I want. So, it is in that context. People think that there is an independent self, but Boeber claims that there is no independent self. One can imagine the existence of oneself without the presence of the other. So, it is in that context Boeber's idea is there is no independent I or no independent self. Yes, sir, you had a question. Sir, what is the difference between this eco-centric and bio-centric ethics? What are these? I am taking as a kind of a synonymous term. I am not really at present not bothered about that distinction. I accept them that from an anthropocentric world where everything is human-centric, there is a need to make a shift from that world to an eco-centric or bio-centric world. So, that is the. So, I think that is a kind of a zone which will ethically prepare me to integrate everybody together. I am not really making an effort here to that they are different. They are not two different zones for me. They are one. Yes. No, I am taking as a kind of a synonymous term for me. You can call it a bio-centric world view or an eco-centric world view. Can we take this as part from the whole? Supreme soul with the individual soul, am I right? Can we correlate this with that or not? Yes, we can say we are part of it. Every individual is part of the whole. It is inclusive. Individual is not an exclusive entity or I am not different from you. It is take this example when this conversation is going on, this dialogue is going on. I must make enough attempt to understand what you are trying to. So, it is unless I put myself at your place, I will not understand you. So, we are together. So, that togetherness is important. Because usually the word though is correlated with supreme soul. That is why I am asking this. Boomer says that when you take other as a thou, then you have a higher order consciousness. You will have better opportunity to include others. So, that will be more in the sense of inclusiveness, embracing the other, being with the other. That is the point. Thank you. Sir, when we talk about nature as a goddess and in your expression it should be a thou and not as it, isn't it? Yes, I agree with Boomer. I mean, I try to justify this bioscentric world view or life-centric ethics, taking clue from Boomer. I would try to draw your attention to this particular concept. Because one of the recent trend when we look at environment is about the notion of sustainability. And we have also in the previous last talk is about whether what kind of ethical principle we can suggest so that the degradation can can be stopped or minimized kind of things. So, it is in that context sustainability is something which we need to contemplate up. And how do we make laws and look at animal ethics? Say for example, and people like Peter Singer and others who argue for animal ethics, they point out that we need to understand what is our need, basic need. My friend was asking whether we should cut that tree because it is causing accident. Now, if one tree has to be cut and that is responsible for so many loss of life, then I think we should go for it. It is not it? So, preference should be given. And now the idea is who will give the preference? Most of our actions today are market driven. There is a need in the market, we should do it. Peter Singer will argue that it should not be market driven. It should be value laden. So, the great or the greatest challenge before us is that whether we are performing duties or forming policies that are value laden or not or we are following it because it will satisfy the maximum number of people and it bring or protect the well-being of the maximum number of people. So, the utility of a particular things to be considered because it will make so many people happy. That would be our judgment or the judgment will be based on irrespective of this. We should follow X policy because it is valuable, it is needed. So, greatest challenge is to make environmental laws in such a way that it is above the sense of utilitarians. Most of the sustainability argument today which you will see now economic activities are governed by utilitarian principle who suggest that maximum happiness or maximum number of people. That is the motto of utilitarian ethics. Now, the challenge before us is that is not helping us. Suppose the third world country says no, no, we should not do it because we are not developed. We need to buy some time to enjoy development and then follow it. I think that is not the case. Preference should be value laden in this sense that we should have a value that this is good for the entire community, entire humanity and that is why X law should be followed. That is the challenge. This idea that is most of us, you have seen one that documentary which I played, small one. There there is a reference to animal killing, killing for enjoyment. Somebody is engaged in hunting for pleasure. And so, we have the enlightened community among ourselves who are engaged in destroying the ecosystem for pleasure, not for their need, not for anybody's need. So, one can always talk about this religious sacrifices. Can we not stop religious sacrifices and kill animals for that? Somebody recent newspaper there was this about Dharavi's leather market will go down because the ban on beef. Now, there are so many news are plotted nowadays. What is our preference? That our preference should be clear and we should act on rational grounds, not on religious sentiments at all. So, this is what you know if somebody who is not acquainted with this term utilitarianism, then please look at this quotation. Now, this particular animal ethics, so that right from I mean taking clue from religious text to some philosophical text today and you find that animals are always used as a means. I have also tried to show referring to many philosophers like Pythagoras and others. They have tried to show that we can protect animals. Pythagoras, Russo, Darwin, many others who have shared this idea that how vegetarianism would be practiced or things like that. How to protect the animals? There is a big debate when we talk about preference utilitarianism. The debate is about animals should be killed because for food of course, they do not have the sense of pain. Some people are saying they do not have the power of expressing pain as humans do. The counter argument is suppose we have a technology which will be used and they will not feel pain. We can zero down the pain. Then will that justify killing animal? The right answer which Peter Singer gives advocating animal ethics is that life in itself is so complex that every entity will be treated as a meaningful entity. So, the complexity of life is a difficult phenomenon to interpret or understand. We cannot really reduce that this is what it is and therefore, we have right to claim over it or right to destroy it or right to use it. So, it is precisely to understand life. It is not a easy job. So, it is in taking that kind of thought one argues for animal rights. One idea that those who claim or argue on human-centered ethics, they say that we do not have a direct duty for endangered species. There is no direct duty. Suppose I have a duty for my children. I have to educate them. I have to feed them. All my duties are defined being a parent. Is it not? But I do not have a direct duty for those species because the species are not directly affecting my life. Nothing will happen now if somebody kills a black bug, nothing is going to happen and that is why one is engaged in destroying that. So, if you look at that then where is this concept of duty, obligation and responsibility? These are the three concepts I have used in earlier slides as well as in this talk on animal ethics that then who is obliged? Can we really call ourselves a moral agent? Now look at this idea of moral agent and moral subjects. So, if you look at that then we need to talk about a deeper sense of obligations. Now, I mentioned to you one of the thinkers about who was influenced by Buddhas and Gandhi, Arnayanes, argues for deep ecology. I said what is the concept of deep here? Deep experience, deep understanding, deep feeling. The idea here is that unless we inculcate this spirit what Nes is arguing, I have a slide on deep ecology. He says unless we were extra sensitive, unless you understand or relate yourself. Of course, there is no direct relation, but we need to understand what is the indirect relation I have. That indirect relation will be translated to direct relation. The responsibility is on us. We need to translate it. Nobody else animals cannot translate it, cannot make that suggestion. We have to see that tear in their eyes and move ourselves. Is it not? That is what is very important. Can I just show that deep ecology slide? Of course, what does a deep signify here? Along with deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment are necessary. Then I, yes, just pay attention to these points. Now I will go back to my questions and you have to answer those questions. Mool of organs and the mercy killing. Can you comment on this too at least? I will, people who are suffering, people who are in coma for so many years. There is this movie. You have seen that movie, Nithik Roshan's movie, Gujaris. Anybody has seen Gujaris? Like it? Very good. Now the idea is we, when a child is born, child not only seeks our attention, but also care. We all have lived our childhood. It is not it. We all probably had a beautiful childhood. Now think of the kind of value that we ascribe to a newborn baby, what kind of care our parents might have taken and how fortunate we are. The concept of care, there are many people who are working on care ethics and interestingly the concept of care ethics goes well with environment because and this experiment is done when the forest is given in charge of the women, the forest dwellers. Forest is well protected. So those who are working on eco-feminism, they would know that how genetically women are caring. Now the idea of care, if you try to strengthen and look at it with a little more seriously, we ascribe a personhood to the newborn babies. Our whole dream for the better future is based on this baby who is just born or yet to be born. Think of that very baby who is coming to the world and suppose comes as a half dead. Suppose I am born and I am born half dead like somebody who is lying on the bed in coma. So what is our responsibility? When we have inculcated an ethics of throwing good babies to dustbin in a world and forget about half dead baby. So the point is whether we are ascribing the sense of personhood that we enjoy in our everyday life to the babies and those who are in coma. If yes, then I think my answer you understand, you interpret it. So the sense of person, Professor Seti, you remember in the inaugural says ask the person who is sitting here. Human beings now ask the person that is there in you. So if you look at with that interest, then you will understand what kind of values we put on ourselves and what we do in real life. You will have an answer there. So my question sir, I should have the privilege of asking somebody. I am not whether whether you know the answer or not but I will choose the person. Is that fine? Now that new environmental ethics. Second question, consider that nature has deaths. And what about the first one? Man is the measure of all things. Both A and C. So what will be the answer for 5? Normative. So this is how I will close it and thank you all.