 Now, welcome back to today's morning lecture, but I would just like to refresh you all with this whatever we are discussing yesterday evening on this intentional relationship between the subject, the self and the world, the environment and this intentional relationship is proposed by a philosophical school called phenomenological school. Phenomenology is one of the methodology which is been used very significantly to talk about to study fields, to prepare field reports or take a direct interview of things to have a first hand experience or what we call the first person perspective of the world. Now, a little bit theoretical background is necessary to understand what is it to have a phenomenological or intentional relationship between the subject and the object self and the world. This idea here is the self is a conscious self and consciousness as we all know something very intrinsic to human life, human beings are conscious, but what is specific about human consciousness is that they have various other properties or other features such as, you know, intentionality, rationality, prospectuality, etc., etc., so a dozen of such features of human consciousness. What is important is this that consciousness always have some kind of property that is it is directed at something or whenever we say that we are conscious, we are conscious of something. So, this offness or aboutness that we see when we talk about consciousness, so for example, I am conscious, if somebody asks what are you conscious of, so consciousness is always having this feature called now some kind of an offness or aboutness in it. So, this intrinsic feature is called intentionality, phenomenologists have theorized this notion of intentionality that human consciousness is intentional and as I also pointed out that this intentionality is also a biological feature because other living beings are also conscious, but in the case of human beings, this intentionality is self-reflexive. It is a self-reflexive feature in the sense that now it has the capacity to recognize things. So, now recognition helps us construing the notion of identity and we all aspire to have our own identity, it is not it. So, it is in that context one can think of that how intentionality is an intrinsic feature of all biological beings and that helps in the case of human being it connects, necessarily connects the self with the world and this necessary connection is intentional in nature and that further helps us developing the sense of identity. It is in this context Martin Buber talks about that how the self is not an isolated entity, self is always been conceptualized, individual conceptualizes once on identity along with the others, but it tries to understand itself in relationship with others. So, being in relationship with others that is what is important. So, being is always in a kind of a relationship with other, so that relationship is an intentional relationship. So, please keep that in mind and then self has two different intentional modes of relations. One is the I-eat relationship and there is also I-thou relationship, so in the case of I-eat and I-thou relationship do not represent different things, but two different possible relations between self and an object or self and the world or self and the other. So, this is what Buber is trying to conceptualize in his theoretical framework that whether the kind of self that we possess today is developed through this I-eat relationship with the world or I-thou relationship with the world that has to be studied and reexamined when we talk about environmental ethics. Now, in the case of I-eat relationship one can he says that this subject-object relationship symbolizes a kind of an experience or the kind of use which depends upon an object or a thing. So, if I consider the other biotic beings or non-human entities or non-human beings as an object, object to suffice or to fulfill my interest, my needs, so it is in that context I have a kind of a relationship where I consider that object that being as an object not the being as being, being as an object. So, it is an unilateral experience where I is active and does not treat the object capable of entering into a relationship bound by mutuality. Now, as I told you that this is an intentional relationship and I also mentioned later in the second half of my lecture that this intentional relationship helps us communicating things to the others. There were many questions in this context I was raised that how do we motivate our students, how do you motivate them or how do we guide them so that they become a kind of a moral agent. They become, they show responsibility towards environmental issues that they try to resolve certain environmental issues. Now, this communication, look at this important concept communication, so the communication is happening between the two individuals, when we talk about communication, what Bobber calls a dialogue, dialogue happens between the two individuals. In the case of I, I consider I as a self and the object, now I when I try to communicate with the object or when I treat the other being as an object, then I really do not communicate. I only try to predict, try to judge whatever is given to me, so it is in that context. I create some kind of a hindrance, it is not that I am engaged intentionally with the object, but the object is also intentionally connected with me and this is what is what is very important. Now, Bobber's very interesting example has been well depicted if anybody has seen this movie, a Wednesday where now these two co-passengers who are travelling in the train, they try to communicate with each other, looking at their eyes, there is no verbal communication, but still their gestures make lot of sense to each other and one feels for the other, though they do not know each other, they are completely not having any verbal communication. So, it is in that context, if you talk about a dialogue or a communication, so communication can happen without any language per se, so language here transcends what we call language in our ordinary or everyday life. So communication is a two way process and when I consider the other as an object, so there is no two way relationship, there is only one way relationship, but if I treat the other as a subject, if I treat the other as a subject, then there is a communication. I invite the other to me and I treat that the other is equal to me, so it is in that sense a double relationship is established and all communication demands such a reflexive intentional relationship. That is what Bobber says, it is a unilateral experience where I is active, you are actively predicting the other, I emphasize that you are actively predicting, actively studying others and does not treat the object capable of entering into a relationship, you are studying, but you are not allowing it, you are not inviting it to you, so there is no mutual relationship, so there is no mutuality between the subject and the object, the object remains outside the subject, the object remains outside the realm of this intentional relationship, though you are intentionally trying to connect, but this intentionality is only helping you to predict the object, so not to understand the object, so understanding can only happen, communication can develop a good understanding if and only if there is a double way relationship which exists and this is very important, but in the case of I-Thou relationship when I treat the other as a kind of a subject, other is important to me, then there is a relationship, there is a constant communion as I said, there is a constant communion between these two and this relationship is a relationship of love is some kind of a liking towards the other, some kind of a compassion is shown towards the other, in the case of animal ethics which we are going to study after few minutes, we will see that how this moral agent tries to have a compassion or expresses compassion towards other and that is what is necessary if you would like to have something like animal rights as we are having human rights and things like that and if you are proposing the theory of animal rights, then we need to cultivate a deep sense of compassion, love, etcetera and that will help us developing a newer self or that will renew our self in a better way which I was talking about the renewal of the self, so it is a direct and intense mutual relationship, so I-Thou relationship not only treats the other as an equal partner, but that is a mutual relationship, so intentionality is operating in two ways, not only from the self to the world or self to the environment or other biotic beings, but also from the biotic beings to the self, so there are two ways in which you are connected and that is what is called the mutual relationship in which one meets the other as genuinely different than oneself, but as someone with whom one can enter into an active relationship, so whereas in the case of I-E-Thou relationship the self is passively related with the object or the self is passively related with the animals or the environment whatever is our the subject of our study, so it is in that connection Booba differentiates between when a conversation or a dialogue or an engagement is passive and when it becomes active and in the case of an active communication, active dialogue the dialogue represents a kind of an intense mutual relationship, whereas in the case of a passive communication there is no mutual relationship, there is an absence of mutual relationship, hence no understanding develops, so the active mutual relationship is grounded on various virtues like law of compassion, non-violence, etcetera, etcetera, so many people who have talked about deep ecology like R&NS have borrowed these from Oriental traditions where Buddha, Gandhi have intensely advocated and theorized this concept of non-violence and compassion. Now when you talk about or when you try to articulate this notion of moralism, we need to look at this concept of an intentional relation that exists between the self and the world, the self and the other non-human beings and the self and the other environment as other, so that is what I think I had not explained yesterday and it is necessary to understand this if we are trying to understand the notion of moral agency, because a moral agent is not only a rational agent, but he is a compassionate person and he is capable of personalizing, thinking, sacrificing, there are so many normative attitudes which can be developed if we little deeply think about our own self, so before making any judgment, before making any choice or performing any action if we try to reflect upon all these concepts, then that will help us developing a concept of moral agency. So in the case of moral agency, it is important that we make a distinction between moral agency and moral subjects. Now there is no concept of moral object, the animals are not to be treated as an object, the environment per se is not to be treated as an object, so rather we revise the terminology and treat that as a kind of a subject or replace it using this term moral subjects. So animals are no more moral objects, they are or they are not no more patients, they are rather moral subjects and we with these capacities that is the capacity to or the ability to perform moral judgments, ability to get engaged in moral deliberation, ability to make decisions, the ability to have self-ensurability or accountability, all these makes us moral agent. So moral agents has a kind of a double responsibility, a responsibility, he is not only there to perform duties, not only there to care for others but also there to express a deeper sense of responsibility towards other. So that makes us something very significant, so we are not only not merely rational beings, we are not merely conscious beings, rather we are thinking beings, Martin Heidegger tells us that we have the world is facing this crisis today precisely because we have stopped the thinking, we are no more thinking, thinking means thinking critically, thinking critically to address the problems that we encounter, thinking critically to resolve the issues that matters to us. So therefore it is important for all of us to have a collective thinking because a collective thinking can help or can guide us, can show us a good path how to resolve certain normative issues that we face when we deal with environmental crisis. So this is what I would like to talk before I get into another discussion on animal ethics. So I will briefly take maybe two or three questions and then get into the new topic called animal ethics. Thank you. Yes sir, you have any question? Hello, good morning sir. Good morning. Sir, kindly indicate the clear cut distinction between moral and ethics. Ethics is nothing but theory of morals. If you have seen my first slide that I used yesterday, it clearly says ethics is nothing but about theory of morals. Morality deals with what is good, bad, correct or incorrect, right or wrong and when we theorize them, they you have an ethics. So ethics deals with values. Is that clear? Sir, one more question sir. How can we encourage environmental ethics in citizens and students? Encourage. Now we need to practice it. Now what is important is that we have stopped practicing it. Say for example, a small example, save electricity or save energy, save water. Forget about pollution use, the kind of use that we are habituated with is something can be done at a personal level. Now if we start doing it at a personal level, at the institutional level called family, then our children are encouraged to save water, save drinking water I mean. Similarly, if we say that, if we share our thoughts now in our neighbourhoods. So education here means educating every individual. So therefore, environmental ethics talks about a collective responsibility, responsibility which will be said not only at the institutional level, not only in the classrooms, but in many other forums where such an education is necessary. Thank you sir. Welcome. Welcome. As in Solapur district, 24 km Great Indian Buster Sanctuary was there, 8500 square kilometre. Now the area reduced, it was now 1,220 square kilometre and now again 300 square kilometre. This is the dilapidation of the Great Indian Buster. In 1989, 40 birds were there and now only 3. What about the ethics? What about the central government do? And no any radiometry or other practices govern there. So what about the role of environment department regarding this bird? It is in IUCN, Radio State Data Book, highly sensitive. So this is my question. Now I understand your feeling. See the policy makers prepare their policies or policy documents. They do not look at the reality from a moral point of view. They only look at it from an economic point of view and that is what has given birth to this kind of crisis, which is very unfortunate in India. But I am sure with more enlightened generation to come, people will be very actively engaged in debates and that debates will give birth to movements, social movements that this is how environment will directly and indirectly will affect our quality life and that probably will be a kind of a welcoming situation. So we create a welcoming situation. But unfortunately in our country it is absent. Such a situation is absent. People only look at another social reality only from an economic point of view not from moral point of view. So moral point of view, so many farmers, their land it is not in practice. So these suffered all these people they suffer from only 3 birds. So according to the point of view of the farmers it is wrong. See that is what is something wrong happening and we should not encourage that. But unfortunately it is keeps on happening. One more question. I want you to convey our environmental ethics of as a whole globe and also about our India as a country. The ethics is not so much followed in order to avoid the terrorism, in order to avoid some water waste which are disposed in our rivers. For example in Ganga and so many all the religious materials which are dumping which are disposing into the river, into the in our lakes. All these other puja materials and also idols all these all should be avoided to the minimum possible extent in order to minimize the water pollution in our city. It is important that we particularly reflect on those events which are occurring in our day to day life. And we all think that our religion and religious belief needs to be little rationalized. If somebody throws a dead body to Ganga and says that his soul will be liberated and that seriously pollute the river Ganga. And look at what kind of religion it is. Now it is time has come that we should critically think about what is good for the humanity. Every religion needs to be modernized. Every culture needs to be modernized. So cultural beliefs need to be modernized and that depends upon how rational our individual citizens are. Now we are living in a country where our foods are sold. We sell our foods so that we cannot blame others but it is important for all of us to live up to a kind of a moral standard where our personal the dignity of an individual is restored. The autonomy of an individual is restored. So then only we can consider ourselves as a thinking individual and we can not only enlighten our activities but also can guide others to do good. So but I don't want to comment on terrorism. I have I'm not here to do that. Good morning sir. I've got a question. So when handling ethics for students in classroom how can we actually improve the active relationships of this professional ethics when you're handling in classroom? I understand. Teaching is a two way process. A teacher when goes to classroom he thinks that he is one of the you know the brightest intelligent fellow and the other students are you know nothing. So this hierarchy creates a hindrance in the process of understanding and the process of learning. So teaching goes along with learning and learning is a two way process. So when we consider the student as a partner of this process of learning then we collectively learn. So similarly when we try to project environmental issues to our fellow students try to see that they or we try to expose them to certain environmental crisis that then possibly they will learn much better than in the classroom teaching. We have to come to a level of their understanding so that we collectively learn and that will be a great motivating factor. This is what I believe. Thank you sir. Sir I've got one more question sir. We've got one more question. Okay. My question is actually early Christian church they are basically their development was based upon ethics basically they are speaking about certain theology. How can we basically compare the development theology of the early church and our present conservational ethics with respect to whatever development is taking place in a country or global level or whatever it is. So early church was very much not conservative. Basically they were telling that nature is like our mother. Basically we should not harm all those things theology philosophy. So how can we basically tell Marshall is one of the pioneers of deep ecology. He is speaking about conservation ethics. How can we compare both sir. Because while taking the classes how can we basically give these ideas to the students. I understand there are two mode in which we cultivate our ethics morality. The classical approach as I pointed out in my last lectures is based upon an ethics called anthropocentric ethics. That human have always considered themselves superior to others. Whereas in the case of life centric ethic the humans are treated at par with other non human beings. So because life is becomes a connecting principle. And it is on the basis of that one can talk about equality. One can talk about conservation etcetera. But if we cultivate the anthropocentric world view then there will be exploitation and there will be serious threat as it is been happening from centuries. So there are two points of use one has to keep in mind. One is the anthropocentric world view and another is the life centric world view. The ethics that we the currently been advocated is based on a life centric world. Is that clear. Thank you sir.