 Now we deal with the concluding part of our escapade with metaethics facing the question as we see on the slide why be moral now the very question that why should one be moral is a deep question and is in fact perhaps the root of all metaethical questions now let us explore in fact today's lecture is more of a thought exercise for you this is a question of reflection and deeper analysis as to why should one be moral now assuming that most of us would seriously answer that we would like to be moral or what ought to be moral what is the justification of morality why should one be moral that is the fundamental question of metaethics that is sought to be answered when we try to clarify the metaethical foundations of any ethical theory well applied ethics talked about particular questions it talks about questions like should I let my aging parents live with me and share my resources with them moral theory which is a layer beneath applied ethics talks about well is utilitarianism a better theory or over deontological theories that well if the happiness of the greater number is being promoted by a certain decision that should be taken now beneath these two layers is the metaethical claim that well what is it to be model and we were explored various answers that explaining morality and then the final question that we are left with is that even if there is something called morality or if there is something called morality why should one be moral now let us look closely at the question if I say why be moral it can roughly be translated into two questions it is why should I be moral and the second question is why should people be moral now this is seeking my justification to myself for being moral or for trying to be moral this on the other hand is well seek justification for the institution of morality so basically these the same question can be divided into two parts why should people be moral and why should I be moral as an individual I might have reasons to be moral but why should morality be practiced what go why should one or the the institution of morality be promoted now let us think that well what are the justifications what are the justifications for my being moral or what are the justifications for being for promoting this institution of morality let us let us serial number these two questions so that it gives us let us this call let us call this as question a and let us call this as question b now the answer to a and b need not be the same if my reasons for being moral or I may have no reasons or justifications for being moral but I may expect that the institution of morality continue for me to profit from it so the deeper perhaps more foundational question is why should people be moral or why should the institution of morality be propagated so those of mischievous of us who would perhaps answer this question a in the negative that well I should not be moral but as long as there are others who are moral or there are the institution of morality is propagated then there is an advantage in me not to be moral so a lot of questions being opened up let us tackle these questions seriously and these are answers proposed to these questions and you are invited to grapple with these questions on your own and as an assignment to answer this question why be moral because it is this is a question that has even been answered by Plato that has been answered by generations to come and that has been answered by generations that have come and will perhaps be tackled by generations that come so one has to reflect and delve into one's own theoretical foundations or psyche to understand or to explain a given answer to this question because this question answered by you would reveal your theoretical framework or foundation to yourself now let us say for a moment if we do not take we club this question together and we say well why should I be moral now let us think some of the reasons well first being moral is profitable now many of us would perhaps agree or disagree that well being moral may not be as profitable as we would like to think it is so being moral does not always lead to profit being moral so in fact this could not be a second answer to the question rather it would be a first answer continue that well being moral is to confirm to the expectations from us so as long as we are moral when the society the collective the family has certain expectations from us and if to confirm to those expectations there is a kind of a pressure and these expectations are moral expectations and the pressure from us is to confirm to it so we confirm to it to be a conformist as they say being moral because my parents religion tradition or any such entity says so and that I would be rewarded I would be eventually rewarded for the same now being moral because my parents my religion my tradition says so and that I would be eventually rewarded for the same now this is and or punished for not doing so now notice here now all these three questions are all these three answers suggested are the variant of one of perhaps the same ethos of the answer which is that being being moral is being profitable is being smart is being wise because well to the conformist well it is confirming to tradition it is confirming to the expectations that the collective has that the family has so by confirming my life becomes easier so therefore I should be moral the second option could be well as we said that well being moral is confirming to one's religion and is following the dictates of one's religion or one's tradition or one's parents with the impression that well following or being moral or following moral dictates is would get you rewards eventually may not immediately may be eventually in this life or proposed after life and not doing so would get you punishment so this is another customary level of morality where we talk about the justification of morality coming from the rewards it brings along or the fear of the punishment that it brings along now apart from this can there be any other justification morality before proceeding further I would urge the viewers to reflect sharply on their own to find out to explore whether there can be any other justification of morality you are welcome to explore or deeply dwell into any other justification of morality and if you would like please do email me your the answers that you propose well there can be another justification of morality because essentially now what if you will take a look at these fries these justifications essentially are non-moral justifications now if I say that well if I look for well I am raw as let us answer in the same strain that being moral is simply the right thing to do there can be or more accurately to ask for a reason for being moral is to ask for a non-moral justification that is reducing the moral domain or more accurately explaining the moral domain in terms of the non-moral domain. So, this is the what I would propose as the second answer to the question that well if I the very fact then we when we ask the question why be moral is perhaps looking for a non-moral justification for the same the question itself is in it a prejudice or a bias towards a naturalistic understanding that well one ought to be moral because simply it is the right thing to do it is like this that when we engage in an debate we are engaging with a assumption that a rational resolution to the debate is possible if I do not believe in the tenets of rationality or a resolution possibility of a resolution then my engaging in a debate is meaningless let us just quickly take a write it down to suppose I engage in a debate this assumes a resolution is possible and means of reasoning or argument or logic or rationality is agreed upon by the debating teams in these assumptions one engages in a debate having these assumptions would mean that well we can hope or we can a resolution is possible right conclusion may emerge and the entire plethora is a rational exercise. Now if I get into a debate either questioning that well a resolution is not possible that logic or rationality the means of rationality and logic and argument the standard axioms and principles of logic are also variable then there is no point in engaging my debate. So if I question the assumptions then the exercise becomes futile. So likewise when I look for when I ask the question why be moral am I undermining morality well the answer is well just the way just as rationality is binding by itself. So is morality justifying itself. So the second answer that we offered that well if we need not seek further justification for the right thing to do because as the adage goes that well a man's got to do what a man's got to do that is the kind of a justification also offered for morality that well what has to be done has to be done that doing the right thing can have no other reason except that it is the right thing to do. Now let us look at it this way if we are in a dilemma and from whatever meta ethical foundation we have and whatever moral theory we practice we arrive at something what we consider right. Now the justification for doing that right thing according to the second kind of answer that we just talked about is that well it has to be done because it has to be done. Now in a way this is a non consequentialist answer in fact this is in a way a resolution where doing the right thing is more important than anything else. Now look at it this way we can now let us think of an example where this would perhaps find lot of utility. Now let us say that if we have to unjustly trample over the rights of an individual to get the job done if it is wrong it is wrong and it should not be done no matter what now this kind of a justification let us put a further concrete example this. Let us say there is an examination conducted with a lot of an entrance examination and one student was given a misprinted faulty question paper which to the best of his ability he checked and the question or the digits were somehow printed wrong an error that he could not have spotted by himself unless he had access to another question paper. So clearly this student has been wronged that the examination has been unfair to him but now if the resolution is to conduct the whole examination once more or to give him a separate examination or to bring this let this matter out in the notice of the public gaze harms the examination. So if this matter is suppressed the efficiency of the examination remains nobody is disadvantaged and lost see there can be many variants of this example say the answer script of a student is lost and it is simply not accounted and he or she is regarded as not qualified. Now this is an example where the right thing clearly is to accept the error on the part of the examination authority and make a resolution of it possible whatever is possible may be conduct the whole examination again may be hold a separate examination for the wronged person or whatever the laws be. So here the justification for the right thing to do is not that it would bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number because clearly in this case it would not bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So the justification for doing the right thing here is because it is the right thing to do because it is a fair thing to do and here fairness and rightness cannot be understood in terms of any other psychological or natural property. These are fundamental qualities or properties without any further reduction or explanation possible in terms of other natural properties. Now let us go to the original question that we talked about that well the question be that why should people be moral or the justification of the institution of morality. Why not as many philosophers have regarded as the fundamental question of ethics that why not I appear to be moral to the collective or the rest of us and covertly thereof as per my desires. So what essentially it is why not just appear moral is not there a deeper justification for the same. Now a very common thing that we can associate with the stories we read the news that we come across the movies we watch that well in a standard plot of a movie the bad guy wants to appear moral because appearing moral gives you a lot of advantages. Let us say when he is framed as a politician or the business man or the powerful tycoon they want to be seen as moral by the people at large they invest huge amounts or huge resources in what they would call as public relations thereof to make their enterprise or themselves known as morally sound persons. But this is an appearance and they would perhaps work towards their own towards the fulfillment of their own desires this is a very simple plot which is perhaps in everywhere. But this is a very foundational ethical question that why should one be moral and why should one not appear to be moral whereas gaining from the morality of others the notion of free riders that well in a community of truth speakers if I am a liar I can get a lot of advantage. But in a community of layers being a liar gives me no particular advantage. So somewhere the moral platform has to exist for the free rider to benefit because if the moral platform does not exist and there is no free rider possible. So this kind of a justification of morality that well there has to be the common adage that majority of the people are law governed and rule governed then it is that minority of rule breakers or law breakers that get an advantage. But if all collapses then well the rule breakers or the former rule breakers are as disadvantaged as anybody else. So the fundamental question that rises is that well why should one really be moral instead of appearing to be moral. So that means an internal intrinsic justification of morality that does not tackle or any any normal moral component let us let us take a little flash back and let us think of let me many of you must have heard of this time when we have of these earlier philosophers called Russo and Hobbes. Now before I talk about these philosophers let us put a fundamental question a question that has think for oneself. Let us say for a day law enforcement policemen are taken off the streets what would people at large do let us say at the time of natural calamities at the time of riots at the time of civil disobedience at the time of internal strife when law enforcement ceases to exist what would people do. Now the answer to this question will largely determine what is our intuition or what is our opinion of the fundamental human nature. Now if I see that well if I propose if I assume that well the fundamental human nature is good that when law enforcement is pulled off the streets we find that well initially there may be a lot of chaos but eventually people will start perhaps helping each other and the majority of people would be moral as to say. Now this brings us to these two philosophers Russo and Hobbes that we talked about. Now Russo said that well Hobbes was of the opinion let me briefly put Hobbes was the opinion that well life in state of nature state of nature meaning without society was nasty poor brutish and shot right. So state of nature here it is nasty but Russo on the other hand well proposes theory that we called and enter into contract well we need not go about the details of these two philosophers but what we need to say is that well Russo says that well society as an institution comes as a pact between the individuals to form a society where there would be regulations voluntarily imposed and accepted and followed regulations enforced regulations for the betterment of all. So in the time of natural calamity or riot now if a group of people living together come into an contract that well each one of us would not harm the other and we would protect each other from any other external aggression if because the law law enforcement at that time does not would not be able to do so and this is the formation of the society that well there is nothing intrinsically perhaps right or wrong and but for each one of us to pursue our desires we need a minimum platform of security and that security would be provided by the social contract as Russo has talked about. It is popularly any of you interested to know more can search this term social contract to get further details of Russo's theory. So now let us so Russo is another way another the Russo society is another justification of morality where he says that well what one does or the formation of morality or society is to restrain each one of us equally so that all of us can have moderately fulfill most of our wishes instead of relieving it as a total free reign. So this is another example of morality as a social construct as analogically speaking that well when we all come to play a game we follow by common rules so that all of us can enjoy the game because winning does not mean that we are allowed to break the rules because that would take the fun out of the game and that would perhaps make it brutal and equally insecure for all so to bring a level of security. Now this would perhaps be the prevalent many of us would follow this as the foundation of metaethics that the reason for being moral is to get one's own security to act further. So with this I leave the question to you that well why should be one be moral or why should morality be propagated this is a justification that has been sought why has this morality have to be followed because it is enforced or is it binding onto us just as the way rationality is the way we say that well if there are three oranges with me I can always take two oranges out from them I cannot take four oranges out from them now just as this taking four oranges out of three oranges is absurd to us does morality have the same kind of binding that well knowing the right thing and doing the right thing is compelling on to us similarly. So there have been all moral theories proposed and systems built have been answered to this fundamental question that well why should one be moral and why should the institution of morality be promulgated or propagated now this is a question I leave you with to reflect and think for yourself that what is your justification of morality that you come up with.