 Today, we are going to talk about one of the most celebrated figures in recent Indian history. Even from the point of moral philosophy, it is Mohandas, Karamchand, Gandhi, more popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi. Now we are, many of us have a preliminary idea about Gandhian Ethics and of course in this course, we will just touch upon Gandhian Ethics as a part of the tradition of Indian Ethics, which is again as a part of the broader outline of the syllabus of Ethics. Now there are many things Gandhi has been considered as a moral stalwart. He has been referred as a politician among saints and as a saint among politicians. Gandhi's civil disobedience movement and phenomenal role in the independence of India is, cannot be overstated and the importance of Ethics in Gandhi's ways are perhaps one of the most prevalent examples of moral theoretician getting into practice. So apart from being an idealist, Gandhi also put his theory, his beliefs into test into the real world. So before we talk about Gandhian Ethics, let us just briefly put out this, understand what was the relationship or what was religion and Ethics for Gandhi. The first thing that we are now going to talk about is religion and Ethics, Gandhian perspective. Now philosophically, religion and morality are two different things. Religion is very frequently defined as a set of beliefs about the metaphysical presuppositions of human existence and Ethics or morality is about how people behave with each other. Now let us look at this fundamental issue that religion is dealing with our metaphysical beliefs or claims and morality is perhaps dealing with how people deal with each other. Is there a relation? Philosophically, of course, they are two different entities, but in fact, philosophers would rather say, would accept that they can coexist, but they need not be connected. So for philosophers or from the philosophical point of view, from the philosophical point of view, religion and Ethics are conceptually distinct, although a coexistence is possible. Now for Gandhi, this is not a true description of reality. Let us say, philosophically, we can understand that religion deals with a different domain of human existence and morality or Ethics deals with a different domain. Now why does Gandhi confuse the two? Before that, let us reflect on what our own views are. Now here, we see a religious person, for example, imagine any religious person that you have seen. Now if we imagine this religious person speaking or misrepresenting facts or cheating or committing cruelty, do we not find something a mis with this religious person that we imagine? A cleric or a pandit or a religious practitioner that if we do not find ordinary day morality reflected in the lives of religious, supposedly religious people, we find something missing. All the religious books prescribe a moral code of conduct. It is not that the case that religion is silent about moral code of conduct. In fact, all religions propose a moral code of conduct. They do not philosophize or perhaps most of them do not philosophize on how the moral code of conduct is arrived. In fact, many of them take the God's word as sanctioned for a code of conduct. But all of them do talk about morality, all of them do talk about ethics, about how people ought to deal with each other. Whereas, so you see that religion does talk about or mode of interacting with each other of which concerns the value domain or morality. So, we do find it unusual that if we find a religious person and who is not moral, it seems to be a sort of contradiction that well if somebody is a religious person but does not display ordinary day moral values, well there is something amiss over here. In fact, the current or it is a prevalent strain amongst youngsters and young people today to describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, as moral but not religious. So, what are these examples about? These are examples or a reaction from what religion has become. Religion has become a set of rituals devoid of any connect or any commitment to morality. Having a set of rituals makes one a religious person, but if that set of observing a religion does not bring about what one would regard as ordinary moral day behavior, then we find a kind of difficulty. In fact, we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water, we tend to throw out religion because we find religious people not being moral. Whereas, perhaps what Gandhi verbalized is an intuitive human urge to find religious people as moral, to find religion as a carrier of morality. And morality is not necessarily to be carried by religion, but morality is an essential accompaniment of religion. In fact, there have been atheists and there have been people who are irreligious, but yet they commit themselves to the moral domain. Bertrand Russell was such an example that where the moral domain exists and is to be followed irrespective of religions. What we have intuitively first that we want to find religious people as moral, we also want to have space open that well there are moral people who may or may not be religious. Now, what is it for Gandhi? Now, for Mahatma Gandhi, religion and morality is inseparable. So, Gandhi's claim is that well we find religion, Gandhi would say that well a religious person has to be a moral person and not the other way round that a moral person has to be a religious person, but religion has the basis of morality. That a religious person has to be moral and if there is a conflict between moral dictat and religious dictat, well it is a moral dictat that has to remain supreme. So, religion is to be judged from the point of view of morality that if a religious person is acting in an apparently immoral way then well that person is not religious enough. So, morality as the judge of religion or morality as crucial to religion, he goes on to say that well true religion and true morality are inseparable and that morality represents the core of religion. So, what is Gandhi's point of view? Gandhi's point of view comes out to be that well morality is the core of religion that we do have to take morality into account while understanding religion and religion ought to bring about morality and if it fails to do so well then there is something wrong with the religion or its interpretation. So, religion ought to bring about morality and if it fails to do so then the religion ought to be discarded or that particular tenant of a religion ought to be reinterpreted or discarded and not morality. Moral sense is fundamental and that should be preserved. Now, having said that about the relationship between religion and ethics, let us come about that well what is Gandhi's notion of morality or Gandhi and ethics. Well to begin with moral actions what are moral actions or what are morally judgeable actions? Moral actions are actions which are voluntary actions without the fear of punishment or greed of reward. So, these are moral actions that actions that take place voluntarily and that without the fear of punishment or greed of reward that is no coercion. So, Gandhi begins by claiming that well what kind of actions are to be judged as moral actions. Now, actions which originate from our freedom of choice, from our ability to choose are actions that can be judged as moral actions whereas actions which are done out of instinct or done out of reflex reaction can no more be judged as moral reaction. Now, this is a fairly simple analysis of action and when I find that well if we are talking about actions or moral judgeability of actions we do mean actions which have the freedom of choice. Now, the second point seems to be more important and has something more to offer that well actions which are which take place without coercion. So, without the fear of punishment and without the greed of reward in such a case can actions be moral actions. So, what would Gandhi say? Gandhi would say well if somebody is acting in a way which is motivated by a fear of punishment or the desire for a reward well it is no more in the domain of moral action. So, in this strain we find a very non consequentialist under current in Gandhian ethics that well if we are working for consequence or our actions are motivated by certain goals then we are not then that cannot be classified as a moral action or that cannot be classified as a morally appreciable action. Let us take for an example going by earlier discussion about the theory of karma we said that well one has to accumulate moral desert. So, accumulating moral desert for any betterment in this life or after life or later that being the primary motivation for good action it seems to be for Gandhi not an example of a moral action at all. So, when something good is being or done to avoid punishment or to get something for oneself in the future it can no more be called as moral actions. So, well when one is doing good terms to attract to get future benefits then one is not doing a moral act. So, therefore moral actions have to be actions out of emerging out of free choice un influenced by any consequences that they bring about which affect the action. Having a goal of any goal of a good life or of later rewards or fear of later punishments is not really moral actions. So, in that case look at this as a very interesting example in that case the school boys discipline which is enforced by the fear of the school master is not a discipline that Gandhi would say is a moral act at all because this takes place and the fear of punishment. When that same school boy is out of the school campus and freed from the fear of punishment if that school boy continues to choose to be disciplined that comes out to be an example of moral action whereas, if that school boy comes out and chooses to be disciplined well then that is his that action can be judged morally not the action that takes place under the fear of governance. Now, look at it this way this is a deontological and a very huge jump in expectations from human behavior. So, we have this entire in human societies we have this entire notion of punishments and rewards and punishments in particular are framed to discourage behavior that is not right or that is deemed immoral by the society. So, the fear of punishment keeps us off immoral actions and that for Gandhi is actually no moral credit of ours. So, if I am not stealing or not doing anything wrong for the fear of being caught then I am not to be given any credit for my acts or for not doing anything wicked. Now, so just imagine if imagine it I leave it to you as a thought experiment that if we pull out law enforcement for a day from the streets what would we find people doing. Now, this would give you an the Gandhian test for morality is when this enforcement or this fear of punishment or the greed of reward is pulled out. In case of morality is mostly in terms of constraints it is mostly in terms of the fear of punishment that if we do this we are punished therefore we do not do this. But whether would you or would a person steal if he had an opportunity to steal without the fear of being caught that according to Gandhi is a true test of morality. So, this is an example of a high Gandhian ideal which is according to Gandhi a true test of morality rather than a confirmation to the expectations of the reward punishment scheme of the society. Now, coming back to the slide when we talk about moral actions and the classifications of moral actions well. So, we talked about voluntary actions that moral actions are only actions which are voluntarily done that is they have freedom of choice. And number one was this and number two was when it is without the fear of punishment or the greed of reward. So, there is no coercion now what does this lead to well. Now, Gandhi's crucial claim is that self transcendence or love constitutes is the essence of morality. So, it is when one is able to transcend oneself that one comes to function out of love and that is the essence of morality. So, when one transcends one's selfish desires transcendence of one's perspective. So, very often we have run across this as a conclusion of many moral theories that when the ability to transcend one's perspective makes one's acts as moral because then well it is not done for one's own purpose. But well one it is when it is seen that from a trans-perspective well decision. So, Gandhi is also sticking to the same kind of classification calling self transcendence and or love is the essence of morality. Now, what is meant by why love? Why is love as the source of morality well when one transcends one's perspective one would perhaps have access to others perspectives. So, unless there is a love for the other why would one want to benefit because from the perspective from doing an action which is morally right and which perhaps disadvantages the self and gives an advantage to the other. Now look at this interesting notion that transcending perspectives gives us the epistemological tool to know the other but love gives us the motivation to do the right act. So, let me put down that self transcendence is the epistemological tool plus love and in this case analogically epistemological tool plus motivation. The love acts as the motivation and self transcendence is the epistemological tool. So, this gives rise to the moral act or the moral domain. Now, Gandhi introduces another perspective into this association of concepts is that well he accepts that well we do find that well love is blind and it might lead to actions which are blinded. So, here he introduces the notion of knowledge love is blind and this blindness can lead to barbarism or fanaticism or a lot of things like this. Now, by introducing the third term knowledge is that which conditions this love conditions or tempers the love. So, that it is an informed choice for acting upon now when Gandhi says that morality does not consist in loving blindly it is loving with the full consciousness and knowledge of love. Now, so knowledge as an essential part of morality. Let me make this clear that what is what has knowledge got to do well self transcendence gives the epistemological perspective or epistemological tool to transcend one's perspective to know to perceive from or to comprehend what is it from other perspectives or trans perspective. Now, love gives the motivation for converting it into action, but this love cannot be unbound it is bounded by knowledge or it is and what is this knowledge. This knowledge is about the reasons why the moral act is obligatory. Knowledge is about reasons as to why the moral act is obligatory. So, what is the point the point is that morality is obeying the voice of the conscience with the full knowledge of the conditions that make this call imperative or obligatory. So, that means that well where does knowledge enter the equation is that well when we are listening to the voice of conscience and we also understand why we are listening to the call of conscience. So, knowledge is also a factor in the moral act being performed. So, one is not just having trans perspective knowledge, but one is able to transcend one's perspective one loves the other or the entity is concerned to motivate for an action and also one is in knowledge of the reasons why this apparently selfless action is obligatory that why what is the reason for this to take place. Now, this according to Gandhi is what he has termed as the knowledge of Satyagra or that is particularly how Satyagra takes place. So, morality is nothing but Satyagra because this is what are the points that Gandhi talks about Satyagra too. He talks about, we will now talk about the various virtues that Gandhi talks about which are taken from tradition and Gandhi adds it to those. He talks about virtues like non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, non-acceptance and chastity. These are known in Sanskrit as Ahimsa Satya, Asteya, Aparigraha and Brahmacharya. So, these are some of the virtues, core virtues, cardinal virtues for a Satyagrahi too. And in this understanding for the moral person to act upon, Gandhi expands on this and adds some more virtues to this which we will be talking about next.