Ethics and Governance – Practice Flashcards
Page 1
Welcome to the second lecture on ethics, integrity, and aptitude; ensure audio/video clarity.
Plan to start with doubts; case studies will be discussed after 5–6 classes once theories are covered.
Emphasis on revision and approaching case studies after theory coverage.
Page 2
Quick recap of yesterday: why ethics is part of UPSC syllabus; use/utility of ethics in society.
Sources of ethical standards and principles: laws, regulations, religious beliefs, cultural norms, traditions.
Axiology: ethics and aesthetics are two aspects of axiology; ethics = moral values; aesthetics = study of beauty, art, taste.
Page 3
Ethics derives from Greek ethikos (character, arising from habit); root ethos = moral character.
Ethics refers to positive traits developed when habits are repeated; Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do; excellence, then, is a habit, not a one-time act." (quote cited)
Page 4
Writing about role models: philanthropists, big businessmen, etc., can be cited as contributors to society; avoid glamorizing controversial figures unless relevant.
Question: universal values like compassion; pragmatism in approach; tensions between universal values and national interests.
Page 5
Today: terms to differentiate: human actions vs act of man; ethics vs morality (often used interchangeably but with distinctions); how laws relate to ethics; religion vs ethics.
Recap of yesterday’s discussion on sources and utility of ethics.
Page 6
Why people behave unethically: unfair society, discrimination, peer influence, rationalization, lack of ethical leadership, fear of job loss, weak institutions/enforcement, deadlines pressure, selfishness, greed.
Ethics is time- and space-dependent; example: Victorian era modesty rules (ankle exposure) deemed unethical then; slavery justified in various eras/cultures; Leviticus references sometimes cited to justify slavery.
Page 7
Ethics varies with time and space; neighboring-country differences (e.g., Pakistan) illustrate variation in perceived ethics.
Emphasis that ethics is dependent on context; universal values exist (e.g., compassion) but implementation varies.
Page 8
More historical examples: fugitive slave act (1850) in the USA; archaic divine sanction arguments for slavery (biblical passages, Aristotle’s natural slavery).
Ethics is time- and space-dependent; cross-cultural comparisons illustrate shifting ethical perspectives.
Page 9
Space-dependent ethics: examples of life in different regions; ongoing debates about gender and safety in various countries.
Page 10
Introduction to right vs good as foundational terms in ethics; right = adherence to moral standards/duties; good = desirable outcomes/consequences.
Fundamental debate in philosophy: right (duty-based, deontology) vs good (consequences/utility).
Page 11
Right: action aligned with moral laws, duties, rules; authority of moral laws recognized.
Good: evaluates desirability/value/outcomes; utilitarian emphasis on outcomes.
Page 12
Right involves following duties/obligations regardless of outcomes; deontology (Kant) emphasizes doing the right thing due to duty.
Kantian terminology: deontology (ontology? term used in lecture) emphasizes duty-based ethics.
Page 13
Contrast: good emphasizes outcomes seen as desirable; focus on ends more than rules.
Introduction to utilitarianism (as a key form of consequentialism) and the distinction from deontology.
Page 14
Simple heuristic: means vs ends; deontology = duty/means-focused; utilitarianism = ends/outcomes-focused.
The good is an end to be pursued; the right is a duty to be followed; future study will cover utilitarianism in more depth.
Page 15
Everyday illustration of utilitarian reasoning: in a group, decide by majority welfare (maximum good for maximum people).
Acknowledgment that pursuing the greater good can violate individual rights; trade-offs and precedents matter.
Page 16
Debate on what is more important: right or good; examples where following the law strictly may conflict with urgent needs (disaster relief scenario with prior approvals).
Discussion: in emergencies, deviations from procedures may save lives but can set bad precedents; importance of following the intent behind laws, not just the letter.
Page 17
Question prompts: Should we follow laws? Yes, but follow the intent behind the law; written orders guidelines for civil servants (Supreme Court 2013 expectation).
Tension between formal rules and practical reality (getting written orders when on the ground).
Page 18
Emphasis on following the spirit/intent of laws; laws were debated and drafted with stakeholder input; avoid violating laws for expedient outcomes.
Examples of right vs good in public service decisions.
Page 19
Ethical dilemma case: exposure of corruption vs safeguarding sensitive documents; conflict between transparency and national interest.
Four classifications of documents under Public Records Act: Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, Restricted Access; explains civil service hierarchy (Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director, etc.).
Page 20
Guidance on handling corruption discoveries: complain to head of department or use whistleblowing channels (Whistleblowers Act; CVC/State Vigilance Commissions); avoid sensational media exposure.
Recap of document classifications and civil service ranks; importance of information governance in ethics.
Page 21
Restatement of document access levels and the civil service hierarchy; further emphasis on proper channels for reporting corruption.
Page 22
Whistleblower guidance continued; if corruption is detected, report to appropriate bodies rather than media; proper steps to protect country interests.
Page 23
Whistleblower Act expectations; reiteration of terminology; knowledge of whistleblowing concepts.
Page 24
Introduction to action vs conduct: action = doing something with intent to achieve a goal (execution toward a result); conduct = manner of behavior in a situation; conduct is broader (organizational practices, ongoing patterns).
Page 25
Distinction: action is task-oriented; conduct is behavior-oriented; examples: a teacher grading fairly (action) vs maintaining a respectful classroom (conduct).
For civil servants, the interplay of conduct and action matters in ethics and professionalism.
Page 26
Reiteration of key distinction and examples: a district magistrate with overall good conduct may issue a poor action due to misinformation or external pressure; opposite example with a strict teacher.
Page 27
Good conduct does not guarantee good actions; situational pressure can lead to bad actions despite overall ethical conduct.
2013 Supreme Court guideline: insist on written orders; practical difficulties of obtaining written directions in the field.
Page 28
More examples of conduct vs action; the Commonwealth Games example: overall event success despite questionable conduct by officials.
Introduction to human action vs act of man in more depth.
Page 29
Philosophical foundation: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) outlines three conditions for human action: knowledge, voluntariness, freedom.
Free will debate: skepticism about true free will due to social and informational pressures; media influence and “nudge” theory in economics discussed.
Page 30-31
Emphasis on human action as deliberate, with knowledge and intent; act of man as instinctive/habitual behavior performed without deliberation.
Examples: blinking, breathing, reflexive actions; distinction clarified with the Aquinas framework.
Page 32-34
Aquinas' three elements restated; consequences: morally and legally responsible for human actions; acts of man can be punishable in some contexts (omission, negligence).
Examples of punishable acts of omission and negligent driving; discussion of how social media and public perception influence views on intent and responsibility.
Page 35-37
Lob discussions on free will, rationality, and mob psychology; critique of “free will” as a stable concept; media influence and social nudging.
Summary: human action vs act of man; four components (knowledge, voluntariness, freedom) in Aquinas; ethical implications and accountability.
Page 38-40
Recap: three requirements (knowledge, voluntariness, freedom) and their ethical/legal implications; examples of moral and legal responsibility for human action.
Question: can acts of man be punished? Yes in certain contexts; majority of punishment applies to human actions.
Page 41-43
Introduction to involuntary acts and offenses: negligence-related punishments (IPC 304A etc.); difference between acts of man and human action in criminal law; BNS substitution for IPC and its sections; example of rash driving, causing death by negligence.
Page 44-46
Mob lynching and moral policing discussed; the absence of a dedicated mob-lynching law; moral policing as a social phenomenon; change in societal norms over time (e.g., living relationships, smoking on planes, transgender rights).
Emphasis that ethics is not permanent; society evolves; religion as a factor in ethics; atheism and ethical reasoning.
Page 47-49
Essence of ethics: the soul of ethics; defines, defends, and recommends principles to guide behavior; differentiates right vs wrong, good vs bad, virtue vs vice, justice vs injustice.
Ethics described as a science of moral duty; ethics as a compass guiding actions and relationships across personal, professional, and social contexts.
Page 50-53
Ultimate goal of ethics: the highest good (samambonam); Cicero’s view of the greatest good; Aristotle and Kant connect virtue, happiness, and duty to the highest good.
Student prompts asking what is your highest good (exam success, peace, happiness, self-knowledge); illustrates variability and evolution of goals.
Page 54-56
Higher good is time- and space-variant; personal and societal priorities shift with age and experience; example trajectories from youthful idealism to pragmatic realism; life circumstances influence values.
Page 57-59
Determinants of ethics in human action: cultural and societal norms; religion and spirituality; personal values and conscience; legal/regulatory standards; behavior is shaped by multiple factors.
Page 60-62
Cultural norms shape ethical behavior; ethics relative across cultures (Western individualism vs Indian emphasis on social perception); religion provides a moral framework but is not the only determinant.
Religion/spiritual beliefs influence ethical behavior; atheists still derive ethics from other factors.
Page 63-65
Additional examples of religious practices and ethics; acknowledging religious diversity and respect for beliefs; ethics get shaped by a mix of religious and non-religious factors.
Discussion on the role of personal beliefs in ethical decision making; ethical behavior in a plural society.
Page 66-68
Continued discussion on sources of ethics (religion, conscience, law, social norms) and the caveat that legal and regulatory standards may reflect ethical standards but are not perfect mirrors of morality.
The idea that ethics can modify laws (due process, reforms) and laws can modify ethics (dynamic, democratic process).
Page 69-71
Personal values and conscience as determinants; how individuals’ inner sense of right and wrong shapes ethical decision making; examples of values like honesty, patience, empathy, etc.
Emphasis on how family upbringing informs personal ethics; the importance of documenting personal experiences and core values.
Page 72-74
More on personal values in family and society; examples of values passed down (patience, honesty, kindness, respect); how personal ethics influence professional conduct and social behavior.
Consequences of ethics: positive outcomes include trust, social cohesion, personal fulfillment, reputation, and quality of life.
Page 75-77
Positive/negative outcomes of ethical behavior; social harmony and professional repercussions; the tension between pursuing immediate gratification vs delayed gratification; examples of delayed gratification in exam preparation.
Discussion of how media/celebrity culture can distort perceptions of ethical behavior; cautions about public display vs private integrity.
Page 78-80
Clarification that most crimes are planned, not impulsive; acts of man are less common than the sensational cases often seen on social media; emphasis on the scale of crime overall.
Page 81-83
Negative outcomes of unethical behavior: social disharmony, legal/professional repercussions, damaged reputation, and lack of sleep due to guilt; acknowledgement that not all unethical acts lead to immediate penalties.
Page 84-86
Distinction between ethics and morality: ethics as societal standard; morality as personal belief; enforcement differences: morality is self-imposed, ethics is externally reinforced; flexibility vs rigidity (ethics more flexible; morality more inflexible).
Page 87-89
Further differentiation: morality is personal, ethics is societal and shared; sources: conscience vs external social sources; enforcement differences; examples like capital punishment and marital relations in law/ethics context.
Page 90-92
Ethics vs morality: flexibility and measurement challenges in ethics; morality is relatively stable and hard to change; ethics can evolve with society and culture; enforcement: laws are codified and monitored; ethics relies on self-regulation and peer pressure.
Page 93-95
Enforcement mechanisms: morality is internal; ethics has external reinforcement through institutions, norms, professional codes; changing one’s personal morality is difficult; societal norms influence ethics more readily than individual moral beliefs.
The tension between personal conscience and external expectations in professional settings.
Page 96-98
Observations on how social and professional norms resist change; case examples of governance and societal adjustments; the role of Citizens Charters and reforms being resisted by incumbents; social conformity pressures.
Page 99-101
Ethics vs morality in governance: individual opinions can shape societal ethics; examples from governance and social change in India; Gandhi and other thinkers as influences on ethical identity; the role of public figures.
Page 102-104
How individual opinions influence social ethics through movements and governance reforms; dropouts and new career norms (e.g., rising acceptance of non-traditional paths like public figures, YouTubers) as shaping societal ethics.
The concept of “loggers” (influencers) and the need for ethical conduct beyond fame.
Page 105-107
Ethics vs morality in contemporary settings: balance and breakpoints; when to compromise; example of pandemic-era rules and social distancing in public transport; the spirit vs the letter of the law in crisis decisions.
Break to refresh; note about future practice: not to overuse personal anecdotes; focus on core values and long-term consequences.
Page 108-110
When to compromise on morality vs ethics: extreme circumstances (survival) may justify moral compromises; ethics compromises when laws are unjust or when higher moral values conflict with the letter of law.
Examples include whistleblowing, confidentiality vs public interest, and marital law debates (marital rape discussions, section 375/377 in some contexts).
Page 111-113
Discussion of controversial laws (UPA, PMLA, section 377 historical context); the role of Supreme Court in decriminalization and legislative reform; freedom of speech vs sedition debates; importance of due process.
Page 114-116
Rights to freedom of expression vs the need to balance social consequences; discussion of moral policing and broader gender/gender-justice issues; the evolution of rights like transgender rights and LGBTQ rights.
Emphasis that ethical norms evolve and religion is a factor, but not the sole determinant.
Page 117-119
Extreme cases: compromise only when higher moral values demand it; survival scenarios; professional obligations during public health crises; balancing professional duties with personal values.
Practical guidance: prioritize core values, minimize harm, consider long-term consequences, integrate ethics with personal conscience.
Page 120-122
Emphasis on long-term consequences and personal integrity in decision making; example discussions on reporting corruption vs. potential social costs; emphasis on citizens reporting to proper channels and protecting victims.
Page 123-125
Discusses the trade-offs of whistleblowing, loyalty to colleagues vs public good; long-term consequences of reporting; balance between minimizing harm and protecting individuals; reframing ethics for public administration reforms.
Page 126-128
Societal conformity and bending personal values in professional settings; cautions against radical activism if it jeopardizes broader ethical commitments; the social norms aspect of ethics in governance.
Page 129-131
How individual opinions shape societal ethics with governance examples; guidance on answer writing for exams: 150-word limit; intro, body with examples, conclusion; mix of points and paragraphs.
Page 132-134
Structuring an answer: define societal ethics in simple terms; cultural, religious, institutional shaping; individual values can influence ethics; use examples from governance and social change in India (Gandhi, social movements).
Page 135-137
Governance examples: India against corruption; Satendra Dubey; Ambedkar and caste equality; Article 16 (RR/reservation) and other fundamental rights; how numerous public figures and movements have shaped ethics.
Essay structure tips: use points for clarity; mix of points and paragraphs; include examples and historical impact in your conclusion.
Page 138-140
Answer framing guidance: introduction, body with governance and social change examples, conclusion; the role of thought leaders in redefining societal ethics; Gandhi’s nonviolence as an ethical touchstone.
Emphasize that ethics evolves and becomes more inclusive over time.
Page 141-143
Law vs ethics: definitions; ethics is subjective and society-driven; law is objective and uniformly enforced within a jurisdiction; sources of law (legislature, executive, judiciary); enforcement differences.
Ethics often fills gaps where law is silent or inadequate; laws may deviate from ethical principles at times.
Page 144
Examples of ethics in practice: traffic regulations (law) vs ethical conduct (honesty, empathy); DNSS/CRPC/BNSS as legal references; universal applicability of ethical principles across professions.
Page 145-146
Law and ethics as complementary tools; law imposes external discipline; ethics fosters internal responsibility; both are essential for civilized society; their balance varies across contexts.
Page 147-149
Practice question preview: law punishes when rights are violated; ethics punishes when there is harmful intent—even if no action occurs; critical thinking about governance reform.
Page 150-152
Distinction: law requires concrete evidence; ethics considers intentions; loopholes exist in law via technicalities; ethics cannot be bypassed by technicalities.
Moral agency, guilt, and the lasting moral impression of unethical acts; exam-related examples and cautionary tales about integrity in preparation.
Page 153-155
Alignment and divergence between ethics and law: sometimes laws reflect ethical principles (social justice, equal protection) and sometimes they lag or contradict; constitutional principles anchor ethical aims (Articles 14, 21, 25, 51, etc.).
Question: which is harder to enforce, ethics or laws? Ethics are harder due to lack of formal enforcement; laws have formal penalties.
Page 156-158
Enforcement of ethics: relies on self-regulation, peer pressure, professional codes; absence of a centralized ethical enforcement body; measurement of ethical violations is challenging (intent, culture, context).
Knowledge that ethics vary across cultures and individuals; thus enforcement is decentralized and inconsistent.
Page 159-161
Ethics vs law: ethics is informal and internal; law is formal and codified; both influence behavior; sanctions for ethics include social disapproval and remorse, while laws include imprisonment, fines, and other legal penalties.
Geographic variation: ethics vary more widely; laws vary by jurisdiction but are relatively uniform within a jurisdiction.
Page 162-164
Summary of control mechanisms: law = external discipline; ethics = internal responsibility; ethical sanctions include social sanctions and conscience; laws rely on state machinery for enforcement.
Relationship: ethics fills gaps where law is silent; both required for stable governance and social order.
Page 165-167
International and diplomatic contexts: law and ethics interplay in diplomacy (good faith, climate agreements, etc.); ethics contributes to cooperative behavior beyond legal commitments.
Concluding thought: law and ethics function as complementary tools; balance varies by society/context; both essential for a civilized public administration.
Page 168-169
Practice prompt for tomorrow: critically analyze the statement "In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he’s guilty if he only thinks of doing so."; consider governance implications and why this may not be desirable in public administration.
Reminder: no class tomorrow (Sunday); continue revising and mark up PPTs for consistency across topics.
Key formulas and definitions (LaTeX)
Utilitarianism concept: maximize total utility across individuals, often framed as a sum over individuals U = ext{maximize} \, igg( \sum{i=1}^n ui \bigg)
Means vs ends: means are the methods used to achieve ends (outcomes) in ethical evaluation; ends refer to the consequences/outcomes themselves.
Aquinas on human action (Summa Theologica): knowledge, voluntariness, and freedom as essential elements: ext{Knowledge}, \, ext{Voluntariness}, \, ext{Freedom} \Rightarrow ext{Human action}
Right vs Good distinction: Right = duty-rule adherence; Good = desirable outcomes/consequences; Kantian deontology vs utilitarian consequentialism are the classic debates here.
Deontology vs Utilitarianism shorthand:
Deontology: duty-based ethics (right actions regardless of outcome).
Utilitarianism: outcome-based ethics (right actions based on maximizing good).
Note: The content above reflects a page-by-page synthesis of the transcript, highlighting major and minor points, concepts, examples, and case references as discussed in the lecture. Where numeric references or legal acts were mentioned, I have included them in LaTeX-friendly form for easy inclusion in exam notes.