GOVT.

ENGINEERING COLLEGE AJMER

Assignment - 1

OBJECTIVE: To study about Personal and Professional ethics and the thoughts of
following scholars:

 Mahatma Gandhi
 Rabindranath Tagore
 Aurobindo Gosh
 Socrates
 Swami Vivekananda

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Jai KishanSambharia
Assistant Professor (Mechanical Dept.)

Contents page no.

Introduction ...................................................... 1

What is ethics ?
 At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions
and lead their lives.

Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as
moral philosophy.

The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or
disposition.

Ethics covers the following dilemmas:

 how to live a good life

 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 moral decisions - what is good and bad?
Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and cultures. They
infuse debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct.

What use of ethics ?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings
behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that if a person realises that it
would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do
it.However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

 Ethics can provide a moral map

 Ethics can pin point of disagreement
 Ethics can give several answers

Types of ethics
 Personal ethices
 Professional ethics

Personal ethics
Personal ethics is a category of philosophy that determines what an individual believes
about morality and right and wrong. This is usually distinguished from business
ethics or legal ethics. These branches of ethics come from outside organizations or
governments, not the individual’s conscience. These branches of ethics occasionally overlap.
Personal ethics can affect all areas of life, including family, finances and relationships.
‘Personal ethics’ is rarely identified by philosophical institutions as a formal area for
philosophical investigation, but there is little doubt that the history of philosophy, west and
east, includes much work about individual choices, good and bad ways of living, and
articulating what may be considered guides to good living on a personal level.  That is, of
course philosophers addressed good and bad values in terms of politics, culture, religion,
and so on, but they also took seriously individual struggles and values involving such
ordinary things as how to eat and how much to eat?  How should you devote your time?
When do you know you have a good friendship or, backing up, what is friendship and its
value?  When is solitude good?  Can fasting be purifying?

Today, some might think of this as a bit too “self-helpy.” but while the commercial practice
of offering lots of advice to others on how to identify your goals and achieve them (from
getting the “right” person to fall in love with you to making a fortune), it should not be
forgotten that much of philosophy did address persons’ ordinary practices and life choices.
To take a few examples from the ancients to the present: the following philosophers wrote
books on personal well being and how to achieve it (including how much, if any alcohol it is
healthy to consume): Cicero, Erasmus, Iris Murdoch, Robert Nozick.

What do you think?  What about cases in which you might think of your action as personal,
but are unsure whether this is the case?  Imagine you are an American in Vietnam, and are
acting rudely at a market place.  Is that an entirely personal matter, or are you (whether you
like it or not) representing America?

Regarding rudeness in general, philosophers have differed on such matters.  Hobbes

thought acting politely was a matter of what he called “small morals.”  They concern an
independent domain in which we decide (for the sake of efficiency and getting along) to
show a certain amount of cordiality.  But other thinkers, especially those inclined to
religious ethics, believe that what we do in such cases can often reveal truths about our
overall virtues and vices.  G.K. Chesterton thought that being nice to one another, at best,
“is a shadow or reflection of great virtue.”  What do you think?
What is it that reveals your true, inner values the most?  Some propose that your values are
most deeply revealed in terms of what you do economically.  Others disagree: you may have
values you cannot afford.  They propose that your real values lie in how you vote.  What is
your view?

Some persons will put aside their principles for the sake of being good guests.  Thus, the
Dalai Lama (who now actually needs to eat some meat for health reasons) in the past would
put aside his vegetarianism if he was a guest and was served meat.  Is that admirable?

Does friendship involve duties?  Could you be good friends with someone who is cruel and
self-destructive?

How do you know when you are in love?

Professional ethics
Professional ethics is aprehistoricperception that dates back to the days of Earliest Greece
and the Roman Empire. Professional ethics and codes of conduct first performed in the
Hippocratic Oath, which established a series of laws, or professional ethics, for people
working in the field of medicine. Many other notable fields also have a code of ethics for
professionals, including law and finance.

Professional ethics are planned to startaundevelopedcustom in which affected individuals

are estimated to associate and interact with one another. This establishes a base level of
acceptable behaviour that is designed to make human communications go smoothly.

There are a number of professional compulsions that each individual must observe to in
order to ensure that his or her behaviour is considered proper and suitable in the
workplace. Scrupulousness, respect for others (whether it's supervisors, subordinates,
patients or clients), hard work (in other words, carrying one's weight in a corporate or
business setting to be part of a team) and confidentiality are considered to be the pillars of
professional ethics.

Moreover, in many states, professionals are expected to abide by the simple saying of "do
no harm." This applies to all work situations, and it holds true for people regardless of how
long they've been working and whether or not they enjoy their jobs. The principle behind
this value is that, through their work, people have a duty to help make the world a better
place.

In accumulation to wide-ranging philosophical and industry strategies and standards for

ethical presentation, many individual companies and establishments have their own set of
ethics codes for employees of all levels to follow. These codes establish ethical behaviour
that is intended to make the workplace a happier, healthier and more productive place.
Ethic codes are based on the same principles of valuing others' opinions, treating others in
the workforce with kindness and respect and abiding by personal ethics of honesty, integrity
and hard work. Company ethics are also intended to bestow certain responsibilities on
individuals to ensure that they are carrying their weight in the workplace. Corporate ethics,
like industry ethics, also have consequences for those who do not abide by the code of
ethics. The ramifications for violating an ethical code can be minor, such as just a verbal
warning, or more severe, such as the loss of a job or even punishment, such as jail time or a
fine. Examples of violating or not abiding by an ethical code are gross negligence, which is
failing to deliver a minimally acceptable level of standard care, and unhurried wrongdoing,
which is when a qualifiedpurposefully causes harm to a patient or co-operative. [3]

THINKING ON ETHICS
  MAHATMA GANDHI

Mahatma Gandhi is universally accepted as an exemplary model of ethical and moral life,
with a rare blending of personal and public life, the principles and practices, the immediate
and the eternal. He considered life to be an integrated whole, growing from ‘truth to truth’
every day in moral and spiritual status.
He believed in a single standard of conduct founded on dharma of truth and nonviolence.
He successfully led nonviolent struggles against racial discrimination, colonial rule, economic
and social exploitation and moral degradation. So long as these manifestations of violence
remain, Gandhi will remain relevant. Gandhi was “a good man in a world where few resist
the corroding influence of power, wealth and vanity”.
Among the vital messages of Gandhi’s leadership are: even one person can make a
difference; strength comes not from physical capacity but from an indomitable will; given a
just cause, nonviolence and capacity for self-suffering, and fearlessness, victory is certain;
leadership by example is the one most effective. He asserted: “We only wish to serve our
fellowmen wherever we may be….”
Considering Gandhi’s unique and multi-faceted leadership, an attempt has been made to
study his leadership under three main headings:
Ethico-social Parameters of Gandhian Leadership;
Gandhian Leadership – The Vision and the Way; and
Gandhian Political-Economic-Social Order.

Ethico-Social Parameters

Gandhi spoke in a low tone and was a hesitant public speaker. Yet people of all classes were
drawn to him and instinctively felt him to be a leader of deeply spiritual and moral
perceptions, which he sought to realize through the pursuit of Truth. Over 54 years of
Gandhi’s public life were lived as an open book. He lived in South Africa for 21 years and
then in India from 1915. All through his life he remained a seeker after Truth.
A central quality of his leadership was its natural evolution through intense interaction with
the people and the events. He was acutely conscious of his own imperfections. “One great
reason for the misunderstanding lies in my being considered almost a perfect man…..I am
painfully conscious of my imperfections, and therein lies all the strength I posses, because it
is a rare thing for a man to know his own limitations” (CWMG 21:457-9). The more he
realized about human fallibility, the more he tried to evolve morally and spiritually. When
nothing else availed, he would seek refuge in God and yet carry on.
Gandhi single-handedly made nonviolence a universal substitute for violence and the bed-
rock of his leadership. His nonviolence was the way to counter injustice and exploitation,
and not run away from a righteous battle. He associated the qualities of humility,
compassion, forgiveness and tolerance as corollaries of nonviolence. Humility, to him, is “an
indispensable test of ahimsa. In one who has ahimsa in him it becomes part of his very
nature,” and, it must not be “confounded with mere manners or etiquette,” but it “should
make the possessor realize that he is as nothing”
To Gandhi the spirit of service and sacrifice was the key to leadership. For the spirit of
service to materialize we must lay stress on our responsibilities and duties and not on rights.
He illustrated it through the example of “concentric circles”: one starts with service of those
nearest to one and expands the circle of service until it covers the universe, no circle
thriving at the cost of the circles beyond. Service to him implied self-sacrifice. He said:
“Sacrifice is the law of life. It runs through and governs every walk of life. We can do nothing
or get nothing without paying a price for it….in other words, without sacrifice”

The commitment to service, however demands a strong sense of conscience (moral

imperative), courage (fearlessness, bravery, initiative), and character (integrity). To
Mahatma Gandhi, ‘inner voice’ was synonymous with conscience. Leaders need to develop
and follow their conscience even more than ordinary people as they set the path for others.
Hence, he wrote: “None of us, especially no leader should allow himself to disobey the inner
voice in the face of pressure from outside. Any leader who succumbs in this way forfeits his
right of leadership
For a leader to follow the right path requires courage and its associated qualities: “Courage,
endurance and above all, fearlessness and spirit of willing sacrifices are the qualities that are
required today in India for leadership”

Gandhi in his time wielded more power over the minds of people than any other individual
but it was not the power of weapons, or terror, or violence; it was the power of his
convictions, his pursuit of truth and nonviolence, fearlessness, love and justice, working
through incessant service and sacrifice for fellow human beings. His power came from
empowering the weak, to lead the masses in the fight against injustice, exploitation,
violence and discrimination. Satyagraha elevated the struggle for survival to the highest
moral-spiritual levels and ordinary, emaciated people turned heroes. His power arose
through the people whom he gave a sense of self-respect, purpose and moral strength.
We may thus conclude that Gandhi’s leadership was a running ethical lesson to his followers
as well as his opponents on ‘how to live’. An outline of the basic ethical tenets of Gandhian
leadership, proceeding from the eternal verities towards the more applied principles of
conduct are given below:

1. Truth
2. Nonviolence
3. Right Means and Right Ends
4. Primacy of Duties over Right
5. The Deed, not the Doer
6. True Religion (Universality and Brotherhood)
7. Aparigraha or Non-possession (voluntary Poverty)
8. Yajna (Sacrifice and Service)
9. Satyagraha or Nonviolent Conflict Resolution

 RABINDRANATH TAGORE
Rabindranath Tagore had vast knowledge and there was perhaps no aspect of Indian
life which escaped his searching eyes. He was a novelist, dramatist, educationist,
penetrating social reformer and politician and gave his views about all that which
concerned India.
Spiritual Humanism
The centre of Tagore’s philosophy was man of god. Even his concept of God was
influenced by the humanism inherent in his outlook. The supreme reality thus
according to Tagore, essentially human and could be realised only through love of
man. Love of God was thus translated into love of human. Tagore in fact sought the
origin of spiritual aspirations and the concept of god in the spirit of the unity
expressed by the primitive man. In a discussion with Einstein, Tagore said, if there is
any truth absolutely unrelated to humanity then for us it is absolutely non-existing.
Tagore thus firmly believed that truth could be realised only in human society .
His political ideas
Politically Tagore believed that each nation and individual must have certain rights
and through those rights he should be in a position to ‘his personality. At the same
time he stressed people should have power and strength enough to realise their
rights as without that strength it was impossible to retain rights even if extended by
the rulers. He also stood for the individuals saying that States existed for the
individual and its activities should aim at giving maximum freedom for attaining that
liberty. He couldn’t reconcile himself with the then prevailing trend of british rule
which was impersonal in character and which denied freedom, spiritual, economic and
political, to the vast majority of the Indians. According to him freedom could be
possible by adopting the policy of decentralisation of authority and giving, more
powers to local self-government institutions.
His social ideas
Socially, Tagore believed that Indian society has very much degenerated mostly
because of the policy of our social rulers who didn’t care to preserve our social
institutions and allowed them to degenerate. He felt that social and political
institutions should go side by side. He had faith in social solidarity and belief in
ancient Indian culture and civilization. According to him political life was only a
specialised aspect of social life and both could not be separated from each other. He
quoted from Indian history that India always represented the synthesis of various
philosophies and was very much broad-based. Therefore he believed that
constructive efforts should be made to revive our ancient Indian culture.
His idea about education
He was educationally a revolutionary and strongly believed that there should be a
system of education suited to India. It should be the system in which the cultures of
east and the west should unite and where there should be a platform for
understanding each other. In the words of G. Ramchandran, “Gurudev never accepted
that the object of education was simply the accumulation of knowledge. He
unhesitatingly proclaimed that education should give alround human personality in
which the physical, the intellectual, the aesthetic and spiritual growth would be
harmonised into one integral process. He, therefore, emphasised freedom and joy as
of basic importance in the education of boys and girls. This meant elimination of
physical punishment, examination and therefore of fear and everything humiliating
restriction from Shanti Niketan system rather pattern of education”.

 AUROBINDO GOSH

The criterion of social development, according to most of the Western social philosophers,
is the moral progress in the individuals and society. Thus ethics has been considered as the
most potent method of social development.

The basic fallacy:

The basic fallacy underlying the different theories of ethics is the same as it is in the theories
of psychology, metaphysics and religion all these are vitiated by the defect of abstraction.

Theories of ethics, psychology and metaphysics have been generally built upon the truths of
some one aspect of man’s being, on the truth of the individual, in isolation from society and
vice versa, and on similar other abstractions.

But as Sri Aurobindo points out, “The ethical being escapes from all these formulas; it is a
law to itself and finds its principle in its own eternal nature which is not in its essential
character a growth of evolving mind, even though it may seem to be that in its earthly
history, but a light from the ideal, a reflection in man of the Divine.”

Morality, religion, science, metaphysics, all should seek the development of the whole man,
not isolated from but in and through society. This is the aim of all the efforts of man .

Ethics: A means to God realization

Kant preached “Duty for the sake of Duty.” Sri Aurobindo like the author of Gita, accepts
Duty for the sake of God. He interprets the central teaching of the Gita in a way different
from that of Samkara, Ramanuja and Tilak, etc.

To him, “The Gita does not teach the disinterested performance of duties but the following
of the divine life, the abandonment of all Dharmas, sarvadharman, to take refuge in the
Supreme alone, and the divine activity of a Buddha, a Rama Krishna, a Vivekananda is
perfectly in consonance with this teaching.
Thus, like the Gita, Sri Aurobindo strongly emphasizes the value of Kanna in life. There he
agrees with Tilak, his closest associate in political activities. But he does not admit Kanna as
an end in itself. The ideal man of Sri Aurobindo’s moral philosophy works neither for himself
nor for society, nor event for Duty itself but for God, as an instrument hi His hand.

It is a state higher than the ideal in Kantian ethics. ‘Duty for Duty’ is the highest principle
and categorical imperative, so long as ethical being has not advanced from his mental level.
But as the man transcends mental level, his performance of works becomes an outgrowing
from the soul.

Self-Sacrifice
This transvaluation of values, this realization of the real self, requires self-sacrifice as its
necessary condition. So long as man identifies himself with the physical and vital needs,
impulses and desires, he lives as an animal. Moral progress requires growth from this lower
stage. This growth means a constant widening and deepening of the concept of self.

This requires constant self sacrifice, which according to Sri Aurobindo, “is the flowering of
mankind’s ethical growth, the evidence of our gradual rise from the self-regarding animal to
the selfless divinity. This evolution, like all integral growth, is a gradual process. The notion
of the self is gradually widened and deepened in spiritual growth.

Thus, first the egoistic individual self widens to include the welfare of the family as one’s
own welfare, in the second stage, it is realized that the community has a larger claim on
man than his family. This communal self is again enlarged to include the self in nature. This
nationalism has been held in great reverence in the present age.

It is sometimes thought to require the highest self-sacrifice. But the progressive ethical
being, realizes that even this self should be enlarged to include the whole humanity. This
has been considered the highest realization of self in most ethical theories of self-
realization.

Sri Aurobindo points to the need of a still wider and deeper enlargement of self, the
realization of the Divine Self, individual, universal and transcendent All lesser selves should
be sacrificed for this highest one. This is the true and whole meaning of self-realization in
the moral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo.

Freedom of will
Nor is rebirth a moral necessity. Thus, of the three postulates of ethics, as laid down by
Kant, Sri Aurobindo only admits freedom of the will. He says, “It is doubtful whether belief in
Fate or free-will makes much difference to a man’s action, but it certainly matters a great
deal to his temperament and inner being; for it puts its stamp on the cast of his soul.”
Thus, freedom of the will is the foundation of ethics. This idea of freedom of the will, hi Sri
Aurobindo’s ethics, is the same as it is in the ethics of the Gita. Freedom of the will is not
indeterminism but self-determinism and ultimately God-determinism, as self is God.

This idea bridges the gulf between man and Nature, between freedom of the will and fate. It
steers clear of the old controversy of freedom versus determinism.

As Sri Aurobindo says, “There is a Will or Force in the world which determines the result of
my actions as part of the great whole; there is a Will that determines, concealed by my
thought and personal choice, the part that I shall take in determining the whole.

It is this that my mind seizes on and calls my will. But I and mine are masks. It is All-Existence
that gives me my reality; it is the All-will and All-knowledge that while I calculate, works in
me for its own incalculable purpose. For this very reason, I am right in laying stress on my
freewill.”

This is the secret of all conduct, all delight in work. Man is the instrument; his social self, the
actor but his device self is the real master of the work. To be that is the consummation of all
moral conduct.

Morality of Swadeshi
Long before Gandhi appeared on the Indian political scene, Sri Aurobindo led the national
movement and advocated Swadeshi. Swadeshi, he pleaded is fully justified politically and
morally. According to him politics, law and government is an interference with personal
liberty necessary in the larger interest of the collectivity.

Society has a right to interfere in the personal liberty of men when it tends to injure the
interests of the race. Thus, the imposition of the law of the Swadeshi on the individuals is
fully justified. Boycott is the negative aspect of the rule of which the Swadeshi is the positive
aspect Just as a nation has a right to complete its members to use the Swadeshi, so also it
can boycott the foreign goods.
  SOCRATES
Ethics are the norms by which acceptable and unacceptable behavior are
measured. According to the beliefs of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, one
develops ethics through maturity, wisdom and love. Socrates introduced the
concept of teaching ethics and acceptable standards of conduct in 400 B.C. and has
had a profound and lasting impact on the course of Western philosophy and
history ever since. He believed virtue was found primarily in human relationships,
love and friendship, not through material gains .

Human Realm
Socrates was the first person to give a practical and political focus to philosophy
and ethics. Before Socrates, philosophy had focused primarily on questions of
metaphysics, religion and science. The abstract, theoretical streak in philosophy
has persisted even until today, but Socrates was the first philosopher to assert that
the human realm was the proper focus of philosophical inquiry. Socrates believed,
to the contrary of many around him, that the most pertinent questions that
philosophy had to deal with related to how people should live their lives, what
kinds of actions were righteous, and how people should live together in
communities and states.

Dialogue
Socrates essentially invented a new mode of investigation to define virtuous and
ethical behavior. He believed that the best way to find knowledge, and one of the
important components of being a good, ethical citizen, was to have meaningful
conversations with people about basic principles. He is known for his presence in
the marketplace where he engaged in long conversations with ordinary citizens
about ideas like justice, righteousness and virtue. This method is known as the
dialectic, and it is the first instance in which philosophical inquiry was performed
by conversation rather than by solitary contemplation. Through his interactions
with his fellow citizens and the city of Athens, and his influence on his students,
(most notably Aristotle and Plato) the legacy of his thought has formed the basis
for much of modern philosophy, science, ethics, social theory and other fields.

Virtue

Socrates equated knowledge with virtue, which ultimately leads to ethical conduct.
He believed that the only life worth living was one that was rigorously examined.
He looked for principles and actions that were worth living by, creating an ethical
base upon which decisions should be made. Socrates firmly believed that
knowledge and understanding of virtue, or "the good," was suffi cient for someone
to be happy. To him, knowledge of the good was almost akin to an enlightened
state. He believed that no person could willingly choose to do something harmful
or negative if they were fully aware of the value of life.

Inquiry

Socrates was put on trial and found guilty of "corrupting the youth" of Athens by
asking them to question authority. Socrates believed deeply that people should
inquire and ask questions, even about - or perhaps especially about - those things
that everyone takes for granted. He did not believe that judging an action based on
life and death was virtuous. Instead, Socrates taught that decisions should be
made based on what was right or wrong, or good or bad, standards you can
achieve through discussion and moral guidance. His belief in the process of inquiry
was so strong and pure that it got him killed by being forced to drink hemlock.

 SWAMI VIVEKANAND

Ethics, according to Vivekananda, is nothing but anencryption of conduct that helps a man
to be a good voter of the world. The world needs good citizens for the improvement of the
people. Without good citizens, no system, social or practical can functions in right ways. All
the systems are developed to offer better conditions for people who want to manifest
their inner qualities to get the chance to realize their real nature.

According to SwamiJI, ―The basis of all systems social or political rests upon the goodness
of men. No nation is great or good because parliament enacts this or that, but because its
men are great and good … people often work for the same ends but fail to recognize the
fact. One must admit that law, government, politics are phases not final in any way. There
is a goal beyond them where law is not needed. … All great Masters teach the same thing
Christ saw that the basis is not law, that morality and purity are the only strength.
(Vivekananda S. 2009). They can act only as means, not as ends. End is something more,
that lies beyond these facts. They can help us to reach the goal to some extent. Ethics is
also a mean to reach the goal, but it lies beyond laws. The strength of morality is greater
than those facts. Laws, politics can force a man to act accordingly.
The Aim of Human Beings: There are different attitudes that explain in different ways the
goal of human beings. The materialists will say that a rich life is our goal and we are trying
to apply all out world forces to achieve it. We engage ourselves in doing science to open
the door of our goal. In this way, we are manifesting our animalist. We degrade ourselves
into the level of animals. The goal of human beings is to be a human being. A human being
is nothing but a combination of both virtue and vices. Animalisticand humanity both are
there in human beings. Manifestation of humanity dissociates a man from an animal.
Animal is animal from the very beginning of its life. But a human being should be a man.
The manifestation of animalists is spontaneous. No education, no procedure is required for
the manifestation of animalists. But to manifest humanity a human being should have to
go through the process of education, through the process of socialization. Human beings
have goals in their lives, i.e. to manifest humanity.

Ethics as a Means: From the very beginning of the human society some ethical, social, and
political codes are there to pave the way for the manifestation of humanity for the
betterment of the society. Among all these codes, it is accepted that the codes of ethics
are the basis of all. So, ethics has a profound role to play for the society. All the ethical
codes are always trying to help a human being to be a human being from its end. But they
have some limitations. ‗Do not steal ‘, ‗Do not tell a lie ‘,- such types of ethical codes are
there from the beginning of the society. But they do not tell the cause behind such codes.
Not only that, they do not tell the process not to be a thief, not to be a liar. That is why;
they are not able to show the right path to be a human being. All the ethical codes remain
only as theories. Theory without practice is nothing but a culmination of good words and
that is the reality of all the ethical theories preached from time immemorial. According to
Swami Vivekananda, the goal of all nature is freedom, and freedom is to be attained only
by perfect unselfishness; every thought, word, or deed that is unselfish takes us towards
the goal, and, as such, is called moral. (Vivekananda S. 2007).
the other hand, the concept of ethics of Swamiji always tries to destroy the so called
separation between man and man. To Vivekananda, the extreme self-abnegation is the
centre of all morality. ― I am the universe; this universe is one is the main theme of
Swamiji‘s ethical thought. Swamiji says, ―Why should I do good to others? What compels
me? It is sympathy the feeling of sameness everywhere. (Vivekananda S. 2007). So, there
is an interaction among all the people of the earth, i.e. the feeling oneness. Again Swamiji
says, ―Ethics is unity its basic is love. It will not look at variation. The one aim of ethics is
this unity, this sameness. The highest ethical codes that mankind has discovered up to the
present time know no variation; they have no time to stop to look into it; there are end is to
make for that sameness…‖ (Vivekananda S. 2007).

Utilitarianism and Swamiji: At the time of explaining ethics Swamiji shows the limitations of
utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper cause of action is
one that maximizes a positive effect, such as happiness, welfare or the ability to live
according to personal preferences (Vivekananda S. 2009).
 According to Swamiji the utilitarOian wants us to give up the struggle after the Infinite, the
reaching out of the super-sensuous, as it is impractical and absurd. That is why they cannot
explain the ethical relation of men. It should be kept in mind that ethical laws cannot be
derived from the considerations of utility. Without anticipation of super-sensuous ethics is
not possible. He says, ― Any system that wants to bind men down to the limits of their
own societies is not able to find on explanation for the ethical laws of mankind.
(Vivekananda S. 2007). Again Swamiji says that doing good to others is a good thing but
that is not the primary aim of ethics. To him, ―Doing good is a secondary consideration.
We must have an ideal. Ethics itself is not the end, but the means to the end. If the end is
not there, why should we be ethical? Why should I do good to other men, and not injure
them? If happiness is the good of mankind, why should I not make myself happy and other
unhappy? What prevents me? (Vivekananda S. 2007). Of course there are some external
conditions laid down by the utilitarian but they are not sufficient. No external conditions
can help a man to realize his oneness. So, it can be said that utilitarian theory has some
limitations.
Traditional western Ethics and Swamiji: The ethical concept of Swami Vivekananda also
differs from the traditional western ethics in respect of treating human beings. All the
ethical concepts, except Vivekananda’s concept, treat human beings as good or bad beings.
Those who follow the ethical conducts are good or just persons and others are not. There is
respect for the good, and hatred for the bad. On the other hand, there is respect for
everyone in Swamiji‘s concept of ethics. To Swamiji, there is nothing to be a proud being
who are just and an unjust person has nothing to be ashamed. He treats both of them as
Christ. The salutation of Swamiji goes to everyone.
REFERENCES:
1

9 SANGEETA DE, “Swami Vivekananda’s Thoughts on Ethics,” International Journal of

Research on Social and Natural Sciences