Classic tensions in moral reasoning

The first principle

Moral reasoning keeps returning to a few pairs of ideas that pull against each other: the gut and the head, the means and the end, the rule and its purpose, the fixed principle and the changing context, and what we may do and what we should do. Neither side of any pair is simply right. Good judgement comes from knowing what each side protects, and refusing to let either one swallow the other.

The core

• Moral intuition and moral reasoning. Intuition is the immediate sense that something is right or wrong, felt before any argument, as when we recoil at cruelty to a child. Reasoning is the slower work of testing that feeling against principles and evidence, and it can confirm the intuition or expose it as prejudice.
• Means and ends. One view holds that a good enough end justifies any means, and the other that some means are never allowed. Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj (1909) that "the means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree", meaning that foul means grow into a foul result.
• Form and substance. Form is the procedure and the letter of a rule, and substance is the purpose it serves. Form protects against arbitrariness, but form without substance becomes red tape.
• The right to do and the right thing to do. A legal right tells us what we may do without punishment. Ethics asks the further question of whether doing it, here and now, is right.

Dimensions

• Psychological: intuitions carry the biases of upbringing, so a feeling of disgust is not in itself proof of wrongdoing. Reasoning is needed to separate a moral alarm from a social prejudice.
• Administrative: the pressure for results tempts officers to cut corners, as in fake encounters or coerced confessions. The means then destroy the very rule of law the end was meant to serve.
• Legal: Indian law protects both form and substance, since a decision must follow the procedure and the procedure itself must be fair.

In practice

• Form joined to substance: in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, not merely laid down by law.
• Is justice contextual? The principle of equal dignity does not change, but our understanding of whom it covers does. Practices once defended as custom, such as sati and the bar on widow remarriage, came to be seen as unjust and were ended by law.
• The same court, two answers: the Supreme Court upheld section 377 in Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) and overruled that decision in Navtej Singh Johar (2018). Shayara Bano (2017) set aside instant triple talaq. Each time, an old principle of dignity was applied to people it had earlier left out.

Issues and way forward

• "Context" can excuse injustice. If justice were wholly relative, nothing could ever be called unjust, including the practices reformers ended. The answer is to hold principles fixed and keep reviewing how they apply, which is the work of periodic review of laws by bodies such as the Law Commission.
• Rights are exercised without restraint, as in lawful but inflammatory speech or a lawful transfer used as punishment. Codes of conduct and the habit of asking "should I?" after "may I?" fill the gap the law leaves.
• Results based pressure rewards foul means. Judging officers on how a target was met, and not only on whether it was met, protects the means.

Common confusions

• Intuition and instinct. Instinct is an unlearned drive such as fear. Moral intuition is a learned judgement that feels immediate, which is why it can be retrained.
• Contextual justice and relativism. Contextual justice says the same principle applies differently as facts change. Relativism says there is no common principle at all.
• Form and formality. Form is a necessary safeguard such as a hearing or a written order. Formality is form kept after it has stopped serving any purpose.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: moral intuition, moral reasoning, prejudice, means and ends, purity of means, form and substance, fair just and reasonable procedure, contextual justice, evolving standards, moral progress, legal right, right action, permission and approval.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Introduction lines:
  • In Maneka Gandhi (1978), the Supreme Court held that a procedure must itself be fair, just and reasonable, joining form to substance in Indian law.
  • Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj that the means are like a seed and the end like a tree, so a just end cannot grow from unjust means.
• Conclusion lines:
  • Each tension is resolved not by choosing one side but by letting each check the other, intuition by reason and form by purpose.
  • Principles of justice stay constant while their reach widens, and that widening is what we call moral progress.