Core concepts and key terms

The first principle

Most weak answers in this paper fail not for lack of ideas but because the words are used loosely, so that "values", "morals" and "ethics" become interchangeable and a question asking for a distinction gets a description instead. Each key term marks a real difference: who holds the standard, who enforces it, and what follows from breaking it. Learn the terms as a set of contrasts, and the distinctions the examiner asks for become easy to draw.

The core

• Values, morals, norms, ethics and law run from the most personal to the most enforced. A value is what one holds worth having, a moral is one's own sense of right and wrong, a norm is what a group expects, ethics is the reasoned study of all three, and law is the part the state enforces.
• Conscience is the inner faculty that judges one's own conduct, before an act as a guide and after it as guilt or approval. It is trustworthy only when it has been trained by reasons and tested against others' views.
• Rights and duties are two sides of one relation, so that my right to life is your duty not to harm me. Some duties, such as kindness to strangers, have no matching right that anyone can claim.
• Justice means giving each person their due. It takes several forms, from fair shares to fair procedure and repair of harm, shown in the fourth visual.

Dimensions

• Perfect and imperfect duties. Kant distinguished duties that allow no exception, such as not deceiving, from duties that leave us choice about when and whom, such as helping others. Failing a perfect duty wrongs someone, while failing an imperfect duty shows a lack of virtue.
• Duty and charity. Peter Singer argued in 1972 that if we can prevent something very bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it. On this view, giving to relieve severe suffering is a duty, not an optional kindness.

In practice

• Beneficence and paternalism. Beneficence means acting for another's good, and non maleficence means not harming them. Paternalism goes further, overriding a person's choice for their own good, and it is justified only rarely, because it treats an adult like a child.
• Informed consent is the safeguard against paternalism. In medicine it requires that the patient understands the nature, risks and alternatives of a treatment and agrees freely. A doctor who persuades a family so that the patient yields reluctantly has not obtained the patient's own consent.
• Autonomy in Indian law: in Common Cause v Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity and upheld advance directives, which let a person refuse life support in advance.

Issues and way forward

• Knowing is not doing. James Rest's model shows four steps between a situation and a moral act: seeing that it is a moral issue, judging what is right, putting the right first, and acting despite pressure. Most failures happen at the last two.
• Moral courage is the virtue of that last step, doing what is right when it carries a personal cost such as ridicule, transfer or loss. It is built by small acts of honesty in low stakes settings, and by institutions that protect those who speak up.
• Terms are memorised, not applied. A term earns marks only when it settles a point in the answer, so define it in one line and use it at once on the facts.

Common confusions

• Values and virtues. A value is a belief about what matters, and a virtue is a settled habit of acting on it. One can value honesty without yet being honest.
• Beneficence and paternalism. Beneficence is the wish to do good to someone. Paternalism is overriding their choice to do that good, so every act of paternalism claims beneficence, but most beneficence is not paternalism.
• Morals and norms. Morals belong to the person and can oppose the group. Norms belong to the group and can be morally wrong, as caste norms of exclusion were.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: values, morals, norms, ethics, conscience, rights and duties, justice, beneficence, non maleficence, paternalism, autonomy, informed consent, perfect duty, imperfect duty, moral courage.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Introduction lines:
  • In Common Cause (2018), the Supreme Court upheld advance directives, affirming that a person's own informed choice must govern treatment at the end of life.
  • Peter Singer argued in 1972 that preventing grave suffering at little cost to ourselves is a moral duty, not merely an act of charity.
• Conclusion lines:
  • Precise concepts turn a moral feeling into an argument, and an argument is what can be defended.
  • Knowing the right term is the first step, but moral courage is what carries a person from judgement to action.