Question : Does accountability necessarily contribute to moral perfection? Offer your views.
(2010)
Answer : Personal development starts with accountability given that accountability is the Cornerstone of personal development. Personal development or better to say moral perfection as the name implies means to grow as a human being to step into your greater self. A key component to personal development is accountability. Until there is accountability there is no true and lasting opportunity to grow as a person. None of us grow in isolation. We grow by our interactions and our relationships with others. It is our accountability that develops our leadership and gains the trust of others. Accountability is showing up and keeping our commitments. Part of the phrase of accountability is dependability. When we are accountable we are dependable. Others can depend on me because we are accountable. Honesty is an essential component of accountability which leads to moral perfection. Accountability relies on honesty in our affairs with others. If we commit to certain actions in regards to my interactions with others we show up in every sense of the word. Honesty and follow through is the fabric our all our interactions. Accountability for us starts with taking 100% responsibility for our life and our actions. Only when we take full ownership of our life that we have the opportunity to be truly accountable. Accountability implies taking responsibility for our actions and fully showing up to our commitments. If we fail to be accountable in a particular circumstance it is just as important to take responsibility for our missteps and make it right. Think about it without accountability there would be no ability to create anything of great consequence. Our society as a whole would fall apart.Every aspect of our lives from our jobs, businesses, families rely on accountability. Accountability starts with being accountable to ourselves. These entire things lead to moral perfection as they go by the ethical norms of our society. And this is all possible we are accountable to what we are supposed to do. Morality emerges in society we live in. It shapes our relationships with the other members of our society. In fact it is a regulatory mechanism which is possible only if we are accountable to our duties towards ourselves as well the society. If we obey these rules it will generate virtues in our conducts and ultimately help make us a complete and true human being full of moral values.
Question : “Rights and duties are complementary.” Explain.
(2009)
Answer : Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states. Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Duty is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest. Cicero is an early philosopher who acknowledged this possibility. He discusses duty in his work “On Duty.” He suggests that duties can come from four different sources:
Rights and duties are complementary concepts, when there is a concrete right of somebody then there must be a concrete duty of some persons matching to this right. In the literature, positive and negative rights are discriminated. In the case of negative rights, there are complementary negative duties regarding everybody. For example, the right to life requires that it is our duty not to kill any person who has the right to live. Concerning positive rights there are complementary positive duties regarding some people, for example someone’s right to medical treatment requires complementary duties of doctors and nurses to treat the patient. The other basic distinction lies between instrumental vs moral rights.
The difference between instrumental and moral-restrictive rights is based on the way of justification of the rights. In the case of instrumental rights the moral principle with which we would like to justify the right put on an aim, and the right is introduced as the powerful instrument to realize this aim, for example the right to property was justified this way by the utilitarian. Talking about moral-restrictive rights, first, we refer to a distinctive ethical quality of the subject of law, and, second, we mark the upper limit of the permissible instruments against the subject of the law, fix the minimal moral standard of admissible treatment. It is worth mentioning that the same right could be justified with moral-restrictive and instrumental premises, too. Human rights are moral rights, and the distinctive ethical quality which deserves respect is related to the fact, that the subject of law is a human being. Human rights are changing, they depend on time and place, and their range is gradually broadening.
Question : Is Theocracy an outdated ideology? Discuss.
(2009)
Answer : Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In Common Greek, “theocracy” means a rule by God. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held “By the Grace of God”. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Iran’s government is described as a “theocratic republic”. Iran’s head of state, or Supreme Leader, is an Islamic cleric appointed for life by an elected body called Assembly of Experts. The Coucil of Guardians, considered part of the executive branch of government, is responsible for determining if legislation is in line with Islamic law and customs (the Sharia), and can bar candidates from elections or ban investigations into the election process. Following the unification of Italy, The Holy See (commonly known as the Vatican or Vatican City) became the last surviving territory of the former Papal States. In 1929, the Holy See was formally recognized as an independent state through treaties with the Italian government. The head of state of the Vatican is the pope, elected by the College of Cardinals, an assembly of senior Catholic clerics. A pope is elected for life, and voting is limited to cardinals under 80 years of age. A secretary of state, directly responsible for international relations, is appointed by the pope. The Vatican legal system is rooted in Canon Law, and subject to the dictates of the pope and changes to Canon Law made by conferences of senior clergy. But on the whole the idea of theocracy is not widely appreciated world over.
Question : Comment on the relationship between Equality and Freedom.
(2009)
Answer : The terms “equality” “equal,” and “equally” signify a qualitative relationship. ‘Equality’ (or ‘equal’) signifies correspondence between groups of different objects, persons, processes or circumstances that have the same qualities in at least one respect, but not all respects, i.e., regarding one specific feature, with differences in other features. Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. From a philosophical point of view, it can be defined as the capacity to determine your own choices. It can be defined negatively as an absence of subordination, servitude and constraint.
The notions of freedom and equality in a group are precisely defined in terms of individual exertions of influence or power. Freedom is discussed in the version ‘freedom from’ influence rather than in the version ‘freedom to do’ what one wants. It is shown that at the ideal conceptual level complete freedom implies equality. Given the plausibility of the definitions this shows that political ‘folk rhetoric’ in which freedom and equality often are put in opposition is misled and misleading. Quantitative notions of ‘more freedom’ and ‘more equality’ are introduced and shown to be independent of each other. The bearing of these conceptual exercises on the comparison of political systems is discussed.
The condition of ‘more freedom’ on this account is directly linked to the presence or absence of power relations. An increase of freedom by the above definition implies that less exertions of power are made: ‘more freedom implies less exertion of power’. On the other hand, equality may vary without any change in the numbers of exertions of power, for instance, by mere ‘redistribution’ of such exertions in the population. Moreover, the quantitative notions of freedom and equality are independent of each other. This can be shown by logical comparison, and by showing that under fixed, hypothetical conditions, a variation in one dimension is compatible with no variation in the other. For instance, if freedom increases the degree of equality may remain unchanged. In particular this shows that freedom and equality even if both are defined in terms of power yield different criteria for the ranking of political systems. The fact that both these notions can be defined in terms of power does not imply that the comparison of political systems in these two dimensions can be ‘reduced’ to one, more basic criterion formulated in terms of exertions of power.Question : Do rights necessarily imply corresponding obligations? To whom does one primarily own obligations-individuals or State?
(2008)
Answer : Rights are entitlements not to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states. Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done. The major contemporary philosophical approaches to the justification of rights are compared, and the entry concludes by surveying criticisms of rights and “rights talk.” The focus throughout is on theoretical questions concerning rights in general instead of on any particular controversial right.
On the other hand one of the basic criteria for judging ethical conduct, obligation informs human behavior or the state. Along with ideals and consequences, obligations characterize or describe the bounds of conduct. We are bound to act and bounded to acts. When we attribute obligations to our actions, we recognize our personal responsibility; and, in doing so, bind ourselves toward, before, against, on, about, over, and to others. All human behavior indicates obligations, and most obligations occur directly and indirectly in relationship to and with others. Formal obligations, such as our laws, inform humans of unacceptable conduct, but obligations extend far beyond the scope of punitive law.
Positive obligations in human rights law denote a State’s obligation to engage in an activity to secure the effective enjoyment of a fundamental right, as opposed to the classical negative obligation to merely abstain from human rights violations. Classical human rights, such as the right to life or freedom of expression, are formulated or understood as prohibitions for the State to act in a way that would violate these rights. Thus, they would imply an obligation for the State not to kill, or an obligation for the State not to impose press censorship.
Modern or social rights, on the other hand, imply an obligation for the State to become active, such as to secure individuals’ rights to education or employment by building schools and maintaining a healthy economy. Such social rights are generally more difficult to enforce. Positive obligations transpose the concept of State obligations to become active into the field of classical human rights. Thus, in order to secure an individual’s right to family life, the State may not only be obliged to refrain from interference therein, but positively to facilitate for example family reunions or parents’ access to their children. Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. Rights are of vital importance in theories of justice and deontological ethics.
The contemporary notion of rights is universals and egalitarian. Equal rights are granted to all people. By contrast, most historical notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings to hold absolute power over their subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves. Conversely, modern conceptions of rights often emphasize liberty as among the most important of rights, though conceptions of liberty (e.g. positive vs negative) frequently differ.
The specific enumeration of rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly across space and time, and in many cases, the view of rights held by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict with the view of rights held by another group. At present the question of who has what rights is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations (in the case of legal rights) or a particular philosophical theory (in the case of natural rights). There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified.
Natural Rights and Legal Rights: It also entails some obligation on the part of an individual. Rights may be considered to be either of a purely moral or ethical character (as in the idea of natural rights, which holds that we obtain certain rights from nature that cannot be modified by legislative authority), or they may be considered to be of an artificial, man-made character (as in the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change). Moreover an individual has to take care of others and their natural and moral rights too.
Claim Rights and Riberty Rights: A liberty right grants permission, whereas a claim right grants an entitlement. Claim rights, as entitlements, entail constraints and obligations upon the actions of other individuals or groups (e.g. if a person has a right to life, others cannot have the liberty to kill that person). Liberty rights, as permissions, are also known simply as liberties, but are still frequently referred to as rights (e.g. “I have a right to do x” often means “I am permitted to do x”), though some deny that such usage is proper. This is what we can say a kind of obligation which an individual is supposed to pursue.
Negative Rights and Positive Rights: Negative rights require inaction from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements), or permit inaction from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions). Conversely, positive rights require action from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements) or permit action from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions).
Individual Rights and Group Rights: Individual rights are rights pertaining to individuals, regardless of their membership within a group. Group rights are held by an ensemble of people collectively, or by the members of a group of people who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between individual suits and Class-action lawsuits.Question : State is the ‘actuality of concrete freedom’.
(2005)
Answer : The Hegel’s statement wants to convey that the state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state. The state in and by itself is the ethical whole, the actualization of freedom; and it is an absolute end of reason that freedom should be actual. The state is mind on earth and consciously realizing itself there. In nature, on the other hand, mind actualizes itself only as its own other, as mind asleep.
Only when it is present in consciousness, when it knows itself as a really existent object, is it the state. In considering freedom, the starting-point must be not individuality, the single self-consciousness, but only the essence of self-consciousness; for whether man knows it or not, this essence is externally realized as a self-subsistent power in which single individuals are only moments. The march of God in the world that is what the state is. The basis of the state is the power of reason actualizing itself as will. In considering the Idea of the state, we must not have our eyes on particular states or on particular institutions. Instead we must consider the Idea, this actual God, by itself. On some principle or other, any state may be shown to be bad, this or that defect may be found in it; and yet, at any rate if one of the mature states of our epoch is in question, it has in it the moment essential to the existence of the state. But since it is easier to find defects than to understand the affirmative, we may readily fall into the mistake of looking at isolated aspects of the state and so forgetting its inward organic life. The state is no ideal work of art; it stands on earth and so in the sphere of caprice, chance, and error, and bad behaviour may disfigure it in many respects. But the ugliest of men, or a criminal, or an invalid, or a cripple, is still always a living man. The affirmative, life, subsists despite his defects, and it is this affirmative factor which is our theme here.
Question : Are the claims of the State and the Individual really mutually conflicting? Discuss.
(2000)
Answer : Individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an “individual”. The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.
The State, with its functions and powers, has been the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship - monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian - the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today? In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship? In other words individual has always been looking for the freedom he requires. This is where the possibility of conflict arises between the individual and the state.
Freedom, or the idea of being free, is a broad concept that has been given numerous interpretations by philosophies and schools of thought. The protection of interpersonal freedom can be the object of a social and political investigation, while the metaphysical foundation of inner freedom is a philosophical and psychological question. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin drew an important distinction between “freedom from” (negative freedom) and “freedom to” (positive freedom). For example, freedom from oppression and freedom to develop one’s potential. Both these types of freedom are in fact reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom as the absence of restraint means unwilling to subjugate, lacking submission, or without forceful inequality. The achievement of this form of freedom depends upon a combination of the resistance of the individual (or group) and one’s (their) environment; if one is in jail or even limited by a lack of resources, this person is free within their power and environment, but not free to defy reality. Natural laws restrict this form of freedom; for instance, no one is free to fly (though we may or may not be free to attempt to do so). Isaiah Berlin appears to call this kind of freedom “negative freedom” — an absence of obstacles put in the way of action (especially by other people). He distinguishes this from “positive freedom”, which refers to one’s power to make choices leading to action.
The negative freedom may not be liked by the individual but through this negative freedom an individual is taught to work that may not harm the other members of the society. And more importantly, it’s not that state imposes just negative freedom but provides positive freedom also to the individual that is necessary for an individual to use his potential in right perspective. This positive freedom ensures smooth relationship between the state and the individual. Freedom can also signify inner autonomy, or mastery over one’s inner condition. This has several possible significances:
Especially spiritually-oriented philosophers have considered freedom to be a positive achievement of human will rather than an inherent state granted at birth. Rudolf Steiner developed a freedom based upon the development of situational-sensitive ethical intuitions: “acting in freedom is acting out of a pure love of the deed as one intuits the moral concept implicit in the deed”. Similarly, E. F. Schumacher held that freedom is an inner condition, and that a human being cannot “have” freedom, but “can make it his aim to become free”. In this sense, freedom may also encompass the peaceful acceptance of reality associated with the state. Thus freedom has not also been used a rallying cry for revolution or rebellion. One might ask, “How is men’s desire for liberty to be reconciled with the need for authority?” Its answer by various thinkers provides a fault line for understanding their view on liberty but also a cluster of intersecting concepts such as authority, equality, and justice.
Hobbes and Locke give two influential and representative solutions to this question. As a starting point, both agree that a line must be drawn and a space sharply delineated where each individual can act unhindered according to their tastes, desires, and inclinations. This zone defines the sacrosanct space of personal liberty. But, they believe no society is possible without some authority, where the intended purpose of authority is to prevent collisions among the different ends and, thereby, to demarcate the boundaries where each person’s zone of liberty begins and ends. Where Hobbes and Locke differ is the extent of the zone. Hobbes, who took a rather negative view of human nature, argued that a strong authority was needed to curb men’s intrinsically wild, savage, and corrupt impulses. Only a powerful authority can keep at bay the permanent and always looming threat of anarchy. Locke believed, on the other hand, that men on the whole are more good than wicked and, accordingly, the area for individual liberty can be left rather at large.
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed may always result in conflict between the state and its subject. But the supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; does not amount to infringe the individual rights if the source of power of the state is none other than people. The power to do everything in a state without accountability, —to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like may go against the will of its people. But this is not always true if the government in the state is democratically elected. Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is “sovereignty.” By “sovereignty” in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. If source of this sovereignty is the people of the state there are a least chances of conflict. Thus the claims of the individual and the state are not always mutually conflicting. Moreover it also depends on the nature of the ruling state.
Question : “We obey the state because in the end it most truly represents ourselves”. Discuss the relation of the individual and the state in the light of the above concept of the state.
(1999)
Answer : The state is by no means a power forced on society from outside; neither is it the realization of the ethical idea, the image and the realization of reason. It is simply a product of society at a certain stage of evolution. It is the confession that this society has become hopelessly divided against itself, has entangled itself in irreconcilable contradictions which it is powerless to banish. In order that these contradictions, these classes with conflicting economic interests, may not annihilate themselves and society in a useless struggle, a power becomes necessary that stands apparently above society and has the function of keeping down the conflicts and maintaining “order”. And this power, the outgrowth of society, but assuming supremacy over it and becoming more and more divorced from it, is the state.
The minds of men are in confusion, for the very foundations of our civilization seem to be tottering. People are losing faith in the existing institutions, and the more intelligent realize that capitalist industrialism is defeating the very purpose it is supposed to serve. The struggle of opposing forces involves social problems urgently demanding a solution. The welfare of the individual and the fate of human society depend on the right answer to those questions. Even today the crisis, unemployment, war, disarmament, international relations, etc., are among those problems. The State, with its functions and powers, has been the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship - monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian - the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today? In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?
For what is civilization in the true sense? All progress has been essentially an enlargement of the liberties of the individual with a corresponding decrease of the authority wielded over him by external forces. This holds good in the realm of physical as well as of political and economic existence. In the physical world man has progressed to the extent in which he has subdued the forces of nature and made them useful to himself. Primitive man made a step on the road to progress when he first produced fire and thus triumphed over darkness, when he chained the wind or harnessed water. What role did the state play in human endeavor for betterment, in invention and discovery? It has always been the cooperation between the individual and the state that has accomplished every miracle in that sphere, usually in spite of the prohibition, persecution and interference. Similarly, in the political sphere, the road of progress lay in this very cooperation. Economically, progress has meant greater well-being of ever larger numbers. Culturally, it has signified the result of all the other achievements - greater independence, political, mental and psychic.
Regarded from this angle, the problems of man’s relation to the State assume an entirely different significance. It is no more a question of whether dictatorship is preferable to democracy, or Italian Fascism superior to Hitlerism. A larger and far more vital question poses itself: Is political government, is the State beneficial to mankind, and how does it affect the individual in the social scheme of things? The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called “society,” or the “nation,” which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress.
Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against “society,” that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man’s greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges in other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind. Individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth.
The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an “individual”. The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole. Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that “rugged individualism” which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire; the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as “education.” That corrupt and perverse “individualism” is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is “the devil take the hindmost.”
This “rugged individualism” has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. “Rugged individualism” has meant all the “individualism” for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking “supermen.” There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities. They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual. Political government and the State were a much later development, growing out of the desire of the stronger to take advantage of the weaker, of the few against the many.
The State, ecclesiastical and secular, served to give an appearance of legality and right to the wrong done by the few to the many. That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called “education,” at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life.
