So In the debate between Parliament VS Judiciary, ie judicial activism or separation of power. In ethics stand can be taken that Democracy ie parliament is vulnerable to populism and irrationality. Democracy has its merit in that it ensures accountability of powerholders, voice to all ie political democracy, breeds Mutual respect, Trust (as here the trusteeship of power is given by the people), Freedom of expression etc.
But also Democracy if not fully established can lead to Confusion, majoritarianism. Hobbes had said that man is essentially selfish and therefore has little capacity for self rule. The dark side of Indian democracy has been put as "buy the people, off the people, far the people "
Plato had criticised democracy ie rule by masses as unworthy and he believed in the philosopher king.
The thing is democracy at time can go astray, particularly in a society whose values and aspirations are changing rapidly. Therefore institution of justice has to intervene in the form of judicial activism to check misuse of power in the name of democracy.
However it must also be noted that the during the emergency when the judiciary too had failed to uphold Habeaus Corpus and FR of citizens it was democracy that had taken roots in the Indian society that saved the day.
Also democracy itself isnt inherently good or bad but the decline or success of democracy reflects our decline and growth respectively.
Now civil service activism / whistle blowing vs resigning and taking action- This fact was recognized by the great minds, such as Socrates, or Plato, who continually repeated that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. Socrates drunk the poison from the goblet rather than allow injustice to prevail. Over here Is KANTIAN Categorical Imperative in play as it ensures that you dont do any injustice to prevent any other injustice. No act of injustice despite good or bad consequences can be allowed. An act is inherently good or bad irrespective of its consequences.
So Socrates death would mean he would no longer be able to help guide the society and injustice may increase, but as far as Socrates is concerned he feels that he won't take to beguiling and cheat to save the society ie He will ask the king to let him live and in return he will stop he teachings, but through subterfuge or deceit or whatever he would continue on his revolutionary activities. Socrates doesn't chose a wrong to do right. He choses righteousness ie Kantian categorical imperative and Dies.
So a civil servant cannot just be inside the system and be a part of something wrong to do right later. He should resign and do NGO work.
Otherwise consequentialism would exonerate him by saying that he actions are moral if they are bringing about eventual good. Utilitarianism bitch.
But also Democracy if not fully established can lead to Confusion, majoritarianism. Hobbes had said that man is essentially selfish and therefore has little capacity for self rule. The dark side of Indian democracy has been put as "buy the people, off the people, far the people "
Plato had criticised democracy ie rule by masses as unworthy and he believed in the philosopher king.
The thing is democracy at time can go astray, particularly in a society whose values and aspirations are changing rapidly. Therefore institution of justice has to intervene in the form of judicial activism to check misuse of power in the name of democracy.
However it must also be noted that the during the emergency when the judiciary too had failed to uphold Habeaus Corpus and FR of citizens it was democracy that had taken roots in the Indian society that saved the day.
Also democracy itself isnt inherently good or bad but the decline or success of democracy reflects our decline and growth respectively.
Now civil service activism / whistle blowing vs resigning and taking action- This fact was recognized by the great minds, such as Socrates, or Plato, who continually repeated that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. Socrates drunk the poison from the goblet rather than allow injustice to prevail. Over here Is KANTIAN Categorical Imperative in play as it ensures that you dont do any injustice to prevent any other injustice. No act of injustice despite good or bad consequences can be allowed. An act is inherently good or bad irrespective of its consequences.
So Socrates death would mean he would no longer be able to help guide the society and injustice may increase, but as far as Socrates is concerned he feels that he won't take to beguiling and cheat to save the society ie He will ask the king to let him live and in return he will stop he teachings, but through subterfuge or deceit or whatever he would continue on his revolutionary activities. Socrates doesn't chose a wrong to do right. He choses righteousness ie Kantian categorical imperative and Dies.
So a civil servant cannot just be inside the system and be a part of something wrong to do right later. He should resign and do NGO work.
Otherwise consequentialism would exonerate him by saying that he actions are moral if they are bringing about eventual good. Utilitarianism bitch.
No comments:
Post a Comment