Rightness of Action and Jaina ethics

Author(s): Kamalchand Sogani
Publisher: Z_Kesarimalji_Surana_Abhinandan_Granth_012044.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250279/1

Page #1
RIGHTNESS OF ACTION AND JAINA ETHICS Dr. KAMAL CHAND SOGANI. Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Udaipur, UDAIPUR He who lives in society inevitably asks himself and others on many occasions in life, <Page #2
Rightness of Action and Jaina Ethics 13 . modern ethics!, but it implies that the right action has a good motive in addition. It is, therefore, called good action. The other term in Jaina ethics for good action is Subha action. But for our purpose, we shall treat Samyaka-action or subha-action as right action without any inconsistency. In the present paper I propose to discuss the theories of the criterion or standard by which we can determine whether an action is right or wrong. Further, I shall endeavour to point out the stand of the Jaina ethics regarding the issue under consideration. In order to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule, if the goodness or badness of the consequence is taken into consideration, we have a theory known as the teleological theory of right or wrong. For instance, gambling is wrong, because it leads to many bad consequences; and helping others in distress is right, because it leads to good consequences. In other words, the teleologist contends that an action or rule is right, if it is conducive to the greatest balance of good over evil, either for himself or for the universe. The former position is taken by an ethical egoist, whereas the latter one, by the utilitarian. Since ethical egoism cannot be consistently maintained as a moral theory, we set it aside without going into the arguments for its rejection. What concerns us now is to discuss utilitarianism as a teleological theory of the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule. The other theory regarding the rightness or wrongness of an action or rule is styled deontological theory of right or wrong, according to which rightness or wrongness of an action or rule is not the function of consequences, but is decided by the nature of certain characteristics of the action or rule itself. In other words, the deontologist hold that an action or rule is right even if it does not bring about any good to self or society. For instance, promise or conformity in mind, body and speech ought to be kept even if bad consequences are brought into being. Thus, the difference between the teleologist and the deontologist consists in the fact that the former regards the rightness or wrongness of an action or a rule as a function of good or bad consequences alone, while the latter regards rightness or wrongness as depending on factors other than the goodness or badness of consequence. For the teleologist there is no way of determining the right apart from the good, while for the deontologist the right owes nothing to the good. Both the teleologist and the deontologist may regard certain action or rules as right or wrong, but the reason or justification given by each is different. If I say that I ought to do actions of gratitude to my benefector and then suppose I am asked the reason for holding it. In reply, I may say, if I hold teleologic point of view, that I ought to do actions of gratitude to my benefactor if they contribute to the productiveness of good, and if they do not, the 'ought' loses its significance; but if I hold deontological point of view, I may say that I ought to do actions of gratitude to my benefector, even if they lead to bad consequences, i. e., fought' on this theory is to be followed 1 In some of our moral judgements, we say that a certain action or kind of action is morally right, wrong, obligatory, a duty or ought or ought not be done. In others, we talk not about actions or kinds of action, but about persons' motive, intentions, traits of character, and the like; and we say that they are morlly good, bad, virtuous, vicious, responsible, blameworthy, saintly, despicable, and so on. In these two kinds of judgement, the things talked about are different and what is said about them is different. -(Frankena : Ethics, pp. 8-9, Prentice Hall, India.) O

Page #3
* 14 Karmayogi Sri Kesarimalji Surana Abhinandana Grantha : Seventh Part under all circumstances regardless of the consideration of any effect. To be more clear, suppose I have borrowed a sword from my friend for self-defence. Shall I return it to him at a time when my friend is planning to kill his parents owing to some discord ? The teleological reply is No', the deontological reply seems to me to be 'Yes'. Thus, the teleologist believes in hypothetical imperatives and the deontologist, in categorical ones. Having explained the two general types of tests or criteria of rightness of actions or rules, I propose first to examine the forms of deontological positions upheld by moral philosophers and secondly, I shall go on to the utilitarian position regarding the issue under consideration. While examining these theories, I shall endeavour to bring out the contribution of the Jaina ethics to the problem of the rightness of action. The deontologist may take two positions : (a) act deontology and (b) rule-deontology. (a) For the act-deontologist, particular actions are in themselves intrinsically right or wrong without regard to the goodness or badness of their consequences. The moral judgement that in this situation, 'I ought to do so and so' is a function of the immediate intuitive kdowledge of the rightness or wrongness of an action in a particular situation. In other words, the rightness or wrongness of actions is ascertained by simply looking at the actions themselves without considering their conseqnences, i. e., it is cognisable apart from the goodness or badness produced by them, either for oneself or for the world. It may be noted here that the act deontologist may hold without contradicting himself that the general rule can be formed indirectly by making use of perceptions regarding the rightness or wrongness of particular acts. But this general rule cannot out-weigh the particular judgement concerning the rightness or wrongness of particular action. (b) As distinguished from act-deontologism. the rule-deontologist holds that what is right or wrong is to be ascertained by appeal to general rules intuitively apprehended. The validity of these rules does not depend on the productivity of the goodness or badness of consequences, and they are not inductively arrived at, but rather given to us directly by intuitive apprehension. For example, the particular action of killing or stealing is wrong, because it violates the rule. Do not kill' or 'Do not steal' which is intrinsically right and the particular action of fulfilling a promise is right, because it observes the intrinsically right rule keep your promises'. Thus, the rule deontologist asserts that there are certain rules which are absolutely always right and certain others which are absolutely always wrong, regardless of the goodness or badness of consequences. In other words, there are certain actions, like-speaking the truth, keeping the promises, repaying the debts, doing acts of gratitude, which are our duties, and duties ought to be performed even when they do not promote any good whatsoever, that certain actions are oui duties is a sufficient ground for our doing them as a right. According to Jaina Acaryas, both act-deontologism and rule-deontologism are untenable theories of the criterion of rightness or wrongness. The weakness of act-deontologism is that it regards human situations as extremely different from one another, and does not recognise the universal element inherent in them. No doubt each human situation has something of its own but it is contrary to moral experience to say that it is not like other situations in morally relevant respects. In many human situations, because of their likeness in important respects, the general rule like 'do not kill' can be applied without any incongruity. In practical life, according to the Jaina ethics, moral rules cannot be dispensed with and each man's moral judgements

Page #4
Rightness of Action and Jaina Ethics 15 o ia .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . .-............ ... cannot be relied upon. The fact is that when one makes a moral judgement in particular situations, one implicitly commits one-self to make the same judgement in any similar situations. The merit of act-deontologism is that it takes into consideration the particularity of the situation. It advises us to look into the act as such. Besides, the weakness of rule-deontologism is that it occupies itself with the extreme rightness or wrongness of the rule without allowing any exceptions to it. It this case, fulfilment of duty may sometimes become fanaticism. Truth ought to be spoken even if the world has to face bad consequences. The defect of this position in particular and deontologism in general is that they do not take account of the specific situations and goodness or badness of the consequences following from such circumstances. Actions cannot be right or wrong in vacuum. They always produce certain effects, either good or bad, and to be indifferent to effects is to ignore the verdicts of moral experience which is deeply rooted in the goodness or badness of human situation. As for Jaina ethics, it does not condemn the action of telling a lie to enemies, robbers and even to persons who ask questions when they have no right to ask. Under some exceptional circumstances, it is right to break a promise or to take something that belongs to another without his permission. Thus, no rule can be absolutely always right or wrong as the rule-deontologist prescribed. Mill rightly remarks, 'It is not the fault of any creed but of the complicated nature of human affairs that rules of conduct cannot be so framed as to require exception, and that hardly any kind of action can safely be laid down as either always obligatory or always condemnable."2 Tire merit of rule-deontolgism is that it gives proper importance to rules in moral life. After critically examining the deontological position from the point of view of Jaina ethics, we now proceed to discuss the position taken by the teleologist. Since teleologists have often been called utilitarians, we shall be regarding teleological position as utilitarian position. (a) Act-utilitarians say that the rightness or wrongness of each action is to be determined by appealing to its goodness or badness of consequences and I ought to do an action in a situation which is likely to produce the maximum balance of good over evil in the universe. One ought not to tell the truth in a situation which is such as to cause maximum balance of evil over good by telling the truth. (b) Rule-utilitarians hold that moral rules like truth-telling etc. are significant in life and our duty in a particular situation is to be decided by appeal to a rule. In this respect, they are like rule-deontologists but unlike deontologists they affirm that rules are to be framed on the basis of their effects on the universe as a whole. Thus rules have utilitarian basis and they must be selected, maintained, revised and replaced on this basis. Once rules are so framed they are to be followed even if it is known that they do not have the best possible consequences in certain particular cases. It may be noted here that Jaina ethics subscribes to the utilitarian basis of the judgements of right or wrong. Do not kill, Do not tell a lie, Do not hoard, Do not steal and Do not commit adultery-all these rules have as their basis the productivity of good consequence in the universe. However, Jaina Acaryas maintained that sometimes it is not the following of the rule that 90 1 Frankena : Ethics, p. 22 (Prentice Hall). 2 Mill: Utilitarianism, Chapter II, p. 28 (Everyman's Library, Ed. Newyork).

Page #5
* 16 Karmayogi Sri Kesarimalji Surana Abhinandana Grantha : Seventh Part produces maximum balance of good over evil but its breaking. Though Jaina Acaryas allow breaking of the moral rules in exceptional circumstances on utilitarian basis, yet they have warned us time and again that breaking of the rule should not be made common, since it may lead to the weakening of faith in rules which are in a way the basis of social order and living. The Nisitha Sutra is a compendium of exceptions to moral rules. This work has very carefully laid down the principles of breaking the rules. This implies that Jaina ethics does not allow superstitious rule-worship but at the same time, holds that scrupulously conscientous caution is to be exercised in breaking the rules. Thus rule-utilitarianism like rule-deontologism does not find favour with Jaina ethics. Rules are merely guiding principles in common circumstances, but when the circumstances are exceptional, we have not to look to rules for making any moral decision, but to situations and particular action from the point of view of producing greater balance of good over evil. This goes to show that every time, as the act-utilitarian suggests, we have not to calculate anew the effects of each and every action on the general welfare. The whole discussion brings us to the view that both acts and rules relate specific situations and general principles are to be taken into account for deciding the rightness or wrongness of actions. This may be called modified act-utilitarianism which cannot allow a rule to be followed in particular situations when following is regarded as not to have the best possible consequences. This means that Jaina ethics accepts the possibility that sometimes general moral principles may be inadequate to the complexities of the situation and in this case, a direct consideration of the particular action without references to general principles is necessary. Thus, according to the Jaina ethics acts are logically prior to rules and the rightness of the actions is situational. The corrollary of this view is that duty is not self-justifying and that it is not an end in itself. It is good as a means. Its rightness is dependent on the fact of producing a greater balance of good over evil in the universe. Here, it may be said that rightness or wrongness of an actions does not depend upon the goodness or badness of consequences, but upon the motive or motives from which it is done. We can find reference in Jaina ethical texts wherein good motives are given prime importance for the performance of action producing good consequences. So long as good motives issue in right action productive of good consequences, there is nothing wrong in accepting the dependence of rightness of action on good motives. Jaina ethics seems to tie good motives with the rightness of action producing good consequences. Its conviction is that if there is good motive, like kindness or charitable disposition, right actions are bound to occur. At one stage in man's moral evolution it may be possible, but at ordinary man's level this may not happen. Since Jaina ethics, it seems to me, could not evenly face the problem arising from the fact that sometimes good dispositions are not able to produce right actions, issuing in good consequences it made rightness of action productive of good identical with good motives. But the point is that such actions are not so blameworthy as they would have been if they had been done from bad motives. No doubt the agent deserves praise for acting as he did, but the action is wrong. Jaina ethics seems to confuse that to call an action morally praiseworthy is the same thing as to say that it is right, and to call it morally blameworthy the same thing as to say that it is wrong. '1 In point of fact, these two judgements are not identical. It so often happens that a man may act wrongly from a good motive., i. e., conscientiousness may lead to fanatical cruelty, mistaken 1 Moore : Ethics, p. 116 (Oxford University Press, London)

Page #6
Rightness of Action and Jaina Ethics 17 asceticism etc., and he may act rightly from a bad motive for instance feeling of revenge may be able to check certain criminal actions. However, in the former case we regard actions as wrong whereas in the latter we regard them as right. This means that the consideration of motives does not make any difference to the rightness or wrongness of actions. In other words, goodness or badness of disposition is to be distinguished from the rightness or wrongness of conduct. Thus, if a right action is done from a good motive and the same action is done from a bad motive, though the goodness of the consequences will be the same yetthe presence of the good motive will mean the presence of an additional good in the one case which is absent in the other.1 In conclusion, we may say that according to Jaina ethics the criterion of right or wrong is the goodness or badness of consequences. It rejects the view that certain rules ought absolutely always to be followed, whatever the consequences may be. No action is to be unconditionally done or avoided. No actions can be our duty irrespective of the goodness of the consequences. The question whether an action is right or wrong does not depend on motives, and the presence of motive, whether good or bad, constitutes an additional factor in the rightness or wrongness of actions. 1 Moore : Ethics, p. 115 (Oxford University Press, London).