Kesarimalji Surana Abhinandan Granth

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia, Dev Kothari
Publisher: Kesarimalji Surana Abhinandan Granth Prakashan Samiti

Page 1235

•
14
Karmayogi Śri Kesarimalji Surāņā 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 Ācāryas, 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