Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Over the past decade, moral intent and their underlying decision processes have more frequently been considered from a dynamic and multi-factorial perspective rather than a binary approach – right or wrong. The intent of an action and his or her causal role in the outcome–as well as its importance–are key psychological factors that influence moral decisions, especially actions of national importance. The influence of intent, outcome, and damaging effect on moral decisions, and interaction with society and administration during the decision process are overlooked in dissecting actions. There are two major theories in focus when means and action are discussed.
- “The phrase “The End Justifies the Means” embodies a fundamental principle of consequentialism. This ethical theory suggests that the morality of an action is entirely dependent on its consequences. It’s a perspective that looks at the end result of an action to determine its ethical value, contrasting sharply with deontological ethics.”
- “In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as, or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism utilitarianism, virtue ethics and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.”
Both of these philosophies have missed to mention intent which characterizes the action. Humans engage in practical reasoning, deliberating on what to do and how to do something. They often act in light of perceived reasons which can then overtly explain their actions, and may also justify them. According to this suggestion, there is a single notion of a reason that is used to answer different questions; the question whether there is a reason for someone to do something normally and the question what is someone’s motivating reason. Ostensibly a stated reason justifies or makes it right for someone to act in a certain way. This is why normative reasons are also called “justifying” reasons. The term “normative reason” derives from the idea that there are norms, principles or codes that prescribe actions. When the intent conflicts with the reasoning the motivation for the action is shrouded in a controversy.
The term “motivating reason” is a semi-technical philosophical term. Taking examples from recent attempts by various organizations to “save democracy” in India when the democracy was or is not in danger illustrates where intent conflicts with moral motivation. The term public service and self-appointed guardianship are sometimes also used as a ruse to capture this notion of a justifiable moral reason. Little technical help is sought even when the subject is full technical examination of the case is needed. The agent’s hidden intent as well as the action outcome take precedence with morality taking a backseat.
For instance, repeated and perpetual litigation through PILs on routine matters of a Nation’s administration should be questioned. For any action to be intentional under some description, the agent must have practical knowledge of the subject of challenge as later, ignorance can sometimes be put forward as an excuse as a ground for exoneration when the futility of the action is established.
As case in point is the recent assault in the courts in regard to the efficacy of EVMs used for the Indian general elections. Further exploring the dynamics of these actions during the judicial processes, the analysis of intent, evidenced reasons other than stated, such as “saving democracy”. The factors presented in the continued spate of litigations exposed an intent to vilify the EVMs for partisan reasons such as presenting an excuse if the elections turned in an adverse result from that expected by the litigants or their handlers. The present findings cast a doubt on the moral character of the litigants. More so as this aspect is vehemently raked up during election time in spite of court rulings in favor of EVM over decades as also disregarding its successful use in many elections in the past decades.
Tailpiece: A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while rejecting the PIL, said, “What is the material before us to doubt about the Election Commission?”. The mala fide intent in this and such other litigations are obvious. Is too much democracy and Judiciary sabotaging democracy and morality?
(Col KL Viswanathan – The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views are personal. He can be reached at)
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint