TERRORISM, STATE ACTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Terrorism in its various hues is a serious problem plaguing the world now. India has also been in the cross hairs of terrorists since long. We need to separate terrorism form force and violence with which it is associated. Force involving elements of compulsion or coercion is socially acceptable as when a judge awards a prison sentence to a criminal. Violence which involves force and physical injury is justified in individual self-defence and or when a nation fights its invaders. But few countenance violence for achieving political and social ends.
Notwithstanding the general loathing for terrorism, it occasionally evokes mixed feelings. Defence of terrorism has become fashionable in some quarters. Many citizens are disturbed when they sometimes come across open or thinly disguised defence of terrorism in public discourse and in television channels.
Defence of terrorism in such discussions wears a mantle of high morality, sublime and beyond the reach of smelly masses. Such defences of terrorism appear in the garb of high minded battles for intellectual liberty, academic objectivity, concern for individual freedom and human rights. These defenders claim to uphold the democratic right of dissent and represent the worldviews of the oppressed. These defences obfuscate and cloud the moral issues which terrorism creates. This sows confusion and weakens the will to fight terrorism. It may seem that we are taking a militarist or anti-humanitarian stand and swimming against some streams of popular opinion. But our intention is simply to correct the one-sided view which students may gather from current discussions. This is particularly important since many defenders of terrorism are established academics, commentators and celebrities.
We will discuss the issues involved in terrorism from the perspective of moral philosophy. We will also trace the roots of what we regard as wrong perspectives on the challenges which terrorism poses.
Terrorism is defined in many ways. Its main attributes are the following:
♤ A type of violence harming people and damaging property
♤ Specific use of violence for achieving social and political ends
♤ Creating great fear, alarm and a sense of panic among people
♤ Reliance on random or arbitrary use of violence
♤ Targeting innocent people or non-combatants
Another definition of terrorismwhich Caleb Carr gave is: “... thecontemporarynamegiven to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that agents of such violence find objectionable.” It is noteworthy that terrorism is warfare and aims at undermining peoples’ will and belief in their way of living.
Ordinary people usually condemn terrorism. This attitude is part of common-sense. But what are the possible attitudes of ethical theories towards terrorism? As may be imagined, virtually no ethical theory supports terrorism. This may prove helpful since, as we have seen, ingenious explanations and defences of terrorism are sometimes offered.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism may possibly condone some terrorist acts if their benefits or welfare effects far exceed the harm they cause. But this is only a theoretical possibility. Terrorism promotes the agenda of small groups at great cost to large populations. It imposes terrible costs on the targeted groups for questionable ends. Terrorist acts create backlash and stiffen opposition to terrorist aims. Terrorist groups often claim to be fighting for justice or for removal of injustice. Very few people subscribe to the justice of terrorist causes. It is, therefore, most unlikely that the net gains from terrorist acts can ever exceed the losses.
Consequentialist theory will also question the efficiency and efficacy of terrorist means. There are other means such as peaceful non-cooperation and civil disobedience for achieving political ends. Democracy allows other means of advancing one’s agenda, and these conform to political morality.
Consequentialist thinkers point out that what counts as doing justice in a given situation is often unclear. For example, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is it possible to remove grievances of one side without adding to the grievances of the other? If we take into account the above considerations, few real life terrorists will be able to measure up to the requirements imposed by consequentialism.
Kantian and natural law approaches
Two other moral traditions---Kantian and natural law---are directly opposed to random violence which terrorism causes. They impose an indefeasible prohibition on the killing of the innocent. ‘Indefeasible’ here means that killing of innocents is never permissible in any circumstances whatsoever. Sometimes this prohibition is expressed as the right of innocents not be killed or as our duty not to kill innocents. Thus, these traditions will never permit killing of innocents in malls, restaurants or on railway platforms. This is of course absolutely in line with common-sense.
Terrorists therefore portray the victims as far from innocent. They may claim that the targets belong to national groups which sanctioned injustice and oppression, and are therefore, complicit in evil deeds. The term ‘innocent’ usually designates an individual who is not guilty of moral or legal wrong doing. Terrorist groups tend to attribute remote and farfetched constructive liability to innocent people. For example, Emile Henry, after exploding a bomb in 1894 in a Paris cafe said, “There are no innocents”. This statement is, of course, a fig leaf to cover the crime.
Contractarian view
How will contractarianismreact to terrorism? This traditionconceives justice as a system of principles and dispositions which bind a group of people in so far as they mutually abide by that system. To use a phrase from John Rawls, justice is a sort of “cooperative venture for mutual advantage”. According to this view, justice is not binding under certain conditions, as for example, in the absence of cooperative behaviour and dispositions from others. Thus, terrorists place themselves outside the justice system by violating common (moral) principles and dispositions. In this view of the matter, the terrorist acts are ab initio unjust and indefensible, and deserve to be put down.
Up till now, we considered how different moral approaches are likely to view terrorism. Naturally, these approaches lead to conclusions similar to common sense ideas. Terrorists are misguided, ferocious fanatics who have no regard for human life or common decencies. Still, some writers seek to create a false, revolutionary, romantic halo (a la Che Guevara) around terrorists. Impressionable, idealistic young men and women have to guard themselves against this tendency.
Terrorism in India and State Responses
In India, terrorism has diverse origins and aims. Whatever its form, terrorism questions the legitimacy of the state and its instrumentalities. It regards security forces and law and order machinery as oppressors and enemies. Terrorists engage security forces in war-like operations. Naxalites espouse what they consider as economic justice agenda. Terrorism in J&K is externally sponsored. In the north-east, it is linked to local identities. We have characterized these movements in single sentences since our aim is only to outline the moral issues they create.
In early years after our Independence, government measures to tackle terrorism and secessionist movements enjoyed almost universal support. There were occasional reports about the excesses of army and/or paramilitary forces in North-East. But gradually disquiet arose in some quarters over the means being used for handling terrorists. We need to consider the roots of such disquiet and the groups which articulate it. As we shall see, some people feel that anti-terrorist operations violate liberal, democratic, humanist and legal norms. However, as there is a trade-off between these norms and the requirements of national security, a balance has to be struck between them.
Administrative and Legal Fallout of Encounters
Operations of security forces against terrorists lead to varied outcomes. A terrorist may be captured during surveillance or investigations. He may be charged for serious offences. Then he becomes entitled to fair trial, due process of law and all the judicial safeguards available to ordinary criminals. The standard of evidence for proving guilt is as high as in ordinary crimes. It is but natural that few witnesses would like to risk their lives by deposing against the accused.
Terrorists are not treated as enemy agents. Although, according to Caleb Carr, terrorism is a form of warfare, terrorists are covered (asymmetrically) under ordinary law like other criminals. US security missions against hard-core terrorists are often based on the principle, ‘Take no prisoners’. The purpose is either to avoid ordinary trials of such terrorists or to avoid the inherent risk in trying to capture terrorists alive.
Often, encounters take place between security personnel and terrorists with casualties on both sides. In these encounters, lives of soldiers are greatly imperilled. They have to observe prescribed rules of engagement while fighting terrorists in encounters. If terrorists die, they cannot be tried. But at times, relatives of deceased terrorists and activists file criminal charges like murder against men conducting operations. Existing laws partly insulate government servants, including security personnel, from culpability for acts done in good faith in line of duty. As such general law protection is inadequate the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is enforced in disturbed areas. The provisions of this Act are outlined later in the chapter.
Terrorist deaths in encounters create uproar in media and activist community. Encounters are often depicted as brutal suppressions of human rights, security forces as cold blooded killers, and terrorists as innocent, harmless individuals or martyrs fighting for a cause. Soldiers sometimes err and deplorably kill innocents. Army should do its best to avoid such lapses. But critics also need to place themselves in the shoes of soldiers. In the fire and smoke of battle, in the heat of the moment, while staring death in face, and remembering loved ones back home, soldiers may overreact. Only better training and experience in handling such situations can improve their responses.
But many well-meaning individuals overlook the grave risks which soldiers face. They have a right to self-defence even under strict moral codes. They cannot be expected to fight with hands tied behind their back. They face real time situations whose essence can be summed up as “Kill or be killed”. They are tackling battle hardened terrorists, and not pickpockets or fellows whistling at girls walking on the street. They have to act fast, and cannot calculate carefully ‘the quantum of appropriate force’. In such situations, soldiers are likely to keep firing till guns on the other side become silent.
Nowadays, many activists and academics argue for abolition of AFSPA. But its abolition will expose soldiers to a dual risk: the risks in armed encounters; and prosecutions and imprisonment. Withdrawing protection to soldiers fighting arduous battles will be most unjust. It will prevent them from acting fearlessly. No disciplined soldier will ‘take it easy’, and let terrorist-driven events runtheir course. However, withdrawal of legal cover will definitely undermine his/her morale.
Tender Hearted Reactions to Terrorism
Why is it that intelligent and reasonable people of good will argue in favour of excessive legal safeguards for terrorists? Why is it that they are willing to expose security forces battling terrorists to legal hazards in addition to battle risks? Diverse ideologies, doctrines and worldviews singly and jointly feed into this approach. These need earnest consideration.
Our views differ to an extent from some current opinions. However, we feel that serving and aspiring civil servants have to adopt a hard-nosed, realistic approach in these matters. They cannot be soft headed or get carried away by stars-in-the-eyes romanticism. This does not involve dumping civil liberties or human values. The issues merit consideration since the stakes involved are very high---the very survival of our nation.
There is a tendency to regard human rights and civil liberties as absolute, unabridgeable and inviolable. This amounts to impracticable moral or legal absolutism. Rights and liberties have to be balanced against equally valued national objectives. Our Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights. Accordingly, courts watered down the right to property. The right to equality is diluted for accommodating policies providing reservations and other benefits to groups considered as victims of past injustice or prejudice. Similar logic would allow reasonable restrictions on civil liberties for fighting terrorism.
Opposition of human rights groups to cruel treatment of terrorists is valid though by any moral criteria terrorists stand condemned. They nevertheless have moral status or moral standing. According to Kantianism and natural law ethics, the human rights of terrorists have to be respected. Human rights are rights we possess simply by virtue of our nature or humanity, and we retain them throughout our lives. A killer acts wrongly without thereby losing his moral standing. He should not be tortured or mutilated. This applies to terrorists who are captured and tried in courts. However, if they are awarded death penalty after due legal process, there should be no uproar about it.
Liberal advocates of civil liberties overlook another important issue. This point is made by Karl Popper in his book Open Society and its Enemies. He speaks of ‘paradox of tolerance’ and ‘paradox of freedom’. He highlights a dilemma which liberal, humane and democratic societies face. These societies are grounded in principles of tolerance and liberty. But can these be extended to those individuals or groups who oppose such principles? According to Popper, if unfettered liberties are granted to groups who believe neither in liberties or nor in tolerance, it will sound the death knell of free, open democratic societies. Some writers think that Western Europe is already facing such threats to its way of life.
Principles of equity and reciprocity are also relevant to this discussion. As we noted earlier, John Rawls characterized justice as a cooperative venture for mutual benefit. All members of society which adopts a system of justice should abide by its rules. Otherwise, besides being iniquitous, it will break down. If any individuals or groups are disinclined to abide by constitutional arrangement, they cannot still claim its benefits. They automatically forfeit such rights. Giving full benefits of such rights to them is injustice to other law abiding citizens.
Obviously, no one will deny the need for individual liberties to protect law-abiding citizens against governmental overreach. However, this principle works ideally in a normally functioning democracy in ordinary times. But when the even tenor of ordinary life is disturbed and when armed groups intent on insurrection challenge the state, restrictions on individual liberties become unavoidable. There are many historical examples which show that even established democratic states had to
restrict individual liberties during wars and similar emergencies. The first duty of the state is protect a nation’s integrity, and to this end, it has to take all necessary measures. If a state loses to its armed enemies, there will be nothing left---neither constitution, nor order nor citizenry. This is not an alarmist view. Contemporary world has seen the disappearance of many states. And complete anarchy and total civil disorder now prevail in many other nations.
People often make ‘category errors’ i.e. apply principles applicable in one context to inapplicable situations. They show lack of due proportion in applying general principles to practical life. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s phrase ‘language game’ helps to explain such errors of activists. Wittgenstein uses characteristic situations of life as examples to illustrate certain philosophical ideas. Any language is governed by its rules (or grammar).
As it happens, rules are not easily transferable from one sphere of life to another. Often, we fail to recognize this point. For example, a seminar in a university is an academic game. Its rules may have no ready application to family dispute between parents and their kids. Pleading cases in favour of one accused of rape is a legal game. Its rules will hardly be applicable to preaching religious sermons. Similarly, a police encounter with terrorists is a different game whose rules arise in warfare. In these games, the bloodless categories of Ethics or philosophy have limited application. (However, some conventions of fair conduct of war may apply.) The phrase, “It is a different ball game” recognizes such difference between situations of life. This fact is overlooked in the heated debates on terrorism and human rights. Battle ground is not a seminar hall or a court room.
A characteristic feature of modern world prevents dispassionate and objective discussion on human rights and allied issues. Modern society has a mind boggling number of NGOs and activist groups. Rich donors set up agencies and NGOs for single minded pursuit of specific agendas such as women’s rights, civil liberties, animal rights, and minority rights.
Although such pursuits are unexceptionable in themselves, they generate many attendant problems. One problem is their single-pointed, obsessive, compulsive pursuit of their aims to the exclusion of everything else. These groups are implacable and never satisfied unless their demands are met in toto. In anything and everything, they see violation of their cherished principles. In the process, their advocacy loses moderation and perspective. For example, they will cry hoarse over violation of civil liberties in a country while remaining absolutely silent on its originating cause like violence of disgruntled armed groups often supported by enemy nations. They behave like brief-holding lawyers arguing for only one client. NGOs are sometimes misused by nation states as stalking horses to run their agendas or to muddy political waters in foreign nations to which they are inimical.
Another problem is that these groups are most active in open and democratic nations. Since they have to ply a trade, they select the most hospitable locations. These are of course the diverse democratic nations like India. Unlike in olden days, individuals who manage these bodies are neither philanthropic nor charitable. They are ‘professionals’ with fat salaries. They are always on the lookout for spots where they can produce the maximum ‘bang for the buck’.
Many of these groups have tie ups with UN and other international agencies. Now, we have to show due respect to UN since it is the pillar of the post Second World War global order. But it is also part of the international diplomatic system. It is an international political chess board on which national interests dictate the moves. These are accompanied by postures of moral high mindedness and concern for human values. Without being overly cynical, one has to take such moves and postures with due realism. It is a matter of no small irony that such moral posturing often comes from nations running the most autocratic and despotic regimes. As some of these nations are powerful militarily or economically, smaller nations and even activists and think tanks maintain a studious diplomatic silence. This situation leads to selective targeting of nations using the plank of human rights.
Readers may feel that we have been harsh on the NGOs. We have no intention of running down NGOs. Our comments are directed mostly against ‘activist’ NGOs. There are many others such as Bill Gates and Melissa Foundation and Aga Khan Foundation which render yeoman service to poor and suffering humanity. We hold such bodies in high esteem.
Climate of Current Opinion in Media and Academia
Media
Finally, the current climate of opinion both in media and social science academia fuels the false narrative on terrorism. Their opinion is anti-establishment, that is, against the existing political set-up. The political wing of media is hostile to governments of the day. (There are exceptions. The US mainstream media was completely in sync with Obama and Hillary and continues to be highly hostile to Trump.) The media is ever ready to pounce on what it regards as the misdeeds of government and its agencies. They are ready to attack government with any available means even those that may harm national interest. We refer to general trends without meaning to paint all with the same brush.
Media houses are involved in cut throat competition for audience and advertising revenues. In order to attract audience attention, they resort to sensationalism and hype. Once again our intention is not to place all media persona in the same bracket. Many of them are learned, enlightened and perceptive. But media enterprises seem to have got trapped in a dynamic which modern technology and the need for gaining commercial traction have created. Given this background, media frequently highlight stories of alleged human rights violations of security personnel and other stories which grab immediate interest in viewers.
Critical outlook
Many currents feed into the negativity of academic comment on our national affairs. Academic activity in its very nature aims at questioning prevailing opinions, practices and world views. As Herbert Marcuse remarked, the function of reason is negative and critical. Seeing philosophers as social critics, Karl Marx urged them to submit existing public institutions, and available alternatives, to ‘‘ruthless criticism” ... ‘‘ruthless in two senses: the criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the powers that be”. They have to consider with detachment and impartiality whether political institutions and practices are justified.
Many writers such as Foucault have argued that institutions of modern society are oppressive, hierarchical, and dehumanizing. Many social theorists argue that deep conflict and dissonance simmer beneath the surface of liberal democracies. But these are effectively masked from us because we are conditioned by falsifying forms of social consciousness. To quote Karl Marx again, critical reflection consists in ‘‘enabling the world to clarify its consciousness, in waking it from its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions.’’ From such perspectives, it is possible to argue that liberal democracies are charades which hide social inequities, and use sophisticated means for pacifying oppressed groups.
Identity groups
Modern political thinkers often adopt in their writing the point of view of specific identity groups as distinct from that of the larger polity. The groups identify themselves with their race, religion, and gender or minority status. They regard themselves as victims of society and as excluded from its privileges. ‘Multiculturalism’ advocates that dominant groups openly embrace the socially excluded and the marginalized and celebrate social diversities. Many social thinkers sympathise with these groups, and regard them as victims of social injustice. In this vein, scholars expose the ways in which what may appear to be impartial operation of rule of law in fact disguises various unacknowledged political agendas. Similarly, feminists highlight ‘gendered’ practices which aretacit forms patriarchal oppression.
How do these ideas feed into the current criticism of state operations against terrorist groups? Many terrorist groups are portrayed as victims of oppression and social marginalization. Their alienation is the result of ill treatment they suffer at the hands of the state. Their terrorism, according to some people, is a justified response to the highhanded actions of the state. One may concede that some terrorist groups such as Naxalites and others in North-East have justifiable grievances. Enlightened economic, social and political policies are needed to remove those grievances and set right past wrongs. But some terrorist groups may be absolutely implacable in their attitudes and just refuse compromise and accommodation. In that case, the state may have few options for pursuing peaceful approaches. In any event, no state can unravel itself.
Irrational fear of nationalism
Occasionally, we come across situations in which students (and some teachers) express anti-national sentiments. Fortunately, student responses are one-off, not deeply thought out actions. But how do we explain such responses from teachers? Their reactions are part of a modern trend which sees nationalism as a danger. Modern thinkers equate genuine nationalism with jingoism, associated among others, with Rudyard Kipling. Fascism is seen as a consequence of unbridled nationalism. Nationalism is also feared since it creates xenophobia or hatred for foreigners. Many writers mistakenly associate anti-terrorist operations with violent assertion of nationalist feelings, state authority and elite hegemony. But such views are mistaken, and have no support among masses.
Many academics have a self-image of being anti-establishment dissenters. They tend to identify with other dissenters even if they resort to violence and terrorism. Some self-styled intellectuals consider themselves as keepers of a nation’s conscience, and try to hold it to unattainable and impracticable moral standards. Some frustrated people also join with any group which opposes government in any manner.
In the preceding paragraphs, we explained why some influential individuals and sections express views out of line with broad national sentiments. In conclusion, we would urge that due consideration should be shown to those who battle for our safety and freedom. We cannot claim unfettered rights of expression to ourselves, or cleanse our consciences by mouthing high moral platitudes. We should not place the moral, psychological and emotional burden of fighting terror only on soldiers. It will be a moral double standard if we preserve all of these privileges and expect our soldiers to follow the motto (in Tennyson’s words):
Not for us to reason why But to do and die
AFSPA empowers army officers operating in “disturbed” areas with following powers.
♤ After due warning, resort to fire or other force, even if it causes death, against those disturbing law or order, for maintaining public order
♤ To destroy arms dumps, hide-outs, fortified positions/shelters/training camps used for launching armed attacks
♤ To arrest without a warrant anyone who has committed or suspected to have committed cognizable offences and use needed force for arrest.
♤ To enter and search any premise for making arrests, or to rescuing wrongfully restrained persons or for seizing arms, ammunition or explosives
♤ Stop and search any vehicle or vessel carrying suspects or weapons
♤ Any one arrested should be handed over to the nearest police station at the earliest along with a report on the circumstances of the arrest.
♤ Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding can be launched against anyone acting under that law.
♤ Judiciary cannot review government’s judgment on why an area is disturbed.
♤ No person can be prosecuted for acting in good faith under AFSPA except with the sanction of the Central Government.
Summary
On July 8, 2016, The Supreme Court of India ended the immunity of the armed forces from prosecution under AFSPA, saying, “It does not matter whether the victim was a common person or a militant or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both... This is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of individual liberties.”
♤ Religious and social customs oppose homosexuality.
♤ It carries social stigma.
♤ In western society, homosexuality is no longer a taboo.
♤ Opponents of homosexuality argue that it is unnatural and perverse; violates laws of nature and divine commands, and will destroy anchors of stable social life such as marriage and family. It is a threat to human survival.
♤ Supporters of homosexuality argue that it is neither unnatural nor immoral, and is not a mental disease according to American Psychological Association.
♤ Further, it is impermissible to derive moral principles from facts of nature.
♤ Homosexuality is practised between consenting adults who are supposed to know what is good for them. It harms no one.
♤ The uncommon sexual orientation of homosexuals should be no bar to their humane treatment.
♤ Section 377 of IPC makes homosexual sex punishable with lifeimprisonment.
♤ Law commission recommended its repeal in its 172nd report.
♤ Delhi High Court struck down most of Section 377 of IPC asunconstitutional.
♤ Supreme Court however declared that Section 377, to the extent it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violates Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. But it upheld the provisions of Section 377 covering non-consensual homosexuality and homosexual acts involving minors.
♤ Supreme Court also suggested that Parliament should suitably amend Section 377.
On Abortion
♤ Abortion refers to the termination of the unborn entity (or termination of pregnancy) at any stage.
♤ Abortion debates involve: (i) the value of life, both of mother and foetus; and (ii) individual freedom and rights of women over their bodies. These debates also cover the rights of foetus, definitions of human life and the point of origin of life.
Prolife arguments against abortion
♤ Human being is constituted as soon as the chromosomes of male sperm and female ova are united.
♤ Its life is as sacrosanct as that of any other human being. Its right to life is absolute i.e. it overrides the rights of the pregnant woman.
♤ We should value human life in all its stages.
♤ Abortion procedures are hazardous for a woman’s physical and psychological health.
♤ There are alternatives for abortion.
♤ Most religions oppose abortion.
Prochoice arguments in favour of abortion
♤ Strict abortion laws arose from a patriarchal mindset.
♤ Foetus is not a ‘person’ and hence not a being to whom human rights apply.
♤ The concept of psychological humanity or personhood, and not biological humanity, really matters.
♤ If abortions are prohibited, women rely on illegal and dangerous ‘back alley abortions’.
♤ There is no option to abortion for serious birth defects or dangerous medical conditions in foetus.
♤ To argue that a woman should carry her pregnancy to term to give baby for adoption or for placing it in orphanages is unconvincing.
♤ In modern times, abortion is very safe, and unlikely to cause any mental traumas.
♤ The MTP Act specifies the persons qualified to conduct the abortion and the places where abortions can be done. It permits abortions in specific circumstances.
♤ PNDT Act prohibits sex selection, before and after conception and misuse of modern technologies for sex selective abortions. It contains necessary provisions for this purpose.
♤ A clone is an exact genetic copy of a molecule, cell, plant, or animal.
♤ Scientists extract DNA from the cell of an adult mammal and insert it into a hollowed out donor egg. By jump-starting the egg with a jolt of electricity, they can create an embryo that would become, if implanted into a surrogate mother, the patient’s identical twin.
♤ Dolly, a female domestic sheep is the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell.
♤ As for human beings, no cloning is allowed.
Arguments in favour of cloning
♤ Will help in understanding how human beings acquire their traits of character.
♤ Cloning can benefit society by creating clones of creative scientists, artists, and sportsmen/ women.
♤ Cloning can promote healthy and happy life of an individual.
♤ Cloning can produce offspring with traits parents want.
♤ Cloning can help in saving lives.
♤ Though reproductive cloning is illegal, therapeutic cloning for creating replacement tissues or ‘body spare parts’ holds great promise.
Arguments against cloning
♤ Cloning deprives the clone of the right to be a genetically a unique individual.
♤ The future of a clone appears to him or her like a rerun of an earlier life or a refurbished model.
♤ A clone may regard himself as no more than a duplicate or a photocopy without individuality and deprived of prospects of open life horizons.
♤ Cloning can in theory lead to sinister outcomes as envisaged in the novel Brave New World.
♤ Human beings have to be considered as ends in themselves and not as instruments for those who want to clone.
♤ It can reduce natural diversity among human beings, and lead to standardized human forms.
♤ Cloning alters our perspective on nature and undermines important human values.
♤ In a sense, men become responsible for their biological endowments.
On Gene therapy
♤ Defects in genes present within cells can cause inherited diseases.
♤ Gene therapy replaces missing genes or provides copies of functioning genes to replace defective ones.
♤ Scientists use vectors or viruses as molecular delivery vans for introducing modified genes.
♤ More recently, non-viral vectors have been introduced.
♤ Scientists are studying both nucleic acid based (in vivo) treatments and cell-based (ex vivo) treatments.
♤ More than 4,200 diseases result directly from abnormal genes, and many others are partially influenced by a person’s genetic makeup.
♤ There are many technical problems associated with gene therapy.
Stem cells
♤ Embryonic Stem cells are taken from the pith of inner cell mass of embryo after 6 days of its growth. The genetic modification of cell in the dish becomes the genetic modification of organism in the uterus.
♤ Human ES cells are obtained from discarded embryos of in-vitro fertilization clinics.
Moral issues
♤ As genetherapy is still in clinical trial stage, its testing on humans could have disastrous unknown results.
♤ Patients participating in these studies usually have not responded to more established therapies.
Their choices are born of desperation and wild hope.
♤ Unscrupulous doctors can manipulate genes to genetically control traits in human offspring that are not health related.
♤ Gene therapy also has social repercussions since knowledge of genetic codes may lead to preferential job selection or favourable insurance rates.
♤ Surrogacy means a practice whereby one woman bears and gives birth to a child for an intending (mainly infertile) couple with the intention of handing over such child to the intending couple after the birth.
♤ India has emerged as a surrogacy hub for couples from different countries for the past few years.
♤ There have been reported incidents of unethical practices, exploitation of surrogate mothers, abandonment of children born out of surrogacy and import of human embryos and gametes.
♤ Due to lack of legislation to regulate surrogacy, the practice of surrogacy has been misused by the surrogacy clinics leading to rampant commercial surrogacy and unethical practices.
♤ Surrogacy Bill seeks to end theseabuses.
♤ It makes a distinction between altruistic and commercial surrogacy. It encourages the former, once in a lifetime, by a relative of the childless couple.
♤ No payments except insurance costs are allowed to surrogate mothers and her relatives.
On Capital Punishment
♤ Punishment is harm inflicted by a rightful authority on a person who has been adjudged to have violated a law or rule. Many people want abolition of death penalty.
♤ The four goals of punishment are retribution, prevention, deterrence and reform.
♤ Four theories of punishment also carry above names.
Arguments against and for death penalty
♤ Capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life. Supporters of death penalty argue that it actually upholds the value of life by punishing depraved murderers.
♤ Abolitionists observe that capital punishment is imposed with class bias. Retentionists argue that this objection is not against death penalty, but against the way the judicial system functions.
♤ Abolitionists refer to risk of loss of innocent lives if there is miscarriage of justice. Retentionists point out that the chances of execution of innocent individuals are extremely low.
♤ Death sentence has, as statistical evidence shows, no deterrent effect. The counter point is that statistical evidence is unreliable in these matters.
♤ Death penalty is a form of blood thirsty revenge. Capital punishment alone balances thescales of justice in some cases.
♤ The Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes death and penalty for grave crimes such as murder, rape resulting in victim’s death, waging war against the State. Other laws also have death sentence.
♤ The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment in “rarest of rare” cases. It ruled that if capital punishment is provided in the law and if the procedure is fair, just and reasonable, death sentence is constitutional.
♤ Supreme Court indicated how the “rarest of rare” cases should be identified.
♤ Traditional Western view based on Judaeo-Christian religious ideas promoted a tendency to regard animals as resources for human use.
♤ Early philosophical thought reinforced this attitude since animals lack reasoning ability.
♤ In modern terms, the sacredness of human life is attributed to the fact that men possess intelligence, reason and autonomy. This view automatically excludes non-human animals, which lack these traits, from moralconsideration.
♤ Contractarianism leads to similar views.
♤ In 1975, Peter Singerpublishedhis work Animal Liberation. Its basic message is---‘All animals are equal’. It implies that human beings are also (biologically speaking) animals, and should not ill-treat or abuse other animals.
♤ Animal rights activists argue that the relevant distinction is not reason but capacity for suffering.
♤ If we adopt this criterion, we can see that animals, no less than human beings, have rights.
♤ Animal rights activists also point to an inconsistency in applying the criterion of human dignity based on human intelligence and rationality. They accuse men of speciesism.
♤ The case for animal rights is logically and philosophically unsustainable.
♤ But the approach to animals should be humanitarian.
♤ The moderate position in use of animals would consist of gradually reducing meat eating, raising animals in humane conditions, and killing them as painlessly as possible.
♤ Strict guidelines have to be followed for medical experiments on animals.
♤ Hunting has to be prohibited as a sport; it can be allowed for a few animals which tend to multiply toofast.
♤ Traditional animal sports on festivals have long ancestry.
♤ They should be allowed with suitable safeguards which minimize dangers to animal and human life.
Terrorism, state action and human rights
♤ Caleb Carr defines terrorism as: “... the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies thatagents of suchviolence findobjectionable.”
♤ Terrorism is warfare and aims at undermining peoples’ will and belief in their way of living.
♤ Moral theories such as Consequentialism, Kantian and natural law approaches and Contractarianism oppose terrorism.
♤ In early years after our Independence, government measures to tackle terrorism and secessionist movements enjoyed almost universal support.
♤ Some people now feel that anti-terrorist operations violate liberal, democratic, humanist and legal norms.
♤ These considerations have to be balanced against national security needs.
♤ Tender hearted reactions to terrorism and excessive emphasis on their rights at the cost of security needs can undermine operations.
♤ Anti-terrorist operations are usually confined toencounters.
♤ If terrorists are captured, they have to be tried according to law.
♤ In public discussions and TV debates, the slant appears to favour terrorist groups.
♤ This can create doubts in the minds of the public.
♤ We have traced the various doctrines, ideologies and worldviews that convergetowards critiques of terrorist operations.
♤ While human rights and civil liberties are important, a hard headed approach is essential for fighting terrorism.
♤ We have discussed the topic at some length since students may be get influenced byone-sided and untenable views.
♤ The issue is important since it has a bearing on the morale of security agencies and also on national security.
PRACTICE QUESTIONS
(1) What are the two extreme positions on abortion? What do you think is a moderate stand? Do you think that MTP Act takes a centrist position on abortion?
(2) Distinguish between the following: life, human life, human person, potential life, actual life.
(3) Under what conditions would you consider abortion moral? When do you consider it immoral? Why?
(4) Instead of passing the law banning pre-natal sex determination tests, government should have concentrated on changing the underlying social attitudes. Do you agree? Give reasons.
(5) Do you think that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural? Explain.
(6) Discuss the likely impact of homosexuality on family and social values.
(7) Briefly outline the present legal position on homosexuality in India.
(8) In Hindu mythology, Brahma is the creator of the world (srushti karta). Mairavan wanted to rival Brahma and do prati srushti or counter creation. Do you think that cloning reflects a similar mindset of ‘playing God’?
(9) To what extent should genetic experimentation and development be permitted? Discuss with reference to (i) experiments that involve creation of human life in laboratory (ii) stem cell research and (iii) and human cloning.
(10) Discuss thearguments for and against human cloning.
(11) Briefly outline how stem cell research is regulated in India.
(12) Newspapers sometimes carry advertisements about surefire gene therapy for debilitating diseases. One of your close relatives wants to try one such cure. What will be your advice to him? Give reasons.
(13) What is surrogacy? How can it be misused? What are the measures proposed in Surrogacy Bill to prevent its misuse?
(14) John Locke wrote that a murderer “ by the unjust Violence and Slaughter he hath [has] committed upon one, declared War against all Mankind, and may therefore be destroyed as a Lyon or Tyger [spellings are obsolete], one of those Savage Beasts, with whom Men can have no Society or Security.” Discuss whether and to what extent this view is acceptable in modern times.
(15) In the debates on murder and other heinous crimes, the hearts of some participants seem to bleed more for perpetrators of crimes than for their victims. What reasons could account for this attitude?
(16) “We do not outlaw swimming even though some swimmers will drown. Similarly, we do not execute all murderers even though some will murder again. In both cases, we allow some risk to the innocent in order to protect our freedoms.” Do you agree with this analogy (of Bedau)? Why or why not?”
(17) What is the view which Supreme Court took on death penalty? When can courts impose death penalty in the light of thisview?
(18) Define terrorism. Discuss the pros and cons of treating terrorists under ordinary criminal law or under tougher anti-terrorist legislation.
(19) Two US Supreme Court justices, Robert Jackson and Arthur Goldberg, facing a plethora of petitions in favour of civil liberties after 9/11 terrorist attacks, observed: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” How will you interpret this observation in the context of dilemmas in tackling terrorism?
(20) “We might think we‘re only hurting the terrorists and other criminals when we chip away at civil liberties, but we’re putting ourselves at risk too.” Evaluate.
(21) “And were a civilized nation engaged with barbarians, who observed no rules even of war, the former must also suspend their observance of them, where they no longer to any purpose; and must render every action or encounter as bloody and pernicious as possible to the first aggressors.” Discuss this view of philosopher David Hume.
(22) Some intellectuals regard that the recent Supreme Court judgement on playing the national anthem in cinema theatres panders to jingoist sentiments? How will you defend the judgement?
(23) Discuss Dr. Johnson’s quip that ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’.
(24) Examine rival views on whether animals can haverights.
(25) What could be a reasonable view on how animals should be used for human ends? Do you think that animal sports like Jallikattu should be continued?
REFERENCES
1. Jacques P. Thiroust with Kenneth W. Krasemann
Ethics Theory and Practice (Tenth Edition) Prentice Hall
2. Julie C. Vancamp, Jeffery Olen, Vincent Barry
Applying Ethics A text with Readings (Tenth Edition) Wodsworth
