Greek Philosophy on Moral and Ethical Behavior

Socrates and Plato

Compiled by: Tariq Ejaz (Lecturer Islamic Studies)

Department of Humanities

Air University, Islamabad

Philosophy and its Objectives:

Philosophy begins in the West with a group of philosophers variously known as the natural
philosophers or the pre-Socratics. Men—and the history of Western philosophy has been
dominated by males—such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Parmenides, Empedocles, and
Heraclitus were all engaged in an attempt to discover the secrets of the natural world, to reduce
the mass of phenomena to a few manageable principles, and to understand their natural
environments.

“Reason” as a tool to discover the Nature:

What held them together was a belief that one could reason one‟s way to the truth, that by
looking at natural effects one could deduce their causes. What distinguished one from the other
was that they each reasoned their way to different causes. For some, the natural world was
reducible to one immovable substance. For others, there were four basic elements (earth, air,
fire, and water). Others saw five or six or even more basic causes.

Who were Sophists?

This led a group of philosophers, the Sophists, to react against the program of the natural
philosophers. Whereas the natural philosophers assumed that an educated person, a wise person,
was one who knew the truth about things natural, the Sophists claimed that since ―reason‖
generated so many different conclusions, there was something unreliable about reason itself. If,
the Sophists suggested, reason were a reliable tool, it should always yield the same results. It did
not; hence, the Sophists shifted inquiry away from an attempt to discover the truth about the
natural world to an attempt to teach a useful skill.

The Sophists were the first professional teachers. They went around to the families of young
boys again, notice this orientation toward males—and offered to teach those boys how to argue
persuasively. The Sophists said, in effect: We don‘t care what your position is. We don‘t care
whether you are telling the truth or not. We will teach you how to make your case and how to
win arguments. This was an especially valuable skill because eventually those boys would, as
heads of households, have to speak in

the public forums that constituted Greek democracy. If they could not speak well, their family‘s
fortune would suffer. Into this mix—a mix that included a switch from the educated person as
she or he who knew the truth about the natural world to the educated person as she or he who
could argue persuasively regardless of the truth or falsity of the position—came the character
Socrates.

If one reads the dialogue Apology carefully, one will see that two of the accusations against
Socrates suggest that Socrates was both a natural philosopher and a Sophist at the same time.
Certainly, since one was a reaction against the other, but Socrates can be both. But what was
Socrates? What was his doctrine? Why was he so important? Such questions are important to be
known in order to know the moral and ethical philosophy coined by Socrates and pupil Plato.

According to one ancient source Socrates was born in Athens. He lived (469-399BC) during the
century that has been called the Golden Age of Athens. The Greeks had stopped the Persians at
Marathon in 490 and turned them away for good in 480/479 at Salamis and Plataea. Socrates
was the son of Sophroniscus, a sculptor and stone-mason. His mother was Phaenarete, a
midwife. A later historical source says that the wealthy Athenian Crito was so taken with the
grace of Socrates ‗soul that he took him out of the stone-mason‘s workshop and paid for his
education. Whatever the cause, Crito and Socrates did become life-long friends

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from three sources. Socrates did not write; indeed,
he distrusted the written word, and so we must rely on the plays of Aristophenes and the
dialogues of Xenophon and Plato.For our purposes, we will concentrate on those writings that
are clearly the most important, both philosophically and historically, that is, the writing of
Socrates‟ student, Plato.

Most commentators divide Plato‟s writing into three major periods. In the early dialogues,
Apology, Charmides, and Phaedo,(Books written by Plato ) for example, Plato gives a fairly
accurate portrayal of Socrates. Plato was almost like a “fly on the wall‖ or a tape recorder, and
one ―hears‖ dialogues that may actually have taken place. This is the place to go to find out what
Socrates was about and what he was teaching. In the middle period, The Republic (another
book)is a good example of Plato‘s using Socrates to espouse his (Plato‟s) own doctrine. That
doctrine is called the Theory of the Forms, and the middle period is the place to go if one wants
to see what the mature Plato thought. Toward the end of his career, Plato had some doubts about
his theory; in later dialogues like Parmenides, Theaetetus, and Sophist, one sees Plato rethinking
and, perhaps, rejecting the theory. At the same time, because Socrates was Plato‟s mouthpiece in
the middle period, the character of Socrates now becomes a minor figure, becomes a figure of
ridicule and scorn, or drops out altogether. The later dialogues are not the place to go to get an
accurate picture of Socrates. So who was Socrates, and what did he espouse? The dialogue
Apology is probably the best place to start. As mentioned in his biography, Socrates was on trial
for his life. After rejecting a number of the more far-fetched accusations (accusations that
suggested he was a natural philosopher and a Sophist), Socrates wonders what the real charge
against him is. He settles on the charge that he is guilty of corrupting the morals of the youth of
Athens. As one will see, ―Socratic irony‖ is an apt description. Socrates, in the company of his
students, engaged those with a reputation for wisdom in a dialogue. Over the course of those
dialogues, Socrates discovered, and so did his students and the people who were questioned, that
those with a reputation for wisdom did not always deserve it. Socrates was wiser than the
―wisest‖ people because he knew his own limits: he knew that he did not know, while they
mistakenly thought they did. For Socrates, the educated person is precisely the person who
knows his limitations, who knows that he does not know. There are two points that are worthy of
consideration. The first is that this person, whom many consider to be one of the two great
teachers in the Western tradition (Jesus is the other), professed to have virtually no doctrine and
said that what he knew was unimportant. Over and over again, in the Apology, the Phaedrus, and
the Charmides,
Socrates suggests that true wisdom is the property of the gods, and that what he has this
human wisdom and this knowledge of his own limitations is worth hardly anything at all.

The second point is that Socrates puts an enormous amount of weight, some might call it faith,
on the power of the dialogue, that back-and-forth linguistic motion between speakers, to
uncover the truth. When Socrates discusses ideas with those with a reputation for wisdom, a truth
always emerges from the dialogue. The dialogue allows the truth to emerge. In the excerpt from
The Republic, the truth is about some mistaken assumptions and dialogue is perhaps best
understood as a focused attempt by a group of speakers to solve a limited number of problems or
to answer a few questions. Socrates is different from the Sophists because he thinks there is a
―truth‖ to be discovered. He is different from the natural philosophers because the method that he
uses—discourse, dialogue, conversation—is public and communal; it is open to scrutiny in a
way that reasoning, as a purely mental activity, is not. Plato, as one would expect from a student,
took much from his teacher Socrates.

Socrates, believing that "the unexamined life is not worth living," typically challenges the
conventional beliefs of his fellows, both ordinary people and more sophisticated thinkers, with
questions about how human life should be lived. When his inter-locutors prove unable to defend
their opinions on such questions, Socrates offers his own, radical, positive agenda with logical
arguments in their place. We are happy, he thought, when our souls are in the best condition
when we have the virtues of character, especially justice, inner goodness of truthfulness and
honesty. Since we all want to be happy, we will inevitably do what is virtuous if we know what it
is. Hence happiness is achieved by removing ignorance and vice from our souls and replacing
them with knowledge and virtue. Socrates' moral seriousness and courage, in discussion and in
life, won favor not only with posterity but also with many of his contemporaries but not all of
them: in 399 he was tried and convicted on a charge of impiety, and put to death.

Plato and the concept of education:

He was born 428/427 bc in, Athens, Greece and died 348/347 there. He is great ancient Greek
philosopher, student of Socrates (c. 470–399 bc), teacher of Aristotle (384–322 bce), and founder
of the Academy, best known as the author of philosophical works of unparalleled influence.
Plato introduced the idea that their mistakes were due to their not engaging properly with a class
of entities he called forms, chief examples of which were Justice, Beauty, and Equality. He
introduced a marvelous idea of learning and true knowledge.

For Plato, education is a matter of leading a person from mere belief to true knowledge. In his
classic ―Allegory of the Cave,‖ Plato suggests that we, as uneducated persons, are chained in a
cave, seeing shadows on the wall and mistakenly believing that the shadows (and the cave itself)
are the real things. Education involves breaking those chains and leading a person from the cave
into the bright sunshine. The good teacher does this through the dialectical process, an
environment of open debate of various phenomenon of this universe thus, leading the student as
far as he is capable in his intellectual flight. The best students—those most philosophical, those
best educated will use the dialectical process to discover true beauty, goodness, and justice,
equality, being good and kind to people and a sense of sacrifice. Plato is different from his
teacher, Socrates, precisely because the wisdom that Plato‟s students would discover is worth a
good deal; that is, it involves knowledge of objective standards (the

Forms) that will enable people to lead good, productive moral lives. The following selections
include one from his book Apology .

FROM PLATO‟S APOLOGY (CA. 399 BC)

I dare to say that someone will ask the question, ―Why this is with Socrates and what is the
origin of these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you have
been doing? All this great fame and talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like
other men: tell us, then, why this is, as we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.‖ Now I regard
this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of ―wise,‖
and of this evil fame. Please to attend then. And, although some of you may think that I am
joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has
come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply,
such wisdom as is attainable by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise;
whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to
describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking
away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I
seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you
to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom—whether I have any,
and of what sort—and that witness shall be the God of Delphi. You must have known
Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile
of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all
his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether—as I was
saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was any
one wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser.
Chaerephon is dead himself; but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story.
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name.
When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean and what is the interpretation
of this riddle? For I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he
says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his
nature. After long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected
that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in
my hand. I should say to him, ―Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the
wisest.‖ Accordingly, I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his
name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result
was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really
wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to
explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise, and the consequence was
that he hated me, and his enmity was

shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went
away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and
good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know
nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.
Then I went to another who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was
exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him. After this I
went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I
lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me the word of God, I thought, ought to be
considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the
meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the gods I swear! for I must tell you the
truth the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the
most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of
my wanderings and of the ―Herculean‖ labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find
at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic,
and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are
more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in
their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that they would teach me
something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that
there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did
themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort
of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things,
but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the
same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves
to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving
myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians. At last I
went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure
that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things
of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that
even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;—because they were good workmen
they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed
their wisdom—therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I
was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer
to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was. This investigation has led to my having
many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many
calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the
wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise;
and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking
of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest
who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way,
obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or
stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show
him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to
any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason

of my devotion to the god.

Plato and his famous saying about ethics:

 You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.
 Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say
something.
 We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when
men are afraid of the light.
 Human behavior flows from three main sources; desire, emotion, and knowledge.
 No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in
their nature and education.
 The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life.
 Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others.
 Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a
way around the law.
 A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.
 The greatest wealth is to live content with little.
 There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain
 Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom.
 Ignorance, the root and steam of all evil
 He who is not a good servant will not be a good master.
 There is no harm in repeating a good thing.
 For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.

Aristotle:

Family, Early Life and Education

Aristotle (c. 384 B.C. to 322 B.C.) was also an Ancient Greek philosopher and scientist who is
still considered one of the greatest thinkers in politics, psychology and ethics.

Aristotle‘s father, Nicomachus, was court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas II.
Although Nicomachus died when Aristotle was just a young boy, Aristotle remained closely
affiliated with and influenced by the Macedonian court for the rest of his life. Little is known
about his mother, Phaestis; she is also believed to have died when Aristotle was young.

After Aristotle‘s father died, Proxenus of Atarneus, who was married to Aristotle‘s older sister,
Arimneste, became Aristotle‘s guardian until he came of mature age. When Aristotle turned 17,
Proxenus sent him to Athens to pursue a higher education. At the time, Athens was considered
the academic center of the universe. In Athens, Aristotle enrolled in Plato‘s Academy, Greek‘s
premier learning institution, and proved an exemplary scholar. Aristotle maintained a
relationship with Greek philosopher Plato, himself a student of Socrates, and his academy for
two decades. Plato died in 347 B.C. Because Aristotle had disagreed with some of Plato‘s
philosophical treatises, Aristotle did not inherit the position of director of the academy, as many
imagined he would.

He together with Socrates and Plato, laid much of the groundwork for western philosopher.
Aristotle wrote an estimated 200 works, most in the form of notes and manuscript drafts touching
on reasoning, rhetoric, politics, ethics, science and psychology. They consist of dialogues,
records of scientific observations and systematic works. His book explores the foundation of
story making, including character development, plot and storyline.
Concept of Ethics:

In Nichomachean Ethics, which is believed to have been named in tribute to Aristotle‘s son,
Nicomachus, Aristotle prescribed a moral code of conduct for what he called ―good living.‖ He
asserted that good living to some degree defied the more restrictive laws of logic, since the real
world poses circumstances that can present a conflict of personal values. That said, it was up to
the individual to reason cautiously while developing his or her own judgment. Eudemian Ethics
is another of Aristotle‘s major treatises on the behavior and judgment that constitute ―good
living.‖
On happiness: In his treatises on ethics, Aristotle aimed to discover the best way to live life and
give it meaning — ―the supreme good for man,‖ in his words — which he determined was the
pursuit of happiness. Our happiness is not a state but an activity, and is determined by our ability
to live a life that enables us to use and develop our reason. While bad luck can affect happiness,
a truly happy person, he believed, learns to cultivate habits and behaviors that help him (or her)
to keep bad luck in perspective.

The golden mean: Aristotle also defined what he called the ―golden mean.‖ Living a moral life,
Aristotle believed, was the ultimate goal. Doing so means approaching every ethical dilemma by
finding a mean between living to excess and living deficiently, taking into account an
individual‘s needs and circumstances.

Examining Human Behavior:

Aristotle examined human behavior in the context of society and government. Aristotle believed
the purpose of government was to make it possible for citizens to achieve virtue and happiness.
Intended to help guide statesmen and rulers, his book Politics explores, among other themes,
how and why cities come into being; the roles of citizens and politicians; wealth and the class
system; the purpose of the political system; types of governments and democracies; and the roles
of slavery and women in the household and society.

Rhetoric' for Truth and Justice:

In his book Rhetoric, Aristotle observes and analyzes public speaking with scientific rigor in
order to teach readers how to be more effective speakers. Aristotle believed rhetoric was
essential in politics and law and helped defend truth and justice. Good rhetoric, Aristotle
believed, could educate people and encourage them to consider both sides of a debate. Aristotle‘s
work explored how to construct an argument and maximize its effect, as well as fallacious
reasoning to avoid (like generalizing from a single example).

Rene Descartes
Introduction:
Rene Descartes was born on March 31, 1569 in France. His mother died soon after his birth. At
the age of 8, his father enrolled him in Jesuit school at La-Fleche. Rene had frail health so the
rector Father Charlet allowed Rene to stay in bed as long as he wanted to in the morning. He
continued this practice most of his life.
Pure Rational Approach:
As a young child, Descartes would accept nothing based on mere authority. He wanted to know
the reasons for everything. As a student, Descartes began suspecting that the Jesuit education he
was receiving was ―almost barren of human significance with little power to enrich or improve
human life.‖ He considered the philosophy, ethics and morals that he was taught to be baseless
superstitions. Descartes began asking the questions ―how do we know anything?‖ and ―how then
shall we ever find out anything?‖ Descartes overcome his rational skepticism with the fact that
“I think, therefore I am”. It was this foundation on which he based his thinking and work.
Descartes left the Jesuit school disgusted with the ―aridity of the studies on which he had put so
much hard labor‖. He then moved to direction for three years of meditation and mathematical
investigation.
His Intellectual Depth:
He communicated with the rest of the intellectual world through his friend Mersenne. Later,
Descartes studied a diversity of subjects including ―optics, chemistry, physics, anatomy,
embryology, medicine, astronomical observations and meteorology. He was gaining fame for his
intellectual contributions throughout Europe. As result a princess and a queen demanded that he
should tutor them. The first was Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, who was fluent in six languages
and had voracious appetite for knowledge. The second was Queen Christine of Sweden, who
required Descartes to be at palace at each morning at 5:00 A.M. Descartes would fall ill as result
and died February 11, 1650.
Descartes is best known for developing analytic geometry and thus the beginning of the modern
era of mathematics. This can be traced back to a November 10, 1619, when Descartes had three
vivid dreams. From these dreams Descartes derived that the key to understanding nature was to
apply algebra to geometry and thereby use mathematics to unlock the secrets of the universe‖.
Descartes would not publish his method until eighteen years later. Finally in 1637, his friend
convinced him to publish Method and analytic geometry was given to the world.

Four Methods for acceptance of Truth:

“So blind is the curiosity with which mortals are obsessed that they often direct their energies
along unexplored paths, with no reasoned ground for hope, but merely making trial whenever
what they seek may by happy chance be thereby found”. – Descartes

It is in human‘s nature to wonder around without defined paths, it is a property of the human
mind not to follow a set of rules; unless a force is applied to keep it fixed on a definite path. Most
humans do not follow a fixed path, a method, but pick up the left-over of passers-by. Men always
hope to gain, but with the desire to put the least of efforts; they want the treasure to come to
them, the same way we want money to come to us with the least work possible; we want
recognition with the least of struggle. It is possible to attain such realities, but they are not a
product of self-determination, of self-control or of following one path (one method); they are the
products of fortune, of luck. Putting it in Descartes‘ words ―I am not denying that in their
wanderings they sometimes happen on what is true. I cannot, however, allow that this is due to
greater address on their part, but only to their being more favored by fortune.‖

If lost in a jungle, it is much better to follow one path, than to change from one to another; the
lack of knowledge (of which path leads you where) may end up bringing you to the same point
over and over again. To find the truth is like finding the way out thought the jungle; following
one path (one method) has more chances to get you out than the chances you have from jumping
from one path to the other. It is far better not to have desire to seek the truth than to do so
without method. For, what is quite certain is that unregulated studies and confused mediation
tend to puzzle the natural light, blinding the mind. To gain knowledge is to know the truth, to be
beyond doubt. All of us have undergone schooling, but it is this schooling the cause of all our
confusion. There is no single matter, in whatever we have been thought in our many years of
schooling, on which wise men agree; nothing which is beyond doubt, for how can this be
knowledge?

To gain knowledge (the truth) a method is necessary, Descartes believed, a set of rules which
need to be followed all the time. For Descartes method meant ―rules which are certain and easy
and such that whomsoever will observe them accurately will never assume what is false as true,
or uselessly waste his mental efforts, but gradually and steadily advancing in knowledge will
attain to a true understanding of all those things which lie within his powers.‖ Descartes believed
to have discovered one method which leads to the ―truth‖. He did not deny the existence of other
methods but he believed that his method, which worked for him, leads to the truth and wanted
others to have the opportunity to use this method. His method consisted of four rules:

Rule 1:

“Never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say,
carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment
than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all grounds of
doubt.” – Descartes

Prejudices are a product of information which has been imparted on us. We have all learned
much in our years of schooling but have we gained knowledge? Knowledge is beyond doubt, but
in whatever we have learned there is no single matter on which wise men agree upon. There is no
such matter which is not under dispute. ―He who entertains doubt on many matters in no wiser
than he who has never thought of such matter‖. It is better not to study at all than to occupy
ourselves with objects so difficult that, owing to inability to distinguish true from false, we may
be obliged to accept the doubtful as certain. In such enquiries there is more risk of diminishing
our knowledge than of increasing it. No modes of knowledge which are probable are acceptable;
only that which is perfectly known and in respect of which doubt is not possible can be
considered knowledge. All such matter which involves ―probable opinions‖ is to be ruled out as
a base to acquire ―genuine knowledge‖. What is then genuine knowledge, what is known to be
beyond doubt? In Descartes‘ words ―Accordingly, if we are representing the situation correctly,
observation of this rule confines us to arithmetic and geometry, as being the only science yet
discovered.‖

Rule 2:

“To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as
might be necessary for its adequate solution.” – Descartes

What is unknown can only be understood in relation to what is known; nothing is completely
unknown; for if it were, it could never be known. The prerequisite to attain knowledge is that we
are, from the start, is possession of all the data required to find the truth. To find the truth there,
firstly, must be in every question something not yet known, other wise the enquiry would be to no
purpose. Secondly, the not yet known must be, in some way, marked out; otherwise our attention
may tend to deviate towards something else. Thirdly, the unknown can only be marked out in
relation to something which is already known. Thus, if we are asked to find what is the nature of
a magnet, we already know what is meant by those two words, „magnet‟ and „nature‟, and
thereby we are determined to enquire on these two words than on something else. But over and
above this, if the question is to be perfectly understood, we require that it is made so completely
determinate that we have no need to seek for anything beyond what can be deduced from the
(already known) data.

Rule 3:

“To conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and
easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge
of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their
own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.” – Descartes

The third rule can be understood as a process of ―analysis and synthesis‖; a digging to the bottom
rock (analysis) and a reconstruction of the structure from the bottom (synthesis). It is about
distinguishing simple things from the more complex ones and arranging them in such an order so
we can directly deduce the truths of one from the other. This rule admonishes us that all
information can be arranged in certain series, not classified as categories, but in order in which
each item contributes to the knowledge of those that follow upon it. There are two different
relation which can be found while digging: the ones at the rock bottom (the absolute ones) and
the on the way to the bottom (the relative ones).

Absolute is that which possesses in itself the pure and simple nature of that which we have under
consideration, i.e. whatever is viewed as being independent, cause, simple, universal, one, equal,
like, straight, and such like. These are the simplest and easiest to apprehend and they serve to
find the relative one; the search is always from the bottom to the top. The relatives share some
properties with the absolutes, since they are deduces from them, yet they involve in its concept,
over and above the absolute nature, certain other characters i.e. whatever is said to be dependent,
effect, composite, particular, multiple, unequal, unlike, oblique, etc.

The above rule requires that these relatives should be different from one another, and the linkage
and the natural order of their interrelations be so observed, that we may be able, starting from
that which is nearest to us (as empirically given), to reach to that which is completely absolute,
by passing though all intermediate relatives.

Rule 4:

“To make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general that I might be assured that nothing
was omitted.” – Descartes

The search for knowledge is not easy, many are the question which will have to answered, some
will be known and some not. Some of the truths which we have been seeking of are not
immediately deduced from the primary self-evidencing data; this deduction sometimes involves
series of connected terms arranged in a sequence. The process is long and this is why it is not
easy for the mind to remember all the links which it did to conduct us to the conclusion.
Continuous movement of thought is required to remedy this weakness of memory. One should
run over each link several times and this process should become so continuous that while
intuiting each step it simultaneously passes to the next one; this process should be repeated until
the mind learns to pass from one step to the other, so quickly, that almost none of the step seem
to exist independently but the whole process seems a ―whole‖. This process of deduction should
nowhere be interrupted, for even if the smallest link misses the chain brakes and certainly the
truth will escape from us.

This whole process relies on enumeration. In all questions there is something (however minute or
however negative) which may escape us, and only by enumeration can we be conscious of
leading a correct induction. Only by the means of enumeration can we be assured of always
passing a true and certain judgment on whatever is under investigation.

Diagram of the four rules:

This diagram is a pictorial representation of the four rules. Many in formations are given to us by
the outside world, but (as the fist rule states) only those which are sure to be true must be
accepted. The filter which is shown is like an imaginary organ in our brain which allows only
true information to go tough it. Information ―A‖ is true and is allowed to pass; this information
must be then divided (rule 2) in as many parts as possible. Once the information is divided we
need to classify it in two different categories (rule 3): the simple problems (those which are in an
absolute relation) and the more complex problems (those which are in a relative relation). First
the simple problems are solved and as we are able to solve the simple questions we come to the
more complex ones any try to solve them. Finally to check that we have not missed even the
smallest link (rule 4) between each link which we have made, we enumerate all the information
and recheck all the links.

Conclusion:

Descartes is known as one of the major philosopher to have conceptualized modern philosophy;
to have brought ―philosophy‖ from ―a way of life‖ to an academic subject and his main focus of
interest was ―knowledge‖. What is knowledge? How can we attain knowledge, if we can attain it
at all? To question everything (method of doubt) was for him the first step towards knowing the
truth; truth which he considered to be knowledge.

The four rules, above explained, were for Descartes the path which led to the ―truth‖. We cannot
deny the success which Descartes achieved by using this method, since he claimed that it was by
the use of this method that he discovered analytic geometry; but this method leads you only to
acquiring scientific knowledge. What I believe, and many others also do, is that what Descartes
meant by knowledge is what we now call ―scientific knowledge‖ and scientific knowledge is
only a sub-category of knowledge, not knowledge as a whole.

The Place of Ethics in Descartes‟ Philosophy:

Descartes‘ writings reveal a consistent conception of philosophy‘s goal. In the first rule of the
unfinished Rules for the Direction of the Mind, he states: ―The aim of our studies should be to
direct the mind with a view to forming true and sound judgements about whatever comes before
it‖. The principal goal of philosophy is to cultivate one‘s capacity for sound judgment, which
Descartes identifies with ―good sense‖ (French le bons sens) and ―universal wisdom.‖ This goal
should be pursued for its own sake, since other ends may distract us from the course of inquiry.
Nevertheless, Descartes insists upon the practical benefits of the wisdom thereby achieved: one
should consider ―how to increase the natural light of his reason… in order that his intellect
should show his will what decision it ought to make in each of life‘s contingencies‖ In this way,
we can expect to realize the ―legitimate fruits‖ of the sciences: ―the comforts of life‖ and ―the
pleasure to be gained from contemplating the truth, which is practically the only happiness in this
life that is complete and untroubled by pain‖.

The last point previews one of the principal concerns of Descartes‘ ethics. In agreement with the
ancients, he takes philosophy‘s practical goal to be the realization of a happy life: one in which
we enjoy the best existence that a human being can hope to achieve. Descartes characterizes this
life in terms of a type of mental contentment, or tranquility, that is experienced by the person
with a well-ordered mind. In keeping with a central theme of Hellenistic ethics, Descartes likens
philosophy to a form of therapy that can treat the mind‘s illnesses (those that stand in the way of
its happiness), just as medicine treats the illnesses of the body. As he writes in one of his earliest
recorded remarks, ―I use the term ‗vice‘ to refer to the diseases of the mind, which are not so
easy to recognize as diseases of the body. This is because we have frequently experienced sound
bodily health, but have never known true health of the mind‖.Philosophy is thus charged with
leading us to ―true health of the mind,‖ which it does through the cultivation of ―true and sound
judgment.‖ It is significant that Descartes—again in agreement with the ancients—focuses his
efforts on the happiness that can be realized within the natural life of a human being. He is
careful to note that it is a dogma of faith that ―the supreme happiness,‖ consisting ―solely in the
contemplation of the divine majesty‖ and attainable only through divine grace, is reserved for the
―next life‖. The consideration of this ―supernatural bliss‖ (French béatitude surnaturelle) plays
no role in Descartes‘ system. On the contrary, he emphasizes that genuine happiness is attainable
within this life, in spite of the trials we face. ―One of the main points of my own ethical code is
to love life without fearing death‖ The key to developing this affirmative attitude toward life is
the cultivation of reason.

2. The Provisional Moral Code of the Discourse:

Descartes frames the rules of his provisional morality as part of the epistemological project I,e
the search for certainty. In order that he may act decisively and live as happily as possible while
avoiding ―precipitate conclusions and assumptions,‖ Descartes proposes ―a provisional moral
code consisting of just three or four maxims‖:

The first was to obey the laws and customs of my country, holding constantly to the religion in
which by God‘s grace I had been instructed from my childhood…. The second maxim was to be
as firm and decisive in my actions as I could, and to follow even the most doubtful opinions,
once I had adopted them, with no less constancy than if they had been quite certain…. My third
maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather
than the order of the world…. Finally, to conclude this moral code… I thought I could do no
better than to continue with the [occupation] I was engaged in, and to devote my whole life to
cultivating my reason and advancing as far as I could in the knowledge of the truth, following the
method I had prescribed for myself.

It is evident, then, that the first three maxims of the ―provisional moral code‖ are just those
provisional rules that Descartes will follow while he carries out his search for certain
knowledge—and that he is confident that this search will terminate in knowledge of ―true goods‖
that will supply reliable directives for action. Descartes hints at the range of these goods in Part
Five of the Discourse. They include the maintenance of health, ―which is undoubtedly the first
good [le premier bien] and the foundation of all the other goods in this life.‖ Because ―the mind
depends so much on the temperament and disposition of the bodily organs,‖ Descartes adds, we
must look to medicine if we are ―to find some means of making men in general wiser and more
skillful than they have been up till now‖. The extent of Descartes‘ commitment to the integration
of physical and psychological health will become apparent in the Passions of the Soul. It would
be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that he proposes a reduction of ethics to medicine.
As presented already in the Discourse, his ethics is founded on an ideal of virtue as a perfected
power of judgment, together with the assumption that virtue by itself is sufficient for happiness:

Since our will tends to pursue or avoid only what our intellect represents as good or bad, we need
only to judge well in order to act well, and to judge as well as we can in order to do our best that
is to say, in order to acquire all the virtues and in general all the other goods we can acquire. And
when we are certain of this, we cannot fail to be happy.

3. The Meditations and the Ethics of Belief:

The Meditations is distinguished from Descartes‘ other works in explicitly foreswearing practical
concerns. The conceit of the Meditations is a thinker who has abstracted himself from any
connection to the external world. For this reason, Descartes feels confident in pursuing the
method of hyperbolic doubt, which rejects as false any opinion concerning which the slightest
doubt can be raised: ―I know that no danger or error will result from my plan, and that I cannot
possibly go too far in my distrustful attitude. This is because the task now in hand does not
involve action but merely the acquisition of knowledge‖.

Descartes takes the operation of the will to be integral to both belief and action. In general, the
will, or ―freedom of choice,‖ consists ―in our ability to do or not do something (that is, to affirm
or deny, to pursue or avoid); or rather, it consists simply in the fact that when the intellect puts
something forward for affirmation or denial or for pursuit or avoidance, our inclinations are such
that we do not feel we are determined by any external force‖. For Descartes, freedom is an
essential property of the will; however, this freedom does not entail indifference: ―if I always
saw clearly what was true and good, I should never have to deliberate about the right judgement
or choice; in that case, although I should be wholly free, it would be impossible for me ever to be
in a state of indifference‖. We are indifferent only when our perception of the true, or of the
good, is less than clear and distinct.
The Role of Will:

Descartes assigns the will a pivotal role in the pursuit of knowledge. When presented with a clear
and distinct perception of what is true, the will is compelled to assent to it. When the perception
is less than fully clear and distinct, the will is not compelled in the same way. In such cases, it
has the power either to assent or to withhold assent. Given this, the correct use of free will is
identified as the critical factor in the attainment of knowledge: ―If… I simply refrain from
making a judgment in cases where I do not perceive the truth with sufficient clarity and
distinctness, then it is clear that I am behaving correctly and avoiding error. But if in such cases,
I either affirm or deny, then I not using my free will correctly‖, Provided we refrain from
assenting to what is not clearly and distinctly perceived, our judgments are guaranteed to be true.

In the Fourth Meditation, Descartes draws a close parallel between the will‘s relation to the true
and to the good. Just as the will is compelled to assent to what is clearly and distinctly perceived
to be true, so it is compelled to choose what is clearly and distinctly perceived to be good: ―if I
always saw clearly what was true and good, I should never have to deliberate about the right
judgement or choice‖. And analogously, we might suppose, just as the recipe for avoiding error
is to withhold assent from that whose truth is not perceived clearly and distinctly, so the recipe
for avoiding moral error, or sin, is to refuse to choose that whose goodness is not perceived
clearly and distinctly.

Generosity and The Passions of the Soul:

On the face of it, this seems to be contradicted by the contents of the book, since much of it is
devoted to understanding the passions from an ethical point of view—that is, understanding how
they can be accommodated to the goal of happiness. The significance of Descartes‘ remark lies
in the particular account he gives of the passions. In general, they are defined as ―those
perceptions, sensations or emotions of the soul which we refer particularly to it, and which are
caused, maintained and strengthened by some movement of the [animal] spirits‖. Descartes‘
central thesis is that the passions originate in bodily changes, which are communicated by the
animal spirits to the pineal gland, and thereby give rise to affective states in the soul—affections
which are referred to the soul itself and not to the body.
Descartes distinguishes six primitive passions: wonder, love, hatred, desire, joy and sadness. All
the rest are either composed from these or species of them. The passions operate in a common
manner: ―the principal effect of all the human passions is that they move and dispose the soul to
want the things for which they prepare the body.‖ Thus, the passions are in the first place
motivational states that dispose the soul to give specific actions: ―the feeling of fear moves the
soul to want to flee, and courage to want to fight, and similarly with the others‖. Different
passions result from the effects of different motions on the pineal gland; and these, Descartes
assumes, have been ordained by God for the sake of preserving the human body: ―The function
of all the passions consists solely in this, that they dispose our soul to want the things which
nature deems useful for us, and the same agitation of the spirits which normally causes the
passions also disposes the body to make movements which help to attain these things‖.

Given their natural function of preserving the body, the passions are all by nature good. They
spur us to act in ways that are in general conducive to our well-being. However, the effects of the
passions are not uniformly beneficial. Because they exaggerate the goodness or badness of their
objects, they can lead us to pursue apparent goods or flee apparent harms too quickly. The
passions are also ordered for the sake of the preservation of the body, and not the contentment of
the soul; and because they originate in the body, any malfunction of the latter can disrupt the
normal operation of the passions. For these reasons, it is necessary that the passions be regulated
by reason, whose ―proper weapons‖ against their misuse and excess are ―firm and determinate
judgements bearing upon the knowledge of good and evil, which the soul has resolved to follow
in guiding its conduct‖. Summarizing his position at the end of the Passions, Descartes says that
―the chief use of wisdom lies in its teaching us to be masters of our passions and to control them
with such skill that the evils which they cause are quite bearable, and even become a source of
joy‖.

Generosity is an ideal of individual ethical perfection, but Descartes also draws from it an
important conclusion concerning our relations to others. Upon recognizing an element of
unconditional value within himself, the generous person is naturally led to extend this
recognition to others: ―Those who possess this knowledge and this feeling about themselves
readily come to believe that any other person can have the same knowledge and feeling about
himself, because this involves nothing which depends on someone else.‖ Those who are
endowed with generosity are thus disposed to overlook conventional distinctions of class and
social status, and to focus on the true, intrinsic worth of each individual:

Just as they do not consider themselves much inferior to those who have greater wealth or honor,
or even to those who have more intelligence, knowledge or beauty, or generally to those who
surpass them in some other perfections, equally they do not have much more esteem for
themselves than for those whom they surpass. For all these things seem to them to be
unimportant, by contrast with the virtuous will for which alone they esteem themselves, and
which they suppose also to be present, or at least capable of being present, in every other person.

Thus, despite its nod to law and custom, which fill the space opened by the limits of our moral
knowledge, Descartes‘ ethics is crowned by a principle of moral universalism. In virtue of their
free will, all human beings have the same moral status and deserve equal moral respect. In this
we find an important anticipation of Kant‘s ethics, which emerges from a similar consideration
of the unconditional value of a rational and free will.

Immanuel Kant

Introduction:

Immanuel Kant was born April 22, 1724 in Königsberg, near the southeastern shore of the Baltic
Sea. Today Königsberg has been renamed Kaliningrad and is part of Russia. But during Kant's
lifetime Königsberg was the capital of East Prussia, and its dominant language was German.
Kant was born into an artisan family of modest means. His father was a master harness maker,
and his mother was the daughter of a harness maker, though she was better educated than most
women of her social class. Kant's family was never destitute, but his father's trade was in decline
during Kant's youth and his parents at times had to rely on extended family for financial support.
Kant attended college at the University of Königsberg, known as the Albertina, where his early
interest in classics was quickly superseded by philosophy, which all first year students studied
and which encompassed mathematics and physics as well as logic, metaphysics, ethics, and
natural law.

Books:

o Critique of Judgment
o Critique of Practical Reason
o Critique of Pure Reason
o Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
o The Metaphysics of Morals
o Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime
o The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of
God
o Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
o Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason
o Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces
o Universal Natural History and Theory of Heaven

General Philosophical Thoughts:

Kant argues that all philosophy ultimately aims at answering these three questions: ―What can I
know? What should I do? What may I hope?‖ The book appeared at the beginning of the most
productive period of his career, and by the end of his life Kant had worked out systematic,
revolutionary, and often profound answers to these questions.

At the foundation of Kant‘s system is the doctrine of ―transcendental idealism,‖ which

emphasizes a distinction between what we can experience (the natural, observable world) and
what we cannot (―supersensible‖ objects such as God and the soul). Kant argued that we can
only have knowledge of things we can experience. Accordingly, in answer to the question,
―What can I know?‖ Kant replies that we can know the natural, observable world, but we cannot,
however, have answers to many of the deepest questions of metaphysics.
Kant‘s ethics are organized around the notion of a ―categorical imperative,‖ which is a universal
ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one
should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone. Kant argued that the moral
law is a truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law.
Thus in answer to the question, ―What should I do?‖ Kant replies that we should act rationally, in
accordance with a universal moral law.

Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of
the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads
to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith. Thus in answer to the
question, ―What may I hope?‖ Kant replies that we may hope that our souls are immortal and
that there really is a God who designed the world in accordance with principles of justice.

In addition to these three focal points, Kant also made lasting contributions to nearly all areas of
philosophy. His aesthetic theory remains influential among art critics. His theory of knowledge is
required reading for many branches of analytic philosophy. The cosmopolitanism behind his
political theory colors discourse about globalization and international relations. And some of his
scientific contributions are even considered intellectual precursors to several ideas in
contemporary cosmology.

Moral and Ethical Theory:

Kant‘s moral theory is organized around the idea that to act morally and to act in accordance
with reason are one and the same. In virtue of being a rational agent one is obligated to follow
the moral law that practical reason prescribes. To do otherwise is to act irrationally. Because
Kant places his emphasis on the duty that comes with being a rational agent who is cognizant of
the moral law, Kant‘s theory is considered a form of deontology (deon- comes from the Greek
for ―duty‖ or ―obligation‖).

Kant begins his argument from the point that a moral theory must be grounded in an account of
what is unconditionally good. If something is merely conditionally good, that is, if its goodness
depends on something else, then that other thing will either be merely conditionally good as well,
in which case its goodness depends on yet another thing, or it will be unconditionally good. All
goodness, then, must ultimately be traceable to something that is unconditionally good. There are
many things that we typically think of as good but that are not truly unconditionally good.
Beneficial resources such as money or power are often good, but since these things can be used
for evil purposes, their goodness is conditional on the use to which they are put. Strength of
character is generally a good thing, but again, if someone uses a strong character to successfully
carry out evil plans, then the strong character is not good. Even happiness, according to Kant, is
not unconditionally good. Although all humans universally desire to be happy, if someone is
happy but does not deserve their happiness (because, for instance, their happiness results from
stealing from the elderly), then it is not good for the person to be happy. Happiness is only good
on the condition that the happiness is deserved.

Kant argues that there is only one thing that can be considered unconditionally good: a good
will. A person has a good will insofar as they form their intentions on the basis of a self-
conscious respect for the moral law, that is, for the rules regarding what a rational agent ought to
do, one‘s duty. The value of a good will lie in the principles on the basis of which it forms its
intentions; it does not lie in the consequences of the actions that the intentions lead to. This is
true even if a good will never leads to any desirable consequences at all: ―Even if… this will
should wholly lack the capacity to carry out its purpose… then, like a jewel, it would still shine
by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself‖. This is in line with Kant‘s emphasis on
the unconditional goodness of a good will: if a will were evaluated in terms of its consequences,
then the goodness of the will would depend on (that is, would be conditioned on) those
consequences. (In this respect, Kant‘s deontology is in stark opposition to consequentialist moral
theories, which base their moral evaluations on the consequences of actions rather than the
intentions behind them.

Kant‟s conception of Categorical Imperative:

If a good will is one that forms its intentions on the basis of correct principles of action, then we
want to know what sort of principles these are. A principle that commands an action is called an
―imperative.‖ Most imperatives are ―hypothetical imperatives,‖ that is, they are commands that
hold only if certain conditions are met. For instance: ―if you want to be a successful shopkeeper,
then cultivate a reputation for honesty.‖ Since hypothetical imperatives are conditioned on
desires and the intended consequences of actions, they cannot serve as the principles that
determine the intentions and conscious capability of an unconditionally good will. Instead, we
require what Kant calls a ―categorical imperative.‖ Where hypothetical imperatives take the
form, ―if y is desired/intended/sought, do x,‖ categorical imperatives simply take the form, ―do
x.‖ Since a categorical imperative is stripped of all references to the consequences of an action, it
is thereby stripped of all determinate contents, and hence it is purely formal. And since it is
unconditional, it holds universality. Hence a categorical imperative expresses only the very form
of a universally binding law: To act morally, then, is to form one‘s intentions on the basis of the
very idea of a universal principle of action.

This conception of a categorical imperative leads Kant to his first official formulation of the
categorical imperative itself: ―act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at
the same time will that it becomes a universal law‖. A maxim is a general rule that can be used to
determine particular courses of actions in particular circumstances. For instance, the maxim ―I
shall lie when it will get me out of trouble‖ can be used to determine the decision to lie about an
adulterous liaison. The categorical imperative offers a decision procedure for determining
whether a given course of action is in accordance with the moral law. After determining what
maxim one would be basing the action in question on, one then asks whether it would be
possible, given the power (in an imagined, hypothetical scenario), to choose that everyone acts in
accordance with that same maxim. If it is possible to will that everyone acts according to that
maxim, then the action under consideration is morally permissible. If it is not possible to will that
everyone act according to that maxim, the action is morally impermissible. Lying to cover up
adultery is thus immoral because one cannot will that everyone act according to the maxim, ―I
shall lie when it will get me out of trouble.‖ Note that it is not simply that it would be
undesirable for everyone to act according to that maxim. Rather, it would be impossible. Since
everyone would know that everyone else was acting according to that maxim, there would never
be the presupposition that anyone was telling the truth; the very act of lying, of course, requires
such a presupposition on the part of the one being lied to. Hence, the state of affairs where
everyone lies to get out of trouble can never arise, so it cannot be willed to be a universal law. It
fails the test of the categorical imperative.
The point of Kant‘s appeal to the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative is to
show that an action is morally permissible only if the maxim on which the action is based could
be affirmed as a universal law that everyone obeys without exception. The mark of immorality,
then, is that one makes an exception for oneself. That is, one acts in a way that they would not
want everyone else to. When someone chooses to lie about an adulterous liaison, one is
implicitly thinking, ―in general people should tell the truth, but in this case I will be the
exception to the rule.‖

Kant‘s first formulation of the categorical imperative describes it in terms of the very form of
universal law itself. This formal account abstracts from any specific content that the moral law
might have for living, breathing human beings. Kant offers a second formulation to address the
material side of the moral law. Since the moral law has to do with actions, and all actions are by
definition teleological (that is, goal-directed), a material formulation of the categorical
imperative will require an appeal to the ―ends‖ of human activity. Some ends are merely
instrumental, that is, they are sought only because they serve as ―means‖ towards further ends.
Kant argues that the moral law must be aimed at an end that is not merely instrumental, but is
rather an end in itself. Only rational agents, according to Kant, are ends in themselves. To act
morally is thus to respect rational agents as ends in themselves. Accordingly, the categorical
imperative can be reformulated as follows: ―So act that you use humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a
means‖. The basic idea here is that it is immoral to treat someone as a thing of merely
instrumental value; persons have an intrinsic (non-instrumental) value, and the moral law
demands that we respect this intrinsic value. To return to the example of the previous paragraphs,
it would be wrong to lie about an adulterous liaison because by withholding the truth one is
manipulating the other person to make things easier for oneself; this sort of manipulation,
however, amounts to treating the other as a thing (as a mere means to the comfort of not getting
in trouble), and not as a person deserving of respect and entitled to the truth.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a German philosopher and an important figure of German
idealism. He achieved wide renown in his day and, while primarily influential within the
continental tradition. He was born in August 27, 1770, Stuttgart, Germany and died November
14, 1831, Berlin, Germany. Many famous intellectuals like Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche,
Martin Heidegger etc. have been influenced by his philosophy, ideology and the way he
approached the real life issues of mankind

Hegel's View on Morality:

Hegel says, ―that a good person often acts on impulse rather than from reason, and that someone
who acts out on the basis of ‗duty‘, may be very well, even while doing right and exhibiting
Kantian ‗moral worth‘, prove to be a wretched character‖. Because this view on the moral
integrity of a person is obviously more narrowly driven than any other philosopher. This quote
seems to mean that a good person can seem just as morally correct as someone who does any
good because of duty, even if there heart is not devoted to the action. Hegel‘s view on ethics is
concentrated on the idea that our moral integrity as individuals is based more on our social
community, than some universal set of rules.

He says, ―The locus and place of morals is not in the universal and necessary laws of
reason, but in the particular rules and dictates of the family‖. The formulation of morals comes
from the influences that surround a particular person‘s upbringing. Every person has an
idealized set of morals based on his/her background. Hegal thinks that this view of morals is a
much more practical approach to this topic. However, if we only learn our ethical values from
those in our community then where did the first set of values come into play? It seems that
Hegel‘s philosophy must be true, as long as there does exist a sense of moral values beyond
human understanding. Hegel makes another very valid point and states, ―For an individual who
is caught in the crisis there may well be no ‗happy ending,‖. Hegel seems to be realizing or
explaining the old question of why do bad things happen to good people. He says that
sometimes, our moral right may not always be what leads us to a good end. In other words, it is
not the end we need to be concerned about, rather the choices we made to get there.

This argument on Hegel‘s philosophy of morality is considerable. It says that

this may be a narrow-minded view of such a large element of life, but it really shows how
morality is not the happy ending. Sometimes we get caught up in the idea that all good deeds are
our way to a happy ending, but the truth is that being moral is not what you do to be successful.
It is a law created by man, or some higher being, that we must abide by in order to live a civil life
in a community. This is clearly seen in Hegel‘s comments about the social influence of morality.

Hegel never ceased to inveigh and speak against the vice of abstractness. His whole work
consists in starting from, criticizing, and passing beyond various abstract conceptions to a real
concrete in which alone they find their place as organic phases or members. That which is true
relatively to its correlate is false when abstracted from its correlate. And both correlates are true
only when they pass through this category of reciprocity to the organism which they both imply
and demonstrate. The empirical and the nominal self; the pure reason and the practical reason;
subjective freedom and conditioning environment; duty and the good,-these are some of the
elements of ethical man that Kant abstracted from their organic process, wherewith to build his
airy castle of morality. We may, however, select two terms which will illustrate the difference
between Kant and Hegel in ethics,-i.e., Moralitiit and Sittliclkeit, both of which are used by the
Germans for what we call morality. The first denotes the morality of the heart or of the
conscience. The latter denotes conventional morality, or the objective customs that are
recognized as moral. The first is the individual conscience, the second is the social conscience.
Hegel would say that there would be no Moralitiit without Sittlichkeit, while Kant, with his
categorical imperative, would make each individual an Athanasius contraundurn. Hegel would
say that there could be no duty without some objective good as content for the formal good-will.
That is, there can be no abstract self-realization by the conscientious man, no goodwill without
good manners. To realize himself the individual must do it in the forms of social man, must go
beyond himself to be himself. He must erect himself above himself and expand himself beyond
himself in his actualizing of his goodwill. Only in the objective forms of his station can he find
his duties. Otherwise his morality is sure to be peevish, cranky, and tyrannical, though, as a
Simon Stylites, he may write the title of saint before his name. Hegel makes most trenchant
criticisms * of Kant's formal law, showing that as an abstract universal it can neither suggest any
particular duties nor test the rightness of rules otherwise suggested. It can only be a voice
thundering in the inner Sinai, " thou shalt," without power to proceed to decalogic or monologic
specification of what to do. Only an- objective standard of right can afford the ground of private
judgment and render it other than mere willfulness.

Karl Marx

Introduction:
Karl Marx was born in 1818 in Trier, Prussia; he was the oldest surviving boy in a family of nine
children. Both of his parents were Jewish, and descended from a long line of rabbis, but his
father, a lawyer, converted to Lutheranism in 1816 due to contemporary laws barring Jews from
higher society. Young Karl was baptized in the same church at the age of 6, but later became an
atheist.
As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement known as the Young
Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and cultural establishments of the day. He
became a journalist, and the radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by
the governments of Germany, France and Belgium. In 1848, Marx and fellow German thinker
Friedrich Engels published ―The Communist Manifesto,‖ which introduced their concept of
socialism as a natural result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system. Marx later moved to
London, where he would live for the rest of his life. In 1867, he published the first volume of
―Capital‖ (Das Kapital), in which he laid out his vision of capitalism and its inevitable tendencies
toward self-destruction, and took part in a growing international workers
Some Written works:
 The Communist Manifesto
 A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production

 Das Kapital
 German Ideology
 Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844/The Communist Manifesto

 Capital: The Process of Circulation of Capital

  The Civil War in France

 The Poverty of Philosophy

 On the Jewish Question

Concept of Moral Philosophy:

Marxist ethics proceeds out of his aptitude towards theology, philosophy, biology, economics,
and history. Whereas Secular Humanists have a difficult time reaching a consensus regarding
their ethical beliefs, Marxists do not—mainly because of their single-minded approach to all five
aforementioned disciplines. This approach is rooted in dialectical materialism and the class
struggle. While there is no absolute foundation for Marxist ethical ideals, most Marxists believe
the dialectical view of the class struggle is foundation enough.

What is Dialectical view?

According to the Marxist dialectic, everything in the universe—including society—is in a state

of constant change. These changes are moving society upward toward the elimination of all
social and economic class distinctions. The next social advance in history will be the move from
capitalism to socialism, which will inevitably result in changes in society‘s moral ideals. The
dialectical view of history dictates the clash of thesis and antithesis—in this historical context,
the relentless clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marxist-Leninists believe that
the morality of these two classes is totally different, and when the proletariat finally destroys the
bourgeoisie, a new morality will emerge and a new morality for the new social system will come
into existence.

Marxists believe that ―old morality‖—the morality of the reigning capitalist class—exploits the
working class. According to this view, old religious moral codes must be abandoned. For Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels ―Thou shalt not steal‖ establishes a society in which some have
property and some do not; such an establishment is the root of the problem.

―It must be constantly borne in mind that Marx and Engels denied that moral ideals, moral
considerations, as a central in human life and social evolution. Rather, it is biological and social
evolution that determines morality. What is right or wrong is determined by what is best for this
evolution. If the bourgeois class hinders either biological or social evolution, nature dictates the
removal of that class.

Marxist Ethics – The Evolution of Morality:

The inevitability of change is the cornerstone of Marxist ethics. Marx writes in the Manifesto of
the Communist Party, ―Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man‘s ideas, views and
conceptions, in one word, man‘s consciousness, and changes with every change in the conditions
of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?‖2 By Marx‘s definition, our
social and economic status is always changing according to the laws of the dialectic, so our ideas
about morality must also be in a state of continual change.

V.I. Lenin answers the charge that the inevitability of change in both history and ethics precludes
the existence of a moral code in Marxist philosophy: ―Is there such a thing as communist
morality? Of course there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often
the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing
the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants. In what sense do we reject
ethics, reject morality? In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God‘s
commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we
know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of
God so as to further their own interests as exploiters.‖ In Lenin‘s view, Communist morality had
to evolve beyond that morality of outdated Christian myth used by the exploiting class to
suppress the exploited class.

When all class distinctions are erased, however, the Marxist moral view necessarily must change
again because promoting class struggle will no longer be the immediate moral necessity. We say
―immediate‖ because the dialectic is an eternal process that entails a continuing thesis/antithesis
struggle. The ever-changing nature of history will dictate a new moral view for Marxists. When
Marxists say there is no system of morality that fits all times, they include the future in their
philosophy, realizing that history will change our perceptions of life again after our present aims
are attained. Something can be morally right only in its context in history. Today the morally
right action is the one necessary to attain the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

The new classless society will determine the new morality, just as this evolution toward a
classless society is dictating today‘s morality. For Marxists, morality is conduct that is in
harmony with history as it flows in the direction of a classless society and beyond.

Marxist Ethics – Moral Revolution:

When pursuing Marxist ethics, revolution is the most efficient means for creating a society
without class distinctions. According to Marxists, revolution is unavoidable and it is the only
way to overthrow the bourgeoisie and lift up the proletariat.

Communists believe their revolution is unquestionably moral. From the point of view of
communist morality the struggle against everything which hinders the cause of communist
construction is moral and humane and for this reason we consider the struggle against the
enemies of communism to be of a moral nature.

This class struggle is not peaceful just as the struggle for survival in nature is not peaceful.
According to Marx critics of the elimination of the bourgeoisie for social evolutionary reasons
fail to remember the cost in death and suffering caused by biological evolution. Nature
accumulates the good and disposes of the bad. The fit must survive both biologically and
socially. The unfit, along with their social institutions, must perish.

Marx states that The Communists disdain and disrespect to conceal their views and aims. They
openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions. They perceive this forcible overthrow as morally right. It is right because it destroys
hindrances to a communist society. Morally speaking, Communists have an ethical duty to work
toward the forcible overthrow of capitalism.
The obligation to work toward the overthrow of the bourgeoisie may very well include the duty
to kill. Khrushchev explains, ―Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop
midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead
the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies, will pay for it with
hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers.

Muslim Philosophers on Ethics

Imam Ghazali

Introduction:
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 AD) is one of the most well-known and celebrated Islamic
scholars of the 12th century. The depth and breadth of his knowledge and the influence of his
thought are incomparable to any other Muslim scholar. Ghazali has been given the titles of
Hujjat-ul Islam (Proof of Islam) and Zainuddin (Beauty of the Faith). By any standard, Ghazali is
a towering intellectual figure of the Muslim world. Ghazali has a wide range of works in several
branches of religious knowledge including jurisprudence, theology, mysticism, philosophy, and
his eventual interest, mysticism. Through religious experience, he attempted to revive religious
knowledge in the Islamic world, publishing his tremendously influential work Ihya Ulum-ud-Din
(Revival of Religious Knowledge). According to Griffel (2009), in the 12th century Ghazali was
the most influential writer on religious and philosophical subjects. Every thinker of this period
had to address his works, and in most cases that happened quite extensively. A prominent
portion of Ghazali‘s body of works is dedicated to morality. In contrast to non-religious moral
education, which is concerned with human‘s prosperity in this world, the primary concern of
Ghazali‘s life and ideas is prosperity in the afterlife.
Moral Education:
Moral education is a dominant part of Ghazali‘s writings, intertwined with the development of
knowledge and understanding. He believes that fostering children‘s moral development is the
main goal of education According to Ghazali, moral education eradicates vice from disciples
and replaces them with virtues. He is of the view that moral education is not based just on
understanding and knowledge. But he considers moral education as a process that is actualized
through ‗‗habituation‘‘ and maintains that nobody could become benevolent, modest, patient etc.
without habituation. Moral education is equated with habituation particularly during childhood, a
very important period with regard to the construction of good moral habits. Ghazali takes as a
given that ‗‗whatever is important, its seed should be spread during the childhood‘‘.
Ghazali asserts that if childhood is not paid attention to and the good morality that is needed is
not fostered throughout child, then the development of bad habits is inevitable. On this issue,
Ghazali, like many other Muslim scholars, has been influenced by the basic sources of Islamic
law. The Greek philosopher Aristotle also considers moral education as a process of creation of
virtues. According to him, virtues are of two kinds: intellectual virtue and ethical virtue—the
former is built by teaching, the latter is gained by habituation. In Aristotle‘s view, since the aim
of moral education is doing, so it is actualized by doing. Thus, one becomes just by doing what is
temperate and becomes brave by doing brave deeds. Habituation in the Aristotelian ethics has
three main characteristics: (i) practicing the virtues by doing actions that develop moral
excellences; (ii) doing those actions regularly and constantly; (iii) doing so under supervision
and authorization of a noble educator.
What Ghazali offers in Ihya is the popular moral philosophy of Islam with regard to his
explanation of the ethics of mysticism. Ghazali believes that one can only criticize an idea
substantially only if he becomes immersed in it in the same way as an exponent of the idea.
Hence, to show the defects of philosophers, Ghazali initially writes the Maqasid al Falasifa
(Intentions of Philosophers), in which he endeavors to explain philosophical views just as a
philosopher would, and he carries out this task quite competently. This work may explain why
Ghazali is considered as the true representative of Arab Aristotelians along with Avicenna and
Averroes (Sharif, 1963). Following Intentions of Philosophers, Ghazali wrote a heavily
influential critique, ‗‗Incoherence of Philosophers.‘‘ Despite acquaintance with Aristotle and
his thoughts, Ghazali is disaffected to them and presents a new system, or at least a synthesized
theory, of moral education that is influenced by religion and mysticism. In Ghazali‘s theory of
moral education, at least three main different philosophical foundations underpin several new
notions in moral education. These foundations are his views about causality, freedom of will, and
the objectivity of moral obligations. Ghazali‘s conceptualization of causality is one of the most
important differences that distinguishes Ghazali‘s system of moral education from Aristotle‘s.
Causality and Moral Education:
The most ancient of philosophical questions is perhaps that of cause and effect. The concept of
cause and effect has appeared in every philosophical system, particularly the Aristotelian school
of philosophy. According to Aristotle, causality is a type of relation between two entities one
which we call one cause and the other, effect. Cause gives being to the effect: If there is no
cause, there will be no effect. The cause is the essence of the effect. In Aristotle‗s view,
everything—except God—is an effect, and every effect needs a cause. Thus, every phenomenon
needs a cause. What is happening must have arisen through intervention of something, which is
called the cause. There is nothing without a cause. A certain cause produces only certain
effect(s), and a particular effect proceeds from a particular cause. This necessary relation enables
one to predict the future. Based on this hypothesis, one expects to remove thirst by drinking. By
causality, ones can give order to one‘s thoughts and make the universe orderly and knowable. In
other words, to obtain knowledge we search for chains of causes and effect.
Ghazali and Aristotle:
However, Ghazali does not agree with Aristotle in all aspects and challenges his
conceptualization of causality. This challenge should not be surprising, since for him the
criterion to judge, and the established standard, is religion and divine guidance. The Scripture
and narrations attributed to the prophet are certain and unquestionable. A short probe in scripture
will clarify the rejection of causation by Ghazali. In the seminal Incoherence of Philosophers
(1963), Ghazali directs his arguments against philosophers in 20 aspects. He rejects some
philosophical notions as infidelity and dismisses them using both Islamic doctrines and
philosophical method.
He insists with regard to three issues, philosophers are in a complete contradiction with Islamic
creeds: eternity of the world, denial of God‘s knowledge of the particulars, and denial of bodily
resurrection. In his opinion, the rest of philosophical teachings are misleading, confusing and
with regard to religion, some of them are heretical or sometimes indifferent. Even though
Ghazali intends to put an end to philosophy, as Watt (1962) states, he certainly encouraged
Muslim philosophers and theologians to become more philosophy-minded. Ghazali refutes the
Aristotelian theory of causality in the seventeenth discussion, and rejects a necessary connection
of cause and effect. Some verses in the holy Quran can be interpreted in a manner that supports
Ghazali‘s claims about causality. These verses describe a universe in which Allah the Creator is
the cause of every happening. According to these verses, the universe, with all its system, is
Allah‘s act and Allah‘s work. The creation is begun and maintained by Him. Just as Allah has no
partner in creation, neither has He any partner in agency. All powers and all strength are actually
His. He can do everything in the universe and nothing rises or falls without His permission. As
read in the holy Quran:
His command (of creation) is only that when He intends (to create) something, He says to
it: „Be,‟ so it instantly becomes (existent or visible and continues becoming). (36:82 Sura
Yasin)
Do they associate as partners with Him those who cannot create anything and have
(themselves) been created? (7:191 Sura Al-Araaf)
Allah is the One Who created you, then granted you sustenance, then causes you to die and
then will bring you back to life. Is there any of your (self-made) partners who may do any
of these (works)? Holy is He (Allah) the Glorious, the Transcendent, far above these things
which they associate as partners (with Him). (30:40 Sura Al- Rum)
In these verses, two points are apparent. First, Allah has an absolute power, nothing is more
omnipotent than him, and his dominance includes everything. Second, these verses imply that
there is no cause except Him. Allah is the real cause of whatever occurs in the universe.
Muslims scholarship accepted the exclusive power of Allah with respect to these verses and
rejected the intervention of other causes in the world. Ghazali adopts his view of Allah in
accordance with these Quranic verses. Allah is the Arbitrator, and there is no intellectual and
moral justification for His behavior.
Indeed Ghazali‘s assertion about causality stems from his inclination to show the absolute power
of Allah and it might be supposed to enforce this doctrine. He shows his real intention, which
compels him to reject any necessary relation between cause and effect. Ghazali maintains that
this relation leads to dispute about the miracles that the holy Quran ascribes to prophets.
Consequently, it is inevitable to interpret them in a philosophical manner which Ghazali
dismisses, and it is in contrast with what Ghazali wants to outline by the power of Allah. A God
who is free to do anything in any way he desires in an absolute meaning and there is no border
for His providence and omnipotence. Philosophers, as Ghazali says, discuss two kinds of
miracles. In their
opinion some miracles such as conversion of Moses‘ staff into a serpent and the raising of the
dead are unacceptable and should be treated metaphorically. In another regard, justifiable
miracles are divided into three groups: the first type is due to the imaginative faculty of prophets
when it is controlled and reinforced. The second is related to the intellectual faculty that enables
the prophet to transfer from one idea to other in a fast fashion. The third miracle, in a
philosophical view, springs from the prophet‘s soul, which enables him to bring about changes in
his surroundings, such as raining and blowing winds. Contrary to the doctrine of philosophers
and its implication, Ghazali claims that a relation of cause and effect is not a necessary one and
the affirmation of neither implies that of the other.
In contrast, philosophers argue against Ghazali that his view allows impossible things to be done
by Allah; such as giving life to the non-living. Answering this objection, Ghazali concedes that
Allah does not act in the reign of impossibilities, and presents a definition of impossibilities. He
asserts: The impossible is the affirmation of a thing while denying it or the affirmation of the
more specific while denying one . . . in the same way we understand by willing the seeking of
something which is known. So if seeking and not knowing is posited, there is no willing, since
what we understand by willing has been denude and
However, he maintains that the kind of miracle that philosophers believe to be impossible is not
of the same type. According to Ghazali: For Allah to move the hand of corpse and set him up
with the appearance of a living person who sits and writes, so that by the motion of his hand an
organized book is produced, is not impossible in itself as long as we refer the outcome to the will
of a voluntary being. It seems implausible only because the continual of the familiar is against it.
Ghazali and Western Philosophers:
Aristotle, Kant, Descartes and many western philosophers believed that man achieves morality
with his own endeavor, but Ghazali‘s ideal man is a person who views everything as possible in
this world and instead of relying upon material tools and resorting to reason and emphasizing
rational independence, also awaits asuper natural powes. This is best embodied in his thoughts
on tawakkul (confidence and reliance in Allah). For Ghazali, the truth of tawakkul is confidence
in Allah (and not the intermediaries). He views three stages for those who practice tawakkul:
first, confiding in Allah as between client and advocate; second, confiding in Allah as a kid
confides in mother; and third, leaving oneself at the hands of Allah, like a dead body is at the
hands of a corpse-washer.
Conclusion:
As explicated previously, Divinity and religion occupy an important position in moral education
according to Ghazali‘s viewpoint. Ghazali‘s doctrines of causality have profound implications
for moral education. Even though every Muslim educator is prescribed to pay attention to foster
good habits in childhood, however, the educator should not forget that there is a supreme power
beyond everything that must be relied on and that is the will of Allah. Thus, although a Muslim
educator should try to educate students, it is not certain that those attempts will produce
educational ideals. This failure may not be due to the influence of other factors such as friends,
media, family, and school. We can provide the best educational settings, yet without the Divine
will it could not fulfill the ideal outcome.
Ghazli‘s concept of causality underpins his theory of moral education. There is no necessary
connection between habitual moral actions and their implications, and one can have no certain
hope that people could be trained through habituation; consequently, there should be a sufficient
factor to guarantee moral education. This argument is tied with the belief in Allah, who
determines the destiny of everything.
Moral Education, Habituation and Divine When this idea is compared with its Western
equivalents, a huge gap can be observed. For example, Kant whom one may claim that occupies
a similar position to that of Ghazali in the western world, holds a contradictory view. Kant as an
Enlightenment philosopher tends to reduce religion to morality. His philosophical vision is based
on human autonomy and there is no place in his philosophy for a heteronomous grace or divine
act to play. In contrast, in Ghazali‘s view, everything, including moral education, is dependent
on the supremacy of Divine power. Human agency is downsized in moral education, while God‘s
role is elevated. In the contrary, Kant writes: We ourselves must do in order to accomplish
something, whereas to await a work of grace means exactly the opposite, namely, that the good
is not our deed but the deed of another being, and that we therefore can achieve it only by doing
nothing, which contradicts itself. (Kant, 2009) In Ghazali‘s view, Allah and religion are the
tenets of morality, and moral virtue is equated with loyalty and love for the Divine will.
According to Kant, however, one does not need to view religion as the source of moral laws or a
motive to adhere to it. Self-autonomy stems from nothing but human reason. If morality is
defined in the framework of concordance with the Divine will, even if God is seen as the one
who rewards or punishes beyond the law of morality, the rule of morality has turned into a rule
of prudence and will then foster motives for acting in accordance with morality only for the hope
of reward or fear of punishment (Kant, 1959). Thus, in practicing moral obligations, according to
Kant, one should primarily regard it as an obligation, not a divine order.
The key ethical teaching of moral education in view of Ghazali can be worded as such: Satan
misleads a man without guidance. In searching a true guide, man should appeal to his savior like
a blind man drowning in the sea. Following the guide must be so complete that neither internally
nor externally, he makes no objection to the guide‘s act of guidance and asks not for a cause,
even if it appears irrational. The wisdom of all teachings of the savior becomes clear when we
reach his status. In sum, according to Ghazali the pillars of moral education are: habituation,
causality, and divine assistance. Without the last pillar, moral education is impossible.

Hazrat Shah Wali-ullah (R.A)

(1703-62)
Introduction:
Shah Wali-Ullah was a great Muslim Sufi scholar and saint of the 18th century. His real name
was Qutbud-Din Ahmed. He was born to a noble learned family of Delhi on 21st February 1703.
His father Shah Abdur-Rahim was a renowned scholar of that period. Shah Wali-Ullah showed
great promise at an early age. By the age of fifteen he had completed the learning of Holy Quran,
Hadith and Fiqh. Then after the death of his father in 1719 he started delivering lectures in
Madressah Rahimyah at the age of seventeen. Then in 1730 he performed Hajj again. During his
stay at Makkah, Shah Wali Ullah saw a dream in which the Holy Prophet (PBUH) blessed him
with a binding that he would be instrumental in the organization of a section of the Muslim
Community. In 1733 he returned to Delhi and took over the charge of Madressah Rahimyah.
There he wrote many books and rendered many political, religious, spiritual and social services.
He died in 1762. The contributions of Shah Wali-Ullah can be summarized as under:
His Services:
Shah Wali-Ullah rendered many religious services. He completed the translation of Holy Quran
in Persian in 1738. Later on his sons Shah Rafi-ud-Din and Shah Abdul Qadir translated the
Holy Quran in Urdu. Moreover Shah Wali-Ullah termed the Hadith collection by Imam Muttah
as the most authentic and wrote its commentary in Arabic and Persian. His work for the
renaissance of Islam is also widely accepted. He propagated that Islam was a universal religion
and thus the Muslims should work with their universal vision in the Sub-Continent and
elsewhere.
Shah Wali-Ullah trained students in different branches of Islamic knowledge and entrusted them
with the teaching of students. He recommended the application of Ijtihad against blind Taqlid in
his famous work Aqad-al-jaiyad-fi-Ahkam-al-Ijtihad wa-al-Taqlid.
He studied the writings of each school-of-thought to understand their point of view, and then
wrote comprehensive volumes about what is fair and just in light of the teachings of Islam. He
adopted an analytical and balanced approach towards four major school-of-thought of mysticism.
In order to create a balance betweeen the four schools i.e. Hanafi, Malaki, Shafii, Hambali he
wrote Al-Insaf-fi-bayan-sabab-al-Ikhtilaf. He worked out a system of thought, beliefs, and
values, on which all but the extremists could agree. He thus provided a spiritual basis or national
cohesion.

Moral Philosophy of Shah Waliullah:

Shah Wali-Ullah worked hard for awakening in the community with the desire to win back its
moral fervor and maintain its purity. To rescue a community‘s conscience, belief and faith from
destruction was no small achievement. In order to explain his vision of morality, Shah Wali
Ullah cited the Qur'anic verses and wrote that the root of the revealed religions (Din or Faith) is
one and the same as for as ethics are concerned. All the Prophets preached the unity of moral
values, obeying the laws of marriage, and prohibited fornication etc. The unity of faiths and
moral values stemmed from the fact that the human nature has remained unchanged through the
march of time.
Moral Development of Society and its Implications:
Shah Wali Ullah used a special term Irtjfaq (utility, benefit) in discussion on society about ethics.
He was highly systematic in his approach. He wrote that God has inspired man to pursue Irtifaqat
(useful, ends) concerning his necessities, since the days of Hazrat Adam (A.S). Besides social
life, Shah Wali Ullah extended the use of the term Irtifaqat to the laws of nature and human
obligation to follow them. In this section the focus has been confined to social traits of man;
stages of development of society and elements of the social system.
Some Social Traits of Man:
Shah Wali Ullah provided details of human psychology and man's ability to imitate, to
experiment and to use his intellect. He mentioned that man possessed two faculties - the angelic
(malakiyah) and the animalistic (bahimiyah) – which constantly influence human behaviors,
habits, culture and morality. Both the faculties remain in a state of conflict. Angelic faculty,
when developed, adds to human happiness. Shah Wali Ullah asserted that bestial (bahimiyah)
trait is kept in check by striving to acquire essential virtues. In his view well-being of social
order depended on the virtues of purity and cleanliness (taharah), humility (ikhbat), sublimation
(samaha), and equity and justice (adalah). He discussed how these virtues help individual and
society bring normalcy in different spheres of life, and how these could be acquired. He averred
that search for food, shelter, sensual lusts are common instincts of animals and humans. Man has
been endowed with three special faculties, which want in animals. These faculties spur humans
to pursue ideals like seeking of moral perfection, striving to achieve cultural feats, and working
towards creating just social order.
First Stage of Social Development:
This stage has likeness to social life of nomads, and dwellers of remote mountain peaks. These
small social groups maintain closer contact through language. They rely on agriculture, tree
plantation and taming of animals in order to meet basic human needs. Gradually they devise
rules of marriage, means to settle mutual disputes, and contrive means to ensure safety of the
group. These fundamental needs gain improvement with the passage of time and proceed with
evolution to next stage occur.
Second Stage of Social Development:
This stage is exhibited by those residing in urban areas and cities. Human social organizations
abound and flourish in cities so requirements of life become more complex. Increased challenges
and problems open avenues of experimentation in search of answers to the difficulties. The rulers
are enabled, to draw better lessons from these endeavors.
Third Stage of Social Development:
This stage of social evolution follows the successful completion of stage two. Mutual interaction
among citizens continues. Jealousy and financial gains set in bargains, which result in denial of
the rights of others. In society, individuals obsessed with base passions and others with inborn
trait to kill and plunder come forth. Such a state of affairs is not conducive to the well-being of
society and establishing a good moral society. No individual is in a position to shoulder the task
of serving the interests of society single-handedly. Creation of the agency of government
becomes ineluctable. Taxes are then imposed to run the affairs of the government. The stage is
gradually set to move to next phase of social developments.
Fourth Stage of Social Development:
This stage covers the nature and kind of relations that exist among citizens of different countries.
It also describes the quality of governance and the state of rule of law prevalent in each country.
The need for this stage arises when independent rulers are tempted to extend the boundaries of
their countries. This temptation could
be the result of personal gain of the ruler, hostility against the neighboring ruler, or the desire for
preference for warlike means in settling disputes. Under such conditions, the populace feels the
urge for the establishment of the office of an authority superior than the existing ruler. Shah Wali
Ullah mentioned numerous qualities required of the superior authority. Ability to rule justly was
considered to be the prime quality in him. Shah Wali Ullah was of the view that in the evolution
process societies do not evolve mechanically. It is also not essential that every society moves
through each stage. Societies may be judged from the existing level of social and moral
development and accordingly decide with regard to their particular stage of development.
Household as a basic unit of moral training:
Shah Wali Ullah provided valuable information and guidance about the management of the
household. He considered family as the pivotal institution of society. He explained the
psychological difference between the sexes and showed how in marriage they both complement
each other. He noted that wife played a distinct role in tarbiyah(moral training) of progeny. He
listed seventeen prominent issues that needed attention in the successful conduct of households
in order to achieve the desired ethical goals. He emphasized the rights and duties of married
persons, and accorded special consideration to the rights of women. He devoted considerable
efforts in explaining ways that could create curable amity between marriage partners an essential
part of family unit.
Social Affairs:
Shah Wali Ullah mentioned that the range of social affairs is extremely wide. All aspects of
human activity, from cradle to grave, fall in the purview of social affairs. He advised that social
conduct might be assessed from the beauty of culture and nest of social interaction. Every nation
is diverse in dress and manners. He asserted that food affects the body and morality in a subtle
way. The consumption of intoxicants abates intellects and boosts bestial faculties. He stated that
modes of customs existed in all societies. He recorded that when families who care more for
personal gains than the benefits of the society, come in power they plunge society into total
social chaos. Under their protection lecherous practices, drinking, gambling, usury, reduction in
weights and measures are revived. He advised that the solution lay in fighting these aberrations.
He stressed that it is obligatory on righteous individuals to strive hard in the eradication of these
social evils.
Shah Wali Ullah held an evolutionary perspective with regard to social change. His concept
possibly suggests new insights on evolutionary theory debate. It may be noted that he lived
before the time of Western evolutionary theorists. A brief mention may be given in this context.
Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who influenced Marx, Comte and E. Durkheim, held the view that the
history of human society passes through three distinct stages to which correspond distinct modes
of thought - polytheism and slavery, theism and feudalism, positivism and industrialism. He
thought that the crisis of modern society could be solved by the development of a new religion
based on positivism and under the control of a new priesthood, namely sociologists. Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903) developed a theory of social evolution that was broadly similar to Darwin's
theory of biological evolution. Professor Sanderson has provided details of flaws in the theories
of early evolutionists. He then discussed the functionalist evolutionary approach of Talcott
Parsons (1902-1979) and observed that functionalist evolutionary approach tended to suffer the
flaws of the nineteenth century evolutionary thinkers. For example, he wrote. ―The functionalist
evolutionary strategy tends to view contemporary Western society as the most highly adapted of
all societies and it generally holds that small-scale simple societies have low adaptive capacity.
This view is ethnocentric in the extreme". Shah Wali Ullah proposed on operable concept. In a
changing world vibrating with cultural diversity, his sociological thought merits research in a
comparative frame of reference.
Ethico- Social Standards:
Shah Wali Ullah related social evils that had gripped society in his days. He used ethico-social
standard in deciding what, in his view, was deleterious to the society. These social ills prevail in
all societies, both in East and West, at a horrendous scale. However, the viewpoint towards these
social lapses varies from a society to another. According to a Western sociologist's listing of
'social order crime', "Criminal acts such as gambling, prostitution, illegal drug use, vagrancy, and
public drunkenness do not impose physical suffering on others, but do offend the moral
sensibilities of the majority." This approach sees social ills in a different light from that of Shah
Wali Ullah. Professor Allan Mazur in choosing social problems at a global scale, from 1935 to
1990, mentioned only drugs and some other problems. Shah Wali Ullah, it may be recalled,
relates the phenomena of normlessness and saw it in historical social, economic and political
context without involving in labyrinth (complicated path) and jungle of sociological terms
describing social evils Shah Wali Ullah's approach signified that he reached at the root causes of
social ills torturing the society. Judged on an unbiased scale, his ideas may be fallen as a new
vision on the sociology of deviance. Shah Wali Ullah hinted at another implication of his concept
when he dilated upon the role of customs in bringing about the decline of societies. He presented
a moving account of the fall of Byzantium and Khusraus empires. The people there considered
themselves to be the world leaders in culture and unique in glory and grandeur. In Shah Wali
Ullah's estimate, however, those societies had decayed in moral and transcendental values.
Centuries of unfettered power had accustomed them to extravagant lifestyle. The rich contended
with each other in display of wealth through lofty palaces and luxurious living. The strata of
society emulated their pattern. Artisans, tanners and traders were treated as beasts of burden
when forced to pay heavy taxes. Shah Wali Ullah mentioned that pleasing and servile flattery
and rise of parasitic classes is the product of such a state. Eventually, he stated, religion
redeemed the abysmal social conditions of subjects in those empires. A contemporary American
author possibly echoed Shah Wali Ullah's view on the role of religion when he wrote: "In the
eight years I have spent researching and writing this book, I have come to fear that we are
already in the terminal stages of decay. Moreover, I also am convinced, in view of history and
basic psychology that religion is necessary for this national comeback; and I recognize the
improbability of such a rebirth based on current trends."
Conclusion:
Shah waliullha being social political and religious reformer, had a comprehensive vision of root
causes of moral decay of any society and suggests a practical method to rid of this ailment. To
him, individuals, groups and society are integral part of learning. Each has to play its part in
order to achieve collective human cause and that is establishing morally and ethically high
human society that must be distinguished from animalistic features.

Respect for AU Rules and Regulations

STUDENT AFFAIRS / MATTERS

1. The Student Affairs Department is headed by a Director, who works through a Proctor,
Assistant Proctor (female) and an Office Assistant. Main functions of the department are as
follows:

(a) The department is responsible to ensure implementation of the general code of conduct i.e.
dress code, discipline, following of various instructions given to students, behavioral standards
etc.

(b) In administration and supporting role, the department facilitates students in organizing
various inter / intra / extracurricular activities / events like Welcome/ Farewell parties, Students
week, declamations, funfairs, seminars, variety programs, national day‟s celebrations,
educational / recreational and expedition visits etc.
(c) The department processes the request received from individuals, departments and AU
societies/clubs for holding various indoor/outdoor activities through Event Management Form.

(d) The department provides necessary guidance for seeking financial, administrative and
logistics support to the Students/organizing bodies for holding an event.

(e) The department renders assistance in resolving different issues amongst the students through
counseling and other corrective measures as deemed appropriate, meeting parents if required,
besides giving them adequate guidance.

(f) The departmental staff works with the exams staff during the course of final examination
which includes all the exams related activities.

2. In the event of misconduct, the University has the authority to take disciplinary action. Every
member of the University has a responsibility to report any incident / occurrence of misconduct
to Director Student‟s Affairs through proper channel. At the time of admission all the students
are provided with student hand book, encompassing / illustrating the expected code of conduct /
behavioral standard expected from students while he / she is on campus. This practice ensures
and promotes a safe environment that is conducive to academic learning and success. This
practice also ensures that each graduating student of the Air University contributes to the society
in a civilized and educated manner, once he leaves the university.
Code of Conduct
3. AU has laid down a code of conduct for all students studying at the campus. This code is
meant to ensure high moral standards and an academic atmosphere of peace and harmony. At
AU male and female students study together. They have to learn, discuss, participate and interact
with one another very frequently. They are, therefore, required to exhibit high moral standards,
decent manners, and responsible behavior. The cultural norms of our society must be observed.
University Identity Cards
4. Students must be in possession of the University Identity Cards whenever they are on the
University Campus and they must display it on person prominently AT ALLTIMES. They can
be denied entry to the campus and fined for not carrying the ID cards. It is the student‟s
responsibility to get the ID card issued during the orientation period or latest by the first week of
the first semester. For further details they are to contact the Program Coordinator‟s office. The
card is not transferable and neither shall it be duplicated or photocopied and used as a
replacement. The University ID card shall be presented on demand by a University official or
security guard; failure to do so may subject the student to disciplinary action / fine. Lost and
stolen ID cards must be reported to the Security Officer immediately and a new card must be
made at the prescribed cost. Any transfer, alteration, or forgery of a Student ID card constitutes a
violation of University policy and may result in an appropriate disciplinary action or a fine or
both.
Car Stickers
5. Parking inside the University premises requires a Security Car Sticker which must be obtained
from the Security Officer at a nominal price. Cars without stickers shall not be allowed to enter
the Main Gate. The Car Sticker is not transferable.

Dress Code:
6. AU students are expected to be decently and neatly dressed. They must observe our cultural
norms in their attire and bearing. Students are not allowed to wear joggers, slippers, jeans, T-
shirts, jackets, shorts etc. on the Campus. In the summers, boys must wear black or brown shoes,
and dress shirts with full or half sleeves tucked inside trousers. In winters, (1 October to 1
March) a tie must be worn. A blazer and/or pullover with V shaped neck only, of sober colors
may be added to the summers dress outlined earlier. All girls are expected to dress in a modest &
professional/decent manner falling in line with its academic & cultural ethics/norms. Unduly
revealing outfits are prohibited. Girls are to wear full length trousers / shalwar and knee length
kameez with dupatta. Wearing of dupatta is compulsory.
Note: IMPROPERLY DRESSED STUDENTS SHALL BE EITHER FINED ON THE
SPOT OR ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES.
Smoking
7. Smoking is prohibited within AU premises except area falling north end corner of student
gate. The academic buildings, library, cafeteria, lawns, grounds, and parking area are smoke free
zone. Smoking at all times is prohibited in AU buses. The sale of tobacco is banned in University
premises. Violation of this policy (either smoking or displaying cigarettes) is subject to fine of
Rs. 1,000/- and stern disciplinary action. This policy is applicable to Students and Visitors.
Visitors not adhering to the policy may be asked to comply or leave the premises.
Display of Banners and Posters
8. The University prohibits display of any kind of banners and posters that reflect association
with any religious, political, ethnic, regional or sectarian party. Similarly, notices calling
meetings of any religious, political, ethnic or any prejudiced regional party are also totally
prohibited. Slogans, propaganda, noise of any sort liable to cause disorder are prohibited.
Social Media Policy
9. Air University authorities are not responsible for any upload/likes/comments on Facebook or
any other social media website, if one is keen to use any form of social media, he /she is
responsible for its consequences.
Visitors Policy
10. AU Students are not allowed to bring along any visitors/ guests without seeking prior
permission. Students are requested to cooperate with security staff during the entry of their
guests and parents. In case of any event/program all staff, faculty and students are advised to
submit information about the schedule of their guests and visitors in advance. If the stated
purpose of visit differs from the actual activity a visitor is found to be involved in, strict
disciplinary action shall be taken. During the whole time of stay at AU campus, the visitor card
shall be on proper display; failure to do so is subjected to disciplinary action.
General Prohibitions and Provisions
11. Following activities are prohibited in the AU premises.
(a) Mobile phones should be kept silent in classrooms
(b) Playing of cards on the Campus is strictly prohibited
(c) Policies regarding use of library, labs, and cafeteria are displayed on notice boards from time
to time and must be followed.
(d) Carrying of any kind of weapon or prohibited drugs on the campus is strictly forbidden
(e) No pets are to be brought to the University

g) Motorcyclists must wear crash helmets. Violators may be denied entry and/or fined heavily.
Discipline Matters / Cases
12. All disciplinary cases shall be forwarded to Students Affairs Department for initial
investigation / findings. Serious Disciplinary matters shall be investigated by the Discipline
committee, who shall forward its recommendations through Director Students Affairs to the Vice
Chancellor for final decision.
Discipline Committee
13. The Discipline Committee consists of two or more members nominated from among the
University staff by the Vice Chancellor. The Discipline Committee shall accord full opportunity
to the student to plead the case. Statement made by the student and cross examination by the
Committee will be recorded and recommendation made to the Vice Chancellor/Senior Dean
through Director Students Affairs.
Acts of Indiscipline
14. The following, among others, shall constitute acts of indiscipline on which the Discipline
Committee will take action: -
(a) Breach of decency, including the use of indecent language, undesirable remarks, gestures and
disorderly behavior

(b) Defiance of University or Faculty authority

(c) Impersonation or giving false information or willfully suppressing, changing, replacing or

distorting information, cheating or deceiving

(d) Indulging in or inciting violence

(e) Misusing or damaging University property

(f) Consumption, sale and distribution of alcohol, prohibited drugs, controversial or banned items
on campus and hostels

(g) Indulgence in political, ethnic, racial or sectarian activity or use of students‟ organization for
furthering the cause of a political party

(h) Instigating others and indulging in undesirable propaganda creating academic deterrence and
polluting academic environment

(i) Indulgence in unlawful activities

Disciplinary Actions
15. Disciplinary action may comprise any combination of the following:

a. A warning in writing
b. Probation for a specified period
c. A fine, the value of which shall be determined by the Discipline Committee
d. Withholding a certificate of good moral character
e. Cancellation of the examination result
f. Expulsion or rustication from the University
g. Non-conferment of degree
h. Any other penalty suggested by the Discipline Committee and approved by Vice Chancellor
i. Confiscation of the mobile/any other object used in Indiscipline act which shall be returned at
the time of clearance from AU
j. Student to be kept under observation by Students Affairs Department for a period of time
defined by the Discipline Committee
k. Student may be referred to AU Psychologist / AU Medical Doctor if required.

Processing of Disciplinary Cases

16. The disciplinary cases shall be dealt with by the Director of Students Affairs, Senior Dean or
DG IAA (for cases pertaining to IAA) on behalf of the Vice Chancellor. These three officers are
authorized to fine a student up to Rs 1,000/- and/or suspension for a maximum period of three
days. Any penalty higher than this must be referred to the Vice
Chancellor for his approval.

17. On receipt of a complaint from the Senior Dean, DG IAA (for cases pertaining to IAA) or
Director Students Affairs, if the Vice Chancellor feels that the allegations require no further
evidence, he may approve, enhance or lower the recommended penalty provided that the penalty
does not exceed a fine of Rs 5000/- and/or 7 days suspension.
Senior members of the administration and faculty may fine a student for minor offences by
reporting the matter to the Dean and the Director Student Affairs. The latter may enter this in the
student‟s record.
Appeal against Discipline Committee‟s Decision 18. A student may make an appeal to the
Vice Chancellor against any decision within seven days of the issuance of warning letter. The
decision of the VC will be final.
Jurisdiction of Legal Issues
(a) For AU Campus Islamabad, only the courts at Islamabad shall have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate any legal issue.

(b) For AU Campus Multan, only the courts at Multan shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate
any legal issue.

Air University (AU) Policy on Harassment

19. Harassment is defined as an unwelcome behavior from a person who holds some kind of
power or authority over the person who is being harassed. These advances may include, but may
not be limited to verbal or physical communication with some sort of overtones, that makes the
victim uncomfortable and affects their performance. This becomes particularly problematic for
students or employees when:
a. Submission to such conduct is made a term or condition for employment or participation in an
educational program.

b. Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment or academic

decision directly affecting the individual.

c. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee‟s work
performance or student‟s academic performance creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
work or learning environment.
20. In order to facilitate an environment that is conducive to learning and is free from all types of
harassment. AU has zero tolerance for any form of harassment that interferes with the work
performance of a student or an employee. In order to prevent sexual and all other types of
harassment on its campus AU has a policy, whose aim is to make the campus free from all sorts
of harassment. This policy is being followed in letter and spirit and since 2011 AU has
established a ―Harassment Monitoring Cell‖. If anyone (be it a student or employee) in the AU
community feels that they are being harassed, they can either approach their class advisor,
department Chair/Dean or send an email to [email protected] cases are
handled and resolved in a professional manner so that the confidentiality of all parties is
maintained.
Student Leadership (Co-curricular Activities: University dramas, exhibitions, expos,
competitions, debates at National and International levels)
21. To promote leadership qualities in the students and bring out their talent university provides
them with various platforms, which mainly include the number of Students Societies & Clubs for
organizing subject extracurricular activities.
Ethics concerning examination:

Policy To Curb Use Of Unfair Means During Exam

1. Imparting high quality education is the prime responsibility and moral obligation of any
University. The quality policy of Air University has also thus been accordingly formulated which
lays emphasis on providing high quality education. Use of unfair means by the students in
various examinations is not only un-ethical, but also undermines the efforts to enhance
knowledge base of students through quality education. All efforts are thus to be made to curb the
use of unfair means by students during various tests and examinations. This policy outlines the
ways to control use of unfair means by students and the disciplinary actions to be taken in such
cases.
Measures to Control Use of Unfair Means by the Students
2. It is the collective responsibility of all employees of Air University to curb use of unfair means
by students by exercising zero tolerance in this regard. Any such incident or observation is to be
immediately reported to the Unfair Means Control Committees (UMCC) formed by Air
University to deal with such cases.
Role of Departments / FMs in creating awareness among the students
3. Faculty Members can play an important role in this regard by enhancing awareness among the
students about the consequences of using unfair means during the examinations. Some of the
suggested measures are as follows: -
(a) FMs, and particularly Class Advisors, need to regularly talk to the students of their respective
classes about this important aspect and counsel the students to refrain from using unfair means
during the course of studies by making them aware of consequences thereof and also
highlighting unethical aspect of such acts. Apart from education, grooming of young generation
is essentially required to make them law abiding citizens of the country. An attempt to gain few
marks by using unfair means leads to cancellation of paper, „F‟ grade in the subject and
ultimately wastage of time, efforts and money.
(b) Students must be reminded to read and comprehend the policy published in AU Academic
Regulations regarding use of unfair means.
(c) Departments should display notices on the Notice Boards regarding punishments for use of
unfair means in the examinations.
(d) FMs may be cautioned to be more vigilant and effective during their invigilation &
evaluation duties in all types of exams (quizzes, mid term, final exam and projects).
(e) Department Chairs are also to interact with the students at least once in each semester and
highlight this aspect as well.
Incidents of Use of Unfair Means
4. The incidents which fall within the category of use of unfair means are listed below. These are
also spelled out in AU Academic Regulations:-
(a) An attempt to obtain access to the question paper before the test/examination.
(b) Use or possession of unauthorized reference material during test/examination.
(c) Any form of communication among the examinees in or outside the examination room while
the test/examination is in progress.
(d) Carrying a mobile phone inside the exam hall/room constitutes involvement in Unfair Means
and is, therefore strictly prohibited. If a student is found with mobile phone during exam, his/her
mobile phone will be confiscated and disciplinary action initiated against such student.
(e) Arguing with Invigilator or Rowdyism in the examination hall.
(f) Exchange of Answer Book/Question papers in the examination hall.
(g) Borrowing items or Seeking Clarification from another student in the examination hall.
(h) Suppressing or hiding any evidence once found using unfair means.
(j) Unauthorized entry into a Faculty Member‟s office with the intention of gaining access to /
tampering with the official record / documents.
5. Any matter which is not covered above but in the opinion of a Faculty Member falls in the
category of unfair means can also be reported to the Unfair Means Control Committee (UMCC)
formed in this regard.
Unfair Means Control Committee
6. Separate Committees are to be formed to deal with such cases for undergraduate and graduate
/ post graduate programs. Each Committee shall consist of three members nominated by the VC
for a period of three years which can be extended by the VC. The VC may detail another faculty
member to work temporarily with the Committee in case a permanent member is not available
due to unavoidable reasons.
7. The actions to be taken by the Committee in different cases are listed at Appendix „A‟ to this
policy document.
Review Petition against the Decision
8. A student may make an appeal to the VC against any decision of UMCC within three days.
The decision of the VC will be final.
Confiscation of Mobiles/unauthorized electronic devices possessed during Examinations
9. Students caught with mobile phones or other unauthorized electronic devices during exams
(inside/outside the exam room) including their mobile phones are to be confiscated by the
Chairman Unfair Means Control Committee and handed over to Director Examination, who will
ensure safe custody of all such items with an identification tag having all information written
over it. A consolidated list of confiscated mobile phones will be maintained at Exams
Department. Student may put up request in writing for returning of mobile / electronic device
after one year of confiscation and his / her request will be considered on merit. The students who
complete their degrees within one year of confiscation and apply for clearance can receive their
confiscated devices along with clearance certificate.
Ineligibility for Merit Scholarship
10. Students availing Merit Scholarship will become ineligible for the same in next semester if
penalized for use of Unfair Means or any act of indiscipline.
Ineligibility for Need–Based Scholarships / Grants
11. In a repeat case of penalty due to use of Unfair Means or act of indiscipline, student will
become ineligible for need based scholarship, fee concession or grant of any type in next
semesters.
Conclusion
12. This policy directive supersedes earlier directives on the subject and is to be effective
immediately and may be reviewed as and when required.
Guidelines for Dealing with use of Unfair Means
UNFAIR MEANS
PENALTY
AUTHORITY
1 .Attempt to know contents of Question paper prior to examination
Any one or combination of the following;

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
Arguing with Invigilator/being rowdy

And / or
-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
3 Possession / Use of external / written/ printed material inside the exam room

tter of warning

up to Rs. 5000/-

VC on recommendation of UMCC
4 Possession / Use of Mobile phone or unauthorized device containing external / cheating
material inside the exam room
n subject

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
5 Possession of mobile phone / device with no external / cheating material and not being used for
cheating purpose

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
6 Exchange of Answer Book / Question Paper or any other cheating material

3000/- for all students involved

VC on recommendation of UMCC
7 (a) Attempt to cheat outside exam room
(b) Seeking help from other student inside / outside the exam room
(c) Abetment in cheating

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
8 Borrowing of calculator or any other device during examination
(i) Warn verbally,
(ii) Fine up to Rs 3000/- for non-compliance
Invigilator
9 No ID card/Proof of being bonafide student of AU not held by student
Not allowed to sit in the exams unless verified by Coordinator /
Dy. Superintendent
Invigilator
10 Oral communication, whispering, looking around
(j) Warn verbally,
(ii) Fine up to Rs 3000/- for non-compliance
Invigilator
11 Impersonation:
Wherein a student is represented by someone else in the examination to attempt a paper
Termination / Expulsion
VC on recommendation of UMCC
12 Suppressing or hiding any evidence of use of unfair means
Any one or combination of the following;

gradation of grades in other subjects

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
13 Mass Cheating where more than one student is involved

-
VC on recommendation of UMCC
14 Tempering of Results
Any one or combination of the following;

VC on recommendation of UMCC
15 Repeat / Habitual case of cheating (repetition of any of the offences at S/N. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13,
and 14)
Any one or combination of the following;

VC on recommendation of UMCC
Note:
(a) Exam means any method used by FM for assessment of academic performance (Quiz,
Assignment, Presentation, Mid Term Exam, Final Exam, Practical work, Project related to
Subject, Group or Individual)
(b) All cases are to be reported to UMCC during / immediately after the exam.
(c) All penalties except expulsion will include a „WRITTEN WARNING‟.
(d) Students will become ineligible for merit scholarship for next semester if penalized for use of
Unfair Means or any act of indiscipline.
(e) In a repeat case of penalty due to use of unfair means or act of indiscipline, student will
become ineligible for need based scholarship, fee concession or grant of any type in next
semesters.