Subjective Truth and Morality: How Perspectives Shape Justice in India
This work has been verified by our teacher: 16.01.2026 at 17:27
Type of homework: Essay Writing
Added: 16.01.2026 at 16:58
Summary:
Prawda i moralność zależą od kontekstu; pluralizm, dialog i prawo pomagają znaleźć sprawiedliwe rozwiązania. ⚖️
The Subjectivity of Truth and Morality: Navigating Perspectives in a Diverse Society
“Who decides what is right?”, a question that often echoes through Indian households, courts, and classrooms. Picture a panchayat in a remote village honouring a centuries-old ritual, while, a few hundred kilometres away, an urban High Court rules the same act as illegal. How do such contradictions arise in our judgements of truth and morality, and what does this mean for our laws, social policy, and daily life? This essay explores the many ways ‘truth’ and ‘morality’ are shaped not by absolute standards, but by context—personal, cultural, historical, and institutional. At the heart of this investigation lie precise definitions: ‘truth’ is commonly seen as a statement that fits with facts, meets coherence within a framework, or is collectively accepted as real; ‘morality’ refers to guides that help determine right from wrong, drawing from traditions, reasoning, or law. The subjectivity of these concepts reflects the impact of individual and group perspectives. I argue that while context inevitably colours our judgements, an honest engagement with diverse viewpoints, combined with a respect for certain universal principles, can guide us towards fairer, more reasoned public decisions. The following sections trace the contours of this issue, from foundational ideas and psychological underpinnings to case studies from India, and finally, practical tools for ethical action.Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations
Indian society, with its tapestry of cultures and beliefs, offers fertile ground to examine the roots of moral judgement. To start, it is vital to distinguish between various meta-ethical stances:- Moral relativism posits that what is ‘right’ changes across cultures or individuals. This can encourage tolerance (e.g., accepting diverse festivals or dietary customs) but risks leading to impasses when fundamental values clash. - Moral absolutism, on the other hand, insists that some acts are inherently right or wrong, regardless of setting—such as the near-universal condemnation of murder. This clarity, however, can also breed rigidity and disregard for minority traditions. - Ethical subjectivism views moral claims as expressions of personal emotions, not as objective facts, explaining why anger over a perceived injustice might differ between close friends or strangers. - Constructivism suggests that our moral codes emerge from social interaction and compromise—seen, for example, in India’s evolving community panchayats or the ongoing amendments to the Constitution. - Ethical pluralism accepts that more than one valid moral outlook can exist, and is especially useful for balancing the claims of linguistic, religious, or caste-based groups.
In the realm of truth, various epistemological schools exist: the correspondence theory asserts something is true if it matches reality; the coherence theory values internal logical consistency; and the pragmatic theory considers a statement true if it works in practice or serves a purpose. Misunderstanding the distinction between descriptive (“dowry practised in some communities”) and normative (“dowry ought to be encouraged or banned”) statements often muddies debates, both in policy and everyday conversation.
Psychological and Sociocultural Roots of Moral Subjectivity
Our moral compass is not forged in isolation; rather, it is shaped by a blend of psychological and social influences. Cognitive science reveals that many moral reactions arise instantly, based on intuition or emotion, rather than deliberate thought. For instance, most people react with immediate discomfort to stories of cheating, even in children’s tales like the stories of Akbar and Birbal. Confirmation bias means we tend to accept facts that already fit our beliefs, while motivated reasoning allows us to justify moral positions we wish to hold.Jonathan Haidt’s framework—adapted to Indian context—identifies core foundations like care/harm, fairness, loyalty, respect for authority, and traditions of sanctity. How we weigh these differs: a family in Kerala may prioritise education over ritual purity, while a village in Rajasthan may reverse these.
Just as importantly, social identity—shaped by caste, religion, region, and language—profoundly affects our sense of right and wrong. Joint families transmit inherited scripts for dealing with elders, marriage, or festivals. Schools, whether convents, madrasas, or government institutions, reinforce particular codes, as do the law courts and the media. Moreover, India’s rich layering of customary law and state law frequently results in moral dilemmas and contestations.
Institutions such as the judiciary or the state not only reflect prevailing values but can actively shape new ones, such as when they intervene in matters of child marriage or temple entry for women. Similarly, the divide between urban and rural settings often magnifies tension between modern education and revered traditions.
Comparative Philosophical Perspectives
Western Approaches
Utilitarianism (championed by thinkers like John Stuart Mill) suggests an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Deontological or Kantian ethics emphasise duty and universal principles, irrespective of outcome—a perspective reflected in legal pledges or the oaths taken by public servants. Virtue ethics, with Aristotelian origins, gauges morality by the character one cultivates rather than isolated acts.Indian and Eastern Traditions
Indian philosophy tends to blur lines between theoretical categories, encouraging holistic integration. The principle of dharma—central to the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita—stresses contextual duty. Ahimsa (non-violence), advanced by Mahavira, Buddha, and later Gandhiji, serves as a touchstone guiding decisions in complex situations. In Sikhism, the concept of seva (selfless service) shapes collective and individual acts. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s legacy, meanwhile, spotlights the moral imperative of social justice—the need to question rules that perpetuate inequality.These perspectives can yield divergent answers to dilemmas: consider the question of lying. Utilitarianism may permit a lie if it saves a life, Kantian duty would oppose it, and the Gita might weigh the context before deciding.
The Subjectivity of Morality: Indian and Global Case Studies
1. Decriminalisation of Consensual Same-Sex Relations
Until recently, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalised consensual same-sex relations, a colonial law at odds with both evolving constitutional rights and some religious traditions. In 2018, the Supreme Court, citing ‘constitutional morality’, underscored dignity, privacy, and equality—prioritising rights over majority moral sentiment. This showcased how legal reasoning can recalibrate social morality.2. Cow Protection Laws
In several Indian states, bans on beef and cow slaughter reflect the sacred status of the cow in Hindu tradition. Yet, for Dalit, Adivasi and minority groups, cattle have long been a source of livelihood and nutrition. Here, policy attempts to harmonise competing claims—sometimes through exemptions, sometimes through financial compensation—but not without social friction. This highlights how symbolic values intersect with legal rights, and why carefully designed policy matters.3. Civil Rights Movements
Across the globe, historically entrenched laws—such as apartheid or untouchability—have been challenged by emerging moral movements. The eventual abolition of untouchability in India reflects a shift from previously accepted norms to new standards anchored in equality and justice.4. Climate Policy Debates
Questions about banning plastics, restricting coal, or enforcing environmental regulations pit immediate economic interests (jobs, business) against ethical duties to future generations. In Chennai, the ban on plastic bags required weighing the costs to small vendors versus the larger public good—a direct application of ethical balancing.5. Moral Dilemmas in Wartime
During conflicts, opposing sides justify violence differently—one claiming rightful defence, the other denouncing aggression. International law attempts to codify minimum standards, but moral relativity still affects post-war narratives, from the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation to more recent controversies.Practical Implications and Policy Recommendations
For law and governance, a robust constitutional framework—like India’s—can mediate between clashing values by upholding universal rights. Policy makers should ensure inclusive lawmaking by consulting all affected stakeholders, conducting social impact assessments, and protecting vulnerable minorities.Education must nurture empathy and the ability to view issues from multiple standpoints; curricula should include debates, stories from different cultures, and exercises in perspective-taking. Public discourse is more constructive when it foregrounds reason, not just passion.
Civil society benefits from institutions that encourage dialogue, such as Lok Adalats or citizens’ assemblies, which blend local custom with universal norms. Policy decisions—such as regulating religious processions or managing urban development—demand transparent processes and clear criteria.
A Stepwise Toolkit for Applied Moral Decision-Making
To decide contentious issues, such as imposing a plastic ban in a town, one might:1. Clarify facts vs values: Separate environmental data from local myths or fears. 2. Identify stakeholders: Consider vendors, consumers, waste workers, and environmental NGOs. 3. Apply two frameworks: A utilitarian might weigh environmental benefits against economic harm, while a rights-based approach asks if livelihoods are unduly compromised. 4. Consult legal precedent: Examining local and national court judgments sets limits. 5. Seek least-harm and reversible policies: Phase out plastics gradually, offer subsidies for alternatives. 6. Monitor and adapt: Regular reviews help remedy unforeseen harms and improve policy.
Critical Evaluation: Striking a Balance
Neither pure relativism nor complete absolutism suffices. Accepting every moral claim risks condoning injustice, as history shows in many caste- or gender-based practices. On the other hand, inflexible universalism can trample cultural subtleties and minority voices. A pluralist path—committed both to context and to foundational human rights—offers the best chance for just decisions. Crucially, moral humility, or the willingness to adapt in light of fresh experience and argument, must remain at the core.Conclusion
To sum up, we live in a world where truth and morality are shaped by myriad forces—history, psychology, community, and law. Yet, pluralist engagement, reasoned debate, and vigilant institutions can keep subjectivity from collapsing into chaos or tyranny. As citizens, our actions can strengthen civic education and promote participatory policy-making, enabling diverse voices to help shape tomorrow’s values. Ultimately, wrestling with moral disagreement is not a weakness but the sign of a mature, empathetic democracy.---
Writing and Examination Tips
- Structure your essay with clear paragraphs: intro (80–100 words), main body (150–200 per section), and conclusion (60–100). - Use at least two examples—like the decriminalisation of homosexuality in India, and environmental policy debates—to demonstrate depth. - Mention at least one philosophical perspective or thinker: for example, Gandhi’s non-violence or Ambedkar’s call for justice. - Avoid absolute statements; prefer “frequently”, “in many cases”, or “subject to context”. - When using a quotation, keep it short—“Truth is one, sages call it by many names” (Rig Veda)—and explain its relevance. - Use linking sentences like “Conversely” or “A further illustration” to guide the reader. - In the exam, allot time to plan (5–7 mins), write (30–35 mins), and proofread (3–5 mins).Further Reading
- The Preamble and Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution for references to justice and equality. - Landmark Supreme Court cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) on LGBT rights. - Philosophical works: Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj”, Dr. Ambedkar’s “Annihilation of Caste”, and summaries of utilitarian/consequentialist theories. - International frameworks: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).Checklist: Defend clear thesis; cite two examples; discuss one philosophical theory; balance arguments; provide practical suggestions and an insightful conclusion.
This approach, when applied with care, not only improves examination performance but also deepens our engagement with the complex world of truth and morality.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in