The centre of Tagore’s philosophy was man of god. Even his concept of God was influenced by the humanism inherent in his outlook. The supreme reality thus according to Tagore, essentially human and could be realised only through love of man. Love of God was thus translated into love of human. Tagore in fact sought the origin of spiritual aspirations and the concept of god in the spirit of the unity expressed by the primitive man. In a discussion with Einstein, Tagore said, if there is any truth absolutely unrelated to humanity then for us it is absolutely non-existing. Tagore thus firmly believed that truth could be realised only in human Society.
Politically Tagore believed that each nation and individual must have certain rights and through those rights he should be in a position to ‘his Personality. At the same time he stressed people should have power and strength enough to realise their rights as without that strength it was impossible to retain rights even if extended by the rulers. He also stood for the individuals saying that States existed for the individual and its activities should aim at giving maximum freedom for attaining that Liberty. He couldn’t reconcile himself with the then prevailing trend of british rule which was impersonal in character and which denied freedom, spiritual, economic and political, to the vast majority of the Indians. According to him freedom could be possible by adopting the policy of decentralisation of authority and giving, more powers to local self-government institutions.
Socially, Tagore believed that Indian Society has very much degenerated mostly because of the policy of our social rulers who didn’t care to preserve our Social Institutions and allowed them to degenerate. He felt that social and political institutions should go side by side. He had faith in social solidarity and belief in ancient Indian culture and civilization. According to him political life was only a specialised aspect of social life and both could not be separated from each other. He quoted from Indian history that India always represented the synthesis of various philosophies and was very much broad-based. Therefore he believed that constructive efforts should be made to revive our ancient Indian culture.
He was educationally a revolutionary and strongly believed that there should be a system of Education suited to India. It should be the system in which the cultures of east and the west should unite and where there should be a platform for understanding each other. In the words of G. Ramchandran, “Gurudev never accepted that the object of education was simply the accumulation of knowledge. He unhesitatingly proclaimed that education should give alround human personality in which the physical, the intellectual, the aesthetic and spiritual Growth would be harmonised into one integral process. He, therefore, emphasised freedom and joy as of basic importance in the education of boys and girls. This meant elimination of physical punishment, examination and therefore of fear and everything humiliating restriction from Shanti Niketan system rather pattern of education”.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of the very few people who impressed an idea upon a historical epoch. That idea was nonviolence. Gandhi’s creed of non-violence insisted that people struggle for their rights should never violate their basic obligation to respect life.
Gandhi was both religious and open-minded, and saw all religions as paths to reach the same goal. He was inspired by the teachings of Jesus, in particular the emphasis on love for everyone, even one’s enemies, and the need to strive for Justice. He also took from Hinduism-2/”>Hinduism the importance of action in one’s life, without concern for success.
Gandhi’s God was an immanent and his general philosophy of Hinduism becomes an ethic of political action. Gandhi’s approach to reality is religious rather than philosophical. He approached reality through non-violence. Non-violence is an integral part of every religion. He says that: “Non-violence is in Hinduism, it is in Christianity as well as in Islam. If non-violence disappears, Hindu Dharma disappears. Islam does not forbid its followers from following nonviolence as a policy.
After having studied the Bhagavad-Gita against the background of Indian culture and tradition, he has come to the conclusion that the central teaching of the Gītā is to follow truth and non-violence. When there is no desire for truth, there is no temptation for untruth of violence but it maybe freely admitted that the Gita was not written to establish non-violence. The central teaching of the Gita is not violence but nonviolence. Violence is impossible without anger, without attachment, without hatred, and the Gita strives to carry us to the state beyond sattva, rajas and tamas, a state that excludes anger, hatred, etc., to one who reads the spirit of Gita, it teaches the secret of non-violence, the secret of realizing the self through the physical body.
Gandhi was not a visionary but he claimed to be a practical idealist. He was a man of action. It was the idealist that made him function as a practical man. He was also an irrepressible optimist. His optimism was based on the belief that man is endowed with infinite possibilities of development. His belief in the law as the ideal is unquestionable. It matters whether individuals fall short of the ideal. Though he was aware of the reality, his striving was always to reach the idea.
It is a means of focusing his attention to the ultimate goal. He has to tread the right path without digression. This is the yardstick by which man’s progress is measured. Gandhi’s philosophy was the direct result of human relations and it was in the sphere of human interaction that his plan of action took concrete shape. His approach was liberal and human. The world is there for all practical purposes. It is the field of greatest activity. No turning ones back to, or running away from, the world is Gandhi’s Attitude. According to him:
“The world offers problems of man and he is made to solve them. This is what Gandhi thinks about man and the world. Thus, the world is an arena where man has to fight his battle for the conquest of life. The world is an active field. Man cannot remain inactive or static in it. His activity can be progressive as he is a progressive being pushed up by Nature which is never at a stand-still.”
Gandhi has faith in the fallible man who can improve his condition by cultivating a perfectly innocent heart incapable of evil. Thus, the fallible man, being a hindrance to his own self-development, can be corrected to follow the path of progress in the right spirit. It can only happen through life-education. Gandhi observes that: “It is not Literacy or Learning which makes a man but education for real life.”
,
Morality is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There is no one definition of morality that everyone agrees on, but it is generally understood to be a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong. Morality can be based on religion, personal beliefs, or social norms.
There are many different moral theories that have been proposed over the years. Some of the most well-known moral thinkers include Aristotle, Confucius, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, and W.E.B. Du Bois.
Aristotle believed that morality was based on human nature. He argued that humans have a natural tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and that this tendency leads us to develop a sense of right and wrong. Confucius also believed that morality was based on human nature, but he argued that it was more important to focus on developing good character than on following specific rules.
David Hume argued that morality was based on emotion. He believed that we feel good when we do something that is right, and we feel bad when we do something that is wrong. This feeling of pleasure or pain is what motivates us to act morally.
Immanuel Kant believed that morality was based on reason. He argued that we have a duty to act in accordance with our moral beliefs, even if it is difficult or inconvenient to do so. He also believed that we should always treat others as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that morality was based on freedom. He argued that we are all born free, and that we should only be bound by laws that we have freely consented to. He also believed that we have a natural right to happiness, and that morality should be based on this right.
John Stuart Mill believed that morality was based on utility. He argued that the right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He also believed that we should always act in accordance with our own conscience, even if it means going against the law.
Mahatma Gandhi believed that morality was based on non-violence. He argued that we should always try to resolve conflict peacefully, and that we should never use violence against others, even if they have wronged us. He also believed that we should always be willing to sacrifice our own well-being for the greater good.
Martin Luther King, Jr. also believed that morality was based on non-violence. He argued that we should always fight for justice, but that we should do so in a way that does not harm others. He also believed that we should always be willing to forgive those who have wronged us.
Mother Teresa believed that morality was based on love. She argued that we should always love others, even if they do not love us back. She also believed that we should always be willing to help those in need, regardless of their race, religion, or social status.
Plato believed that morality was based on knowledge. He argued that we can only know what is right and wrong if we have a deep understanding of the world. He also believed that the best way to learn about morality is to study the lives of great philosophers and moral leaders.
Thomas Aquinas believed that morality was based on religion. He argued that God has given us a natural law that tells us what is right and wrong. He also believed that we can only know what is right and wrong if we have faith in God.
Thomas Hobbes believed that morality was based on self-interest. He argued that we are all motivated by our own desires, and that we should only act in ways that benefit ourselves. He also believed that the only way to prevent chaos and violence is to have a strong government that enforces laws.
W.E.B. Du Bois believed that morality was based on social justice. He argued that we have a moral duty to fight for Equality and justice for all people. He also believed that we should always be willing to stand up for what we believe in, even if it means going against the majority.
These are just a few of the many moral thinkers who have shaped our understanding of morality. There is no one right answer to the question of what is moral, but by studying the work of these thinkers, we can gain a better understanding of the different ways that morality can be understood.
Here are some frequently asked questions and short answers about the topic of moral thinkers:
What is a moral thinker? A moral thinker is someone who is able to make judgments about what is right and wrong. They are able to understand and apply moral principles to their own lives and the lives of others.
What are some examples of moral thinkers? Some examples of moral thinkers include philosophers, religious leaders, and political leaders. These people have all made significant contributions to our understanding of morality.
What are some of the different theories of morality? There are many different theories of morality, but some of the most common include utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism is the theory that the right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Deontology is the theory that the right action is the one that is in accordance with duty or obligation. Virtue ethics is the theory that the right action is the one that is in accordance with the virtues of a good person.
What are some of the challenges of moral thinking? One of the challenges of moral thinking is that it can be difficult to determine what is right and wrong in certain situations. There are often competing moral principles, and it can be difficult to know which one should take precedence. Additionally, our moral beliefs can be influenced by our emotions, our personal experiences, and our culture. This can make it difficult to be objective in our moral judgments.
What are some of the benefits of moral thinking? One of the benefits of moral thinking is that it can help us to live better lives. When we are able to make good moral judgments, we are more likely to make choices that are in line with our values and that will lead to positive outcomes. Additionally, moral thinking can help us to develop our character and become better people.
What are some of the ways that we can improve our moral thinking? There are a few things that we can do to improve our moral thinking. First, we can try to be more aware of our own moral beliefs and values. Second, we can try to understand the different theories of morality and how they apply to different situations. Third, we can practice making moral judgments in different situations. Finally, we can talk to others about morality and get their perspectives on different issues.
Question 1
Which of the following is not a type of moral theory?
(A) Deontology (B) Consequentialism (C) Virtue ethics (D) Moral relativism
Answer (D) Moral relativism is not a type of moral theory. It is a view about the nature of morality, not a theory about how to make moral judgments.
Question 2
Which of the following is not a principle of deontology?
(A) The principle of utility (B) The principle of respect for autonomy (C) The principle of non-maleficence (D) The principle of justice
Answer (A) The principle of utility is a principle of consequentialism, not deontology.
Question 3
Which of the following is not a principle of consequentialism?
(A) The principle of utility (B) The principle of respect for autonomy (C) The principle of non-maleficence (D) The principle of justice
Answer (B) The principle of respect for autonomy is a principle of deontology, not consequentialism.
Question 4
Which of the following is not a virtue in virtue ethics?
(A) Wisdom (B) Courage (C) Justice (D) Moral relativism
Answer (D) Moral relativism is not a virtue in virtue ethics. It is a view about the nature of morality, not a virtue.
Question 5
Which of the following is not a criticism of deontology?
(A) Deontology is too rigid. (B) Deontology is too abstract. (C) Deontology is too focused on individual rights. (D) Deontology is too focused on consequences.
Answer (D) Deontology is not too focused on consequences. In fact, deontology is often criticized for being too focused on individual rights and not enough on consequences.
Question 6
Which of the following is not a criticism of consequentialism?
(A) Consequentialism is too utilitarian. (B) Consequentialism is too focused on the future. (C) Consequentialism is too focused on consequences. (D) Consequentialism is too abstract.
Answer (D) Consequentialism is not too abstract. In fact, consequentialism is often criticized for being too focused on consequences and not enough on abstract principles.
Question 7
Which of the following is not a criticism of virtue ethics?
(A) Virtue ethics is too vague. (B) Virtue ethics is too focused on the past. (C) Virtue ethics is too focused on individual character. (D) Virtue ethics is too focused on consequences.
Answer (D) Virtue ethics is not too focused on consequences. In fact, virtue ethics is often criticized for being too focused on individual character and not enough on consequences.
Question 8
Which of the following is not a strength of deontology?
(A) Deontology is clear and easy to understand. (B) Deontology is consistent. (C) Deontology is impartial. (D) Deontology is flexible.
Answer (D) Deontology is not flexible. In fact, deontology is often criticized for being too rigid and not enough flexible.
Question 9
Which of the following is not a strength of consequentialism?
(A) Consequentialism is practical. (B) Consequentialism is flexible. (C) Consequentialism is impartial. (D) Consequentialism is consistent.
Answer (D) Consequentialism is not consistent. In fact, consequentialism is often criticized for being too focused on consequences and not enough on abstract principles.
Question 10
Which of the following is not a strength of virtue ethics?
(A) Virtue ethics is realistic. (B) Virtue ethics is holistic. (C) Virtue ethics is flexible. (D) Virtue ethics is impartial.
Answer (D) Virtue ethics is not impartial. In fact, virtue ethics is often criticized for being too focused on individual character and not enough on impartial principles.