Step

Reverse Moral Justification

Assessment of Justification

Start with a specific moral judgment

based on a given Case [See examples of
several moral judgments under Set E
above]

The judgment given by government to not let Vedanta group

develop a bauxite mine in in a hill in Odisha was morally
justifiable
This can be morally justified because of 2 reasons:1. Tribes in and around that area had a spiritual
connect with the hill
2. The principle of distributive justice was not followed.
It is critical for the understanding of the case because the
judgment reinforced that we should always check every
decision by measuring it on moral principles. If something
violates a moral principle then it cannot be allowed by law and
thats what exactly happened in this case.
The teleological rules justify the moral judgment. In the
situational context of culture, the proposed plan from Vedanta
group would have violated the cultural integrity of more than
100 plus villages in the areas surrounding the proposed site
and thus it was justified to stop Vedanta group from doing
that.
Teleological moral standards justify this moral judgment. This
is because as moral standards clearly dictates that social costs
and benefit should always be considered while making
decisions and in this case clearly social cost was more than
social benefit.
Teleological moral principles justify this moral judgment. We
should always consider the human and social welfare while
making any decision. In this case the proposal clearly was
against the social welfare as it was proposing to destroy a deep
spiritual belief of 100 plus villages thus it could not be agreed
to.
Theory of morality (teleology) which derives moral obligation
from what is good as an end to be achieved justifies the
decision made by government. The final end point of the
proposal to mine a sacred hill violated this principle was thus
not justified.
The learning was that the source of every specific moral
judgment could be traced back to one or the other ethical
theory.

What specific moral rules justify this

moral judgment and why? [See Set D
above].

What specific moral standards justify

this moral judgment and the rules it is
based on, and why? [See Set C above].

What specific moral principles justify

this moral judgment and the rules and
standards it is based on, and why? [See
Set B above].

What specific moral or ethical theories

justify this moral judgment and the
rules, standards and principles it is
based on, and why? [See Set A above].

Steps
E-A

What have you learnt in this iterative

moral reasoning and backward
judgment and justification process?

Exhibit 7B: A Framework for AOL 5: Forward Moral Justification

Step

Forward Moral Justification

Assessment of Justification

Study a given Case thoroughly, holistically,

and identify the critical problem that defines
and undergirds the Case. What ethical
theories would you invoke in understanding,
characterizing and defining this problem?
What are the key subjects, objects, properties
and events (SOPE) of the Case? Why? [See
several ethical theories presented in Tables
7.1, 7.2, and Set A under AOL 5].

The major problem that the given case presents is of growth

versus spirituality. Which should be given more importance.
But as clearly stated in teleological theory the end of the
process taken should be morally justifiable which not the
case in this situation. The end violates the integrity of a hill,
which has spiritual importance to 100 plus villages.
Key Subjects: Vedanta Group, Government, Supreme court,
Environment authority of India.
Key Objects: Tribes in and around the Niyamgiri hills of
Odisha
Key Properties: Environment versus development debate. In
which we realized that whenever an ethical decision has to
be taken it has to be through a pre-defined framework.

Steps
A- E

From these ethical theories what specific

moral principles would you derive that will
enable you to explain, analyze and morally
assess the key subjects, objects, properties or
events (SOPE) of this problem, and why?
[See Set B under AOL 5 for a sample of moral
principles].
What specific moral standards would you
derive from the moral principles derived at
Step B in order to justify your explanation,
analysis and moral assessment of SOPE
under Step B, and why?
Fourthly, what specific moral rules would you
extract from the moral standards (Step C),
moral principles (Step B) and ethical theories
(Step A) to further justify your explanation,
analysis and moral assessment of SOPE
under Steps B and C, and why?
Given Steps A, B, C and D, and the moral
assessment of SOPE under each, what
specific moral judgments can you arrive at
regarding key SOPE in the Case, how and
why? How can you thereby justify this moral
judgment and the rules, standards,
principles, and ethical theories it is based on,
and why?
What have you learnt in this iterative moral
reasoning and forward moral judgmental
justification process?

Key Events: Vedanta group seeking permission to create a

mine near Niyamgiri hills of Odisha
Environment impact of the actions were calculated
Supreme court gave the right to gauge the impact of the
proposal to 12 gram panchayats in and around the hill
All 12 panchayats decided to vote against the proposed site.
The teleological theories gives us enough content to explain,
analyze and morally assess the SOPE of this problem. This
is because the principle of social welfare was violated in this
case. What society considers as bad for them could not be
forced upon them only because one firm could earn billions.
Teleological moral standards can justify the explanation,
analysis and moral assessment of SOPE. In the given case
the social benefit to the tribes around Niyamgiri hills
(Objects) were way less than the cost.
In the cultural context we would like to invoke the
teleological moral rules to justify the explanation of SOPE.
An act which harms society as a whole cannot be morally
justified. The proposal by Vedanta had clearly violated the
teleological principle thus the orders given by government
were justifiable.
A thing which has a spiritual importance to a huge number
of people must not be destroyed for some personal gain. It is
immoral to act in selfish ways to exploit natural resources
and demolish things of high importance to the public at
large.

The great learning of how we can derive moral rules

standards and principles from moral theories happened
during the forward judgment and justification process. The
understanding that we actually have a framework to judge
our actions on was priceless.