Thank you all and I thank Professor Satie for giving me this opportunity to have a conversation with you through this mode of talk on environmental ethics. I do not think that we need to discuss on environmental ethics, particularly on the topic ethics, because as I saw the skits and listened to the beautiful poem, it was wonderful. I think precisely the essence of my talk is already gone into your mind, so I do not think there is a need to have a talk and a conversation, but I would also suggest that more we talk, more we inculcate values, it enriches us. So there is no limit to have a conversation on ethics, so in that context I would like to put forward some of the ideas that have been there for long and people who are studying environment have tried to look at those ideas and try to see that how we can understand the concept of environment from an ethical perspective. That is the gist of my talk, that we need to understand the concept of environment from an ethical viewpoint and without ethics I do not think that we can have a better understanding of environment. So when we talk about ethics, we talk about values, we talk about practicing those values, storing those values, we store them, we preserve them and these values are essential and in our everyday life we show them to others that how these values are with us. So it is shown through actions. So without inevitable that we will not act, every individual has to act, every individual has to leave and therefore he has to exhibit values in their actions. So it is through actions actually we narrate values, we conceptualize new values, we try to put them in a theoretical framework of our academic life. So it is in that context I am talking about how ethics is a part of our life and it is true that we all know about human suffering and we all are aspiring for a good society. Suffering has now various, for various reasons, it is not it. So when we look at these reasons, there is stories of homicide, robbery, rape, humane, political assassination, terrorism, apart from this we also have a problem about environment. It is not the concept of climate change, pollution, etcetera, etcetera, which are somehow connected to our everyday life of everyday life and we need to, we are horrified precisely because we do not have easy solution to these issues. So therefore when we talk about what that we are looking for, we find that there is no easy solution therefore no need to think about it. It is not our responsibility to think about it. So all kinds of easy methods and answers are sought when we talk about problems that we encounter in our life or it is not our problem. One way of dealing with it is that it is not my problem, it is not my neighbor's problem, it is nobody's problem but everybody's problem. So it is in that kind of scenario in which we all live and but we understand this much that something is wrong and it is, it has to be deeply thought about and we need to think as a responsible citizen of the country or of the state. So therefore we need to talk about ethics and when we talk about ethics, we also try to see that it has a scope and we need to talk about laws that operate in that particular scope and or framework in which we live and we find that this is what I should do, this is what I should not do. So our social life is in a way very much constructed and that influences our individual personal life. And we find that there is a conflict between the social and the personal, that is one point which we can think of and this is a summary what ethics is all about. I thought that this quotation will be a meaningful quotation to talk briefly about what ethics does and I have taken it from an environmental ethics anthology. There are different types of ethics in academic studies. One of them which we are interested and we will be studying today is applied ethics. The other kinds of ethics are general study of ethics, study of ethics of right action, moral psychology, etc., etc. We are not concerned about that. We are concerned about only applied ethics that how we can deal with environmental problems, the crisis that we encounter in our life and that has to be resolved. So that is the point where we will be focusing today. So therefore, there are different kinds of applied ethics which has been practiced in academics today. One is apart from environment, one can think of how to use medicine, drugs, how an engineer should as a professional should behave, should perform his job. So there are engineering ethics and I am sure all of you are engineers or training engineers. So in that sense there is an engineering ethics which has been taught as a part of professional ethics. There are business ethics those who deal with business but what is our interest here is to talk about environment because environment is suffering and the reason of suffering is I think we are not here to discuss about the reasons why environment is suffering. But at least we have a prima facie evidence that there is a crisis that we need to resolve on that and when we look at this crisis we find air pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, loss of soil and and gender species etc. So it is in that context we need to reexamine the human nature relationship and what is the philosophy behind this engagement because the crisis is basically rooted in our everyday engagement with nature or environment. So therefore we need to relook at things that are there and things that have gone wrong in our approaches or the theories that we have followed in the past. So it is in that context our reexamination is basically a mandatory one and when we talk about the reexamination we also need to see that what is the ethical approach or a theoretical ethical theoretical framework we need to propose so that we understand the concept of environment much better. So as I mentioned earlier our whole approach is to understand the notion of environment. Understanding is very important when it comes to ethics. I have also mentioned that ethics deals with human action and I am also telling now that it is about understanding. So the point that I would like to conclude following these two concepts or emphasizing these two concepts is that how we can perform an enlightened action so that environment is protected from the crisis which is undergoing. So that kind of so it is about an enlightened action a wise action that every individual should or ought to perform in order to protect the environment. When we talk about how philosophy has looked at the notion of environment. We also need to see that how values are carried out or carried by nature could best be described of an asking whether nature is morally considerable at all. Most of us do not consider nature as a morally significant subject and that is the reason of the crisis and therefore in the nature the other biotic beings which leave they are not given importance. So the balance which is required the ecosystem which has to be protected is not protected due to this factor. So we need to look at that what are the grounds of protecting the ecosystems or how to deal with this non-human animals or other biotic beings who are living in the ecosystem. So it is in that context we need to talk about the very moral foundation of environmental ethics and this foundation will help us understanding biotic or non-human beings which are living in the earth. Yes sir. Sir actually but in your this type topics environmental ethics we frequently encounter the terms like values, moral and ethics. So we do not have much clear idea about what are those terms actually. So first I would request you to distinguish these three terms. What is value, moral and ethics actually? Okay. How to distinguish these three terms? Ethics is the science of or theories of morals. If you what is ethics? Ethics is about theorizing morals. And when we theorize moral we try to conceive what is moral and what is not moral. We try to understand what is moral and what is not moral. So it is in that context we try to appreciate what is good and what is not good. What is useful and what is not useful. So and that is how we talk about practicing values, preserving values. If we consider something is good then we try to protect that for our interest is not it. Or if I find something is useful then I preserve it for my own well-being. So I preserve that for my good, for my well-being. Is it not? So ethics which tries to theorize morals directly deals with values, subset, it is part of moral. Let us do not use this term subset, bigger say it, you know that category I think. Any examples, sir? Yes, let us say speaking truth is a moral value, is not it? Or harm others, is a moral value, is it not? Can I add some values sir? So India is having more moral values sir, so we are teaching our children Yidghas and Puranas and more moral studies and all. So by practicing the moral issues you know, the morality we are developing means, so our life is getting valuable. True. By practicing moral we are acquiring values or what? Yes sir. It is not really acquiring values, our understanding, our depth of understanding moral knowledge increases. So it is in that sense you try to now extend yourself to other life. So when it comes to harming the environment or harming other non-human beings you find that if you are practicing moral values like you know he was talking about trees, how to protect trees. So you extend your moral self to the non-human entity which is living in your surrounding. So that extension unifies or creates a moral bond between the humans who have understood themselves that they are made in the image of God and they are existing in the universe to use natural resources, to use other beings, they are the master and the other beings are for their use, is not it? So it is that understanding which has created imbalance. This particular kind of understanding is called I mean termed as anthropocentric view where man is at the center of the universe and everything which is around him I mean the other biotic beings or non-humans which are around him which constitute the environment are for his use. So if we take this theoretical perspective through which we try to understand which have been the case you know not only from Aristotelian period when the science began but also during the Enlightenment period. People have been chomping this idea or advocating very seriously that how the natural resources are to be used to fulfill human dreams but that has caused a serious damage to environment. So we need to change the theoretical perspective and look at how environment will be a life centric kind of a ethical theory or we can articulate a life centric ethical theory where the concept of anthropocentrism will be anulified. That is the basic idea. Thank you sir. Thank you. Yes sir. Sir in India nowadays we are lagging in the ethics and moral values therefore government of India and even government of Madhya Pradesh they are thinking of starting the ethics and moral values in technical education and other education at college level to give this as a compulsory subject in these educations. Yes. Particularly if you have very actively you know engaged in watching television or newspapers after the Delhi rape case which was you know a very horrified case so the then prime minister of India announced immediately that we should have value education right from the school level it should be part of our curriculum. This was announced I do not know whether it is it has been followed thereafter but the basic thing that we lag is my dear friend said that we have been following ethics in our everyday life in our family puranas are taught. See the concept here is we do not really locate these texts critically we do not really try to understand it we have accepted the way it was there or the way somebody has told us we do not really rationally conceive ideas ok. So therefore a critical reading of this text are very important ok because sometimes as we know that we have taken this text as the source of morals and we have forgotten or we have been submissive to this text I am not interested in that kind of thinking I am interested in thinking in the lines of a being who is rational, active and also has a moral sentiment to understand the crisis the humanity is facing. So we have to really ignite the rational element in human life and try to locate how this text can be critically looked that is what is my interest otherwise you know if somebody ask why you are doing it you do not have an answer. So there is a deep reading necessary yes ok assimilation is one phase of you know one way of articulating morals. Actually when our colleague asked the question of the differences between ethics, moral and values yes when you started it to me personally it got cleared but when you ended now now got again confused because you said that if I heard correctly ethics is to theorize morals yes if somebody asks what is ethics it is theorize the morals. But when now what I understood at the end it looks sounds like that that ethics is more of like a action which we earned through moral understanding the value of an action. So if I say example of a forest and trees. So it is unethical on our part to cut the trees yes it is because it has a value yes so the moral is that if you cut the trees you risk your life. Yes. Am I correct? Yes. Now see when we talk about values action and theorizing they are not to be treated as a separate concepts because I told in the beginning that it is inevitable that we will not act. So everybody will act like everybody is a thinking being every human beings will is also an active agent.  So the moral has gone into our thought process and is also reflected through action is it not. So they are the entire concept has to be you know integrated and then looked at theories of morals yes sir. Sir is attitude and ethics are interrelated or interdependent? Interrelated or interdependent very interesting questions values do not depend on your attitude values are suppose something is good something is good irrespective of how you feel about it okay it is not it. So therefore the question of dependency does not arise. If attitude will change occurs is it mean ethically also is he or she is no proven correct. We can evaluate attitudes through certain norms or following a particular ethical theory that we can do but values do not depend on attitudes is not it. Sir yes sir. Sir as I understand what you taught that there is a chain that thoughts thoughts makes our routine and routine makes our habits and habits makes our character and finally character is our personality. So the moral that we have studied or we have taught by our teachers or our parents that is moral that is during the year of 0 to 14 as I distinguished and the values are that what we have studied by the morals either we accepted it or not that is the values either we respect that morals or not and after the values what we have done and what we have reflect over society that is our ethics that 45. So as I understand that moral is a theoretical knowledge which is given by our teachers or any other the values what we extract from it and that takes what we had followed through the life by following the moral and the values as I understand by you. Partly I may be correct for the question that many of the people have raised about ethics as far as I know anything illegal is unethical that is the first thing. So if it has to be ethical the first thing is the actions done by the person or the people or the society should be legally correct. Second it should be morally correct if I am correct. So the third one is the actions might be okay with me but it might be affecting the environment or the other person which may be legally correct. So the next one is fourth condition that should be applied to ethics is what society thinks if I am going to behave like this. If the society behaves like this what I am going to think. So I think four conditions need to be satisfied if I am correct. Now let me tell you when we talk about ethics in a environmental context which I have not really gone into I find that see when we look at ethics we try to see that what is it to be ethical if somebody asked this question. You need to rationally articulate and understand that this is what is right. Society had accepted slavery once upon a time. There were slaves and in Plato's society who talked about democracy right of the citizen in those society there were slaves. Do you think Plato was not aware of it and we also live in a society where we exploit the women in a patriarchal society women are exploited. Do you think our generation is not aware of it is not it. We live in a society where we also use children as laborers is not it. And we try to use natural resources best of our knowledge is it not. So when we talk about this in ethical you know point of view we try to see that where things have gone wrong and how things has to be corrected. In the society people who have accepted it I do not know which society we are talking about but society per se if you have accepted it and you find something is definitely wrong or there is a very strong difference between you and society then either the individualistic idea is correct I do not know what is if you can give an example that will be shown but in such society you find that something wrong is happening. And therefore we need to change the norms norms that are followed. So we would like to live in a better society. So therefore those who are arguing for environmental ethics they are trying to show that how a moral extensionism is possible. The realm of the moral in which an individual live or try to live has to be extended. So we had a society and we lived in that society where slavery was you know was there and now it has been minimized or it is not there. We are living in a society or at least try to show that women are equal to us is not it. So there are provisions made either through constitution or through some ways of living. There are scope for these people to raise voice to assert their freedom. So this is a way to show that how moral extensionism is happening. The scope of the realm moral is expanding day by day. So there will be time when we will really think that you know children are supposed to you know go to school and there will be also a time where we will stop you know like Amrita Devi will hog the you know the tree will directly identify ourselves with the tree that you and me are not different from the non-human beings. Is it not? So that kind of identity is an example of moral extension. How you extend your moral being towards the other. That is what is about this sentiment of yours. At the age of 40 we realize that there is something wrong. The peers have told me something wrong. This is not what they should have told me. Why at the age of 40? So what is really making my psyche right from the beginning. Right when we go to school look at this science curriculum. Now Gandhi made a very interesting example that our curriculum are made or framed in such a way that we see nature is something different. So this antagonism which has or the difference which has built up between the humans and the non-humans is right there from the school level, from the elementary level. So there is something wrong. We need to have a curriculum where nature and humans will coexist. Is it not? So when we will talk about a future generation we need to look at where we had gone wrong. So that the future generation should not made a complaint at the age of 40. Is it not sir? It is in that context when we look at environment. When we try to understand environment from an ethical point of view or make environment as a part of the discourse of morals we look at it from two points of views. One is environment as a field of significance. That is something which is meaningfully associated with me or it should be part of my being. So this field is interestingly an intentional field. It is an intentional field in this sense I am experiencing the crisis. I am in a dialogue with the environment. I am having a conversation with an environment and this conversation happens in many ways. One of the conversation is that the poem that you wrote and you internalized the feeling of others or the skit which was played here. So you internalize what is going on in the world and try to make it part of your own being yourself and see how meaningful it is. Is it not? When the silent value movement was going on everybody worked for it. Everybody tried to advocate that now we need to protect environment. Poets came, scientists came, people from all social startup could join because they could really show that how significant environment is. So when we understand environment we need to look at that environment and the self or the humans are intentionally connected. So far we have been treating environment as an objective phenomena that yes we try to measure it as science does. We treat it as an object and that is how it has been causally related to us. We try to understand environment in that way. But the change that we are looking for, the change that is to talk about an ethical life centric ethics not anthropocentric ethics. In the life centric ethics, life is the foundation in the sense that it will integrate all kinds of beings or it has the power to integrate all kinds of beings. So that will be shown when we look at environment both from scientific prospect. I am not saying that scientific prospecting is meaningless. I am trying to suggest that along with the scientific understanding of the environment we also need to place this idea that environment is a field of significance. It is meaningful to us. So therefore when we talk about globalization today we see that everywhere market works. Somebody, an environment philosopher called David Cooper, I do not want to throw the names, but he said that it is better to be a local citizen, environmental citizen. Because I understand that how significant this particular tree which has grown in my courtyard, how significant it is, I am living with it. This is typically in a Hedegarian, those who I do not know how many of you take interest in reading philosophy or philosophical ideas, but I am sure you might be reading some poets and or the novelist. Hedegar says that I live with it. So that everyday association that I have with the tree or the pets, okay, makes me a local citizen. And it is important that when you talk about environment, advocate the values of environment, we need to be a local citizen first. This is the idea. This is an example which I wrote from David Cooper. Please read this. As an intentional object. So if you can explain. I will explain. It is certainly important to explain. Now every individual human being, as I said, is a thinking being, a very active being. And when we talk about thinking, thinking is an intentional activity. Now what is it to be intentional? When somebody asks me, what do you think or what do you know? Then in my thought, I say, I mean, if I express, I will say that I am thinking about something. So this thinking is always directed towards something. So it has got a directedness, a feature of directedness and that makes thinking intentional. So every human beings are intentional beings. And as I was giving an example of the school or the tree in my courtyard, that becomes an intentional object. If somebody finds or in one fine day, I find that the tree is not there. Tree has disappeared, okay. And I will always carry that image of the tree. That is an intentional object. Now this one can talk about impression. So impressions is a source of knowledge. But here intentional object is a very technical term used in the text. So even if the object is absent, it has, it lives in my thought. So that is a living object. So the land, say for example, when somebody estimates the value, he says I will give you 20 lakhs, okay. Because that for him, that is an object. But for the real owner who every day goes to the field and has lived in there, for him that is not just a piece of land. That is, you know, something very intrinsically valuable. It has got a value in itself. You cannot really estimate the value. So that is what. So the tree which is I have planted, it has got immense value. I cannot really estimate what is the value of it. So in that sense, it is intentional object. So this idea of Heidegger is like this. When you talk about living, we really know its way of living. The whole idea is that when you start living as a local citizen or understand the very significance of environment, you find out a way of living, okay. And this is how the way of living for Heidegger means rationally, how to get A to B, how to dress people, whom to avoid. Now these are the rational element which is part of knowing its way of living. And every biotic being is aware of it. Right from a bird to a human, this rational is common. It is not that it is only available to a human being. No, it is also this reason or the reasons are available to all living beings. My friend was asking about attitude and feelings. And it is in this context, attitude and feelings will have a subjective way of looking at the reality. So there is a subjective element present in our moral attitudes. So it is in that context if you think that there is a difference. Now somebody says, no, this is how I live. This is how I regulate myself or conduct myself. So there will be that subjectivity which is present in all distinct human beings. So that is fine. So long as it is not harming others, not affecting others life. So attitude and feelings are part of our subjective way of living. But at the same time I was talking about integration. We need to also integrate the subjective ideas with the objective way of understanding the environment. Now one question may arise, but can we have a universal ethics? So to this idea, Ralston and Light proposed that why universal ethics is not possible. Please read this, sir. Anybody would like to ask any question on this? Ethics and universal principles are different? No, they are not different. I would clarify why it does not conflict with the previous talk. Now when I talked about anthropocentric ethics that considers man is at the center of the universe. Man is the source of morals because man can think, rationalize, articulate, frame ideas and govern, rule others. So this anthropocentric worldview as I mentioned earlier has caused some damage to the environment, to the ecosystem. So therefore we need to change that ethical framework. So to change that ethical framework certainly needs a different rational different principles through which we can enlarge and extend the scope of morals. I am not saying thereby that humans are insignificant. I am saying that that we can alter the ethical framework or we can extend the scope of ethics to include other beings within that framework and protect the rights and things like that. Now the question is, so when I articulate that from a life-centric ethics I try to conceptualize new principles and these new principles will demand an attitudinal change is not it. If we have the same attitude which we kept 50 years back, 100 years back, following the enlightenment ideas then this will not be realized is not it. To my knowledge there is no conflict or to explicate little more on the second quotation which I have it is a quote is to tell you that there are morals which are culture specific, there are morals which are custom specific or religion specific but that should not affect or make ethics relative particularly when I am talking about ethics as an applied discipline. So we cannot have relativism here. So for example when we talk about animal ethics, animal rights you cannot have one animal right here or another animal right somewhere other place in Andhra Pradesh or in Tamil Nadu there is one or in Maharashtra there will be one, no. Sir I can add one the national Tamil poet Subramanya Bhardhi the quote I can include here so the right passage I can include here so the Tamil version I can tell and then I can translate that. So that's a meaning of this so even the crow as well as the sparrow they are all our relatives like that and then comparatively the mountain everything we are seeing no so it's all the part of our the human being also the part of that so the Punjab Buddha and all we are saying no so that included so the holistic approach as well as the natural view it is realized by the Subramanya Bhardhi and that word so like that Rabindranath Taguru also who got many words and then the Gitanjali has given envisaged all the visions like that so we cannot imagine how the environmental aspects explain that Gitanjali so definitely it's the quote and all really so we cannot as a human being how can we imagine such a the powerful imagination as well as the realistic approach as well as the global approach we can get it from Rabindranath Taguru so that we can add here the philosopher and all so the overview as well as the potential excellence they made so that I can include here sir thank you thank you very much sir I have one doubt that universal ethic principle that I what I understand that ethics it comes from value that value will lead to action so when you talk about that universal ethics value that means in one place that one principle is working like if you take the example that selling wine in Gujarat is banned but selling in other state in open it is allowed or in something in USA it's legal and the same things in India is illegal so we cannot have a theory related to ethics on the basis of what we can take the action so that I am confused actually how to determine that Holden I told you in the beginning very clearly that we are going to study environmental ethics which is an applied discipline I don't like to have an example that whether wine is permitted in Gujarat or it is permitted in somewhere else my example should be like whether we should cut a trees here and save trees somewhere else whether we should know cut trees in Himalayan range and plant few trees elsewhere that has become an industrial policy is not it if you are cutting few trees then plant few trees as if one can replace the other I think that is the appropriate example actually I am not sure whether the other example will fit here sir first thing is that when the cities get developed okay government plant that is a four-lane road okay but what happens that there is not much computers are there and what vehicle is there they just develop the two-lane road and then both side that plant the trees what happened after 10 years when the proper traffic is there they want to develop the four-lane now at that time all the planted trees become a very huge and at that time environmentalists come forward and say they know cutting of trees not allowed or even law said there is no cutting of the trees these that it's not a problem but now what happens they develop the road and the trees are in between the road and many times there is chance of the accident is the first thing second thing I mean these are whether this sort of cutting the trees ethical I'll tell you one example very recent example now they are going to those who are aware of now beyond Hiranandani there is an array colony you know about array colony there was a report the mayor says we'll take only 5 percent of it for development now it is like I was talking about moral extensionism okay I want to tell you that this identity of the humans and the identity of other biotic beings including trees and other living beings has to be there in one body only one framework now if somebody says I will operate only your right leg this has got some problem if you want to make it fine I will cut it I will not utilize the other half of it will it in fact it is like that so if 5 percent of that is been used it will certainly affect the entire body is it not that's true sir but that's for array quality I'm talking about a totally different example where the tree is planned I I'm talking about whether the trees are planned but we cannot replace the rainforest can replace the different issue I'm not against that okay I'm just talking about my case okay specific case when I will I will give an example in between the road okay I mean that we cannot I mean traffic cannot be properly I have seen in many cities that sort of example is there that on the road only the trees are there because corporation cannot cut the tree and now because of the tree there is a chance of the accident so what can be done whether that sort of tree is to be cut or not second thing okay today only Dr. Maya told about the certain species are very disastrous I mean that even scientists are not finding the way and they're affecting the ecology in some negative manner certain algae are there certain trees are there certain species like that okay so if that sort of trees or other things are there whether we have to cut that I mean we have to stop that production or I mean for the fertility or not so what what to do with that whether it's environmental ethically true in earlier slide you'd sort about that with time with space things are getting changed I mean by and large over here majority are the scientists and engineers I mean we believe in a one plus one two only I mean H2O means H2 and O only that is that is what then things are keep on changing we don't believe I mean that is something wrong actually no no no no if you if you not allow yourself to think but I try to understand the what is the ethics now first of all you gave an example of whether cutting trees is allowed or not considering the specific significance earlier slide you're sort about the significance significance correct with the time and space it's going to change fine now if the tree is cutting accident the tree is causing accidents you should cut the tree or not that is your example is then I think that is perfectly fine if somebody is causing an accident that tree is a reason for it then I don't think one cutting one tree will affect but when you think of rainforest okay which Sunderlal bahungna is given example okay when there is a massive tree caught happening in Himalayan range and these trees were caught for what do you know why it was caught for the construction of one dam over there it is cricket bed so when people use such things without knowing what kind of effect it will have in future that is the danger so when you caught rainforest when you try to eliminate them then it has got serious effect so that seriousness you have to measure that kind of preference see the the whole idea of environmental ethics is articulated with this view that there is some kind of preference utility to be given so when you judge that these three are significant and the other is not I think there is no problem there it's not unethical actually it is not unethical okay thank you but when you talk about massive deforestation happening it is certainly unethical because the impact is it is huge you cannot replace it with something else sir if you take the same thing for a nuclear reactor okay we human beings things some small region power okay and we are putting that value on constructing some nuclear reactors where some impact happened what is happening whole region that we are not considering that time what happens univisual ethics my edge if now I have got a feeling that I have been very very ethical and I am a kind of a non-human who is taken the responsibility of I am you can call me a superhuman taken responsibility of judging what is ethical and what is non-ethical rather than sir we want what is environmental ethics and what is universal ethics okay I told you my point was very clear okay the whole talk is to bring some kind of a enlightened understanding understanding is what I you know emphasized that once understanding happens somebody said I am confused when somebody is confused he has opened the door of understanding okay so similarly understanding action is not very far if real understanding happens I am sure it will reflect in your experiments sir I have some small answer for this yes what he has been struggling for I have been teaching a course called human values and professional ethics in my university and it says a simple example and that is the rational example as you said yeah thank you what she was possibly trying to suggest here is that when we perform this kind of duty we should ask to our consigns consigns is a great source of morality or ethics so we should ask ourselves we should be convinced now somebody is convinced that every day puja is important somebody is convinced that the work itself is a great puja a great sacrifice a great yajna that is performing so it differs from so what is important is that you are convinced that something is good that conviction is important and conviction doesn't come easily so this is what I was trying to suggest when I began my talk that there's some kind of a moral extensionism is possible and that will bring the non-human subject and treat them as moral subject so the earlier concept is that human beings are rational beings human beings are moral agents human beings decide what is right and wrong and this ability to take decision ability to rationalize and recognize the value of things is bestowed upon human beings is a human responsibility now I would like to further aid following Rolston and many others that the other non-human beings or other biotic beings can be treated as moral subjects they are not objects they are not objects in our world we can treat them as moral subjects and then talk about ethics and values things like that so that is what is a distinction which I am drawing between moral agents and moral subjects so all moral agents are moral subjects but not all moral subjects are moral agents because ultimately it is human responsibility which matters humans have the ability to decide judge other non-humans cannot so it is in that sense we own this greater sense of responsibility always that will form a sense of ecological consciousness which is for some is a radical way of thinking or exhibiting moral concerns and it is also ultimately a kind of a reconsidering certain values which was not available to us before in anthropocentric world please note down this reference Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston's third environmental ethics anthology Blackwell 2006