The ethical theories we have learned and analyzed throughout

The ethical theories we have learned and analyzed throughout this course relate significantly to Gandhi the film as well as the readings on his life. After examining Gandhi and his life, I believe he can be described as both a consequentialist and a nonconsequentialist. Consequentialists are primarily concerned with the consequences that their choices and actions will bring. Some specific ethical theories that pertain to consequentialists are Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Care Ethics. Nonconsequentialists are predominantly not concerned with the consequences that their actions will bring. Some examples of ethical theories that nonconsequentialists focus on are Intuitionism, Divine Command Theory, Kant’s Duty Ethics, and Ross’s Prima Facie Duties (Thiroux 30-57). I believe Gandhi can be described to have lived a consequentialist life, for he did take some actions that he hoped would benefit a large number of individuals. However, I mainly categorize Gandhi as a nonconsequentialist because he took some risky actions that did not provide good consequences for himself, even when they were nonviolent, believed in a power higher than himself, and took interest in other religions besides Hinduism. When considering Gandhi and his life, the nonconsequentialist theories of Divine Command and Ross’s Prima Facie duties stick out to me. The Divine Command Theory expresses the existence of a supernatural being that governs what is and is not moral, and Ross’s Prima Facie Duties dictate certain duties that moral beings should practice (Thiroux 49-54). Gandhi believed in a much higher power and lived a religious life. He also followed and practiced some of the Prima Facie Duties, specifically beneficence and nonmaleficence. Gandhi wanted to improve the condition and lifestyle of others, and he performed that desire in a nonviolent manner. Gandhi stood up for himself and others, but he never hurt anyone while doing so. If anything, he hurt himself with some of the temporary consequences he was faced with. Gandhi is and will always be considered a virtue ethicist. Virtue is defined in our text as, “the quality of moral excellence, righteousness, and responsibility” (Thiroux 61). I think Gandhi can be described as a moral figure whose character is viewed as an ideal. Gandhi found his proper mean in courage, for he stood up and spoke for others, putting his own life at risk. I believe Gandhi also mirrored the virtues of silence, frugality, and tranquility. He spoke out when he thought it was necessary for himself and others, only took those actions for the betterment of others, and accepted the consequence of being put in jail for his nonviolent protest. Gandhi’s statement, “I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number.  The only real dignified human doctrine is the greatest good for all,” correlates while also opposes the ethical theory of utilitarianism from the consequentialist perspective of morality. Rule utilitarianism reflects the concept of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Criticisms appear in that theory, for it does not seem to care what happens to the minority in such cases. Gandhi did not want the greatest good only for majority of the members of our society, but he instead insisted that actions should be taken only if they provide good for everyone affected. I thoroughly enjoyed this film about Gandhi to get a sense and feeling of his life. Before this class, I have not had much educational experience with Gandhi and all that he did. Gandhi affected a lot of people by the actions he took and capabilities he spoke up for, those capabilities being things he was dissatisfied with. His nonviolent protests made one of the biggest impacts, for he demonstrated that changes can arise from peaceful pleas. That is one of our society’s greatest controversies today. It seems as if we have forgotten how to act nonviolently; we tend to behave very aggressively. I think the biggest impact Gandhi and the film had on me was the fact that he communicated on behalf of others no matter what the consequences were for him. I believe if everyone acted that way towards others, our society would be far more unified and untroubled.