Ethics for the knowledgeable good human being

The Jnani (knowledgeable one) knows God as he is, good individuals as they are and love Him for what he is and them for what they are. All that you do for your happiness and good living must be equally effective for the happiness and better living of others around you or yet to come in the future or did exist in the past before you, for time is an imaginery concept and history seeps itself into the future and in time future would also ethically seep itself into the past and then the whole truth would present itself in for those strong enough to absorb the same and this Jnana, the truth of magnificence of the whole and the soul in the projections would bring about absolute humility and awe in ones realisation. After all good people make good gods and the anthropic principle works just perfect for the knowledgeable good human being.

Duty versus inclination
A moral action is one which is done from a sense of duty.
It might be possible to perform acts that combine inclination and duty. For example:- By being a dutiful and loving parent. Nevertheless, Acts done from duty are always superior.

The Parable of the Rich Young Man.
Immanuel Kant implies that a naïve young man who spontaneously gives money to beggars isn’t a moral person. Although the consequences of his instinctive generosity are obviously good for local beggars, he has no idea what his moral duty is.
He is like a child who accidentally makes the right move in chess. He has no understanding of the games rules or purpose. Morality for Kant is serious business

Morality involves choosing duties, not wants; motives not consequences are the central distinguishing feature of a moral action.

Moral values are compulsory
Kant explains that compulsory moral values are worked out by using our reason. He asks us to imagine what would happen if we “universalized” what we wanted to do, always making sure that we treated people as ends and never as means.

Utilitarians and Deontologists are always arguing about what ethics look like.
Utilitarianism offers more flexibility, but Deontologists may protect morality with more vigour and take duties like promise-making more seriously. Both doctrines usually arrive at similar moral destinations even if their ways of getting there are very different.
Example:- If you were a non-philosophical beggar on a water-logged raft that could only support one person and were alongwith an Act Utilitarian surgeon then by saving his own life by pushing and murdering the beggar, the murdering surgeon will bring about more happiness to his patients and more people than the beggar will ever be able to do in the future.
But on the other hand a beggar on a water-logged raft would be quite safe with a deontological brain surgeon.

David Hume (1711-76), a Scottish philosopher asked whether there could be such a thing as moral knowledge

Meta-ethics - the study of moral language, it’s meaning, function and certainty is a type of ethical philosophy invented by Hume. Meta-ethics doesn’t offer anyone moral advice but it’s conclusions are often startling. Hume concluded that a statement like “Murder is wrong” is really someone reporting their subjective feelings about murder to us and cannot be a moral statement. So, someone who says “Murder is wrong” merely means “I disapprove of murder”.
Hume pointed out that there is nothing to stop us organizing ourselves on utilitarian grounds, to make as many people as happy as we possibly can

Subjectivists and Objectivists
Subjectivists agree with Hume that morality is no more than individuals telling us their feelings. Objectivists like Plato and the Utilitarians disagree. Utilitarians are “Naturalists” who believe it possible to make morality a form of empirical and scientific knowledge.
Plato is a non-naturalist who also believes there is such a thing as moral knowledge and that it comes to us from a mystical non-empirical source like intuition.

Prescriptivism
Richard Hare (b.1919) believes that morality is about obeying orders or following rules. Moral orders are unlike ordinary orders, however, in that they are universal and not specific.
Example:- This is why “don’t steal” is different from “Don’t use a lathe without wearing goggles.

Existentialism
Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) believed that every individual is unique and so no one can generalize about “human nature”. This means that moral philosophy cannot be derived from a definition of “human nature”, whether this be having a purpose (Aristotle), or being rational (Kant) or existing as a pain pleasure organism (Bentham)
According to Sartre, it is we ourselves who are responsible for our “essential” natures or characters. We are not like paper-knives or gingerbread men, already “made” with some kind of predetermined character.
Although we are limited in what we can choose by “facticity” (like economics and genetics), according to Sartre we are “totally free” to make ourselves.
Furthermore, as a rule, society constantly restricts our personal freedoms and wants to mould us into good citizens. Sartre’s view about our “total freedom” are strange as many might claim that their freedom is far from total.

Beliefs are psychological
Our moral beliefs are psychological rather than logical or empirical, but that doesn’t mean that they are trivial or unimportant
Freud’s Model of the Psyche
Freud’s view of human nature is a determinist one. Human beings are programmed by instinctive psychic structures constructed from infancy to maturity in “layers” of the Unconscious, Ego and Super-Ego. The “real” workings of human nature can be viewed most clearly in neurotic and psychotic individuals or in the dreams or “verbal slips” of “normal” and “healthy” individuals.

What is this thing called “Human Nature”
Either it’s something innate and universal or something socially manufactured or according to Gopal a mixture of both

Carl Gustav Jung
I made the discovery that while science opened the door to enormous quantities of knowledge, it provided genuine insights very sparingly, and these in the main were of specialized nature. I knew that the existence of the psyche was responsible for this situation. Without the psyche there would be neither knowledge nor insight. Yet nothing was ever said about the psyche. There was no real knowledge of it but only philosophical speculation which might just as easily take one turn as another.

If we are almost totally ignorant of the real sources of our attitudes, propensities and desires, then how can we ever be fully in control of our moral lives? We may have causes of, and not reasons for our moral behaviour. Most philosophers might say that although Freud may be right to claim that our innerselves can be shaped and governed by both internal and external forces, we are not wholly controlled by them. If we are, then it certainly doesn’t feel like that- not many people have a core belief of themselves as moral robots.

Jacques Lacan (1901-81) suggests that the Unconscious is by no means some primitive entity that we must control through our conscious selves, but is in fact the nucleus of our very being

There lies a Master in the hearts of men. Maketh their deeds by subtle pulling strings, Dance to what tune he will. With all thy soul Trust Him, and take Him for thy succour , Prince.
-Bhagvad Gita

Many philosophers have held an absolute faith in reason and it’s ability to produce that which is universal, true and eternal. However, post the second world war, the British Enlightenment writers like Hume and Swift have had deep suspicions about reason as a source of moral wisdom and constantly undermined it.

Roland Barthes (1915-80) emphasized the point that “reality is made”; It is a social construct that derives it’s meaning from a complex system of signs. So, whoever has the dominant discourse can determine what is “real”