Ethical judgments limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. Discuss.

Would taking a dying form of art and reviving it in the society of the people who created it be ethically correct or incorrect?

 This, in one place, will give them employment, promote and package the product properly. And will alongside aid the local economy of the indigenous people. On the other hand, taking the art form that took these indigenous people centuries to refine and using it for the benefit of a company raises questions about their moral perspective towards the locals. Fabindia is a textile and Clothing Company founded by a French man named John Bissell in 1960, who took the traditional art of textiles of India used it to his advantage by promoting it and selling it to the people through aesthetics and marketing. According to the company’s official website the Fabindia philosophy is: “Fabindia was founded with the strong belief that there was a need for a vehicle for marketing the vast and diverse craft traditions of India and thereby help fulfill the need to provide and sustain employment.” As mentioned above, in the case of art, there can be different perceptions which can also be related to emotional responses. That being said every Indian citizen may differ between their perception of the company being morally acceptable or not.

Isn’t it morally acceptable to promote a traditional dying art, which was once the trademark of the country for the benefit of the people? Ethically, the promotion is an ideal form of sustainable art and economy. The fact that this company has gone from a local company to one that has expanded into selling their products to over 33 countries, for someone to create a moral boundary towards the progression of the Indian economy and a promotion of India as a country it-self as some people would think, in its true sense, quite immoral. The local craftsmen would learn an ample amount of new techniques and knowledge, thus creating vast knowledge rather than limiting it, ethically. The moral outlook towards this would be to let these traditional craftsmen take this knowledge home and let them use it to come out with their own, contemporary ideas.

Despite this, the proper questions related to the original art and the craftsmen still stands to an issue. The company, Fabindia may help the economy of the traditional craftsmen and give them enough knowledge on how to promote their jobs. But, is this traditional craft still theirs? The local people may learn a new technique to sustain themselves financially but are they being taught to use new methods of production by creating contemporary fusion of the traditional Indian and western styles? These craftsmen have now, because of the company, Fabindia, lost the identity of their art because it’s been branded under the name of Fabindia. These people are not obtaining any new knowledge but are exerting their own to provide for a company.

Where are the positive moral implications of this so called “sustainable” employment? Will this art always be its own form of art? Will this art of textiles that had for so long been one of the few prides of the country still be called “Indian” art? Or is this art now always going to be directly connecting themselves to the company? Is the company crossing the “moral boundary” to which they can exhaust their use of this art? The company has now spread out to different Indian ethnic products. But, are our emotions as Indians clouding our judgment? Is the boundary for our opinions about a company setting a boundary through our emotions? Are our emotions directly linked to what we perceive as ethical judgments? While the identity of the traditional art form is lost, it also loses the identity of the country. The country’s resources may be promoted but does this promote the identity of the people in the country such as these craftsmen? Their identity may be lost, but it took these craftsmen centuries to refine their identity, will they be able to revive an identity for themselves?

When taking natural sciences, in terms of the same company, it makes us question about the consumption of natural resources. Do we use our resources selfishly or are we keeping a check on the amount that we use? Are we saving any for the future generations to come? Is it morally correct for us to consume all the natural resources without keeping in mind the wellbeing of the future generations?

Do we disregard our natural resources every day? We take advantage of them and don’t preserve any for the future generations to come. Should we turn to organic resources in order to preserve our own resources for the future? Organic food is something that many people nowadays are turning to. Not only for health, but also because it’s naturally produced and doesn’t harm the environment.

Organic foods are often assumed to be extremely expensive. But why are they so expensive? Because according to Fabindia’s Organic section, a certification is needed. Why do we buy these organic foods? Do we buy them because we are actually conscious about our health? Or do we buy them because the companies such as Fabindia lure us into buying them by the way they advertise it to us? Are we so gullible that we easily get so persuaded by such advertisements? What does that say about our personality?

Fabindia provides organic food that helps maintain a healthy environment lifestyle. Isn’t their first step of distributing organic food being done for the betterment of the future generations to come? By encouraging individuals to consume only natural foods so that we can reserve some  luxuries for the future?  The Company is sticking to the moral outcome and widening their fields into sustaining economy for the local Indian farmers with small produce. The company heads are not letting anybody set boundaries for their own promotion. They are openly introducing products that would help sustain the environment, whilst also providing “new” knowledge about the farming agencies and the positive outcomes of using organic products.

 “How far is morality setting boundaries in the understanding of new knowledge and information?” 

Do we buy new, expensive products because we think we will gain knowledge about them, or because it shows a social standing? Does the judgment of the society or their perception   restrain our actions and our knowledge because we keep to what is known to us or  to what is  do we risk buying expensive products to experiment? Do we ever question our paradoxical nature as human beings? Do we involve our emotions in our “moral” judgments or do we only listen to the society? Do we create the society or does the society create us?

Word Count: 1,480

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fabindia.com. Fabindia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. <http://www.fabindia.com/philosophy/>.

"Business Enquiries." Fabindia.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fabindia.com/businesses/>.

"Organic Certification." Fabindia.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fabindia.com/fabindia-organic-certification/>.\

"About the Company." Fabindia.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fabindia.com/company/>.

"Fabindia.com | 50 Years of Fabindia." Fabindia.com | 50 Years of Fabindia. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fabindia.com/50-years-of-fabindia/>.

22 Oct. 2013. <http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi102/ancient1.html>.