The demarcation of the private and public life leads to role of the state in private life. Many individuals have been the unflinching voice for moral dissent. In the western philosophy, debate on private morality and public life was instigated by Attorney General’s Commission Report which was submitted in 1986 and recommended no blanket ban on homosexuality and prostitution. However, a contemporary liberalist, Ronald Dworkin, castigates this Report. He argues that the report has an antagonistic approach because of its permissive (...) attitude towards pornography and the same time hospitability towards the enforcement hypothesis, which holds a preventive attitude towards pornography. In this paper, I analyse the feminists’ discourse of pornography connected with Dworkin and the Committee Report and adds more possibilities that put Dworkin’s arguments closer to the Report. Therefore, in this paper, I argue that Commission Report and Dworkin’s strategy towards pornography embodying as two sides of the same coin, and enforcement strategy is in the far away footing implies antagonistic approach. (shrink)

In recent years, the National Crime Records Bureau recommendation is that the growth rate of crime against women has skyrocketed in India, even higher than the population growth rate. According to lawyer, Kamlesh Vaswani, the commercial exploitation of coital activity paramount in pornography is the result of crimes against women, and fills perverse traits in the roots of society. Following that, he filed a petition (2013) in the Honourable Supreme Court to blanket ban pornography with the aim of diluting the (...) subordination of women and the crimes against women in society. Taking this into consideration, I argue that the Vaswani petition draws back the issue of twentieth century Western political and philosophical debate on pornography which triggers one of the moot problems of moral legislation—whether the state should be neutral or not towards individuals’ preferences, merits, desires, and the status to live well. This article focuses on whether this discourse has any relevance in the Indian value system. In this article, through the comparison between Indian and Western values, I make an attempt to analyse the moot problem of moral legislation which is bridging the gap between public and private morality for the well-being of women as well as our society. (shrink)

Political philosophers often grapple with the issue of the legitimacy of state coercion. Aristotle, a perfectionist, opines that all men hold an objective account of the good life. As regards legitimacy, he entails that state policies are justified only when all its members comprehend the value that has been identified in accordance with the true notion of good. Aristotle argues that the state should facilitate the encouragement of objectively valuable notions of the good. Ronald Dworkin, a neutralist, proposes a specific (...) model of the good life so that one can live well. He holds that certain elements of the ethical conception lead to various notions of the good and, in matters of legitimacy, the state should be neutral towards the notion of good. This is so because A cannot make B’s life better by way of the coercive means of the state. This paper throws light on Aristotle’s and Dworkin’s dialogues on the moral foundations of legitimacy (conceived during their notion of the good life). Therefore, I argue that, in contrast to perfectionism, Dworkin justifies his liberal principle of legitimacy through the idea of state neutrality. But, eventually, Dworkin’s arguments overlook his ethical foundation or admissible towards perfectionism, which is emaciated enough to offer any justification for the principle of legitimacy. (shrink)