What is the nature of Carvakas ethics? It is a set of ten arguments presented in defense of Hindu beliefs. The basic tenet of this philosophy is that all truths are self evident to all in virtue of their conformity to the laws of nature. In essence, Carvakas accepts the Lockean modal principle of entailment. According to this principle, all truths are dependent, and there is no universal reality apart from the truth of our existence in the world. It is a thesis which is obviously true.
Carvakas maintains that there is no universal reality apart from the soul of the world. This soul is infinite, and its knowledge is personal and unique. Individual souls do not share the knowledge of the entire universe. The individual is distinct from all others and is self-sufficient. It is knowledge that is personal, and knowledge is independent of any sources from other souls.
Carvakas believes in ten intelligible principles, all of which are necessary for a knowledge of the nature of things. The first ten are said to be simple ethical principles. These are axioms. They are also necessary for knowledge as they imply a prior knowledge of their particular instance. The rest of the principle are metaphorical and are derived from experience.
The first principle is that there is no difference between what exists at the level of the soul and what does not exist at the level of the body. The existence and non-existence of bodies is, in fact, implied by the first principle. There is, according to this argument, no way for knowledge to proceed between bodies and the soul. The argument is metaphysical and cannot be proven either by appeal to experience or to divine intervention. It is therefore rejected by the majority of Indian philosophers. However, it is used as a polemical argument against those who accept the above mentioned tenet as absolute, i.e., an unemancipated truth.
Another tenet of Indian metaphysics is that knowledge is self-transcendental, and that it is independent of all sources other than the soul. The truth of this matter is, however, disputed, and it is not clear whether the truth of this tenet can be proven. However, it is assumed, on the basis of the existence of a body and its movement through time, that the truth of this tenet is a posteriori.
In Indian metaphysics, the truth of ethical truths is also connected with the nature of reality. In physics, for example, the reality and the laws which govern that reality is independent of individual comprehension. In ethics, on the other hand, the truth of ethical truths is dependent upon the individual’s knowledge. Individual experience thus determines the nature of ethical truths. For example, while the fetus in the mother’s womb receives all the moral information possible to it, this information is subject to the ability of the mother, and experiences at the time of reflection after birth, prior to attaining complete conscious control over its movements.
The nature of ethics therefore, turns on knowledge and on the individual’s experience. It precludes metaphysics based upon divine intervention. It is not metaphysics but a science, like biology, physics, or chemistry in the modern scientific sense of the term. And it is a science in the sense that it is self-refuting, and one may test its validity by testing its predictions concerning a given case. It is a verification of knowledge.
So too is the nature of ethics. And this implies two things. First, according to physics and chemistry, a being capable of experiencing pain, pleasure, or virtue is a being that is a part of a complex system, and in that case cannot be separated from the nature of that system. Second, in the nature of ethics, a being that lacks knowledge, is not an agent at all, but something that the soul does as its mode and purpose. Therefore, in ethics, we find a balance between what a being can do and what it cannot: between a being that can do what it must do, and a being that cannot do what it must do.