Moral defensibility is often measured conceptually on the basis of the rightness of the act that the agent has performed, or on her valid reasons which she could not ignore. Action C is said to be morally defensible if: (a) C is morally right or good or even just, and/or (b) the agent has some defensible reasons to perform C, and not D, under some sets of socially (or legally) accepted rules. Thus, action C is morally defensible if it carries some moral worth of acceptability and/or reasonability of the act, and indefensible if it lacks either or both of these two. To examine the ground for moral defensibility of any action, C or D, in view of a set of pertaining moral questions, this article discusses a case relating to the student–teacher–parent relationship and highlights moral issues concerning the unjustifiability of animosity and the justifiability of benevolent attitudes. The article argues that any action C or D, that is apparently regarded as morally indefensible, will in some cases be very much defensible or fairly justifiable to defend when some unknown truths about the doer and her motive for choosing C over D or D over C are known. It further argues that our disagreement over the criterion of moral defensibility of an action might be a result of our ignorance of a hidden truth or certain crucial facts, which, when considered fairly, might make the action morally defensible.
Krishna Mani Pathak (Wed,) studied this question.