Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss critically the distributive theory of justice as propounded by R. Nozick. (10 marks) (b) How does Rousseau distinguish between natural and artificial inequality? Explain. (10 marks) (c) Is Austin's theory of sovereignty compatible with democracy? Discuss. (10 marks) (d) Does monarchy as a form of government leave room for individual freedom? Explain. (10 marks) (e) How far can land and property rights be effective in empowerment of women? Explain. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) आर. नोजिक द्वारा प्रतिपादित न्याय के वितरणात्मक सिद्धांत की आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) रूसो किस प्रकार प्राकृतिक एवं कृत्रिम असमानता में भेद करते हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) क्या ऑस्टिन का संप्रभुता का सिद्धांत प्रजातंत्र के साथ संगत है ? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) क्या राजतंत्र, शासन की एक व्यवस्था के रूप में वैयक्तिक स्वतंत्रता के लिए स्थान प्रदान करता है ? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) भूमि एवं सम्पत्ति के अधिकार किस प्रकार महिला सशक्तिकरण में प्रभावी हो सकते हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' demands balanced exposition and critical engagement across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark, giving roughly 30 words to each 10-mark sub-part. Structure each sub-part with: (a) brief definition/thesis, (b) core argument with 1-2 philosopher citations, (c) critical limitation or counter-position, and (d) micro-conclusion. For (a) emphasize Nozick's entitlement theory vs. patterned principles; for (b) contrast Rousseau's natural/artificial inequality with examples; for (c) weigh Austin's command-sovereignty against democratic accountability; for (d) compare constitutional vs. absolute monarchy; for (e) link property rights to Indian women's empowerment schemes like homestead land titles.

Key points expected

  • (a) Nozick's three principles of justice in acquisition, transfer, and rectification; critique of Rawlsian patterned distribution; Wilt Chamberlain argument against end-state principles
  • (b) Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality: natural inequality (physical/mental differences) vs. artificial/moral inequality (institutionalized through property, social contract); role of amour-propre
  • (c) Austin's command theory of sovereignty (habitual obedience, illimitable, indivisible); tension with popular sovereignty and constitutional limits; Hart's critique on rule-based authority
  • (d) Distinction between absolute and constitutional/limited monarchy; Montesquieu's moderation through intermediary powers; contemporary examples like Bhutan's democratic constitutional monarchy
  • (e) Land rights as economic independence and bargaining power; Indian context: Hindu Succession Act (2005) amendments, Bhoodan movement limitations, Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and joint pattas; intersection with patriarchal social norms

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Nozick's entitlement theory, Rousseau's two inequalities, Austin's sovereign traits, monarchical variants, and property-rights mechanisms; no conflation of natural/artificial inequality or command sovereignty with popular sovereigntyGenerally accurate definitions but vague on Nozick's three principles or conflates Rousseau's inequalities; treats Austin's sovereignty as compatible with democracy without explaining tensionMisidentifies Nozick as egalitarian, confuses Rousseau's categories, or describes monarchy uniformly without constitutional/absolute distinction; factual errors on legal provisions
Argument structure20%10Each sub-part follows thesis-exposition-critique-conclusion format within 30 words; clear transitions between (a)-(e); balanced treatment without disproportionate length on any single partMost sub-parts have identifiable structure but some lack critical component or conclusion; uneven word distribution with one part significantly underdevelopedRambling narrative without sub-part demarcation; missing critical dimension in majority of parts; severe imbalance with some parts merely named, not discussed
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Cites Rawls vs. Nozick for (a); Locke and Marx optionally for (b); Hart or Dicey for (c); Montesquieu or Constant for (d); Bina Agarwal or Indian legal scholars for (e); precise textual referencesNames required thinkers correctly but lacks secondary comparisons; no Indian scholars for (e); generic mention without specific works or argumentsMissing core thinkers (e.g., no Rawls contrast for Nozick, no Hart for Austin); invents or misattributes positions; irrelevant philosopher citations
Counter-position handling20%10(a) Rawlsian patterned principles vs. historical entitlement; (b) Rousseau's own ambivalence on progress; (c) Hart's rule of recognition or democratic constitutionalism; (d) republican critique of hereditary privilege; (e) feminist critique of property formalism vs. substantive empowermentAcknowledges one major counter-position per sub-part but underdeveloped; missing secondary critique for at least two partsNo counter-positions offered or straw-man arguments; purely descriptive treatment across all parts; confuses critique with restatement
Conclusion & coherence20%10Micro-conclusions synthesize each sub-part's tension (e.g., Nozick's minimal state implications, Rousseau's paradox of freedom through constraint); implicit thematic unity on liberty vs. equality across all five answersPresent but generic conclusions for most parts; no cross-cutting thematic observation; final sub-part (e) conclusion merely restates premiseAbrupt endings without synthesis; contradictory positions across sub-parts unresolved; missing conclusions for majority of parts

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Philosophy 2021 Paper II