Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) Discuss whether Amartya Sen's idea of justice is an improvement upon Rawl's theory of justice. (20 marks) (b) Explain the reformative theory of punishment and discuss whether this is in tune with human dignity. (15 marks) (c) Can humanism be a substitute for religion? Explain and evaluate in the context of the present Indian society. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या अमर्त्य सेन की न्याय की अवधारणा रॉल्स के न्याय के सिद्धांत का एक परिष्कृत रूप है ? विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) दण्ड के सुधारात्मक सिद्धांत की व्याख्या कीजिए और विवेचना कीजिए कि क्या यह मानवीय गरिमा के साथ सुसंगत है। (15 अंक) (c) क्या मानववाद धर्म का स्थानापन्न हो सकता है ? वर्तमान भारतीय समाज के प्रसंग में इसकी व्याख्या एवं मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 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 a balanced, analytical treatment with evidence-based reasoning across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of (a), (b), (c) with clear sub-headings → synthesizing conclusion that connects justice, punishment, and humanism as interconnected themes in contemporary Indian philosophy.

Key points expected

For (a): Rawls' original position, veil of ignorance, and two principles of justice vs. Sen's capability approach, 'The Idea of Justice', and comparative focus on 'nyaya' vs 'niti'
For (a): Sen's critique of Rawlsian 'transcendental institutionalism' and advocacy for 'realization-focused comparison' with examples like famines/entitlements
For (b): Reformative theory's core tenets (Bentham, modern penology), distinction from deterrent and retributive theories, and constitutional mandate under Article 21
For (b): Human dignity arguments—reformative theory's alignment with Kantian 'person as end', prison reforms (open jails, educational programs), and limitations (Nirbhaya case public sentiment)
For (c): Humanism as ethical stance (Sartre, Camus, Indian Renaissance humanism) vs. religion's sociological functions (Durkheim, community, ritual)
For (c): Indian context evaluation—constitutional humanism (Preamble, DPSP), rise of rationalist movements (Periyar, Gora), coexistence challenges (Sabarimala, triple talaq debates), and syncretic possibilities
Critical synthesis: Whether Sen's plural justice, reformative punishment, and secular humanism together offer coherent alternative to traditional moral frameworks
Contemporary relevance: Ayushman Bharat (capability expansion), prison reforms post-2016, and India's constitutional morality vs. majoritarian claims

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise exposition of Rawlsian 'justice as fairness' (original position, difference principle) and Sen's 'capability approach' with correct Sanskrit terminology ('niti'/'nyaya'); accurate distinction between reformative, deterrent, retributive, and preventive theories; nuanced grasp of humanism (secular, renaissance, existentialist variants) without conflating with atheism	Basic understanding of Rawls' two principles and Sen's general critique but conflates 'primary goods' with 'capabilities'; reformative theory described superficially without distinguishing from rehabilitation; humanism equated simplistically with 'no religion'	Mischaracterizes Rawls as utilitarian or confuses Sen with Nussbaum; describes reformative theory as 'lenient punishment' or 'no punishment'; treats humanism as anti-religious propaganda without philosophical grounding
Argument structure	20%	10	For (a): systematic comparison using identifiable criteria (scope, method, institutional vs. comparative); for (b): clear thesis on dignity with constitutional and philosophical warrants; for (c): dialectical structure presenting substitution thesis, then integration alternative, with Indian evidence; smooth transitions between parts showing thematic unity	Descriptive treatment of each thinker/theory without explicit comparative framework; part (b) lists reformative features without sustained dignity argument; part (c) presents both sides but without evaluative synthesis; parts feel disconnected	Random organization with Rawls and Sen in separate unconnected paragraphs; reformative theory described without addressing dignity question; humanism and religion discussed without engaging 'substitute' claim; no discernible flow between (a), (b), (c)
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	For (a): secondary literature engagement (Pogge, Freeman on Rawls; Robeyns, Nussbaum on Sen); for (b): Bentham, modern penologists (Rothman, Foucault on 'Discipline and Punish'), Supreme Court judgments (Francis Coralie Mullin, Sunil Batra); for (c): Indian humanists (M.N. Roy, Gora, Periyar), constitutional framers (Ambedkar on constitutional morality), and critics (Gandhi's critique of Western humanism)	Rawls and Sen named with basic text references ('Theory of Justice', 'Idea of Justice'); reformative theory attributed to Bentham without development; Indian humanism mentioned without specific thinkers; generic references to 'Constitution' without articles or cases	No secondary literature; confuses Rawls with Nozick or Sen with Martha Nussbaum's capabilities; reformative theory unattributed or misattributed; humanism discussed without any named proponents; no Indian constitutional or philosophical references
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): presents Nozick's libertarian critique, Nagel's partiality objection, and defends Sen against 'too vague' charges; for (b): addresses retributive revival (Kantian dignity arguments, 'expressive' theories of punishment), public safety concerns, and victim rights; for (c): takes seriously religion's irreplaceable functions (community, meaning, transcendence) and presents humanism's limitations (motivation problem, 'last man' critique) before reasoned conclusion	Acknowledges Rawls has defenders but doesn't articulate specific objections; mentions retributive theory as alternative without engaging its dignity-based claims; notes religion provides comfort but doesn't develop structural critique of humanism	One-sided advocacy for Sen, reformative theory, and humanism without any opposing views; dismisses counter-positions as 'obviously wrong'; or presents strawman objections only to easily refute them; conclusion asserts without argumentative engagement
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent vision: Sen's comparative justice enables context-sensitive reformative punishment, which expresses human dignity, while constitutional humanism provides framework for pluralistic India without requiring religious substitution; specific Indian examples (Bhopal gas tragedy compensation, Tihar prison reforms, recent Supreme Court rulings on constitutional morality) demonstrate practical integration	Brief summary of each part's conclusion without synthetic integration; generic statement about 'balance needed' or 'both have merits'; Indian context mentioned in (c) conclusion only without connecting to (a) and (b)	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats introduction; or conclusion contradicts body by endorsing positions not argued for; no Indian contextualization or treats three parts as entirely separate questions without thematic connection

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 →