Philosophy 2022 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the role of enlightenment movement in the rise of humanism. (10 marks) (b) In the age of individualism and universal franchise, what role does caste play in body-politic? Discuss. (10 marks) (c) Is corruption a systemic issue or an ethical issue? Give your critical comments. (10 marks) (d) "Complete liberty may lead to inequality while order and restrictions imply a necessary loss of freedom." Critically discuss. (10 marks) (e) What are the moral justifications of capital punishment? Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) मानववाद के उदय में प्रबोधन (एनलाइटनमेंट) आंदोलन की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) व्यक्तिवाद तथा सार्वभौमिक मताधिकार के युग में राज-निकाय (बॉडी-पॉलिटिक) में जाति की क्या भूमिका है? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) क्या भ्रष्टाचार एक तंत्रगत विषय है अथवा एक नीतिशास्त्रीय विषय? अपनी समालोचनात्मक टिप्पणियाँ प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) "सम्पूर्ण स्वतंत्रता असमानता को जन्म दे सकती है, जबकि व्यवस्था तथा प्रतिबंध से अनिवार्यतः स्वतंत्रता के ह्रास का फलन होता है।" समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) मृत्युदंड के पक्ष में कौन-सी नैतिक युक्तियाँ संभव हैं? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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

Each sub-part carries equal marks (10), so allocate approximately 30 words per mark—roughly 150 words each. For (a), trace Enlightenment's shift from religious authority to human reason; for (b), analyze caste as both identity and inequality in democratic India; for (c), dialectically examine systemic vs. ethical dimensions; for (d), deploy Isaiah Berlin's positive/negative liberty; for (e), weigh retributive and utilitarian justifications. Maintain analytical balance across all five parts without over-developing any single response.

Key points expected

(a) Enlightenment humanism: Kant's 'Sapere Aude', rejection of divine right, emergence of secular ethics, and Diderot's Encyclopédie as vehicles of reason-centered anthropology
(b) Caste in body-politic: Ambedkar's annihilation of caste thesis, caste as vote-bank politics vs. democratic citizenship, creamy layer debate, and persistence of social capital inequality despite formal equality
(c) Corruption: systemic critique (institutional decay, rent-seeking) vs. ethical critique (moral character, Kautilya's Arthashastra on decay of values), with synthesis through institutional moral agency
(d) Liberty-order tension: Berlin's two concepts of liberty, Rawls' liberty-principle priority, Rousseau's forced-to-be-free paradox, and Indian constitutional balance (Article 19 reasonable restrictions)
(e) Capital punishment: retributive justice (Kant's categorical imperative), deterrence theory, incapacitation, and restorative justice counter-arguments; reference to Bachan Singh (1980) rarest of rare doctrine

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise deployment of core concepts: for (a) distinguishes Enlightenment humanism from Renaissance humanism; for (b) correctly identifies body-politic as Hobbesian/Aristotelian concept applied to Indian democracy; for (c) grasps 'systemic' as structural-functional critique; for (d) accurately interprets liberty as non-domination vs. non-interference; for (e) distinguishes lex talionis from utilitarian rationales	Generally correct concepts with minor conflations—e.g., treating all humanism as identical, or confusing negative liberty with license; caste described descriptively without theoretical framing	Fundamental conceptual errors: Enlightenment equated with Renaissance, liberty confused with equality, corruption reduced only to bribery without systemic analysis, capital punishment justified solely by emotion
Argument structure	20%	10	Each 150-word response follows thesis-antithesis-synthesis or claim-evidence-warrant structure; (c) and (d) explicitly build dialectical progression; smooth transitions between sub-parts maintaining thematic coherence across the whole answer	Clear but linear structure per sub-part; some imbalance with one part over-developed; transitions between (a)-(e) feel mechanical rather than integrated	Descriptive listing without argumentative arc; sub-parts answered as disconnected fragments; no internal organization within 150-word units; conclusion missing or repetitive
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Appropriate density: (a) Kant, Voltaire, Diderot; (b) Ambedkar, MN Srinivas, Dumont; (c) Kautilya, Myrdal (soft state), contemporary institutionalists; (d) Berlin, Rawls, Rousseau, Constant; (e) Kant, Bentham, Beccaria, Supreme Court jurisprudence—demonstrating command across Western and Indian traditions	Some thinkers named correctly but superficially integrated; over-reliance on obvious figures (Gandhi, Ambedkar) without specific textual reference; one sub-part may lack any citation	No thinkers named or gross misattribution; generic references ('philosophers say'); confusion between historical periods; anachronistic application of contemporary theorists to pre-modern contexts
Counter-position handling	20%	10	Genuine critical engagement: (a) acknowledges Counter-Enlightenment critique (Horkheimer/Adorno); (b) presents caste solidarity as subaltern resistance before critique; (c) fairly presents ethical voluntarism before systemic critique; (d) takes anarchist critique of all restriction seriously; (e) engages abolitionist dignity arguments substantively	Nod to counter-positions without development—'however some disagree' without elaboration; straw-man presentation of opposing views; critical 'discuss' reduced to balanced description	No counter-positions acknowledged; one-sided advocacy; 'critically discuss' or 'comment' directives ignored; dogmatic assertion without recognition of philosophical controversy
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Each sub-part achieves synthetic closure: (a) links Enlightenment legacy to contemporary human rights; (b) prognostic note on caste's democratic transformation; (c) integrated systemic-ethical diagnosis; (d) constitutional prudence as resolution; (e) measured assessment of abolitionist trends; cross-cutting theme of reason, rights, and limits emerges across all five	Serviceable conclusions per sub-part but no meta-coherence; final sentences merely summarize rather than advance; some sub-parts end abruptly	No conclusions; answer stops at analysis without synthesis; or repetitive restatement of introduction; five disconnected mini-essays without any unifying philosophical sensibility

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 →