Philosophy 2022 Paper II 50 marks Critically examine

Q6

(a) Present a critical exposition of different arguments offered by St. Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God also known as 'Five Ways'. Which one of them do you find philosophically most interesting? Give reasons in support of your answer. (20 marks) (b) Explain the relation between the God and the Self according to Rāmānujācārya. (15 marks) (c) If God is the Absolute Creator, then the responsibility of the evil cannot belong to the human agent. Critically examine. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) ईश्वर की सत्ता प्रमाणित करने के लिए सेंट थॉमस एक्विनास द्वारा प्रदत्त विभिन्न युक्तियों, जिन्हें 'पाँच मार्ग (फाइव वेज़)' भी कहा जाता है, की समालोचनात्मक व्याख्या प्रस्तुत कीजिए। इनमें से कौन आपको दार्शनिक रूप से सबसे रोचक लगती है? अपने उत्तर के समर्थन में युक्तियाँ प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) रामानुजाचार्य के अनुसार ईश्वर तथा आत्मा के बीच संबंध की व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) यदि ईश्वर परम सृजनकर्ता है, तो अनिष्ट (इविल) का उत्तरदायित्व मानवकर्ता से संबद्ध नहीं हो सकता। समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the complementary yet distinct philosophical tasks across the three parts. For part (a), critically expound Aquinas's Five Ways with approximately 40% of your effort, identifying the most philosophically interesting argument with reasoned justification. For part (b), allocate ~30% to explain Rāmānujācārya's Viśiṣṭādvaita conception of God-Self relation through śarīra-śarīri-bhāva. For part (c), devote remaining ~30% to critically examine the theodicy problem regarding divine creation and human moral responsibility, engaging with free will defenses. Conclude by synthesizing how these three perspectives—Thomist natural theology, Indian theistic Vedānta, and the problem of evil—illuminate different dimensions of the God-world relationship.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Clear exposition of all Five Ways (Motion, Causation, Contingency, Degrees of Perfection, Teleology/Design) with their Aristotelian metaphysical foundations
  • For (a): Critical evaluation of each argument's validity, distinguishing between cosmological and teleological forms, and reasoned selection of the most philosophically interesting Way with justification
  • For (b): Explanation of Rāmānujācārya's Viśiṣṭādvaita framework: Brahman as the inner ruler (antaryāmin), the Self (jīva) as mode (prakāra) of Brahman, and the body-soul analogy (śarīra-śarīri-bhāva)
  • For (c): Critical examination of the logical tension between divine omnipotence/omniscience and human moral agency, presenting the dilemma clearly
  • For (c): Engagement with major responses—Augustinian privation theory, Irenaean soul-making theodicy, Plantinga's free will defense, and Indian karma-based alternatives
  • Cross-part coherence: Recognition of how Aquinas's efficient causation, Rāmānujācārya's organic unity, and theodicy debates collectively address divine transcendence and immanence

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise articulation of Aquinas's Five Ways with correct identification of premises (prima via's reduction of potency to act, secunda via's hierarchical causation); accurate rendering of Rāmānujācārya's technical terms (aprthak-siddhi, viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva); correct formulation of the logical problem of evil and distinctions between logical and evidential formsGenerally accurate but with some conflation (e.g., treating all Five Ways as cosmological arguments, or oversimplifying Rāmānujācārya's position as mere 'identity'); basic recognition of theodicy problem without nuanced distinctionsMajor conceptual errors (confusing Aquinas with Anselm's ontological argument, presenting Rāmānujācārya as Advaitin, or misstating the evil-God logical relation)
Argument structure20%10For (a), systematic presentation of each Way followed by internal critique and comparative assessment leading to justified preference; for (b), clear exposition of the triadic God-Self-world relation; for (c), balanced presentation of the dilemma with structured evaluation of competing solutions; seamless transitions between partsCompetent exposition of each part but with weaker comparative analysis in (a), descriptive rather than analytical treatment in (b), and one-sided presentation in (c); some awkwardness in inter-part connectionsDisorganized listing without argumentative progression, failure to critically evaluate in (a) and (c), or treating three parts as disconnected essays
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For Aquinas: engagement with Kenny's critique of infinite regress, Mackie's objections to cosmological arguments; for Rāmānujācārya: reference to Śrī Bhāṣya, comparison with Śaṅkara's Advaita; for theodicy: Plantinga, Hick, Swinburne, or Indian thinkers like Madhva; demonstrates awareness of contemporary philosophy of religion debatesMention of standard figures (Aquinas, Rāmānujācārya, Augustine) without secondary scholarship; limited engagement with critics or alternative traditionsNo citation of specific thinkers or texts, reliance on vague generalizations, or anachronistic attributions
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): addresses Hume's critique of causal arguments, Kant's objection to cosmological proof's leap to necessary being; for (b): contrasts Rāmānujācārya's saguṇa Brahman with Śaṅkara's nirguṇa Brahman; for (c): presents Rowe's evidential argument, discusses deterministic challenges to free will defense, considers karma as alternative explanatory frameworkAcknowledges obvious objections (Russell on infinite regress, logical positivist critique) without deep engagement; presents alternative Indian schools superficiallyIgnores counter-arguments entirely, straw-man presentation of opposing views, or dismissive treatment of non-theistic alternatives
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts into a coherent reflection on rational theism: how natural theology (a), devotional ontology (b), and existential theodicy (c) represent complementary approaches to God; may suggest that Rāmānujācārya's organic model offers resources for integrating divine sovereignty and human responsibility; conclusion addresses the question's implicit demand for personal philosophical judgmentBrief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; conclusion restates main points without advancing the argumentMissing or abrupt conclusion, no attempt to connect the three parts, or introduction of entirely new material in conclusion

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 2022 Paper II