Philosophy 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Briefly discuss Plato's concept of justice. (10 marks) (b) Present a brief account of origin and development of Social Contract Theory. (10 marks) (c) Discuss the main factors responsible for caste discrimination. (10 marks) (d) Present an exposition of the concept of alienation as propounded by Marx. (10 marks) (e) Compare socialism and communism as two distinct political ideologies. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) प्लेटो की न्याय की अवधारणा का संक्षेप में विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) सामाजिक अनुबंध सिद्धांत के उद्भव एवं विकास का संक्षिप्त विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) जातीय भेदभाव के मुख्य उत्तरदायी कारकों की विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) मार्क्स द्वारा प्रदत्त परकीयकरण की अवधारणा की व्याख्या प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) समाजवाद तथा साम्यवाद की दो भिन्न राजनीतिक विचारधाराओं के रूप में तुलना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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

This multi-part question requires five distinct 150-word responses, each addressing a specific directive: 'discuss' for (a), (c), (d); 'present' for (b); and 'compare' for (e). Allocate approximately 30 words per mark across all parts, with roughly 30-35 words for introductory context and the remainder for substantive content. Structure each part with a precise definition or thesis, 2-3 explanatory points, and a brief synthesizing conclusion. For (e), explicitly use comparative markers (whereas, while, in contrast) to distinguish socialism from communism rather than treating them sequentially.

Key points expected

(a) Plato's justice: definition as 'doing one's own work'; tripartite soul (reason-spirit-appetite) corresponding to philosopher-guardian-producer classes; justice as harmony and psychic balance; contrast with Thrasymachus' challenge in Republic Book I
(b) Social Contract Theory: Hobbes' state of nature as war of all against all and absolute sovereign; Locke's natural rights and limited government; Rousseau's general will and moral freedom; Rawls' veil of ignorance as contemporary development
(c) Caste discrimination factors: religious-ritual (varna-purity-pollution); economic (occupational segregation, landlessness); political (inadequate representation, vote-bank politics); educational (historical exclusion, digital divide); sociological (endogamy, untouchability practices)
(d) Marx's alienation: four dimensions (from product, process, species-being, fellow humans); rooted in private property and wage-labour; estrangement under capitalism; resolution through communist revolution and de-alienated labour
(e) Socialism vs Communism: socialism as transitional stage with state ownership and distribution according to work; communism as higher phase with common ownership, state withering away, distribution according to need; distinctions in property relations, state role, and historical sequencing per Marx's Gotha Critique

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Demonstrates precise understanding across all five parts: for (a) distinguishes Platonic justice from mere law-abidingness; for (b) correctly identifies the problem each contract theorist addresses; for (c) avoids conflating caste with class; for (d) specifies all four alienation forms; for (e) accurately captures the Marxist stage theory	Shows generally correct but imprecise understanding: conflates Plato's justice with legal justice; treats social contract theorists as a monolithic group; lists caste factors without analytical distinction; mentions alienation without systematic exposition; treats socialism and communism as interchangeable	Contains fundamental conceptual errors: confuses Plato with Aristotle on justice; misattributes contract theorists' core arguments; describes caste as solely religious or solely economic; conflates Marx's alienation with Durkheim's anomie; presents socialism and communism as opposing ideologies rather than developmental stages
Argument structure	20%	10	Each 150-word segment follows disciplined architecture: definitional opening, logically sequenced explanatory middle, and integrative closing; for (e) employs sustained comparative structure throughout rather than sequential description; maintains proportionality between analysis and evidence	Generally coherent structure with identifiable components but uneven development: some parts lack clear opening or conclusion; (e) may devolve into separate descriptions with weak comparative linkage; occasional word-count imbalances across parts	Poorly structured responses: rambling or fragmented exposition; missing components (no definition, no conclusion); severe imbalance (e.g., 100 words on definition, 50 on analysis); for (e) completely separates the two ideologies without comparison
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Precise and contextualized citations: for (a) references Republic 433-434 and distinguishes from Glaucon's ring of Gyges challenge; for (b) names all three classical theorists plus either Rawls or Nozick; for (c) cites Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste or Gandhi's Harijan; for (d) references Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844; for (e) draws on Critique of the Gotha Programme	Names major thinkers without textual specificity: mentions Plato, Hobbes-Locke-Rousseau, Marx correctly but without work references; for (c) may cite only constitutional provisions without theoretical grounding; for (e) may reference Lenin or Mao without Marx's foundational distinction	Missing or erroneous citations: no thinkers named; confuses thinkers (e.g., Rousseau with Hobbes on sovereignty); anachronistic citations; for (d) cites Capital volume I alienation discussion which does not exist; for (c) no Indian thinkers or sources mentioned
Counter-position handling	20%	10	Where appropriate, acknowledges and addresses alternative views: for (a) notes Popper's critique of Platonic totalitarianism or Aristotle's qualified agreement; for (b) briefly indicates feminist (Pateman) or communitarian (Sandel) critiques; for (c) acknowledges functionalist defense of caste or post-caste society arguments; for (d) notes humanist Marxist vs structuralist readings; for (e) acknowledges anarchist or social democratic revisions	Minimal counter-position awareness: may mention that Plato's ideal has been criticized without specifying by whom or on what grounds; for (c) notes constitutional abolition without engaging with persistence arguments; largely expository without dialectical tension	Completely monological presentation: no awareness of criticism or alternative interpretations; for (a) presents Platonic justice as unproblematically valid; for (d) treats Marx's alienation theory as definitive without acknowledging debates; for (e) presents one-sided advocacy rather than analytical comparison
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Each part concludes with precise synthesis: for (a) connects Platonic justice to contemporary virtue ethics or Indian conceptions of dharma; for (b) assesses social contract's continued relevance to constitutionalism; for (c) proposes multi-pronged intervention strategy; for (d) links alienation to contemporary gig economy; for (e) evaluates which framework better addresses 21st-century inequality; overall five parts show thematic coherence around justice and social organization	Serviceable but generic conclusions: restates main points without development; for (c) may end with constitutional hope without concrete mechanism; parts read as disconnected answers rather than integrated philosophical exploration; no cross-referencing between parts	Missing or severely deficient conclusions: parts end abruptly or with irrelevant generalizations; for (e) concludes with 'both have merits' without evaluation; no thematic connection across the five parts; final part shows no awareness of preceding analysis

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 →