Philosophy 2024 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) Do you agree with the view that Aristotle was more successful than Plato in steering a middle course between 'Statism' and 'individualism'? Discuss with arguments. (20 marks) (b) On what grounds would you accept or reject the idea of capital punishment as an effective deterrent? Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Is economic development a necessary condition, sufficient condition, both or neither, in order to achieve social progress? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (10+5=15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आप इस मत से सहमत हैं कि अरस्तू, प्लेटो की अपेक्षा 'राज्यवाद' और 'व्यक्तिवाद' के मध्य मध्यम मार्ग को प्रशस्त करने में अधिक सफल है ? युक्तियुक्त विवेचन कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) किन आधारों पर आप मृत्युदंड के प्रत्यय को एक प्रभावशाली निवारक के रूप में स्वीकार या अस्वीकार करेंगे ? विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) सामाजिक प्रगति प्राप्त करने के लिए आर्थिक विकास क्या एक अनिवार्य आवश्यकता, पर्याप्त आवश्यकता, दोनों अथवा दोनों में से कोई नहीं है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10+5=15 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

The directive 'discuss' demands a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction framing the three themes; body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing insights on the tension between individual and collective good across political philosophy, ethics, and social theory.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Plato's extreme statism (guardians, communism of property/family, philosopher-king) vs Aristotle's critique of excessive unity, defense of private property, household management, and polity as mixed constitution achieving moderation
  • For (a): Aristotle's teleological individualism where individual achieves perfection through polis, avoiding atomistic individualism—demonstrating his successful middle path via golden mean applied to politics
  • For (b): Deterrence theory arguments (Beccaria, Bentham's utilitarian calculus) vs abolitionist critiques (Stephen's moral retribution, Amnesty International data on non-deterrence, wrongful execution risks)
  • For (b): Indian context: 35th Law Commission report, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (rarest of rare doctrine), recent debates on delay in execution as torture, comparative European abolition
  • For (c): Logical analysis of necessary vs sufficient conditions with examples; economic development as necessary but not sufficient (Kerala vs Gujarat model, Bhutan's GNH, HDI beyond GDP)
  • For (c): Counter-examples: resource curse (Nigeria), Amartya Sen's capability approach, Rawlsian primary goods distribution, Gandhian critique of development without ethics

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes Plato's Republic communism from Aristotle's Politics critique; correctly identifies 'rarest of rare' doctrine; accurately deploys necessary/sufficient condition logic with clear truth-table understanding; no conflation of deterrence with retribution or rehabilitationGenerally accurate on Plato-Aristotle contrast but oversimplifies 'middle course'; conflates deterrence with general prevention; treats economic development and social progress as synonymous without logical rigorMisrepresents Plato as individualist or Aristotle as liberal; confuses capital punishment with corporal punishment; fundamental errors in conditional logic (e.g., claiming development is sufficient for progress)
Argument structure20%10Each part builds thesis-antithesis-synthesis: (a) evaluates both thinkers before judging Aristotle's success; (b) weighs empirical and moral arguments systematically; (c) constructs formal logical argument with real-world instantiation; seamless transitions between partsDescriptive coverage of all parts with some evaluative elements; (a) lists differences without assessing 'success'; (b) presents both sides without clear stance; (c) asserts position without rigorous condition analysis; adequate but mechanical organizationPart (a) merely summarizes both thinkers without comparison; (b) one-sided advocacy; (c) confuses the logical question; parts treated as disconnected mini-essays; no overall argumentative arc
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): Barker, Sabine, or Strauss on Platonic-Aristotelian debate; for (b): Beccaria, Bentham, Stephen, Dworkin, Supreme Court judgments; for (c): Sen, Nussbaum, Rawls, Gandhi, Dreze-Sen on India; demonstrates historiographical awarenessNames Plato and Aristotle correctly; mentions Beccaria or Supreme Court in passing; cites GDP/HDI without theoretical framing; some secondary thinkers but no sustained engagement with their specific contributionsNo thinkers beyond the question text; misattributes views (e.g., calling Mill a deterrence theorist); anachronistic application of contemporary liberalism to ancient context without mediation
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): Acknowledges Popper's critique of both as totalitarian, or Taylor's communitarian rehabilitation of Plato; for (b): Addresses abolitionist argument that deterrence is empirically unproven and morally degrading; for (c): Considers inverse causation (social progress enables development) and cases of development without progress; synthesizes rather than merely listingMentions opposing views in each part but does not develop them; for (a) notes Plato's critics without assessing Aristotle's response; for (b) notes human rights concerns briefly; for (c) acknowledges exceptions without theoretical integrationNo counter-arguments presented; straw-man treatment of opposing positions; dogmatic assertion of one view; ignores obvious objections (e.g., to deterrence effectiveness or development-progress linkage)
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts around theme of balancing individual and collective: Aristotle's political moderation, limits of state power in punishment, and multidimensional progress; returns to question's implicit concern with practical wisdom (phronesis) in institutional design; memorable closing insightSummarizes each part separately; restates position without development; some attempt at connection between political philosophy and applied ethics but no deep integration; competent but forgettable closureNo conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new arguments in conclusion; contradictory final positions across parts; fails to address the 'discuss' directive's demand for balanced judgment

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 2024 Paper II