(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 puni

Question

(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)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Political philosophy, punishment and development all turn on balancing collective order with individual flourishing. Aristotle’s politics, capital punishment and economic progress can be examined as attempts to locate that balance.

Aristotle’s middle course
Plato’s Republic is often read as statism: the city is organised around the philosopher-king, guardians are separated from private family and property, and the common good is pursued through class discipline. Aristotle criticises this excessive unity in Politics, arguing that a household is not a city and that a state should not dissolve the family or private ownership. He defends private property because it encourages care, reduces disputes and supports household management, while still subordinating it to civic virtue. His preferred polity is a mixed constitution, blending oligarchic and democratic elements, which moderates extremes. Yet Aristotle is not an atomistic individualist. For him the individual is teleological: human beings achieve eudaimonia only in the polis, through friendship, law and participation. Thus he steers a golden mean between Plato’s absorption of the individual in the state and modern individualism that treats the person as prior to the community.

Capital punishment as deterrence
Deterrence arguments for capital punishment rest on the idea that the most severe penalty prevents murder by creating fear. Bentham’s utilitarian calculus supports punishment if it prevents greater harm; Beccaria, though a founder of deterrence theory, opposed the death penalty and argued that certainty, not severity, deters. Abolitionists counter that empirical evidence does not show a clear deterrent effect; Amnesty International has repeatedly found no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters murder more than life imprisonment. There are also wrongful execution risks, which make deterrence morally dangerous. Retributive arguments, associated with Lord Stephen, justify punishment as deserved moral response rather than mere utility. In India, the 35th Law Commission Report (1967) recommended abolition except in the case of waging war, while Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) retained it under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. Delay in execution has been debated in Supreme Court cases such as V. Singanallur v. Union of India (2015) as raising torture concerns. Comparative abolition appears in Council of Europe Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, a Council of Europe treaty; the EU is not a party to the ECHR, though its member states have abolished capital punishment.

Economic development and social progress
Logically, a necessary condition must be present for social progress, while a sufficient condition guarantees it. Economic development is often treated as necessary because it expands education, health, infrastructure and opportunity, as reflected in HDI beyond GDP. But it is not sufficient: growth can coexist with inequality, environmental damage and social fragmentation. The Kerala model shows high social indicators with lower per capita income, while the Gujarat model shows growth with debates over distribution and social costs. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness adds well-being and ecology to economic measures. Counter-examples include Nigeria’s resource curse, where oil wealth has not translated into broad social progress. Amartya Sen’s capability approach argues that development must expand real freedoms, not merely income. Rawlsian distribution of primary goods suggests that social progress requires fair basic liberties, opportunities and social bases of self-respect. Gandhian critique warns that development without ethics, self-reliance and non-violence may deepen exploitation. Thus economic development is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social progress.

Conclusion
Aristotle’s mixed polity, the limits of capital punishment and the insufficiency of GDP together show that neither pure statism nor pure individualism, nor mere severity or mere growth, can secure human flourishing. The way forward is institutional moderation: rights-protecting states, evidence-based criminal justice, and development measured by capabilities, equality and dignity.

(a) Do you agree with the view that Aristotle was more successful than Plato in steering a middle course between 'Statism' and…

Model answer

What "Discuss" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2024 Paper II