Philosophy 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) Can one's right to life be absolute ? Answer with reference to the idea of Capital Punishment. (20 marks) (b) How does the reconciliation of opposites take place in the Humanism of Tagore ? Evaluate. (15 marks) (c) Is it possible to reconcile the concept of development with tribal values to bring social and economic progress ? Discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या किसी के जीवन का अधिकार निरपेक्ष हो सकता है ? मृत्युदंड की अवधारणा के संदर्भ में उत्तर दीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) टैगोर के मानववाद में विरोधों का समन्वय कैसे होता है ? मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या सामाजिक तथा आर्थिक प्रगति लाने के लिए विकास की अवधारणा का जनजातीय मूल्यों के साथ समन्वय करना संभव है ? विवेचन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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' for part (a) requires examining multiple perspectives on absolute right to life through capital punishment debate. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief unified introduction → part (a) with thesis-antithesis-synthesis on capital punishment → part (b) analyzing Tagore's dialectical humanism through his essays and poetry → part (c) examining tribal development models with Indian case studies → integrated conclusion on rights, humanism and development.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of absolute vs. qualified right to life; retributive vs. utilitarian justifications of capital punishment; Kant's categorical imperative vs. Bentham's utilitarian calculus; constitutional morality arguments (Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Shakti Mills precedents)
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of abolitionist and retentionist positions; Amnesty International data on deterrence failure; 'rarest of rare' doctrine as compromise position
  • Part (b): Tagore's concept of 'surplus man' and reconciliation of individual and universal; dialectical synthesis in Sadhana and The Religion of Man; harmony between freedom and order, tradition and modernity
  • Part (b): Evaluation of Tagore's humanism against Western liberal humanism; his critique of nationalism and synthesis of East-West spiritual values
  • Part (c): Analysis of tribal value systems (communitarian land tenure, sacred ecology, oral knowledge) vs. mainstream development metrics; Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and Forest Rights Act, 2006 as reconciliation mechanisms
  • Part (c): Case studies of successful models—Kerala's tribal sub-plan, Jharkhand's MGNREGA tribal participation, or Niyamgiri movement; critique of 'development-induced displacement'

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes negative and positive rights for (a); accurately captures Tagore's 'religion of unity' and man-antaryami concept for (b); correctly identifies collective rights and usufructuary property in tribal philosophy for (c); no conflation of thinkers or legal doctrinesBasic understanding of rights theory and Tagore's humanism but conflates deontological and teleological arguments; generic treatment of tribal development without specific value identification; minor errors in citing constitutional articlesFundamental confusion between natural rights and legal rights; misrepresents Tagore as Western-style individualist humanist; equates tribal values with 'backwardness' or 'obstacle to development'; significant factual errors on capital punishment jurisprudence
Argument structure20%10Clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis in (a) on capital punishment absolutism; dialectical progression in (b) showing how Tagore transcends opposites; problem-solution-evaluation arc in (c) on tribal development; seamless transitions between parts with thematic linkageDescriptive coverage of all three parts but lacks argumentative depth; some organization within parts but weak inter-part connections; either (b) or (c) treated as afterthought; conclusion merely summarizes rather than synthesizesDisjointed treatment with no clear position on any part; (a) becomes emotional polemic, (b) biographical sketch, (c) policy prescription without philosophical grounding; missing or incoherent conclusion; violates proportional marks allocation
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): Locke, Nozick, Rawls on rights; Kant, Bentham, Dworkin on punishment; Indian Constitution framers; for (b): Tagore's Sadhana, Creative Unity, Nationalism; comparison with Renaissance humanism; for (c): Gandhi's Hind Swaraj, Elwin's anthropological work, Xaxa on tribal rights; specific Supreme Court judgmentsMentions obvious thinkers (Kant, Bentham, Tagore) without contextual specificity; generic reference to 'constitutional values' without Article 21 jurisprudence; missing secondary scholarship on tribal philosophy; no comparative dimension in (b)No philosophers cited or confused attributions (e.g., calling Tagore a Marxist); only popular quotes without textual grounding; complete absence of legal precedents for (a) and (c); reliance on textbook generalizations without names
Counter-position handling20%10In (a), engages substantively with retentionist arguments (retribution, incapacitation, closure for victims) before defending qualified absolutism; in (b), addresses critiques of Tagore's 'elitism' or 'romanticism'; in (c), confronts 'isolationist vs. integrationist' debate and offers nuanced middle path; anticipates objections at each stageAcknowledges opposing views superficially—mentions abolitionist case in (a) but doesn't engage retentionist philosophy; notes Tagore's critics without substantive response; presents tribal and development perspectives as simply opposed without synthesisOne-sided advocacy—pure abolitionist polemic in (a), uncritical celebration of Tagore in (b), or unreflective assimilationist position in (c); dismisses counter-positions as 'obviously wrong'; strawman arguments; no evidence of having considered alternative frameworks
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts into unified philosophical position: qualified rights protecting dignity (a), dialectical humanism transcending binaries (b), and development as capability expansion respecting cultural identity (c); demonstrates how Tagore's method illuminates rights-development tension; forward-looking insight on Indian constitutional visionSeparate conclusions for each part without meta-synthesis; restates main points without advancing argument; weak thematic linkage between rights, humanism and development; generic closing statement on 'balance' or 'middle path'Missing conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body arguments; no recognition of thematic unity in question; ideological rant replacing philosophical synthesis; word limit violations in any part affecting overall coherence

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 2025 Paper II