Q4
(a) How are both equality and liberty inadequate as social and political ideals without justice ? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Can Theocracy be accepted as a valid form of Government ? Give reasons and justification in support of your answer. (15 marks) (c) "Duties are of the nature of obligation while Rights are of the nature of entitlement. Therefore there is no necessary connection between the two." Do you agree with this statement ? Give reasons and justification for your answer. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) सामाजिक एवं राजनीतिक आदर्शों के रूप में कैसे समानता और स्वतंत्रता दोनों न्याय के अभाव में अपर्याप्त हैं ? विवेचन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्या शासन के वैध रूप में धर्मतंत्र को स्वीकार किया जा सकता है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "कर्तव्य दायित्व के स्वरूप के होते हैं जबकि अधिकार पात्रता के स्वरूप के होते हैं। अतएव इन दोनों के बीच कोई अनिवार्य संबंध नहीं होता।" क्या आप इस कथन से सहमत हैं ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (15 अंक)
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' requires a balanced, analytical treatment across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of your response to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, then address each sub-part sequentially with clear transitions, and conclude by synthesizing how the three themes interconnect around the broader question of legitimate political order.
Key points expected
- For (a): Explain how formal equality and negative liberty, when pursued in isolation, produce outcomes like the 'paradox of tolerance' or perpetuate structural inequalities; demonstrate how Rawls's difference principle or Amartya Sen's capability approach shows justice as the mediating framework
- For (a): Analyze specific inadequacies—equality without liberty becomes leveling down (Harrison), liberty without equality becomes license (Rousseau)—and show how justice provides the 'qualifying condition' (Dworkin)
- For (b): Evaluate theocracy through criteria of political legitimacy—consent, public reason, and pluralism; reference Indian constitutional experience (Articles 25-28) and thinkers like Bhikhu Parekh or Madhava on limited religious role in governance
- For (b): Present the strongest defense of theocracy (divine command as source of unchanging law, community identity preservation) before critiquing through Locke's Letter on Toleration or Rawls's overlapping consensus
- For (c): Clarify the conceptual distinction—duties as deontological/mandatory versus rights as claimable/enforceable—then systematically demolish the 'no necessary connection' thesis through correlativity theories (Hohfeld, Bentham) and Indian constitutional morality (Fundamental Duties under Part IVA)
- For (c): Address the asymmetry objection (imperfect duties, unenforceable obligations) and show how even here, rights-duties correlation operates institutionally or as moral ideals
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely distinguishes formal vs. substantive equality, negative vs. positive liberty, and procedural vs. distributive justice for (a); correctly identifies theocracy's theological vs. political dimensions for (b); accurately explicates Hohfeldian correlativity and the is-ought distinction in rights-talk for (c) | Uses core terms correctly but conflates related concepts (e.g., equality of opportunity with equality of outcome) or provides generic definitions without contextual precision | Mischaracterizes fundamental concepts—e.g., treats liberty as mere non-interference without qualification, or confuses theocracy with ecclesiocracy, or equates rights with mere privileges |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | For (a), builds a cumulative case showing mutual inadequacy then synthesis; for (b), structures as legitimacy test-application-verdict; for (c), moves from conceptual analysis through thesis-antithesis-synthesis with clear logical connectors | Presents relevant points for each sub-part but with weak internal organization—lists rather than develops arguments, or treats parts as disconnected essays | Rambling structure with no clear thesis per sub-part; repetition across parts; fails to address the specific question asked in any part |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | For (a): Rawls, Dworkin, Sen, Berlin, Rousseau; for (b): Locke, Spinoza, Parekh, Madhava, Indian constitutional framers; for (c): Hohfeld, Bentham, Hart, Dworkin, Gandhi on duties, Ambedkar on constitutional morality—deployed with specific attribution | Mentions 2-3 major thinkers across all parts correctly but superficially, or cites thinkers without connecting their specific contribution to the argument | No philosopher named, or misattribution (e.g., 'Marx on justice' as primary), or only generic references ('some philosophers say') |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a): addresses Nozick's entitlement theory as defense of liberty-without-equality; for (b): presents and then dismantles Alasdair MacIntyre's or traditionalist defense of religious authority in politics; for (c): engages Raz's interest theory or O'Neill's unclaimable duties before rebutting | Acknowledges opposing views in passing but either straw-mans them or fails to rebut substantively; one-sided presentation dominates | No counter-position recognized; purely assertive writing; or dismisses alternatives without engagement ('this is obviously wrong') |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: shows how justice-as-fairness (a) requires non-theocratic public reason (b) which itself depends on rights-duties correlativity (c); ends with contemporary Indian relevance (constitutional values, Sabarimala or triple talaq debates) | Three separate conclusions for three parts without meta-connection; or generic conclusion restating points already made | No conclusion, or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; or entirely misses the evaluative demand of the question |
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
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Corrupt practices reveal an inherent tension between particularistic and unive…
- Q2 (a) Present a detailed account of the debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the issue of caste discrimination. (20 marks) (b) Evaluate Marx…
- 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 reconciliati…
- Q4 (a) How are both equality and liberty inadequate as social and political ideals without justice ? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Can Theocracy be…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss Cārvāka's critique of the belief in the existence of suprasensible enti…
- Q6 (a) Present an account of Design argument to prove the existence of God along with its criticism by David Hume. (20 marks) (b) Explain the…
- Q7 (a) How does the Vedantic view of Religious Pluralism address the conflicting truth claims of different faiths ? Answer with reference to S…
- Q8 (a) Evaluate the nature and object of Religious Experience as explained by Radhakrishnan in 'The Hindu View of Life'. (20 marks) (b) Is it…