All 8 questions from UPSC Civil Services Mains Philosophy 2026 Paper II (400 marks total). Every stem reproduced in full, with directive-word analysis, marks, word limits, and answer-approach pointers.
8Questions
400Total marks
2026Year
Paper IIPaper
A
Q1
50M150wCompulsoryexplain
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each :
(a) Why does Rawls consider it necessary that the two principles of justice be applied in lexical order ? Explain. (10 marks)
(b) Is Plato's vision of an ideal state compatible with the rights and liberties of individual citizens ? Discuss. (10 marks)
(c) Anarchism is not an independent political ideology in itself, rather it is inspired by liberalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Analyze. (10 marks)
(d) On what grounds does Marxism criticize pure democracy ? (10 marks)
(e) How does value based education address the problem of corruption ? (10 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए :
(a) रॉल्स क्यों न्याय के दो सिद्धान्तों को कोशीय क्रम में प्रयुक्त करना आवश्यक समझते हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(b) क्या प्लेटो के आदर्श राज्य की परिकल्पना की नागरिक विशेष के अधिकारों एवं स्वतंत्रताओं के साथ संगतता है ? विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(c) अराजकतावाद अपने आप में एक स्वतंत्र राजनीतिक विचारधारा नहीं है, बल्कि यह एक ओर उदारवाद एवं दूसरी ओर समाजवाद से प्रेरित है । विश्लेषण कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(d) किन आधारों पर मार्क्सवाद विशुद्ध लोकतंत्र की आलोचना करता है ? (10 अंक)
(e) मूल्य आधारित शिक्षा किस प्रकार भ्रष्टाचार की समस्या को संबोधित करती है ? (10 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'Explain' the reasons (not merely state the principles): the candidate must first set out Rawls's two principles of justice from A Theory of Justice (1971) and then give the grounds why Rawls insists they be satisfied in lexical (serial) order rather than balanced against one another. (b) 'Discuss' whether Plato's ideal state in the Republic can accommodate individual rights and liberties: the candidate must set out the relevant features of the Kallipolis, argue the case for incompatibility and the case for defence, and reach a reasoned verdict. (c) 'Analyze' a contested claim: the candidate must show how individualist anarchism draws on liberal premises and social/collectivist anarchism on socialist premises, and then judge whether anarchism nevertheless possesses an independent core of its own. (d) 'On what grounds' asks for the specific Marxist arguments against 'pure democracy' — the notion of a class-neutral, purely political democracy — and expects them to be attributed to Marx, Engels and Lenin rather than stated as generic criticism. (e) 'How does' requires a causal/mechanistic account: the candidate must show by what specific means value-based education acts on corruption (internalisation of norms, moral development, character formation), illustrate it from Indian educational thought and policy, and note its limits.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)
lexical / serial order
principle of equal basic liberties
fair equality of opportunity
difference principle
original position and veil of ignorance
maximin
priority of the right over the good
'liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty'
Plato, Republic
Kallipolis / ideal state
philosopher-king
tripartite soul and tripartite state
justice as doing one's own work
communism of property and family for guardians
noble lie / myth of the metals
censorship of poetry (Books II-III, Book X)
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
Aristotle, Politics Book II
anti-statism as the core of anarchism
individualist anarchism
Max Stirner
Benjamin Tucker / Josiah Warren
anarcho-capitalism (Murray Rothbard)
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 'property is theft'
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid
the Bakunin–Marx split in the First International
R. P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (1970)
Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918)
Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)
Marx, On the Jewish Question (1843) — political vs human emancipation
Marx, The Civil War in France (1871) and the Paris Commune
Communist Manifesto (1848)
Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) — dictatorship of the proletariat
class character of the state
formal vs substantive/real equality
withering away of the state
value-based education as internalisation of values
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics — virtue by habituation
Gandhi's Nai Talim / Basic Education (Wardha, 1937)
(a) Evaluate the importance of Kautilya's theory of Rajamandala in the context of sovereignty. (20 marks)
(b) Does providing land and property rights to women constitute a necessary condition or a sufficient condition or both for ensuring social equality among the genders ? Discuss. (15 marks)
(c) Examine the challenges faced by a multicultural society in creating a harmonious balance between group rights and individual rights. (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) सम्प्रभुता के संदर्भ में कौटिल्य के राजमण्डल के सिद्धान्त के महत्व का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) क्या महिलाओं को भूमि एवं संपत्ति अधिकार प्रदान करना लिंगों के बीच सामाजिक समानता सुनिश्चित करने के लिए आवश्यक शर्त अथवा पर्याप्त शर्त अथवा दोनों हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) समूह अधिकारों एवं व्यक्तिगत अधिकारों के बीच सामंजस्यपूर्ण संतुलन स्थापित करने में बहुसांस्कृतिक समाज द्वारा सामना की जाने वाली चुनौतियों का परीक्षण कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'Evaluate the importance' requires more than exposition: the candidate must expound Kautilya's Rajamandala (circle of states) from the Arthashastra, relate it to the Saptanga conception of the state and the Shadgunya policy, and then assess what it contributes to — and where it falls short of — a theory of sovereignty, internal and external. (b) The question is a precise conceptual one: the candidate must use the logic of necessary and sufficient conditions, argue whether women's land and property rights are necessary for gender-based social equality, whether they are sufficient, and 'discuss' towards a defended verdict — the expected line being necessary but not sufficient. (c) 'Examine the challenges' — the candidate must not merely describe multiculturalism but identify the specific structural tensions that arise when a multicultural polity tries to recognise group rights while guaranteeing individual rights, illustrate them from named theorists and cases, and indicate how the balance may be struck.
(a) Retributivism presents a deontological justification for capital punishment, whereas deterrence presents a consequential justification for it. Explain. (20 marks)
(b) “The two antagonistic state structures – monarchy and democracy, both share some common features with dictatorship”. Do you agree with this view ? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (15 marks)
(c) Negative liberty seems to embody the idea of ultimate personal freedom, whereas positive liberty enables individuals to achieve their full potential. Discuss. (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) प्रतिकारात्मकतावाद मृत्युदण्ड के लिए परिणाम निरपेक्ष औचित्य प्रस्तुत करता है, जबकि निवारण इसके लिए परिणाम सापेक्ष औचित्य प्रदान करता है । व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) “राज्य की संरचना के दो परस्पर विरोधी विचार – राजतंत्र एवं प्रजातंत्र, दोनों ही तानाशाही के कुछ लक्षण सामान्य रूप से साझा करते हैं” । क्या आप इस विचार से सहमत हैं ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) नकारात्मक स्वतंत्रता परम व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के विचार को अवतरित करती प्रतीत होती है, जबकि सकारात्मक स्वतंत्रता व्यक्तियों को उनकी समग्र क्षमता को प्राप्त करने में सक्षम बनाती है । विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'Explain' a two-part claim: the candidate must show precisely why retributivism is a deontological (backward-looking, desert-based, consequence-independent) justification of capital punishment, and why deterrence is a consequentialist (forward-looking, utility-based) one, bringing out the contrasting logic, the named proponents, and the characteristic objections to each. (b) The candidate must take a position on whether monarchy and democracy, though opposed, share features with dictatorship, and support it with reasons and justifications — defining all three forms, identifying the shared features in each case, and marking the crucial disanalogies. (c) 'Discuss' a statement that summarises Berlin's two concepts of liberty: the candidate must expound negative and positive liberty accurately, name their traditions, examine the claim that the first is ultimate personal freedom while the second enables self-realisation, and engage the standard criticisms of the dichotomy.
retributivism as deontological / desert-based / backward-looking
Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals; ius talionis; the island/dissolving-society argument
G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right — punishment as annulment of crime; the criminal's right to be punished
deterrence as consequentialist / utilitarian / forward-looking
Jeremy Bentham — punishment as an evil justified only by greater good prevented
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments (1764) — certainty over severity; opposition to capital punishment
specific and general deterrence
the scapegoating/punishing-the-innocent objection to deterrence
H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) — 'rarest of rare'
Law Commission of India, 262nd Report (2015)
dictatorship defined by unaccountable, unlimited power
absolute vs constitutional monarchy
Jean Bodin's indivisible sovereignty; Filmer's divine right; Hobbes's Leviathan
tyranny of the majority — Tocqueville and J. S. Mill, On Liberty
Plato, Republic Book VIII — democracy degenerating into tyranny
Aristotle, Politics — extreme democracy where decrees replace law
elective dictatorship / emergency powers
J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1952)
Rousseau's general will and 'forcing men to be free'
rule of law, judicial review, periodic elections and a free press as the disanalogy
Isaiah Berlin, 'Two Concepts of Liberty' (1958), in Four Essays on Liberty (1969)
negative liberty as absence of interference; 'over what area am I master?'
positive liberty as self-mastery; 'who is master?'
Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Constant, J. S. Mill's harm principle
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, T. H. Green, Bosanquet
Rousseau's 'forced to be free'
Gerald MacCallum's triadic conception of freedom
Charles Taylor, 'What's Wrong with Negative Liberty?' — opportunity vs exercise concept
Amartya Sen's capability approach
Philip Pettit / Quentin Skinner — liberty as non-domination
(a) How has Ambedkar applied the concept of ‘Social Endosmosis’ for annihilation of castes. Evaluate its relevance for contemporary debates on identity and the politics of difference. (20 marks)
(b) Explain the contrast between the monistic and pluralistic approaches to sovereignty. (15 marks)
(c) Examine the relationship between democracy and development. Does democracy promote or hinder development ? (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) किस प्रकार अंबेडकर ने ‘सामाजिक अंत:सरण’ की अवधारणा को जाति निवारण के लिए प्रयुक्त किया है ? पहचान एवं भेद की राजनीति पर समकालीन वाद-विवाद में इसकी प्रासंगिकता का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) संप्रभुता के एकत्ववादी एवं बहुलवादी दृष्टिकोणों के बीच अंतर्विरोध की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) प्रजातंत्र एवं विकास के संबंध का परीक्षण कीजिए । क्या प्रजातंत्र विकास को उन्नत करता है या बाधित करता है ? (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) Two linked tasks: first explain HOW Ambedkar deploys the concept of 'social endosmosis' as the instrument for annihilating caste; second EVALUATE its relevance to present-day debates on identity and the politics of difference, where the demand is often for the preservation rather than the dissolution of group boundaries. (b) 'Explain the contrast' — the candidate must expound the monistic (legal-absolutist) theory of sovereignty and the pluralist theory, and set them against each other point by point on the location, divisibility, source and limits of sovereign authority, naming the principal theorists of each. (c) Two parts: 'examine the relationship' between democracy and development conceptually, and then answer the specific question whether democracy promotes or hinders development — which requires stating both the 'cruel choice' case and the case for democracy, and reaching a defended position.
Caste as enclosed class sustained by endogamy (Castes in India, 1916) and the religious sanction of the Shastras
Social endosmosis defined (Dewey-derived): free flow and communication across group boundaries; caste blocks it
Application: inter-dining and intermarriage, destruction of Shastric authority, liberty-equality-fraternity
Evaluation for identity and difference politics: recognition versus annihilation, graded inequality, strengths and limits
Monism: supreme, unlimited, indivisible power in the state (Bodin, Hobbes, Austin); law as command
Pluralism: many associations, sovereignty divided and shared (Maitland, Figgis, Duguit, Cole, Laski)
Points of contrast: nature of power, state and associations, basis of obedience, view of law
Critique of each side and a modern link (Indian constitutional sovereignty, Basic Structure, federalism)
Broad concept of development (Sen's freedoms and capabilities) and conceptual link with democracy
Case for democracy promoting development (famine, accountability, human development, stability)
Case for hindering: developmental state, East Asia, short-termism, populism
Mixed evidence and conditional conclusion (Przeworski-Limongi, Lipset, institutions and capacity)
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each :
(a) On what grounds does William James characterize mystical states as a genuine expression of religious experience ? Elaborate. (10 marks)
(b) Discuss Aquinas’ argument from the contingency of the world to prove the existence of God. (10 marks)
(c) How does Paul Tillich’s idea of faith as ultimate concern address the relation between faith, doubt and reason ? Evaluate. (10 marks)
(d) Critically discuss the views of R. B. Braithwaite on the nature of religious language. (10 marks)
(e) “If religion were a subject of reason alone, it would have lacked an experiential account.” Do you agree with this statement ? Give reasons in support of your answer. (10 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए :
(a) विलियम जेम्स किन आधारों पर रहस्यवादी अवस्थाओं को धार्मिक अनुभव की वास्तविक अभिव्यक्ति के रूप में वर्णित करते हैं ? स्पष्ट कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(b) एक्विनास द्वारा ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध करने के लिए दिए गए जगत की आपातिकता पर आधारित तर्क की विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(c) किस प्रकार पॉल टिलिच का परम सरोकार के रूप में आस्था का विचार, आस्था, संदेह एवं तर्क के बीच संबंध को संबोधित करता है ? मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(d) धार्मिक भाषा के स्वरूप पर आर. बी. ब्रेथवेट के विचारों की आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)
(e) “यदि धर्म केवल तर्क का विषय होता तो वह आनुभाविक विवरण से रहित होता है।” क्या आप इस कथन से सहमत हैं ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'On what grounds ... Elaborate' — the candidate must give the specific marks by which William James identifies a state of consciousness as mystical, and the conclusions he draws about the authority of such states as genuine religious experience. (b) 'Discuss' Aquinas's argument from contingency — the Third Way of the Summa Theologiae: the candidate must set out the premises and conclusion accurately in order, and then give at least the main criticisms, since 'discuss' requires assessment as well as exposition. (c) 'How does ... Evaluate' — the candidate must expound Tillich's definition of faith as the state of being ultimately concerned, show precisely how that definition positions doubt and reason within faith rather than against it, and then assess the account. (d) 'Critically discuss' — the candidate must expound Braithwaite's non-cognitivist, conative account of religious assertions (moral policy plus stories) and then supply the standard objections to it. (e) The candidate must take and defend a position on whether a purely rational religion would lack an experiential dimension, using named philosophers of religious experience on one side and the claims of natural theology and rational religion on the other.
Four marks: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, passivity
Authoritative for the subject but not for others
Breaks the monopoly of rationalistic consciousness
Pragmatic test: fruits in saintliness and moral life (Varieties, 1902)
Third Way from possibility and necessity (Summa I, q.2, a.3)
Contingent beings; if all contingent, at some time nothing; so something necessary
No infinite regress of dependently necessary beings; a being necessary in itself, God
At least one criticism (quantifier-shift, eternal world, necessary existence) or reply
Faith as ultimate concern, the whole person, unconditional
Doubt as an element within faith; courage
Reason not opposed to faith; faith is not belief on weak evidence
Evaluation: strengths and criticisms (vagueness, breadth, idolatry, impersonal God)
Empiricist acceptance of verification; religious statements non-cognitive
Religious assertion as declaration of adherence to a policy of action (agapeistic way of life)
Role of stories: entertained, not asserted as true, to support commitment
Criticism: reductionism, believers assert truth, the story's redundant role
Clear position stated
Reasons that religion goes beyond reason: experience, worship, mystical states (Schleiermacher, Otto, James)
Role of reason in scrutinising experience; limits of self-authenticating experience
Balanced conclusion (reason and experience jointly)
(a) In what sense does St. Augustine's identification of all evil as either sin or as the punishment of sin succeed or fail in providing a coherent account of both moral and natural evil ? Evaluate. (20 marks)
(b) How does the issue of moral autonomy conflict with conception of religion as a source of morality ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
(c) Does the idea of Religious Pluralism necessarily entail moral relativism ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) किस अर्थ में संत अगस्टाईन द्वारा पाप या पाप के दंड के रूप में सभी अशुभों का तादात्म्य नैतिक एवं प्राकृतिक अशुभ में सुसंगता प्रदान करने में सफल या असफल है । मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) नैतिक स्वायत्तता का मुद्दा किस प्रकार धर्म की नैतिकता के स्रोत के रूप में अवधारणा से विवादित होता है ? आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) क्या धार्मिक बहुलवाद के सम्प्रत्यय में नैतिक सापेक्षवाद अनिवार्य रूप से अनुलगित है ? आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'In what sense ... succeed or fail ... Evaluate' — the candidate must expound Augustine's reduction of all evil to sin or the punishment of sin, show how it is meant to cover moral evil and natural evil alike, and then judge, with arguments on both sides, whether the account is coherent. (b) 'Critically discuss' the conflict between moral autonomy and the view that religion is the source of morality: the candidate must state the autonomy requirement, show precisely where it collides with divine-command morality, and then examine the standard replies before reaching a verdict. (c) The question turns on the word 'necessarily': the candidate must define religious pluralism and moral relativism separately, show why the entailment might seem to hold, and then argue whether it actually follows — the defensible answer being that it does not, since pluralism itself presupposes a trans-religious moral criterion.
Evil as privation (privatio boni), against Manichaeism
Moral evil as sin from misused free will; natural evil as punishment for sin (the Fall)
Success: coherence, God not author of evil, unity of the account, justice
Failure: pre-human natural evil and evolution, disproportionate suffering of innocents, positive reality of pain, origin of the first sin
Autonomy (Kant) versus heteronomy; divine command theory
The conflict: obedience to external will, Euthyphro dilemma, motivation by reward and punishment
(a) Analyse R. M. Hare's concept of ‘blik’ and assess whether it successfully defends the meaningfulness of religious language. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss the difference between personalistic and impersonalistic notions of God in the context of devotion. (15 marks)
(c) Can conflicting truth claims among religions be reconciled within the framework of religious pluralism ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) आर. एम. हेयर की ‘ब्लिक’ की अवधारणा का विश्लेषण कीजिए । क्या यह सफलतापूर्वक धार्मिक भाषा की अर्थवत्ता को संरक्षित करता है, इसका आकलन कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) ईश्वर की वैयक्तिकीय तथा गैर वैयक्तिकीय अवधारणाओं के विभेद की भक्ति के संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) क्या विभिन्न धर्मों के बीच परस्पर विरोधी सत्य के दावों को धार्मिक बहुलवादी ढांचे के भीतर समन्वित किया जा सकता है ? आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) Two tasks: 'analyse' Hare's concept of a blik — its context in the falsification debate, its definition and his parable — and 'assess' whether it succeeds in defending the meaningfulness of religious language, which requires the standard objections and a verdict. (b) 'Discuss the difference ... in the context of devotion' — the contrast must be drawn not in the abstract but specifically for bhakti: what each conception of God makes possible or impossible for the devotee, with named schools and thinkers on both sides. (c) 'Critically discuss' whether religious pluralism can reconcile conflicting truth claims: the candidate must specify what the conflicting claims are, set out the pluralist reconciling strategy, and then assess whether it succeeds — including the objection that some conflicts are irreducible.
(a) Critically evaluate the shift in Gandhi's view from ‘God is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’, in the context of interrelation between religion and morality. (20 marks)
(b) Explain and examine Madhvacharya's arguments for the existence of God. (15 marks)
(c) Present an account of criticisms against omniscience and omnipotence as attributes of God. (15 marks)
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) धर्म और नैतिकता के बीच अंतर्संबंध के संदर्भ में गांधी के ‘ईश्वर ही सत्य है’ से ‘सत्य ही ईश्वर है’ के मत में आए परिवर्तन का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक)
(b) मध्वाचार्य द्वारा प्रतिपादित ईश्वर के अस्तित्व के लिए दिए गए तर्कों की व्याख्या एवं परीक्षण कीजिए । (15 अंक)
(c) ईश्वर के गुणों के रूप में सर्वज्ञता तथा सर्वशक्तिमत्ता की समालोचनाओं का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Answer approach & key points
(a) 'Critically evaluate the shift' — the candidate must state both formulations, give Gandhi's own reasons for moving from 'God is Truth' to 'Truth is God', show what the shift does to the relation between religion and morality, and then assess it, including the objections. (b) Two directives: 'explain' Madhvacharya's arguments for the existence of God within his Dvaita Vedanta, and 'examine' them — that is, test their cogency and note the objections, rather than merely reporting them. (c) 'Present an account of criticisms' — the candidate must set out, in an organised way, the principal philosophical objections to omniscience and to omnipotence taken separately, the objections arising from their combination with each other and with divine goodness, and the standard replies.
Both formulations stated and the logical difference (subject and predicate); shift around 1931
Reasons: atheists accept Truth, avoids sectarian conflict, verifiable in experience, satya from sat
Religion and morality inseparable; truth and non-violence as worship; inner voice; political action as duty
Critical assessment: strengths (inclusive, ethical criterion) and weaknesses (subjectivity of inner voice, content of truth, loss of personal God, or shift of emphasis only)
Dvaita context: God as Vishnu, independent (svatantra); scripture primary, inference supportive
At least three arguments (causal, teleological, dependence, karmic or moral, scriptural)
Examination: strengths (cumulative, protects reality and difference)
Weaknesses: causal argument does not identify one omniscient God, Buddhist and Mimamsa objections, scriptural circularity, Advaita's reading
Omnipotence: paradox of the stone and the logical-possibility reply
Omnipotence: conflict with moral perfection, immutability, problem of evil
Omniscience: foreknowledge versus free will and named responses (Boethius, Aquinas, Molina, open theism)
Omniscience: indexical or experiential knowledge, conflict with immutability; Indian objections (Buddhist, Jain, Mimamsa)