Topic: Contributions of Moral Thinkers/Philosophers
Q 1) Gandhiji was not a philosopher as far as politics is concerned, because his sayings poured from his deep-felt truth and its sincere realisation. Comment. (10 Marks)
Model structure
Introduction
- Gandhian thoughts were followed in the early 20th century and are still relevant as he inspired noble souls like Einstein, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King JR, Barack Obama etc. This is because his message is not political alone but is meant for the wholesome development of humankind.
Main body
- Going by the nature of his ideas and their overview, it can be said that he was not committed to any particular school of thought. His ideas and speech came from writings in particular situations, resulting in the revision of ideas from time to time. But it has to be stressed that his basic and root ideas remained the same.
- His thoughts were not like a thinker, but there was a conceptual framework common to a philosopher. His thoughts are based on both Eastern and Western ideologies and traditions. This is due to the time spent in South Africa and other overseas territories, and also in India.
- He was not a political philosopher, but when he stepped into the freedom struggle and got into the political current, he developed an ideology of his own.
- For him, without involvement in politics, it is impossible to remove socio-economic exploitation and political subjugation and thereby moral degradation of the people.
- By getting into the freedom struggle and the ideas behind it, Gandhiji focused on Dharmic politics, which meant the removal of corrupt men and sectarianism. He didn’t accept any fixed dogma or mechanical way of politics.
Conclusion
Gandhian politics had the utmost concern for the disunion between the state and civil society. His philosophy integrated moral, ethical and spiritual well-being into a political way of helping India transition into an independent nation.
Q 2) What do you understand about the capability approach of Amartya Sen? How does it differ from John Rawls's theory of social justice? Examine. (10 Marks)
Model Structure
Introduction
- The Capability Approach was first articulated by the Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen in the 1980s. It is defined by its choice of focus upon the moral significance of individuals’ capability of achieving the kind of lives they have reason to value.
- A person’s capability to live a good life is defined in terms of the set of valuable ‘beings and doings’ like being in good health or having loving relationships with others to which they have real access.
Differences with John Rawls’s -
- According to Sen, there is excessive emphasis on liberty in Rawls’s theory of justice. Sen argues that hunger, starvation, medical neglect and other such issues should be given more importance than personal liberty as an important aspect of justice.
- In the difference principle, Rawls judges the opportunities that people have through the means they possess. It means those who have access to primary goods can easily access the opportunities, while Sen argues that access to only primary goods will not enhance the capabilities of people so that they can get access to the available opportunities. For example, a differently abled person can do far less with the same level of primary goods and income than an able-bodied human being.
- Contractualist approach of Rawls theory of justice - Rawls develops his approach as a contrast to the utilitarian understanding of justice, but for Sen, the “Theory of Justice” provides transcendental solutions and is more conscious of the demands of institutions and rules. It completely ignores the fact that what kind of what role these theories are playing in the social realisation and formulation of these principles, or whether these theories are concerned with the voices of those who are not part of the contract.
- Rawls theories of justice lack global perspectives. According to Sen in the era of globalisation, things are related. For example, the US-led attack on Iraq has impacted the whole world. It has also impacted the world’s point of view on terrorism.
Conclusion
- The well-being of people depends upon many things other than increased income or resources. All such things are sidelined when an economic measure like the GDP is taken to indicate development. The basic objective of development should be to create an enabling environment for people to live long, healthy, and creative lives. The capability approach of Amartya Sen provides this perspective
PSIR Optional + Mentorship without Test Series
Comprehensive LIVE PSIR Optional Foundation Course for UPSC CSE
Q 3) When Albert Einstein says, “Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value”. How do you relate this saying to your personality and ambitions? (10 M)
Model Structure
Introduction
- In today's world, there is an increasing tendency to respect people solely by the quantum of their material success, rather than the strength of their character. Hence, individuals are willing to commit any kind of moral transgression to reach the top. Joining the civil services is my dream, and I want to occupy impactful leadership positions in government. But I look at civil services as a means to achieve my goal of serving the country.
Main Body
- Life is a much bigger entity, and success should not become the only objective.
- In recent times, there are many civil servants who compromise their integrity or political neutrality to get plum postings.
- Such people have given up honour and would only receive external respect from people around them.
- Everyone, right from a peon to a chief secretary, is important in an organisation. Hence, in whatever position one works, they must work hard in an ethical manner.
- Success is meaningless if it is achieved by trampling others’ lives and following corrupt means. Society might outwardly respect such people, but individuals will lose respect for themselves. Being successful just for the sake of being successful is meaningless if one cannot lead a happy, meaningful and contented life, for which values are a must.
Q 4) "In the happiness of his subjects lies the king's happiness; in their welfare, his welfare." — Kautilya, Arthashastra. Examine how Kautilya's idea of Raj Dharma and welfare-oriented statecraft can guide ethical conduct in contemporary public administration. (10 M)
Model Answer
- Kautilya's Arthashastra is not merely a manual of statecraft but a treatise on grounding power in dharma. The quoted maxim places the welfare (yogakshema) of citizens as the ruler's supreme duty, anchoring authority in service rather than self-interest.
- Three dimensions of Raj Dharma remain directly relevant to administration today:
- Trusteeship of public office — The ruler (and by extension the civil servant) holds power as a trustee for the public good, not personal aggrandisement. This mirrors the modern ideal of the administrator as a public servant accountable to citizens.
- Self-discipline and integrity — Kautilya insisted the ruler master his senses (indriyajaya) before governing others. His vivid warning that one handling state funds will "taste at least a little of the king's wealth," like honey on the tongue, underlines the perennial need for vigilance, transparency and anti-corruption safeguards.
- Proactive, citizen-centric welfare — Statecraft was judged by the prosperity and security it delivered, prefiguring today's outcome-based, citizen-centric governance.
- Thus Kautilya offers a timeless template: power legitimised by welfare, exercised with discipline, and accountable to the governed.
Q 5) Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar offered contrasting yet complementary visions of an ethical society. Compare their contributions to moral and social philosophy, and discuss their continuing relevance for building a just and inclusive India. (10 M)
Model Answer
Gandhi and Ambedkar were the two great moral architects of modern India. Both sought human dignity and a just social order, yet they diverged sharply on the means and locus of ethical change.
Shared ground — Both opposed untouchability, upheld the dignity of labour, and rejected exploitation. Both believed ethics must translate into social action, not remain abstract.
Divergence in method — Gandhi located ethics in individual self-transformation: truth (Satya), non-violence (Ahimsa), the inseparability of ends and means, and Sarvodaya (welfare of all). Reform, for him, meant a moral change of heart, with the privileged acting as trustees. Ambedkar located ethics in just structures and rights: he argued that without institutional and legal reform, appeals to conscience were inadequate. His method was "educate, agitate, organise," and his moral compass was constitutional morality built on liberty, equality and fraternity — the last drawn from the Buddha.
On caste — Gandhi sought to purify Hindu society from within and abolish untouchability; Ambedkar called for the annihilation of caste itself, viewing it as structurally embedded.
Complementarity — Gandhi supplies the inner ethic of integrity and self-restraint; Ambedkar supplies the outer architecture of justice, rights and the rule of law. A truly ethical society needs both.
Relevance today — Gandhian ethics inform integrity, simplicity, and ends–means consistency in governance; Ambedkar's constitutional morality, social justice and fraternity counter inequality and divisiveness.
Building a just, inclusive India, therefore, demands a Gandhian conscience working through Ambedkarite institutions — virtue secured by structure.
