Predicted Questions with Model Answers

Public Section Preview

Q1 (5 marks — 50 words): What is Aristotle's concept of the Golden Mean? How is it relevant to public administration?

Model Answer:

Aristotle's Golden Mean (Nicomachean Ethics) holds that every virtue is a mean between two vices — excess and deficiency. Courage lies between cowardice (deficiency) and recklessness (excess); generosity between miserliness and prodigality. For administration: (1) enforcement — mean between excessive strictness (coercion) and excessive leniency (ineffectiveness); (2) disclosure — mean between total secrecy and irresponsible leaking; (3) political neutrality — mean between unresponsive rigidity and political sycophancy; (4) expenditure — mean between excessive austerity and wasteful spending.

Q2 (5 marks — 50 words): What is Swami Vivekananda's concept of 'Daridra Narayana'? How does it inform the ethics of public service?

Model Answer:

Daridra Narayana — Vivekananda's doctrine that God (Narayana) is manifest in the poor and suffering — means that serving the destitute is not charity but worship. Basis: Advaita Vedanta (all is Brahman — the divine in every person). Ethics of public service: (1) The officer does not bestow a favour — she fulfils a sacred obligation; (2) dignity of recipients — they are God's manifestations, not beneficiaries; (3) no condescension in service delivery; (4) motivation — not career advancement but spiritual commitment to the poorest.

Q3 (10 marks — 150 words): Compare the deontological and consequentialist approaches to administrative ethics. Which is more appropriate for Indian public administration, and why?

Model Answer:

The two dominant frameworks in normative ethics offer contrasting guidance to administrators.

Deontological ethics (Kant): An act's rightness is intrinsic — determined by the duty it follows, not its outcome. The Categorical Imperative demands universalisability ("act only on principles you could will as universal law") and treatment of persons as ends ("never as means only"). Administratively, this generates: (1) rule-bound impartiality — procedures apply equally regardless of who the citizen is; (2) absolute prohibitions — torture, falsification, rights violations are impermissible regardless of benefit; (3) accountability — officers answer for the process they followed, not just the result.

Consequentialist ethics (Bentham, Mill): Rightness depends entirely on producing the best outcome. Administratively: (1) cost-benefit analysis guides resource allocation; (2) flexibility — rules may be adapted when rigid application produces bad outcomes; (3) outcome-focused evaluation — programmes succeed or fail by measurable impact.

Limitations:

Deontology: Can produce paralysis when rules are inadequate for novel situations; may ignore serious aggregate suffering for formal compliance
Consequentialism: "Greatest number" logic can sacrifice minorities; opens door to rule-bending justified by claimed superior outcomes

Indian constitutional position: India adopts a mixed framework: Fundamental Rights are deontological side-constraints (Art. 21 — life cannot be taken without due process even if it would benefit society); DPSPs are consequentialist welfare objectives (reduce inequality, ensure livelihood for all). Judicial review applies both — process must be correct (deontology) AND outcome must be proportionate (consequentialism).

Recommendation: For Indian public administration, a Kantian floor + consequentialist flexibility is most appropriate: core constitutional rights are non-negotiable (deontological), but within that space, outcome-based policy evaluation guides resource allocation. W.D. Ross's prima facie duties framework — acknowledging that multiple duties exist and may conflict, requiring judgment — best describes real administrative ethics.

Q4 (5 marks — 50 words): What is Rawls' concept of the 'Veil of Ignorance'? How does it help design just institutions?

Model Answer:

John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance (A Theory of Justice, 1971) is a thought experiment: imagine choosing principles of social justice without knowing your race, gender, class, talents, or religion. Behind this veil, rational persons would choose: (1) Equal basic liberties for all; (2) Difference Principle — inequalities justified only if they maximally benefit the worst-off. For institution design: evaluate policies as if you might be the poorest beneficiary; eliminate structural advantages that benefit only those who already have power.

Q5 (5 marks — 50 words): What is J.S. Mill's Harm Principle? Discuss its relevance to governance and individual liberty.

Model Answer:

J.S. Mill's Harm Principle (On Liberty, 1859): "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Self-regarding acts — that harm only oneself — are beyond state interference; other-regarding acts that harm others may be regulated. Governance relevance: limits paternalistic laws (e.g., prohibition of personal drug use — debated under Harm Principle); permits regulation of pollution (harms others); informs free press jurisprudence (Article 19(2)'s "harm to others" restrictions).

Q6 (5 marks — 50 words): Who was Confucius? Explain the concept of 'Ren' and its relevance to governance.

Model Answer:

Confucius (Kong Qiu, 551–479 BCE) was a Chinese philosopher whose teachings (Analects) shaped East Asian ethics for millennia. Ren (benevolence/humaneness) is his supreme virtue — the heartfelt concern for others that motivates all other virtues; its formula: "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire" (Analects 15.24) — the Golden Rule in Chinese form. Governance relevance: a ruler/administrator with Ren governs through moral example, not force; citizens are treated with dignity; policy flows from genuine concern for human welfare rather than mechanical rule-application.