Public Section Preview
Quick Revision Table
| Concept | Key Fact | RPSC Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Non-factual case study | Hypothetical dilemma — tests ethical reasoning, not recall | New 2026 format — high probability 10-mark |
| Four-step framework | Identify dilemma → Map stakeholders → Evaluate options → Recommend | Must know for case study Q |
| Consequentialism | Greatest good for greatest number (Mill/Bentham) | One of 2 frameworks to apply in answer |
| Deontology | Act from duty regardless of outcome (Kant) | Rights-based analysis in cases |
| Virtue ethics | What would a person of good character do? (Aristotle) | Character-based reasoning |
| Rawlsian fairness | Protect the worst-off (difference principle) | Tribal/poor-focused cases |
| Conflict of interest | Personal interest + official decision = must disclose and recuse | AIS Conduct Rules 1968 |
| Moral courage | Acting rightly despite personal risk | Whistleblowing, refusing unjust orders |
| Moral cowardice | Yielding to pressure against ethical judgment | "Banality of evil" risk |
| Whistleblower Protection Act | 2014 — protects bona fide disclosures of wrongdoing | Legal tool for Case Study 5 type |
| Banality of evil (Arendt) | Ordinary compliance enables extraordinary injustice | Warning for all case studies |
| Value rationality (Weber) | Act from ethical principle, not just efficiency | Underlying theme of all cases |
| LARR 2013 | SIA + 80% consent required before land acquisition in Schedule V | Case Study 1 legal basis |
| FRA/PESA | Forest Rights Act + PESA protect tribal land rights | Case Studies 1 and 3 |
| SDRF guidelines | Need-based, non-partisan disaster relief | Case Study 2 |