90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing Initiative · 1 NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | [email protected] 90 Days UPSC Mains Optional

1

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | [email protected]

90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing

Initiative

Philosophy – Paper 2

Question and Model Answers from Subject Experts

http://neostencil.com/

2


11-Dec-2017 – Question 1

“Sovereignty is the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by

law”. Discuss.(2016)

Model Answer

Sovereignty is derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’ which means supreme.

Sovereignty is an abstract concept which was essentially first given a description

by French philosopher Jean Bodin. According to him, Sovereignty can be defined

as the untrammeled and undivided power to make general laws. Therefore

Sovereign for Bodin is the absolute power over citizens and subjects without any

restraint. In Fact, the Sovereign is above the law and its source of law. This initial

conception of Sovereignty is essential since it came at a time when King(monarch)

faced restraints from both church and feudatories. Thus Bodin’s conception of a

sovereign in a way led to the establishment of absolute monarchy which was

necessary for consolidation of power and establishment of the capitalistic

economy in the West.

Even in the Indian History, Kautilya defined sovereignty as the absolute power in

the pluralistic monism(saptanga). The sovereign here is supreme command and

stands above the citizens and subjects. But is the sovereign supreme without any

checks? Even Bodin accepts that the King cannot go against some fundamental

laws (like Salic law ) and protection of private property. Even Kautilya says that

King must be wary of internal enemies and bad policy, if the King is cruel it can

lead to rebellions. Therefore both Bodin and Kautilya have accepted that even

though the sovereign as supreme they have invariably understood that sovereign


3


can’t go against some fundamental laws and thereby recognize that sovereignty

in actuality can’t be unrestrained in a true sense.


4



A well-ordered society, according to Rawls, is effectively regulated by a public

conception of justice. Do you agree? Give reasons.(2016)

Model Answer

John Rawls was a liberal philosopher who has given equal emphasis on liberty and

equality in his theory of justice. According to him, a fair procedure which is

accepted by all, and set up in a just manner will lead to justice in distribution. But

how does Rawls come to the public conception of justice? Rawls proposes a

method called ‘ veil of ignorance’ where rational individuals would be abstracted

from their original position and will be deciding on rules and procedures of

distribution without having any idea in what they would be receiving from it.

Therefore each member in such a case would safeguard his or her well-being

without being unjust to others. Such a procedure would be inherently just.

From the veil of ignorance Rawls proposes three principles which form the crux of

his justice theory. First, is the principle of equal liberty where each individual has

a protection of his liberty without sacrifice. Secondly, equal opportunity to all

which promotes equality. The third principle is difference principle which provides

for departure from the equal distribution only to benefit the least

disadvantaged.Rawls thus proposes a chain principle where a link is strengthened

at its weakest link leading to a stronger chain.

A well-ordered society is indeed effectively regulated by the public conception of

justice as Rawls has mentioned. Rawls has provided both liberty and equality on

equal footing which means that the order of society which results from such a


5


basis is fair and just without causing any loss of liberty of an individual. Since such

a conception is agreed by all in democratic basis, no individual can complain of

any bias in the procedure. The principle of difference makes such a justice system

egalitarian since it provides for going against the procedure to help the least

disadvantaged.


6



Is liberty a positive and equal opportunity of self-realization? Discuss.(2016)

Model Answer

Liberty is defined as the absence of restraint. Liberty is needed for every man

since he is a rational animal and in this sense, he should be free to use his rational

faculties to benefit for himself as well as the society through his actions. Such

actions are therefore should not be restrained externally. When we talk of

restraint, it is usually the state which oversees the citizen and in such a setting

liberty is negative right since it requires there be no restriction from the state

towards the citizen.

Thus liberty provides an opportunity for everyone to act without restraint. But is

it truly positive and equal? When we look at our societies, it can hardly be called

equal in any sense. In such a scenario, liberty of the capitalist will effectively mean

making an unhindered profit and the workers liberty to earn sufficient wages is

under threat. The liberty of master to command from his slave is much more than

the liberty of slave whose powers are limited.

Therefore when we look at the substantial meaning of liberty wherein each and

every one is unrestrained in his action, then we need to ensure that liberty of the

capitalist to earn profit is equal to that of liberty of worker to earn a decent wage

, the liberty of master to get work done is equal to liberty of slave to lead a

dignified life.


7


When we talk of the provision of support to fulfill the potential of an individual

we enter the realm of positive liberty. In its wide sense, positive liberty helps to

bring about empowerment of the individual by providing him with the necessary

power to enjoy his liberty. The legislation of state for minimum wage is nothing

but a positive step to ensure that laborers do not get exploited in the capitalistic

market set up where labor is a commodity in excess.

However, this notion of positive liberty trying to bring equal opportunity to all is

criticised by libertarian philosophers like Hayek who say that any restriction on

liberty of the individual to bring about equality is a sham. The society consists of

people with high talents and they should not be restrained in any manner to fulfill

equality criterion which is imaginary, According to Hayek, the society must let the

market factors to decide on how the individual benefits and the duty of a state is

to protect the individuals from erosion of their liberty.


8



Equality does not mean treating everyone equal. Discuss.(2015)

Model Answer

The notion of equality is not easy to define and in the modern sense equality is a

progressive concept meaning to remove or correct the existing inequalities which

are not based on rational grounds. Equality can be considered from two aspects.

One is the basis on which it is found. For example, we often say in the post ww2

era that ‘all humans are created equal and possess some unalienable rights’. The

basis of this statement is that all humans irrespective of their race, class, color,

caste, and sex are equal on the basis of consideration. This is a progressive

concept since when we look back at history most of the societies were

hierarchical and never equal. For example, the ancient Indian society was based

on four varnas which were hierarchical. Therefore the first aspect of the equality

is to establish the rational foundation on which equality will be based.

But will equal treatment by itself mean that there will an equal society

established? This is where the second aspect of the equality comes into the

picture. In an unequal society, the provision of equal treatment to all will

necessarily mean the continuation of pre-existing inequalities. French Philosopher

Rousseau makes an important distinction on inequalities which are natural and

conventional. Natural inequalities stem from nature like differences in age, color

etc over which we have little control. Conventional inequalities on other hand are

due to societal arrangements are very much in the society’s realm of correcting it.

For example, racial discrimination of blacks in US or Dalit discrimination in India.


9


Such inequalities can only be corrected by positively affirming the need to correct

these inequalities by providing essential support and thereby it goes beyond the

initial equal treatment. However, it is important to note that the inequalities must

not be to equalize rather correct the inequalities.

We see such equal treatment in our constitution in Art 14 and 15 which provide

formal equality on one hand but also have provisions to make a positive

affirmation in regards to women, children, and disadvantaged sections

upliftment.


10



On what grounds does Laski criticize Austin’s concept of sovereignty?(2016)

Model Answer

Austin’s theory of sovereignty is a monistic theory of sovereignty. According to

Austin, ‘ if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like

superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, then that

determinate superior is the sovereign’. Therefore it implies two things, one

sovereign is superior and two the subject is bound to habitual obedience. This

conception of Austin is purely legalistic in nature. In the sense that there is a law

which originates from supreme, it gets obeyed by citizens and it is punishable in

case of not obeying.

Such a monistic theory of sovereignty is vehemently criticised by Laski who

formulates a pluralistic concept of sovereignty. Laski raises important issues

against this concept. Firstly, the sovereign’s claim of legal omnipotence is fictional

since no law can be beyond the customary and social laws of a society. For

example, in Christian society however powerful the sovereign be it can’t bring in a

law to not worship the god. Secondly, Laski claims that sovereign is not the only

association in the society, in fact the society is made up of a number of such

associations and the state plays the regulator role and is one of such association

and cant claim supremacy. This concept is very important since Laski is accepting

that state is one amongst many associations. Laski also mentions of federal states

where the sovereign power is divided amongst the federation units.


11


Thirdly Laski also criticises that state or sovereign in an abstract concept and in

reality is composed by politicians and bureaucracy who are fallible men. Having

such huge power vested in sovereign can be dangerous as seen in ww2 where

states going to war caused tremendous human calamity.

Thus , Laski effectively proposes a pluralistic sovereign against Austin’s monistic

theory.


12



What is the significance of including duties of citizens in Indian

Constitution?(2013)

Model Answer

Indian constitution initially did not contain any section with respect to duties.

However, the 42nd amendment added the Art 51A which included fundamental

duties chapter. There is an important significance of this introduction. This

significance is that without performing duties effectively, the rights of individuals

cannot be guaranteed effectively.

Rights and duties are complementary conditions. No one can have right unless

others perform the duty and similarly no one will perform the duty if their rights

are not guaranteed. For example, my right to express my opinion freely implies

that I perform the duty of ensuring that others opinion is respected by me. If not

then there is bound to be an erosion of my own right to express my opinion. Thus

rights and duties are linked cyclically.

Mahatma Gandhi stressed the need for the society to be duty oriented so that

rights of all the citizens would be then respected. Gandhi vehemently criticises

the current nature of the society where there has been constant importance

given to rights and negligence towards duties. If labor does his duty of work, the

rich do their duty of upliftment of poor, society would automatically prosper was

the view of Gandhi.


13


The addition of duties is an emphasis on this aspect of Indian society.Some of the

duties involve the duty of conserving the collective conscience of the Indian

society by respecting its pluralistic diversity and respecting the ideals of the

freedom movement. The significance of these duties includes that citizens must

be mindful of their duty to respect the plurality which will in turn help build a

society of equal respect.


14



Is multiculturalism a need of global society? Discuss. (2015/15)

Model Answer

Multiculturalism is commonly defined as the presence of several distinct cultural

or ethnic groups within a society. It not only recognises cultural diversity but such

diversity should be publically affirmed as well.

Global society refers to a society that is being built in modern times in which all

the people of the world interact in common with one another. It is the result of

the increasing globalisation.

Multiculturalism started in the 1960s and now most countries accept it as their

official policy viz Canada, Australia and others. Colonisation, globalisation, World

Wars and trade played an important role in the spread of multiculturalism. Over

times different form of multiculturalism emerged like-

Liberal multiculturalism in which differentiates between public or private life.

Example- France, where people cannot display religious signs or symbols

publically.

Pluralist multiculturalism in which all culture exists together with no difference in

public or private life. Example- India.

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism, here different culture integrates into the

common/cosmopolitan culture. It is also called melting-pot culture. Example-

USA.

Before concluding whether multiculturalism is needed in global society or not, we


15


should look at the advantages of multiculturalism. They are: –

1. It highlights the issue of racial or cultural discrimination.

2. It helps in addressing the problems of refugees and immigrants.

3. It emphasized on minority rights which is essential for healthy democracy.

4. It negates the separatist and secessionist tendencies and helps in national

integration.

Hence for a stable, peaceful and prosperous society multiculturalism is very much

needed, especially in the 21st century.


16



How do we distinguish liberal humanism and Marxist humanism? (2014/10)

Model Answer

Marxism is definitely a completely different way of looking at interpreting

literature then liberal humanism. Having learned liberal humanism and starting to

try and fully grasp that concept of looking at a text and realizing it should go past

the time it was written and always be relevant. Good literature relates to human

nature which no matter the period or culture it should still hold true. Going from

that to now a Marxist view on literature which doesn’t necessarily transcend the

time in which it was written it is very culturally specific and holds true always for

that time period.

According to a liberal humanist approach to literature, human nature stays the

same throughout the ages. At first, many would look at that in disbelief but it

really holds true. No matter what time or place in history there are some core

elements that hold true. This makes literature always relatable because human

nature is not completely changing all the time. Marxism completely challenges

this idea with saying that literature is written to change the human nature of the

time. It keeps trying to change people’s thoughts and push the idea of a classless

society and all decisions should be made to better the society. It seems like a nice

idea but rather unrealistic opposed to liberal humanists.

Marxism has the belief that not only do you look inside the text to understand it

as liberal humanists say you should it is also or more important to look outside of

that. I do not completely agree that in order to fully understand a text you must


17


appreciate what was going on in the political, social and economical situation of

the times. That seems helpful to me but it is really not the end all be all to

interpreting meaning in a text. Text shouldn’t be judged better if a more educated

man wrote it than if a lesser educated man did. However, with that said I think

knowing information such as the author’s education gives the reader more insight

and can help get a better understanding of the text.

Note: The model Answer is for only your reference purpose and is not the ideal

answer for the


18



Analyse the statement with reasons that “Power corrupts, absolute power

corrupts absolutely”. (2014/20)

Model Answer

Politics is a sphere where power is an exercise to deliver public good. It is

generally said that- Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And

as a sphere influencing behaviours of people in society, ethics is very much

relevant to politics- where the social purpose is at the crux of the profession.

“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is the best-known

quotation of the 19th-century British politician Lord Acton. When someone

possesses control and authority over others, they become infected with evil and

wicked behaviours which began to dominate and destroy their minds. Like Hitler

and Mussolini, they desired absolute power which eventually leads to WWII.

Moreover, the desire to increase their respective ‘sphere of influence’ by the USA

and former USSR leads to cold war during the second half of the 20th century.

The cold war is rightly responsible for the instability in the West Asia and the

Korean peninsula.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely because of the examples in the history and

our modern world. This can be seen in Communist countries. All Communist

countries have been affected by corruption in one way or the other. Famous

examples include the Soviet Union, Cuba and China. To grab power Mao resorted

to utmost repression which can be traced from his quote, “power flows from the

barrel of the gun”. There was also corruption due to the absolute power found in


19


the colonial times. And this hunger for more and more power leads to WW1.

Now the question arises, why does power corrupt? It corrupts because it gives

license to unconscious and neglected personalities. It corrupts because it licenses

individuals to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose their will without having properly

engaged and processed through the reality at hand. Ruler often resorts to the

policy of blood and iron which results in sycophancy and nepotism and therefore

eroded the efficacy of the whole system. It hinders the growth of both the ruler

and the ruled.

Though there is corruption in today’s democratic societies unlike monarchy or

communist regime it has proper checks and balances to restore order if someone

uses their authority dishonestly. Also, power is essential to perform any action

but we need to make sure it must not be centralised.


20



Does corruption have not only a moral dimension but also an economic

dimension? (2013/10)

Model Answer

“We know that biggest disease of all is not a disease. It is corruption”

Corruption is spirituality or moral or deviation from an ethics. Corruption may

include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Political

corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in

an official capacity for personal gain.

Corruption is recognised as the single biggest problem facing the country today.

Corruption has serious adverse effects on the society and the economy and

corrodes the moral fibre of the people. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan1

observed at the time of the adoption of the Convention against Corruption:

Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on

societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of

human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organised

crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.

Kautilya considered human beings as fickle minded and their behaviour cannot

always be the same. The dishonesty, non-accountability, inconsistency, illegality

and inefficiency are all parts of this unethical behaviour. It is thus necessary for

the state to create a mechanism which can regulate the human conduct to reduce

the non-ethical behaviour.


21


Corruption is a manifestation of unethical behaviour where private gains are

made on the cost of public expenditure. Comparing the embezzling officials with

the fishes living in the water, whose drinking of water cannot be found out, He

suggested a system of checks and balances through spies, appointments on the

basis of educational qualifications and aptitude, an optimum size of officials with

frequent transferring and a system of rewards and recognition in place.

Through his views, Kautilya had highlighted the importance of duties in the life of

a human being and charted out a righteous way of living. At the same time, he

focussed his attention towards curing one of the severest maladies affecting

administration and governance, i.e, corruption, and had prescribed the system of

supervision, and financial accountability.

Therefore, we see from Kautilya’s teachings, that a righteous life, and a

transparent and accountable administration, are indeed necessary

requirements for the human society.


22



Which theory of punishment retributive or restorative, do you recommend and

why? (2014/20)

Model Answer

Retributive justice is a perspective that focuses on punishment for offenders,

while restorative justice focuses on the relationship between the offender and

the victim. In this lesson, we will explore their differences and how both play a

part in our judicial system.

Theories about what to do with convicted criminals. In essence, most (but not all)

can fit into two camps, utilitarian and retributive. Utilitarian theories focus on the

greater good of society, and any punishment should benefit the society as a

whole. Further, the punishment used should produce more good to society than

the harm of the crime. Utilitarian theories are forward-looking in that they look

to what’s best for society as a whole to keep crime down and people happy.

The flip side of the utilitarian approach is retributive punishment. Unlike

utilitarian ideas, the retributive theory is backward looking in that it looks only at

the crime and the surrounding circumstances before it deals out a punishment

that fits the crime. The criminal should get his or her just deserts, meaning that

the act itself carries a certain level of moral blameworthiness, and the

punishment should be commensurate with that moral deficit. The criminal now

owes a debt to society, and the punishment will pay for that debt.

So Where Does Restorative Justice Fit?


23


Restorative Justice doesn’t fit neatly into either camp but like the utilitarian

approach, its goal is also to benefit society by its approach. The theory focuses on

the harm done to the victim by healing the wounds and restoring the offender to

the community that has been affected by the crime. This is done by implementing

the four tenets of restorative justice.

The Four Tenets of the Restorative Justice Process

Process Application

Inclusion

Seek participation of all those involved: victim(s), friends of victim,

police, first responders, lawyers, correction personnel, and anyone

in the community who felt affected by the harm

Encounter Meet with those willing to participate

Amends Offender seeks forgiveness and issues apologies, agrees to pay for

damages or works to restore with the community

Reintegration

The entire process will hopefully allow the victim to return to pre-

harm condition, and the offender will seek out ways to re-enter the

community, through Participation with a tolerant group in the

community


24



Is a democratic government better than a benevolent dictatorship?

Give reasons for your answer. (250 words/UPSC 2013)

Model Answer

Democracy is based on the principles of liberty, equality, justice, fraternity,

tolerance and respect for all. While dictatorship is essentially based on the

principle of inequality and curtailment of liberty. It considers the dictator superior

than others. He is the law formulator and enforcer. No-one else can be the

dictator but his offsprings. Even though a benevolent dictator might ensure

liberty, equality, justice to some extent but these ideals can’t be implemented in

their entirety under a dictator. The very notion of dictatorship goes against liberty

and equality. Moreover, benevolence might not last forever with the generations

of the dictator.

Though benevolent dictatorship might be beneficial in case of crisis situation a

clear-cut decision can be taken by one person. It’s also beneficial for uniting

people in crisis situation as Dictator = Representative of God and nobody denies

his order to unite

Democracy, on the other hand, is essentially based on the principle of lib,

equality, justice, tolerance, fraternity and respect for all. It is characterized by

majority rule, constitutional govt., minority rights, one person-one vote etc. This

ensures that laws, rules, provisions made for realizing various philosophical ideas

reflect the collective will and conscience of people.


25


Democratic govt. creates conditions of freedom, ensures equality of

opportunities, and distributive justice. The Constitution enshrines the secular,

tolerant, accommodating provisions, which is not dependent on the will of one

person. Collective wisdom shall always be better than one’s benevolence for the

working of a state.

So, as Gandhiji said,” Swaraj is better than Suraj”.


26


08-Jan-2018 – Question 1

“Inequitable development leads to social conflicts rather than social progress.

“Explain. (2015/10)

Model Answer

In simple term, inequality can be defined as lack of equality. It can be of many

types like income inequality, social inequality, inequality in infrastructure etc. Any

form of equality may lead to social conflict.

According to Oxfam study, richest 1% own 58% of total wealth in India. Rich are

becoming richer, while poor are becoming poorer. Moreover, inequality in

infrastructure can be seen in the outcome of green revolution where states like

Western UP, Haryana and Punjab benefitted the most due to the availability of

irrigation, HYV of seeds, better road infrastructure for transportation of goods

and others.

Past haunts the present. Above mentioned inequalities result in large-scale

migration from eastern states to more prosperous states. In long runs, it results in

regionalism, which is against our constitutional values. Moreover, it has been

seen that least developed states score poorly in law and order situation,

education and health indices, corruption, high fertility rates among others. This

makes them prone to communal and caste-based tension. Also, inequitable

development may also generate demand for separate states like Telangana,

Bodoland, Gorkhaland etc.


27


Therefore, equitable development is necessary for the inclusive and all-round

development of any nation.


28



What does gender discrimination mean? Is not a violation of equality and social

justice? Discuss. (2015/15)

Model Answer

Gender Discrimination means discrimination in providing opportunities, services,

treatment etc on the bases of gender. Generally, women are the sufferers of

gender discrimination.

Forms of gender discrimination–

1. In family and society– male child is given more importance in comparison

to female child

2. Can also be seen in the upbringing and socialization process

3. No independent identity of women- always identified through man

(mother, daughter, sister, etc)- after marriage status of women changes

4. Sphere of Language– A/c to feminists, language reflects social psyche of

society- words denoting posts of power are male-identified- most abusive

words are associated with women, demand gender-neutral culture

5. In field of economy– There is no parity of wages between male and female,

domestic work is not considered as a productive labour, women are

discriminated in the inheritance of property, important economic posts are

held by men


29


6. Also, discriminated in the field of education, politics (deprived of political

decision making power) and religion (founders are men, men are head of all

religious sects, temple entry, etc)

Suggestion-

1. Outlook or thinking of society should be changed

2. Socialization process should be changed because they discriminate against

women

3. Economic empowerment of women

4. Political empowerment of women

5. Progressive laws in favour of women and its effective implementation

6. Role of NGOs should be encouraged

7. Male identification of women should be rejected

They are being discriminated in the home, at workplaces and the public sphere

too. The principle of equality holds that equal treatment for equally and unequal

treatment for unequal’s Hence women must be paid and recognised for their

equal contribution and are to provided with extra opportunities and facilities due

to their long subjugation by men. This discrimination hampers the delivery of

social justice and a does not go well with the dignity of women. But women

should break the glass ceiling and break the mental blockage and lead from the

front in every sphere of life. Men who have reached the top positions due to the

support of their wives and mothers should give them the due respect then only

social justice will be delivered and the dignity of women will be ensured.


30



Does economic empowerment of women eliminate gender discrimination?

Discuss. (2015/15)

Model Answer

Socially, economically or politically discriminate against any person on the basis of

sex is called gender discrimination. Particularly, this term is used for

discrimination against women globally.

Globalisation along with IT revolution acted as a stepping stone for the economic

empowerment of women. However, this provided financial independence to

women but we cannot certainly say that it brings real empowerment of women or

not. It can be reflected in the gender inequality index of India, which stands at

130 out of 155 countries. There are widespread cases of sexual harassment of

women at workplaces, which prompts the government to bring into legislation to

curb this menace. There are cases of ‘Panchayat Pati’ where women are elected

representative but the decisions are taken by her husband. The commodification

of women is also a matter of great concern. Women are ‘used’ to sell everything

from toothpaste to automobiles.

According to a study conducted by consulting firm Mckinsey& Co., women are

less likely than men to get top corporate jobs worldwide. No women President is

elected in US till date. Even in 21st-century women in some countries are not

allowed to drive. It is only in the late 1970s that Switzerland allowed women to

cast vote as par with men.

1) participation in decision making in family matters increase.


31


2) money gives you confidence as psychology says.

3) More women participation in economic activities creates an atmosphere well

adopted according to women need hence increase economic as well as gender

empowerment.

However, there are cases where out of sheer determination women have been

proved that they are no less than men. Some of the examples are Madam Curie,

Razia Sultan, Kalpana Chawla, Angela Markel and others.

Hence, for real empowerment of women patriarchal mindset of the society must

be challenged head-on, strict legislation- its implementation & time bound justice

delivery should be the focus of the legislators, executive and judiciary. Media and

civil society should use its reach to raise awareness of gender discrimination.

Charity begins at home; therefore, we must ensure that parents should provide

equal privileges to both girl and boy child. If we do not empower 50% of our

population then dream of empowered society or nation is very distant.


32



Evaluate Ambedkar’s critique of caste system. (2015/20)

Model Answer

It is said that the roots of Ambedkar’s philosophy were not in politics but in

religion, particularly the Hindu religion which laid the foundation of the caste

system. His socio-political thought began with his criticism of Hindu religion

because of its evil practices of the caste system and seeking (or presenting)

solutions for untouchables to free from this evil practice.

Critique of Caste System

Caste not merely a division of labour but a division of labourers: The evil practice

in Hindu religion is the practice of casteism and the categorisation of certain

sections of people as Untouchables. Ambedkar proved this. Many Hindus

including Gandhi defended caste system on many grounds, the first being the

division of labour as necessary for a civilized society. However, Ambedkar said

that caste system as such is not merely division of labour, but it is also a division

of labourers. Moreover, it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are

graded one above the other

The caste system is unnatural: In such a system, the division of labour is not

spontaneous; such a system is not based on individual choice. Individual

sentiments and individual preferences have no place in it. It is based on the

dogma of predestination.


33


Caste cannot preserve a non-existent ‘racial purity’: Some Hindus opine that the

object of Caste was to preserve the purity of blood.

Caste ‘is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a

perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it

in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors

Caste does not result in economic efficiency; caste does not and has not

improved the race. The only thing that caste has done is that it has completely

disorganised and demoralized the Hindus.

Hindu society is merely a collection of castes: Ambedkar says that the Hindu

society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes

Caste destroys the public spirit, public opinion and public charity: The caste

system prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has

prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with unified life and a

consciousness of its own being. It encourages hatred of one caste by another

The Annihilation of Caste

In his work, ‘Annihilation of Caste’, Ambedkar declared:

“It is not possible to break caste without annihilating the religious notions on

which it, the caste system, is founded”.

Ambedkar wanted to bring a change in the practice of Hindu religion. He

suggested the following in this regard:


34


1. There should be only one standard book of Hindu religion, acceptable to all

Hindus and recognized by all Hindus;

2. Priesthood among Hindus should be abolished or at least cease to be

hereditary;

3. No person who does not hold a ‘sanad’ should be allowed to officiate as a

priest;

4. A priest should be subject to the disciplinary action by the state regarding

his morals, beliefs and worship, and should be bound to the ordinary law of

the land as in the case of other ordinary citizens.


35



Is there any impact of caste discrimination on democracy in Indian context?

(2013/10)

Model Answer

“Caste System in India: A Open Drainage!”

India a nation of diverse culture not only that holds good but also a land of

diverse problems. Caste is the most confused knot of all social problems. Religion

is just a belief change anytime of the life, but caste is a constant which don’t

change even occupation and social status changes. Caste is like Iomega value

simply a mere constant doesn’t change in any situation. We can’t change caste

but we can eradicate caste from our society. we can’t expect the politician to talk

about casteless society because they want people to be divided.

Every party in India is strongly backed by a caste. So, they don’t allow people to

get united in casteless society because of it difficult for minor caste party to

remain in the politics. There Dalit parties in India from north to south which

project them self as voice of SC’s and ST’s. Since independence no changes as

came to this section of people. Top leaders and politicians play caste politics to

sustain in power and earn wealth. No equality in the society both economically

and socially.

Any Educated youth had the concern to know the impact Of Caste?

o Denies Change of Occupation caste system most probably opposes

the change of work. An SC and ST can’t start doing a business,


36


agriculture etc run successfully. Even today other than Brahmins

can’t enter temple goddess premises.

o Untouchability – sinful act still in practice of the 21st century. Even

today you can’t find deprived part of the society can’t enter temple

premises and many maintain distance from the lower caste don’t

allow inside their house.

o No unity caste system only increases the hate, anger but never

create brotherliness. Still, many people of different caste have a

different style of living.

o Lack of Social Progress since caste is an age-old system which is

followed traditionally. So people find it difficult to accept the new

ideal and scientific principles.

o Democracy Failure India is the world’s largest democracy but

everyday democracy fails. Even today you can’t find a Dalit candidate

contesting the non-Dalit reserved constitution.

o Women Slavery Caste system encourages child marriage and

opposes remarriage. Women are treated only as a sex machine. The

caste system is like a Hitler fascism principle. No caste in India

respects women rights and their feelings.

o Communal Violence Caste system keeps on suppressing a section of

people. It forces lower caste people to take weapons in their hand.

Naxalite, Maoist etc. movements are just an aggression of lower

caste people on economic inequality.


37


Still, we need to walk-through long path to eradicating Caste?

Improve Education Only education can increase the think of the people and

unite people. Caste system exists only because of ignorance of the people.

Education can bring next-generation new blood without caste.

Promote Inter-Caste Marriage Society must provide special offers for

people who does inter-caste marriage. Inter-caste marriage will change the

next generation people without knowing caste.

Eliminate Caste Word Government must pass a law like untouchability to

make caste a criminal word. No form or government policy must have caste

oriented approach.

Economic Stability we need government economic policy to focus on

overall development of all section of the people.

Eradicate Timeless Reservation We need to remove reservation after first

generation receiving the benefits of reservation. Continuous is also a

reason for caste development.

Nationalize We need to take a tough decision by bringing every temple,

water, road’s etc under the nationalized policy; which makes people access

to all resources.


38



What do you understand by ‘gender equality’ and why is it important?

(2013/15)

Model Answer

Gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights and

opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and

decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of

women and men are equally valued and favoured.

Gender equality means giving women equal rights like men- but gender

empowerment means to empower women with decision making power in various

aspects of life

Equality of rights may formally end gender discrimination but in actual practice,

their situation might not be improved therefore gender empowerment is a

deeper form of bringing parity between men and women

Forms of empowerment-

1. Social empowerment- decision making power to women- education

is the most important means- women participation in social matters-

abolition of social inequality is essential for this

2. Economic empowerment- to give women effective decision-making

power, so that they could decide the course of development- more

employment opportunities, parity of wage- gender budgeting


39


3. Political Empowerment- decision-making power on political issues,

representation in legislature, recruitment to important political post

are essential for this

Suggestions-

o Socio-cultural perspective towards women should be changed

o Proper education and health facilities

o Effective control over national wealth

o Representation to legislature and recruitment to key political posts

o Domestic violence and crime against women should be prevented

o Gender budgeting

Various attempts in India for women empowerment-

1. Special marriage act, 1954- minimum marriage age raised to 18 years

2. Hindu Succession act, 1956- share in ancestral property

3. Dowry prohibition act, 1961- dowry punishable offence

4. Sati prevention act, 1987- strictly punishable offence

5. Criminal law act, 1983- prevented some forms of domestic violence

6. National Commission for women set up in 1990

7. Rashtriya Mahila kosha, 1993- easy loan and economic assistance

8. 73rd and 74th amendment act, 1/2 to 1/3 seats reserved in panchayats

and municipalities

9. Domestic violence act, 2005


40



Write a critical note on the attributes of God. (2015/10)

Model Answer

The term ‘attributes of God’ refers to qualities describing God, or characteristics

of the divine nature, as God has revealed them to us in Scripture.

Omniscient

1. Important attribute of god

2. Power to know everything- past, present and future

3. To explain god as

1. Object of worship

2. Perfect and highest entity

3. Law of karma

Problems

Freedom of will- bound to act a/c to God’s knowledge (Solution- psychologist-

doesn’t affect freedom of will)

Sinful activities

Omniscient v/s eternity (God has knowledge of material object- changes in

object- change in knowledge- change in god- Eternity is compromised) (Solution-

On level of god there is no difference b/w past, present and future)- god is

aware of every level so there is no change at his level


41


Omnipresent

1. Important attribute of god

2. Present everywhere and in everything, all-pervading

3. Accepted as perfect and infinite.

Problems-

Eternity v/s prayer- If prayer brings change, eternity is not there (God has

many other qualities- no change)

Worshipper and worshipped difference goes away

Present in every –ve object too

Presence of evil

Difficult to explain change and destruction

Eternity

1. Theists unanimously affirm that God exists eternally- neither beginning nor

end

2. Different possibilities- Timeless, Everlasting and eternal and temporal

3. Timeless– God exists outside of time

o God has neither temporal extension nor temporal location- no

before, during and after (Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm)

o He knows all events timelessly

o A perfect model of existence is timeless rather than temporal (means

change with time- not compatible with god)


42


o Relativity theory- time and space are conjoined- none exists without

other- God is non-spatial so he must be timeless or non-temporal as

well

o Objection- Timelessness would restrict God’s knowledge to timeless

truths only, such as ‘two plus two equals four’

4. Everlasting– Neither beginning nor end, yet God exists temporally- forever

in time

o God is actively involved in the world- has a history of the world-

performing a succession of events

o God must have certain temporal relations with the world- so he must

be temporal

5. Eternal and temporal–

o God existed without temporal duration, but at the creation of the

universe God was drawn into temporal relation

o Supported by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig

o Objection- Incoherent view- God capable of changing even in

timeless state- no change is possible without time- God could not

have been fully timeless


43



Do you think that evil is a bitter pill which no theist can swallow? Discuss.

(2015/15)

Model Answer

The problem of the evil i.e. simultaneous presence of God’s benevolence his

omnipotence and Evil is a big question posed to theists. Which they try to defend

in different ways.

Evil is of two types Moral and Natural, Moral evil is man-made such as robbery,

murder etc. while Natural evil is due to nature ex: Earthquake, Tsunami etc.

Theists defend it in two ways such as:

1. Instrumentalist viewpoint, where they say that evil is an instrument of god

to create a better world, it is like a prophylactic, further it is necessary for

the existence and realization of good.

2. Free- willists : they say that God has awarded Man with free will so it is his

discretion to not to choose the wrong path and try to purify himself so as to

make oneself fit for the companionship of the God. Although this path is

risky.

The defences are criticised in majorly two ways:

1. Freud, call it wish fulfilment hypothesis I.e. to satisfy parental love and see

universal justice and subsistence of self even after death.


44


2. Neuroscientists call it the effect of Prophylactic drugs, frontal lobe

simulation etc.

So, the defence of evil lies in the realm of faith.


45



Is god indispensable for religion? (2013/10)

Model Answer

Religion without God is possible or not totally depends on meaning of “religion”

and “god”

1. If we accept first 2 meaning (dharma) of Religare, then we can say religion

without God is possible- Jainism and Buddhism are religion

2. If third meaning is also included then problem arises regarding Jainism and

Buddhism as god is basically not accepted

Problem-

In Jainism and Buddhism- no power beyond man and no ever-living god-

Westerners do not treat them as religion- only as ethical systems

Theistic statements are meaningless a/c to linguistic and analytic

philosophers but non-theistic statements in religion and nirvanist

statements are untouched by linguistic attack- so religion does not become

impossible

Religion is not identical to theism- main aim of religion is not to pray god-

other important features too- total commitment to an object of devotion,

law of karma, etc- Buddhism and Jainism have these features


46


Indian concept–

1. Religion is generally translated as “dharma” but popular meaning of religion

comes close to “panth” in fact

2. Dharma encompasses-

1. Morality

2. Performance of duties

3. Social and ethical values

4. God as transcendental entity may not necessarily be included in

dharma

3. Dharma according to Gandhi-

1. The performance of duty in as wide a sphere as one’s intellect can

compass

2. Prime objective of life, one may believe in god or not but if he feels

kinship with all life, he is truly religious

Thus, Religion in Indian context may or may not include god and is possible

without it such as Jainism and Buddhism

In western definition 2 things stand out-

1. A concern with supernatural agency

2. A life of commitment issuing into all-pervasive pattern of behaviour

On this basis, religion without god is questionable

History of religion is a witness to religions without god called atheistic religions or

nirvanist religions


47



Is God, the cause of natural evil? Explain. (2015/10)

Model Answer

The term ‘evil’ refers to physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness.

Natural evils are bad consequences that apparently derive entirely from the

operations of impersonal natural forces. Ex- suffering produced by natural

calamities such as earthquakes, cyclones, floods, famines etc.

Theists say that natural evils are created by God and they said it was done for the

promotion of goodness and to punish the evils. But this view was criticised by

Atheists by saying that if natural evils are the creation of God then we have no

right to interfere or minimize the impact of natural evil. Also, during natural

calamities, not only evils but good-hearted people and animals also suffer.

When theists were unable to scientifically explain the natural evil, they blindly put

the blame on God. However, modern science provides scientific evidence to

explain the natural evil. In fact, natural evils are inevitable and are regarded as

necessary to balance the energy flow of the atmosphere. Hence, God is not the

cause of natural evil.


48



Is existence of God being a necessary condition for the survival of religion?

Explain. (2015/10)

Model Answer

Galloway– Man’s faith in a power beyond himself where he seeks to satisfy his

emotional needs and gain stability in life, which is expressed in acts of worship

and service

The existence of God is not the necessary condition for the survival of religion

because there are religions like Jainism and Buddhism which do not believe in

God but still survives even before the Christian era.

Buddhism is essentially a humanistic religion which takes man as the highest

being. There is no God and therefore man is inferior to none. He himself is the

central object of the religion. He can himself attain Godhood, the state of

perfection. What is eternal is the transcendental spiritual status known as

Nirvana. Man is capable of attaining this highest status by his own personal

efforts. He doesn’t require the grace of any superior power. Likewise, Jainism also

focussed on attaining kaivelya without any reference to God. But unlike,

Buddhism they believe bounded-soul, which needs to be liberated.

Hence, the central concept of religion without God is to promote fraternity &

morality among human beings and their physical & spiritual up liftmen etc.


49



Examine the Nyaya arguments in favor of the existence of God. (2015/20)

Model Answer

Nyaya believes in one eternal, omnipotent and omniscient God. God is the

efficient cause, creator, sustainer and the destroyer. He is the moral governor full

of sadashvarya . He is beyond bondage, birth and death and is the lord of karmas.

They gave certain proofs for the existence of God:

1. Causal argument: A pot cant come on its own then how can this world

come on its own .

2. Adrasta: There must be a being who distributes the fruits of the actions

3. Authority of the scriptures: Conditional humans cant be the authors of the

Vedas. Divine God is .

4. Testimony of Shruti: Vedas are revealed and God existences is talked about.

5. Dynamism to atoms: He is the efficient cause

6. World support: He is the support of the world.

7. Word Meaning: He is the power who gives meaning to the words.

Critical comments: For creation, the God is dependent on the material cause, so

he must be both material and efficient cause. Secondly, you say that eternal

consciousness is the inseparable attribute of God but according to your

consciousness comes in Bondage. This is Contradictory.


50


05-Feb-2018 – Question 1

How do you justify rebirth with or without the soul ? (2014/10)

Model Answer

Rebirth can be defined as taking birth again after death. In the Indian context,

rebirth is a most important concept in view of the law of karma and process of

rebirth will continue till the individual find liberation.

It is generally believed by different religious philosophies that when the soul falls

into bondage then the cycle of death and birth begins. And causes are accepted as

action and Kaseya by Jainism and Trishna and avidya by Buddhism.

Rebirth with soul

In this believe, it is accepted that soul is immortal and theory of transmigration of

the soul is the basis of rebirth. Plato is believed to accept transmigration of the

soul.

Rebirth is accepted in Indian philosophy, where the independent existence of the

soul is accepted. In this way, the immortality of the soul is important to explain

the law of karma and rebirth. After death, soul only changes body because it is

eternal in nature. Rebirth is transmigration of the soul which means soul changes

body from one to another.

Rebirth without a soul

According to Buddhism, everything in this world is changeable and soul is not an

exception to this either. Therefore, the conception of immortal soul is not


51


accepted here. Though Buddhism has accepted rebirth and law of karma. As per

Buddhism, the soul is not eternal and it aggregates of five changeable skandhas.

Buddhism has explained continuity of life with the example of the flame of a

lamp. There is cause and effect relation between antecedent and subsequent

state of life.

In another way, carvaka has altogether rejected the concept of rebirth and

according to him, the soul is also destroyed after the death of the body, which

gives the concept of dehatmvada.

Hume has also rejected the concept of the permanent and eternal soul.


52



What is the central concept in a religion without God? Discuss. (2010/15)

Model Answer

The conception of religion without God is atheism, that is, don’t accept or

altogether deny the existence of God. Our rational understanding, knowledge,

scientific development and materialistic ideas support this conception. Our

knowledge and experience in terms of God and world consist of only material

objects.

Atheism can be divided into Materialistic and Non-materialistic. Former consider

the matter as the ultimate reality of this universe. It has a mechanical explanation

with no ultimate aim. It doesn’t see any purpose in the creation of this universe.

They don’t accept the law of karma. Charvaka and modern scientific views believe

in materialistic atheism.

Non-Materialistic atheism has the teleological explanation. It has a spiritual goal.

It accepts values, rebirth, spiritual goal, the law of karma and emphasis on the

ultimate purpose of the life on earth.

Moreover, in Indian context religion is generally translated as ‘Dharma’, which

comprises morality, the performance of duties and social & ethical values. Here,

God as a transcendental reality is not necessary as can be seen in Jainism and

Buddhism. According to Gandhi Ji, one may believe in God or not but if he feels

the kinship with all beings, he is truly religious.


53


Hence, the central concept of religion without God is to promote fraternity &

morality among human beings, physical & spiritual upliftment etc.


54



What are the arguments given in favour of immortality of soul ? (2014/10)

Model Answer

The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates specific

attitude towards the life and world of religious persons. The soul is generally

regarded as a non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is eternal and

simple in nature.

Arguments in the favour of the immortality of the soul:

As per Plato, the soul is by nature simple and indivisible, therefore it can neither

be produced nor destroyed. Plato has also accepted soul as the knower. For him,

the soul is the base of knowledge. And knowledge is eternal and universal.

Therefore, the base of knowledge that is the soul is also eternal in nature.

Kant has regarded soul as immortal on the basis of postulates of the morality.

There are some instances where children have revealed the memory of previous

life which is paranormal arguments for the immortality of the soul.

In another view, the soul is accepted as the form of energy, and from the

conservation of law of energy, we can say that soul is immortal. The soul is also

accepted as the immortal on the basis of the conservation of the values.

In Indian philosophy, the immortality of the soul has major significance. Many

philosophers have accepted it explain the ‘law of karma’. According to Sankhya


55


‘satkaryavada’, the immortality of the soul is explained. It is also written in Gita

that soul is the part of God, therefore eternal in nature.

However, such concepts are criticised by the materialistic philosopher Carvaka,

who was in view that with the destruction of the body, the soul also destroyed,

and this theory is called ‘Dehatmvada’.

As per Buddhism, soul is nothing but the aggregate of five skandhas, which is

changeable in nature. As per Hume also, soul or self is nothing but the bundle of

different impressions.

In spite of such criticism, the immortality of soul plays important role in the west

as well as in the east. And it also plays a vital role to explain the ‘law of karma’

and moral life.


56



Do reason and faith go together? Discuss.(2015/10)

Model Answer

It has been generally presumed that faith and reason are in conflict with each

other. In reality, faith and reason work together seamlessly to help us understand

the world and beyond in a better way.

Faith and reason actually work very well together. In fact, faith is a prerequisite

for the reason. In order to reason about anything, we must have faith that there

are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning. Since

laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type

of faith.

Since reason would be impossible without logic, which stems from the faith, we

have a very good reason for our faith: without our faith, we could not reason.

Though the role of reason is secondary for getting religious knowledge, its role is

necessary. It is necessary for keeping blind faith from religion and attaching values

to religion. Religion-based terrorism is increasing due to the negative impact of

reason. Hence, reason and faith are not counter but complementary to each

other.


57



What is the nature of mystical experience? (2013/15)

Model Answer

Mystical experience is a one of the deepest religious experience, which is in

purest and concentrated form. It is the cutest, intense, and living experience of

supreme reality. Mystics claim to have the most direct and intimate experience of

the divine presence.

Due to nature of mystical experience, it is open to different interpretations.

Nature of mystical experiences:

It is absolutely different from the ordinary experience. It is completely devoid of

all perceptions, thoughts, emotions, desires etc. It is this element of

indescribability which makes it a mystic experience.

In such an experience, there is a great element of subjectivity. Most often, mystics

experience is understood as individual communion with supreme reality. One can

receive these very subjective experiences as vision, dreams, revelations etc.

Mystical experience defies expression because it has no adequate report of its

content which can be given in words. It is essentially extra-rational elements. It is

some sort of revelation and illumination. It is also not permanent but transitory in

nature.

Therefore, such nature makes this experience open to different interpretations.

Sometimes the mystic state is criticised as the neurotic state. In the neurotic,


58


social adjustment and mental integration is lacking. But in mystical experiences

comprise these things. These mystic peoples are highly significant and in fact,

they are to be called as supernormal states.


59



Is the idea of immortality of soul utopian or it is realizable ? Discuss (2012/20)

Model Answer

The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates a

specific attitude of life and world of a religious person. The soul is regarded as a

non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is different from the body,

mind and sense organs. ‘Immortality of soul’ refers to the survival of the soul even

after the death of the body, thus it believes in the eternal existence of the soul.

The immortality of the soul has been maintained by both western and eastern

philosophers. Among westerners- Plato, Kant and Descartes are the prominent

ones. Semitic religion like Islam, Christian and Judaism believe that body is

essential for the soul and after the death immortality of the soul is maintained

through a new resurrected body.

In Indian philosophy, Materialists like Charvaka and Buddhists rejects the

conception of permanent soul and others accept the existence of disembodied

soul though they differ about the nature of the soul like Sankhya equated soul

with Purusa and so on.

Several arguments have been proposed to prove the immortality of the soul viz.

metaphysical and epistemological argument by Plato, moral arguments by Kant,

an argument based on conservation of energy, an argument based on

conservation of values etc. Similarly, counter-arguments are also proposed by the


60


disbelievers to prove their viewpoints. The argument based on humanism or this

worldliness is one of the foremost among them.

Various arguments to prove the immortality of the soul has been enumerated by

the Indian Schools of philosophy. It includes- law of karma, the authority of Vedas

& Bhagwat Gita. Moreover, according to Gita, the soul is a part of God and hence

it cannot be mortal. However, Charvaka and Buddhism rejected the whole idea of

soul and said there is no such thing as a soul.

Therefore, we may conclude that the immortality of the soul can neither be

proved nor disproved by the mere arguments. Moreover, in the realm of religion

and ethics, belief and faith have very significant role dominated by personal

beliefs of the individuals.


61



What is the nature of mystical experience? (2013/15)

Model Answer

Mystical experience is a one of the deepest religious experience, which is in

purest and concentrated form. It is the cutest, intense, and living experience of

supreme reality. Mystics claim to have the most direct and intimate experience of

the divine presence.

Due to nature of mystical experience, it is open to different interpretations.

Nature of mystical experiences:

It is absolutely different from the ordinary experience. It is completely devoid of

all perceptions, thoughts, emotions, desires etc. It is this element of

indescribability which makes it a mystic experience.

In such an experience, there is a great element of subjectivity. Most often, mystics

experience is understood as individual communion with supreme reality. One can

receive these very subjective experiences as vision, dreams, revelations etc.

Mystical experience defies expression because it has no adequate report of its

content which can be given in words. It is essentially extra-rational elements. It is

some sort of revelation and illumination. It is also not permanent but transitory in

nature.

Therefore, such nature makes this experience open to different interpretations.

Sometimes the mystic state is criticised as the neurotic state. In the neurotic,


62


social adjustment and mental integration is lacking. But in mystical experiences

comprise these things. These mystic peoples are highly significant and in fact,

they are to be called as supernormal states.


63



Is the idea of immortality of soul utopian or it is realizable ? Discuss (2012/20)

Model Answer

The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates a

specific attitude of life and world of a religious person. The soul is regarded as a

non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is different from the body,

mind and sense organs. ‘Immortality of soul’ refers to the survival of the soul even

after the death of the body, thus it believes in the eternal existence of the soul.

The immortality of the soul has been maintained by both western and eastern

philosophers. Among westerners- Plato, Kant and Descartes are the prominent

ones. Semitic religion like Islam, Christian and Judaism believe that body is

essential for the soul and after the death immortality of the soul is maintained

through a new resurrected body.

In Indian philosophy, Materialists like Charvaka and Buddhists rejects the

conception of permanent soul and others accept the existence of disembodied

soul though they differ about the nature of the soul like Sankhya equated soul

with Purusa and so on.

Several arguments have been proposed to prove the immortality of the soul viz.

metaphysical and epistemological argument by Plato, moral arguments by Kant,

an argument based on conservation of energy, an argument based on

conservation of values etc. Similarly, counter-arguments are also proposed by the


64


disbelievers to prove their viewpoints. The argument based on humanism or this

worldliness is one of the foremost among them.

Various arguments to prove the immortality of the soul has been enumerated by

the Indian Schools of philosophy. It includes- law of karma, the authority of Vedas

& Bhagwat Gita. Moreover, according to Gita, the soul is a part of God and hence

it cannot be mortal. However, Charvaka and Buddhism rejected the whole idea of

soul and said there is no such thing as a soul.

Therefore, we may conclude that the immortality of the soul can neither be

proved nor disproved by the mere arguments. Moreover, in the realm of religion

and ethics, belief and faith have very significant role dominated by personal

beliefs of the individuals.


65



If God is regarded as ‘one’ , will it give rise to religious conflicts ? (2014/10)

Model Answer

Religious conflict over “God” has been a part of history and it has its spill overs in

philosophy. Various religion interprets God in different ways:

For Judaism: God is same as that of Christianity, except the prophets of both

religion are different.

For Islam: God is Allah, while Muhammad is prophet

For Hinduism: which has different sects, believes in monotheism as well as

polytheism.

For Christianity: God is one, indivisible and universal cause of all existence

if with such interpretations of God, if it is quantified as One or even qualified as

One, it is bound to create conflicts.

Yet it’s true, religion has been a major feature in some historical conflicts and the

most recent wave of modern terrorism. Religion has taken on extra significance

today because globalisation is challenging and changing everything. Religious

identity not only survives but can take on heightened significance when national

and political alliances

“Wash your face before bed so the angels will come down and kiss you while you

sleep.”


66



How do you formulate religious language as non-cognitive ? (2014/15)

Model Answer

There have been some critics who argued there has to be a comparative element

to any human language used to describe God. This is impossible as God is beyond

any true human understanding. Analogies are meaningless in describing God as

they are limiting God to what he actually is.

Ian Ramsey developed the term analogy using terms: model and qualifier. Model

has a straight forward meaning when it is applied to ordinary things which we

experience but it is also used to describe God. Qualifier is the way in which the

model is developed. Therefore, a qualifier is essential. This is a word in which it

shows how the word is applied to God. The qualifier is to make clear it is

enhanced infinitely when applied to God. It demonstrates greatness in the quality

when applied to God.

Paul Tillich and J. R. Randall had similar ideas concerning religious language. Tillich

used ordinary language to point to God but spoke of the words used as

symbols.Tillich held God could only be described using symbols but never literally.

He said the symbol is transcending meaning something in it’s own sense which

points to something greater of higher in reality.

1. R. Randall sees religious language as a human activity which makes a special

contribution to human culture. Religious language has a very unique


67


function. It is able to stir strong emotion and to bind communities together

through a common response to their faith.

Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of words is in their use, the

function they use as agreed by a particular group or society using them. He said

every activity has their own unique language and Wittgenstein regarded this

rather like a game with its own set of rules. Language games exist within all forms

of human activities and lives.

He said people who are not in the game will not understand the use of the

language and will find it meaningless to them. Religious belief has its own

language and non believers will find religious language meaningless as they are

not in the religious “game.” Problems develop when the language “goes on

holiday.” This is when words are used outside of their context and we use

ordinary language to describe God. This should never happen.

Wittgenstein has acquired some critics to his theory. The first is that different

faiths have a different language game and it is extremely difficult to share those

differences between the religions. Secondly, all religious believers are involved in

different language games in one way or another. Religious language has not

become totally isolated so there must be a common ground between religious

language and other language games. If there is a common ground, non believers

are able to understand religious language and decide whether or not it has a

meaning for them. Thirdly, non believers might be able to understand the

language better than a religious believer as they have an objective view on the


68


use of the religious language. Believers take the language for what it is and cannot

be subject to anything else.

In conclusion, believers would agree it is difficult to talk about God. The meaning

of the word God applies to a being beyond human understanding. Believers

recognise that any discussion of God is limited, but they would argue religious

language does have meaning and purpose.


69



How can religious language be verified?Is it correct to say that religious

language is verified because it can not be falsified? Discuss.(2015/20)

Model Answer

Religious language is trans empirical hence difficult to verify but there are

different views regarding it such is cognitive, semi cognitive and non-cognitive.

Cognitive view says that religious language is verifiable and a theist can very well

experience the presence of god in his life, further Theory of Eschatology is

advanced which saws that at the end time everything will be explained.

Theory of analogy which was given by Palleys watch analogy was utilized by

Aquinas to refute equivocal and unequivocal language for God. Finally, the non-

cognitivists like RB Brethwite believe that religious language is not cognizable but

is a moral assertion and its evidence can be seen in the life of the follower. So, it is

non-cognitive but meaningful.

Further, Antony flew deny it on the basis that it can’t be also falsified. Hence a

description which can’t be falsified is not correct. So, he denies Religious

language.

Logical positivists completely deny any metaphysical description as non-cognitive

and meaningless. AJ Ayer completely rejects it on the basis of no empirical

verifiability.


70


Finally, later Wittgenstein accept the limitation of language and propose the

Game theory.

Finally, Religious language is a source of knowledge for the believer but has no

empirical verifiability hence its acceptance lies in the realm of faith.


71



How can religious language be verified?Is it correct to say that religious

language is verified because it can not be falsified? Discuss.(2015/20)

Model Answer

Religious language is trans empirical hence difficult to verify but there are

different views regarding it such is cognitive, semi cognitive and non-cognitive.

Cognitive view says that religious language is verifiable and a theist can very well

experience the presence of god in his life, further Theory of Eschatology is

advanced which saws that at the end time everything will be explained.

Theory of analogy which was given by Palleys watch analogy was utilized by

Aquinas to refute equivocal and unequivocal language for God. Finally, the non-

cognitivists like RB Brethwite believe that religious language is not cognizable but

is a moral assertion and its evidence can be seen in the life of the follower. So, it is

non-cognitive but meaningful.

Further, Antony flew deny it on the basis that it can’t be also falsified. Hence a

description which can’t be falsified is not correct. So, he denies Religious

language.

Logical positivists completely deny any metaphysical description as non-cognitive

and meaningless. AJ Ayer completely rejects it on the basis of no empirical

verifiability.


72


Finally, later Wittgenstein accept the limitation of language and propose the

Game theory.

Finally, Religious language is a source of knowledge for the believer but has no

empirical verifiability hence its acceptance lies in the realm of faith.


73



Can pluralist perspective vindicate Absolute Truth ? (2014/10)

Model Answer

Religious pluralism is evident due to different claims of different religions; these

claims are sometimes even contradictory. This leads to the problem of absolute

truth. Thinkers have tried to synthesize them for a harmonious existence.

Pluralism find its manifestation in Atheism, Agnosticism, Religious Relativism,

Religious inclusivity, Religious exclusivists . Their claims are challenged by Myth of

neutrality, that there is no objective criteria to decide that what is true and Justice

objection which holds that how can salvation be denied to unaware people.

Further John Hick gives the pluralistic hypothesis which can be compared to the

story of 6 binds and an elephant but the synthesis can be found in aspectual

hypothesis and the Saydvada of Jainas which hold that absolute truth has many

aspects and different religions are knowing only the partial few aspects of it.

However plurality does not diminish the stature of the absolute it only increase its

number of aspects . While the interreligious harmony lies in accepting and

appreciating the differences as suggested by Dalai Lama.


74



What is meant by saying that religious is non-cognitive? (2013/15)

Model Answer

Religious language is non-cognitive is to say that religious statement are neither

analytical nor can be empirically verified. It is supported by A.J.Ayer, Carnap, Flew,

Braithwaite and R.M.Hare.

According to Ayer and Carnap, religious statements are the expression of feeling

and emotions of the religious persons. As per Ayer, only that statement is

meaningful which is either analytical or empirically verified. It is therefore,

religious statements are meaningless from the cognitive point of view. In fact,

they are pseudo-statements but important from emotive point of view.

Carnap-meaningful statements can be of three types that is tautology,

contradiction and contingent but religious statements are do not fall to either of

any category, that is why they are meaningless from cognitive point of view.

With the help of Falsification theory, Flew has also maintained that religious

statements are meaningless because theist will never accept any statement

against God. And only that statements are meaningful cognitively if there is

possibility of falsification.

In the same way Hare has also maintained that religious statements are non-

cognitive and prescriptive in nature. And as per, Braithwaite, religious languages

are of moral assertion, hence not cognitive in nature.


75


Criticism:

But it is also fact that there is no verification to verify the verification theory, so it

is also meaningless in the same manner. If we apply the weak verification theory

then anything can be justified. If statement cannot be falsified then there is no

sense to call it meaningless.

According to Wittgenstein, to examine the religious language in physical context is

meaningless. Religious language should be determined only in the context of

religious meaning and meaning of word is determined by its context.


76



Can religious language can said to be verifiable ? (2013/15)

Model Answer

Hume suggested that all language not empirically grounded should be

“committed to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”

Through this he implied that religious language was meaningless and has little

merit to it.

John Hick was a believer and questioned whether the Verification Principle

renders religious statements meaningless, he used an analogy to illustrate that

religious statements could be verified at the end of life, he calls this eschatological

verification. Thus because there is a way that it could be verified, Hick argues that

religious language is meaningful.

Some people claim that religious language is non-cognitive; it is not scientific, but

instead emotional. Therefore it is not subject to the Verification Principle. Ayer

agreed that something could hold meaning for one person and not for another,

simply due to differences in belief. R.M. Hare had similar ideas and said people

have bliks about the world, these are personal to them. These beliefs are not

based on logic or empirical evidence. He suggests that religious believers have

bliks about the world and use God to support it. Similarly, empiricists have bliks

and the way they see the world leads them to believe that everything must be

scientifically proven. Hare says neither is more wrong or more right, thus religious

language is meaningful but only to those with the same bliks.


77


Wittgenstein supported the ideas of Ayer and Hare; he posits that religious

language is used differently and in different contexts, and has different meaning

from person to person. He says that if you were to understand and practice it too,

you would regard it as meaningful, but if you totally reject it then of course it

would be meaningless. You could argue the same is true to different types of

statements for instance mathematics or quantum physics, some people might not

understand quantum physics or the reasoning behind it thus it holds no meaning

for them. However, just because you don’t understand or use religious language

doesn’t mean that it isn’t meaningful.

Some philosophers argue that religious statements are analogical and so they

cannot be proved or disproved. They are simply metaphors, because any attempt

to use precise language would only be anthropomorphising God. Therefore, the

verification principle doesn’t render religious language meaningless.

The Verification Principle is a challenge to religious language and its

meaningfulness but not deadening as first thought. As it suggests that sense

based verification is the only means of assessing meaningfulness, a reductionist

viewpoint at best, but because there could be other ways of verifying religious

language, such as Hick’s eschatological verification, religious language is not

meaningless. Some may argue that religious language is meaningful dependent on

the individual and their own beliefs. Due to its lack of empirical background it is a

stretch to say it would have meaning for atheists, but it certainly has meaning for

those who already have faith.


Documents

90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing Initiative · 1 NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | [email protected] 90 Days UPSC Mains Optional