Gita Gandhi and moral thinkers comparative review

Answer all eight questions. Questions 1–7 carry 5 marks each, with a 50-word limit per answer. Question 8 carries 10 marks, with a 150-word limit. Suggested practice time: 50 minutes followed by self-review. This is original module practice, not an official RPSC paper or the full ethics unit test. Attempt the questions before reading the guide. Well-reasoned alternatives may earn credit. The model wording is illustrative. Award equivalent source-grounded explanations and feasible alternatives under the same rubric. Q3 and Q4 require both named traditions or thinkers; Q6 requires both Kantian tests. Names or quotations without explanation earn no reasoning marks.

Questions

Question 1 · 5 marks

Explain the different roles of non-attachment and lokasangraha in responsible action. Give one reason a failed authorised trial should be reviewed.

Question 2 · 5 marks

Why would a genuinely useful campaign still be ethically defective if built on deliberate misinformation? Give Gandhi’s reason and one constructive alternative.

Question 3 · 5 marks

Give distinct Buddhist and Jain reasons for avoiding humiliating speech while correcting verified misconduct. Do not treat compassion as cancellation of accountability.

Question 4 · 5 marks

Distinguish Kautilya’s royal welfare argument from Ambedkar’s social-democratic basis of equal access. State one institutional implication.

Question 5 · 5 marks

Why is a proportionate response to an uncertain allegation a matter of practical wisdom rather than an arithmetic midpoint? Link choice to character.

Question 6 · 5 marks

Test a knowingly false service promise using the universal-law formulation, then identify how it treats the applicant merely as a means.

Question 7 · 5 marks

Explain why both long-term security and the quality of enjoyment matter in a Mill-informed welfare judgement. Why does a larger crowd not settle the choice?

Question 8 · 10 marks

A fictional public community hall has one remaining weekly slot. Two eligible adult associations seek it; repeated informal renewals have excluded new applicants. Written rules require equal consideration, published criteria and a documented reason. The officer may suspend automatic renewal, hear both groups and trial an authorised rotation, but may not change eligibility. A colleague proposes announcing unanimous agreement although one group objects. Compare Gandhi and either Ambedkar or Mill: distinguish their reasons, justify a feasible allocation process, and state one safeguard and one fact that would change the decision. Changed fact: verified records show that one proposed schedule would leave the hall unused on most weeks; reassess without assuming either equal treatment or utility means mechanical equal shares.

Answer guide and self-assessment

Question 1

Non-attachment questions dependence on personal reward while retaining responsible action. Lokasangraha directs attention beyond the actor towards the wider good. An authorised trial that fails should be reviewed because continuing an ineffective method may burden those it was meant to serve; admitting failure need not abandon the service commitment.

• Nonattachment — 1.5 marks
• Lokasangraha — 1.5 marks
• Review reason — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

Distinguish motive from the wider reason to act. Outcome review is a justified application to the stated case, not a modern procedure quoted from the Gita.

Question 2

For Gandhi, means help shape the end achieved. Deliberate misinformation recruits cooperation through deception and damages the truthful relationship the campaign should build. Explain the actual purpose, invite voluntary participation and organise useful support with residents. Practical benefit does not erase the moral character of the chosen method.

• Means ends reason — 2 marks
• Case evidence — 1 marks
• Constructive alternative — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

A useful alternative must change the dishonest method, not merely present it more politely. Do not promise that truthful cooperation guarantees immediate success.

Question 3

Buddhist reasoning examines intention and cultivates goodwill and compassion rather than hostility. Jain reasoning stresses disciplined non-harm in speech and conduct. Correct the verified misconduct through a proportionate, truthful process without humiliation. Both can support accountability, although their reasons and wider paths of ethical discipline should remain distinct.

• Buddhist reason — 1.5 marks
• Jain reason — 1.5 marks
• Fair action — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

Name a defensible reason from each tradition. “Both teach kindness” is too general, and cancelling a justified correction is not required by the question.

Question 4

Kautilya links royal diligence and accessible petitions to subjects’ welfare and effective rule. Ambedkar grounds social democracy in liberty, equality and fraternity: access concerns equal standing, not a ruler’s favour. Audit and remove unjust intake barriers so eligible applicants can register and seek review through a dependable procedure.

• Kautilya reason — 1.5 marks
• Ambedkar reason — 1.5 marks
• Institutional remedy — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

A shared reform does not prove identical political foundations. Explain why the institution matters under each account rather than listing two famous names.

Question 5

Practical wisdom judges what the particular facts require in pursuit of a good end. An uncertain allegation calls for fair inquiry, not a numerical compromise between neglect and punishment. Choosing a proportionate response for sound reasons expresses and develops character; verified immediate danger would warrant a different response.

• Practical wisdom — 2 marks
• Choice character — 2 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

The mean concerns an appropriate response relative to the situation, not an average penalty. A satisfactory answer connects judgement, deliberate choice and character.

Question 6

A maxim of knowingly making false service promises to obtain cooperation undermines the credibility that promising requires when universalised. It cannot consistently serve as universal law. Deceiving the applicant also manipulates their choice for the officer’s purpose, treating them merely as a means rather than respecting their rational agency.

• Universal law — 2 marks
• Humanity — 2 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

Explain the contradiction in the practice of promising, not only that widespread dishonesty has bad effects. “Merely” matters: ordinary honest cooperation is not prohibited.

Question 7

For Mill, security and dependable rights sustain lasting welfare. Pleasures differ in quality, assessed through judges who know and appreciate both kinds. Impartial judgement considers everyone affected. Crowd size alone cannot show the quality of enjoyment, severity of losses or reliability of future benefits.

• Security — 1.5 marks
• Quality — 1.5 marks
• Not headcount — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

Do not infer that an official may rank citizens’ worth by education or status. The competent-judge comparison concerns experienced pleasures, not unequal political standing.

Question 8

Gandhi’s means–ends reasoning rejects the false claim of agreement: deception corrupts the cooperative relationship sought. Ambedkar’s social democracy supplies a distinct reason to examine renewals: equal standing should not depend on entrenched groups’ influence. I would suspend automatic renewal as permitted, hear both associations, publish relevant criteria and document the decision. An authorised rotation may be tested if it provides meaningful use and equal consideration; equality does not require mechanically identical shares. Keep an accessible review route and record objections accurately, rather than present compliance as consent. If verified records show that a proposed schedule leaves the hall unused most weeks, revise the trial rotation around the groups’ demonstrated availability, explaining how revised dates preserve fair consideration. These arguments converge on an honest, reviewable process without making Gandhian ethics and Ambedkar’s democratic account identical.

• Two accurate positions — 3 marks
• Distinct reasoning and comparison — 2 marks
• Facts and feasible decision — 3 marks
• Safeguard or reconsideration — 1 marks
• Clarity — 1 marks

The model chooses Gandhi and Ambedkar. A Gandhi–Mill answer can earn full credit if it accurately compares means–ends reasoning with impartial welfare, including reliable expectations and the consequences of exclusion. Accept another feasible procedure supported by the stated powers and facts; do not demand this model’s exact schedule. Award no thinker marks for names alone. Check both the safeguard and changed-fact response across the decision and safeguard/reconsideration categories; do not double-count the same point.