Human values and ethical concepts module review

Answer all five questions. Questions 1–4 carry 5 marks each with a 50-word limit. Question 5 carries 10 marks with a 150-word limit. Suggested practice time: 35 minutes, followed by self-review. This is an original teaching assessment, not an official RPSC paper or the full ethics unit test. Write before opening the answer guide; justified alternatives may receive credit.

Questions

Question 1 · 5 marks

A trainee learns generosity at home, sees peers praise queue-jumping for acquaintances, and studies impartial selection in training. Explain why value formation is not simple copying. Suggest one institutional practice that would help the trainee act impartially.

Question 2 · 5 marks

The supplied record is Gandhi’s 17 June 1917 note about preparing evidence for the Champaran inquiry while retaining a role in presenting raiyats’ evidence. Derive one ethical lesson for a grievance officer. Clearly separate your inference from the fact and state one transfer limit.

Question 3 · 5 marks

A speaker calls Rit “the current Constitution” and Rin “a compulsory debt owed by every citizen to local officials.” Correct both descriptions and give one legitimate, clearly labelled modern use of either idea.

Question 4 · 5 marks

An officer secretly moves a friend ahead of a fair application queue, hoping the friend will receive urgent help. Explain why this good intention is insufficient, using duty, good and virtue without treating the three questions as synonyms.

Question 5 · 10 marks

Fictional case: A public application desk closes at 4 p.m. A network failure prevents processing from 1 to 3 p.m.; a queue of adult applicants remains. The written contingency plan lets the officer issue numbered receipts to everyone present before 4 p.m. and process these later after the supervisor countersigns the outage record. It does not allow waiving eligibility evidence. A respected colleague says successful staff clear the dashboard quickly: process influential acquaintances first and mark the remaining people “absent.” The officer’s family has taught her to help familiar people; training has emphasised impartiality. Analyse these value influences, assess the decision through duty, good and virtue, and justify a course of action with safeguards and one limitation.

Answer guide and self-assessment

Question 1

Family, peer and educational influences may conflict. Value formation includes examining their reasons, not merely reproducing approved behaviour. The trainee can preserve generosity by helping everyone understand the process rather than favouring acquaintances. A consistently applied queue with explained, relevant exceptions makes impartiality visible in everyday institutional practice.

• Explains conflicting influences and reflection — 2 marks
• Gives a relevant institutional practice with its ethical purpose — 2 marks
• Clear and within scope — 1 mark

A slogan such as “family teaches good values” does not explain the conflict. A lecture alone is weaker than a practice whose operation matches its stated principle.

Question 2

The note records evidence preparation and participation in an inquiry. I infer that concern for affected people can be strengthened by disciplined fact-finding. A grievance officer should organise claims, verify records and hear relevant parties. The inference does not establish Gandhi’s every motive or authorise departure from current lawful duties.

• Defensible ethical inference — 2 marks
• Separates record from interpretation — 1 mark
• Relevant transfer limit — 1 mark
• Clarity — 1 mark

The record does not say what a modern officer’s powers are. Connect the episode to a defensible working principle, then identify the current role constraint.

Question 3

Rit concerns cosmic and moral order; Rin concerns obligations in particular historical religious frameworks. Neither is identical to the Constitution or a debt to officials. A modern inclusive reinterpretation of Rin may encourage care for inherited public resources, but it cannot impose religious duties or create administrative powers.

• Corrects the two concepts — 3 marks
• Labels and bounds a relevant modern use — 1 mark
• Clarity — 1 mark

Do not merely replace “officials” with “society” while keeping an unqualified universal ancient command. Explain that the inclusive application is a present interpretation.

Question 4

Duty requires applying the justified queue or its authorised urgency exception impartially. The good sought is timely help, but hidden preference burdens other applicants. Virtue requires compassion with honesty and practical judgement. Verify urgency, use an available fair exception and explain the decision; friendship alone cannot justify priority.

• Distinguishes intention from justified action through the three questions — 2 marks
• Reasoned correction of the example — 2 marks
• Clarity — 1 mark

Compassion is not the error. Undisclosed preference without a fair basis is. Do not assume every urgent applicant must simply wait if a valid exception exists.

Question 5

Family loyalty and workplace praise exert different pressures, while training supplies an impartial standard. Reflection can preserve helpfulness without favouritism. Duty requires truthful records and the stated contingency procedure; a colleague’s prestige cannot authorise false absence entries. The good sought is meaningful access despite the outage, not a misleadingly clear dashboard. Virtue combines compassion for waiting applicants, honesty about delays, courage to resist pressure and practical judgement. I would record the outage, issue numbered receipts to all applicants present before closing, seek the required countersignature and explain the later processing arrangements. I would retain the applicable evidence requirements, preserve queue order and check the completed records for omissions. Reasons should be available for review without exposing applicants’ private information. This protects fairness while using the authorised flexibility. However, receipts do not guarantee eligibility or instant completion; processing status and unresolved delays must be communicated accurately.

• Analyses competing value influences and reflection — 2 marks
• Applies duty, good and virtue distinctly to this case — 3 marks
• Justifies a feasible authorised course — 2 marks
• Gives practical safeguards — 2 marks
• States a genuine limitation — 1 mark

Credit a different feasible sequence if it preserves honest records, equal access to the stated contingency route and the evidence requirement. Do not award the three lens marks for merely listing their names. “Work harder” alone neither repairs the false entries nor addresses the authorised process.