08 Sep UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Philosophy Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS
The questions below are from Philosophy Optional Paper II of UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 (held 2026-08-30) — the actual paper, which is public. Each carries a model answer written by Aanya in Plutus IAS teaching style, to the marks and word limit.
Official source: official (upsc.gov.in).
Q1. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5 (a) Why does Rawls consider it necessary that the two principles of justice be applied in lexical order ? Explain. 10 (b) Is Plato's vision of an ideal state compatible with the rights and liberties of individual citizens ? Discuss. 10 (c) Anarchism is not an independent political ideology in itself, rather it is inspired by liberalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Analyze. 10 (d) On what grounds does Marxism criticize pure democracy ? 10 (e) How does value based education address the problem of corruption ? 10 (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word is “Explain,” so the examiner is testing your ability to articulate the reasoning behind Rawls’ lexical order of principles, not merely state them. A top answer must (1) define lexical order and its purpose, (2) explain why Rawls insists on priority of liberty over socioeconomic equality, and (3) show how this order prevents trade-offs that could undermine justice. The common mistake is to confuse lexical order with hierarchy of values or to ignore the role of the original position in justifying the order.
Model answer
Rawls argues that the two principles of justice must be applied in lexical order—first the principle of equal liberty, then the principle of fair equality of opportunity, and finally the difference principle—because any deviation would risk undermining the foundational value of liberty itself. Lexical order means that earlier principles take absolute priority; no amount of socioeconomic gain can justify restricting basic liberties. This priority is justified in the original position, where rational, self-interested parties behind the veil of ignorance would refuse to gamble away their fundamental rights even for greater wealth or welfare.
Rawls’ insistence on lexical order stems from his belief that liberty is the bedrock of a just society. In A Theory of Justice, he argues that political liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience are non-negotiable because they enable citizens to participate in shaping their collective life. Without these, other forms of equality—economic or social—become meaningless, as they cannot be pursued or enjoyed freely. For instance, a society that allows wealth to silence dissent violates the very conditions under which fair opportunity can exist. The lexical order thus prevents the tyranny of the majority or elite capture, ensuring that justice is not reduced to utilitarian calculus.
Moreover, the lexical order prevents the sacrifice of liberty for efficiency or welfare gains. Rawls’ difference principle allows inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged, but crucially, these inequalities must not infringe on equal liberties. This safeguard reflects Rawls’ commitment to treating persons as free and equal moral agents, whose dignity is not subject to trade-offs. By prioritizing liberty absolutely, Rawls ensures that justice remains rooted in respect for individual autonomy, not in outcomes that may later be revised or exploited.
Q2. (a) Evaluate the importance of Kautilya's theory of Rajamandala in the context of sovereignty. 20 (b) Does providing land and property rights to women constitute a necessary condition or a sufficient condition or both for ensuring social equality among the genders ? Discuss. 15 (c) Examine the challenges faced by a multicultural society in creating a harmonious balance between group rights and individual rights. 15 (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word evaluate demands a balanced assessment of Kautilya’s Rajamandala theory, not mere description. Examineers test your grasp of sovereignty as a relational concept, the structural logic of the mandala, and its normative implications for statecraft. A top answer must (1) define Rajamandala and its concentric-circle architecture, (2) analyse its instrumental logic for sovereignty—expansion, security, and balance of power—and (3) critique its ethical and practical limits. The common mistake is to treat Rajamandala as a static geopolitical map rather than a dynamic calculus of enmity and amity that redefines sovereignty as interdependent rather than absolute.
Model answer
Kautilya’s Rajamandala theory, articulated in the Arthashastra, redefines sovereignty not as an isolated monopoly of coercion but as a relational equilibrium among states arranged in concentric circles of amity and enmity. At its core, the mandala posits that a king’s power is contingent on his position within a network of alliances and rivalries, where the immediate neighbour is both a natural enemy and a potential ally, while the neighbour’s neighbour becomes a natural friend—a structural insight that subverts absolutist notions of sovereignty.
The theory operationalises sovereignty through a calculus of concentric circles: the vijigishu (aspiring conqueror) sits at the centre, surrounded by the ari (enemy), the mitra (friend), and the madhyama (mediator). This architecture transforms sovereignty from a zero-sum attribute into a positional good, where a king secures his authority by manipulating external alignments rather than by internal centralisation alone. For instance, Kautilya advises the vijigishu to cultivate the madhyama to weaken the ari, thereby converting external threats into instruments of domestic consolidation—a logic that anticipates modern balance-of-power theories.
Yet the mandala’s instrumental rationality exposes sovereignty to ethical fragility. By legitimising deception, espionage, and pre-emptive strikes as sovereign tools, Kautilya normalises a Machiavellian ethic that erodes the moral boundaries of state authority. Moreover, the theory’s static geometry struggles with fluid geopolitical realities, as seen in the failure of the Nanda empire’s rigid mandala structure against Chandragupta’s adaptive diplomacy. Consequently, while Rajamandala enriches sovereignty as a relational construct, it also reveals its vulnerability to normative corrosion when reduced to a purely strategic calculus.
Q3. (a) Retributivism presents a deontological justification for capital punishment, whereas deterrence presents a consequential justification for it. Explain. 20 (b) “The two antagonistic state structures – monarchy and democracy, both share some common features with dictatorship”. Do you agree with this view? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. 15 (c) Negative liberty seems to embody the idea of ultimate personal freedom, whereas positive liberty enables individuals to achieve their full potential. Discuss. 15 (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word is Discuss, which asks you to examine the conceptual contrast between negative and positive liberty, their philosophical foundations, and practical implications. The examiner is testing your grasp of Isaiah Berlin’s distinction, its normative implications, and ability to critique or defend each conception. A top answer must: (1) define both liberties with precision, (2) contrast their ontological and normative commitments using Berlin’s framework and Rousseau’s critique, and (3) evaluate their real-world applicability with examples. The common mistake is to conflate the two concepts or treat them as mutually exclusive without acknowledging their complementary roles in liberal theory.
Model answer
Isaiah Berlin’s seminal distinction between negative and positive liberty provides a foundational lens to understand human freedom. Negative liberty, framed as freedom from external interference, emphasizes the absence of coercion or obstruction in personal choices—such as speech, religion, or lifestyle. Berlin locates this conception in classical liberal thought, where the state’s role is limited to preventing harm rather than prescribing virtue. For instance, the decriminalization of same-sex relations under Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) exemplifies negative liberty by removing state-imposed constraints on intimate personal choices.
In contrast, positive liberty—freedom to self-realization—requires enabling conditions for individuals to achieve their potential through self-governance. Berlin critiques this as potentially authoritarian, warning that claims of “true” freedom can justify paternalistic or totalitarian interventions in the name of collective good. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision of positive liberty in The Social Contract illustrates this: true freedom emerges when citizens participate in framing laws that govern them, aligning individual will with the general will. Here, freedom is not merely absence of restraint but the capacity to participate in creating the rules that structure one’s life.
While negative liberty safeguards autonomy by limiting state power, positive liberty empowers individuals through education, economic security, and democratic participation. A balanced polity integrates both: for example, welfare states like Sweden provide positive liberty through universal healthcare and education, while constitutional democracies protect negative liberty via rights-based judicial review. The tension between the two is not resolvable in theory but must be navigated in practice to reconcile freedom with equality. Thus, Berlin’s dichotomy remains indispensable for evaluating the legitimacy of state action and the boundaries of individual autonomy.
Q4. (a) How has Ambedkar applied the concept of 'Social Endosmosis' for annihilation of castes. Evaluate its relevance for contemporary debates on identity and the politics of difference. 20 (b) Explain the contrast between the monistic and pluralistic approaches to sovereignty. 15 (c) Examine the relationship between democracy and development. Does democracy promote or hinder development? 15 (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word “evaluate” signals that the examiner wants a balanced assessment: (i) a clear exposition of Ambedkar’s use of ‘social endosmosis’ for caste annihilation, (ii) a critical weighing of its contemporary relevance, and (iii) a forward-looking conclusion. Most aspirants merely describe the concept without linking it to identity politics or the politics of difference, thereby losing the evaluative depth required. The key is to treat ‘social endosmosis’ as a socio-psychological bridge across caste boundaries and to measure it against present-day identity movements.
Model answer
Ambedkar’s application of ‘social endosmosis’ is a deliberate strategy to dissolve caste boundaries through sustained inter-caste mingling that generates shared experiences, empathy, and common institutions. In Annihilation of Caste, he argues that caste thrives on enforced separation; hence, deliberate ‘endosmosis’—the osmotic mixing of social groups—can erode inherited antipathies. He envisages inter-caste dining, inter-marriage, and joint labour as concrete mechanisms that compel emotional and material interdependence, thereby weakening the ritual purity-pollution binary. The 1942 All India Scheduled Castes Federation manifesto and his advocacy for a single, undifferentiated electorate were institutional translations of this idea.
Contemporary relevance is visible in identity politics and the politics of difference. First, Dalit-Bahujan movements such as the Bhim Army and the Jatav consolidation in Uttar Pradesh deploy public feasts and cultural festivals to normalise inter-group commensality, echoing Ambedkar’s endosmotic vision. Second, constitutional provisions like Articles 15(2) and 17, read with the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 on EWS reservations, aim to create overlapping socio-economic spaces that dilute caste isolation. Third, the rise of ‘love jihad’ debates and anti-conversion laws in several BJP-ruled states shows how caste endogamy is still weaponised; Ambedkar’s endosmosis offers a normative counter.
Limitations and cautions must be noted. Identity movements often essentialise difference rather than dissolve it, risking a new form of separatism. Also, structural inequalities—landholdings, capital access—remain outside the immediate reach of cultural mixing. Yet, as a normative horizon, Ambedkar’s social endosmosis remains indispensable for re-imagining a post-caste public sphere where difference is acknowledged but not ossified into hierarchy. The challenge for contemporary India is to scale endosmotic practices from symbolic acts to systemic inclusion, aligning constitutional morality with lived sociality.
Q5. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5 (a) On what grounds does William James characterize mystical states as a genuine expression of religious experience? Elaborate. 10 (b) Discuss Aquinas' argument from the contingency of the world to prove the existence of God. 10 (c) How does Paul Tillich's idea of faith as ultimate concern address the relation between faith, doubt and reason? Evaluate. 10 (d) Critically discuss the views of R. B. Braithwaite on the nature of religious language. 10 (e) “If religion were a subject of reason alone, it would have lacked an experiential account.” Do you agree with this statement ? Give reasons in support of your answer. (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word “Elaborate” asks you to explain William James’ grounds for calling mystical states genuine religious experience, not merely to list them. Examiners test your grasp of James’ four criteria and their philosophical implications. A top answer must (1) state the four marks, (2) illustrate each with textual or historical examples, and (3) show why these marks matter for the genuineness debate. The common mistake is to stop at naming the marks without linking them to James’ broader pragmatist thesis or contrasting them with alternative views such as Freud’s reductionism.
Model answer
William James characterizes mystical states as genuine religious experience on four empirical grounds that he calls the “four marks”: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. First, ineffability means the experience defies ordinary language; James cites Teresa of Avila’s raptures and the Upanishadic “Tat Tvam Asi” moments, where the subject insists no words can capture the content. Second, noetic quality conveys imparted knowledge—sudden insight into deep truth—seen in the Buddha’s enlightenment under the Bodhi tree or Ramakrishna’s vision of the formless Absolute. Third, transiency shows the experience lasts only minutes yet leaves lifelong transformative effects, as in St. Paul’s Damascus road conversion or Ramana Maharshi’s self-realization. Fourth, passivity indicates the subject feels acted upon rather than self-initiating, a feature James finds in St. John of the Cross’s “dark night” and in the Advaitic state of sahaja samadhi.
These marks matter because they satisfy James’ pragmatist criterion: whatever produces “immediate luminousness, ethical fruitfulness, and over-belief in the continuity of our consciousness with a higher power” counts as genuine. By foregrounding experiential authority over doctrinal or institutional mediation, James shifts the locus of religious truth from scripture to subjectivity, thereby rescuing religious experience from reductionist critiques that dismiss it as mere hallucination or social conditioning.
Q6. (a) In what sense does St. Augustine’s identification of all evil as either sin or as the punishment of sin succeed or fail in providing a coherent account of both moral and natural evil ? Evaluate. (b) How does the issue of moral autonomy conflict with conception of religion as a source of morality ? Critically discuss. (c) Does the idea of Religious Pluralism necessarily entail moral relativism ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word “Evaluate” tests your ability to weigh arguments for and against a philosophical claim. Examiners look for (i) a clear restatement of the thesis, (ii) a two-part analysis—successes and failures—with textual or historical evidence, and (iii) a balanced conclusion. The common mistake is to treat Augustine’s or Kant’s positions as purely theological rather than philosophical, thereby missing the conceptual critique required.
Model answer
Augustine’s identification of all evil as either sin or the punishment of sin attempts to preserve divine goodness and omnipotence while accounting for the existence of evil. He argues that evil is not a positive substance but a privation of good (privatio boni), originating in the free choice of rational agents—moral evil—and visited upon creation as disorder—natural evil—because of humanity’s fall. This account succeeds in providing a coherent theodicy for moral evil: human free will explains why agents choose wrongly, and divine justice explains the suffering that follows. For natural evil, Augustine treats it as the result of the moral disorder introduced by sin, thereby preserving God’s benevolence and power.
However, the account fails to explain several phenomena. First, it cannot satisfactorily address the scale of natural disasters that afflict non-rational beings and infants who have not committed personal sin; the punishment theory appears disproportionate. Second, it struggles with the logical possibility of a morally perfect world containing natural evils prior to any human fall; the privation thesis does not eliminate the need for an explanatory gap. Third, it risks moral complacency: if suffering is always deserved, it undermines compassionate responses to victims.
In conclusion, Augustine’s synthesis offers a powerful defence of divine goodness against moral evil but falters when confronted with the scope and distribution of natural evil. The theory remains influential in theological ethics but requires supplementation from contemporary philosophy of religion to address empirical and moral objections.
Q7. (a) Analyse R. M. Hare’s concept of ‘blik’ and assess whether it successfully defends the meaningfulness of religious language. (b) Discuss the difference between personalistic and impersonalistic notions of God in the context of devotion. (c) Can conflicting truth claims among religions be reconciled within the framework of religious pluralism ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word “analyse” asks you to break the idea into parts and weigh its merits, while “assess” demands a balanced verdict. Examine Hare’s ‘blik’ as a response to Ayer’s verificationism, then judge whether it rescues religious language from meaninglessness. The one mistake most aspirants make is to treat ‘blik’ as a simple emotive stance instead of a cognitive attitude that can still be shared and defended.
Model answer
R. M. Hare introduced the notion of a ‘blik’—a fundamental, non-falsifiable attitude that shapes how we interpret the world—to counter A. J. Ayer’s strict verificationism. Hare argues that while religious statements cannot be empirically verified, they function as global frameworks that organise experience and guide action. A ‘blik’ is not a proposition open to empirical test; it is a way of seeing, akin to a moral or perceptual stance. For Hare, religious language is meaningful precisely because it expresses a shared ‘blik’ that structures life rather than describing facts. Critics, however, point out that this renders religious claims immune to rational revision and risks reducing them to mere psychological dispositions.
Turning to theism, Hare’s account aligns with a personalistic notion of God—one who is a subject of worship, love, and devotion. In contrast, impersonalistic traditions (e.g., Advaita Vedanta) conceive God as an absolute principle or consciousness rather than a person. Devotion in the personalistic framework centres on relationship, surrender, and grace, exemplified by bhakti traditions in Hinduism or the Christian emphasis on divine personhood. Impersonalistic devotion, by contrast, dissolves the devotee-God duality, focusing on identity with the absolute, as in the Upanishadic dictum “Tat Tvam Asi.”
Finally, religious pluralism seeks to reconcile conflicting truth claims by recognising multiple valid paths to the ultimate. John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis proposes that different religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same transcendent reality. Critics argue that this risks relativism or syncretism, diluting distinctive doctrines. Yet pluralism can foster interfaith dialogue and social cohesion, as seen in India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and the lived reality of “unity in diversity.” A balanced pluralism acknowledges difference while promoting mutual respect and shared civic values.
Q8. (a) Critically evaluate the shift in Gandhi’s view from ‘God is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’, in the context of interrelation between religion and morality. (b) Explain and examine Madhvacharya’s arguments for the existence of God. (c) Present an account of criticisms against omniscience and omnipotence as attributes of God. (15 marks)
How to approach this question
The directive word “Critically evaluate” signals that the examiner wants a balanced assessment of Gandhi’s conceptual shift, not merely a descriptive account. The question tests three skills: (1) textual fidelity to Gandhi’s writings, (2) analytical clarity on the religion-morality nexus, and (3) critical distance via counter-arguments or later scholarship. The most common mistake is to treat the shift as a chronological curiosity rather than a philosophical reconfiguration that re-orients both metaphysics and ethics.
Model answer
Gandhi’s intellectual journey from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God” marks a decisive re-centring of moral epistemology. Early articulations in Hind Swaraj (1909) treat Truth (Satya) as an attribute of the divine, locating morality in a theocentric framework. By the 1920s, however, the constructive programme and the Satyagraha campaigns reveal a reversed hierarchy: Truth becomes the sovereign value that both reveals and constitutes the divine. This inversion elevates moral practice—especially non-violent resistance—to a quasi-sacramental status, collapsing the distance between worship and ethical action.
The interrelation between religion and morality is thereby transformed. Where theism once anchored ethics, ethics now sanctifies theistic aspiration. Gandhi’s constructive programme—spinning khadi, removing untouchability, promoting village industries—functions as a liturgy of Truth; each act is simultaneously moral, political, and spiritual. Critics such as B.R. Ambedkar questioned whether this sacralisation of quotidian labour risked conflating social reform with soteriology, potentially diluting the urgency of structural change. Postcolonial scholars like Akeel Bilgrami argue that this shift enabled a democratic spirituality, yet it also exposed Gandhi to charges of quietism when confronting systemic injustice.
In conclusion, the evolution from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God” reconfigures religion as a moral praxis rather than a metaphysical premise. It grants agency to the moral subject while preserving a theistic horizon, thereby aligning Gandhi’s thought with both anti-colonial nationalism and global debates on religion’s public role. The enduring challenge remains to sustain the dialectic between transcendence and immanence without collapsing one into the other.
Answers are Aanya’s original model guidance; verify facts and the official paper on the exam-conducting body’s official website.
- UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Hindi Literature Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS - September 8, 2026
- UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Hindi Literature Paper I: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS - September 8, 2026
- UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Philosophy Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS - September 8, 2026
No Comments