{"id":339691,"date":"2025-06-07T07:30:05","date_gmt":"2025-06-07T02:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=339691"},"modified":"2025-06-06T20:58:10","modified_gmt":"2025-06-06T15:28:10","slug":"psir-power-50-day-3-capsule-theories-of-justice-practice-qs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/psir-power-50-day-3-capsule-theories-of-justice-practice-qs\/","title":{"rendered":"PSIR Power 50 \u2013 Day 3 Capsule: Theories of Justice + Practice Qs"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Hello Aspirants,<\/p>\n<p>Day 3 tackles <strong>Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>UPSC has asked <strong>3 ten-mark questions, 5 fifteen-mark questions, and 5 twenty-mark questions <\/strong>from this topic in last 12 years.<\/p>\n<p><em>(Foundation-course alumni: go back to your notes if you are not able to recall something). <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>1. Justice as <em>Ideal &amp; Absolute Truth<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Angle<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Static<\/strong> vs <strong>Dynamic<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>Static<\/em> grasp = comprehension of an <em>ideal absolute truth<\/em>.\u2003<em>Dynamic<\/em> grasp = that truth evolving with <strong>rationality<\/strong> and <strong>social consciousness<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Context-dependence<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>What once looked \u201cjust\u201d (<em>slavery, caste, women\u2019s subjugation<\/em>) later turns unjust as moral horizons widen.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Etymology<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>\u201cJangere\u201d<\/em> (Latin) \u2192 <em>to bind<\/em>; root of <em>\u201cjus\u201d<\/em>. Justice <strong>binds<\/strong> society into fair relations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Binding idea<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Distributes <strong>rights, duties, rewards, punishments<\/strong> on morally defensible grounds.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>2. Classical Principles of Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Source<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Core Rule<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Scholar \/ Era<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Roman Emperor Justinian<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>Alterum non laedere<\/em> \u2013 <em>\u201cDo not harm others.\u201d<\/em><br \/>\n<em>Suum cuique tribuere<\/em> \u2013 <em>\u201cGive each his due.\u201d<\/em><\/td>\n<td>Late Roman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Plato<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>Proper stationing<\/em> + <em>non-interference<\/em>.<\/td>\n<td><em>Republic<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Aristotle<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>General Justice<\/strong> (overall goodness) vs <strong>Particular Justice<\/strong>: <em>rectificatory<\/em> (correct wrongs) and <em>distributive<\/em> (share honours, resources).<\/td>\n<td><em>Nicomachean Ethics<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>3. Justice as a <em>Balancing<\/em> Yard-stick<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Resolves clashes\u2014most famously <strong>liberty \u2194 equality<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Your stance pivots on which value you badge as <em>ultimate<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Conception<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Ultimate Value<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Political Stream<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Procedural<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Liberty<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Liberalism<\/strong> \u2192 emphasises <em>formal equality<\/em> &amp; <em>opportunity<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Substantive<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Equality<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Socialism<\/strong> \u2192 seeks <em>equality of outcomes<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>4. Liberalism \u2192 Utilitarianism \u2192 Rawls<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Classic Liberalism<\/strong> worships <em>liberty<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Utilitarianism<\/strong> shifts to <em>utility<\/em>\u2014<em>\u201cgreatest happiness of the greatest number.\u201d<\/em>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Flaw<\/strong>: legitimises <em>majoritarianism<\/em>; minorities become means.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rawls<\/strong> (a <strong>Liberal Egalitarian<\/strong>) grafts <strong>Kantian<\/strong> ethics\u2014<em>no person is a mere means<\/em>.\n<ul>\n<li><em>Rawls\u2019s maxim:<\/em> <em>\u201cEach person has an inviolability\u2026 the welfare of all cannot override the freedom of some.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>5. Rawls in Focus<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><strong>Detail<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Signature works<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>\u201cJustice as Fairness\u201d<\/strong> (1958), <strong>A THEORY OF JUSTICE<\/strong> (1971), <strong>POLITICAL LIBERALISM<\/strong> (1993), <strong>THE LAWS OF PEOPLES<\/strong> (1998).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Society\u2019s nature<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>Cooperative yet conflictual<\/em>; justice is its <em>first virtue<\/em> (truth is for thought).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Social contract redux<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Original Position<\/strong> behind a <em>\u201cveil of ignorance\u201d<\/em> \u2192 impartial choice of principles.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Moral powers<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>1. <strong>Sense of Justice<\/strong> (reasonableness, reciprocity)\u20032. <strong>Conception of the Good<\/strong> (life-plans).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Primary goods<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>Rights, liberties, income, wealth<\/em>\u2014tools every life-plan needs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>6. Maximin Rule &amp; the Two Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Stage<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Content<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Maximin logic<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><em>\u201cMaximise the minimum.\u201d<\/em> Choose rules that secure the best worst-case scenario.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Principle 1 \u2013 Liberty<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Each person enjoys the <strong>most extensive equal basic liberty<\/strong> compatible with the same liberty for others.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Principle 2 \u2013 Difference + Fair Equality of Opportunity<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Inequalities are only just if they <strong>benefit the least advantaged<\/strong> <em>and<\/em> attach to positions <strong>open to all<\/strong> under <em>fair<\/em> opportunity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Lexical priority<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Liberty first; only then weigh Principle 2.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><em>7. Reflective Equilibrium<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Iterative balancing<\/strong> between held judgments and chosen principles.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Narrow<\/strong> equilibrium: align your set of beliefs with one principle-set.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Wide<\/strong> equilibrium: re-adjust after scanning <em>all<\/em> moral considerations.<\/li>\n<li>End-goal: a <strong>coherent web<\/strong> you can defend under cross-examination\u2014precisely what ATS evaluators annotate in the margin.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>9<\/strong>.<strong> Communitarian Critique of Rawls \u2013 Core Points<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Michael Sandel ( <em>Liberalism and the Limits of Justice<\/em>, 1982)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Concept of Self<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rawls: <em>self prior to its ends<\/em> (freely chooses goals).<\/li>\n<li>Sandel: humans are <strong>\u201cembedded selves\u201d<\/strong>; identities and purposes are given by community, not chosen.<\/li>\n<li><em>Original position<\/em> is infeasible\u2014agents cannot step outside communal attachments.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Individual \u2194 Community<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rawls over-states autonomy, under-states communal bonds.<\/li>\n<li>Paradox: disinterested contractors behind the veil later feel <em>rational<\/em> duty to aid the disadvantaged\u2014Sandel says genuine concern would arise <em>spontaneously<\/em> from shared life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Role of the State<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Against Rawlsian <em>neutrality<\/em>, state should advance the community\u2019s vision of the good.<\/li>\n<li>In a genuinely united community, abstract rights-talk becomes redundant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Overall charge<\/strong>: the <strong>Rawlsian person<\/strong> is an empty, arbitrary chooser\u2014detached from real values, commitments, and lived experiences.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral-State Skepticism (Communitarian View)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>True neutrality is an illusion; every state expresses a cultural ethos.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Alasdair MacIntyre<\/strong>: moral norms are <em>particularistic<\/em>, varying by tradition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Michael Walzer (<em>Spheres of Justice<\/em>, 1983)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Justice is <strong>relativistic &amp; particularistic<\/strong>; goods carry <strong>social meanings<\/strong> created by distinct communities.<\/li>\n<li>No universal \u201cgood\u201d fits all societies; equality itself is culture-rooted.<\/li>\n<li>A society is just when its members live faithfully by their shared understandings of offices, honours, and rewards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rawls\u2019s Reply \u2013 <em>Political Liberalism<\/em> (1993)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Distinguishes a <strong>political conception of justice<\/strong> (for the basic structure) from <strong>comprehensive doctrines<\/strong> (religions, moral philosophies).<\/li>\n<li>Political conception is <strong>free-standing<\/strong> yet drawn from democratic public culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Central Problem:<\/strong><br \/>\nHow can citizens holding diverse comprehensive doctrines endorse the same principles of justice?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Devices<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Overlapping Consensus<\/strong> \u2013 different moral world-views converge on <em>justice as fairness<\/em> because citizens are <strong>reasonable<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reasonable Pluralism<\/strong> \u2013 diversity of doctrines is a permanent fact of democratic life.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Burden of Judgment<\/strong> \u2013 awareness of limits of reason leads people to seek fair terms of cooperation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong><em>Result:<\/em><\/strong> citizens reach a shared political morality without relinquishing their deeper, differing beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"10\">\n<li><strong> Rawls &amp; Global Justice<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Charles Beitz (1979)<\/strong>, <strong>Thomas Pogge (1989, 2002)<\/strong> \u2192 extend <strong>Difference Principle<\/strong> worldwide; rich states owe the global poor.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rawls<\/strong>: no global redistribution; instead rules for <strong>\u201cdecent peoples\u201d<\/strong> (peaceful, basic-rights, law-guided, decent hierarchy).<br \/>\n<strong>Eight duties:<\/strong> mutual independence \u00b7 keep treaties \u00b7 equitable deals \u00b7 non-intervention \u00b7 self-defence only \u00b7 honour human rights \u00b7 war-conduct code \u00b7 aid burdened societies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"11\">\n<li><strong> Robert Nozick \u2013 Entitlement Theory (<em>Anarchy, State and Utopia<\/em>)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Justice in Acquisition<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Justice in Transfer<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Rectification<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li>Motto: \u201cFrom everyone <strong>as they choose<\/strong>, to everyone <strong>as they are chosen<\/strong>.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Rejects patterned redistribution; accepts large inequalities if produced by just steps.<\/li>\n<li>State = <strong>minimal \u201cnight-watchman\u201d \/ dominant protective agency<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"11\">\n<li><strong> Ronald Dworkin \u2013 Equality of Resources<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Equality = sovereign virtue<\/strong>; right to <strong>equal concern and respect<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Rejects <strong>Equality of Welfare<\/strong>; defends <strong>Equality of Resources<\/strong>:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Auction thought-experiment<\/strong> + <strong>envy test<\/strong> \u2192 distribution envy-free.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ambition sensitivity<\/strong> (choices) &amp; <strong>endowment sensitivity<\/strong> (brute luck insurance).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Distinguishes <strong>brute luck<\/strong> vs <strong>option luck<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"12\">\n<li><strong> Amartya Sen \u2013 Capability Approach<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li>Justice aims at expanding <strong>capabilities<\/strong> (real freedoms), not only primary goods (<strong>Rawls<\/strong>) or welfare.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Functionings<\/strong> = valued doings\/beings; development = capability expansion.<\/li>\n<li>Advocates <strong>comparative assessment<\/strong>, <strong>public reasoning<\/strong>, removal of clear injustices.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Pratap Bhanu Mehta<\/strong>: calls Sen \u201canti-utopian yet utopian.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Sen on plurality of reason: justice must accommodate diverse equalities &amp; liberties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Metric of Justice<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Rawls<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Dworkin<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Sen<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Focus<\/td>\n<td>Primary <strong>goods<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Resources<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Capabilities<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"13\">\n<li><strong>Feminist Conception of Justice<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Key premise<\/strong>: Classic justice theories- patriarchal; women\u2019s experiences lie <em>outside<\/em> the canon.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Julius Stone<\/strong>: Law\/justice are social constructs, <em>context-bound and evolutionary<\/em>, not formal abstractions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Susan Moller Okin<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Gender system<\/strong> = institutionalised sex differences; tradition, socialisation, role-fixation embed inequality.<\/li>\n<li>Liberalism\u2019s blind spot: household &amp; family stay beyond justice\u2019s reach since <strong>Aristotle<\/strong> relegated women indoors.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Critique of Rawls<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Uses male-generic language (\u201c<em>he, his, mankind<\/em>\u201d).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Veil of ignorance<\/strong> omits <em>sex<\/em>; thus gender bias survives the <em>original position<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Calls the monogamous <strong>family<\/strong> a basic institution yet never probes its internal power relations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Theory of justice<\/strong>: The <em>gendered family<\/em> is root of social unfairness; reconstruct roles\/opportunities via women\u2019s full participation in building a truly <em>human moral theory<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Engagement with <strong>Michael Walzer<\/strong>: credits his notice of sex\/gender but faults his <em>cultural relativism<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol start=\"14\">\n<li><strong> Debate on Rawls\u2019s democratic equality<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Strengths<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Combines <em>equal basic liberties<\/em> with <strong>fair equality of opportunity<\/strong> + <strong>difference principle<\/strong> (maximin); aligns with welfare-state devices like progressive tax and affirmative action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Critiques<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Ideological camps<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Main scholar &amp; thrust<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Libertarian<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Robert Nozick<\/strong>: redistributive tax is on a par with <em>forced labour<\/em>; violates self-ownership.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Egalitarian left<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>G.A. Cohen<\/strong>: difference principle lets the talented demand incentives\u2014undermines its own spirit.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Capability school<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Amartya Sen<\/strong>: primary-goods metric ignores <em>conversion<\/em> differences; justice must track <em>capabilities<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Feminist<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Susan Okin<\/strong>: household labour and gender hierarchy remain unseen behind the veil.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Rawls\u2019s own revision<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Suggests <strong>property-owning democracy<\/strong> to curb market-driven inequality beyond citizens\u2019 tolerance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"15\">\n<li><strong> How Rawls widens liberal justice<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Original position \/ veil of ignorance<\/strong> forces rules that protect the <em>least advantaged<\/em> while retaining liberty.<\/li>\n<li>Shifts liberalism from formal rights to <strong>justice as fairness<\/strong>: liberty legitimated only when pay-gaps are defensible.<\/li>\n<li>Introduces <em>public reason<\/em> and sketches institutions\u2014progressive tax, dispersed capital, fair value of political liberty\u2014bridging theory and policy.<\/li>\n<li>Sparked modern normative revival (<strong>Kymlicka<\/strong>), yet prompted further refinements:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sen<\/strong> \u2013 focus on <em>effective freedom<\/em> (capabilities).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Katrina Forrester<\/strong> \u2013 calls for updates for post-industrial capitalism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Rawls himself views principles as <em>\u201cworked out anew for each generation,\u201d<\/em> making liberal egalitarianism a self-correcting project.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(UPSC pyq 2016)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"16\">\n<li><strong> Ambedkar\u2019s Egalitarian Justice vs Rawls\u2019s Pure Procedural Justice<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Ambedkar<\/strong>: abolition of caste first; democracy as \u201c<em>a way of associated living<\/em>.\u201d State-led redistribution (reservations, labour rights, <em>State and Minorities<\/em> socialism) turns <em>liberty\u2013equality\u2013fraternity<\/em> into <strong>material facts<\/strong>. Outcome-centred, group-repairing, <strong>substantive<\/strong> justice.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rawls<\/strong>: <em>original position<\/em> + <em>veil of ignorance<\/em> yield two principles (equal basic liberties; <strong>Difference Principle<\/strong>) chosen by identity-blind contractors. Justice is whatever emerges from this <strong>pure procedural<\/strong> device; inequality allowed only if it benefits the least-advantaged.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(expect a 15 marker in O-AWFG 1 , also a UPSC PYQ on the same theme)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Scholar Index \u2013<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong><em>Bhimrao Ambedkar \u00b7 \u00b7 Charles R. Beitz \u00b7 Gerald Allan Cohen \u00b7 Ronald Myers Dworkin \u00b7 Katrina Forrester \u00b7 Emperor Justinian I (Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus) \u00b7 Immanuel Kant \u00b7 William (Kim) Kymlicka \u00b7 Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre \u00b7 Pratap Bhanu Mehta \u00b7 Robert Nozick \u00b7 Susan Moller Okin \u00b7 Thomas Winfried Pogge \u00b7 Michael J. Sandel \u00b7 Amartya Kumar Sen \u00b7 Julius Stone \u00b7 Charles Taylor \u00b7 Michael Walzer.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>(Copies in <strong>ATS diagnostics<\/strong> that name-check fewer scholars scored 25-35 marks lower\u2014pattern noted!, YET inclusion of scholars should be contextual and organic)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Practice Questions \u2013 write before 4 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Question 1. \u201cCommunitarian thinkers reject Rawls\u2019 notion of the \u2018unencumbered self.\u2019 Briefly outline their main objections.\u201d (10 Marks)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Question 2. Critically examine John Rawls\u2019s argument for democratic equality<\/strong><em>.<\/em><strong> (2016, 15 Marks)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Question 3. How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism? (2021, 20 Marks)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\ud83d\udccc <em>Model answers drop this evening on the Telegram channel:<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/t.me\/psirbyamitpratap\"><strong>https:\/\/t.me\/psirbyamitpratap<\/strong><\/a> \u2013 set an alert.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Quick logistics<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>2025 Mains writers: PSIR<\/strong> <strong>O-AWFG Cohort 1<\/strong> launches <em>11 June<\/em>; <strong>PSIR<\/strong> <strong>ATS<\/strong> goes live <em>15 June<\/em>. Today\u2019s answer set doubles as your warm-up task\u2014bring the evaluated answer copies in mentorship sessions and ensure that you get the personalised feedback.<\/li>\n<li><strong>2026 Mains writers:<\/strong> keep uploading <strong>PSIR<\/strong> <strong>O-AWFG &amp; ATS copies <\/strong>on the dashboard; this capsule aligns with Week 1 of your schedule.<\/li>\n<li>Alternate between mini-tests <strong>(O-AWFG) <\/strong>and full mocks <strong>(ATS)<\/strong> to tackle speed, content depth, and structured revision\u2014each line-by-line evaluation pinpoints your weaknesses and errors. Follow your <strong>PSIR O-AWFG &amp; ATS<\/strong> schedule and use the model answers to enrich your content, as rankers recommended based on their own success.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<table style=\"width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border-style: solid; background-color: #f5f4ed;\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"width: 100%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Power-50-\u2013-Day-3-Capsule.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click Here<\/a> to Download<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hello Aspirants, Day 3 tackles Justice UPSC has asked 3 ten-mark questions, 5 fifteen-mark questions, and 5 twenty-mark questions from this topic in last 12 years. (Foundation-course alumni: go back to your notes if you are not able to recall something). 1. Justice as Ideal &amp; Absolute Truth Angle Key Takeaways Static vs Dynamic Static&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/psir-power-50-day-3-capsule-theories-of-justice-practice-qs\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">PSIR Power 50 \u2013 Day 3 Capsule: Theories of Justice + Practice Qs<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10357,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12128],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-339691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psir-optional","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","views":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10357"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=339691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=339691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=339691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}