Mission Mains 2021: GS 4 Ethics Discussion
This is for those of you who are planning to write Mains 2020. Primarily, the agenda of this thread would be
1. Answer Writing Practice
2. Sharing examples - anecdotes from Current affairs relevant for GS4 Answer writing
3. Any doubts wrt. Paper 4!
Feel free to pool in your suggestions!
why not accept the money?its for a good deed from a man who went in wrong route.no one is going to copy his way of living just because pavilion is named after him.other than thinking that there is a "great person" who donated 10 lakh dollars, does public(including ourselves) enquire the background of donater and how he got the money?no ones past should dictate their future good deeds,its only the attitude which we should disagree.Any way it will be mostly public money he looted and atleast its being put to use for good deeds nowSuch questions are mostly asked to see whether you go by the ethical standards or by your emotions! Let me explain you point wise.
Why not accept the money? It's for a good deed from a man who went in wrong route.
The man in question is no minor, not a person of unsound mind, but must be a person who had committed the crimes in his full senses. Accepting his money which in all probability has the likelihood of being earned from illegitimate sources will be like serving the self interest of the hospital while putting no question on the origin and legitimacy of money. This is morally not fair.
Does public (including ourselves) enquire the background of donator and how he got the money?
Not the donation per se but naming of the pavilion is also involved here. Suppose a pavilion is named after A.P.J Abdul Kalam and an other one named after Nirbhaya rapist or any notorious and infamous gangster, won't it be making difference in the minds of the general public? It will actually, and in a considerable way. Naming the pavilion after the mobster in this particular case will go against the goodwill of the hospital and will put a blot on its credibility.
No one's past should dictate their future good deeds, it's only the attitude which we should disagree.
Past deeds are the acts which people must be accountable for. This is the reason persons convicted of criminal offences have been barred from contesting elections for a particular period, this is the reason Md. Azharuddin was served life ban from playing all forms of Cricket and so on. Even committing criminal offences on many occasions work against a person aspiring to get a government job too. So, it will not be fair to disregard the past deeds. Also, the Gangsters in most of the cases are habitual offenders and even after having successfully completed their sentences, they tend to repeat their heinous crimes when get out of Jail.
Anyway it will be mostly public money he looted and at least it's being put to use for good deeds now.
Asserting it is not fair in my opinion because it will be a kind of endorsement of his past activities. It was the public money he looted which is totally wrong, so why to accept it in the first place! Moreover, these benevolent acts (like making contributions towards noble causes) are deliberately done by them to project themselves as humanitarians and working for larger public good, and therefore such intentions should never be let succeed.
That's very well elucidated. In my opinion, in such questions it is always advisable to highlight the conflict in the beginning itself. In thia case,
Problem: Doing Good With Something Obtained Immorally
Media today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.
Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
Rishabh k,Media today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
You answer is replete with examples which is very nice. However, I would like to put forth a question here? Should we not highlight a contrary opinion as well. Isn't it a one sided answer?
Gaurav,Media today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
You answer is replete with examples which is very nice. However, I would like to put forth a question here? Should we not highlight a contrary opinion as well. Isn't it a one sided answer?
@Neyawn What do you suggest? In questions where in we put Do you Agree - what should the approach be?
Case Study:A convicted mobster decides to make a charitable contribution. He offers more than $1 million to a hospital to build a children’s wing. He will make the contribution if the new pavilion is named after him. The hospital board accepts the gift, with that stipulation. Do you think the hospital was right in accepting the gift?
The question seems to skip some details. If the money of the convicted person is black money or extracted from extortion etc. But assuming if the earning itself is from questionable sources.
There are broadly three stakeholders : criminal, health institution and children
1. The criminal : in quest to improve social standing and gain public confidence seeks to justify his acts as opposed to whatever wrongs he committed. Legal system follows rule of law he committed crime and no donation or good deed can over power it. Here he has committed a legal offence, but in society both ethical and social morality prevails. It could be very well true that he gains publicity for such an act.
There seems to be clear intent of criminal to improve his image and social standing by insisting on naming a hospital division after him.
2. Public health institution : will gain from the extra funding and will be able to develop its infrastructure. Over all it will help increase capacity and capability of the institution. Especially for children.
3. Children : The children and their parents will be benefitted from a separate division created for children. To cater and attend to. By focusing on children's health it improves lives of children and their families deriving benefit out of the separate institution created.
If it is right or wrong :
1. Consequentialism argues that an action is good or bad depends more on outcome. The action here seems to do good for the people (children). Using Bentham's argument it is justified if it creates greatest good for the greatest number. example : 1000 children benefitted >criminal acts of one
2. Deontologically it is wrong as action is wrong. It seems to derive money from a questionable source and put it in for good use. But the action itself is morally unjustified.
Concluding,
In long term it will compromise public institution credibility and set a bad precedent in the society. Also it compromises the integrity of a public institution (hospital). Maybe it will benefit the hospital and improve its capability. But the cost though intangible will compromise ethics of governance. Hence hospital is wrong in accepting donation from convicted person.
Inputs welcomed
Phoebebuffay,thepolicydreamerMedia today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
You answer is replete with examples which is very nice. However, I would like to put forth a question here? Should we not highlight a contrary opinion as well. Isn't it a one sided answer?
Yes, you are right. The very same was pointed out by my father as well who reviewed it yesterday. Verbally he told that answer is good except that it's appearing one-sided. The same was later mentioned in his written review too (Please check the last line in the attached file).
Media.pdf
upsc2020,Media today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
You answer is replete with examples which is very nice. However, I would like to put forth a question here? Should we not highlight a contrary opinion as well. Isn't it a one sided answer?
Yes, you are right. The very same was pointed out by my father as well who reviewed it yesterday. Verbally he told that answer is good except that it's appearing one-sided. The same was later mentioned in his written review too (Please check the last line in the attached file).
Great..
Case Study:A convicted mobster decides to make a charitable contribution. He offers more than $1 million to a hospital to build a children’s wing. He will make the contribution if the new pavilion is named after him. The hospital board accepts the gift, with that stipulation. Do you think the hospital was right in accepting the gift?The question seems to skip some details. If the money of the convicted person is black money or extracted from extortion etc. But assuming if the earning itself is from questionable sources.
There are broadly three stakeholders : criminal, health institution and children
1. The criminal : in quest to improve social standing and gain public confidence seeks to justify his acts as opposed to whatever wrongs he committed. Legal system follows rule of law he committed crime and no donation or good deed can over power it. Here he has committed a legal offence, but in society both ethical and social morality prevails. It could be very well true that he gains publicity for such an act.
There seems to be clear intent of criminal to improve his image and social standing by insisting on naming a hospital division after him.
2. Public health institution : will gain from the extra funding and will be able to develop its infrastructure. Over all it will help increase capacity and capability of the institution. Especially for children.
3. Children : The children and their parents will be benefitted from a separate division created for children. To cater and attend to. By focusing on children's health it improves lives of children and their families deriving benefit out of the separate institution created.
If it is right or wrong :
1. Consequentialism argues that an action is good or bad depends more on outcome. The action here seems to do good for the people (children). Using Bentham's argument it is justified if it creates greatest good for the greatest number. example : 1000 children benefitted >criminal acts of one
2. Deontologically it is wrong as action is wrong. It seems to derive money from a questionable source and put it in for good use. But the action itself is morally unjustified.
Concluding,
In long term it will compromise public institution credibility and set a bad precedent in the society. Also it compromises the integrity of a public institution (hospital). Maybe it will benefit the hospital and improve its capability. But the cost though intangible will compromise ethics of governance. Hence hospital is wrong in accepting donation from convicted person.
Inputs welcomed
I have another line of thought in my mind.
The money that was obtained was obtained by a mobster. He is proven to have been unethical. while you rightly say, that the source of money is not mentioned, perhaps this can be added in the answer as a flipside - The hospital can get a background check done and check source of funds. If the money is legal, they can accept. After all, a moral society should give everyone a chance for redemption.
shaanu4595684,
Gaurav,@upsc2020S tht practical,hospitals r lrdy resource stretched,not possible 2 do bckgrndchck!!
Outsource it. :)
Gaurav,Media today has lost its moral compass. Do you agree? Elucidate.Media is often touted as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Although innumerable media houses continue to operate in India, over the years there can be seen a general deterioration in the ways they function and in the manner they perform their responsibilities.
1) Contrary to doing responsible journalism and bringing to fore the real and core problems that the country is facing, many electronic media houses are running a host of programmes which are just supposed to appeal the viewers and keep them glued to their channels; improving their TRPs and raising their profitability have become their prime concern.
2) Off late many paid media channels have emerged. Some of them are controlled by the big business houses and corporate world. Serving their interest has replaced independent journalism as their main motive.
3) Almost all the media houses remain politically inclined towards one or other political parties, groups and beliefs. This lack of neutrality cost the country heavily and their biases and prejudices gets clearly visible in their uncalled-for appreciation/criticism of the government moves.
4) Some loopholes in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the definition of 'Editor' have led to the foreigners owning many media houses in India (completely or partially). Such media persons seem to serve their vested interests and fail to take moral high grounds, be responsible and patriotic, and cover issues which really affect India's interests.
5) Print media in general and regional & local newspapers in particular have become heavily dependent on the advertisement, majority of which comes through government route. They don't dare do genuine and constructive criticisms of the government moves for that will negatively impact their earning and profitability.
6) Lately many digital news channels have mushroomed which just publish false, fake and fabricated news without vouching for their authenticity. Some of them tend to incite public violence too by their reporting on sensitive issues like love jihad, communal clashes, dalit atrocities, etc
All in all, media can be widely seen nowadays loosing it's moral compass. Despite enjoying 'Freedom of Press' emanating from the Constitution, they have failed to leverage it to effectively perform their duties. It's high time attempts should be made to suitably regulate media and eliminate the malpracrices and irregularities therein to make it responsible, unbiased, independent, and moral.
You answer is replete with examples which is very nice. However, I would like to put forth a question here? Should we not highlight a contrary opinion as well. Isn't it a one sided answer?
@Neyawn What do you suggest? In questions where in we put Do you Agree - what should the approach be?
Brilliant answer.
Please add two more dimensions to it
(1) However wala point, as how media activism has helped in some cases,
(2) Providing "Some" suggestions. You have already come close and just augment that part a bit.
There wasthis forum user Rasaghulason the old platform, he used to score pretty well in Mains. He always gave enough weightage to the suggestions part, especially in questions where it was not asked.
I am no knight. Do not call me Sir|Philosophy behind ForumIAS
Case Study:A convicted mobster decides to make a charitable contribution. He offers more than $1 million to a hospital to build a children’s wing. He will make the contribution if the new pavilion is named after him. The hospital board accepts the gift, with that stipulation. Do you think the hospital was right in accepting the gift?The question seems to skip some details. If the money of the convicted person is black money or extracted from extortion etc. But assuming if the earning itself is from questionable sources.
There are broadly three stakeholders : criminal, health institution and children
1. The criminal : in quest to improve social standing and gain public confidence seeks to justify his acts as opposed to whatever wrongs he committed. Legal system follows rule of law he committed crime and no donation or good deed can over power it. Here he has committed a legal offence, but in society both ethical and social morality prevails. It could be very well true that he gains publicity for such an act.
There seems to be clear intent of criminal to improve his image and social standing by insisting on naming a hospital division after him.
2. Public health institution : will gain from the extra funding and will be able to develop its infrastructure. Over all it will help increase capacity and capability of the institution. Especially for children.
3. Children : The children and their parents will be benefitted from a separate division created for children. To cater and attend to. By focusing on children's health it improves lives of children and their families deriving benefit out of the separate institution created.
If it is right or wrong :
1. Consequentialism argues that an action is good or bad depends more on outcome. The action here seems to do good for the people (children). Using Bentham's argument it is justified if it creates greatest good for the greatest number. example : 1000 children benefitted >criminal acts of one
2. Deontologically it is wrong as action is wrong. It seems to derive money from a questionable source and put it in for good use. But the action itself is morally unjustified.
Concluding,
In long term it will compromise public institution credibility and set a bad precedent in the society. Also it compromises the integrity of a public institution (hospital). Maybe it will benefit the hospital and improve its capability. But the cost though intangible will compromise ethics of governance. Hence hospital is wrong in accepting donation from convicted person.
Inputs welcomed
I have another line of thought in my mind.
The money that was obtained was obtained by a mobster. He is proven to have been unethical. while you rightly say, that the source of money is not mentioned, perhaps this can be added in the answer as a flipside - The hospital can get a background check done and check source of funds. If the money is legal, they can accept. After all, a moral society should give everyone a chance for redemption.
Kindly do answer if my approach is satisfactory with regards how answers are to be written in the exam.
Last attempt got only 59 marks in ethics.
Really need help (aap sab ki). Especially in case studies. Thanks.
Case study
Ganeshchand, a typical IAS aspirant, although in good faith and with his noble intention of helping a fellow aspirant in need, is trying to reach out to maximum aspirants by disseminating his willingness of donating his books to every possible thread on ForumIAS. Even the threads earmarked for aspirants going to write this year's mains are not spared. Do you think ganeshchand is morally right in his action? Substantiate. (200 words)
Write your comment…
