Mission Mains 2021: GS 4 Ethics Discussion

+ Strength: According to realism, a state’s primary interest is self-preservation. Therefore, the state must seek power and must always protect itself. 

+ Complying with Nehruvian view which maintains that national interest can only be defined in context of universal values like peace, tolerance and fraternity.

Also as a value addition, one can mention:

United Nations Charter ‘is the legal and moral foundation of international relations’. It provides for both end and means values that must be taken into account by all member nations.

wisdom finds truth essay 21 june.pdf

please review my essay on Wisdom finds truth. Topic Mains 2019 

WEF meet in Switzerland came with the announcement of setting up a “Centre for Internet of Ethical Things” by Karnataka. Setting up of the centre would be in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to ensure a level-playing field for global investors and industrialists. 

Why is ethics such a big criteria for global business? 

When a global firm chooses to do business with a country, the trust factor contributes heavily to their decision making. To ascertain trust in investors and dealers, accountability and transparency are key elements. By setting up this ‘Centre for Internet of Ethical Things’, global businesses may find more confidence as they have an ethical body to keep a check on the misuse of technology

All human beings aspire for happiness. Do you agree? What does happiness mean to you? Explain with examples. Mains 2014

Please review and suggest how to approach this type question -What is meant to you or real life example.

someone suggested not to write emotional answer like i have written.@Neyawn 

Orient - It's decent. I had not joined but referred to some test papers. 

Lukman - not too sure. Wasn't really good when I was at ORN. Dunno if it had bettered.

Let me put you through some thinking process.

First, do not begin an answer with yes I agree or no I don’t agree. Arrive at the conclusion rather than begin from it.

Secondly, think and tell me why all humans aspire for happiness ?

What is the harm in starting an answer with “Yes, I agree to it” or “no, I don’t agree with it”? 

I mean by opening an answer with such statement/s, one is able to directly answer the question plus one can conclude the answer by stating the reason why s/he is for or against the statement.

1. “Arriving at a conclusion” is a process, whereby you analyse both sides of the issues and then come to a conclusion based on the analyses. It gives an impression of being rational in making judgments/decisions.

2. Marks is provided based on content and that is what’s important. The only way to showcase that is analysing the issue/question from all aspect. In the end, your actual opinion to the direct question matters very less in the marks given 

3. The only exception is an essay. Where you can give a hint about your opinions and let the examiner know where your essay will be headed in the initial part only. 

You mentioned “both sides of the issue”.

I am considering that you meant “pros and cons/positives and negatives” there.

Now read this question:-

Hitting a woman is wrong. Do you agree?

Now in this question , will you critically evaluate too like will you give benefits and harms of hitting a woman? 

I’m assuming a “No”.

Here one would definitely mention why we shouldn’t hit a woman(negatives of hitting woman) and can also suggest some way forwards that can be adopted to boost woman pride.

so here, the answer to this question can be directly started by saying yes one agree to this statement followed by why one think this way in the body part, is what i believe.

I am assuming your question is What is Ethics? 

Ethics is defined as the study of what we understand to be good and right behaviour and how people make those judgments. When one acts in ways that are consistent with our moral values, we’ll characterize that as acting ethically. 

Defining what is ethical is not an individual exercise. However, if it is, then one could have argued that what Hitler did was ethical since his actions conformed to his definition of right, fair and good. The ethics of our decisions and actions is defined by society and not individually. 

So it can be said that “ethics is the discipline that examines one’s moral standards or the moral standards of the society. It asks how these moral standards apply to our lives and whether these standards are reasonable or unreasonable- that is whether good reasons or poor ones support them.

1. The nature of the questions is entirely different. Happiness is an abstract concept. The example you have quoted is diabolical, illegal and immoral - for which one has to vehemently argue right from the first statement that it is wrong. 

2. As far as this question is concerned, I would rather answer it with the first part question - all human beings aspire for Happiness. For such abstract questions, I feel the approach has to be more of "building up a conversation". 

For example,

According to Aristotle, nature works toward a telos, or end goal. Our function in life is to realize our full potential as rational beings. For instance, one might go to the gym with the telos of becoming fitter. When Aristotle identifies happiness as the highest goal, he is claiming that happiness is the ultimate telos of any action. 

Suppose, a kid asks:

Q: why do you go on a vacation?

A: to spend uninterrupted quality time with my family

q: why do you want to spend quality time?

A: because it makes me happy

Q: why do you want to be happy?

A: Because, I just want to be.  

Every activity thus has a telos, which is an answer to the question, Why are you doing this? 

Now, what happiness means to me? Since it is a GS4 paper, one can suitably choose what makes them happy. :P

@Neyawn Ethics Module by forumias was extremely helpful. Can you please start Ethics focused Test series incl 5-7 tests? 

I haven’t read the question nor have i read the answer/s. My concern was that is there any harm in saying yes i agree or no i don’t.

I have little experience of writing Ethics answers so I’m not sure of how to write and what to write but being a rational being, I’m of one  opinion that it will be a better thing to address what is asked in the question.  For example, if someone asks “What is your name?”, one can simply say “Rahul Gandhi” or “My name is Rahul Gandhi”. Directly or indirectly, that person is addressing the question. 

In a similar way, i will find it quite dissatisfying   to not say  “yes i agree” or “no i don’t agree” if asked in a question. It will be a little awkward for me to write everything from Aristole to Keynes to Shahrukh Khan but not that if i agree or not. :3

1. In UPSC mains, they are trying to gauge your ability to be able to critically analyse the issue(the theme of the question). Hence a question like “hitting a women is wrong” wont be asked.

2.  Let’s assume a question like this is asked, this is the way I’d go about it 

Introduction- give the context of why such a question may have been asked (example, a report or data released)

Body- why violence against women occurs and is rampant 

 - its impact briefly and why it is wrong 

 - challenges in reducing violence 

Conclusion- any form of violence against women is antithetical to the ethos and development of the nation 

 - way forward 

3. You see, if you read my answer you’d get a fair idea that I agree that hitting women is wrong. But I haven’t categorically mentioned it anywhere. I have given the examiner what I think he wants, an analysis on the issue. And in this case my critical analysis will include- reasons for violence + impact of it (why I agree it is bad) + challenges associated in curbing it,

4. You have to take the questions asked in the context of being in an examination and being tested for a purpose.