Moral Thinkers — Practice Questions

Introduction: Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill) judges actions by their consequences — the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Deontology (Kant) judges actions by whether they conform to duty, regardless of outcome.

Body:

• Utilitarianism — strengths: practical, outcome-focused, suits allocation of scarce resources and cost-benefit analysis. Weakness: can justify sacrificing individuals or minorities for aggregate gain.
• Deontology — strengths: protects rights and dignity; demands consistency and honesty; forbids using people as mere means. Weakness: rigid when duties conflict; can ignore disastrous consequences.
• In public administration:
  • Policy design (where to build a hospital) needs consequential reasoning.
  • Rights, due process and honesty (no torture, no false records) need deontological limits.
• Synthesis: maximise welfare within the boundaries set by constitutional rights — essentially “rule-constrained utilitarianism”, supplemented by Rawls’s concern for the least advantaged.

Conclusion: Neither alone suffices. Administration should pursue the greatest good, but never by crossing the lines that duty and rights draw.

Introduction: For Aristotle, virtue is a settled disposition formed by practice — we become just by doing just acts. Virtue ethics asks what a person of good character would do, rather than what rule applies.

Body:

• Why it matters for civil services:
  • Rules cannot cover every situation; character guides discretion.
  • Integrity is a habit: refusing small favours early builds the strength to refuse large ones.
  • Practical wisdom (phronesis) helps balance competing values in real cases.
  • The golden mean: firmness without harshness, compassion without favouritism.
• How to build virtue institutionally:
  • Role models and mentoring in early postings.
  • Case-based ethics training that develops judgement.
  • Recognition of exemplary conduct.
  • Workplace cultures where honesty is routine.
• Limits: character alone may not resolve disputes; needs rules and accountability as support.

Conclusion: Virtue ethics shifts the focus from compliance to character. Habits of honesty formed early make integrity the natural response under pressure.

Introduction: In his speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, B.R. Ambedkar warned that political democracy — one person, one vote — cannot last unless there is social democracy beneath it.

Body:

• Meaning: social democracy is a way of life that recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as a trinity; each without the others is incomplete. He warned of the contradiction of equality in politics and inequality in social and economic life.
• Relevance today:
  • Persisting caste discrimination and untouchability-related offences.
  • Economic inequality and unequal access to education and health.
  • Gender inequality in work and public life.
  • Fraternity under strain from communal and regional divisions.
• Role of administration: enforcing protective laws, implementing welfare fairly, promoting inclusion and dignity, and modelling constitutional morality.

Conclusion: Ambedkar’s warning remains a test for Indian democracy: votes guarantee political equality, but only a society of equals can sustain it.

Stakeholders: patients and families in both places; doctors; the tribal community; the State health department; drug suppliers; the public and media.

Ethical issues:

• Allocation of scarce life-saving resources.
• Maximising lives saved vs equal worth of each life.
• Equity for remote, marginalised communities.
• Transparency and public trust; media pressure.

Perspectives:

Options:

1. Divert all stock to the city — maximises numbers; abandons the district.
2. Keep all stock in the district — protects the vulnerable; fewer lives saved overall.
3. Allocate by transparent medical criteria (severity, likelihood of benefit) across both hospitals, guarantee a minimum supply to the district, and urgently procure more.

Course of action:

1. Adopt option 3: apply uniform clinical criteria to all patients, wherever they are, with an expert committee.
2. Reserve a minimum stock for the district because its patients have no alternative.
3. Seek emergency supply from the Centre, other States and manufacturers; consider airlifting patients or drugs.
4. Communicate criteria publicly to maintain trust and counter selective media pressure.
5. After the crisis, review stock planning for remote areas.

Conclusion: A blend of theories works best: save as many lives as possible (utilitarian), respect each life equally through fair criteria (Kant), and protect those with no fallback (Rawls).