Synergy Ethics Test-1 Model Answer

CANDIDATE'S COPY
Note: Dear Students,

As there can be no one model answer for Ethics, we have tried to give you the maximum points/arguments that
you have to cover while writing your answers. For more details, please attend the discussion that would be held
on 18th September.
After going through all the answer scripts, we have also tried to give you certain guidelines keeping in mind the
common mistakes. In your scripts as well, there will be a note on the way you are structuring your answers,
which will be subjective.
Thank You,
Synergy
Q. 1
Answer:
(a) Focus of this question - Primarily focusing on school as an agent of socialization. Family, tradition,
culture, community because of high rate of globalisation, new economy, physical mobility is
undergoing massive changes. People from different value systems are found in urban systems, as a
result of which heterogeneity is coming in and the common value system is falling down. Religion also
in terms of value imparting institution is going down. Family system has also changed instead of joint
family, its taken over by nuclear families.
Now focus has to move to this point - Whether schools have been able to take up this role or not? How
and why?
In such scenario, the major role of value inculcation has been taken over by schools. As Piaget has
mentioned in his theory that childrens development is highly dependent on environment and social conditions,
schools try to maintain a neutral conducive condition for children coming from any culture, religion or social
background. Schools helps in socialization by classroom communication, developing a democratic environment,
where there is no difference between percept and practice, giving conditions to develop relationship based on
love, faith, cooperation, regularity, punctuality, discipline; and engaging in co curricular activities like
morning assembly, social service, participation in cultural activities, etc. which gives them an opportunity to
engage with a heterogeneous community at large and learn values like tolerance, patience, discipline, etc.
In the end you have to take your stand, whether you believe it or not that schools have taken over the the
role of being the primary agency of value inculcation or not and how successful they have been.
(b) This question is a practical extension of the idea end justifies the means. Whether
dictatorship is acceptable, if it brings good governance? Whether you believe in this idea or not? You can
agree or disagree, but with proper justification. Begin by a brief introduction to your answer where you
briefly explain the situation first. Then go on to provide your argument and then its justification.
Mukh.Nagar: 102, Ist Floor, Manushree Building, Comp. (Behind Post Office), Delhi-09
Karol Bagh: 16-A/2, Ist Floor, Ajmal Khan Road, W.E.A., New Delhi-05 ,
Ph: 011-27654518, 25744391 Mob.:- 7535002749/50 Website:- www.synergy.edu.in Email ID:- info@synergy.edu.in
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Our answer will here be No because only end is not important; means are equally important as well because in
the name of good, many atrocities and heinous crimes have been committed in the past. E.g. Hitler.
Dictatorship has rarely been able to provided good governance.
Along with this, examples where dictatorship has been able to give results. Dictatorship, under one single rule,
might initially give us a well governed state also, but eventually when everything is concentrated in single hand,
self righteousness can barge in. The possibility of the state going corrupt also will be high. Then the state is
heterogeneous in nature as well. We cant let one single ruler, without our choice to take over the entire state.
Q. 2Given are two quotation of moral thinkers / philosophers. For each of them, bring out what it means to you
in the present context.
(a) There is no passion to be found in playing small settling for a life that is less than the one you are
capable of living. Nelson Mandela.
Answer:
In this question, remember that you have to briefly explain what you have understood from this line.
What can help you here is that if you aware of the context of this quotation. For e.g., this statement is
coming from a political leader who fought for the entire nation, with having only one goal in mind i.e.,
freedom. You have to discuss this quotation from the present context that is what should cover the
major part of your answer.
Most answer scripts have missed this part. That is the reason why it is important to read the questions
carefully and not just get into writing the moment you see a quotation.
If you chose to settle for something small, there is nothing great about it. Human being has potential and
faculties, which are unique etc. human being. In the given conditions, whatever is achievable, one should go for
it. If you think small, you will be small.
Mandela has said these lines under the backdrop of the struggle he had undertaken for freedom of South Africa.
He could have lived like others and not taken that extra effort that made him stand apart from others and the
reason he became an epitome of courage for many others.
Having said these lines to encourage his fellows to take the courage and stand against all odds, he meant that its
always easy and tempting to lay small. Someone else deciding for us, taking it easy, it seems great in short run.
We want to play small in order to avoid the pain that might come along when you take things in your own
hands. But thats where you grow. That is precisely what we are capable of as well and one thing that differs us
from animals as human being. This capacity to live a life fully is what being human means.
In present situation, this statement seems holds importance, especially when it comes to our political leaders.
What separates leaders from good leaders is big, bold and compelling vision. Great leaders set great goals, for
the well being of larger good. These goals are ambitious, challenging and pull us out from our comfort zone.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Sadly, leaders these days are indecisive and think small. They dont want to take any responsibility of their
decisions and therefore aim low even while setting goals and directions. They dont realize that setting low aims
poses danger for future also:
It produces mediocre results.
It fails to inspire people around you.
It fails to build new capabilities and it keeps an individual remain in their past and not really
explore their capabilities.
We all have varying potentials and we have to work hard to achieve our true potential. Moreover, its not only
our potential we need to consider, but the potential of a situation.
(b) Yatpinde tad brahmande. What is in microcosm is also in microcosm.

Answer:
Similarly begin by explaining this line.
This Sanskrit verse means What is outside is inside you. What is inside you is outside you. This was in
reference to air, water, fire, earth and cosmic energy outside us and how important is each one of these is for us.
A harmonious relationship needs to be maintained amongst these for sustainable existence.
Likewise, environment plays an important role in the growth of human civilisation. The micro
environment of an individual constituted by his home, the food he takes, or the air he breathes, whereas the
macro environment would mean the climatic conditions he live sin. The environment provides all the
opportunities for economic, social and cultural development.
In contemporary age, one of the major problem we are facing is poverty because this harmony is not being
achieved. After using many developmental models, that are known to be integrated and sustainable, Pt.
DeenDayalUpadhyaya proposed his philosophy of Integral Humanism based on this philosophy. It aims to
provide a life of dignity to every human being and extends the idea of democracy and freedom from political
sphere to social and economic as well. It supports diversity and is against one model approach for all.
Q 3: (a) If you had all of Gods powers for one month (like Bruce Almighty) unlimited power and wealth to
create or do anything, what will you create? What will you do?
Answer:
Now there can be no one answer to this question. Though this appears to be a general question but we can
use some arguments of some theorists here. Aristotle says that Ethics is an imprecise science. It cant give
a concrete answer. It can only suggest certain things, and we have to justify our choices. Ethics has to be
practical. And we need to write that we would do something because its ethical. Kindly avoid such
statements.
In this question, keep in mind HOW, WHY you would do something is there any quantifiable benefit?Is
it sustainable? One stand that can be taken is that - KNOWLEDGE IS TRUE LIBERTY.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So if we are given unlimited power to do anything,
instantaneously, we might get corrupted also. Or become inactive as we wouldnt be knowing what actions to
take.
Having said so, a better approach is to see what do people in that position would do. Despite my ideas of right
or wrong, I would prefer to do things those are for general goodness of human society. One of these is to
remove ignorance. Removal of ignorance would help us in resolving many of our problems. Religious and
social conflicts can be sorted out. Everyones issues would be accepted by everyone else and it would cause a
massive progression towards a perfect civil rights system.
With the removal of ignorance, every individual will be able to act independently, but with a knowledge of
everyone elses needs in the world as well. This would result into creation of things at a faster pace and
progressing of the human race towards perfection.
(b) The greatness of a nation is judged by the way it treats its animals. In circuses, animals are forced to do
un natural acts. Elephants are forced to stand on their head, chimpanzees have to ride bicycleswhat to do
when you see an animal being treated cruelly?
Answer:
This question is about Animal Ethics part of Applied ethics. Whether this is cruelty on part of animals
or not. Some might disagree. And other would completely go with it.
Aristotle, nature has given a hierarchy. And till we are following it, there is no problem unless it doesnt
start harming us.
Having said so, another argument says that we should treat all animals with sympathy. They are sentient
beings. You should keep them nicely, feed nicely and even when killing them, kill easily mean till the
moment we arent inflicting pain, its all good.
Another theorist, if you justifying speciesism, then also supporting racism, or casteism. The entire system
is natures creation and we are endowed with special capability. In this case, we should feel more
responsible and caring. We are insignificant for nature. Not even the living, also living, non living is
important and inherent worth of every being or object is important. So every being is precious and has
been granted a place in this universe.
Treatment of animal as instrumental usage being, is unethical. Every being has inherent worth.
We should treat everyone humanly. The values of society empathetic, etc. also reflected here.
Mahatma Gandhi once said this while he was leading India through the countrys fight for independence from
the colonial rulers. This statement takes our attention to the very fact that even long before animal activism
became a global movement and animal laws being enacted here, India as a nation revered nature, and its flora
CANDIDATE'S COPY
and fauna. We can also witness the earliest laws of conservation and ethos of conservation and reverence of
animals in history dating back to Emperor Ashoka (3rd Century B.C.), Panchatantra and Hitopedesha, etc. but
when India started moving towards becoming a developed country, morals and ethos are left behind, and
insensitivity and egotistical attitude have become a norm.
Many amongst us stay mute witnesses to incidences of animal cruelty happening all around us. The reason
behind this marked indifference on part of the owner towards pain and suffering of animal is because we
humans treat animals as commodities and machines. They treat them as something they own, and
something they have a right to use as well as abuse.
The fact is that laws do exist in our country for protection of cruelty towards animals. PCA Act is a central Act
that look into usage of animals for various purposes performance in films, circuses, transport of animals,
behaviour towards draught and farm animals, etc. As a a responsible citizen, I should do the following when I
see an animal being treated cruelly:
(1) Complain to local state SPCA (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals / Animal Welfare)
(2) Contact the Police Police are the major enforcement body for PCA Act 1960. One can lodge a
complaint under Section 428 and 429 of the IPC of 1860.
(3) Know the Law learn to make a distinction between Cognizable and Non Cognizable offences
outlined in the PCA Act 1960.
(4) Documentation is the key be as factual and as precise of your observation as possible.
(5) Stand up, speak up against injustice Under Article 51 A (g), the Indian constitution imposes upon
every Indian citizen a fundamental duty to have compassion for all living creatures.
What makes cruelty to animals morally unpardonable and unacceptable, over and above human cruelty, is the
fact that humans can still protest against cruelty and raise alarm, and hit back. Animals, sadly dont have any of
these options. So it becomes our duty to help them out.
Q 4. There are number of heinous crimes that have come to light recently by Juveniles in India. There is a
feeling that law is soft on juveniles and thereby inadequate to deal with the emergent situation.
(a) Do you think juveniles should be treated similarly with adults? Justify.
(b) What initiatives should be taken to address juvenile crimes?
Answer:
First, these can be treated as one answer only till the time you are covering both the aspects that are being
asked in the question.
The arguments that needs to be kept in mind here is that one should be rewarded and punished for something I
have done. Means if an individualhas exercised control over an action or situation. One can exercise control
only when you have decided. For deciding, you need knowledge. Human being has an ability to choose. And
therefore, it is considered responsible for the actions.
But this isnt the case right from the birth. We are not in position to decide and choose for ourselves since our
birth. Gradually this consciousness rises. The human being develops the faculty of choosing the right or wrong
CANDIDATE'S COPY
or the age of reason at the age of 18. The ones who are below the age of reason i.e., age of 18, the autonomy to
decide isnt there. And he/she cant exercise complete knowledge.
Therefore, Juveniles should be treated differently.
Juveniles are minors, with a maximum age of 18 years, and in India, the Juvenile Justice System is different
from the criminal justice system. Instead of being formally charged as committing the crime, juvenile offenders
are accused of committing a delinquent act.
No, juveniles shouldnt be treated similarly with adults because they havent reached the age of maturity where
they can reason and decide for themselves. They are incapable of determining the difference between right and
wrong, or the consequences of their act. Those who have reached the age of reasoning can decide for
themselvesand therefore capable of exercising choice and freedom. They havent attained the state of autonomy.
Therefore, they cant be punished.
To understand the juvenile crimes and then address them, one need to understand that there are two types of
delinquents
Those on whom the onset of severe antisocial behaviour begins in early childhood, and
Those in whom this onset occurs after reaching adolescence.
Steps taken to address juvenile crimes:
1. Education educating and then school follow up when they are out of detention.
2. Recreation
3. Community involvement
4. Parent child interaction training programme
5. Bullying Prevention Programme in schools
6. Job training and job placement
7. Assistance to break away from any harmful habit extended counselling and extended drug rehab.
Q 5. Differentiate between the following:

(a) Moral Good and Moral Evil
(b) Action by human and Human action
(c) Vincible and Invincible Ignorance
(d) Utilitarianism and Epicureanism
Answer: (a) Moral good and Moral Evil

Moral good means the intrinsic goodness grounded in the nature of acts and independent of our subjective
satisfaction. E.g. saving life, speaking truth, etc. appropriateness or inappropriateness of human behaviour.
Whereas moral evil can refer to that evil that is wilfully inflicted upon others by free moral agents. It is that
suffering caused by humans, who act in certain way that is considered morally wrong. For e.g., rape, murder,
stealing, terrorism, etc.
(b) Action by human and Human Action
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Actions committed by human beings are called action by human. For e.g., sleep walking, action of humans
those are insane, infant, instinctual, etc. Whereas for any action by human being to become a human action, it
requires to fulfill three prerequisites:
(i) Knowledge
(ii) Free will
(iii) Voluntariness
Human actions that fulfil these criteria only fall under the domain of human action and henceforth considered to
be evaluated for ethicality. Not all actions of human beings fall under the domain of ethicality.
(C) Vincible Ignorance and Invincible Ignorance

In an ordinary situation, if you could take an effort for gather knowledge and do away with ignorance, then
thats referred to as vincible ignorance. This is the kind of ignorance that could be rectified or done away with if
an effort can be taken. It is lack of effort on our part that leads to such ignorance.
Whereas invincible ignorance is the one where, even after taking an effort, you wouldnt have gotten the
complete knowledge.
If an action has been committed under the influence of invincible ignorance, it ceases to be considered as a
human action.
(d) Utilitarianism and Epicureanism

Utilitarianism refers to an ethical tradition that emphasis on morality of human action based on maximum
happiness of maximum number of people. Epicureanism, though focusing on happiness differed from
utilitarianism. It emphasised on the goal of a happy and content life in the here and now, rejecting the
superstitious fear of gods and notion of an afterlife. It differed from hedonism in the sense that it didnt simply
advocate pursuit of bodily pleasures.
Q 6. To decide the morality of human actions, ethics must first determine the end or purpose of human
actions the ultimate end of these actions.
(a) Do you agree with the above view? Justify your answer with illustrations.
(b) According to you, what is the purpose of human action?
Answer:
Question is saying whenever we want to determine morality and ethicality of an action, we need to keep
the purpose in mind. When we know the purpose, then we can decide what a human being should do. One
important point to keep in mind here is that illustrations are required in this question. So your answer
should carry an illustration.
In order to find out the ethicality of human action, we need to understand the goal of human being, in its
absence we cant determine what a human being should do.
For e.g., ultimate aim of human being is happiness. Bentham, Plato, Kant everyone is focusing on what a
human being is and what should be its goal.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Primarily see, to know the ethicality of human action, the primary standard is what is the purpose of a human
being. Desirable action will come from your goal.
You have to go on focusing what according to you is then purpose of human action? happiness, that is truly
brought by well being, which is turn is dependent on the harmonious relationship between all.
Q 7. In medicine, clinical intervention is known to have both negative and positive consequences. Clinicians
often appeal to the principle of double effect as justification of their choice. It is often impossible to do good
to patients without also causing them some harm, because treatments have side effects. It may also be
necessary to do something to a patient which would be harmful and wrong outside the medical context. It is
done because it will benefit the patient.
(a) Do you think it is justified to kill an innocent human (euthanasia) to relieve the distress of a dying
patient?
(b) Discuss the ethics of euthanasia from the principle of double effect.
Answer:
Like it has been stated earlier, we can deal with (a) and (b), till the time we are covering both the aspects
in our answer. You dont need to write it separately for (a) or (b).
Almost everymedical practitioners comes across the dilemmas under the principle of double effect. It is often
impossible to do good to patients without also causing them some harm, because treatments and medicines do
have side effects. Still those medicines and treatments area given because it will immediately bring benefit to
the patient. For e.g., the medicine for diabetes, which if taken on a regular basis causes loose motions on regular
basis and cause organ failure in long run. But the immediate requirement is to curb the sugar level in human
body. It is done because it will immediately bring relief and benefit to the patient.
The doctrine of double effect forbids achieving of good ends by bad means. In euthanasia, it actually depends on
the treatment of doctor and the will of the patient. If the doctors treatment is directly willed at killing the
patient, it doesnt sound right. Applications of the principle of double effect always presupposes that some kind
of proportionality condition has been satisfied.
Under euthanasia, what the doctor intends to be is alleviate the suffering of the patient, which they must have
been undergoing since long. Having said so, the principle of double effect does not allow doctors to kill the
patient, even if the patient has reasons for wishing to die quickly. It is still believed that directly killing of the
innocent is supremely wrong.
Aim should be good
It is purely an ethical aspect. In euthanasia, doctor killed the patient. Maybe be would have done because he was
suffering from acute pain. Then, normal argument why is it good or not. Free will is when you are healthy.
But when you are ill, is free being exercised?
Its an unnatural act; against God;
Deontological its my choice.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Utilitarian pain will be relieved.

My decision would then depend on how will I implement it? In what conditions? Law and conditions should be
restricting. But are we equipped to handle this? We have laws against female feticide, etc. but isnt that still
taking place? This law will be taking the life. Is that justified?
Do we have proportionate reasons?
What is the intention? To relieve stress or agony
Direct result relief from pain
Q 8. One of the traditional sense towards morality has been that without religion no one would know what
right or wrong was. However, many people today believe that God is, at best, unnecessary, and at worst, an
intolerant task master. They say they dont need God to live right, and they can set their own rules for life.
(a) Can man live ethically and morally without the guidance of religion?
(b) What would godless morality be like? Without a god, why would anyone want to be moral?
Answer:
Religion is understood as a belief system that gives meaning to peoples lives and based on the idea of a
Supreme being, called God, and reveals insights about human conduct and life. Many theologians believe
religion to be the primary source of ethics and religious scriptures to prescribe certain dos and donts for human
conduct, based on which the ethicality of a human action is evaluated. This means that following these
scriptures will be moral and going against it would be immoral.
Ethics on the other hand is based on the tenets of reason. Anything that isnt rationally verifiable cannot be
considered justifiable. Keeping this in mind, we can conclude that ethical principles need not derive their
authority from religion.
Having said so, religion, we understand can be helpful to a certain extent in having ethical human life, but at the
same time, all religious scriptures cant be the final word in ethical conduct because:
(a) Religious scriptures dont cover the whole gamut of human actions.
(b) There are different types of religion and many of them carry contradictory prescriptions also. So when
individuals belonging to different religions interact with each other, they should be carrying a common
set of code of conduct, irrespective of which religion they belong to.
(c) As there are many religions and what has been prescribed in religious scriptures is by human beings
only, there is a possibility of going wrong. This might lead to chaos in society. So it cant be the source
of ethical human conduct.
Without God also, people would like to be ethical because it would help them in living a harmonious life,
promoting independent and responsible individuals who will be capable of taking decisions that maximize the
well being of society as a whole.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Q 9. Ethics, for many in government is considered a roadblock or moreover an unnecessary evil. Though it is
a laudable idea, yet it is impractical. In your opinion, whether the traditionally carried opinion that the
government organisations would malfunction if it chooses to be ethical is right or not? Illustrate.
Answer:
Simple relationship between ethics and efficiency is to be addressed here.
Ethics is a system of moral principles that govern a persons behaviour or conduct. Human beings often follow
either religion or their gut instinct to act in certain situations. This might lead to a different course of action in
similar situation, but different instances. This is not such a good idea as it would lead to inconsistency, gradually
leading to restlessness and loss for organisation.
Ethics in government organisations equips us with code of conduct, rules and regulations about right and wrong
behaviour. Also, in government organisations, many a times, the government officials are faced with variety of
difficult and unique ethical dilemmas /situations like hiring ones own relative / company to work for the
government, accepting expensive gifts from lobby groups, divulgence of personal information about citizens,
etc. Also government has been given an important responsibility of delivering effective public administration
and providing important services to citizens such as social services, public utilities, police services, and national
security. Ethics in government organisations acts as a valuable means for protecting against government wastes
and ensuring effective public administration. This code of ethics can result into prohibiting many improper
activities like us of public property for personal benefit, etc. and address issue of bribery and conflicts of
interest. So government organisations that chooses to be ethical will be more efficient and responsible.
Q 10. In many respects, the rape and murder of a 30-year-olddalit

(a) What are the ethical issues involved in the above case?
(b) Should women who are thought to be victims of sexual abuse ever be named in the media?
Answer:
Now while dealing with case studies, kindly begin your answer with briefly explaining the situation. What
have you understood of this question. While doing so, kindly do not repeat what has been given in the
question. This brief explanation will consist of what you might also assume. Simple assumptions will be
required here while explaining the situation. Furthermore, there are two aspects of this question. Not
necessarily one needs to write them separately. If there are one or more aspects, they can be dealt
together.
So begin your answer by explain the situation.

Then, write the ethical issues involved here
o Major Ethical issue involved here are
o the Right to Privacy of someone who has been victimized or someone who just doesnt want
to be named,
CANDIDATE'S COPY
o Right of Consent whether someone want to disclose their identity or not,

o Ethics of Professionalism and Journalism under which they are being given a responsibility
of imparting their information in a rightly manner and not barge into someones personal
rights, and
o Right to dignified living.
What does responsible journalism say?
o The second aspect of the question is whether women should not be named or not in the media
o Social structure is like that they can be victimized socially if named in media. Having said so,
if the media has got the consent from the victim herself, that in order to break the long laid
social structures, she wants to be named it should be done still with lots of caution;
o If the consent is not there, the loss of victim will be aggravated further by naming her in
public. It will be difficult for her to;
o The victim also might face more discrimination because of patriarchal society.
Q 11. It is one of Indias glaring embarrassments:

(a) Does a convicted criminal deserve whatever treatment he or she requests? Whatever is medically
indicated?
(b) Is convict entitled to the same medical treatment as anyone else?
(c) Should severity of the crime determine what level of medical care a criminal receives?
(d) Should law abiding citizens be prioritized over convicted criminals when the allocation of organs
for transplantation is being determined?
(e) What kind of problems would be raised by using social criteria for allocating scarce resources such
as donor organs?
Answer:
Again, you dont need to answer each part separately. Begin by explaining the situation and then explain your
arguments. This question is about ethicality of fair treatment given to all citizens.
Those who are in jail are getting the treatment for free from tax paying citizens, while other who are poor
outside, who are in need, many might actually be dying because of lack of proper medical facilities to them
who should get it?
Every human life is precious and we have no right to take it from anyone. A criminal, once in prison, they are
under the jurisdiction of law. Their punishment has been decided by the court for the crime they have
perpetrated. If we deny them treatment, that would be unduly punishing them, without the knowledge of law as
the punishment will be additional to what he had already received. That would be unfair on the convicts part as
well.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Furthermore, punishment isnt to kill anyone or deprive them for basic needs. Punishment also acts as a
reformative measure that should include a humane part as well therefore they should get medical treatment.
Based on the social criteria also, we cant use it for allocating the donor organs. This allocation should purely be
based on the level of vulnerability. Those who are more vulnerable shoud be the one getting priority of
treatment.
Q 12. A new state of the art product is developed by a well known company. It is to be launched
simultaneously
(a) Should the manager give bribe and get clearance?
(b) What all options you can explore and what can be your choice of action in this case?
Answer: As stated earlier, you first need to elaborate on the situation.

Then state what could be the possible negative consequences of bribing?
It will not good for organisation. There is a possibility of this getting out in public and the organisation
might have to face some legal or trust deficit consequences. Here is a well known company, and people trust it,
and the moment bribery incident goes out, the managers position might also be harmed.
Whether I will give bribe or not? As per Kants categorical imperative, an individual should act as per
the maxim that can be developed as a universal law. In such situation, bribing cannot be developed as a
universal law, as this would create mayhem in the society and the influential one will become powerful.
(Discuss this is detail. Now, you would write about your possible alternative here).
Going to someone senior and discussing with him / her. They might be able to help you out here. It is also
important so that the seniors are well aware of the situation, especially when its such an important situation
where the companys reputation is at stake.
Q 13. In 1996, in the North Indian State

(a) In your opinion, whether it is right to enforce prohibition of liquor in order to fight alcoholism and
its bad effect?
(b) While considering the above case explain whether other states planning prohibition for alcohol
should impose it?
Answer:
Again, all the parts can be dealt together, provided all the aspects are being taken care of. Begin your
answer by explaining the situation briefly in first paragraph. Then move onto your arguments.
If alcohol is prohibited, is it sustainable? Can you ensure the non availability of alcohol in your state? Also
discuss how the alcohol industry is adding to the economy of the state.
CANDIDATE'S COPY
If alcohol is prohibited there is huge revenue generation, which can be used in other fields like
medical care, etc. Ban of alcohol with take this option away. Also alcohol industry and production is giving jobs
to several people. Skilled brewers and alcohol technicians will be unemployed if alcohol is banned. Doing good
for one, we cannot neglect the other major part of the population unless we have an alternative for their
rehabilitation. Alcohol production also provides a heavy amount of duty and taxes to the government. It also
adds on to the happiness factor in a way.
Having said so, a complete ban might not be effective, but for sure beneficial. We are aware of the fact that if
alcohol isnt prohibited it leads to violence, conflict situation on rise, poor health, social malaise, it leads to
increase in other crimes, etc. Ban of alcohol has proved beneficial in state like Gujarat and to some extent in
Tamil Nadu as well. The major lives effected by alcohol is that of women as it had taken a toll on their lives.
Ban on this can also result into lower traffic accidents and casualties arising therefrom. It can also lead to
reduction in abuse and other crimes. With time, we can see reduced cases of violence and criminal damage. This
also will be beneficial in reducing anti social behaviour. We also have certain social benefits in the form of
creating a more peaceful and harmonious environment. Local women in Haryana believes that life is safer and
more tranquil following the law prohibiting liquor production, transportation and sales. In New Zealand, liquor
ban resulted in a 98% resolution of liquor offences as well as a reduction in other crimes due to which police
personnel is being able to shift their focus on improving other areas. In some states in Canada, it was reported
by the police that crime rate decreased significantly, parents started attending school activities and as a result the
children became calmer reducing the juvenile crimes as well.
Yet, we understand that being prohibited it would lead to increase in black marketing. We will have no quality
control and lead to more deaths. Government wouldnt be receiving revenue also, so it would not be able to
spend on health on a relative basis. Health might become a neglected sector.
In such situation, prohibition will be good only when it can be reinforced. We have banned so many things in
past like drugs, etc., but that didnt ensure its complete removal from the society.
Therefore, we need to take alternative routes Make the alcohol expensive, increase the taxes so that higher
revenue is generated and it becomes difficult for the ones with less resources to buy it.
Q 14. As some rare wildlife specie approach

(a) If extinction is natural phenomenon, why should NGOs or Civil Society Groups care about
extinction of sea turtles?
(b) Is it right that many billions of non human animals live short and wretched lives in order to satisfy
the human craving for meat?
(c) Should people for whom animal food is traditional source of food be criticized for eating them?
Answer:
CANDIDATE'S COPY
Begin by explaining the situation briefly before starting your arguments. Then move to the arguments,
while addressing the various aspects raised in the question.
We had a number of species in our past like dinosaurs, which cease to exist now. Many species are extinct now.
Mutation, new species, etc. all are natural processes. In such scenario we can ask, is it advisable for human
being then to act for saving these species?
We need to understand one thing first that anything natural is not necessarily ethical. Moreover, this
extinction is not a natural process.Human being has a special character of choosing and creating. It can use its
consciousness for its own benefit and creating for others. For e.g., natural disasters like cyclones, earthquakes,
etc. are also there and we prepare ourselves for these in form of disaster management. Since we have a special
power endowed by nature, instead of expediting our process towards extinction, we should save it.
Then, is it justified to eat non vegetarian? No. In animal ethics, Aristotle says its justified. He has called nature
as a chain of being, which permits the higher being to use the lower being. Does that allow it to end it? No.
human being should protect it. All the creatures of nature are sentient beings and precious. The nervous system
of all these sentient beings are complex. They also experience pain. As a human being, we have much larger
responsibility of taking care of more vulnerable beings. Animals, being lower in the hierarchy are also
vulnerable, therefore need to be protected.
Furthermore, the ones whose traditional source of food is animals shouldnt be criticized. But at the same time,
something is traditional doesnt mean that it cant be changed. Through years, we have witnessed traditions
being changing. Tradition changes as per the requirement of the environment we live in. In such case, the
pressure is more on Earth if we consume non vegetarian compared to than what we have when we consume
vegetarian food. That is the reason why eating non vegetarian is unethical.

Synergy Ethics Test-1 Model Answer

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Synergy Ethics Test-1 Model Answer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CANDIDATE'S COPY

Note: Dear Students,

(b) Yatpinde tad brahmande. What is in microcosm is also in microcosm.

Q 5. Differentiate between the following:

Answer: (a) Moral good and Moral Evil

(b) Action by human and Human Action

(C) Vincible Ignorance and Invincible Ignorance

(d) Utilitarianism and Epicureanism

Utilitarian pain will be relieved.

Q 10. In many respects, the rape and murder of a 30-year-olddalit

So begin your answer by explain the situation.

o Right of Consent whether someone want to disclose their identity or not,

Q 11. It is one of Indias glaring embarrassments:

Answer: As stated earlier, you first need to elaborate on the situation.

Q 13. In 1996, in the North Indian State

Q 14. As some rare wildlife specie approach

Вам также может понравиться