PSIR Answer Writing Module 2023

Model Answers
Test 5

For any concern related with PSIR Test Series mail at [email protected]

1. What are human rights? Is there any hierarchy of human rights? Explain the
relationship between the protection of human rights and sustainable development goals?
Human Rights are the standards that recognize and protect the dignity of all humans. They
govern the relationship of individual with the State and the obligations that the State have
towards individual. According to Bosanquet, “Rights are claims recognized by society and
enforced by the state.” Human rights are a post WWII phenomenon.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, some of the basic features of rights
are they are Universal and inalienable. Human rights are inter-dependent and are inter-
related. Rights are rational and based on reasonable claims. Rights may not be absolute.
There are always, some reasonable restrictions. Rights are inseparably related to duties.
They are indivisible. Whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural in nature, they are
all inherent to the dignity of every human person. Consequently, they all have equal status
as rights. There is no such thing as a 'small' right. There is no hierarchy of human rights.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 interlinked global goals
designed to be a "blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all". The
SDGs were set up in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly (UN-GA) and are intended
to be achieved by 2030. At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
(Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012, Member States adopted the outcome
document "The Future We Want" in which they decided to launch a process to develop a set
of SDGs.
Human rights are essential to achieving sustainable development that leaves no one behind
and are central to all its three dimensions – social, environmental, and economic. The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) aims “to realize the human rights of all”
and is firmly anchored in Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international
human rights treaties. For example – SDG1 talks about ending poverty and UDHR Article 25
talks about Right to an adequate standard of living; SDG 2 aims to End hunger, achieve food
security and improved nutrition. UDHR Article 28 talks about International cooperation to
ensure equitable distribution of world food supplies. Similarly SDG 3 Ensures healthy lives,
UDHR Article 25 aims at Right to health.
To conclude one can say that the scope or set of rights are constantly expanding and
changing with the passage of time and new rights are being included. They are essential
.This was acknowledged by Laski in his book "Grammar of Politics", when he said that rights
are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek to be himself at his best.

2. How the term equality differs from equity? Discuss the various forms of equality and
their relevance.
Equality is a modern concept emerging from the Kantian conception of Human dignity. While
Equality refers to scenarios in which all segments of society have the same levels of
opportunity and support. Equity extends the concept of equality to include providing varying
levels of support based on individual need or ability.

The concept of equality can be understood in multiple ways. It may be considered at two
levels at foundational level or at the distributive level.

Various Schools of thought have understood equality in varying sense. Liberals believe in
equality before law and Equality of opportunities. The Marxist’s conception revolves around
the socio economic equality and equality of outcomes.

Multiculturalist scholars like Will kymlicka emphasize on the notion of differential equality.
Similarly, Feminists believe in differential gender equality. The communitarian school of
thought led by Michael Walzer, Michael Sandel talk about complex Equality. Walzer says
that different goods ought to be distributed differently.

Equality has also been seen in a narrow aspect through the concept of formal or procedural
equality. On the other hand the substantive theory of equality focuses on the root causes of
equality and recognizes a positive role of the state.
In conclusion , there cannot be particularly one model of equality which is superior to other .
The Socio-political context defines which model of equality can be suitable .

3. Rawls’s theory of justice consists of certain distributive principles for the basic structure
of society. In light of this statement critically evaluate Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness.
Justice being the central normative concept of political science was a primary concern of
thinkers from Plato to Sen. According to Tom Campbell, justice is the central and
commanding concept of current mainstream normative political philosophy. Justice serves to
organise people together into a right or fair order of relationships by distributing to each
person his or her due share.
In modern political philosophy Rawls theory of Justice is a prominent theory of distributive
Justice. Rawls talk about creating a more equal and a just society by bringing the difference
principles. Rawls gives maximum equal liberty to all but provide two conditions: first, it
should be done under equality of opportunity; second, it should be done in a manner which
works to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged group in the society.
Thus, according to Rawls, all social values like liberty, opportunity, income and wealth, and
self -respect are to be distributed equally. Unless an unequal distribution of any of these
values is to everyone advantage. Thus, for Rawls, injustice is prevalence of those inequalities
which do not benefit all.
However, the communitarians criticize Rawls’ ‘original position’. Michael Sandel in his book
‘Liberalism and limits of justice’ argues that Rawls theory rests on a flawed understanding of
self or individual.
Feminist scholars such as Carole Pateman questioned Rawls whether women are active
decision makers in original position.
According to C.B. Macpherson, Rawls theory of justice is an elegant defense of liberal-
democratic welfare state. He argues that Rawls doesn’t present an universal account of
justice but an account that rationalizes liberal beliefs and values. Rawls theory is culture-
specific and appropriate only for liberal democratic societies.
Libertarian scholar Robert Nozick, in his book ‘Anarchy, state and utopia’, argues that
Rawlsian conception of justice is an ‘end-state’ theory, which calls for social reconstruction in
the name of some end-stage goals.

Nevertheless , Rawls’s works inaugurated what has been rightly called “a golden age in
theorising about justice.” Rawls notion of justice has greatly broadened the concept.

4. The policy of affirmative action aims at the politics of inclusion. Explain with reference
to India’s journey towards building an egalitarian society.
Affirmative action is a form of public policy of discrimination in favor of disadvantaged
groups at a level sufficient to overcome the past patterns of discrimination and exploitation.
• It is based on the assumption that in every society these can be certain sections who have
been historically disadvantages like blacks (USA) & Dalits (India). It is assumed that an
external catalyst, in the form of affirmative action’s, is required to bring these hither to
exclude sections at poor with other sections.
Affirmative action is based on the ‘principle of redress’ to rectify the underserved
inequalities.

India’s journey towards affirmative action started with the formation of the constitution
itself. The effort was led by members like Dr. Ambedkar . The constitution gives reservation
in employment, initially for SC and STs , later extended to other classes and in educational
institutions.

The Doctrine of Equality in Indian constitution is not absolute. The Constitution talks about
‘Equality among equals’ and allows the State to make classification among citizens on the
basis of intelligible differentia for the purposes of social welfare and reform.

Article 15(3) allows the State to make any special provision for women and children. Article
15(4) of the Constitution reads , “that nothing contained in the said Article shall prevent the
State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes”. Article 16(4) allows the State to make reservations in public employment. The
Directive Principle Article 46 highlights the duty of the government to promote the interests
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice
and exploitation.

The Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for reservation of seats in Parliament
and State legislature based on the proportionate population of SCs and STs. Reservation of
seats is also provided in local governments and also for women. Article 243 D provides
reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Panchayats. Article 233T provides reservation of
seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality.

However, the so called fair equality of opportunity has been criticized by neo-rightists and
neo-liberal scholars . For example – Hayek held that, not only equality of opportunity , but
the entire concept of social justice is a ‘mirage’. Nozick , argued against equality of
opportunity on the ground of violation of right to property .

Affirmative action must be seen as a temporary measure, to create a level playing field for
everyone in the society, particularly the disadvantage groups and communities.

5. Dworkin’s theory of equality is not limited to the realm of abstract theoritization but
aims at harmonizing the principles with concrete practices. Critically evaluate.
Equality, like any political concept, is a contested one , but lies at the heart of normative
political theory. Equality is a feature of modern times because in ancient and in medieval
times there was more of a justification of inequality. Plato and Aristotle considered
inequality not only natural but also desirable. But with the modern revolutions like French
Revolution and American Revolution, the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity became
the part and parcel of the political discourse in the western countries.
According to Dworkin, equality is a ‘sovereign virtue’. It means equality precedes all other
virtues. However, equality is a relative concept. As against equality of welfare, represented
by utilitarian who argue in favour of achievement of equality of welfare (pleasure/
happiness)’ Dworkin suggests to give equal resources.
According to Dworkin, ‘just society is where initial distribution of resources is just.’.Equality
of resources approach, expressed by scholars like Dworkin & Rawls, is the resourcist view of
equality or ‘resource egalitarianism’. It lays emphasis on the state’s responsibility towards
remedying unequal circumstances among people. Ronald Dworkin has suggested 2-stage
process to achieve equality of resources—Ambition sensitive auction and the Insurance
scheme.
However, Dworkin has been criticised by scholars like Elisabeth Anderson , who in “What is
the Point of Equality?” published in 1999, wonders what to do with people who made the
wrong choices.There can be a whole bunch of cases where what means "bad luck" and "bad
choice" is very problematic.
Amartya Sen criticised Dworkin for giving a narrow view of equality just by making people
equal at the initial level . He supports making people equal in terms of capability.

6. Right is simply not reducible to a goal or a policy. In light of the statement , explain
Dworkin’s view that rights are trump.
“Rights are those conditions of life without which no man can seek in general to be at his
best.” Laski
Discourses on rights are the fundamental aspects of modern political philosophy. Rights are
seen as claims essential for the full realization of the personality of the individual. In his
essay “Taking rights seriously”,Dworkin develops his idea of rights as trumps.
The Core theme of Dworkin is to challenge those who believe that there is a sufficient ground
to curtail the rights of individuals, if such limitation is in the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. Rights are inalienable and therefore government and philosophers should
take rights seriously. Rights are inalienable parts of the personality of man, hence cannot be
traded off between other kinds of goods or moral political values. Rights are trumps in the
sense that, there are some fundamental rights having precedence over other norms
including the welfare of the whole society. His main idea is that there are some moral rights
against the government. Not all constitutional rights are such rights. Constitutional right like
freedom of speech, are rights against the government, in the strong sense i.e. the point to
boast our legal system respects the fundamental rights of the citizens. Thus, government
would do wrong in repealing such rights, even when they are persuaded that the majority
would be better off that way. Certain interests of the individual are so important that it
would be wrong for community “to sacrifice those interest just to secure over all benefit”.
Some rights which can be called political or fundamental mark off and protect these
important individual interest. Such rights are trump over kind of trade off arguments that
normally justify political action. Thus, some liberties are so important that they cannot be
disregarded on consequentialist grounds. Even Rawls established the priority of rights over
good.
If the relevance of fundamental rights can be weighed at every new upcoming crisis scenario,
like any other social/ national interest, than balancing is a confusion that threatens to
destroy the concept of individual rights.
Trumps are strong rights, against government and once government defines them as
fundamental, society should bear the cost/burden arising out of it, thus great social cost is
warranted to protect it.
However, Dworkin does not suggest that state is never justified in overriding the right.For
example: - Government may override, the right, to protect the right of others, to prevent
catastrophe or even for major public benefit.
In “Taking rights seriously” he mentions following grounds to limit the rights.Governments
might show values encompassed by the original rights are not really at stake. If rights are
held, then the cost to society could be far beyond the cost paid to grant the original right.
Dworkin, who is a philosopher of jurisprudence aims to give legal positivism found in writings
of H.L.A. Hart and his utilitarian ancestors like Bentham, who believed that rights are
properly the creatures of law.
Dworkin develop a theory of judicial reasoning, where he suggest that “hard cases” in which
statutes and precedents are vague have to be decided on the basis of our political institution
which are right based. Dworkin prioritize principle over policy . He even support civil
disobedience to those laws which individual believes violate the rights. Dworkin thesis is that
rights ultimately underlie judicial reasoning. Rights exist independent of legal recognition
and outlines how judge and lawyers should think about it.

7.Amartya Sen’s capability approach is a moral framework. Discuss

Amartya Sen’s capability approach is based upon analytical distinction between means and
end. It evaluates policies according to its impact on people’s capabilities as well as their
functioning.
According to Sen, capability is the ability to achieve a certain set of function. For eg- literacy
is a capability while reading is a function.
The capability approach stresses that the distributional equality should concern itself with
equalizing people’s capabilities, instead of emphasizing on resources. This distinguishes it
from the equality of resources approach, which focuses exclusively on means (resources) of
well-being and exclude the ultimate end (functioning).
In contrast to the resources approach, Sen proposes the notion of well-being in terms of
functions. The theoretical basis on which the capability approach is preferred over equality
of resources is the idea that a proper analysis of inequality needs to go hand-in hand with
human diversity.
According to Amartya Sen, people are deeply diverse in the internal characteristics (such as
age, gender, particular talents etc) as well as external circumstances such as social
background, ownership of assets etc.
Thus, Sen’s capability approach stresses that social policies must be tuned with facts of
human diversity to equalize people’s capabilities. Whereas a resource egalitarian may insist
that resources such as books & educational service may tackle illiteracy, the capability
approach would stress on internal capability to read and write. It is in this context, capability
approach to address the problem of inequality is a preferred approach
For Amartya Sen, capability approach is more result oriented ,action oriented because it
takes into account the diverse circumstances of the people. To make the equality substantive
in a real sense and to make initial distribution really fair we have to go for equality of
capacity.

8. Explain the relationship between rights, liberty, equality and justice.

Rights, Liberty, equality and justice are the prominent values in normative political theory.
Not only their relationship is contested, their meanings are also contested .Their relationship
can be discussed only from the perspective of different schools of thoughts.
The meaning of liberty and equality shapes the conception of justice . There is a major
disagreement over the relationship between liberty and equality. Scholars like Alexis de
Tocqueville , Hayek, Nozick consider them to be anti-thetical . Whereas scholars like Laski,
T.H. Green , Rawls, Dworkin and Amartya Sen look at these concepts as complimentary . For
example , any attempt to increase economic equality dilutes liberty and goes against
entitlement .
However , for Rawls , liberty and equality can be reconciled within the framework of Justice
as fairness. The purpose principles of social justice is to ensure that the distribution of
benefits and burdens of society is just or fair to all. He argues that the distribution of ‘social
primary goods’ such as liberties, powers, opportunities, rights etc. is just & fair.
The concept of justice and rights are interrelated . The Preamble of Universal Declaration of
Human Rights recognises the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of freedom, justice and
peace in the world. UDHR recognize access to justice as both a basic human right and a
means to protect other universally recognized human rights. Too often, even when rights
exist on paper, enforcement of these standards is weak. Where human rights protections are
lacking, marginalized groups are often vulnerable to abuses and face significant challenges
to realizing their rights, including within the formal justice system.
To conclude , it can be said the relationship between these normative concepts remains
contested. If Neo-liberals give primacy to liberty , social liberals gives primacy to equality . To
quote Isaiah Berlin , values are inherently pluralistic and incommensurable