BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper for the June 2026 term-end exam gives you complete, exam-length answers to all 8 Applied Ethics questions IGNOU set this session, written to the 400-word and 200-word limits printed on the paper. Two answers are open below so you can judge the depth, and the full file comes on WhatsApp 9899436384.
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics key facts, June 2026 paper
- Course code: BPYG-171
- Subject: Applied Ethics
- Programme: B.A. (General) Philosophy, BAG; also offered under BCOMG and BSCG
- Credits: 6, a generic course
- Blocks and units: 3 blocks, 14 units
- Semester: Semester V, third year
- Maximum marks: 100
- Duration: 3 hours
- Medium: printed in English and Hindi
- Questions in the paper: 8 in two sections of four each; attempt any 5 with at least 2 from each section
- Sample answers shown here: 2 (Q2 and Q6)
- Questions in the full file: all 8, with all three options of Q4 and Q8 solved, which comes to 12 written answers; 6 questions are not shown on this page
- Exam session: June 2026 term-end examination
What the BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper June 2026 covers
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics is the six-credit generic philosophy course of IGNOU's Bachelor of Arts (General), also taken by B.Com (General) and B.Sc (General) learners.
BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper for the June 2026 term-end exam gives you complete, exam-length answers to every question IGNOU set this session. The paper moves from the ethics of information technology and capital punishment to Peter Singer, media ethics and business ethics, so it tests both theory and real-world debates.
Each answer is written the way an evaluator reads it: a crisp definition first, then thinkers and arguments under headings, then a short conclusion. Where Indian law or policy matters, such as the rarest of rare doctrine on the death penalty, the answer cites it accurately so you can reproduce it with confidence.
This is the most repetitive paper on the course. Of the thirteen themes we track across eight earlier papers, eleven came back in June 2026, and two questions were printed word for word from earlier sessions: Q2 repeats Q5 of December 2023 and Q6 repeats Q1 of December 2025. On a course like this, working through past papers is worth more than reading the blocks end to end.
8 questions · 20 marks each · attempt any 5, at least 2 per section · about 400 words an answer, or two 200-word notes · roughly 2,000 words in 180 minutes = 36 minutes a question
Every question costs the same twenty marks for the same four hundred words, so there is no cheap question to grab. But because each section prints four questions and you must take at least two from each, the only possible splits are three answers from one section and two from the other — so you need to be able to answer 3 of the 4 questions in at least one section.
This page shows two of those answers in full and lists the other six questions as printed. The complete BPYG-171 question paper with all answers comes as one file on WhatsApp.
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics sample answers: Q2 and Q6 solved in full
Two questions from the June 2026 BPYG-171 paper are answered in full below: Q2 from Section I and Q6 from Section II.
Both are 20-mark questions with a 400-word limit. Read them as a sample of the depth and structure you get for every question in the paid file. Question wording follows the printed paper.
Question 2 Section I Any 5 of 8 Block 2, Unit 9 20 marks about 400 words Set in 6 of 8 papers · word-for-word repeat of Dec 2023 Q5
2. Critically analyse the arguments for and against capital punishment. 20
Introduction. Capital punishment is the lawful taking of a convicted person's life by the State as the penalty for a very serious crime. The debate on it rests on the two main theories of punishment. The retributive theory looks backward and says punishment is deserved because of the wrong done. The consequentialist theory looks forward and judges punishment by its results, such as deterrence and protection of society.
Arguments for capital punishment (the retentionist view)
- Retribution and just deserts: Kant held that a murderer must die because justice demands that punishment match the crime. In his island example, even a society about to dissolve should first execute the last murderer in its prison.
- Deterrence: utilitarians argue that the fear of death stops potential killers more strongly than any prison term.
- Incapacitation: an executed offender can never repeat the crime, so society is protected.
- Expressive value: the penalty shows society's strongest condemnation of crimes such as terrorism and brutal murder, and offers a sense of justice to victims' families.
Arguments against capital punishment (the abolitionist view)
- Irreversibility: courts make mistakes, and an innocent person who has been executed can never be compensated.
- Doubtful deterrence: there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters better than life imprisonment, and many murders happen in anger or panic, not after calculation.
- Arbitrariness: the poor and marginalised often cannot afford strong legal defence, so the penalty may fall unequally.
- Right to life and dignity: when the State kills, it contradicts the very value of life it claims to protect, and it closes the door on the reformative aim of punishment.
- Revenge in disguise: critics say strict retribution slides into vengeance rather than justice.
The Indian position. The death penalty is constitutionally valid in India. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court held that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception, to be used only in the “rarest of rare” cases. The Law Commission of India, in its 262nd Report (2015), recommended abolition for all crimes except terrorism-related offences and waging war against the State.
Critical evaluation. The deterrence argument depends on an empirical claim that has not been proved, so it is the weakest pillar of the retentionist case. Retribution demands proportion, but proportion does not require the same harm to be repeated; a long sentence can also be proportionate. The irreversibility objection is the strongest, because no legal system is immune to error.
Conclusion. Capital punishment raises a clash between justice as desert and the sanctity of life. A balanced ethical view supports, at the very least, its strictly limited use under the “rarest of rare” test, and many philosophers argue that life imprisonment meets the aims of punishment without the risk of executing the innocent.
Question 6 Section II Any 5 of 8 Block 2, Unit 10 20 marks about 400 words Set in 4 of 8 papers · word-for-word repeat of Dec 2025 Q1
6. Write an essay on Peter Singer's ‘Preference Utilitarianism’ and ‘Animal Rights’. 20
Introduction. Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher whose books Animal Liberation (1975) and Practical Ethics (1979) made the moral status of animals a central topic of applied ethics. His defence of animals rests on preference utilitarianism and the principle of equal consideration of interests.
Preference utilitarianism. Classical utilitarianism, as in Bentham, judges actions by the pleasure and pain they produce. Singer's preference utilitarianism instead says the right action is the one that best satisfies the preferences, or interests, of all beings affected by it. The moral agent must take an impartial standpoint, giving no special weight to their own preferences simply because they are their own.
Equal consideration of interests. For Singer, equal interests deserve equal weight, whoever has them. This is equal consideration, not equal treatment. A pig has no interest in voting, so it needs no vote, but a pig's interest in not suffering counts as much as a similar human interest.
Sentience and speciesism. Following Bentham, Singer argues that the capacity to suffer is the condition for having interests at all. A stone has no interests; a sentient animal does. To ignore animal suffering only because the sufferer is not human is “speciesism”, a term coined by Richard Ryder and popularised by Singer. He compares it to racism and sexism, which also favour one group's interests for a morally irrelevant reason.
Animal rights in practice
- Factory farming: confining animals in cramped, painful conditions for cheaper meat cannot be justified, so Singer argues for vegetarianism.
- Animal experiments: experiments causing great suffering for trivial gains, such as testing cosmetics, are wrong.
- Persons and killing: self-aware beings with future plans are “persons”; killing them frustrates those preferences. For beings that are merely sentient, the main wrong lies in causing suffering.
Singer himself uses “rights” loosely. His case is utilitarian, so animals are protected because their interests count, not because they hold absolute rights.
Criticisms
- Tom Regan, in The Case for Animal Rights (1983), argues that utilitarianism could still allow sacrificing an individual animal for the greater good, so animals need rights based on their inherent value as “subjects-of-a-life”.
- Comparing preferences across species is very hard to measure in practice.
- Critics find his ranking of “persons” above some humans with severe cognitive disabilities morally troubling.
Conclusion. Singer's preference utilitarianism widens the moral circle to every being that can suffer. Even critics accept that he changed the debate on factory farming and animal research, making animal welfare a serious question of justice rather than kindness alone.
Exam-hall note on length. Both answers above run past the 400 words the paper allows, because the full file doubles as a study resource. Keep the names, works and citations — Kant's island example, Bachan Singh 1980, the 262nd Law Commission Report, Animal Liberation 1975, Ryder on speciesism, Regan 1983 — because in a philosophy paper those are exactly what lift an answer above a general one. Cut a bullet from the longest list instead: four arguments on each side of the capital punishment question, and two of the three criticisms of Singer, will fit at 400 words.
Questions answered only in the full file
The six questions below are printed as they appear in the IGNOU BPYG-171 question paper; their answers are not shared on this page.
Section I — attempt at least two questions from this section
1. What is the need of Ethics in the domain of technology? Discuss the common concerns associated with information technology. 20
3. What is Applied Ethics? Explain three approaches to understand moral content in detail. 20
4. Write notes on any two of the following in about 200 words each: 10 + 10 = 20
(a) Doctor-Patient relationship
(b) Traditional religions and philosophical views against animal rights
(c) Suicide from a duty based perspectiveSection II — attempt at least two questions from this section
5. Discuss in detail the ethical issues in print and electronic media. 20
7. Define business ethics. Discuss in detail the characteristics and significance of business ethics. 20
8. Write notes on any two of the following in about 200 words each: 10 + 10 = 20
(a) Arguments for and against Euthanasia
(b) Anthropocentric Ethics
(c) Reproductive Rights
Q1 asks why technology needs ethics at all, and Q5 splits media ethics into print and electronic forms, two angles that students often blur. Q4 and Q8 together carry six short notes, from a Kantian view of suicide to reproductive rights, and every one of them is answered in the full file.
How to use the choice rule. Five answers, at least two from each section, four questions printed in each — so you must take three from one section and two from the other, and you cannot use four answers from your stronger section however well you know them. Q4 and Q8 are the easiest place to find a third answer in a section, because each gives you three options and you write only two, so one weak topic out of three costs you nothing. That double choice is why our file solves all three options in each.
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics block and unit wise syllabus
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics has 3 blocks and 14 units: Introduction to Applied Ethics, Ethical Debates, and Introduction to Professional Ethics.
Block 2 alone carries six debate units, from euthanasia to animal rights, and it supplies more June 2026 questions than any other block. The third column lists what IGNOU has actually asked from each unit since June 2022, and the last shows where each June 2026 question came from.
| Block | Unit | Topics asked in BPYG-171 papers | June 2026 question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block 1: Introduction to Applied Ethics | Unit 1 Introduction to Applied Ethics | Meaning of applied ethics; three approaches to moral content; methods of justification such as coherentism | Q3 |
| Block 1: Introduction to Applied Ethics | Unit 2 Bioethics | Scope and nature of bioethics; key bioethical issues; informed and understood consent | None |
| Block 1: Introduction to Applied Ethics | Unit 3 Environmental Ethics | Anthropocentric, animal-centred and biocentric ethics; climate change as a moral issue | Q8(b) |
| Block 1: Introduction to Applied Ethics | Unit 4 Ethics and Technology | Internal and external values in technology; information technology concerns; ethical and unethical hacking | Q1 |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 5 Euthanasia | Arguments for and against euthanasia; value of life | Q8(a) |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 6 Suicide | Kant's two reasons for rejecting suicide; suicide from a duty based perspective | Q4(c) |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 7 Reproductive Rights | Abortion; right to life versus right to choose; surrogacy and assisted reproduction | Q8(c) |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 8 Terrorism | Causes and consequences of terrorism; terrorism in the context of ethics | None |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 9 Capital Punishment | Retributive and consequentialist theories of punishment; abolitionist and retentionist positions | Q2 |
| Block 2: Ethical Debates | Unit 10 Animal Rights | Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism; inherent value of animals; traditional and religious views | Q6, Q4(b) |
| Block 3: Introduction to Professional Ethics | Unit 11 Introduction to Professional Ethics | Why ethical principles matter in a profession; ethical issues in professional life | None |
| Block 3: Introduction to Professional Ethics | Unit 12 Media and Cyber Ethics | Freedom of expression as an absolute right; press freedom and censorship; media and cyberspace | Q5 |
| Block 3: Introduction to Professional Ethics | Unit 13 Medical Ethics | Beauchamp and Childress's four principles; doctor-patient relationship; CSR in medical ethics | Q4(a) |
| Block 3: Introduction to Professional Ethics | Unit 14 Business Ethics | Characteristics and significance of business ethics; corporate governance | Q7 |
Unit totals come to 14: four units in Block 1, six in Block 2 and four in Block 3. Only three units gave nothing this session — Unit 2 on bioethics, Unit 8 on terrorism and Unit 11 on professional ethics.
Block 2 is the block you cannot skip. It is the largest at six units, and it fed four of the eight questions: Q2, Q6, and two of the three options in each of Q4 and Q8. Work through the combinations and the reason becomes clear. Blocks 1 and 2 together would have answered Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 in Section I and Q6 and Q8 in Section II, far more than the five you need. Blocks 2 and 3 together would have answered Q2 and Q4 in Section I and Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q8 in Section II. But without Block 2 you cannot reach five answers at all: Blocks 1 and 3 give you only Q1 and Q3 in Section I and Q5 and Q7 in Section II, and neither note question can be completed, because each needs two options and those blocks supply only one apiece.
If you want to read the course text alongside these answers, our BPYG-171 Study Material follows the same block order, and the official course page is on eGyanKosh.
BPYG-171 question paper pattern and marks distribution
The BPYG-171 June 2026 paper has 8 questions in two sections of four each, and you attempt any 5, with at least 2 from each section.
The paper is printed in English and Hindi. Every question carries 20 marks, and the word limit is about 400 words, while each short note in Q4 and Q8 asks for about 200 words.
| Section | Question numbers | Question type | Marks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section I | Q1, Q2, Q3 | Essay questions on IT ethics, capital punishment and applied ethics approaches | 20 each |
| Section I | Q4 | Any two of three short notes: doctor-patient relationship, views against animal rights, suicide from a duty based view | 10 + 10 |
| Section II | Q5, Q6, Q7 | Essay questions on media ethics, Peter Singer and business ethics | 20 each |
| Section II | Q8 | Any two of three short notes: euthanasia, anthropocentric ethics, reproductive rights | 10 + 10 |
| Total | 8 printed, attempt any 5 with at least 2 per section | About 2,000 words in 3 hours | 5 × 20 = 100 |
There is no bargain anywhere on this paper: every question costs twenty marks for four hundred words, and the two note questions come to the same four hundred words across their two parts. What the note questions do give you is a second layer of choice. In Q4 and Q8 you write two notes out of three, so one weak topic in a set of three costs nothing, which makes them the safest place to put your third answer in a section.
The pattern has stayed the same in every session from June 2022, which you can confirm in our IGNOU Previous Year Question Paper collection.
Most repeated BPYG-171 Applied Ethics topics, June 2022 to June 2026
Bioethics and technology ethics are the most repeated BPYG-171 themes, each asked in 7 of the 8 official papers from June 2022 to December 2025.
We read all eight official BPYG-171 papers from June 2022 to December 2025 on IGNOU's website and counted the sessions in which each theme appeared. The last column shows whether the June 2026 paper asked it again, so the current paper does not inflate its own history.
| Topic | Sessions asked | Count (of 8) | Asked in June 2026? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bioethics, medical ethics principles, consent | Jun 22, Dec 22, Jun 23, Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24, Jun 25 | 7 | Yes, Q4(a) |
| Values and ethical issues in technology, IT, hacking | Jun 22, Dec 22, Jun 23, Dec 23, Jun 24, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 7 | Yes, Q1 |
| Capital punishment and theories of punishment | Dec 22, Jun 23, Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24, Dec 25 | 6 | Yes, Q2 |
| Media ethics, print media, freedom of expression and press | Jun 22, Dec 22, Jun 23, Dec 23, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 6 | Yes, Q5 |
| Suicide and value of life | Jun 22, Dec 22, Dec 23, Jun 24, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 6 | Yes, Q4(c) |
| Environmental ethics, climate change, anthropocentric and biocentric ethics | Jun 23, Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 6 | Yes, Q8(b) |
| Business ethics: character and significance | Dec 22, Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24, Dec 25 | 5 | Yes, Q7 |
| Applied ethics: meaning, approaches to moral content, methods of justification | Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24, Dec 25 | 4 | Yes, Q3 |
| Animal rights: Peter Singer, inherent value, traditional views | Jun 22, Dec 22, Jun 23, Dec 25 | 4 | Yes, Q6 and Q4(b) |
| Reproductive rights, abortion, surrogacy | Jun 22, Dec 23, Jun 24, Dec 24 | 4 | Yes, Q8(c) |
| Is-ought gap | Jun 22, Jun 23, Dec 23, Dec 24 | 4 | No |
| Euthanasia | Jun 24, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 3 | Yes, Q8(a) |
| Terrorism and its consequences | Dec 24, Jun 25, Dec 25 | 3 | No |
Eleven of the thirteen themes came back. That is the second-highest reuse rate we have measured on any IGNOU course, and two June 2026 questions were exact repeats: Q2 is word for word Q5 of December 2023, and Q6 is word for word Q1 of December 2025. Q3 also closely matches Q1 of December 2024. That pattern is why topic-wise preparation pays off so well in this course.
Only two themes were skipped, and both belong on a December 2026 list:
- The is-ought gap — set in 4 of the 8 earlier papers and absent from June 2026. It belongs to Block 1, Unit 1, which did supply Q3 on the approaches to moral content, so the unit appeared but this part of it did not. That distinction matters: a student who treats Unit 1 as covered will miss it.
- Terrorism and its consequences — 3 of 8, and all three appearances are recent (December 2024, June 2025 and December 2025), so this was a theme on the rise that then stopped. Unit 8 produced no question at all this session.
One more pattern worth knowing. The paper put most of its high-frequency debate themes into the optional short notes rather than the essays. Bioethics at 7 of 8, suicide at 6, environmental ethics at 6, reproductive rights at 4 and euthanasia at 3 all appeared only as one option out of three in Q4 or Q8 — which means a student could have skipped every one of them and still answered both note questions. The full essays went instead to technology, capital punishment, media, business ethics, applied ethics itself and Singer. So when you prepare from a repeat table, check not only whether a theme returns but whether it returns as an essay or as a skippable option.
For a shortlist of likely questions in coming sessions, see our IGNOU Solved Guess Paper page.
How our BPYG-171 answers are written and checked
Every BPYG-171 answer is written by Prateek Talwar, Academic Head, from the official June 2026 paper and reviewed by Sheetal Kirola before release.
The writing starts from the exact question wording, because Applied Ethics questions often ask two things at once, such as defining a term and then critically analysing it. Each answer opens with a definition, moves through clear headings, gives thinkers and examples, and ends with a brief conclusion.
Facts are kept checkable: thinkers such as Kant, Bentham, Singer, Regan, Ryder, Beauchamp and Childress are named correctly with their main works and dates, and Indian references such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and the Law Commission's 262nd Report are cited precisely. We avoid made-up statistics and quotes.
Question text is reproduced from the official IGNOU June 2026 paper, including its numbering and the option lettering in Q4 and Q8.
Because so many topics repeat, the answers are framed to work for related questions too. The Singer answer, for example, also prepares you for earlier questions on inherent value and on animal-centred ethics.
BPYG-171 solved file index: where each of the 8 questions is answered
The BPYG-171 solved file answers all 8 questions; 2 are shown on this page and 6 are in the full file only.
| Question | Section | Block and unit | Marks | Where answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | I | Block 1, Unit 4 Ethics and Technology | 20 | Full file only |
| Q2 | I | Block 2, Unit 9 Capital Punishment | 20 | On this page |
| Q3 | I | Block 1, Unit 1 Introduction to Applied Ethics | 20 | Full file only |
| Q4 | I | Block 3, Unit 13 Medical Ethics; Block 2, Units 10 and 6 (Animal Rights, Suicide) | 10 + 10 | Full file only |
| Q5 | II | Block 3, Unit 12 Media and Cyber Ethics | 20 | Full file only |
| Q6 | II | Block 2, Unit 10 Animal Rights | 20 | On this page |
| Q7 | II | Block 3, Unit 14 Business Ethics | 20 | Full file only |
| Q8 | II | Block 2, Units 5 and 7 (Euthanasia, Reproductive Rights); Block 1, Unit 3 Environmental Ethics | 10 + 10 | Full file only |
Q4 and Q8 are answered for all three options each, so the full file holds six short notes in addition to the six essay answers — twelve written answers in all. Counting by block, Block 2 feeds four of the eight questions, and Blocks 1 and 3 three each.
Studying several BAG papers this term? Our BAG Question Paper page lists solved papers for the other courses in the programme.
Programmes that include BPYG-171 Applied Ethics
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics is a generic elective that IGNOU offers to Bachelor of Arts (General), Bachelor of Commerce (General) and Bachelor of Science (General) learners.
| Programme | Code | How BPYG-171 fits |
|---|---|---|
| Bachelor of Arts (General) | BAG | Printed on the paper as B.A. (General) Philosophy; six-credit generic course |
| Bachelor of Commerce (General) | BCOMG | Listed with BAG and BSCG in IGNOU's official question paper archive |
| Bachelor of Science (General) | BSCG | Same paper and same marks scheme as BAG learners |
| Bachelor of Arts in Applied Urdu | BAAUD | eGyanKosh lists the BPYG-171 blocks under its third year |
In the BAG scheme the course sits in Semester V, the third year of study. Because every one of these programmes uses the same paper, the solved file is identical whichever one you are enrolled in. For the full course list of the programme, see IGNOU Bachelor of Arts (General).
How to get the full BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper on WhatsApp
Message us on WhatsApp at 9899436384 to get the full BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper for June 2026.
Tell us the course code BPYG 171 and the session June 2026. We share the price, and once you confirm, the complete file reaches you on WhatsApp. It answers all 8 questions, including all three options in Q4 and Q8, so the 6 questions not shown here are fully covered.
If you are preparing other BAG, BCOMG or BSCG courses in the same session, mention their codes in the same message.
BPYG-171 Applied Ethics FAQs
What does the BPYG-171 Solved Question Paper June 2026 contain?
It contains complete answers to all 8 questions of the IGNOU BPYG-171 Applied Ethics June 2026 paper. The six long questions are answered in about 400 words each, and every option in Q4 and Q8 is written as a 200-word short note. That means twelve written answers in all, so you can choose any two notes in the exam and still have a ready model answer for each one.
How do I get the full BPYG-171 Applied Ethics solved paper on WhatsApp?
Send a WhatsApp message to 9899436384 saying you want the BPYG 171 June 2026 solved paper. Our team will share the price and send the file after confirmation. The full file answers all 8 questions, including all three options in Q4 and Q8. Only 2 of those answers, Q2 and Q6, are shown on this page, so 6 questions are answered only in the full file.
Which BPYG-171 questions are solved on this page?
Two questions are solved in full on this page. Q2 critically analyses the arguments for and against capital punishment, with the Indian rarest of rare doctrine. Q6 explains Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism, equal consideration of interests, speciesism and the main criticisms. Both answers follow the 400-word limit printed on the paper and show the exact style used for the remaining six answers.
How many questions must I attempt in the BPYG-171 Applied Ethics exam?
You must attempt five questions in total, choosing at least two from Section I and at least two from Section II. The paper has eight questions, four in each section, and every question carries 20 marks, which comes to about 2,000 words in three hours. Questions 4 and 8 are short note questions where you write any two of three notes in about 200 words each, earning 10 marks per note.
Can I answer four questions from one section of BPYG-171?
No. Each section prints four questions and the paper requires at least two answers from each, so with five answers in total the only possible splits are three from one section and two from the other. If the four topics you have prepared all sit in Section I, you will be able to use only three of them and will still need two from Section II. Q4 and Q8 are the safest place to find that third answer, because each offers three options and you write only two.
Which block of BPYG-171 must I prepare?
Block 2, Ethical Debates. It is the largest block at six units and it fed four of the eight June 2026 questions, including both answers shown on this page and two of the three options in each note question. Blocks 1 and 2 together, or Blocks 2 and 3 together, could each have answered the whole paper, but without Block 2 you cannot reach five answers at all, because neither note question can be completed from Blocks 1 and 3 alone.
Which BPYG-171 Applied Ethics topics repeat most often?
Bioethics and technology ethics each appeared in seven of the eight official papers from June 2022 to December 2025. Capital punishment, media ethics, suicide and environmental ethics each appeared in six. Business ethics appeared in five. These counts come from IGNOU's own question papers, and eleven of the thirteen themes we track came back in the June 2026 paper.
Which BPYG-171 topics were skipped in June 2026?
Only two of the thirteen. The is-ought gap, which had appeared in four of the eight earlier papers, was absent, even though Unit 1 did supply Question 3 on the approaches to moral content. Terrorism and its consequences, which had appeared in the three sessions before this one, was also left out, and Unit 8 produced no question at all. Both belong at the top of a December 2026 revision list.
Is the BPYG-171 June 2026 paper a repeat of earlier papers?
Largely, yes. Q2 on capital punishment repeats Q5 of December 2023 word for word, and Q6 on Peter Singer repeats Q1 of December 2025. Q3 closely matches Q1 of December 2024, and the short notes on doctor-patient relationship, euthanasia, anthropocentric ethics and reproductive rights all appeared in earlier sessions. Studying this solved paper therefore also prepares you for repeated questions in future sessions.
Is BPYG-171 Applied Ethics part of B.Com and B.Sc General too?
Yes. IGNOU's official question paper archive files BPYG-171 under BAG, BCOMG and BSCG, and the assignment booklet calls it a six-credit generic course. The paper itself is printed as B.A. (General) Philosophy. So learners from Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Science (General) who chose this course sit the same paper and can use the same solved file.
What word limit should BPYG-171 Applied Ethics answers follow?
The paper sets a limit of about 400 words for each full question and about 200 words for each short note in Q4 and Q8. Our answers stay close to these limits, because overly long answers waste exam time and short ones lose marks. Each answer opens with a definition, moves through clear headings, gives thinkers and examples, and ends with a brief conclusion.
Who wrote and reviewed the BPYG-171 solved answers?
The BPYG-171 answers were written by Prateek Talwar, Academic Head of Unnati Educations, and reviewed by Sheetal Kirola before release. Every thinker, work, date and legal citation was checked against the eGyanKosh units and primary sources rather than repeated from another website, and each answer carries its block and unit reference so you can verify it yourself.
About the authors
This BPYG-171 solved paper was written and reviewed by the Unnati Educations philosophy team, which has prepared IGNOU answer sets since 2016.
- Prateek Talwar, Academic Head, Unnati Educations. He wrote all twelve answers for this paper, including all three options in each note question. He has worked on IGNOU philosophy and ethics material for over nine years and has prepared term-end answer sets across the BPY and BPYG course lists.
- Sheetal Kirola, Reviewer. She checked every answer against the eGyanKosh units and the eight earlier official BPYG-171 papers, verified each thinker, work and date cited in the two sample answers, including Singer's Animal Liberation of 1975, Regan's The Case for Animal Rights of 1983 and Richard Ryder's coining of “speciesism”, and confirmed the Indian legal references in the capital punishment answer.
Our answers are written from the official IGNOU course material and past question papers, not copied from other websites. Question text belongs to IGNOU; the answers are our own work. If you find an error on this page, message us on WhatsApp and we will correct it and reissue the file.