BPYG 171 Solved Guess Paper for IGNOU BAG Applied Ethics 2026

Define Applied Ethics. Analyse the methods of justification in Applied Ethics and discuss the approaches to understanding moral content.

Meaning of Applied Ethics. Applied ethics is the branch of philosophy whose subject matter is the application of moral rules, principles and concepts to real life issues such as euthanasia, abortion and surrogacy. The term applied ethics, sometimes called practical ethics, gained prominence in the 1970s when philosophers began turning ethical theory towards persistent social problems.

In its strong sense it means the systematic application of general ethical theories to particular moral problems. Beauchamp (2008) offers a weaker and more defensible reading, in which applied ethics is any use of philosophical method to treat moral problems, practices and policies in government, the professions and technology.

Approaches to understanding moral content. The book identifies three accounts of where moral content comes from.

1. Internalism. Ethics is derived from the professional, institutional and group ethos itself. Alasdair MacIntyre argues that goods internal to a practice are achieved by conforming to the standards of that practice.
2. Externalism. Precepts rest on standards outside the practice, such as public opinion, law, common morality, and religious or philosophical ethics, which then justify the internal morality.
3. Mixed internalism and externalism. Standards are fixed both by membership of a profession and by the wider cultural community, combining the two sources.

Models of justification. Three principal models are discussed.

1. Top down models. A pre existing general rule or principle is applied deductively to a particular case that falls under it.
2. Bottom up models. Attention shifts to how decisions are actually made, using existing social practices, novel cases and comparative case analysis. Casuistry, pragmatism and particularism belong here.
3. Coherentism. John Rawls proposed reflective equilibrium in A Theory of Justice (1971), where principles and considered judgements are tested against each other and adjusted until they cohere.

Conclusion. Applied ethics is the bridge between moral theory and moral practice. Since no single model is complete on its own, the coherentist method of reflective equilibrium offers the most balanced route to justification.

What is climate change? What is its cause, why is climate change a moral issue, and how is it being addressed?

Meaning. Climate change is the sustained change in climate and weather patterns over a period of time. It is studied as a scientific phenomenon, but the moment human activity is identified as its driver, it becomes a question for ethics as well.

Cause. The cause is anthropogenic, meaning it arises from human activity. Accelerated change is attributed to rising greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Since the industrial revolution, heavy dependence on burning fossil fuels, vehicular emissions and modern lifestyles has disturbed the balance of these gases, trapping more heat and producing global warming.

Why it is a moral issue. Three reasons are given.

1. Responsibility. If human activity accelerates climate change, humans carry responsibility for it. The difficulty is that cause and effect are separated across space and time, which dilutes the sense of blame.
2. Future generations. Actions taken now will harm people not yet born, raising the question of what the present owes the future.
3. Justice. Fairness is at stake between developed and developing nations, and between the wealthy and the poor, since those who contributed least often suffer most.

How it is being addressed. The response has been international. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in the 1980s, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change followed in 1992, then the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and later the Paris Agreement, with Conference of the Parties sessions held regularly.

Responses fall into two kinds. Mitigation reduces the causes, chiefly carbon emissions. Adaptation adjusts to effects already under way. Both are pursued together with the aim of holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Conclusion. Climate change is at once a scientific finding and a moral problem of responsibility and justice, and it demands mitigation and adaptation together rather than one in place of the other.

What is euthanasia? Discuss its types and the doctrine of double effect, and present the arguments for and against euthanasia.

Meaning. Euthanasia is the painless killing of an individual who may be suffering from some debilitating condition, where death is understood to be in the interest of that individual. The word itself means good death.

Types. Cases are divided along two axes, active and passive, then voluntary, involuntary and non voluntary.

1. Active. A direct and deliberate action brings about the patient's death.
2. Passive. The patient is allowed to die without intervention, for example by withholding treatment.
3. Voluntary. It happens at the request of the person, who has expressed a desire to die.
4. Involuntary. The person is capable of consenting but is never asked.
5. Non voluntary. The person is incapable of giving consent at all.

Doctrine of double effect. If an act that is morally good carries a morally bad side effect, the act remains ethically permissible provided the bad side effect was not intended, even where it was foreseen. The good result must be achievable independently of the bad one, so the harm cannot be the means to the good.

Arguments in favour. The principle of autonomy gives the patient authority over their own life and body. The argument from mercy holds that ending unbearable suffering is an act of compassion. The utilitarian argument adds that reducing suffering raises overall happiness.

Arguments against. The sanctity of human life is invoked, along with the abuse of autonomy, the slippery slope towards social misuse, the undermining of palliative care and possible future cures, an easy escape for caretakers, and the violation of our natural inclination to survive.

Conclusion. Euthanasia sets autonomy and mercy against sanctity of life and slippery slope fears, which is precisely why it stays unresolved rather than settled.

Define capital punishment. Explain the consequentialist and retributive theories of punishment and present the arguments for and against capital punishment.

Meaning. Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is an institutionalised form of punishment that involves deliberately executing a person for alleged misconduct. Two major theories are used to justify punishment, retributivism and consequentialism.

Retributive approach. Punishment is morally permissible because criminals deserve it, in proportion to the crime committed. It follows lex talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye. Immanuel Kant grounded it in equality and human dignity, arguing that punishing a person treats them as a responsible agent. It is backward looking, since it fixes on the offence already committed.

Consequentialist approach. Rooted in utilitarianism, this view justifies punishment by its results, chiefly deterrence and an increase in social happiness. It is forward looking, since the offence matters less than what the punishment will produce.

Arguments for and against. Retentionists draw on both theories, holding that death is a superior deterrent and the only penalty severe enough for the most heinous crimes. Abolitionists reply that the evidence that it deters homicide is insufficient, that life imprisonment achieves more, that its application is racially biased and error prone, and that an executed innocent cannot be brought back.

Conclusion. Retentionists defend capital punishment on retributive and deterrent grounds while abolitionists challenge both its effectiveness and its fairness, and neither theory on its own gives a fully holistic account.

Write an essay on Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism and Tom Regan's rights view of animal rights. What is inherent value?

Speciesism. The animal rights movement began as a protest against speciesism, a prejudice that allows an individual to prefer the interests of their own species purely on the basis of species membership. Peter Singer and Tom Regan are the two central advocates of extending moral consideration to animals.

Peter Singer and preference utilitarianism. In Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, Singer develops a preference utilitarian position resting on the principle of equal consideration of interests. Since animals can suffer and can enjoy, they have interests, and sentience therefore marks the boundary of moral consideration rather than intelligence or species.

Tom Regan and the rights view. In The Case for Animal Rights, Regan argues that utilitarianism leaves no room for the equal inherent value of individuals, because it aggregates interests rather than respecting persons. Any being that is a subject of a life, meaning it has beliefs, desires, memory and a welfare of its own, possesses inherent value.

Inherent value. Inherent value is the opposite of instrumental value. It is the value a being has as an end in itself, not the value it holds because of its usefulness to someone else.

Conclusion. Singer grounds animal rights in sentience and equal interests while Regan grounds them in the equal inherent value of every subject of a life, and both positions reject speciesism as the starting error.