GS Paper 4 — Quick Reference
Paper structure
250 marks total
Section A: Theory (ethics, integrity, aptitude) — ~125 marks
Section B: Case Studies — ~125 marks
Ethics theories
|---|---|---|
| Consequentialism | Results/outcomes matter | Mill (Utilitarianism) |
|---|
| Deontology | Duty-based, rules regardless of outcome | Kant (Categorical Imperative) |
| Virtue Ethics | Character — what a virtuous person would do | Aristotle |
Integrity values (with concrete illustration, not just names)
Probity — refusing even modest gifts from interested parties
Objectivity — merit-based decisions over personal preference
Accountability — proactively disclosing errors, not hoping they're missed
Transparency — publishing criteria BEFORE a decision, not just after
Non-partisanship — free from political bias
Emotional Intelligence (Goleman) — 4 components
Self-awareness — recognizing your own biases before they influence a decision
Self-management — composure under pressure
Social awareness — genuinely understanding others' perspectives/constraints
Relationship management — building trust, especially amid inherent tension
Case study 5-step method
1. Identify ethical issues/conflicts
2. List stakeholders (include ones NOT explicitly named in the prompt)
3. Present 3-4 options with genuine pros/cons
4. Choose with justification (grounded in steps 1-3, not a fresh assertion)
5. Address short-term AND long-term consequences
Key thinkers reference
|---|---|
| Kant | Categorical Imperative — moral duty |
|---|
| Mill | Utilitarianism — greatest good |
| Aristotle | Virtue ethics — golden mean |
| Gandhi | Satyagraha, Trusteeship |
| Ambedkar | Constitutional morality |
| Rawls | Justice as fairness, veil of ignorance |
| Goleman | Emotional Intelligence |
Corruption types → matching response
Grand corruption → institutional response (audits, whistleblowing systems)
Petty corruption → individual integrity + reduced discretionary touchpoints
State capture → structural safeguards (transparency, conflict-of-interest
disclosure) — individual honesty alone insufficient
Whistleblowing answer checklist
[ ] Were internal channels genuinely exhausted/viable first?
[ ] Is disclosure proportionate to the actual harm?
[ ] Institutional protection context acknowledged (with real gaps noted)
[ ] Genuine cost of the action acknowledged, even if justified
Multi-thinker integration
Use each thinker to illuminate a DIFFERENT facet of the same
dilemma — explicitly show convergence/divergence between
frameworks, don't just list names.
Time-pressure discipline
Compress each step's WRITING (shorter sentences, precise
language) — don't SKIP steps. Marks are allocated per
demonstrated skill tied to each step, not overall length.
