What do each of the following quotations mean to you in the present context? (a) “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more evil than good. There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.” – Abraham Lincoln (10 marks, 150 words) (b) “Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.” – Mahatma Gandhi (10 marks, 150 words) (c) “Falsehood takes the place of truth when it results in unblemished common good.” – Tirukkural (10 marks, 150 words)
Subtopic: Thinkers & Quotes · Lincoln on policy trade-offs, Gandhi on anger, Tirukkural on truth
How to structure your answer
Detailed model answer
235 words · target 150 words · 20 min
(a) Abraham Lincoln – weighing good against evil
Lincoln reminds us that no policy is purely good or purely bad; governance is the art of judging the net balance. In today's context, decisions like large infrastructure, data-driven welfare or environmental clearances always carry costs and benefits. The ethical administrator does not seek a flawless option but the one whose good decisively outweighs its evil, after honest cost-benefit reasoning. It cautions against both paralysis (rejecting anything with a defect) and recklessness (ignoring real harms).
(b) Mahatma Gandhi – anger and intolerance
Gandhi points to emotional intelligence: anger and intolerance cloud judgement and distort our perception of facts and of other people. A civil servant, judge or citizen who reacts in rage misreads situations and takes unjust decisions. In an age of polarised debate and social-media outrage, calmness, empathy and tolerance are preconditions for "correct understanding" and fair action.
(c) Tirukkural – falsehood and common good
The Tirukkural offers a rare, carefully bounded exception: a falsehood may take the place of truth only when it yields unblemished common good – that is, when it harms no one and serves everyone. This is not a licence to lie; the bar ("unblemished") is deliberately near-impossible. In present terms, a doctor withholding a harsh truth to save a patient's morale, or concealing information to prevent a riot, may qualify. Ordinarily, truthfulness remains the rule; the exception is narrow and must serve pure collective welfare, never personal gain.
What an examiner expects to see
- Lincoln: policy is rarely wholly good or evil; choose by net preponderance of good after honest cost-benefit.
- Avoid both paralysis (rejecting any flaw) and recklessness (ignoring real harms).
- Gandhi: anger and intolerance distort perception and judgement – emotional balance enables correct understanding.
- Calmness, empathy and tolerance are professional virtues, vital in a polarised age.
- Tirukkural: falsehood is justified only for 'unblemished' common good – a deliberately near-impossible bar.
- Truthfulness is the default; the exception is narrow, harms no one, and never serves self-interest.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Cost-benefit judgement in environmental clearances or welfare-scheme design (Lincoln).
- Judicial temperament and de-escalation by officers during communal tension (Gandhi).
- A doctor's compassionate withholding of prognosis, or preventing panic during a crisis, as bounded exceptions (Tirukkural).