Ethics: June 2025 UPSC Current Affairs | UPSC Mains: Ethics, Integrity & Aptitude PDF Download

Case Study 1: Urban Development vs. Cultural Heritage Preservation

Scenario: You are the Municipal Commissioner of a historic city undergoing rapid urbanization. A private real estate developer has proposed a large-scale commercial complex that includes a shopping mall and luxury apartments, promising significant tax revenue and job opportunities. The proposed site is an ancient archaeological area with unexcavated ruins of cultural significance, protected under heritage laws. The developer’s preliminary assessment claims the ruins are of “minor importance,” but local historians and cultural organizations argue that the site holds irreplaceable historical value. The state government, eager for economic growth, is pressuring you to approve the project. However, you suspect the developer’s assessment downplays the site’s significance to expedite approvals.

Questions:
(a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(b) Who are the stakeholders, and what are their interests?
(c) What options are available to you, and which course of action would you adopt?
Answer:

(a) Ethical Issues Involved:

• Cultural Preservation vs. Economic Growth: Balancing the need for urban development with the preservation of irreplaceable cultural heritage. Transparency and Integrity: The developer’s potentially biased assessment raises concerns about the credibility of the approval process.
• Public Interest vs. Private Profit: Prioritizing the long-term cultural value for society versus short-term economic gains for a private entity.
• Duty vs. External Pressure: Your responsibility to enforce heritage laws conflicts with political pressure to prioritize economic development.

(b) Stakeholders and Their Interests:

• Real Estate Developer: Seeks project approval for financial profit and market expansion.
• Local Historians and Cultural Organizations: Advocate for preserving the archaeological site as a cultural legacy.
• State Government: Prioritizes economic growth, tax revenue, and job creation.
• Local Residents: Expect job opportunities but may value cultural heritage and tourism potential.
• Future Generations: Indirect stakeholders who benefit from preserved cultural heritage.
• Tourism Industry: Relies on historical sites to attract visitors, potentially opposing the project.

(c) Options and Course of Action:

Approve the Project Immediately:

• Pros: Aligns with government priorities, boosts economic growth, and avoids conflict with superiors.
• Cons: Risks irreversible damage to cultural heritage, violates heritage laws, and undermines public trust.

Reject the Project Outright:

• Pros: Protects cultural heritage and upholds legal obligations.
• Cons: Faces political backlash, potential loss of economic benefits, and career risks.

Commission an Independent Archaeological Study: Order a neutral, expert-led assessment of the site’s significance, involving cultural organizations.

• Pros: Ensures transparency, protects heritage, and informs evidence-based decisions.
• Cons: Delays the project, potentially frustrating stakeholders.

Propose a Modified Plan: Work with the developer to redesign the project, preserving the archaeological site while allowing partial development.

• Pros: Balances economic and cultural interests, fosters collaboration.
• Cons: May increase costs and face resistance from the developer.

Recommended Course of Action:

Adopt a combination of options 3 and 4. Commission an independent archaeological study to assess the site’s significance transparently, involving historians and cultural organizations. Simultaneously, engage the developer to explore a modified plan that integrates the archaeological site into the project (e.g., as a heritage park or museum). Communicate findings to the state government, emphasizing long-term tourism and cultural benefits alongside economic growth. This approach upholds ethical principles, ensures transparency, and mitigates political and career risks.

Case Study 2: Public Health vs. Economic Livelihoods

Scenario: You are the District Health Officer in a rural district during an outbreak of a contagious disease. A large local factory, the district’s primary employer, has reported several cases among workers. The factory management insists on continuing operations to avoid economic losses, claiming they have implemented safety measures. However, the local health advisory committee warns that continued operations could accelerate the outbreak, risking lives. The state government is reluctant to enforce a shutdown due to economic concerns and pressure from industry lobbyists. You have the authority to recommend a temporary closure, but doing so could lead to significant layoffs and economic hardship for workers.

Questions:
(a) What are the ethical dilemmas in this case?
(b) Who are the stakeholders, and what are their interests?
(c) What would be your final course of action, and why?

Answer:

(a) Ethical Dilemmas:

• Public Health vs. Economic Stability: Balancing the need to protect lives against the economic fallout of closing a major employer.
• Duty vs. Pressure: Your responsibility to prioritize public health conflicts with pressure from the government and industry to maintain operations.
• Equity and Harm: Ensuring equitable protection for workers’ health while addressing the economic needs of low-income families reliant on factory wages.
• Transparency and Trust: Deciding whether to publicly disclose the outbreak’s severity, which could panic the community but promote accountability.

(b) Stakeholders and Their Interests:

• Factory Management: Seeks to continue operations to maintain profits and avoid layoffs.
• Workers: Need jobs for economic survival but face health risks from the outbreak.
• Local Community: Relies on the factory for economic stability but is vulnerable to disease spread.
• State Government: Prioritizes economic stability and industry interests.
• Health Advisory Committee: Advocates for strict measures to control the outbreak.
• Healthcare System: Faces strain if the outbreak escalates.

(c) Final Course of Action and Options:

Allow Factory Operations to Continue:

• Pros: Preserves jobs and economic stability, aligns with government and industry interests.
• Cons: Risks escalating the outbreak, endangering lives, and overloading healthcare systems.

Enforce a Full Factory Shutdown:

• Pros: Contains the outbreak, prioritizes public health, and demonstrates leadership.
• Cons: Causes economic hardship, layoffs, and potential backlash from workers and government.

Implement a Partial Shutdown with Strict Protocols: Close high-risk factory sections, enforce rigorous health measures (e.g., testing, isolation), and monitor compliance.

• Pros: Balances health and economic needs, reduces outbreak risk.
• Cons: Requires intensive oversight and may face resistance from management.

Engage Stakeholders for a Collaborative Solution: Work with factory management, workers’ unions, and health experts to develop a phased plan combining safety measures and economic support.

• Pros: Fosters trust, addresses both health and economic concerns.
• Cons: Time-consuming and may delay critical health interventions.

Recommended Course of Action:

Choose option 3, implementing a partial shutdown of high-risk factory areas while enforcing strict health protocols (e.g., mandatory testing, PPE, and isolation for infected workers). Simultaneously, collaborate with the state government to provide temporary financial aid for affected workers, mitigating economic hardship. Communicate transparently with the community about the measures to build trust. This approach prioritizes public health while addressing economic concerns, balancing ethical duties and stakeholder interests.

Case Study 3: Data Privacy vs. National Security

Scenario: You are the Director of a government cybersecurity agency. A private tech company has developed an advanced surveillance tool that can monitor online activities to detect potential terrorist threats. The tool requires access to citizens’ personal data, raising privacy concerns. The Home Ministry is pressuring you to approve its deployment to enhance national security, citing recent terrorist incidents. However, a whistleblower from the company has informed you that the tool has vulnerabilities that could allow misuse or data breaches. Civil liberties groups are protesting, warning of mass surveillance and privacy violations. You must decide whether to recommend the tool’s deployment.

Questions:
(a) Identify the ethical issues and stakeholders in this case.
(b) What options are available to you, and what are their pros and cons?
(c) What would be your course of action, and why?
Answer:
(a) Ethical Issues and Stakeholders:

Ethical Issues:

• Privacy vs. Security: Balancing individual privacy rights with the need to protect national security.
• Transparency and Accountability: The tool’s vulnerabilities raise concerns about potential misuse or breaches, undermining public trust.
• Duty vs. Public Interest: Your duty to follow government orders conflicts with the responsibility to protect citizens’ rights.
• Whistleblower Protection: Addressing the whistleblower’s concerns without compromising their safety or the investigation.

Stakeholders:

• Home Ministry: Seeks enhanced security through surveillance.
• Tech Company: Wants approval for profit and reputation.
• Citizens: Concerned about privacy and data security.
• Civil Liberties Groups: Advocate for privacy rights and transparency.
• Whistleblower: Seeks to expose vulnerabilities and ensure accountability.
• Security Agencies: Need tools to prevent terrorist threats.

(b) Options, Pros, and Cons:

Approve the Tool’s Deployment:

• Pros: Enhances national security, aligns with government priorities, and addresses immediate threats.
• Cons: Risks privacy violations, potential data breaches, and public backlash.

Reject the Tool Outright:

• Pros: Protects citizen privacy and prevents misuse of vulnerable technology.
• Cons: Faces government pressure, delays security enhancements, and risks being seen as obstructive.

Conduct a Security Audit: Commission an independent audit of the tool’s vulnerabilities before deployment, involving cybersecurity experts.

• Pros: Ensures safety, builds trust, and informs evidence-based decisions.
• Cons: Delays deployment, potentially frustrating security agencies.

Limited Pilot Deployment: Test the tool in a controlled environment with strict oversight and data protections.

• Pros: Balances security needs with privacy concerns, tests vulnerabilities in practice.
• Cons: Risks limited misuse during testing, requires resources for oversight.

(c) Course of Action:

Adopt option 3, commissioning an independent security audit to evaluate the tool’s vulnerabilities and compliance with privacy standards. Engage civil liberties groups and cybersecurity experts in the process to ensure transparency. If vulnerabilities are confirmed, work with the tech company to address them before considering a limited pilot deployment (option 4). Protect the whistleblower’s identity while using their information to guide the audit. Communicate the process to the Home Ministry, emphasizing long-term security and public trust. This approach upholds privacy, ensures accountability, and mitigates risks of misuse.

Case Study 4: Education Policy vs. Community Resistance

Scenario: You are the Education Officer of a district where the state government has mandated the merger of small, underperforming rural schools into larger centralized schools to improve resource allocation and educational outcomes. The policy aims to provide better facilities and teachers but requires students to travel long distances, disrupting rural communities. Local parents and village leaders are protesting, arguing that the merger threatens their children’s access to education and local cultural identity. You have evidence that some of the smaller schools are indeed struggling but also recognize that the merger could marginalize vulnerable students. The state education department is pressing for swift implementation.

Questions:
(a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(b) Who are the stakeholders, and what are their interests?
(c) What options are available to you, and which course of action would you adopt?
Answer:

(a) Ethical Issues Involved:

• Equity vs. Efficiency: Balancing equitable access to education with the government’s goal of optimizing resources.
• Community Rights vs. Policy Compliance: Respecting local cultural and social needs versus adhering to state directives.
• Child Welfare: Ensuring student well-being, especially for vulnerable groups, amidst potential disruptions from long travel distances.
• Transparency and Participation: Addressing community concerns while maintaining trust in policy decisions.

(b) Stakeholders and Their Interests:

• State Education Department: Seeks improved educational outcomes and efficient resource use.
• Parents and Village Leaders: Want to preserve local schools to maintain accessibility and cultural identity.
• Students: Need quality education but may face challenges with long commutes.
• Teachers: Seek better facilities but may face relocation or job changes.
• Local Communities: Fear loss of social cohesion if schools close.
• NGOs/Education Advocates: Support equitable education access for rural students.

(c) Options and Course of Action:

Implement the Merger Immediately:

• Pros: Aligns with state policy, improves resource allocation, and enhances facilities.
• Cons: Disrupts communities, risks reducing access for vulnerable students, and fuels protests.

Reject the Merger Plan:

• Pros: Protects local schools and community interests.
• Cons: Faces government backlash, delays educational improvements, and risks career repercussions.

Conduct a Community Impact Assessment: Evaluate the merger’s effects on students and communities, involving parents and local leaders.

• Pros: Ensures evidence-based decisions, fosters community trust, and addresses equity concerns.
• Cons: Delays implementation, may face resistance from the state.

Propose a Phased Merger with Support Measures: Gradually merge schools while providing transport, scholarships, or mobile learning units for affected students.

• Pros: Balances policy goals with community needs, minimizes disruption.
• Cons: Requires additional funding and coordination.

Recommended Course of Action:
Adopt option 3, conducting a community impact assessment to evaluate the merger’s effects on students, particularly vulnerable groups. Involve parents, village leaders, and education experts in the process to ensure transparency. Based on findings, propose a phased merger (option 4) with support measures like subsidized transport and temporary mobile classrooms to maintain access. Present the plan to the state education department, emphasizing long-term educational equity and community trust. This approach balances policy compliance with ethical considerations of equity and inclusion.

Case Study 5: Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Profit Motives

Scenario: You are the CEO of a mid-sized manufacturing company that has committed to a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative to reduce carbon emissions by adopting renewable energy. The initiative requires significant investment, which would reduce short-term profits. Your board of directors is divided: some support the CSR goals for long-term sustainability and brand reputation, while others prioritize immediate financial performance to satisfy shareholders. A recent audit revealed that your current operations violate environmental regulations, risking fines and public backlash if exposed. You must decide whether to accelerate the renewable energy transition or delay it to stabilize finances.

Questions:
(a) Identify the ethical issues and stakeholders in this case.
(b) What are the possible courses of action, and their implications?
(c) What would be your final course of action, and why?

Answer:
(a) Ethical Issues and Stakeholders:

Ethical Issues:

• Sustainability vs. Profit: Balancing long-term environmental responsibility with short-term financial pressures.
• Compliance vs. Concealment: Addressing regulatory violations transparently versus delaying action to avoid immediate costs.
• Stakeholder Trust: Maintaining credibility with employees, customers, and shareholders while addressing environmental impacts.
• Leadership Responsibility: Your role in setting an ethical precedent versus yielding to board and shareholder pressure.

Stakeholders:

• Board of Directors: Divided between sustainability advocates and profit-focused members.
• Shareholders: Seek short-term financial returns but may value long-term brand reputation.
• Employees: Expect ethical leadership and job security.
• Customers: Increasingly demand eco-friendly practices.
• Environmental Regulators: Enforce compliance and may impose fines for violations.
• Local Community and NGOs: Concerned about environmental impacts and advocate for sustainability.

(b) Possible Courses of Action and Implications:

Delay the Renewable Energy Transition:

• Pros: Stabilizes finances, satisfies profit-focused shareholders, and avoids immediate investment.
• Cons: Risks regulatory fines, public backlash, and long-term environmental harm.

Accelerate the Transition Immediately:

• Pros: Ensures compliance, enhances brand reputation, and aligns with CSR goals.
• Cons: Strains finances, risks shareholder discontent, and may require layoffs or cost-cutting.

Disclose Violations and Seek Leniency: Report violations to regulators, negotiate a compliance timeline, and phase in renewable energy investments.

• Pros: Builds trust, avoids severe penalties, and demonstrates accountability.
• Cons: Risks temporary reputational damage and requires careful financial planning.

Hybrid Approach with Incremental Investments: Gradually adopt renewable energy while addressing violations and maintaining financial stability.

• Pros: Balances ethics and profits, mitigates risks of fines and backlash.
• Cons: Slower progress on sustainability, may face criticism from environmental advocates.

(c) Final Course of Action:
Choose option 3, disclosing regulatory violations to authorities and negotiating a compliance timeline while committing to a phased renewable energy transition (option 4). Engage the board to secure funding for incremental investments, prioritizing high-impact areas to demonstrate progress. Communicate transparently with shareholders and customers about the company’s commitment to sustainability, leveraging CSR for long-term brand value. This approach upholds ethical leadership, ensures compliance, and balances financial and environmental responsibilities.