How does epistemology help a judge in the court of justice in making judgments in case of social and religious beliefs (jallikattu or triple talaq)? Explain role of epistemology in administrative decisions through an example?(250 words)

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.

• Much of the debate in epistemology centres on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

• The social and religious beliefs in any nation or country evolve over the years from their
greater and lower traditions based on history, culture, reality, myths and superstitions. The believers in social customs and religion are guided more by faith than rationality.

• Scientific temper, however, demands that a set of beliefs and values relevant in a particular social context may not be valid in changed time and contexts especially with change in the meaning and understanding of justice, equality, humanity and even people’s aspirations.

• Thus the laws need to be architectured according to the faith and beliefs of the people,
because laws are for the people and not the other way round.

• Nevertheless, in modern times, laws and judgments in the courts cannot be left totally on
what people believe. Even if faiths are respected, the changing understanding and aspirations of the people require that laws and judgments should be based on scientific temper and rational criteria with proper amount of brainstorming and taking into consideration the elements of change and progress.

• Issues of jallikattu and triple talaq should be seen in these light- first is an ancient tradition, which cannot be justified being an ancient tradition while the other was the byproduct of a particular social arrangement of the medieval time, not relevant for the present context when women aspire to have equality and dignity on one hand and patriarchal biases against them are against democratic rights.

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
avani k
avani k
3 years ago

Q4

New Doc 2019-08-02 23.07.27_9.jpg
New Doc 2019-08-02 23.07.27_10.jpg
New Doc 2019-08-02 23.07.27_11.jpg
Parth Verma
Editor
3 years ago
Reply to  avani k

Very good answer.
It is detailed, informative, to the point, well explained, well presented and structured.
There is nothing wrong in the answer.
Examples are decent.

Marks
7
project _osiris
project _osiris
3 years ago

4

New Doc 2019-07-30 20.31.32_2.jpg
New Doc 2019-07-30 20.31.32_1.jpg
Parth Verma
Editor
3 years ago

Nice answer
You have good command on ethics topics
Overall good structuring
Try to write short paragraph because it requires a lot of potential to read that
Work on your presentation.

Marks
5
Shashank Shekhar Shukla
Shashank Shekhar Shukla
3 years ago

MOJO9725D00D93764057

New Doc 2019-07-30 21.02.18_2.jpg
Parth Verma
Editor
3 years ago

Good answer.
But the issues of presentation and structuring are same like previous answers.
Points are well placed and exhaustive.
Coverage is decent and informative.
Work on the structure and presentation as mentioned every time.

Marks
4
sourav singh
sourav singh
3 years ago

Not checked

IMG_20190731_123936~2.jpg
IMG_20190731_123929~2.jpg
Parth Verma
Editor
3 years ago
Reply to  sourav singh

Te discussion is quite general and lacks depth.
Most of the part of the answer is given to an example on the second page which is not at all relevant to the demand of the present question.
You have to discuss in length the concept of epistemology and how it has shaped the democracy in last 100 years.
Then discuss the use of the concept in judiciary and what are the limitations and pros for such a decision.
Apart from triple talaq or jallikattu, you can quote other examples like Sabrimala issue or entry of women in Haj shrine etc.
Examples are good if given in right context. hence think before writing.

Marks
2