Some people feel that values keep changing with time and situation, while others strongly believe that there are certain universal and eternal human values. Give your perception in this regard with due justification.
Based on 25 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Concrete cross-cultural universals such as truth, non-violence and the Golden Rule, with specific traditions named
- Kant's categorical imperative as a philosophical basis for universal values, with the 'end in itself' idea explained
- Relativism counter-example such as slavery or sati once accepted and now universally condemned, with dates or sources
- UDHR (1948) or the Preamble as codification of universal values, not just a passing mention
- Clear personal stance explaining why core values are eternal while application changes
- Specific example of a value that changed, such as sati banned in 1829 or Section 377 read down in 2018
Common mistakes
- Presenting the two sides as lists without a clear personal stance or justification for it
- Giving abstract assertions such as 'love and honesty are universal' without showing why or how they recur across cultures
- Using vague or historically oversimplified examples, and mixing economic change with value change without distinction
- Including irrelevant lines (e.g., on predictability of values) and unstructured, unbalanced sections
What the better answers did
- Clear two-layer framing: core values eternal, expression or application situational
- Balanced treatment of both camps with concrete examples from India and across civilisations
- Using philosophers and documents (Kant, Benedict, UDHR, Constitution) to anchor each argument
- A closing section that reconciles the debate and ends with a definite position
Introduction
Open by distinguishing the core of values from their application, and state your position in the first two lines rather than leaving it for the conclusion.
Conclusion
End by restating that core values such as dignity and truth are eternal while their expression evolves, and justify this with one example each of stability and change.
Model answer
Values have two layers: a core of principles affirmed across civilisations, and a periphery of practices that shift with time, place and circumstance. In my view, core values such as truth, non-violence and dignity are eternal, while their application is situational.
Case for changing values
- Sati was practised in parts of India and was banned by Bengal Regulation XVII of 1829. A practice once seen as sacred became a crime.
- Cultural relativism, associated with anthropologists like Ruth Benedict, shows that societies rank values differently. Collectivist societies stress family duty and respect for elders; individualist societies stress personal autonomy.
- Slavery was legal for centuries. Section 377 was read down by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (2018), reflecting a shift in attitudes towards homosexuality.
- Digital payments and data-driven surveillance raise new privacy questions, which the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) treated as part of the right to privacy.
Case for universal values
- Ahimsa is central to Jainism, Buddhism and Gandhian thought. The Golden Rule appears in Confucian, Christian, Islamic and Hindu traditions.
- Kant's categorical imperative requires that persons be treated as ends, never merely as means. This principle does not depend on circumstance.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) codified dignity and equality as universal, and Article 51A reflects the same moral anchors within a diverse society.
- The condemnation of slavery and female genital mutilation is recognised as moral progress. That recognition presupposes a fixed standard of human dignity against which earlier practices were judged.
Reconciling both views
- Justice remains a constant principle while its meaning evolves, as the move from retributive to restorative justice shows.
- Complete relativism is dangerous. The Nazi regime shows why human dignity must be non-negotiable.
Values thus change in expression while their core persists. A society that treats its core values as negotiable loses its moral compass, while one that refuses to adapt their application becomes dogmatic.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answer