AS Philosophy & Ethics
Course Handbook 2013 to 2014
OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172)
http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/type/gce/hss/rs/index.aspx
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 1
OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172)
You are studying Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics and will be awarded an
OCR AS Level in Religious Studies. The modules and their weightings are:
AS:
Unit Code
Unit Title
% of AS
(% of A Level)
G571
AS Philosophy of Religion
50%
(25%)
G572
AS Religious Ethics
50%
(25%)
If you decide to study for the full A Level you will have to study the following modules at A2:
A2:
Unit Code
Unit Title
(% of A Level)
G581
A2 Philosophy of Religion
(25%)
G582
A2 Religious Ethics
(25%)
Grading
E
D
C
B
A
Module UMS
40
50
60
70
80
AS UMS:
80
100
120
140
160
A Level UMS:
(AS + A2)
160
200
240
280
320
A Level UCAS
Tariff:
40
60
80
100
120
A*
Total of
320 with
180 from
A2
140
Each exam is reported by OCR by its UMS – which is the percentage (%) you achieved on that paper. So if
you scored 42 in AS Religious Ethics your results would state 60 UMS for a C.
Exams and Assessment
2 Exams in Summer 2014 – There are no January exams or re-sits.
Unit G571: AS Philosophy of Religion – Tuesday, 13th May 2014 (Provisional)
You will answer 2 two-part essay questions from a choice of 4. 1½ hours written paper; 70 marks.
Unit G572: AS Religious Ethics – Tuesday, 13th May 2014 (Provisional)
You will answer 2 two-part essay questions from a choice of 4. 1½ hours written paper; 70 marks.
Expectations for AS Study
At AS in Philosophy and in Ethics all your teachers have the following expectations:
1. You will arrive to every lesson with all textbooks and this handbook, with pens and other note
making equipment including lined paper.
2. You will complete all homework set on time and with adequate levels of effort. If you are unable
to meet a deadline you must contact the appropriate teacher at least 24 hours before the
deadline by e-mail and request an extension – the teacher is under no obligation to grant an
extension. Any extension is at the total discretion of the teacher.
3. All essays set for homework will be handed in with a detailed essay plan.
4. If you miss any lessons, for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to catch up by reading the
textbook, using the Portal and getting copies of class-notes and hand-outs from classmates, before
the next lesson.
5. You will keep the checklists up-to-date and will make full use of any interventions and help clinics
provided.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 2
Grade Descriptions and Assessment Objectives
Percentage Weighting of Assessment Objectives:
AO1
AO2
G571: AS Philosophy of Religion
70%
30%
G572: AS Religious Ethics
70%
30%
GRADE A
Candidates select and demonstrate clearly relevant knowledge and understanding through the use of
evidence, examples and correct language and terminology appropriate to the topics and course of study.
Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)
Candidates select accurate and relevant material. They explain clearly relevant features or key ideas,
supported by examples or sources of evidence. They use accurately a range of technical language and
terminology. They show evidence of being familiar with issues raised by relevant scholars, and a variety
of views, where appropriate.
Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)
Candidates critically evaluate and justify a point of view through the use of evidence and reasoned
argument. They construct coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples or sources of
evidence. Identify strengths and weaknesses of the argument and use accurate and fluent expression.
GRADE C
Candidates demonstrate relevant knowledge and understanding through use of evidence, examples and
some use of correct language and terminology.
Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)
Candidates select some accurate and relevant material. They explain some relevant features or key ideas,
supported by examples or sources of evidence. They use mostly accurate a technical language and
terminology. They show evidence of a variety of views, where appropriate.
Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)
Candidates demonstrate organisation and coherence. They offer answers that are evaluative, using
argument and justification. However, elements of their responses will be descriptive. They use language
that has some precision. They will use evidence and reasoned argument, and will identify strengths and
weaknesses.
GRADE E
Candidates demonstrate limited knowledge and understanding through lack of evidence, examples and
limited use of correct language and terminology.
Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)
Candidates select limited but relevant material. They show basic understanding of relevant features or
key ideas, supported by occasional examples or sources of evidence.
Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)
Candidates demonstrate minimal organisation or limited coherence. They offer mainly descriptive
answers with little argument, justification or evaluation. They use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 3
AS Essay Feedback – Philosophy and Ethics
(Student to complete the form and submit with the essay. Teacher then completes the bold boxes)
Student Name:
Tutor Group:
Date Set:
Deadline
Essay Title:
Targets for this task: (Remember to include the targets from your last piece of assessed Targets met?
work)
1.
Yes Partly
No
2.
Yes
Partly
No
3.
Yes
Partly
No
AO1 – Knowledge and understanding
Grade
Band
5 21-25
A 21
B 18
4 16-20
C 15
3 11-15
D 12
E 10
2 6-10
1 1-5
Descriptor
An excellent attempt to address the question showing understanding and engagement with the material;
very high level of ability to select and deploy relevant information, accurate use of technical terms.
Communication: answer is well constructed and organised
A good attempt to address the question, accurate knowledge, good understanding, good selection of
material, technical terms mostly accurate. Communication: generally clear and organised
A satisfactory attempt to address the question; some accurate knowledge, evidence of appropriate
understanding, some successful selection of material, some accurate use of technical terms.
Communication: some clarity and organisation
Focuses on the general topic rather than directly on the question; knowledge limited but partially
accurate, limited understanding evident through lack of examples/evidence etc, selection often
inappropriate, limited use of technical terms. Communication: some clarity and organisation
Almost completely ignores the question; little relevant material, some concepts inaccurate, shows little
knowledge of technical terms. Communication: often unclear or disorganised
AO2 – Analysis, evaluation and application
Grade
Band
5 9- 10
A8
B7
C6
D5
E4
4 7-8
3 5-6
2 3-4
1 1-2
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
Descriptor
An excellent attempt which uses a range of evidence to sustain an argument, comprehends the demands
of the question, shows understanding and critical analysis of different viewpoints.
Communication: answer is well constructed and organised
A good attempt at using evidence to sustain an argument, some successful and clear analysis, likely to put
more than one point of view. Communication: generally clear and organised
A satisfactory attempt, some successful analysis which may be implicit through choice of examples or
evidence. Communication: some clarity and organisation
Some attempt to sustain an argument, views asserted, limited analysis, but not successfully justified.
Communication: some clarity and organisation
Very little argument or justification of viewpoint, little or no successful analysis.
Communication: often unclear or disorganised
Marks
28
25
21
18
14
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 4
Self-Assessment:
What mark would you allocate this work?
/25 +
/10 =
/35 =
%
What difficulties did you have completing it?
Do you think you met your previous targets?
How did you change your approach to ensure you achieved them?
Structure and organisation
AO1 – Knowledge and understanding
A02 – Analysis, evaluation and application
Overall Comment:
Mark: ___________ Grade: _________
To attain a higher mark you should:
Targets for next assessed task:
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 5
Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy:
1. Plato’s Analogy (Allegory) of the Cave
a. The role of the prisoners
b. The role of the shadows
c. The symbolism of the cave
d. The symbolism of the outside world
e. The symbolism of the Sun
f.
The purpose of the journey out of the cave
g. The effect of the return to the prisoners
2. Strengths of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave
3. Weaknesses of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave
4. The validity of the points made by Plato in the Analogy of the Cave
5. Plato’s The Republic VII.514A – 521B
6. Plato: the Concept of the Forms
a. The Form of the Good
b. Analogy of the divided line
c. The relation between concepts and phenomena
d. The concepts of “Ideals”
e. The relation between the Form of the Good and other Forms
7. Strengths of Plato’s Forms
a. Heraclitus’ river
8. Weaknesses of Plato’s Forms
a. The problem of infinite regression
b. Plato’s own self-critique in Parmenides
c. Aristotle’s criticism in Metaphysics
d. Bertrand Russell’s criticism in The History of Western Philosophy
e. The validity of the above points on the Forms
9. Aristotle: ideas about cause and purpose in relation to God
a. Material, efficient, formal and final cause in Aristotle
b. Prime Mover in Aristotle
10. Strengths of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover
11. Weaknesses of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover
12. The validity of the above points
13. Metaphysics Book 12
14. The Euthyphro Dilemma
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 6
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Ancient Greece: AS Philosophy Checklist 1
Essay for Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy:
Part A: “Explain criticisms that have been made of Plato’s Theory of Forms.” [25]
A
You correctly identify and explain all the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You explain clearly
relevant key ideas of Plato’s Forms, supported by examples. You select accurate and relevant
material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, making clear their
criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You correctly identify and explain weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe relevant key
ideas of Plato’s Forms, supported by examples. You select some accurate and relevant material from
Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing their criticisms of
Plato’s Forms. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You identify some of the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe some relevant ideas
of Plato’s Forms. You select some limited but accurate material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s
Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing some of their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. Technical
language and terminology is used with limited accuracy.
Part B: “How valid are these criticisms, in your view?” [10]
A
You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You critically evaluate
the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell. You give a clear personal point of view
and justify it through the use of evidence and reasoned argument. You construct a coherent and
well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and
fluent expression.
C
You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You evaluate the some
of the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, but some of your answer is just
descriptive. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and
reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe the strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s Forms. You show limited evaluation of
the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, with limited identification of the
strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or
limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 7
Judaeo-Christian influences on religious philosophy:
God as Creator
1. The way the Bible presents God as involved with his creation
Creatio ex nihilo
a.
Genesis 1
b.
Job 38:1 – 42:6
c.
Psalm 33 (33:6)
d.
John 1:1-4
e.
Hebrews 11:3
God as craftsman
f.
Genesis 2 and 3
g.
Isaiah 29:16
h.
Jeremiah 18:1-6
2.
God as Omnipotent
3.
God as Omniscient
4.
God as Omnipresent
5.
Compare creatio ex nihilo with Aristotle’s Prime Mover
6.
Compare creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex Deo
7.
Discuss whether, if God created the universe, God is therefore responsible for everything
that happens in it.
a.
Omnipotence and the Problem of Evil
b.
Omniscience and the Problem of Evil
The Goodness of God
8.
The ways in which the God of the Bible is seen as morally perfect
9.
The ways in which the God of the Bible is seen as the source of human ethics
10. God as law-giver and judge - in a Biblical context, does God command things because they
are good or are things are good because God commands them?
a.
The Decalogue: Exodus 20:1-17
b.
The Punishments of the Fall: Genesis 3
c.
Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 19
d.
The Book of Life: Revelation 20:11-15
e.
Compare what God commands in the Bible with the Euthyphro dilemma
f.
Compare Divine Command Theory with the Euthyphro dilemma
11. The Incarnation and the person of Jesus
12. The Book of Job
13. Problems with God as law-giver and judge
14. Benevolence and the Problem of Evil
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 8
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Judaeo-Christian Views: AS Philosophy Checklist 2
Essay for Judaeo-Christian influences on religious philosophy:
Part A: “Explain the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge.” [25]
A
You explain clearly the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, selecting accurate
and relevant examples including the Decalogue, Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Book
of Life. You correctly apply Divine Command Theory in explaining God’s role as law-giver, including a
clear explanation of the Judeo-Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma. You are able to clearly
explain how and why God judges a person. You use accurately a range of technical language and
terminology.
C
You explain the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, selecting some accurate and
relevant examples from the Decalogue, Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Book of Life.
You correctly identify Divine Command Theory in explaining God’s role as law-giver, and explain the
Judeo-Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma. You use mostly accurately technical language
and terminology.
E
You describe the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, with some limited but
accurate examples from the Decalogue, Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Book of Life.
You might mention Divine Command Theory, or the Euthyphro dilemma. Technical language and
terminology is used with limited accuracy.
Part B: “God has no right to judge human beings.” Discuss [10]
A
You clearly evaluate God’s right to judge using philosophical and Biblical evidence. You give a clear
personal point of view supporting either: the view that as we are all created by God, he is
responsible for all that we are and do and as such has no grounds for making judgements of us; or
the view that since God has created human beings with ‘free will’ and given us laws by which to
order our conduct he has the right to make judgements about our success or failure to follow these
laws. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of
evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You evaluate God’s right to judge using philosophical and Biblical evidence. You support either: the
view that as we are all created by God, he is responsible for all that we are and do and as such has no
grounds for making judgements of us; or the view that since God has created human beings with
‘free will’ and given us laws by which to order our conduct he has the right to make judgements
about our success or failure to follow these laws. Your argument demonstrates some organisation
and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision.
E
You describe: the view that as we are all created by God, he is responsible for all that we are and do
and as such has no grounds for making judgements of us; or the view that since God has created
human beings with ‘free will’ and given us laws by which to order our conduct he has the right to
make judgements about our success or failure to follow these laws. Your argument demonstrates
minimal organisation or limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 9
The Ontological argument:
1. Anselm’s First Ontological Argument
a. Existence in intellectu and existence in re
b. Rejection of the Fool (see: Psalm 14:1)
c. Superiority of in re over in intellectu
d. Existence is a predicate
e. Definition of ontos and ontological
2. Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument
a. Anselm’s understanding of God
b. The difference between contingent and necessary existence
c. Reductio ad absurdum
d. Argument as Faith seeking Understanding
e. Thomas Aquinas’ support for Anselm’s Ontological Argument
3. The Strengths of Anselm’s Argument
4. The Weaknesses of Anselm’s Argument
5. Challenge to Anselm from Gaunilo
a. Gaunilo’s analogy of the island in On Behalf of the Fool
b. Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
6. René Descartes’ Ontological Argument
a. Descartes’ understanding of existence as perfection
b. Descartes’ understanding that God cannot lack anything
7. The Strengths of Descartes’ Argument
a. Norman Malcolm and necessary existence
b. Charles Hartshorne: existence in intellecu and in re
8. The Weaknesses of Descartes’ Argument
a. Pierre Gassendi and non-existence
9. Challenge to Anselm and Descartes from Immanuel Kant
a. Analytic statements and necessary existence
b. Existence is not a predicate
c. Responses to Kant
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 10
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Ontological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 3
Essay for the Ontological Argument:
Part A: “Explain Anselm’s ontological argument.” [25]
A
You accurately explain how Anselm’s ontological argument attempts to demonstrate God’s
necessary existence, clearly outlining Anselm’s a priori proof for the existence of God and the
acceptance of the truth of the phrase “God exists”. You clearly outline the argument using existence
in intelletcu, existence in re, and reductio ad absurdum to conclude that God must exist in reality. You
clearly explain why Anselm developed an argument predicated on proving God’s existence prior to,
and not dependent upon, experience. You will also mention the idea of necessary existence and
Anselm’s attempt to make faith rational. You accurately use a range of technical language and
terminology.
C
You accurately explain some of the features of Anselm’s ontological argument from the following: a
priori proof; rejection of the Fool; existence in intellectu; existence in re; reductio ad absurdum;
argument predicated on proving existence prior to experience; necessary existence; making faith
rational; “being than which none greater can be conceived.” You make some use of correct language
and terminology.
E
Limited and partially accurate knowledge of Anselm’s ontological argument, in answer which is
mainly descriptive. You describe, partially, the idea of “being than which none greater can be
conceived.” You make limited use of correct language and terminology.
Part B: “It is pointless to deny the logical necessity of the existence of God.” Discuss [10]
A
You clearly and critically evaluate to what extent Anselm’s ontological argument was successful in
supporting his assertion that belief in God was a logical necessity. You construct a coherent and wellorganised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. Your argument focuses on
necessary existence, reductio ad absurdum, in intellectu and in re, and the extent to which the
argument is valid in logical terms. You analyse the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and
Pierre Gassendi. You demonstrate a clear understanding of predicate and premise based
philosophical arguments. You critically analyse and evaluate the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel
Kant and Pierre Gassendi. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument was in supporting his assertion that belief in God was a
logical necessity, clearly identifying the strengths and weaknesses. Your argument uses the idea of
necessary existence. You mainly describe the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and Pierre
Gassendi. Your analysis of Anselm makes use of evidence and examples to analyse and evaluate.
Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned
argument. You use language that has some precision.
E
You describe the ideas of necessity and contingency. You provide limited evaluation of the argument
from necessity, having attempted to give an opinion. Your opinion lacks evidence or justification.
Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. You use language that
lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 11
The Cosmological argument:
1. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
a. Aquinas’ First Way: Motion
b. Aquinas’ Second Way: Causation
c. Aquinas’ Third Way: Necessary Being
2. The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument
3. The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument
4. Challenge from David Hume
a. Hume’s criticisms of the view that the existence of the universe is evidence
for the existence of God.
b. Is the Prime Mover the Christian God?
5. The Strengths of Hume’s Challenge
6. The Weaknesses of Hume’s Challenge
7. Immanuel Kant’s rejection of Necessary Being
8. Copleston’s Cosmological Argument
a. Argument put forward by Copleston in the 1947 radio debate
b. The universe needs explaining
9. Challenge to Copleston from Bertrand Russell
a. Argument put forward by Russell in the 1947 radio debate
b. The universe does not need explaining
c. Response to Bertrand Russell from Copleston
10. The Strengths of Russell’s Challenge
11. The Weaknesses of Russell’s Challenge
12. Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 12
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Cosmological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 4
Essay for the Cosmological Argument
Part A: “Explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument.” [25]
A
You clearly explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument demonstrating to what extent Aquinas’ versions
are successful in proving there is some kind of divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You
include the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; necessity and contingency;
the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; and motion. Your answer is fully
supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and
terminology.
C
You explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument identifying to what extent Aquinas’ versions are
successful in proving there is some kind of divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You
include some of the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; necessity and
contingency; the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; or motion. Your answer is
supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurate a technical language and
terminology.
E
You mainly describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using the ideas of causation, motion or
necessary being. You answer has occasional support from examples and evidence. You make limited
use of correct language and terminology.
Part B: “To what extent were Russell’s criticisms of the Cosmological argument successful?” [10]
A
You critically evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, making full use of the radio debate between
Russell and Copleston. You identify strengths and weaknesses of Russell’s argument and You justify
a point of view clearly answering to what extent Russell was successful. You will also include
evidence from Kant, Hume and Leibniz. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument
supported by examples or sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, mentioning the radio debate between Russell and
Copleston. You identify strengths and weaknesses of Russell’s argument, justifying your evaluation.
You include evidence from Kant, Hume or Leibniz. However, elements of your response are
descriptive. Your argument is organised and coherent. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe Russell’s criticisms of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using little or no
justification or evaluation. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence.
You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 13
The Teleological argument:
1. Aquinas’ Teleological Argument – Argument to design
a. Aquinas’ Fifth Way: Design
b. Purpose and “guiding hand”
c. Intelligent Designer
2. The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument
3. The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument
4. Paley’s Teleological Argument – Argument from design
a. The Watch Analogy
b. Purpose
c. Design
d. Complexity
5. The Strengths of Paley’s Argument
6. The Weaknesses of Paley’s Argument
7. The Challenge from David Hume
a. Weak Ananlogy
b. Epicurean Thesis
c. Lack of perfection
d. God’s infinity and our limited nature
e. Creation by committee or by a team
8. The Strengths of Hume’s Challenge
9. The Weaknesses of Hume’s Argument
10. The Challenge from J.S. Mill
a. Nature as evidence of Creation’s inherently evil nature
b. Progress through pain and suffering as counter-evidence
11. The Challenge from Darwinism
a. Evolution by Natural Selection
b. Adaptation and variation
c. Richard Dawkins
12. The Strengths of the Challenge from Darwinism
13. The Weaknesses of the Challenge from Darwinism
14. Richard Swinburne’s defence of the Teleological argument
15. F.R. Tennant and the Anthropic Principle
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 14
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Teleological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 5
Essay for the Teleological Argument
Part A: “Explain Mill’s challenge to the Teleological argument.” [25]
A
You clearly explain J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far
outweighs the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You clearly
compare and contrast this with the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas in favour of
design. You demonstrate a clear understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a
designer if the world is apparently designed. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and
examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You clearly J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs
the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You compare this with
the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas in favour of design. You demonstrate some
understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a designer if the world is apparently
designed. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately
technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far
outweighs the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You might
describe the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas. Your answer has occasional
support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical
language and terminology.
Part B: “Evaluate the claim that the universe has too many flaws for it to be designed.” [10]
A
You critically evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You
explain the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Counter-argument is presented by using
relevant parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the relevant parts of the different
teleological arguments. You give a clear opinion for or against, fully justified and supported by
evidence and examples. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument. You use accurate
and fluent expression.
C
You evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You describe
the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Counter-argument may be presented by using
some parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the some parts of the different
teleological arguments. Elements of your response are descriptive. You give an opinion for or
against, justified and supported by evidence or examples. Your argument is coherent and organised.
You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins or David Hume. You
might describe some of the strengths or some of the weaknesses of their arguments. You might
describe some of the counter-arguments from Augustine, Irenaeus or the teleological arguments.
Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks
evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 15
The Moral argument:
1. The Moral Argument from Immanuel Kant
a. Three postulates of morality
b. Summum bonum
c. Categorical Imperative
d. Innate moral awareness
e. Role of the conscience
2. Strengths of Kant’s Moral Argument
3. Weaknesses of Kant’s Moral Argument
a. J.L. Mackie “ought does not imply can”
b. Brian Davies and “sufficient power and knowledge”
c. Rejection of consequences
4. Sigmund Freud’s Challenge to Kant’s Moral Argument
a. The role of the superego
b. The role of the ego
c. The role of the id
d. Freud’s sources of morality
e. The source of the conscience
f.
The subjectivity of morality
g. Oedipus complex
5. Strengths of Freud’s Challenge
6. Weaknesses of Freud’s Challenge
7. God as the source of morality
a. John Cardinal Newman
b. Thomas Aquinas
c. John Hick
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 16
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Moral Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 6
Essay for the Moral Argument
Part A: “Explain Freud’s view that moral awareness comes from sources other than God.” [25]
A
You clearly explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be
seen as objective. You explain his rejection of Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s
ideas. Your explanation makes clear the importance of the Oedipus complex, Freud’s model of the
mind (id, superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of
religion as an obsessional neurosis. You also explain some of the problems of Freud’s views: his
rejection by modern psychotherapists; the problems with the evidential basis of his ideas. Your
answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical
language and terminology.
C
You explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be seen as
objective. You describe his rejection of Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s ideas.
Your explanation states the importance of the Oedipus complex, Freud’s model of the mind (id,
superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of religion as an
obsessional neurosis. You also describe some of the problems of Freud’s views: his rejection by
modern psychotherapists; the problems with the evidential basis of his ideas. Your answer is
supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and
terminology.
E
You describe Freud’s view of morality and moral objectivity. You mainly describe Freud’s ideas of
Oedipus complex, id, superego, ego, early childhood experiences, trauma, and religion as
obsessional neurosis. You might mention his rejection of Kant’s moral argument. Your answer has
occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “God is the only explanation of moral awareness.” Discuss. [10]
A
You give a clear opinion; a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by
examples and evidence. You evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You assess
the evidence Freud used to support his ideas, deciding if he succeeds in fully explaining human
moral awareness. You assess the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas
Aquinas supporting moral awareness coming from God. You construct a coherent and wellorganised argument. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion; a justified, coherent and organised argument, supported by some examples
and some evidence. You explain the strengths and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You describe the
evidence Freud used to support his ideas, giving an opinion on his explanation of human moral
awareness. You describe the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas Aquinas
supporting moral awareness coming from God. Elements of your response are descriptive. Your
argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision.
E
You give an almost entirely descriptive account of the views and theories of Immanuel Kant,
Sigmund Freud, John Cardinal Newman, John Hick or Thomas Aquinas. Your argument has minimal
organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use
language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 17
Challenges to religious belief: The Problem of Evil
1. The Nature of Evil
a. Natural Evil
b. Moral Evil
c. The Origin(s) of Evil
2. Epicurus and the Logical Problem of Evil
a. The Epicurian paradox
b. Epicurus’ Inconsistent Triad
3. David Hume and the Problem of Evil
a. Dialogues Concerning Human Understanding
b. Hume’s Inconsistent Triad
c. J.L. Mackie and the Inconsistent Triad
4. Gottfried Leibniz and the Definition of Theodicy
a. The difference between a defence of evil and a theodicy
b. Richard Swinburne and the need for a theodicy
5. Augustine of Hippo – “soul-deciding theodicy”
a. Privation of good / Evil as non-being
b. Perfect creation
c. The Fall
d. Original Sin and Total Depravity
e. The meaning of “soul-deciding”
f.
God’s responsibility for evil
6. Strengths of Augustine’s Theodicy
a. Free will as the root of all evil
b. Explains natural and moral evil
c. Absolves God of all responsibility
d. Biblical support for salvation by faith (see: Arminianism and Calvinism)
7. Weaknesses of Augustine’s Theodicy
a. Evil must have been a choice from the moment of creation
b. How can an Angel fall (Satan/Lucifer)
c. Opposite to the theory of evolution
d. Hell: Origins and creation by a supposedly loving God
8. Irenaeus of Lyons – “soul-making theodicy”
a. Human nature as potentiality
b. The Fall as an exercise of free will
c. John Keats and “the vale of soul-making”
d. John Hick and Evil and the God of Love
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 18
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Problem of Evil: AS Philosophy Checklist 7
e. The need for a real choice between good and evil
f.
God’s responsibility for evil
9. Strengths of Irenaeus’ Theodicy
a. “Best possible world” hypothesis
b. Explanation of natural and moral evil
c. Parallels with the theory of evolution
d. Love is experienced through times of trial
10. Weaknesses of Irenaeus’ Theodicy
a. “acquiescence in the face of evil”
b. Evil is given dignity and purpose
c. Problems with apparent universalism
d. Challenges the idea of a God of love / God allows evil
e. D.Z. Phillips
11. Challenges to Theodicy
a. Antony Flew and the problem with theodicy
12. Other Responses to the Problem of Evil
a. Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defence
b. Richard Swinburne’s Free Will Defence
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 19
Revision
Essay
Notes
Textbook
Learning Outcomes
Essay for the Problem of Evil
Part A: “Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus.” [25]
A
You clearly explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a clear and concise explanation of the problem of evil
using Epicurus and David Hume. Your make clear the importance of omnipotence and benevolence
to understanding the problem of evil. You explain the apparent logical inconsistency between the
classical theological definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy
using evidence and examples including: John Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic
distance; and human potentiality. You make clear where John Hick has emended or improved on
Irenaeus. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of
technical language and terminology.
C
You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a concise description of the problem of evil using Epicurus and
David Hume. Your description of the problem of evil includes the ideas of omnipotence and
benevolence. You describe the apparent logical inconsistency between the classical theological
definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy using some evidence or
examples including: John Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic distance; and human
potentiality. You state that John Hick has emended or improved on Irenaeus. Your answer is
supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and
terminology.
E
You mainly describe Ireaneus’ theodicy, with a brief description of the problem of evil. Your
description of the problem of evil includes the ideas of omnipotence and benevolence. Your answer
has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “The theodicy of Irenaeus cannot justify the existence of evil.” Discuss. [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You
give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence.
You critically evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: “acquiescence in the face of evil”; evil
being given dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the
arguments of D.Z. Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in
support of Ireaneus. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You give
a justified, coherent and organised argument, supported by some examples and some evidence. You
evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: “acquiescence in the face of evil”; evil being given
dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the arguments of D.Z.
Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in support of Ireaneus.
Elements of your response are descriptive. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use
language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Irenaeus’ theodicy, or the points supporting
Irenaeus’ theodicy. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any
opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 20
Challenges to religious belief: Religion and Science
1. Religious Cosmology
a. Genesis and Creationism, and creatio ex nihilo
b. John Polkinghorne
c. Fred Hoyle
d. Continual creation
e. Young Earth Creationism
2. Strengths of Religious Cosmology
3. Weaknesses of Religious Cosmology
4. Scientific Cosmology
a. Big Bang Theory
b. Edwin Hubble
c. “Red shift” and the microwave background
d. Stephen Hawking
5. Strengths of Scientific Cosmology
6. Weaknesses of Scientific Cosmology
7. Evolution
a. Charles Darwin and evolution by natural selection
b. Richard Dawkins and molecular evolution
c. Stephen Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium
d. 15 Evolutionary Gems
e. Evidence of common descent
f.
Arthur Peacocke
g. Denis Alexander
8. Strengths of Evolution
9. Weaknesses of Evolution
10. Intelligent Design
a. Irreducible complexity and biochemical machines
b. Michael Behe and the mousetrap
c. The Discovery Institute and Unlocking the Mystery of Life
d. Link to the teleological argument
e. The fine-tuned universe and the anthropic principle
f.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
11. Strengths of Intelligent Design
12. Weaknesses of Intelligent Design
13. Paul Davies and The Goldilocks Enigma
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 21
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Religion and Science: AS Philosophy Checklist 8
Essay for Science and Religion
Part A: “Explain the concept of Irreducible Complexity.” [25]
A
You clearly explain Irreducible Complexity, linking it clearly to the discussion about Intelligent
Design. You explain how Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are direct challenges to the
established and generally accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You explain the theories of
Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You explain the problems
with the validity of using non-organic examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is
fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and
terminology.
C
You explain Irreducible Complexity and describe the theory of Intelligent Design. You explain how
Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are direct challenges to the established and generally
accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You describe the theories of Michael Behe on
molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You identify the problems with the validity of
using non-organic examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is supported by some
evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe Irreducible Complexity, with a brief description of the problem of evil. You
describe the theories of Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. Your
answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate
use of technical language and terminology.
Part B: “There is no evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe.” Discuss. [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a fully justified,
coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate
evidence from Michael Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Thomas Aquinas
and William Paley. You assess the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the
evidence from The Discovery Institute. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a justified, coherent
and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. You evaluate evidence from Michael
Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. You
describe the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the evidence from The
Discovery Institute. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use language that has some
precision.
E
You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Michael’s Behe’s biological machines, and
describe the challenge from Richard Dawkins. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows
limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks
precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 22
Ethical theories, key terms and terminology
1. Definition and explanation of absolutist morality
a. Absolutist ethics
b. Objective
c. Natural Law
d. Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperative
e. Divine Command Theory
f.
Rule Utilitarianism
g. Strengths of absolutism
h. Weaknesses of absolutism
2. Definition and explanation of relativist morality
a. Relativist ethics
b. Subjective
c. Situation Ethics
d. Act Utilitarianism
e. Preference Utilitarianism
f.
Strengths of relativism
g. Weaknesses of relativism
3. Definition and explanation of deontological ethics
a. Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperative
b. Divine Command Theory
c. Natural Law: the Primary Precepts
4. Definition and explanation of teleological ethics
a. Natural Law: the Secondary Precepts
b. Act Utilitarianism
c. Rule Utilitarianism
d. Preference Utilitarianism
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 23
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Terminology and Key Terms: AS Ethics Checklist 1
Essay for Ethical Theories
Part A: “Explain the concept of relativist morality.” [25]
A
You explain clearly the concept of relativist morality, selecting accurate and relevant examples from
different relativist ethical theories. You explain the importance of moral truth varying according to
culture, time, place and religion. You explain the need for an approach to ethics that takes account
of each human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how even relativist
theories do not completely reject moral rules, and explain how these rules are flexible in contrast to
absolutist moral rules. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately
a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You explain the concept of relativist morality, selecting relevant examples from some relativist
ethical theories. You describe the importance of moral truth varying according to culture, time,
place and religion. You describe the need for an approach to ethics that takes account of each
human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how the rules of relativist
ethical theories are flexible in contrast to absolutist moral rules. Your answer has occasional support
from examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You define relativist morality, describing some relevant examples. You describe how moral truth
varies according to culture, time, place and religion. Your answer has occasional support from
examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and
terminology.
Part B: “Relativist ethics are unfair.” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a fully justified, coherent and
well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess whether or not relativist
ethical theories could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether all moral responses are
equal. You critically evaluate if ethical practices can be condemned or considered wrong – good
becomes socially approved, may vary between and within cultures, and consider if this is an unfair
approach. You will compare and contrast this absolutist ethics and absolutist ethical theories to
show if relativist ethics is more or less unfair. You construct a coherent and well-organised
argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a justified, coherent and organised
argument supported by examples or evidence. You assess whether or not relativist ethical theories
could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether all moral responses are equal. You
evaluate if ethical practices can be considered wrong and consider if this is an unfair approach. Your
argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument.
You use language that has some precision.
E
You describe some of the problems with relativist ethics, giving some of the weaknesses of different
relativist ethical theories. You might mention some of the strengths of absolutist ethics. Your
argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks
evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 24
Ethical Theories: Natural Law
1. Aristotle
a. Aristotle’s Theory of Causes
b. Efficient Cause
c. Final Cause
d. Eudaimonia
e. Purpose of life
2. Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law
a. Foundation in Aristotle
b. Efficient cause and God
c. Biblical (scriptural) background (esp. Genesis 1, 2 and 3)
d. Purpose and perfection
3. Reason , eudaimonia and the hierarchy of laws
a. Eternal Law
b. Divine Law
c. Natural Law
d. Humans Law
e. Application to non-Christians
4. Precepts and reason
a. Five primary precepts
b. Secondary precepts
c. Apparent good
d. Real good
e. Doctrine of Double Effect
5. Strengths of Natural Law
a. Aspects common to all cultures and societies
b. Focuses on human character
c. Reason, emotions, passions and practical wisdom
d. The pursuit of happiness
6. Weaknesses of Natural Law
a. G.E. Moore
b. Kai Neilson
c. Karl Barth
d. Peter Vardy
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 25
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Natural Law: AS Ethics Checklist 2
Essay for Natural Law
Part A: “Explain the strengths of Natural Law theory.” [25]
A
You explain clearly the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law
theory from Thomas Aquinas and its origins in Aristotle. You explain how Natural Law is absolutist
and depends on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You give evidence for how
Natural Law gives a clear cut approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common
moral rules. You explain the importance of the basic principles, and state why these could be
considered positively. You explain how Natural Law considers both intention and act, and why this is
a strength. You explain the strength of focusing on human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer
is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and
terminology.
C
You explain the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law theory from
Thomas Aquinas and its origins in Aristotle. You describe how Natural Law is absolutist and depends
on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You state how Natural Law gives a clear cut
approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common moral rules. You describe the
basic principles, and state why these could be considered positively. You describe how Natural Law
considers both intention and act, and why this is a strength. You describe the strength of focusing on
human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence.
You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe some of the advantages or strengths of Natural Law, giving an outline of
Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas. You might include: God creating everything for a purpose,
the advantages of common moral rules; intention and act; and eudaimonia. Your answer has
occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “Natural Law has no serious weaknesses.” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a fully
justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess
the claim that Natural Law gives a rational approach to morality and that its basic principles are
common to all societies and cultures, so the purpose of morality is the fulfilment of our natures,
evaluating if this a strength or not. You assess the claim that there is a common human nature and if
it is possible to have a universal moral law. You critically evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’
natural law and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if Natural Law is
undermined because it ignores the needs and feelings of the people involved and their particular
situation. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a justified,
coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your answer are
descriptive. You assess the claim that Natural Law’s basic principles are common to all societies and
cultures, evaluating if this is a strength or not. You evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’ natural
law and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if Natural Law is
undermined because it ignores the needs and feelings of the people involved and their particular
situation. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Natural Law. You might mention some of the
strengths of Natural Law. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence.
Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 26
Ethical Theories: Kantian Ethics
1. Kant’s Copernican Revolution
a. The problem of objective knowledge
b. Phenomenon and phenomenology
c. René Descartes
d. Gottfried Leibniz
e. David Hume
f.
Purpose of life
2. Reason
a. Good will
b. Autonomy of the will
c. Duty
d. Moral principles
3. Imperatives
a. Hypothetical imperative
b. Categorical imperative
c. The difference between the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical
Imperative
4. Universalisation of maxims
a. Formula of the Law of Nature
b. Formula of End in Itself
c. Formula of a Kingdom of Ends
5. Theory of Duty
6. Summum bonum
7. Strengths of Kantian Ethics
a. Reason
b. Golden Rule
c. Intrinsic value and universalisability
8. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics
a. The problem of universalisability
b. The problem of separating “intention” from “ends”
c. Ignorance of result
d. Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and ends
e. Conflicting duties
9. W.D. Ross and prima facie duties
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 27
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Kantian Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 3
Essay for Kantian Ethics
Part A: “Explain, with examples, Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative.” [25]
A
You explain clearly Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain
the importance of the Categorical Imperative for deciding what our duty is. You explain how and
why Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of “good will” and
compare this with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples and might
include examples of your own. You include an explanation of a priori synthetic statements. Your
answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical
language and terminology.
C
You explain Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain the
importance of the Categorical Imperative for deciding what our duty is. You describe how Kant
developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of “good will” and compare this
with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples. Your answer has occasional
support from examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. You describe how the Categorical
Imperative is used for deciding what our duty is. Your answer has occasional support from examples
or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.
Part B: “Kant’s theory has no serious weaknesses.” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a
fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You
critically evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible and that there is conflict of duties. You
assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral principles, and the
objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if Kantian Ethics helps or
hinders human rights. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a
justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples and evidence. Elements of your
response are descriptive. You evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible and that there is
conflict of duties. You assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral
principles, and the objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if
Kantian Ethics helps or hinders human rights. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Kantian Ethics. You might mention some of the
strengths of Kantian Ethics. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited
coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 28
Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism
1. Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism
a. Teleological, consequentialist and relativistic.
b. Principle of utility
c. Measurable and quantitative theory
d. Hedonic calculus
e. Universal hedonism
f.
Eudaimonia
2. John Stuart (J.S.) Mill
a. Deontological, consequentialist and relativistic.
b. Happiness principle
c. Quality of pleasure
d. Higher and lower pleasures
e. Universalisability
3. Act and Rule Utilitarianism
a. Jeremy Benthan
b. J.S. Mill
c. Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism
d. Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism
4. Other forms of utilitarianism
a. Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism
b. Peter Singer’s impartial spectator
c. R.M. Hare and Preference Utilitarianism
d. R.M. Hare and Universalisability
e. Richard Brandt, psychotherapy and Preference Utilitarianism
5. Strengths of Utilitarianism
a. W.D. Ross and prima facie duties
b. Injustice for the individual and eudaimonia
c. Intrinsic value and universalisability
6. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
a. The problem of universalisability
b. The problem of separating “intention” from “ends”
c. Ignorance of result
d. Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and ends
e. Conflicting duties
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 29
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Utilitarianism: AS Ethics Checklist 4
Essay for Utilitarianism
Part A: “Explain the Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer.” [25]
A
You give a clear explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of
Utility. You explain how Singer refines Utilitarianism by focusing on the 7th criteria of the Hedonic
Calculus. You compare and contrast Preference Utilitarianism with Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining
the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You explain the role of the
impartial spectator and explain the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory.
Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical
language and terminology.
C
You give an explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of
Utility. You compare and contrast Preference Utilitarianism with Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining
the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You describe the role of the
impartial spectator and describe the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory.
Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are
descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You describe the impartial spectator
and describe the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer has
occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “To what extent is Preference Utilitarianism the best form of Utilitarianism?” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or
Rule Utilitarianism. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by
examples and evidence. You assess if Preference Utilitarianism overcomes the weaknesses of both
Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions, unjust results or being too
impersonal. You critically evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism protects minorities. You
critically evaluate the weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism (including difficulty in making
decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to undermine
Preference Utilitarianism. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or Rule
Utilitarianism. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or
evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You assess if Preference Utilitarianism
overcomes the weaknesses of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions,
unjust results or being too impersonal. You evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism
protects minorities. You evaluate the weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism (including difficulty in
making decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to
undermine Preference Utilitarianism. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism. You might
mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of Act or Rule Utilitarianism. Your argument
demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or
justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 30
Ethical Theories: Religious Ethics – Christian Ethics
1. The Jewish roots of Christian ethics
a. The Decalogue (The Ten Commandments)
b. Imago Dei
c. Relationship with God
d. The rejection of legalism
2. The Biblical basis of Christian ethics
a. Reading individual ethical statements in the context of the whole Bible
b. The ethics of Jesus: Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7)
c. The ethics of Jesus: The Great Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40)
d. The ethics of Jesus: The Golden Rule (Tobit 4:15 and Matthew 7:12)
e. The ethics of Paul: life lived in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16, 18, 25)
f.
The ethics of Paul: community ethic (Philippians 2:1-4)
g. The ethics of Paul: love in action (1 Corinthians 13)
h. The Kingdom of God and fulfilment of the Law
3. Love
a. Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
b. Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
c. Thomas Aquinas
d. Augustine of Hippo
e. Joseph Fletcher and Situation Ethics
4. Divine Command Theory
5. Absolutist views of Christian ethics
6. Relativist views of Christian ethics
7. Deontological approaches to Christian ethics
8. Teleological approaches to Christian ethics
9. The link between religion and morality
10. What makes an ethical theory a religious theory
11. Strengths of Christian ethics
a. Utilitarianism, goodness of God, and the Golden Rule
b. Kantian Ethics and Duty
c. Karl Barth and Natural Law
12. Weaknesses of Christian ethics
a. Compared with Utilitarianism
b. Compared with Kantian Ethics
c. Compared with Natural Law
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 31
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Religious Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 5
Essay for Christian Ethics
Part A: “Explain the ethical teachings of the religion you have studied.” [25]
A
You give a clear explanation of Christian Ethics. You explain the Biblical basis of Christian Ethics. You
explain the Jewish roots of Christian Ethics; the importance of Love to and the place of obedience in
Christian Ethics. You explain Divine Command Theory and Natural Law as examples of Christian
Ethics. You compare and contrast Divine Command Theory and Natural Law with relativist
approaches to Christian Ethics. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use
accurately a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You give an explanation of Christian Ethics. You explain the Biblical basis of Christian Ethics. You
describe the Jewish roots of Christian Ethics; the importance of Love to and the place of obedience in
Christian Ethics. You describe Divine Command Theory and Natural Law as examples of Christian
Ethics. You compare and contrast Divine Command Theory and Natural Law with relativist
approaches to Christian Ethics. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence.
Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and
terminology.
E
You mainly describe different aspect of Christian Ethics. You describe Divine Command Theory and
Natural Law. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and
often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.
Part B: “Some religious ethics are too rigid for moral decision making.” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion for or against Christian Ethics being too rigid for moral decision making, and
assess if being rigid or absolutist is a disadvantage. You give a fully justified, coherent and wellorganised argument supported by examples and evidence. You evaluate the deontological and
teleological approaches to Christian ethics, deciding if either leads to satisfactory moral outcomes.
You compare and contrast Christian Ethics with non-Christian approaches to ethics (such as
Utilitarianism), critically evaluating each theory, and assessing which enables better moral decision
making. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion for or against Christian Ethics being too rigid for moral decision making. You give
a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your
response are descriptive. You evaluate the deontological and teleological approaches to Christian
ethics, deciding if either leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You compare Christian Ethics with
non-Christian approaches to ethics (such as Utilitarianism); assessing which enables better moral
decision making. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Christian Ethics. You might mention
some of the strengths or weaknesses of other ethical theories or approaches. Your argument
demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or
justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 32
Applied Ethics: Abortion; The Right to a Child
1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion
2. The concept of personhood as applied to abortion
3. The right to life as applied to abortion and the rights of all those involved
4. The issues of infertility and the right to a child
5. The status of the embryo
6. Whether a child is a gift or a right
The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to abortion
and the right to a child:
7. Natural Law
a. Strengths of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a child
b. Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a child
8. Kantian Ethics
a. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child
b. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child
9. Utilitarianism
a. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a child
b. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a child
10. Christian Ethics
a. Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child
b. Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child
11. Absolutist views on abortion and the right to a child
12. Relativist views on abortion and the right to a child
13. Deontological approaches to abortion and the right to a child
14. Teleological approaches to abortion and the right to a child
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 33
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Abortion; Right to a Child: AS Ethics Checklist 6
Essay for Abortion; The Right to a Child
Part A: “Explain how a follower of Natural Law might approach the issues surrounding abortion.” [25]
A
You give a detailed explanation how Natural Law supports the sanctity of life, ensoulment and
personhood, clearly linking the Primary Precepts to abortion. You explain how Natural Law is clear
and unambiguous in its approach to abortion. You give a concise outline of Natural Law, giving its
origins in Aristotle and explaining the developments made by Thomas Aquinas. You explain how
Natural Law is absolutist, focusing on the Primary Precepts, and founded upon the idea that God
creates everything for a purpose. You explain the importance of using human reason in Natural Law
to make moral decisions. You will also apply the Secondary Precepts and explain the effects of the
Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use
accurately a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You explain how Natural Law supports the sanctity of life, ensoulment and personhood, clearly
linking the Primary Precepts to abortion. You explain how Natural Law is clear and unambiguous in
its approach to abortion. You give a concise outline of Natural Law. You describe Natural Law as
absolutist, describing the Primary Precepts, and describing the idea that God creates everything for
a purpose. You describe the role of human reason in Natural Law to make moral decisions. You will
apply the Secondary Precepts and describe the effects of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer
has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You
use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe what Natural Law would say about abortion, giving a description of the Primary
and Secondary Precepts. You may describe the Doctrine of Double Effect or the role of reason in
moral decision making. You will describe Natural Law as absolutist in its approach to abortion. Your
answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate
use of technical language and terminology.
Part B: “A relativist approach to the issues raised by abortion leads to wrong moral choices.” Discuss [10]
A
You give a clear opinion for or against relativist approaches to abortion leading to wrong moral
choices. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples
and evidence. You critically evaluate different ethical approaches to abortion, deciding if either
absolutist or relativist approaches leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess if individual
needs and situations should be taken account of in moral choices related to abortion, and assess if
there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You assess the claim that
relativist approaches make it difficult to know what the right choice to make is, thereby creating
moral ambiguity and a possible moral hazard. You use accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion for or against relativist approaches to abortion leading to wrong moral choices.
You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence.
Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate different ethical approaches to abortion,
deciding if either absolutist or relativist approaches leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You
assess if individual needs and situations should be taken account of in moral choices related to
abortion, and assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You use
language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of relativist ethical approaches. You
might mention some of the problems of relativist approaches when applied to abortion. You might
mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of absolutist ethical approaches. Your argument
demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or
justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 34
Applied Ethics: Euthanasia
1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to euthanasia
2. The right to life as applied to euthanasia
3. The concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia
4. The concept of personhood as applied to euthanasia
5. Issues around euthanasia
a. Persistent vegetative state (PVS)
b. James Rachels and passive vs. active euthanasia
c. The slippery slope
6. The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to euthanasia :
a. Natural Law
i. Strengths of Natural Law applied to euthanasia
ii. Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to euthanasia
b. Kantian Ethics
i. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia
ii. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia
c. Utilitarianism
i. John Stuart Mill and personal autonomy
ii. Peter Singer and the sanctity of life
iii. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia
iv. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia
d. Christian Ethics
i. Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to euthanasia
ii. Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to euthanasia
7. Absolutist views on euthanasia
8. Relativist views on euthanasia
9. Deontological approaches to euthanasia
10. Teleological approaches to euthanasia
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 35
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Euthanasia: AS Ethics Checklist 7
Essay for Euthanasia
Part A: “Explain why a follower of religious ethics might object to euthanasia.” [25]
A
You give a detailed explanation of how Christian Ethics supports objections to euthanasia. You
explain the Biblical support for sanctity of life. You apply the ideas of imago Dei, the Decalogue and
Divine Command Theory. You explain how the Precepts of Natural Law are against euthanasia. You
explain why some Christians would reject the arguments of Situation Ethics and prioritise sanctity of
life over quality of life. You explain the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer is fully
supported by clear evidence and specific examples. You use accurately a range of technical language
and terminology.
C
You explain how Christian Ethics supports objections to euthanasia. You describe the Biblical
support for sanctity of life. You apply the ideas of imago Dei, the Decalogue and Divine Command
Theory. You describe the Precepts of Natural Law as applied to euthanasia. You explain why some
Christians would prioritise sanctity of life over quality of life. You describe the Doctrine of Double
Effect. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response
are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe what Christian Ethics would say about euthanasia, possibly giving a description
of some of the Biblical evidence or Natural Law. You may describe the Primary or Secondary
Precepts and link these to euthanasia. You may describe the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer
has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method for making moral decisions about euthanasia?” [10]
A
You give a clear opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on
euthanasia. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by specific
examples and clear evidence. You critically evaluate the different version of Utilitarianism as applied
to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads to satisfactory moral
outcomes. You assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if individual needs and situations
should be taken account of in moral choices related to euthanasia, and assess if there are moral
absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You compare and contrast Utilitarianism with
other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use accurate and fluent
expression.
C
You give an opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on
euthanasia. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or
evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the different version of
Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads
to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if there are
moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You might compare and contrast
Utilitarianism with other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use
language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism as applied to
euthanasia. You might mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of other ethical theories as
applied to euthanasia. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any
opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 36
Applied Ethics: Genetic engineering
1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to genetic engineering
2. The concept of personhood as applied to genetic engineering
3. Genetic engineering on humans
a. Human embryo research
b. Stem-cell research
c. Designer Babies
d. “saviour siblings”
e. Genetic testing and screening
f.
Gene therapy / Germ line therapy
g. Human Genome Project
4. Genetic engineering on animals
5. Genetic engineering on plants
6. The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to genetic
engineering :
a. Natural Law
i. Strengths of Natural Law applied to genetic engineering
ii. Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to genetic engineering
b. Kantian Ethics
i. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to genetic engineering
ii. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to genetic engineering
c. Utilitarianism
i. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to genetic engineering
ii. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to genetic engineering
d. Christian Ethics
i. Joseph Fletcher
ii. Paul Ramsay
iii. Humans as “co-creator”
iv. Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to genetic engineering
v. Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to genetic engineering
7. Absolutist views on genetic engineering
8. Relativist views on genetic engineering
9. Deontological approaches to genetic engineering
10. Teleological approaches to genetic engineering
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 37
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
Genetic Engineering: AS Ethics Checklist 8
Essay for Genetic Engineering
Part A: “Explain how a follower of Natural Law might respond to issues raised by genetic engineering.” [25]
A
You give a detailed explanation of how Natural Law can be applied to genetic engineering. You
explain how Natural Law, as described by Thomas Aquinas, is absolutist and deontological in its
approach to Sanctity of Life. You explain how it is important for all actions to be in accordance with
the Primary Precepts and the limits set by the Secondary Precepts. You apply the idea of imago Dei
to show how humans have an essential and unalterable nature, and explain why manipulating could
always be considered wrong. You also explain the moral objections to embryo stem-cell research.
You might compare and contrast with the reasons for limited support for adult stem-cell research.
You explain the issues of genetically modified crops and the moral objections to cloning and
“saviour siblings”. Your answer is fully supported by clear evidence and specific examples. You use
accurately a range of technical language and terminology.
C
You give an explanation of how Natural Law can be applied to genetic engineering. You describe the
approach of Natural Law to Sanctity of Life. You describe the importance of the Primary Precepts
and the limits set by the Secondary Precepts. You apply the idea of imago Dei to show how humans
have an essential and unalterable nature, and explain why manipulating could always be considered
wrong. You also explain the moral objections to embryo stem-cell research. You might describe or
explain the issues of genetically modified crops and the moral objections to cloning and “saviour
siblings”. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language
and terminology.
E
You mainly describe what Natural Law would say about genetic engineering, possibly giving a
description of the Primary or Secondary Precepts and link these to genetic engineering. You might
describe the moral objections to embryo stem-cell research. You might describe the issues of
genetically modified crops and the moral objections to cloning and “saviour siblings”. Your answer
has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “Genetic engineering is ethically justified.” Discuss. [10]
A
You give a clear opinion for or against genetic engineering being ethically or morally justifiable. You
give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by specific examples and
clear evidence. You assess if the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages, using
ethical theories to support your answer. You assess if there any benefits for people and if the moral
objection of “playing God” is justifiable. You critically evaluate and apply different ethical theories,
making it clear whether they would be for or against genetic engineering. You assess issues around
designer babies, “saviour siblings”, genetically modified crops and gene therapy. You use accurate
and fluent expression.
C
You give an opinion for or against genetic engineering being ethically or morally justifiable. You give
a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your
response are descriptive. You assess if the potential advantages outweigh the potential
disadvantages, using ethical theories to support your answer. You critically evaluate and apply
different ethical theories, making it clear whether they would be for or against genetic engineering.
You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the moral objections to applied to genetic engineering. You might
describe some of the ethical theories that support genetic engineering. Your argument
demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or
justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 38
Applied Ethics: War and peace
1. “Just War”
a. Aristotle
b. Cicero
c. Ambrose of Milan
d. Augustine of Hippo
e. Thomas Aquinas
f.
Francisco Suárez and Francisco de Victoria
g. Jus ad bellam
h. Jus in Bello
i.
Jus post bellum
2. Ethical pacifism
a. Absolute pacifism
b. Contingent pacifism
c. Preferential pacifism
3. Religious pacifism
4. The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to war and peace :
a. Natural Law
i. Strengths of Natural Law applied to war and peace
ii. Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to war and peace
b. Kantian Ethics
i. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to war and peace
ii. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to war and peace
c. Utilitarianism
i. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to war and peace
ii. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to war and peace
d. Christian Ethics
i. William Manning and rejection of Pacifism
ii. Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to war and peace
iii. Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to war and peace
5. Absolutist views on war and peace
6. Relativist views on war and peace
7. Deontological approaches to war and peace
8. Teleological approaches to war and peace
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 39
Revision
Essay
Notes
Learning Outcomes
Textbook
War and Peace: AS Ethics Checklist 9
Essay for War and Peace
Part A: “Explain how Utilitarianism approaches the issues of war.” [25]
A
You give a detailed explanation of how Utilitarianism can be applied to War and Peace. You explain
the response of: Act Utilitarianism; Rule Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism to issues of
War and Peace. You explain how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to both support and argue
against a War, including how the Hedonic Calculus might change as a conflict progresses. You apply
the “Just War” criteria of: comparative justice, likelihood of success, and proportionality. You make
it clear the differences in approach of Bentham, J.S. Mill and Peter Singer. Your answer is fully
supported by clear evidence and specific examples. You use accurately a range of technical language
and terminology.
C
You give an explanation of how Utilitarianism can be applied to War and Peace. You describe the
response of: Act Utilitarianism; Rule Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism to issues of War
and Peace. You explain how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to both support and argue against a
War, including how the Hedonic Calculus might change as a conflict progresses. You describe the
differences in approach of Bentham, J.S. Mill and Peter Singer. Elements of your response are
descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.
E
You mainly describe what Utilitarianism would say about war, possibly giving a description of the
different versions of Act Utilitarianism; Rule Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism. You
describe how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to support or argue against a War. Your answer
has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of
technical language and terminology.
Part B: “Pacifism causes more harm than good.” Discuss. [10]
A
You give a clear opinion for or against pacifism causing more harm than good. You give a fully
justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by specific examples and clear evidence.
You assess if the potential harm caused by a nation not going to war is greater than the potential
harm caused by a nation fighting a war; using specific examples and ethical theories to support your
answer. You asses if Sanctity of Life is an absolute which supports the idea of all forms of violence
being objectionable and assess if there is a difference between individuals and nations or societies.
You apply the Hedonic Calculus, “Just War” Theory and the idea of universal justice. You use
accurate and fluent expression.
C
You give a clear opinion for or against pacifism causing more harm than good. You give a justified,
coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response
are descriptive. You compare and contrast the Hedonic Calculus, “Just War” Theory and the idea of
universal justice. You asses if Sanctity of Life is an absolute which supports the idea of all forms of
violence being objectionable and assess if there is a difference between individuals and nations or
societies. You use language that has some precision.
E
You mainly describe some of the different forms of pacifism and mainly describe the idea of “Just
War” theory. You might describe some of the ethical theories that support pacifism. Your argument
demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or
justification. You use language that lacks precision.
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 40
Philosophy at University
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/03/university-league-table-2014
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/04/university-guide-philosophy
Course
Ranking
University
Ranking
Students
per Teacher Course
Course
Code
Offer
Grades
University of Cambridge (Russell Group)
8
1
14.5
Philosophy
V500
A*AA
University of Oxford (Russell Group)
3
2
13.5
Philosophy, Politics and Economics
L0V0
AAA
University of Birmingham (Russell Group)
15
15
19.8
Philosophy and Sociology
VL53
ABB
University of East Anglia
10
17
14.5
Philosophy, Politics and Economics
L0V0
ABB
Essex University
14
63
12.7
Philosophy
V500
BBB-ABB
Oxford Brookes University
4
35
17.9
Philosophy
V500
BBC
University of St Andrews
6
4
12.7
Philosophy
V500
AAB
University of Warwick (Russell Group)
11
10
14.3
Philosophy
V500
AAA
University of York (Russell Group)
16
16
18.6
Philosophy and Sociology
VL53
AAB
Newman University, Birmingham
34
91
18.4
Applied Psychology and Philosophy & Ethics
CV85
BBC
University of Wolverhampton
N/A
N/A
N/A
Philosophy and Sociology
VL53
CC-CCD
University of Aberdeen
30
43
18.5
Behavioural Studies and Philosophy
VV56
BBB
Heythrop, University of London
46
-
15.2
Philosophy, Religion and Ethics
VV56
BBB-ABB
Keele University
35
45
23
Philosophy and Psychology
CV85
BBB
Lancaster University
33
11
16.3
Philosophy
V500
AAB
Manchester Metropolitan University
47
93
23.1
Philosophy and Psychology
VCM8
BCC-BBC
St Mary’s University College
43
89
27.1
Philosophy and Psychology
CV85
BC + b
Institution
10:15 Universities
Top 20 for Philosophy
Local Universities
Other Universities
AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook
Page 41