Official marks and comments, essay 12
Comments on essay 12
Do questions like “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn't I be selfish?” have definitive
answers as do some other questions in other Areas of Knowledge? Does having a definitive
answer make a question more or less important?
Assessment: A = 4, B = 4, C = 3, D = 4 TOTAL = 15
General comments
The essay begins with a discussion of the first part of the prompt, “Do questions like ‘why
should I be moral’ or ‘why shouldn’t I be selfish’ have definitive answers?” It is argued that
while there may seem to be definitive answers to support being moral or unselfish, this is
contradicted in the “self-interest” theory (10), whose “definitional argument says that it is
necessarily true that everyone is selfish” (11). This section of the essay concludes that there
are “no definitive answers” to questions like why one should be moral and why one shouldn’t
be selfish (42-43).
The essay goes on to consider “definitive answers” in other areas of knowledge, and claims
that “religion cannot ever be said to have any definitive answers”, due to the lack of proof or
disproof (48-49). The example discussed revolves around the existence of God, as well as the
“concept” and attributes of God. Some “paradoxes” of God are considered (52-56), but these
“will not deter a believer” (57). Next, the essay considers mathematics, linked to reasoning as
a way of knowing: the example of “1+1=2” as an “unquestionable” assertion in any part of
the world is offered (63). However, a counter-claim emerges from “stipulative questions” in
math (example x+2=y), for which “there are an infinite number of different possibilities” (6768).
The essay goes back to a discussion on the lack of a “definite” (sic) answer to the first part of
the prompt and the difficulties of comparing morals across cultures (70-80). A categorical
syllogism (“All men are mortal…”) is claimed to apply to questions regarding religion, but
without any elaboration.
The concluding section of the essay, beginning line 89, tackles the second part of the title,
“does having a definitive answer make a question more or less important?” It is argued that a
question with no “definite” answers can be equally important, such as “does God exist?” (91).
Questions with indefinite answers are claimed to be more “reality orientated” (98), linked to
ethics. Both “definite” and “indefinite” answers are viewed as contributors to progress:
“definite answers give us the means to develop and make progress, and unanswered questions
give us the motivation to develop” (109-110).
Criterion A: Understanding of knowledge issues = 4
The essay includes some treatment of knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed
title, especially the second part of the prompt (lines 98-110). However, for the most part, the
treatment of knowledge issues is rudimentary. In looking at “definitive” answers in “other
areas of knowledge”, there is a cursory examination of religion and mathematics. The case for
religion constructing definitive answers, particularly in the light of the epistemology of faith
and “universal beliefs”, is not considered at all. Definitive answers in math are linked to a
simplistic example (1+1=2), and there is no attempt to examine the axiomatic richness of the
discipline. There is just one link to a way of knowing (math and reason, lines 60-61 and 8788), but again this is handled in a superficial manner. The essay thus lacks both depth and
breadth of understanding in tackling the core knowledge issue implied in the title, and the
attempted links are largely ineffective.
Criterion B: Knower's perspective = 4
The essay shows very little evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the title. The initial discussion on “morality” and “selfishness” (lines 5-35), which
includes some of the best reasoning in the essay, relies entirely on one text source, and the
candidate offers no examples from his/her own experience in considering questions of deep
personal relevance. Different perspectives, such as the self-interest theory (10), the
evolutionary argument (24), and the hidden benefits argument (31) are mentioned, but more
as a listing rather than a purposeful exploration. Examples chosen are sometimes appropriate,
though simplistic (1+1=2), but there are also some dangerous generalized examples (“For
Muslims, the act of killing infidels is considered holy”, 38-39) which betray a lack of nuanced
understanding. The example of “stipulative questions” in math (67) is not fully explained.
Some personal engagement with the knowledge issues does emerge in the concluding section,
but overall the essay lacks the distinctive voice of the knower.
Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues = 3
The inquiry largely describes knowledge issues without considering their implications or
underlying assumptions. There is a mis-representation of the “self-interest” theory in reducing
it to the argument that “it is necessarily true that everyone is selfish” (11), without
considering its assumption of community benefit. Similarly, the implications of the impact of
“other-regarding desires” (23) are not considered. No evidence is presented to support the
claim that “it has been observed on monkeys and infants that they have empathy” (29-30). A
sweeping over-statement on religion, which “cannot ever be said to have any definitive
answers” (48), is followed by incomplete reasoning on the arguments regarding the attributes
of God. Another simplistic over-statement appears in lines 78- 79, with the claim that
“reasoning is out of the picture for morals and ethics, as reasoning does not take into account
‘buts’ or ‘ifs’”. The attempt to apply the categorical syllogism to questions regarding religion
(82-85) remains very unclear, highlighting the poor quality of analysis evident for the most
part in this essay. Even where counter-claims are actively identified, as in the first section of
the essay, their implications are ignored : “so, as far as moral (sic) and ethics is considered,
there are no definitive answers to why one should be moral, and why one shouldn’t be
selfish” (42-43), and the essay lapses into trite moral relativism, “what may be moral for one
person or society might be immoral for another” (77-78). The counter-claim on math, while
intriguing, is not fully explained (66-69). The essay does provide some justification and a
more coherent argument in the concluding section, but leaves the reader with another jarring
non-sequitur: “What if there was no definite answer to 1+1? We would still be in the Stone
Age, or even further back” (104-105).
Criterion D: Organization of ideas = 4
The essay on the prescribed title is poorly structured, with limited overall organization. The
introductory section provides no thesis or framework for approaching the two questions in the
prompt, and the “inductive” style impedes the clarity of argument. After considering some
perspectives on “morality” and “selfishness”, the essay examines religion and math as areas
of knowledge, but then reverts back to the initial argument: “going back to the question of
why one should be moral…” (70); this results in repetition and contributes to the fragmentary
nature of the organization of ideas. Some “factual information” used is inaccurate and not
referenced: “For Muslims, the act of killing infidels is considered holy” (38-39) qualifies as a
vast generalization taken out of context. No reference is offered for “stipulative questions” in
math (67). The essay relies entirely on citations from just one textual source, and does not
consider a wider range of references.