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 anOCR 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%)

GradingE D C B A A*

Module UMS 40 50 60 70 80Total of 320 with 180 from A2

AS UMS: 80 100 120 140 160

A Level UMS:(AS + A2) 160 200 240 280 320

A Level UCAS Tariff: 40 60 80 100 120 140

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 AO2G571: 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: DeadlineEssay Title:

Targets for this task: (Remember to include the targets from your last piece of assessed work)1.

2.

3.

Targets met?

Yes Partly No

Yes Partly No

Yes Partly No

AO1 – Knowledge and understandingGrade Band Descriptor

A 215 21-25

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

B 18 4 16-20 A good attempt to address the question, accurate knowledge, good understanding, good selection of material, technical terms mostly accurate. Communication: generally clear and organised

C 15

D 123 11-15

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

E 102 6-10

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

1 1-5 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 applicationGrade Band Descriptor

5 9- 10 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 8B 7

4 7-8 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

C 6D 5

3 5-6 A satisfactory attempt, some successful analysis which may be implicit through choice of examples or evidence. Communication: some clarity and organisation

E 4 2 3-4 Some attempt to sustain an argument, views asserted, limited analysis, but not successfully justified. Communication: some clarity and organisation

1 1-2 Very little argument or justification of viewpoint, little or no successful analysis.Communication: often unclear or disorganised

Grade MarksA 28B 25C 21D 18E 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 Greece: AS Philosophy Checklist 1

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy:1. Plato’s Analogy (Allegory) of the Cave

a. The role of the prisonersb. The role of the shadowsc. The symbolism of the caved. The symbolism of the outside worlde. The symbolism of the Sunf. The purpose of the journey out of the caveg. The effect of the return to the prisoners

2. Strengths of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave3. Weaknesses of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave4. The validity of the points made by Plato in the Analogy of the Cave5. Plato’s The Republic VII.514A – 521B6. Plato: the Concept of the Forms

a. The Form of the Goodb. Analogy of the divided linec. The relation between concepts and phenomenad. The concepts of “Ideals”e. The relation between the Form of the Good and other Forms

7. Strengths of Plato’s Formsa. Heraclitus’ river

8. Weaknesses of Plato’s Formsa. The problem of infinite regressionb. Plato’s own self-critique in Parmenidesc. Aristotle’s criticism in Metaphysicsd. Bertrand Russell’s criticism in The History of Western Philosophye. The validity of the above points on the Forms

9. Aristotle: ideas about cause and purpose in relation to Goda. Material, efficient, formal and final cause in Aristotleb. Prime Mover in Aristotle

10. Strengths of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover11. Weaknesses of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover12. The validity of the above points13. Metaphysics Book 1214. The Euthyphro Dilemma

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 6

Essay for Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy:

Part A: “Explain criticisms that have been made of Plato’s Theory of Forms.” [25]

AYou 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.

CYou 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.

EYou 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]

AYou 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.

CYou 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.

EYou 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 Views: AS Philosophy Checklist 2

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Judaeo-Christian influences on religious philosophy:God as Creator

1. The way the Bible presents God as involved with his creationCreatio ex nihilo

a. Genesis 1b. Job 38:1 – 42:6c. Psalm 33 (33:6)d. John 1:1-4e. Hebrews 11:3

God as craftsmanf. Genesis 2 and 3g. Isaiah 29:16h. Jeremiah 18:1-6

2. God as Omnipotent3. God as Omniscient4. God as Omnipresent5. Compare creatio ex nihilo with Aristotle’s Prime Mover6. Compare creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex Deo7. Discuss whether, if God created the universe, God is therefore responsible for everything

that happens in it.a. Omnipotence and the Problem of Evilb. Omniscience and the Problem of Evil

The Goodness of God8. 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 ethics10. 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 20:1-17b. The Punishments of the Fall: Genesis 3c. Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 19d. The Book of Life: Revelation 20:11-15e. Compare what God commands in the Bible with the Euthyphro dilemmaf. Compare Divine Command Theory with the Euthyphro dilemma

11. The Incarnation and the person of Jesus12. The Book of Job13. Problems with God as law-giver and judge14. Benevolence and the Problem of Evil

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 8

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.

CYou 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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Ontological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 3

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

The Ontological argument:1. Anselm’s First Ontological Argument

a. Existence in intellectu and existence in reb. Rejection of the Fool (see: Psalm 14:1)c. Superiority of in re over in intellectud. Existence is a predicatee. Definition of ontos and ontological

2. Anselm’s Second Ontological Argumenta. Anselm’s understanding of Godb. The difference between contingent and necessary existencec. Reductio ad absurdumd. Argument as Faith seeking Understandinge. Thomas Aquinas’ support for Anselm’s Ontological Argument

3. The Strengths of Anselm’s Argument4. The Weaknesses of Anselm’s Argument5. Challenge to Anselm from Gaunilo

a. Gaunilo’s analogy of the island in On Behalf of the Foolb. Anselm’s response to Gaunilo

6. René Descartes’ Ontological Argumenta. Descartes’ understanding of existence as perfectionb. Descartes’ understanding that God cannot lack anything

7. The Strengths of Descartes’ Argumenta. Norman Malcolm and necessary existenceb. Charles Hartshorne: existence in intellecu and in re

8. The Weaknesses of Descartes’ Argumenta. Pierre Gassendi and non-existence

9. Challenge to Anselm and Descartes from Immanuel Kanta. Analytic statements and necessary existenceb. Existence is not a predicatec. Responses to Kant

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 10

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.

CYou 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.

ELimited 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 well-organised 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.

EYou 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

Cosmological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 4

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

The Cosmological argument:1. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

a. Aquinas’ First Way: Motionb. Aquinas’ Second Way: Causationc. Aquinas’ Third Way: Necessary Being

2. The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument3. The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument4. 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 Challenge6. The Weaknesses of Hume’s Challenge7. Immanuel Kant’s rejection of Necessary Being8. Copleston’s Cosmological Argument

a. Argument put forward by Copleston in the 1947 radio debateb. The universe needs explaining

9. Challenge to Copleston from Bertrand Russella. Argument put forward by Russell in the 1947 radio debateb. The universe does not need explainingc. Response to Bertrand Russell from Copleston

10. The Strengths of Russell’s Challenge11. The Weaknesses of Russell’s Challenge12. Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 12

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.

EYou 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]

AYou 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.

CYou 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.

EYou 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

Teleological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 5

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

The Teleological argument:1. Aquinas’ Teleological Argument – Argument to design

a. Aquinas’ Fifth Way: Designb. Purpose and “guiding hand”c. Intelligent Designer

2. The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument3. The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument4. Paley’s Teleological Argument – Argument from design

a. The Watch Analogyb. Purposec. Designd. Complexity

5. The Strengths of Paley’s Argument6. The Weaknesses of Paley’s Argument7. The Challenge from David Hume

a. Weak Ananlogyb. Epicurean Thesisc. Lack of perfectiond. God’s infinity and our limited naturee. Creation by committee or by a team

8. The Strengths of Hume’s Challenge9. The Weaknesses of Hume’s Argument10. The Challenge from J.S. Mill

a. Nature as evidence of Creation’s inherently evil natureb. Progress through pain and suffering as counter-evidence

11. The Challenge from Darwinisma. Evolution by Natural Selectionb. Adaptation and variationc. Richard Dawkins

12. The Strengths of the Challenge from Darwinism13. The Weaknesses of the Challenge from Darwinism14. Richard Swinburne’s defence of the Teleological argument15. F.R. Tennant and the Anthropic Principle

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 14

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Moral Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 6

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

The Moral argument:1. The Moral Argument from Immanuel Kant

a. Three postulates of moralityb. Summum bonumc. Categorical Imperatived. Innate moral awarenesse. Role of the conscience

2. Strengths of Kant’s Moral Argument3. 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 Argumenta. The role of the superegob. The role of the egoc. The role of the idd. Freud’s sources of moralitye. The source of the consciencef. The subjectivity of moralityg. Oedipus complex

5. Strengths of Freud’s Challenge6. Weaknesses of Freud’s Challenge7. God as the source of morality

a. John Cardinal Newmanb. Thomas Aquinasc. John Hick

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 16

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.

EYou 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 well-organised 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.

EYou 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

Problem of Evil: AS Philosophy Checklist 7

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Challenges to religious belief: The Problem of Evil1. The Nature of Evil

a. Natural Evilb. Moral Evilc. The Origin(s) of Evil

2. Epicurus and the Logical Problem of Evila. The Epicurian paradoxb. Epicurus’ Inconsistent Triad

3. David Hume and the Problem of Evila. Dialogues Concerning Human Understandingb. Hume’s Inconsistent Triadc. J.L. Mackie and the Inconsistent Triad

4. Gottfried Leibniz and the Definition of Theodicya. The difference between a defence of evil and a theodicyb. Richard Swinburne and the need for a theodicy

5. Augustine of Hippo – “soul-deciding theodicy”a. Privation of good / Evil as non-beingb. Perfect creationc. The Falld. Original Sin and Total Depravitye. The meaning of “soul-deciding”f. God’s responsibility for evil

6. Strengths of Augustine’s Theodicya. Free will as the root of all evilb. Explains natural and moral evilc. Absolves God of all responsibilityd. Biblical support for salvation by faith (see: Arminianism and Calvinism)

7. Weaknesses of Augustine’s Theodicya. Evil must have been a choice from the moment of creationb. How can an Angel fall (Satan/Lucifer)c. Opposite to the theory of evolutiond. Hell: Origins and creation by a supposedly loving God

8. Irenaeus of Lyons – “soul-making theodicy”a. Human nature as potentialityb. The Fall as an exercise of free willc. 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

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

e. The need for a real choice between good and evilf. God’s responsibility for evil

9. Strengths of Irenaeus’ Theodicya. “Best possible world” hypothesisb. Explanation of natural and moral evilc. Parallels with the theory of evolutiond. Love is experienced through times of trial

10. Weaknesses of Irenaeus’ Theodicya. “acquiescence in the face of evil”b. Evil is given dignity and purposec. Problems with apparent universalismd. Challenges the idea of a God of love / God allows evile. D.Z. Phillips

11. Challenges to Theodicya. Antony Flew and the problem with theodicy

12. Other Responses to the Problem of Evila. Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defenceb. Richard Swinburne’s Free Will Defence

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 19

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Religion and Science: AS Philosophy Checklist 8

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Challenges to religious belief: Religion and Science1. Religious Cosmology

a. Genesis and Creationism, and creatio ex nihilob. John Polkinghornec. Fred Hoyled. Continual creatione. Young Earth Creationism

2. Strengths of Religious Cosmology3. Weaknesses of Religious Cosmology4. Scientific Cosmology

a. Big Bang Theoryb. Edwin Hubblec. “Red shift” and the microwave backgroundd. Stephen Hawking

5. Strengths of Scientific Cosmology6. Weaknesses of Scientific Cosmology7. Evolution

a. Charles Darwin and evolution by natural selectionb. Richard Dawkins and molecular evolutionc. Stephen Jay Gould and punctuated equilibriumd. 15 Evolutionary Gemse. Evidence of common descentf. Arthur Peacockeg. Denis Alexander

8. Strengths of Evolution9. Weaknesses of Evolution10. Intelligent Design

a. Irreducible complexity and biochemical machinesb. Michael Behe and the mousetrapc. The Discovery Institute and Unlocking the Mystery of Lifed. Link to the teleological argumente. The fine-tuned universe and the anthropic principlef. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

11. Strengths of Intelligent Design12. Weaknesses of Intelligent Design13. Paul Davies and The Goldilocks Enigma

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 21

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.

EYou 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]

AYou 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.

EYou 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

Terminology and Key Terms: AS Ethics Checklist 1

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ethical theories, key terms and terminology1. Definition and explanation of absolutist morality

a. Absolutist ethicsb. Objectivec. Natural Lawd. Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperativee. Divine Command Theoryf. Rule Utilitarianismg. Strengths of absolutismh. Weaknesses of absolutism

2. Definition and explanation of relativist moralitya. Relativist ethicsb. Subjectivec. Situation Ethicsd. Act Utilitarianisme. Preference Utilitarianismf. Strengths of relativismg. Weaknesses of relativism

3. Definition and explanation of deontological ethicsa. Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperativeb. Divine Command Theoryc. Natural Law: the Primary Precepts

4. Definition and explanation of teleological ethicsa. Natural Law: the Secondary Preceptsb. Act Utilitarianismc. Rule Utilitarianismd. Preference Utilitarianism

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 23

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Natural Law: AS Ethics Checklist 2

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ethical Theories: Natural Law1. Aristotle

a. Aristotle’s Theory of Causesb. Efficient Causec. Final Caused. Eudaimonia e. Purpose of life

2. Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Lawa. Foundation in Aristotleb. Efficient cause and Godc. Biblical (scriptural) background (esp. Genesis 1, 2 and 3)d. Purpose and perfection

3. Reason , eudaimonia and the hierarchy of lawsa. Eternal Lawb. Divine Lawc. Natural Lawd. Humans Lawe. Application to non-Christians

4. Precepts and reasona. Five primary preceptsb. Secondary preceptsc. Apparent goodd. Real goode. Doctrine of Double Effect

5. Strengths of Natural Lawa. Aspects common to all cultures and societiesb. Focuses on human characterc. Reason, emotions, passions and practical wisdomd. The pursuit of happiness

6. Weaknesses of Natural Lawa. G.E. Mooreb. Kai Neilsonc. Karl Barthd. Peter Vardy

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 25

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Kantian Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 3

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ethical Theories: Kantian Ethics1. Kant’s Copernican Revolution

a. The problem of objective knowledgeb. Phenomenon and phenomenologyc. René Descartesd. Gottfried Leibnize. David Humef. Purpose of life

2. Reasona. Good willb. Autonomy of the willc. Dutyd. Moral principles

3. Imperativesa. Hypothetical imperativeb. Categorical imperativec. The difference between the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical

Imperative4. Universalisation of maxims

a. Formula of the Law of Natureb. Formula of End in Itselfc. Formula of a Kingdom of Ends

5. Theory of Duty6. Summum bonum7. Strengths of Kantian Ethics

a. Reasonb. Golden Rulec. Intrinsic value and universalisability

8. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethicsa. The problem of universalisabilityb. The problem of separating “intention” from “ends”c. Ignorance of resultd. Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and endse. Conflicting duties

9. W.D. Ross and prima facie duties

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 27

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.

CYou 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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Utilitarianism: AS Ethics Checklist 4

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism1. Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism

a. Teleological, consequentialist and relativistic.b. Principle of utilityc. Measurable and quantitative theoryd. Hedonic calculuse. Universal hedonismf. Eudaimonia

2. John Stuart (J.S.) Milla. Deontological, consequentialist and relativistic.b. Happiness principlec. Quality of pleasured. Higher and lower pleasurese. Universalisability

3. Act and Rule Utilitarianisma. Jeremy Benthanb. J.S. Millc. Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianismd. Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism

4. Other forms of utilitarianisma. Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianismb. Peter Singer’s impartial spectatorc. R.M. Hare and Preference Utilitarianismd. R.M. Hare and Universalisabilitye. Richard Brandt, psychotherapy and Preference Utilitarianism

5. Strengths of Utilitarianisma. W.D. Ross and prima facie dutiesb. Injustice for the individual and eudaimoniac. Intrinsic value and universalisability

6. Weaknesses of Utilitarianisma. The problem of universalisabilityb. The problem of separating “intention” from “ends”c. Ignorance of resultd. Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and endse. Conflicting duties

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 29

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Religious Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 5

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Ethical Theories: Religious Ethics – Christian Ethics1. The Jewish roots of Christian ethics

a. The Decalogue (The Ten Commandments)b. Imago Deic. Relationship with Godd. The rejection of legalism

2. The Biblical basis of Christian ethicsa. Reading individual ethical statements in the context of the whole Bibleb. 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. Lovea. Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)b. Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)c. Thomas Aquinasd. Augustine of Hippoe. Joseph Fletcher and Situation Ethics

4. Divine Command Theory5. Absolutist views of Christian ethics6. Relativist views of Christian ethics7. Deontological approaches to Christian ethics8. Teleological approaches to Christian ethics9. The link between religion and morality10. What makes an ethical theory a religious theory11. Strengths of Christian ethics

a. Utilitarianism, goodness of God, and the Golden Ruleb. Kantian Ethics and Dutyc. Karl Barth and Natural Law

12. Weaknesses of Christian ethicsa. Compared with Utilitarianismb. Compared with Kantian Ethicsc. Compared with Natural Law

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 31

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.

EYou 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 well-organised 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.

EYou 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

Abortion; Right to a Child: AS Ethics Checklist 6

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Applied Ethics: Abortion; The Right to a Child1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion2. The concept of personhood as applied to abortion3. The right to life as applied to abortion and the rights of all those involved4. The issues of infertility and the right to a child5. The status of the embryo6. 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 Lawa. Strengths of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a childb. Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a child

8. Kantian Ethicsa. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a childb. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child

9. Utilitarianisma. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a childb. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a child

10. Christian Ethicsa. Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a childb. Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child

11. Absolutist views on abortion and the right to a child12. Relativist views on abortion and the right to a child13. Deontological approaches to abortion and the right to a child14. Teleological approaches to abortion and the right to a child

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 33

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Euthanasia: AS Ethics Checklist 7

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Applied Ethics: Euthanasia1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to euthanasia2. The right to life as applied to euthanasia3. The concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia4. The concept of personhood as applied to euthanasia5. Issues around euthanasia

a. Persistent vegetative state (PVS)b. James Rachels and passive vs. active euthanasiac. 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 Ethicsi. Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia

ii. Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia c. Utilitarianism

i. John Stuart Mill and personal autonomyii. Peter Singer and the sanctity of life

iii. Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia iv. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia

d. Christian Ethicsi. 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

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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

Genetic Engineering: AS Ethics Checklist 8

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Applied Ethics: Genetic engineering1. The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to genetic engineering2. The concept of personhood as applied to genetic engineering3. Genetic engineering on humans

a. Human embryo researchb. Stem-cell researchc. Designer Babiesd. “saviour siblings”e. Genetic testing and screeningf. Gene therapy / Germ line therapyg. Human Genome Project

4. Genetic engineering on animals5. Genetic engineering on plants6. 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 Ethicsi. 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 Ethicsi. Joseph Fletcher

ii. Paul Ramsayiii. 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

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.

EYou 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

War and Peace: AS Ethics Checklist 9

Learning Outcomes

Text

book

Not

es

Essa

y

Revi

sion

Applied Ethics: War and peace1. “Just War”

a. Aristotleb. Ciceroc. Ambrose of Miland. Augustine of Hippoe. Thomas Aquinasf. Francisco Suárez and Francisco de Victoriag. Jus ad bellamh. Jus in Belloi. Jus post bellum

2. Ethical pacifisma. Absolute pacifismb. Contingent pacifismc. Preferential pacifism

3. Religious pacifism4. The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to war and peace :

a. Natural Lawi. 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. Utilitarianismi. 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 Pacifismii. 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

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.

EYou 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.

EYou 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 Universityhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/03/university-league-table-2014http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/04/university-guide-philosophy

InstitutionCourse Ranking

University Ranking

Students per Teacher Course

Course Code

Offer Grades

10:15 UniversitiesUniversity of Cambridge (Russell Group) 8 1 14.5 Philosophy V500 A*AAUniversity of Oxford (Russell Group) 3 2 13.5 Philosophy, Politics and Economics L0V0 AAATop 20 for PhilosophyUniversity of Birmingham (Russell Group) 15 15 19.8 Philosophy and Sociology VL53 ABBUniversity of East Anglia 10 17 14.5 Philosophy, Politics and Economics L0V0 ABBEssex University 14 63 12.7 Philosophy V500 BBB-ABBOxford Brookes University 4 35 17.9 Philosophy V500 BBCUniversity of St Andrews 6 4 12.7 Philosophy V500 AABUniversity of Warwick (Russell Group) 11 10 14.3 Philosophy V500 AAAUniversity of York (Russell Group) 16 16 18.6 Philosophy and Sociology VL53 AABLocal UniversitiesNewman University, Birmingham 34 91 18.4 Applied Psychology and Philosophy & Ethics CV85 BBCUniversity of Wolverhampton N/A N/A N/A Philosophy and Sociology VL53 CC-CCDOther UniversitiesUniversity of Aberdeen 30 43 18.5 Behavioural Studies and Philosophy VV56 BBBHeythrop, University of London 46 - 15.2 Philosophy, Religion and Ethics VV56 BBB-ABBKeele University 35 45 23 Philosophy and Psychology CV85 BBBLancaster University 33 11 16.3 Philosophy V500 AABManchester Metropolitan University 47 93 23.1 Philosophy and Psychology VCM8 BCC-BBCSt Mary’s University College 43 89 27.1 Philosophy and Psychology CV85 BC + b

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook Page 41