How do I revise Moral Philosophy for AQA Education A-Level?

Start your essay by explicitly defining key terms (e.g., ‘utility’) and stating which version of utilitarianism you are discussing.

What exam tips are there for Moral Philosophy? (2)

Structure your evaluation using a clear ‘point – explanation – counter/consideration’ format to demonstrate balanced critical thinking.

What exam tips are there for Moral Philosophy? (3)

Use concrete examples (e.g., the ticking bomb scenario, lying to a patient) to illustrate how act and rule utilitarianism would reach different verdicts.

What mistakes should I avoid in Moral Philosophy?

Conflating act and rule utilitarianism, assuming Mill simply applied the principle of utility to each individual action in the same way as Bentham.

What are common errors in Moral Philosophy exams? (2)

Misrepresenting the hedonic calculus as a precise, quantitative method, rather than a framework for considering intensity, duration, and extent of pleasures.

Moral Philosophy

AQA-EDUCATION

A-Level

This subtopic examines the core principles of utilitarianism as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham's act utilitarianism applies the principle of utility directly to each action, seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number, while Mill's rule utilitarianism proposes that we follow rules that tend to promote general happiness. Students critically evaluate these theories by considering issues such as the calculation of consequences, justice, and the compatibility with common moral intuitions.

Objectives

Exam Tips

Pitfalls

Key Terms

Mark Points

Subtopics in this area

Moral Philosophy

Topic Overview

Moral Philosophy, also known as ethics, is a central branch of philosophy that examines how we ought to live, what actions are right or wrong, and what it means to be a good person. In the AQA A-Level Philosophy course, this topic is divided into three key normative ethical theories: utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and Aristotelian virtue ethics. You will also explore meta-ethics, which investigates the nature of moral language and whether moral truths exist objectively. Understanding these theories is essential for tackling applied ethics issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights, which are often examined in the 'Moral Philosophy' section of Paper 1.

Studying moral philosophy matters because it equips you with rigorous frameworks for analysing real-world moral dilemmas, a skill valued in law, politics, medicine, and everyday life. The AQA specification requires you to not only explain each theory but also critically evaluate its strengths and weaknesses using key thinkers (e.g., Bentham, Mill, Kant, Aristotle) and concepts (e.g., the categorical imperative, the principle of utility, the golden mean). You must also be able to compare theories and apply them to specific scenarios, which is a common exam skill.

Within the wider AQA Philosophy course, moral philosophy connects to epistemology (how we know moral truths) and metaphysics of mind (e.g., free will and moral responsibility). It also links to the 'Philosophy of Religion' topic through debates about divine command theory. Mastering moral philosophy requires careful reading of primary texts, active engagement with criticisms, and practice in constructing clear, balanced arguments.

What You Need to Demonstrate

Key skills and knowledge for this topic

Accurately explain Bentham’s principle of utility and its direct application to individual acts, including reference to the hedonic calculus.
Clearly distinguish rule utilitarianism from act utilitarianism, showing how Mill uses higher-order rules to promote general happiness.
Demonstrate critical evaluation by raising specific objections (e.g., the tyranny of the majority, the impracticality of consequential calculation, or the demands of justice) and linking them to the theory’s viability.
Use technical terminology precisely, such as 'utility', 'hedonic calculus', 'higher and lower pleasures', and 'competent judges', to show depth of understanding.
Award credit for accurate explanation of the categorical imperative as an unconditional moral obligation that applies to all rational agents, independent of desires or consequences.
Credit demonstration that the formula of universal law requires testing whether a maxim can be consistently willed as a universal law without contradiction, distinguishing between contradictions in conception and in will.
Look for clear differentiation between perfect and imperfect duties, with appropriate examples (e.g., lying vs. helping others) and explicit connection to the respective formulas.
Reward critical evaluation that engages with strengths (e.g., consistency, respect for persons) and weaknesses (e.g., conflicting duties, rigidity) of Kantian ethics, preferably referencing scholarly critiques.

Marking Points

Key points examiners look for in your answers

Accurately explain Bentham’s principle of utility and its direct application to individual acts, including reference to the hedonic calculus.
Clearly distinguish rule utilitarianism from act utilitarianism, showing how Mill uses higher-order rules to promote general happiness.
Demonstrate critical evaluation by raising specific objections (e.g., the tyranny of the majority, the impracticality of consequential calculation, or the demands of justice) and linking them to the theory’s viability.
Use technical terminology precisely, such as 'utility', 'hedonic calculus', 'higher and lower pleasures', and 'competent judges', to show depth of understanding.
Award credit for accurate explanation of the categorical imperative as an unconditional moral obligation that applies to all rational agents, independent of desires or consequences.
Credit demonstration that the formula of universal law requires testing whether a maxim can be consistently willed as a universal law without contradiction, distinguishing between contradictions in conception and in will.
Look for clear differentiation between perfect and imperfect duties, with appropriate examples (e.g., lying vs. helping others) and explicit connection to the respective formulas.
Reward critical evaluation that engages with strengths (e.g., consistency, respect for persons) and weaknesses (e.g., conflicting duties, rigidity) of Kantian ethics, preferably referencing scholarly critiques.
Expect reference to key criticisms, such as the problem of clashing duties (e.g., axe murderer at the door) or the failure to account for emotions or consequences, demonstrating analytical depth.
Award credit for clearly defining moral realism as the view that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, with reference to key thinkers like Plato or contemporary realists.
For moral anti-realism, credit accurate distinction between error theory, emotivism, and prescriptivism, explaining how each denies objective moral properties.
When evaluating cognitivism and non-cognitivism, credit for addressing the Frege-Geach problem and its challenge to non-cognitivism, or for contrasting naturalism with non-naturalism.
Credit application of logical reasoning to assess strengths and weaknesses, such as the open-question argument's impact on naturalistic realism.
Award credit for accurately explaining the function argument: identifying human function (ergon) as rational activity, linking this to the good (eudaimonia) as rational activity in accordance with virtue.
Award credit for a detailed explanation of the doctrine of the mean, demonstrating how virtues are dispositions intermediate between vices of excess and deficiency, and noting the role of phronesis (practical wisdom).
Award credit for clearly defining eudaimonia as flourishing or living well, not merely pleasure, and showing its role as the final end in Aristotle's teleological framework.
Award credit for evaluating virtue ethics, such as discussing its focus on character over rules, potential circularity, or cultural relativism, and using specific criticisms (e.g., 'no clear guidance for action').

Examiner Tips

Expert advice for maximising your marks

💡Start your essay by explicitly defining key terms (e.g., ‘utility’) and stating which version of utilitarianism you are discussing.
💡Structure your evaluation using a clear ‘point – explanation – counter/consideration’ format to demonstrate balanced critical thinking.
💡Use concrete examples (e.g., the ticking bomb scenario, lying to a patient) to illustrate how act and rule utilitarianism would reach different verdicts.
💡When evaluating, always explain both the strength and the limitation of an objection, and consider whether a utilitarian could offer a coherent response.
💡When explaining Kant's categorical imperative, ensure you clearly distinguish between acting from duty and acting in accordance with duty, using concrete examples to illustrate the contrast.
💡For evaluation, structure your argument around key debates: conflicts between duties, the role of consequences, and the practical applicability of the formulations, ensuring a balanced discussion.
💡Use philosophers' criticisms (e.g., Hegel's charge of emptiness, Mill's consequentialist objections) to strengthen evaluation, but always link back to the specific features of Kant's theory under scrutiny.
💡In essays, clearly separate the semantic question (cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism) from the ontological question (realism vs. anti-realism) and show how they interrelate.
💡Use precise terminology: 'truth-apt,' 'mind-independent,' 'objective,' 'proposition,' and illustrate with standard examples like 'murder is wrong' to demonstrate different meta-ethical analyses.
💡When evaluating, structure arguments around key challenges: for non-cognitivism, address the embedding problem; for non-naturalist realism, discuss epistemological concerns.
💡Use Aristotelian terminology precisely—ergon, arete, phronesis, eudaimonia—to demonstrate depth of understanding.
💡Structure evaluation around clear strengths and weaknesses, using the 'no guidance' objection and Aristotle's possible responses to show critical thinking.
💡Integrate the function argument, doctrine of the mean, and eudaimonia into a coherent account rather than treating them as isolated topics.

Common Mistakes

Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers

Conflating act and rule utilitarianism, assuming Mill simply applied the principle of utility to each individual action in the same way as Bentham.
Misrepresenting the hedonic calculus as a precise, quantitative method, rather than a framework for considering intensity, duration, and extent of pleasures.
Overlooking Mill’s qualitative distinction between higher and lower pleasures, leading to the flawed criticism that utilitarianism views all pleasures as equal.
Failing to link evaluation points back to the core theory, such as mentioning the justice objection without explaining why it challenges consequentionalism.
Misunderstanding the categorical imperative as a hypothetical imperative, where the moral command is contingent on a desired outcome rather than being absolute and unconditional.
Incorrectly applying the formula of universal law by failing to identify a genuine contradiction in conception or in will, leading to flawed conclusions about the permissibility of maxims.
Assuming Kantian ethics completely disregards consequences, neglecting that Kant allows some consideration of outcomes in imperfect duties (e.g., benevolence).
Conflating the formula of the end in itself with the golden rule, missing the emphasis on rational autonomy and treating humanity never merely as a means, but always also as an end.
Struggling to evaluate Kantian ethics by only listing strengths and weaknesses without analytical engagement, such as failing to weigh the theory against competing normative systems.
Conflating moral anti-realism with moral relativism; anti-realism includes views that are not relative, such as emotivism which denies truth-values entirely.
Oversimplifying non-cognitivism as merely 'moral statements are just emotions' without acknowledging the sophistication of prescriptivism or the quasi-realist project.
Failing to link cognitivism solely to truth-aptness and instead confusing it with realism, forgetting that some anti-realists (e.g., error theorists) are also cognitivists.
Ignoring that the debate about cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism is about the meaning of moral language, not directly about whether moral properties exist.
Confusing eudaimonia with hedonic pleasure or a psychological state, rather than an objective condition of living well over a complete life.
Misinterpreting the doctrine of the mean as an arithmetic average or a rule that always recommends moderation, ignoring its relativity to the individual and situation.
Failing to grasp the function argument's teleological basis, instead treating it as merely a claim about what humans are good at.
Evaluating virtue ethics without referencing specific scholarly critiques, or confusing it with deontological or consequentialist frameworks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions students ask about this topic

Key Terminology

Essential terms to know

Hedonic calculus

Higher and lower pleasures

Act vs rule utilitarianism

Preference utilitarianism

Good will

Duty

Categorical imperative

Hypothetical imperative

Kingdom of ends

Cognitivism vs non-cognitivism

Moral realism

Error theory

Emotivism

Prescriptivism

Eudaimonia

Function argument

Golden mean

Moral virtues

Phronesis

Ready to test yourself?

Practice questions tailored to this topic

Moral Philosophy

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in AQA-EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy

Metaphysics of God

Metaphysics of Mind

Metaphysics of Mind

Epistemology

Moral Philosophy

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?

How does Kant's categorical imperative work?

What is the doctrine of the mean in virtue ethics?

What is the is-ought gap?

How do I evaluate utilitarianism for an A-level essay?

What is the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism in meta-ethics?

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in AQA-EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy

Metaphysics of God

Metaphysics of Mind

Metaphysics of Mind

Epistemology