Moral Philosophy — AQA Education A-Level Philosophy Revision

    This subtopic examines the core principles of utilitarianism as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham's act utilitarianism applies the

    Topic Synopsis

    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.

    Key Concepts & Core Principles

    Exam Tips & Revision Strategies

    Common Misconceptions & Mistakes to Avoid

    Examiner Marking Points

    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.

    14
    Objectives
    13
    Exam Tips
    17
    Pitfalls
    19
    Key Terms
    17
    Mark Points

    Subtopics in this area

    Utilitarianism
    Kantian deontological ethics
    Meta-ethics
    Aristotelian virtue ethics

    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.

    Key Concepts

    Core ideas you must understand for this topic

    • →Utilitarianism: The principle of utility (greatest happiness for the greatest number), act vs. rule utilitarianism, and the hedonic calculus (Bentham) vs. higher pleasures (Mill).
    • →Kantian Deontology: The categorical imperative (universalisability, humanity as an end, kingdom of ends), hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives, and the role of good will.
    • →Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: Eudaimonia (flourishing), the function argument, the doctrine of the mean, and moral virtues (e.g., courage, temperance).
    • →Meta-ethics: Cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism, moral realism (e.g., naturalism, intuitionism) vs. anti-realism (e.g., emotivism, prescriptivism), and the is-ought gap (Hume).
    • →Applied Ethics: How normative theories are applied to issues like abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights, including the doctrine of double effect and the sanctity of life.

    Learning Objectives

    What you need to know and understand

    • Explain Bentham's act utilitarianism
    • Explain Mill's rule utilitarianism
    • Evaluate utilitarianism
    • Explain Kant's categorical imperative
    • Explain the formula of universal law
    • Explain the formula of the end in itself
    • Evaluate Kantian ethics
    • Explain moral realism
    • Explain moral anti-realism
    • Evaluate cognitivism and non-cognitivism
    • Explain Aristotle's function argument
    • Explain the doctrine of the mean
    • Explain eudaimonia
    • Evaluate virtue ethics

    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.
    • 💡Always define key terms precisely in your answers. For example, when discussing utilitarianism, explain the 'principle of utility' and distinguish between act and rule versions. Examiners reward accurate use of technical language.
    • 💡Use specific examples to illustrate theories and their criticisms. For instance, when evaluating Kantian ethics, use the 'lying promise' example to show how the categorical imperative works, and then apply a criticism like the 'conflicting duties' objection.
    • 💡Structure your essays with clear signposting. For a 25-mark question, use a 'for and against' structure: explain the theory, give strengths with supporting arguments, then weaknesses with counterarguments, and conclude with a balanced judgement. This shows critical thinking.

    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.
    • Misconception: Utilitarianism is just 'the greatest good for the greatest number' without considering individual rights. Correction: Mill's rule utilitarianism and the concept of higher pleasures show that utilitarianism can protect rights and qualitative experiences, not just maximise pleasure quantitatively.
    • Misconception: Kant's categorical imperative is the same as the Golden Rule ('treat others as you want to be treated'). Correction: The categorical imperative requires universalisability (e.g., can everyone always act on this maxim?) and treating humanity as an end, never merely as a means. The Golden Rule is subjective and doesn't capture Kant's rational, duty-based framework.
    • Misconception: Virtue ethics is just about being a good person and doesn't give clear action guidance. Correction: While virtue ethics focuses on character, it does provide guidance through the doctrine of the mean (finding the virtuous midpoint between vices) and the idea of what a phronimos (practical wisdom) would do in a situation.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Common questions students ask about this topic

    Before You Start

    Prior knowledge that will help with this topic

    • •A basic understanding of what philosophy is and how arguments are structured (premises, conclusions, validity).
    • •Familiarity with the concept of normative vs. descriptive claims, as moral philosophy deals with how things ought to be, not how they are.
    • •Some knowledge of key philosophers like Plato and Aristotle from the 'Philosophy of Religion' or 'Epistemology' topics can help, but it's not essential.

    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

    Related Topics in AQA EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy

    Metaphysics of God

    View Topic

    Metaphysics of Mind

    View Topic

    Metaphysics of Mind

    View Topic

    Epistemology

    View Topic