Applied ethics — AQA A-Level Philosophy
Teaching note based on the AQA specification.
Test yourself on Applied ethics with AQA A-Level practice questions.
A week of Premium from your first lesson · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge
Applied ethics explained
Applied ethics covers 4 specification points, including stealing and Simulated killing (within computer games,….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
stealing
In AQA A-level Philosophy applied ethics, 'stealing' is a topic for ethical analysis, not a definition to memorise. Learners should examine what makes taking another's property wrong and how competing theories judge it. A utilitarian weighs overall welfare: a desperate parent taking food might increase total happiness, while systematic theft erodes trust and security. Kantian ethics asks whether the maxim of the action could be universalised and whether persons are treated as ends; stealing usually fails both tests. Aristotelian virtue ethics asks what a just, generous or honest person would do and how the act shapes character. Learners should also consider the distinction between legal and moral wrongness, the role of need and consent, and whether property rights are absolute.
simulated killing (within computer games, plays, films etc)
Here you examine simulated killing: depictions of killing in computer games, plays, films and similar media, where no real person is harmed. The moral question is whether producing, distributing or consuming such depictions is wrong. A utilitarian weighs harms such as desensitisation, aggression or distress against benefits such as entertainment, catharsis, artistic expression and education. A Kantian asks whether treating fictional persons as mere means or cultivating violent maxims violates duty, and whether the act respects persons. Virtue ethics asks what a virtuous person would enjoy or create and whether simulated killing cultivates or corrupts character. You must explain the theory, apply it to a specific medium (for example a violent video game or a tragedy on stage), and evaluate the verdict, distinguishing real harm from fictional depiction.
eating animals
Applied ethics asks you to bring a normative theory to bear on the practice of eating animals and to weigh arguments for and against it. A strong answer identifies the moral question (is it permissible to raise and kill animals for food?), then applies at least one theory studied on the course. A utilitarian might weigh animal suffering against human benefit and conclude that factory farming is wrong where suffering is avoidable; a Kantian might ask whether the practice treats animals as mere means, while noting that on some readings duties are owed only to rational agents. You should also consider non-theory arguments: animal sentience, the distinction between killing and causing suffering, environmental and human-welfare considerations, and whether species membership alone justifies different treatment.
telling lies.
This topic asks whether, and when, telling lies can be morally justified. Begin by clarifying what counts as a lie (a deliberate false statement intended to deceive) and separating it from other forms of deception or from merely being mistaken. Then apply a normative theory. A Kantian approach, drawing on the prohibition on treating persons as mere means and on the duty of truthfulness, tends to condemn lying, though you should consider whether the duty is absolute. A utilitarian weighs the consequences of lying against honesty and may permit lies that prevent serious harm, while noting the wider costs of eroding trust. Consider hard cases such as lying to protect someone from harm, 'white lies' and paternalistic deception. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of each position and reach a justified conclusion.
Your focus
- Explain how at least two normative theories assess the morality of stealing.
- Apply theoretical principles to concrete cases involving need, consent and property.
- Evaluate which account best explains why stealing is generally wrong but sometimes excusable.
Show all 12 objectives
- Explain how a normative theory assesses simulated killing in a named medium.
- Apply the theory to a concrete example, distinguishing fiction from real harm.
- Evaluate the verdict against objections and reach a reasoned conclusion.
- Apply a named normative theory to the question of whether eating animals is morally permissible.
- Distinguish and evaluate arguments about animal suffering and about the act of killing.
- Reach and justify a reasoned conclusion on the ethics of eating animals.
- Define lying and distinguish it from related forms of deception.
- Apply a named normative theory to evaluate whether lying can be morally justified.
- Assess arguments about absolute and conditional duties and reach a justified conclusion.
Applied ethics exam tips
Marking Points
- Accurately explains how act and rule utilitarianism assess stealing, weighing consequences such as welfare, trust and security rather than treating the act as intrinsically wrong.
- Applies Kant's categorical imperative, including universalisability and the formula of humanity, to show why stealing typically treats others as means.
- Uses Aristotelian virtue ethics to consider the character traits and practical wisdom involved, and how stealing relates to justice and generosity.
- Distinguishes moral from legal wrongness and examines factors such as need, consent and the status of property rights.
- Evaluates competing theories, identifying strengths and weaknesses and reaching a justified judgement about when, if ever, stealing is permissible.
- Explains a normative theory and the criterion it uses to assess simulated killing in games, plays or films.
- Applies the theory to a specific medium, distinguishing fictional depiction from real harm and showing how the criterion yields a verdict.
- Evaluates the theory's verdict, considering objections such as the lack of a real victim or disputed evidence about effects.
- Reaches a justified conclusion about whether simulated killing is morally permissible, supported by reasoning.
- Uses relevant concepts accurately (for example utility, maxim, character, catharsis, desensitisation) in context.
- Identifies the central moral question about eating animals and states a clear position to be defended or assessed.
- Accurately applies a named normative theory (for example utilitarianism or Kantian ethics) to the practice of eating animals, showing how the theory's key concepts generate a verdict.
- Considers the distinction between the suffering involved in rearing and slaughter and the act of killing itself, and explains why this distinction matters morally.
- Engages with a counter-argument or rival position (for example that human interests outweigh animal interests, or that species membership is morally relevant) and responds to it.
- Uses relevant concepts such as sentience, speciesism, intrinsic value or the moral status of animals accurately and in context.
- Reaches a justified conclusion that follows from the arguments presented rather than merely restating an opinion.
- Defines what a lie is (a deliberate falsehood intended to deceive) and distinguishes it from related cases such as mistakes or non-deceptive fiction.
- Accurately applies a named normative theory (for example Kantian ethics or utilitarianism) to the morality of lying, showing how its key concepts generate a verdict.
- Considers whether the duty not to lie is absolute or whether exceptions can be justified, using a concrete hard case such as lying to prevent serious harm.
- Engages with a counter-argument or rival position and responds to it, rather than presenting only one side.
- Uses relevant concepts such as autonomy, trust, consequences and the principle of treating persons as ends accurately and in context.
- Reaches a justified conclusion that follows from the arguments presented rather than merely restating an opinion.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Anchor each paragraph in a named theory and apply it explicitly to a concrete case of stealing.
- 💡Use evaluative language to weigh theories rather than merely listing their verdicts.
- 💡Conclude with a justified judgement that follows from the reasoning you have developed.
- 💡Name the medium and example clearly so application is specific.
- 💡Separate the question of real harm from the fictional nature of the depiction before judging.
- 💡Evaluate at least one objection to your chosen theory's verdict before concluding.
- 💡Plan briefly: decide which theory or theories you will apply and what conclusion you will defend before writing.
- 💡Use precise terminology (sentience, speciesism, intrinsic value) and explain it rather than dropping it in.
- 💡Signal assessment explicitly with phrases such as 'this argument is stronger because...' or 'however, a critic might object...'.
- 💡Reserve time to write a clear concluding judgement that weighs the arguments you have made.
- 💡Clarify your definition of lying early so your later arguments are precise.
- 💡Use a concrete example (such as lying to protect someone) to test each theory rather than arguing in the abstract.
- 💡Make assessment explicit by weighing strengths and weaknesses of each position.
- 💡Finish with a clear, justified conclusion that answers the question directly.
Common Mistakes
- Describing stealing only as illegal rather than analysing its moral status; correct this by separating legal from ethical judgement.
- Applying a theory to a case without explaining the theory's key concepts; correct this by stating the principle, then applying it step by step.
- Treating one theory's verdict as obviously correct; correct this by comparing at least two theories and weighing their implications.
- Assuming simulated killing is automatically harmless because no one dies; correction: assess claimed indirect harms or character effects using the theory's criterion.
- Asserting that violent games cause real violence as established fact; correction: treat empirical claims as contested and evaluate them rather than asserting them.
- Ignoring the medium's context (artistic, educational or entertainment purpose); correction: apply the theory to the specific case and purpose.
- Describing the treatment of animals in farming without linking it to a moral theory or argument; correction: always connect empirical claims to the normative framework being assessed.
- Assuming all ethical theories give the same verdict; correction: show how, for example, a utilitarian and a Kantian may reason differently about animal suffering and killing.
- Treating 'eating animals' as only about diet while ignoring production methods; correction: distinguish rearing, transport and slaughter from the act of consumption.
- Presenting a one-sided case with no counter-argument; correction: include and respond to at least one serious objection.
- Confusing a lie with any false statement, including honest mistakes; correction: stress the intention to deceive as essential to the definition.
- Treating the Kantian position as simply 'lying is always wrong' without explaining the reasoning; correction: explain the underlying principles and consider whether the duty admits exceptions.
- Ignoring the wider social consequences of lying (loss of trust) when applying utilitarianism; correction: weigh both immediate and long-term consequences.
- Offering opinion without argument; correction: support each claim with reasons and assess objections.