Moral philosophy — AQA A-Level Philosophy

Moral philosophy, or ethics, is the branch of philosophy that examines questions about right and wrong, good and bad, and how we ought to live. In the AQA A-Level Philosophy course, this topic is a core component of the 'Moral Philosophy' section, which explores three major normative ethical theories: utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and Aristotelian virtue ethics. You'll also study meta-ethics, which asks whether moral statements can be true or false, and applied ethics, where you'll apply these theories to real-world issues like stealing, simulated killing, and eating animals. Understanding moral philosophy is crucial because it equips you with the tools to critically evaluate moral arguments, a skill that is valuable not only for exams but for navigating ethical dilemmas in everyday life.

This topic builds on foundational philosophical skills such as logical reasoning, argument analysis, and the ability to evaluate competing perspectives. You'll need to engage with key thinkers like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle, as well as contemporary philosophers like Peter Singer and Philippa Foot. The AQA specification requires you to compare and contrast these theories, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and apply them to specific scenarios. Mastery of moral philosophy will also help you in other areas of the course, such as epistemology and metaphysics, where similar analytical skills are required.

Why does moral philosophy matter? Beyond the exam, it challenges you to think deeply about the principles that guide human behaviour. You'll explore questions like: Is there a universal moral truth? Can we ever be truly selfless? How should we balance individual rights against the greater good? These are not just abstract puzzles; they have practical implications for law, politics, medicine, and personal relationships. By the end of this topic, you should be able to construct and defend your own ethical arguments while understanding the complexities and limitations of each theory.

• →Normative ethics vs meta-ethics: Normative ethics prescribes how we ought to act (e.g., utilitarianism), while meta-ethics analyses the nature of moral language and whether moral truths exist.
• →The greatest happiness principle: The core of utilitarianism, which states that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
• →The categorical imperative: Kant's central concept, which commands actions that are universally applicable and treat persons as ends in themselves, never merely as means.
• →The function argument: Aristotle's idea that the good life (eudaimonia) consists in fulfilling our characteristic function as rational beings, which involves developing virtues.
• →Moral realism vs anti-realism: Realists believe moral statements can be true or false (e.g., naturalism, non-naturalism), while anti-realists deny this (e.g., emotivism, prescriptivism).

• Accurate definition of 'utility' and 'maximising utility' in Utilitarianism (Bentham vs Mill).
• Distinction between act and rule utilitarianism.
• Understanding of Kant's 'good will', duty, and the categorical imperative (first and second formulations).
• Understanding of Eudaimonia, the function argument, and the doctrine of the mean in Virtue Ethics.
• Ability to compare and contrast the three theories.
• Evaluation of specific issues such as Nozick's experience machine, clashing duties, or the skill analogy.

• 💡Ensure you can clearly define the key terms for each theory (e.g., 'categorical imperative', 'Eudaimonia', 'utility').
• 💡When evaluating, focus on the specific issues listed in the specification (e.g., 'tyranny of the majority' for Utilitarianism).
• 💡Use the set texts to support your arguments.
• 💡Practice applying each theory to the applied ethics topics (stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, telling lies).
• 💡Always define key terms precisely before using them. For example, when discussing utilitarianism, distinguish between act and rule versions, and between hedonistic and preference-based accounts. This shows the examiner you understand the nuances.
• 💡Use specific examples to illustrate your points. For instance, when evaluating Kant's ethics, use the 'lying promise' example to show how the categorical imperative works. Then, challenge it with a counterexample like the 'murderer at the door' to demonstrate critical thinking.
• 💡When comparing theories, don't just list strengths and weaknesses. Instead, make explicit comparisons: 'Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on consequences, Kant's ethics is deontological, meaning it judges actions by their intrinsic rightness. This leads to different verdicts on issues like...' This structure earns higher marks.

• Confusing act and rule utilitarianism.
• Misinterpreting Kant's categorical imperative as a hypothetical imperative.
• Failing to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative hedonism in Utilitarianism.
• Overlooking the role of habituation and practical wisdom in Virtue Ethics.
• Applying theories to moral issues without referencing the core normative principles.
• Misconception: Utilitarianism is just about 'the greatest good for the greatest number' without considering individual rights. Correction: While act utilitarianism can justify rights violations, rule utilitarianism (e.g., Mill's version) includes secondary principles that protect rights, and some utilitarians argue that respecting rights maximises happiness in the long run.
• Misconception: Kant's ethics is completely inflexible and never allows lying. Correction: While Kant famously argued that lying is always wrong, some scholars interpret his system as allowing exceptions when the lie is necessary to prevent a greater evil (e.g., lying to a murderer at the door). However, Kant's own writings suggest he would not permit this, so be careful in exams.
• Misconception: Virtue ethics is just about being a good person and doesn't give clear guidance on what to do. Correction: Virtue ethics provides guidance by focusing on what a virtuous agent would do in a given situation. It also uses the doctrine of the mean to find the appropriate action between excess and deficiency.