How to maximise marks on moral theory questions

Following a request from a student, I have produced some guidelines of points you should try to bring out to maximise marks on moral theory questions and avoid the generalistions which typify many AS essays.The more you can reason by qualifying these usual generalisations, the better your essays will be – and remember – try not to make assertions but produce an analysis (think 'reasons and reasoning').

Relativism (hot tip for OCR this year).

1. Make the point that the concept of 'relativism' is ambiguous between three meanings. Particular to culture (contrasted with universal), circumstantial (contrast it with absolute categoricals e.g. Kant) and subjective (meaning 'up to me'; contrast it with objective meaning out there in the world and in some sense derived from natural features of the world or of human nature or – with Kant – from how the human mind works a priori).

2. Do not describe utilitarianism or situation ethics as “relativist” without discussing how they are only relativist according to meaning 2 above. So Fletcher calls his theory ‘principled relativism’ because he is using meaning 2 above – his argument is that the moral good can only be applied situationally (in specific circumstances) although there is one principle or universal absolute – agape love (which needs to be explained as an idea).

3. Teleological does not mean relativist and consequential does not mean relativist. Teleology is about the study of ends defined as intrinsic goods which generate values with reference to those chosen (usually argued as rational) ends. As the end is argued to be universal, applying to all human beings (eg the end of happiness, Mill argues, applies to everyone because – just loo around you, don’t you see everyone pursuing happiness??), teleological theories have one absolute implication (universality).

4. Paradoxically, relativists like JL Mackie who argue ‘there is no objective truth’ are making an absolute statement (how does he know this?). So at the heart of moral relativism there is a paradox. They rely on epistemological absolutism to undergird their theory.

Natural Law (hot tip for this year)

1. Natural Law is a deontological theory which comes out of teleological worldview of the Greeks, where everything has a purpose. So don’t just say 'Natural law is a deontological theory’. Explain that e.g. in Aquinas’ system, law is important but the four laws of Aquinas have four different meanings of ‘law’ – eternal law (blueprint in God’s mind), Natural Law (rational purposes), Divine Law (revealed commands of God) and human law (our interpretations of natural and divine law applied to our society as rules, which we amend over time).

2. The teleological worldview is linked in Aristotelean thought to his four causes. The final cause or purpose defines the good. Humans share various purposes with animals (preservation of life and reproduction for example) but some are unique to humans (pursuit of truth, worship of God). What makes human beings special (their essential nature), and gives them a unique purpose, is their ability to reason. So we should employ our minds to reason well – to apply the primary precepts (primary goals) well to create secondary precepts (non-absolute rules to live by).

3. Aquinas calls secondary precepts ‘proximate conclusions’. They can be changed by new insights of right reason or by unusual circumstances. It is not wrong to eat dead people if you’re surviving the Andes plane crash in the 1960s and waiting weeks to be rescued. (My example, not Aquinas’!!). Roman Catholic documents present these secondary precepts (which are their own interpretations of the primary absolutes) as themselves absolute because the church sees moral relativism as the enemy. So we have a harder statement of natural law in catholicism than we do with Aquinas. Quote from Humanae Vitae on contraception or homosexuality (1967) or Veritatis Splendor (1995) to make this subtle point.

4. The origin of the precepts is the 'first precept of the natural law' (Aquinas) which Aquinas calls synderesis. Synderesis means ‘intuitive understanding of first principles’ or ‘a natural habit to do good and avoid evil’. This is a necessary starting point because without this natural tendency human beings would be pursuing evil – and this would mean we could not observe a universal tendency to choose these five primary goods (the primary precepts). It also explains why evangelical Chrsiians don’t like Natural law. they see it as assuming peole are basically good whereas they want to argue people are basically evil. Link to apparent v real goods (we don't consciously sin according to Aquinas but make a moral mistake called 'pursuing apparent goods').

Utilitarianism – Mill

1. Mill objected to Bentham’s swinish (pig's eye view of pleasure) philosophy which said that all pleasures, even those of a pig were of equal value "better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied'. With his Aristotelean emphasis on education, Mill wants to argue that the intellectual pleasure are superior. They involve activity and goals which stretch us.

2. Mill objected to Bentham’s emphasis on acts at the expense of rules. The analogy Mill uses is of a navigator who uses the almanac of tide times, chart details etc to plot a course. But when the navigator finds the depth sounder doesn’t match the chart, he employs his brain and chooses to turn left or right. In other words, Mill argues you should generally follow social rules until a moral dilemma (analogous to a rock) causes you to think more carefully and apply an act utilitarian judgement.

3. Mill dislikes the idea immortalised by Bernard Williams as the example of Jim and the Indians (google it) that one person can be sacrificed to save the many. So he introduces the idea of justice and rights. His argument is that there is a idea of social utility or social happiness whereby the guarantee of various rights and freedoms is a precodtion for a happy life. If you doubt this, try living in Syria at the moment.

4. Utilitarians still suffer from the accusation that the end justifies the means. In other words, even with Mill rules are not absolute like rules in Kantian ethics. So we find supposedly moral countries (UK, USA) doing things we might argue are immoral (Guantanamo Bay – imprisonment without trial, rendition – movement of terror suspects to Egypt for torture) because whey argue that the means justifies the higher good of state security. Of course, the assumption such utilitarian views make is that the dodgy practice stays secret. As soon as the truth comes out, the calculation changes – but that’s the problem. We never quite know what the consequences will be.

5. Mill starts his essay by arguing ‘there is one intrinsic good, pleasure' but then halfway through writes “Happiness consists of many and various pleasures, few and transitory pains and a predominance of the active over the passive, not expecting more from life than it incapable of bestowing". By focusing on activity, goals and aspirations Mill shows himself to be much closer to Aristotle, and Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia (long term flourishing) than he is to Bentham. He has also been an 'inconsistent utilitarian' – argues Alasdair MacIntyre.

Kantian ethics

1. Kant is a deontologist because he argues that we can derive categoricals (absolute commands) by a process of a priori reasoning (before experience). By this process of reasoning we establish “maxims” of our action which can be applied universally to all people in all circumstances. Kant is the only moral theorist we study that argues for absolutes (categoricals) – you also find absolutes in divine command theory (if you've studied this as an example of Christian Ethics). Mill's idea of a rule, in contrast, is more like a 'rule of thumb'.

2. The only good is the good will because the motive has to be free from feelings or other influences – such as self-interest, in order to be moral. Morality is about building a better world, a world governed by principles which generate the summum bonum. Although this is the end, or telos, the motive remains the key to Kantian ethics and the motive has to be to do our duty by the moral law defined by our autonomous reason.

3. Kantian ethics is about consistency. We should will or want some action which everyone in similar circumstances could will want. Some actions are logically inconsistent (these he calls contradictions in nature – because if you make a lying promise you are logically not making a promise at all – promises require an intention to keep them to be promises) or they can be a contradict in will because, if universalisable, they could not be what reasonable people would want (eg not helping a neighbour in need, playing your music too loud etc).

4. Be careful about overstating the crazy axe murderer case. I know of know rational person who would universalise the principle “tell the whole story to a madman intent on murder”. For a start, you would have to want yourself to be killed in such circumstances- which is illogical. Although Kant used this example himself, he was, most Kantians such as Professor Keith Ward argue, making a mistake in the way he reasoned.

5. Don’t forget to state the second formulation of the categorical imperative properly. “Don’t treat people simply as a means to an end but always also an end in themselves”. The word simply is important – we can’t help using people as a means to gets something (sweets and A level etc) the point is to treat them with dignity and respect which they deserve as people equally rational and human as ourselves. In other words, using Professor Norman’s phrase ‘rationalise your common humanity’. Note also we can derive the sancitiy of  human life from this principle (not just from the Bible or Natural Law).