General Comments

There were a number of good, very good and excellent responses from candidates. The
candidates were well prepared and most responded well to the part b) questions.
Weaker candidates tended to write as much as they knew without focusing on command words
such as ‘explain’. Some candidates continued to use dubious examples to support their
explanations and many not even ethical ones, as well as the usual ‘helping an old lady to cross
the road’ and the ‘stealing to feed a starving family’.
Some candidates are still writing considerably less for part a) than for part b), hampering overall
performance.

Comments on Individual Questions

1 (a) This was one of the most popular questions, and most candidates were able to 
respond well. The two most common differences explained were quantative and
qualitative and Act and Rule, with a significant number explaining that these terms
were applied retrospectively. Most candidates were able to give clear accounts of
Bentham’s Utilitarianism and were able to explain the hedonic calculus. Mill,
however, was less well dealt with apart from the ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures.
Better candidates were able to interweave the different views, but the most common
approach was to explain Bentham, then Mill and conclude with a paragraph showing
the differences. This second approach often resulted in good answers, but failed to
achieve the top Level. Weaker responses simply described the differences without
any explanation of the reasons behind them. There was also very little high level
explanation of the focus on an individual’s happiness versus community pleasure,
the protection of human rights and liberties or on the role of the competent judge.
Good responses used ethical examples which actually related to the question.

(b) A number of candidates simply put a lot of knowledge and understanding into this
question without evaluation. In some responses, material which should have been in
part a) was explained in part b). Centres should be aware that examiners cannot
credit AO1 material in part b) AO2 questions. However, good candidates focused on
the question without needing to retell the points they had previously made.
Candidates who had little knowledge of Mill, apart from higher and lower pleasures,
had little on which to base their responses, so seemed to simply state that Mill was
‘snobbish’ or that his Utilitarianism was ‘easier to apply’ or ‘less complicated’.
Very good responses often included evaluation of the ‘no harm’ principle and the
protection of minority rights.

2 (a) This was not a popular question and in general was not well answered. Many
candidates seemed to have little idea as to what ‘concepts of personhood’ might
mean and so wrote general responses on ethical approaches to abortion or simply
discussed the question of when life begins with a paragraph on each of the stages
of pregnancy.

By contrast, some candidates had clearly studied the concept of personhood and
were able to discuss the concept with reference to Mary Anne Warren, ideas of
ensoulment, and the point at which personhood might begin.

Often, this question was approached through the incorporation of the elements of
personhood by a number of different ethical systems, such as Natural Law and
Utilitarianism and occasionally Kantian ethics. Those who approached the question
using this method usually wrote good responses.

(b) Generally this question was well answered. Candidates were able to discuss the 
right of the foetus to life (and even if a foetus had any rights) compared to the right of
the mother to life. Some candidates were able to make useful assessment of the
right to life compared to the right to a good quality of life, and even discussed what is
meant by the right to life and considered whether the mother’s right to a career
amounted to the right to having a ‘life’.
Weaker responses tended to argue for and against the ‘right to life’ rather than
discussing whether it was the most important issue.

3 (a) Unfortunately, many candidates seemed to have only a very basic knowledge of
what genetic engineering involved but were able to explain, mainly from a Christian
perspective, the concepts of sanctity of life, ensoulment and interfering with nature
as reasons for prohibiting genetic engineering. Many candidates only focused on
human genetic engineering without mentioning animals or plants.
Some candidates focused entirely on IVF treatment without discussing issues such
as genetic selection or testing for disease, resulting in a limited viewpoint.
However, there were also some excellent responses with candidates showing
detailed knowledge of human, animal and plant genetic engineering with clear
structured knowledge of how religious ethical principles could be used to assess the
possible advantages and disadvantages of these approaches.

(b) Some candidates simply stated that it was obvious that conservative religious 
approaches would consider genetic engineering as interfering with God’s creation
and so would prevent progress. This produced a one sided argument. Those who
confused genetic engineering with IVF in part a) were generally not able to produce
successful responses to this question.

Some responses, however, were able to make detailed use of the arguments of 
thinkers such as Richard Dawkins regarding the interference of religion in science
and gave a real assessment of the extent to which religious ethics actually prevented
progress. There was some good discussion of the loss of funding for stem cell
research in the USA because of religious right-wing political considerations,
countered with the fact that the research simply moved elsewhere and so was not
restricted.

4 (a) This was also a popular question and it was clear that candidates had a good 
understanding of Natural Law. Many were able to refer to the origins of Natural Law
in Cicero, Aristotle and Augustine before focusing on Aquinas and many were able to
make reference to more modern forms of Natural Law theory as found in
Proportionalism. Key features such as the concept of telos, eudaimonia, the Primary
and Secondary Precepts, apparent and actual goods and intentions behind actions
were often highlighted.

Good candidates kept the question in mind throughout as they explained the way the
theory worked, but poorer responses left any consideration of how Natural Law might
be used to decide the right course of action to a brief final paragraph. Poorer
candidates tended not to choose good examples to illustrate their responses.
In general, this year, there was a much improved understanding of Natural Law with
far fewer candidates responding along the lines of the action being natural or
unnatural.

(b) There were a number of excellent responses to this question with candidates
discussing whether it was the ‘best’ approach. These responses were able to
compare and contrast Natural Law with the approaches taken by Kantian ethics or
Utilitarianism. Better candidates cited Neilson and Rachels in their responses.
Poorer candidates simply listed the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Law with
little discussion of the question.