General Comments G582 A2 Jan 2012

Most candidates were obviously very well prepared for the examination and aware of the
demands of the questions, but others were not so well prepared and their writing lacked the
skills of evaluation, with the result that they wrote everything they knew on the topic without
focusing on the question.

In general, however, many candidates were able to attempt to analyse and evaluate elements 
within the main argument rather than tacked on as a paragraph at the end of their response.

Comments on Individual Questions

 1 This question was generally well answered with most candidates able to give a clear
description of the various approaches within metaethics and a good assessment of the
level to which ethical language could be described as prescriptive.

Most candidates focused on the issue of prescriptivism and managed to avoid falling into 
the trap of simply writing about how meaningful or not ethical language might be.
Naturalism, emotivism and intuitionism were clearly understood by many candidates,
though of the different approaches, it was naturalism which was the least well understood.
Candidates did, however, grasp the idea that for a naturalist ‘good’ corresponded to some
kind of objective reality.

Many candidates were able to refer knowledgeably to Hume, Ayer, Moore, Pritchard, Ross 
and Stevenson. Some candidates used this knowledge to present excellent responses to
the question and better responses actually addressed the issue of whether all ethical
language is prescriptive or merely persuasive, descriptive or indeed something entirely
different.

Some very good candidates used the ideas of Mackie and Charles Pigden using error 
theory to argue that there are no moral facts so prescriptivism is wrong and we can only
use ethical language in an agreed social contract which makes it convenient for use to
prescribe certain moral actions as right and wrong. Many responses also discussed the
idea that apart from this social contract who is to say that the moral actions prescribed by
one person are good or not.

2 This was the most popular question, and was generally well answered with the majority of 
candidates constructing some interesting responses.

Some candidates displayed a comprehensive understanding and familiarity with the terms 
compatibilism and incompatibilism with regard to the free will and determinism debate.
Many responses were able to keep the focus on whether the two are compatible. Weaker
answers simply listed everything they knew on the different approaches to determinism
and libertarianism and then attempted to answer the question in the last paragraph.
As previously, there was less secure knowledge on libertarianism beyond a simple
reference to Sartre. Better responses also used Mill and Campbell to support
libertarianism.

Much use was made of Hume and his various ideas in the field of compatibilism itself, and 
candidates were able to make a good case based on his concepts. 

Locke’s analogy of the locked room provided some candidates with good discussion
material given the range of possible interpretations. Others, however, were unsure as to
how the analogy might apply to the discussion.

Kant appeared as both a compatibilist due to the concept of noumenally free and 
phenomenally determined, and a libertarian due to the expression of autonomy within his
ethical theory which was supported with a quote where Kant rejects compatibilism. Credit
was given for either approach where it was used to answer the question.

3 The majority of candidates were able to give a clear explanation of Virtue Ethics as
formulated by Aristotle. Some candidates, though understanding Aristotle’s theory in
general, tended to see it as overly individualistic and selfish without giving sufficient weight
as to how the polis might flourish.

Also, although the specification refers to knowledge of modern virtue ethicists some
candidates were hampered in their attempts to answer this question as they knew little
beyond the theory of Aristotle.

Good responses used a variety of modern thinkers with Foot and MacIntyre being the most 
popular, however, Anscombe, Slote, Hursthouse and Taylor were also used. There was
also some successful discussion of feminist approaches which were seen as an
improvement.

Some responses showed knowledge of these different thinkers but struggled to know how 
these modern thinkers addressed issues within Aristotle’s ethic.

4 This question was answered very well by some candidates, whilst other responses showed
little actual knowledge of any theories of conscience and rather too much on the issues
surrounding sex.

Usually responses gave a brief overview of the different views of conscience which were 
then loosely related to issues surrounding sexual ethics before being contrasted with one
or more of the major ethical theories, usually Natural Law or Utilitarianism. Most
candidates did this well.

Some candidates, as in previous years, seemed unsure as to how to differentiate between 
the concepts of conscience, provided by Butler and Newman, whilst others were insecure
in their knowledge of Freud’s model. Often candidates assumed that because Freud was
more modern he had to be a better approach to the issues surrounding sex, with little
appreciation of the nature of the influence on the super-ego.

Some very good responses actually asked what ‘other ethical considerations’ might be and 
used the harm principle to good effect.