General Comments G582 A2 June 2012

As in previous years, some candidates might have benefitted from reading the questions more 
carefully before writing their answers. Some candidates also tended to list scholars and theories
without very much discussion. Some candidates showed an impressive level of knowledge and
demonstrated a high level of interest and engagement in their answers.

Comments on Individual Questions

1 How convincing are Butler's claims that people have an innate sense of right and wrong? {35}

This was the most popular question but candidates’ responses differed widely in terms of 
quality. Some candidates demonstrated very little knowledge, if any, of Butler’s ideas
regarding innate conscience. Of these responses, some tended to be generalised
conscience essays whilst some focused on the key word in the question (innate) and
juxtaposed a number of different views ranging from Aquinas to Piaget. Some candidates
showed some knowledge of Butler but did not address the argument as to whether his
claims with regard to conscience are convincing. Such candidates tended to be unable to
distinguish Butler’s claims as to conscience from those of Newman. Some candidates
successfully comprehended the demands of the question and presented a good
understanding of Butler. They then went on to consider and question the concept of ‘an
innate sense of right and wrong’ using appropriate scholars and their viewpoints.

2  To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering ethical business practice? [35]

This question evinced a variety of responses. Some candidates showed a good level of 
understanding with regard to business ethics and cited Friedman, Hobbes etc. A number of
useful examples were also raised by candidates including Union Carbide India Ltd. and the
Bhopal Disaster of 1984, and the Ford Pinto Case from 1970 involving the costs of
redesigning the Pinto versus the possible costs of compensation for human loss and injury.
Examples such as these enabled some candidates to consider the application of a variety
of ethical theories particularly Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. Some candidates produced
less successful responses due to a limited knowledge of case studies or an over-use of
them leading to a sometimes superficial understanding of how ethical theories might be
applied. Here, as elsewhere, candidates choosing to apply Situation Ethics might want to
develop their knowledge so that it is not limited to arguing that parties should simply act in
such a way as to produce the most loving outcome. Some candidates were able to apply
Virtue Ethics in a successful way by highlighting the communitarian aspects of that theory
and the goal of achieving eudaimonia in society.

3 To what extent to moral statements have objective meaning? [35]

This produced a number of solid responses from candidates, with a pleasing number 
showing a high level of understanding of the whole field of meta-ethics. Theories and their
advocates including Intuitionism, Emotivism and Prescriptivism were often correctly
identified and applied. As in previous years, candidates seemed a little unsure as to what
constitutes the Naturalist approach advocated by Bradley and others which might be
regarded as cognitive and objective. Some candidates did not address fully the question as
to whether moral statements might have ‘objective’ meaning and limited themselves to a
discussion of whether such statements have any meaning at all. Some candidates,
perhaps less successfully, approached the question through a consideration of moral
statements in general as found in, for example, Bentham’s pleasure and pain principles.
Conclusions varied with some candidates clearly unhappy with the suggestion that moral
truths may ‘only’ be subjective.
 
4 "There is no moral imperative to care for the environment". Discuss [35]

This question provided some candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate a high level of
knowledge and understanding. The absence or presence of a moral imperative to care for
the environment in ethical theories such as Natural Law, Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics,
Utilitarianism and Religious Ethics was discussed successfully. Some candidates were
able to draw on examples such as the moral imperative behind operations such as the
Body Shop and its rejection (along lines suggested by Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism) of
animal experimentation in its modus operandi. Some candidates attempted, with varying
degrees of success, to see whether Kant’s formulations of the Categorical Imperative could
be applied beyond their normal focus on rational, intelligent, free and autonomous moral
agents. Lovelock’s Gaia was discussed by a number of candidates but often their
knowledge was limited by treating this approach as a religious one.

As in previous years, candidates were generally able to distinguish the dominion and stewardship approaches from the perspective of Christianity but some would have benefitted from a more detailed understanding of the biblical basis for such approaches. One frequent inaccuracy was to suggest that ‘shallow’ or anthropocentric views do not imply a moral imperative to care for the environment.