hij
Teacher Resource Bank
GCE Religious Studies
Unit B Religion and Ethics 2
Example of Candidate’s Work from the January 2009
Examination
Candidate A
Copyright © 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered
charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.
Dr Michael Cresswell, Director General.
1
2009 (January) Unit B Religion and Ethics 2
Example of Candidate’s Work from the Examination
Candidate A
1
(a)
Explain Kant’s theory of duty.
(30 marks)
AO1
Candidate Response
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
2
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
3
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
4
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
5
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
6
Commentary
AO1 (30 marks)
Approximately 25 minutes can be allocated to answering this question, including thinking time.
The opening paragraph illustrates one very important principle in writing exam answers, namely
that it is a good idea to pack some punch in the introduction as opposed to just ‘setting the scene’,
or to suggesting that something else needs to be done before the question can be answered. In
the short time available, it is best to answer the question directly from the start. This candidate
does exactly that, and does it very well. Within the space of a few lines, the candidate refers to
duty, deontology, actions as opposed to consequences, the good will, autonomy, and the
synthetic a priori. The latter may not be explained particularly well, nevertheless the candidate
clearly does understand Kant.
Paragraph 2 goes on to explain the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative as Kant’s way
of arriving at the rules by which people recognize their duty: universalizability, treating people as
an end in themselves, and acting as law-abiding members of a kingdom of moral ends.
This is followed in Paragraph 3 by a practical example of how these formulations are applied to a
case of abortion. The example is not particularly fluent in its description, nevertheless it illustrates
Kant’s meaning. In particular it contrasts a non-universalizable rule with a potentially
universalizable one (‘Jenny, whose life is endangered by her pregnancy, should abort if she
chooses to do so’). This is rejected because it still breaks the means / ends formulation of the
Categorical Imperative.
Paragraph 4 begins well by moving on to the intrinsic value of persons in relation to duty. The
sentence on the relationship between good will / duty and the summum bonum as ultimate good
for Kant demonstrates further understanding, but the essay ends abruptly at this point.
Overall, the candidate is well-informed, generally accurate and relevant, and uses appropriate
examples to illustrate Kant’s theory of duty. It does not amount to a ‘thorough treatment ... within
the time available’, so it meets the criteria for Level 6.
Level 7 (30 marks)
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
7
(b)
‘In Kant’s ethics, doing your duty is the only thing that matters.’
Assess this claim
(15 marks)
AO2
Candidate Response
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
8
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
9
Commentary
AO2 15 marks
Approximately 12½ minutes, including thinking time, can be allocated to answering this question.
Answers to part (b) questions are not expected to be long.
Again, this candidate begins the evaluation section with a strong statement which answers the
question directly and correctly. For Kant, the good will is the only thing that is good without
reservation. For Kant, the summum bonum is the overarching end-product of the system,
combining the achievement of duty with the perfect happiness that one would expect to
accompany that achievement, so the candidate concludes aptly that duty is all that matters.
The second paragraph is similarly impressive: “duty is the only thing binding on all rational
beings”, to the exclusion of emotion.
Paragraph 3 moves on to a counter-argument based on the Christian principle of agape. For
Christians, agape is also binding on rational beings, so duty is not the only thing that matters. The
candidate anticipates Kant's response that morality is autonomous by claiming that there is no
point in acting morally without God, so his theory falls apart without a divine being. In so far as
the question begins with the words, “In Kant's ethics”, the candidate does not make this point
absolutely relevant, since the point of the evaluation is not whether doing your duty is the only
thing that matters in ethics generally, but whether this is true “In Kant's ethics”. However, the
candidate perhaps implies that a divine being should be important in Kant's ethics, despite Kant's
claim that moral law is autonomous.
Paragraph 4 is a clever argument which again suggests that proportional principles ought to
matter in Kant's ethics also, in order to rescue his theory from the problem of how to deal with
conflicting duties, using the well-known scenario of a mad axe-murderer.
The conclusion brings the argument back into Kant's favour by asserting that duty leads to
consistency, which is the most important thing for Kant, because the consistent attention to moral
duty leads to the summum bonum. The concluding sentence is a very good rounding off of a
coherent argument.
The evaluation is a well-focused, and is a reasoned response to the question. It explains different
views clearly with supporting evidence. The conclusion shows an appropriate degree of critical
analysis. The essay meets the criteria for Level 7. Since in paragraphs 3 and 4 it is not
absolutely clear that the candidate is addressing the words, “In Kant’s ethics”, even though this is
probably the case, the essay merits 14 rather than 15 marks.
Level 7 (14 marks)
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
10
2
(a)
Explain how Aquinas developed the idea of Natural Law in ethics.
(30 marks)
AO1
Candidate Response
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
11
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
12
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
13
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
14
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
15
Commentary
AO1 (30 marks)
Approximately 25 minutes can be allocated to answering this question, including thinking time.
This essay, like that on Kant, is fairly thorough, mostly accurate and relevant, and it demonstrates
understanding through the use of appropriate evidence and examples. As a general piece of
advice, candidates often say that philosophers “come up with” a theory, which sounds a bit like
regurgitation! Try to use appropriate phrases. In this case, an appropriate word would be to say
that Aristotle formulated his theory of the four causes. This does not of course take away from
the fact that the opening paragraph is a reasonable summary of what Aristotle says about cause.
In paragraph 2, the candidate takes a second approach to the word “developed” in the question.
In paragraph 1, the development is one of historical influence; in paragraph 2 the development is
philosophical and theological, in that Aquinas, as the candidate says, integrates biblical teachings
with Aristotle's views in order to develop a theory based on God. The vocabulary in this
paragraph is good, and develops a range of the ideas found in Aquinas’ Natural Law theory.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 extend the development referred to in paragraph 2 by mentioning Aquinas’
distinction between real and apparent goods and interior and exterior acts.
Again, the essay is not so impressive in its concluding lines. The claim that Aristotle’s theory is
deontological is both dubious and unexplained. For a Level 7 response, the candidate would be
expected to conclude the essay by referring once more to the developmental aspects of Aquinas’
ideas about Natural Law.
Level 7 (29 marks)
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
16
(b)
Aquinas’ system of Natural Law Ethics is no longer relevant.’
Assess this claim.
(15 marks)
AO2
Candidate Response
RSS02
CANDIDATE A
17
Commentary
AO2 15 marks
Approximately 12½ minutes, including thinking time, can be allocated to answering this question.
Answers to part (b) questions are not expected to be long.
The style of this evaluation is very mature. The opening sentence is complemented by the
statement that “the safety of society is always relevant”. This is supported by paragraph 2, in
which the candidate gives a number of examples of the benefits of a Natural Law system.
Paragraph 3 uses interesting language. Where the candidates says, “The universalisability of this
theory is challenged by cultural relativism”, this is high-order comment, not least in the fact that it
borrows an appropriate term from Kantian ethics. “Universalisability” refers backwards to the
claims in the first two paragraphs that the universal application of Natural Law principles would
lead to safer society. It also points forwards to the view expressed at the end of paragraph 3, that
the “one size fits all” aspect of Natural Law is no longer relevant.
Paragraph 4 develops this further by challenging Aquinas’ central assumption, that humans have
a common human nature. The candidate says that Natural Law does not account for “the
uncontrollable, changeable natures of human beings”. Even the plural word, ‘natures’, makes its
own point - humans have ‘natures’, not just one nature.
Paragraph 5 uses a different ethical theory in order to criticize Natural Law with the claim that it
does not take into account situations. The candidates could of course have referred to the
principle of Double Effect, but given the available time, it is not possible to do everything. The
conclusion that Natural Law is no longer relevant because its weaknesses outweigh its strengths
is valid, given the flow of the candidate’s argument.
The evaluation is not perfect, but to achieve a maximum Level 7, candidates are not required to
achieve perfection, only to meet the criteria listed for Level 7 achievement, and this essay meets
those criteria.
Level 6 (12 marks)
RSS02
CANDIDATE A