philosophy and ethics a level essay structure

15 Mark Essay Structure for AQA A Level Philosophy and Ethics

Quick Reply

Related discussions.

• Philosophy essays
• A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024
• Not sure if I should do Philosophy&ethics A-Level
• should i do RS (WJEC) or Sociology (AQA) A-level
• hey i’m yr 11 and want to pick biology chem and philosophy
• Likelihood of an applied ethics essay (AQA a level philosophy)?
• AQA A Level Religious Studies (7062/1) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
• I need help for a levels
• AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
• A-Level Options for History and Politics / PPE
• Is OCR RE A level harder than AQA?
• A-level Help
• Anyone do any of these a levels lmk
• AQA A-level Religious Studies 1 (7062/1) 12 Jun & 2 (7062/2A-2E) 19 Jun [Exam Chat]
• Is A level philosophy (aqa) hard if you study?
• AQA A Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (7062/2A-2E) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
• Is A level philosophy, ethics and religion a good subject?
• Can someone rank these subjects FOR AS in order from easiest to hardest.
• Which a level has this which hate

Last reply 3 days ago

Last reply 5 days ago

Last reply 4 weeks ago

Last reply 1 month ago

Last reply 2 months ago

Last reply 3 months ago

Articles for you

How to revise for A-level Religious Studies exams: AQA explains what to do

Finding a university place in Ucas Clearing 2024: 10 top tips to help you get ready

Top 10 tips for Ucas Clearing 2024

Bringing business people into the classroom: what students learn from industry professionals

• Apr 27, 2019

A Level Philosophy Revision Tips | Long Essay Answers

Updated: Aug 5, 2021

Our new A Level Philosophy series kicks off with tips for how to revise for long essays.

“Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly”

Francis Bacon

I dare not remind you all that exam season looms close by, for fear that you have already heard it ad nauseam; but, nonetheless, it is a fact of school life. Not so long ago, I was an A Level pupil who worked late into the night before exams and made a habit of saying the "once more unto the breach" speech from ‘Henry V’ just before the invigilator gave us the green light to begin. I know, all too well, the stresses, strains, and worries of revision and exam taking.

Now, I know Philosophy is a rather esoteric subject and can often seem pointless (and let’s be real, some of it does seem pretty dry); however, I am here to tell you that writing about it doesn’t have to be! In fact, here is a little bit of advice that got me through my A Levels: if you don’t enjoy what you’re writing – stop writing it that way. The examiner won’t enjoy it, and neither will you. So, without further ado, here are my top tips and tricks to get you writing the most titillating and thought-provoking theses.

How to keep your Philosophy essay simple

“Brevity is the soul of wit”

Polonius, in Hamlet

Yes, the irony of my lengthy preamble is not lost on me – but seriously, keep your points simple, direct, and concise. This may sound like a tall order, as Philosophy is of course complex by nature – it isn’t easy to define ‘knowledge’ or ‘God’ in one pithy irrefutable sentence. So, your argument must be layered and balanced, but make sure the complex thesis is composed of shorter, more understandable sentences.

Imagine that your thesis is like a house, or a wall – the structure itself is complex, and relies on a variety of factors and pieces to keep it standing; however, each individual part is simple and straightforward. My advice to you is to build your thesis brick-by-brick.

Let me give you an example of what this might look like. Let’s take a simple argument from Locke – he wants to prove that colour is not part of an object and is merely a sensation in the mind. What is part of the object are its ‘primary qualities’, things like its shape and number.

Now, when this was first introduced to me, it was done in a rather verbose manner and I quickly became lost. However, if you restructure Locke’s argument (in this case the ‘Almond Analogy’) his argument becomes much easier to understand.

(P1) When you pound an almond, its colour changes.

(P2) When you pound an almond, the only thing you change is the ‘texture’ of the particles which composed the almond.

------------------

(C) Hence, the colour of the almond is nothing but a sensation in your mind, which changes because the particles which composed the almond now reflect light differently.

Notice how the argument is comprised of short premises and a conclusion. These premises are the bricks I mentioned before. Build your essay up, from the starting point of your thesis, with these short little premises on which your conclusion(s) will rest.

Which leads me nicely on…

How to construct the introduction to a Philosophy essay

"On this rock I will build My church”

Matthew 16:18

Make sure you state your thesis clearly! This was drilled into me by a mentor I had during my A Levels, and I am surprised by the number of peers and pupils who, even at University, do not do this! I was advised to always write, as my opening line, "this essay will argue that […]", which lends itself to a rather unfortunate, yet memorable mnemonic — ‘TEWAT’. If you do this, you ensure you directly answer the question, and show the examiner what direction you are taking your argument.

If I take a cursory look through the mark schemes for both OCR and AQA (for their Philosophy and Religious Studies papers), the mark schemes allocate specific marks for coherence and structure of your argument, that is to say, your thesis. A Levels are as much a test of your knowledge as they are a test of your skill in the application of such erudition within the confines of their rubric.

Quoting from the AQA A Level Philosophy specification (7172) , they say a marking criterion is ‘ AO2: Analyse and evaluate philosophical arguments to form reasoned judgements ’. What they want from you is to construct a balanced argument that makes judgements . That means you’ve got to come down on one side – and that should be articulated in the form of your thesis statement.

Let me walk you through what such an introductory paragraph or opening may look like. I’ve taken an extract from one of my first papers I wrote at University (which received a First):

“This essay will argue that ‘freedom of thought’ (FoT) and ‘freedom of expression’ (FoE) are not inextricable in their nature and value. This essay will posit that the two freedoms in question can be held and experienced independently of one another; however, this in turn diminishes them in their supposed value, thereby resulting in full value experience only when the two operate in tandem.”

Let’s break this down. Note:

1. My very first line: I state my thesis – you should too! Let the examiner know where you are going to go.

2. My next line gives a rough overview of why I might think my thesis is correct – essentially, I have told the examiner where I want to go, and this is roughly the path that will take me there.

3. My penultimate and final clause of the second line gives some nuance to my essay. I know that to score top marks, I must show that I give the time of day to counter-arguments of my thesis. This is to ensure that I give a balanced view. I say that I think these two phenomena are extricable but there is a consequence of such a belief that I must elucidate.

Stay with me here! I know that this is tough to get through, but I promise it will pay dividends come your final exams. Once you nail this exam technique, you’ll be off to the races and churning out practice papers at a rate of knots.

How to signpost effectively in your essay

“Good order is the foundation of all things.”

Edmund Burke

So, you’ve got your thesis and you’re going to build it with small steps. However, the journey isn’t over yet! Examiners are notorious for bad habits – namely, they get distracted whilst marking your papers! No matter how captivating your writing, you can’t risk having your examiner losing their train of thought when marking your essay!

Now, I know what you might be pondering – without hunching over the examiner’s desk and watching them mark, like some kind of freak combination between Miss Trunchbull and Quasimodo, how do we ensure that the examiner stays on track whilst marking your hard work? Well, the key is signposting.

I know you’ve almost certainly heard this advice, but I will reiterate it with a little twist. Signposting is where you indicate to your reader what you are going to write about next. For example, a basic signpost might read: "this essay will now analyse the ontological claim for the existence of God". This would be slapped at the start of a paragraph and clearly show where the essay is headed.

This is good advice, don’t get me wrong, but I do get worried when students hear this advice and take it to heart too much . Every other line shouldn’t be a signpost and do try and vary up the phraseology of the signposting – the examiner may not lose track of your line of argument, but they might get bored of repetitive vocabulary!

What I tend to do in my essays (disclaimer: this is a stylistic point and so should not be taken as gospel) is to insert subtitle headings. These headings can be simply named, such as, ‘Introduction’ – or they can be more exotic, to catch attention: ‘Sartre’s Simple Solution’. Whatever they might be named, they serve as a signpost in themselves, effectively dividing up the essay into manageable and comprehensible chunks. This allows you to better plan your essay and see it visualised, as well as aiding the examiner in following your work.

Your work’s headings and structure might look something like this (taken from another paper of mine, on the Meno Paradox; also graded as a First):

1. Introduction

2. Explanation of the Paradox

3. Proposed Solution

4. Circularity Issue

5. Appropriateness

6. Verification

7. Conclusion

Tips and Tricks for Revising A Level Philosophy

“I know that I know nothing”

Socrates (supposedly…)

Okay, you’ve had me drone on about exam technique and essay writing for far too long now, I know. So, let’s briefly touch on, arguably, the most important part of your Philosophy/Religious Studies exams – knowledge. It is true when they say knowledge is power, if by knowledge they mean remembering what Aquinas said that one time, and by power they mean an A*. Of course, I’m being facetious, but in all seriousness, make sure you know your content inside out.

Unfortunately, exam boards differ in what they want you to know for your A Level Philosophy/R.S. exam, and because the syllabuses change regularly, I don’t want to get bogged down talking about the minutiae of content. However, this is no excuse for not knowing your stuff!

There are loads of revision guides, tips, tricks, and so on, out there – but, I know revising Philosophy content is tough and often not as easy as whipping out a copy of Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’ and learning it by rote (just the thought of that ordeal has genuinely made my eyes water…).

So, here are my tips, taken from experience, with regards to revising Philosophy.

1. Flashcards are gold-dust.

For me, flashcards allowed me to memorise quotes, definitions, and key terms very quickly. Colour code your cards accordingly and prepare the content on them early. The earlier you have those flashcards, the more you can use them and make sure that content sticks to your grey cells!

2. One-page summaries.

a. Philosophy is a bottomless pit when it comes to content. Therefore, make sure you distil your notes down to concise and specific chunks of knowledge.

b. I like condensing it all down onto one piece of A4 paper. The text is very small, but it gives me a nice crib sheet to memorise and use when I’m churning out past papers and practice questions.

3. Enjoy the content – make it relatable.

a. I accept that you can’t always be pondering the existence of God, or trying to establish virtue ethics, but honestly, try and enjoy this process of revision.

b. The skills and content you are learning now are unbelievably useful, so try and make what you’re learning relevant to your quotidian or future life.

c. When I studied Paradise Lost for English Literature A Level, I was wondering what use it would be – the way I got to enjoy learning about it was finding paintings and drawings that were inspired by the text and vice versa. This sparked off some excitement about my writing and incorporated this additional knowledge into my final exam (who knew some interest in a few brush strokes could net me a whopping 100% mark!).

4. Past papers make you practice until it's perfect.

a. One of the best ways to test your knowledge is to write as many practice essays as you can. The more you write, the more you will improve your style and application of knowledge.

b. Use this practice to get a sense of time management, as well as coping under the added time pressures.

In Conclusion

“The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it”

I know that for a lot of you Philosophy is something that is difficult, hard to enjoy, or just a little bit confusing – don’t worry, it was for me too (and let’s not kid ourselves here, I still find it difficult and confusing sometimes!). But, to me, that’s the beauty of it; I love the questioning, the inquisition, arguments, debates, and, on special occasions, some solutions.

My parting advice to you is this: Philosophy is an artificial creation – it was born out of humanity’s desire to question everything, even the most fundamental and intuitive truths. Relish in the fact that you are not merely standing on the shoulders of giants like Plato , but you are engaging in a historical debate that has raged over many millennia.

So, when you sit down at that fateful exam table, just remember that beside you, and all around you, sit not just other students, but, in spirit, some of the greatest thinkers of history – you have earned a seat at the greatest discussion of all time: Philosophy. Oh, and with some smart strategies and dedication you’ll get that A* along the way too!

References & Important Links

Exam Board Mark Schemes/Past Papers

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/philosophy/as-and-a-level/philosophy-7172

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/religious-studies/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-7062

https://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-h173-h573-from-2016/

https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A%20Level/Religious%20Studies/2016/Specification%20and%20sample%20assessments/Specification_GCE_A_Level_in_Religious_Studies.pdf

External Guidance & Assistance

http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/

https://www.philosophybasics.com/

http://sqapo.com/

Academic Reference

https://plato.stanford.edu/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/

https://philpapers.org/

Blog Post Crafted by Neville

Neville is currently working towards his BA in Philosophy at Warwick University , having bagged three A* grades at A Level.

He has entered the Times Advocacy Competition three times, and each time was shortlisted into the top ~20 candidates in the country. In his free time he writes his own scripts, as well as other fictional and non-fictional works.

Recent Posts

The Impacts of AI on Education

7 Doubly Fun Things To Do in Half Term

Healthy vs. Unhealthy Revision Habits

The AQA philosophy A level (7172) assessment is sat at the end of the course and consists of two 3 hour examinations:

• Paper 1 will have 5 questions on epistemology and 5 questions on moral philosophy
• Paper 2 will have 5 questions on the metaphysics of God and 5 questions on metaphysics of mind

Each paper is worth 50% of the overall grade.

There are 10 questions per paper (5 for each module) in the following format:

• 3 mark question
• 5 mark question
• 12 mark question
• 25 mark question

This makes a total of 20 questions across both papers and 200 total available marks . This can be broken down into 100 marks per paper or 50 marks per module .

Assessment Criteria

The questions in the papers are assessed according to two key criteria:

• AO1: Knowledge and understanding of key philosophical texts and ideas.
• AO2: The ability to critically evaluate these ideas and argue toward a conclusion.

Each paper asks a series of questions that test these skills to differing degrees.

The majority of marks are awarded for AO1.

AO1 tests your knowledge and understanding of key ideas and philosophers. You do not need to argue for or against a view, or give your opinion.

All questions except 25 mark questions are 100% AO1. This is simple enough when it’s a small question – e.g. 3 marks – you might just need to give a short definition of the key points.

Longer questions – such as 5 marks and 12 marks – are a little more difficult, but still 100% AO1 . The topic you’re asked about is likely to be more complicated, requiring you to go into more detail to demonstrate your understanding and pick up the AO1 marks.

Even so, you are not required to evaluate the arguments or give your view. You only need to explain . No marks are awarded for argument.

25 mark questions award 20 marks for AO2 – evaluation and argument .

So, instead of just explaining a philosophical view, you have to argue whether it is or isn’t the correct one.

The format of a good A level philosophy argument might look like this:

• Define key points
• Explain which side you are arguing for
• Response to this response
• Response to this argument
• Conclusion: X is correct because of the arguments above

The key phrase in the syllabus for AO2 is ‘arguing with intent’ . This means that you argue consistently for or against a viewpoint (e.g. act utilitarianism is wrong). You provide the arguments in favour of your view, and also respond to any possible objections to your view.

A good argument goes into detail . It is better to give one or two strong and detailed arguments for your view than to simply list everything you’ve learned on the topic without any substance (if in doubt; think point, evidence, explanation). Quality is better than quantity.

When you come to write your conclusion, make sure it is consistent with what you’ve written previously (and what you said you’d argue in your introduction). Finally, don’t introduce new ideas here – your conclusion should only be a summary of what you’ve previously argued.

For more detail on structuring 25 mark essays, see this post . And for examples of A* grade 25 mark answers, check out the example essays page .

Grade Boundaries

Below are rough ballpark minimum percentages needed for each letter grade boundary:

Grade boundaries differ from year to year. If it’s an ‘easy’ paper and everyone gets a high mark, for example, then the grade boundaries for each letter grade will be slightly higher. 

2024 Exam Dates

• Paper 1/Epistemology and Moral Philosophy: 16th May 2024 (afternoon)
• Paper 2/Metaphysics of God and Metaphysics of Mind: 22nd May 2024 (afternoon) 

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Kantian Ethics Essay A-Level AQA Philosophy (7172)

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Unit of work

Last updated

11 December 2020

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Included is an AQA A-Level Philosophy (7172) essay covering Kantian Deontological Ethics for 25 Marks, this essay is ungraded.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 64%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

A-Level Philosophy AQA A/A* Essay Bundle!

Included are a collection of **A/A+ grade** essays covering the following subjects from AQA Philosophy specification 7172: * Hedonistic Utilitarianism * Aristotelian Virtue Ethics * Kantian Deontological Ethics * Meta-Ethics * Concept of God * Teleological Arguments * Ontological Arguments * Problem of Evil * Religious Language * Property Dualism * Substance Dualism * Essay Plans

A-Level Philosophy AQA Notes + Essay Bundle!

Included is a full pack of notes for all topics under AQA A-Level Philosophy, specification 7172. These notes clearly explain the main concepts, the objections to the argument and in most cases counters to the objections. Furthermore, also included is a collection of essay plans. I passed Philosophy with an A* and am now studying philosophy as an undergraduate at the University of Birmingham and these are my own notes and essays to help the next generation of students do the same! If there any omissions in the notes please do get in touch and I will send an updated copy. Included: Full explanations of the philosophical topics listed in the specification Criticisms and occasionally counter-criticism of the topics A collection of essay plans An assortment of ungraded essays **Meta-Ethics Not Included*

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Ethics for A-Level

(5 reviews)

Mark Dimmock, Torquay Boys' Grammar School

Andrew Fisher, University of Nottingham

Copyright Year: 2017

ISBN 13: 9781783743902

Publisher: Open Book Publishers

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Chandrika Shah, Adjunct, Bunker Hill Community College on 5/27/20

The book covers major Western Philosophers, completely ignores the Feminists philosophers. I do understand that every author has to select, but in today's world not including Feminism, is a must. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book covers major Western Philosophers, completely ignores the Feminists philosophers. I do understand that every author has to select, but in today's world not including Feminism, is a must.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

It is accurate and clear to a community college level reading student. It is difficult to be unbiased. The selection of Applied ethics topics reflects bias. But, that is true of most texts. I do understand that one's bias can be unconscious too.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

I doubt it will become obsolete. The cases or examples might become dated. But in philosophy, one can always reflect on them.

Clarity rating: 5

Yes, it is clearly organized and provides adequate context for technical terms. The Common Students Mistake make is a good addition. Helps students avoid those mistakes.

Consistency rating: 5

It is consistent in its structure.

Modularity rating: 5

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Well done. It is presented in a logical, clear fashion.

Interface rating: 5

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

None, I came across.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Well, here they could at least included one chapter on non western point of view.

I am planning to adopt some aspects of this text. I think students will benefit from it. It is tailored for community college students reading level.

Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer, professor, TRAILS on 12/10/19

It is always difficult to decide which topics will become a focus for applied ethics. This book, apparently written by two men, largely ignores feminist ethics, and in the applied ethics section, moral issues that are likely to be of more concern... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

It is always difficult to decide which topics will become a focus for applied ethics. This book, apparently written by two men, largely ignores feminist ethics, and in the applied ethics section, moral issues that are likely to be of more concern for women, such as date rape and insurance covering abortion. I am keenly aware, as I read, of a lack of any perspective outside of "Western" ethics--though this is never clearly indicated. (There are, of course, moral theories outside those of the Greek/Western European tradition.)

Even inside the "Western" traditions I note serious omissions beyond feminist thinkers. How is it possible to talk about Rights theory and animals/anymals without including anything from the late Tom Regan? He is as important to Kantian anymal ethics as is Singer is to Utilitarian anymal ethics.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I suppose it would not be possible to be fully versed on every topic, and I have focused here on my area of specialty, anymal ethics. An example of an error in this section is citing of the Bible as a defense of eating flesh. There are many scholars who disagree. (See, for example "Animals and World Religions.") Note that the deity originally ordains a vegan diet, and only accepts flesh-eating as a concession to human violence/shortcomings.

Good array of applied ethics topics, though lacking feminist influence.

Clarity rating: 4

The fact that the book is written for a specific institution/courses makes the book less reader-friendly for other students, particularly the inclusion of chapters that belong in an intro to religion book, but not necessarily an ethics book, and vice versa--particularly an entire chapter on Aquinas' Natural Law Theory.

In the chapter 14, Eating Animals, the authors' meat-eating tendencies and lack of familiarity with the broader topic is apparent in a handful of ways noted elsewhere.

very well done

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Always better to have more diverse authors for any text. I would prefer to use a text that includes a chapter on ethics from another culture, and of course feminist ethics ought to be included. Sometimes the authors even admit to their narrowness: The authors make clear at the outset where they stand on the issue of diet and ethics, and their bias is apparent in coverage of the topic. I find more omissions and errors in this section than in others. For example, a comment that vegetarian food is less attractive, and another that a vegetarian diet may be nutritionally deficient for children--as if it were broccoli causing all of those heart attacks, as if malnourished vegans were flooding the streets of San Francisco. A final example of the cultural shortcomings of the writing is provided in examples of situations where eating flesh might be acceptable--the examples strike me as petty and upper class, failing to mention, for example, indigenous people who have nothing else to eat, or those living in food deserts.

The book is an easy and even fun read, well organized, with many important sub-headings, all of which equate to a huge plus.

Reviewed by Laurie Johansen, Professor, MnSCU on 10/11/18

This text will be a great supplemental resource while introducing ethics to nursing students. The four major ethical theories covered in the text are appropriate to the profession of nursing. I really appreciate the "problems' sections - very... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This text will be a great supplemental resource while introducing ethics to nursing students. The four major ethical theories covered in the text are appropriate to the profession of nursing. I really appreciate the "problems' sections - very applicable. The resources provided to the readers are very helpful and useful. Nicely done.

Understanding that the focus of this text is not for the profession of nursing, I don't see a bias that is concerning. This text would be a supplement resource, which would be valuable.

Relevant and pertinent.

Appreciate the key terminology available. This creates clarity for the novice reader.

Content is displayed consistently.

Chapters are well delineated and organized. Text structure is understandable.

Appreciate the CC by license publication. Easy to use PDF online version of text.

Free of grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

No concerns.

Will be a valuable supplemental text.

Reviewed by Ivan Guajardo, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Philosophy , Virginia Western Community College on 3/27/18

This textbook is tailored to AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious studies, yet it is comprehensive enough to be easily adapted to introductory surveys in Ethics. It contains a helpful introduction to the field of ethics, discusses some standard... read more

This textbook is tailored to AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious studies, yet it is comprehensive enough to be easily adapted to introductory surveys in Ethics. It contains a helpful introduction to the field of ethics, discusses some standard ethical theories (Part I), the classic debate in Metaethics between cognitivism/non-cognitivism about moral utterances and realism/anti-realism about the existence of moral facts (Part II), and applies the moral theories covered in part I to important moral issues (Part III).

The introduction defines the field of ‘ethics’, explains basic distinctions and methods like thought-experiments and their role in evaluating moral beliefs, and discusses other important distinctions like the difference between moral and legal reasons. The authors, however, omit any discussion of the logic of moral arguments or standard criteria for evaluating competing moral theories, despite the methodological significance of these topics. Supplementary materials or chapters on these topics must be added for this introduction to be better suited for an ethics class.

Part I covers Utilitarianism, Kant’s Ethics, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Natural Law Theory, and Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics. The exposition and evaluation of these theories is clear, concise, engaging, and manage to avoid unnecessary jargon. A central benefit of these chapters is that they are short and to the point, so the reader gets a good sense of the core elements of each theory as well as their pros and cons. For instance, students often struggle to understand the idea that Kant’s Categorical Imperative does not appeal to consequences in evaluating maxims but focuses instead on a maxim’s ability to function consistently if turned into law. The authors manage effectively to explain and illustrate the difference with interesting cases like lying and suicide. Each chapter also contains a nice summary, a very helpful section of common student mistakes, a list of terms covered, and a set of issues that can be used for further reflection. All of these features can be used for discussions, exercises, and quizzes. The list of references at the end of each chapter is also welcomed, although it would be nice to add sections containing “further readings” or “additional resources” in case the reader wants to further pursue the topics.

Part I does not cover Ethical Egoism, Social Contract Theory, The Ethics of Care, or Feminism. This may be understandable if A-Level students are not being tested on these theories but less so if this book is to be used for a class in ethics. Despite that most philosophers reject it, Ethical Egoism is quite popular outside philosophy, so students ought to be given the opportunity to learn why this is so. Social Contract Theory forms the basis of some of the most influential theories of Justice, like John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, and The Ethics of Care and Feminism represent some of the important contributions that women philosophers have made to our understanding of right and wrong. Accordingly, these topics would have to be added to make the textbook better suited for an ethics class.

The part on Metaethics details the classic positions about the meaning of ethical utterances and the status of moral facts for those who wish to cover this topic in their classes. This part, however, would be enhanced if a chapter discussing relativism were added. Many students think that morality is reducible to individual or cultural preferences. Accordingly, a textbook purporting to introduce students to ethics should cover relativism’s pros and cons, as well as how one could defend a belief in the objectivity of morality against it.

The discussion of how the ethical theories covered in Part I apply to the moral issues and dilemmas posed by Euthanasia, Sexual Ethics, Stealing, Simulated Killing, Lying, and Animal Rights is quite good. These chapters provide the reader with a general sense of how these theories deal with the central issues that define these topics. For instance, the application of Utilitarianism’s emphasis on suffering as the mark of moral status to animal rights is quite good. So is the application of Kant’s ethics to the concept of private property and its relation to stealing. However, teachers focusing on practical issues may be disappointed by the absence of important issues like abortion, cloning, genetic enhancement, same-same marriage, the death penalty, affirmative action, war, terrorism, torture, economic inequality, and other moral issues typically cover in an applied ethics class.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The textbook handles the material covered fairly accurately. However, it contains a strong bias towards religious thinking, especially in its presentation of Natural Law Theory. For instance, the authors downplay or fail to mention several standard objections against Natural Law Theory, like the difficulty of deriving an “ought” from an “is” or of identifying an activity’s proper function. Also, their decision to cover Joseph Fletcher’s situational ethics instead of more important frameworks, like the Ethics of Care or Feminism, appear gratuitous and gender bias. Anyone wanting to teach ethics more inclusively would have to rely on extra readings or add new chapters to address these shortcomings.

The textbook presents classic theories, arguments, and examples. These contents should stand the test of time. The book’s format and organization allows for easy incorporation of revisions and updates if needed.

The textbook stands out for its clarity and concision. It uses technical jargon sparingly and defines technical term well when it does. It also offers a vey useful vocabulary at the end.

Consistency rating: 3

The content is generally consistently developed, but there is a clear bias towards Natural Law Theory and a stronger emphasis on religious arguments than I think is appropriate for a philosophical approach to moral issues. This may be explained by the fact that the textbook was written for OCR Religious Studies. Nevertheless, these issues need to be addressed before I could use it for my classes.

The textbook is broken down nicely into chapters and sections that stand on their own and can be easily revised, reorganized, or remixed in various ways. Some chapters, e.g., the part on Metaethics, can be skipped completely without undermining the coherence, intelligibility, or flow of the remaining chapters.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The textbook is well organized. Key concepts are explained and material is appropriately divided into easily digestible chunks. The authors use relevant examples that support well important problems and concepts. Transitions are easy to follow and allow the reader to make important connections within and between chapters and parts. Overall, I really like the way the book is structured and the way its explanations flow.

Students have access to a PDF and an ease-to-navigate, online version of this textbook. Printed copies of the whole or parts of it can be made easily. It is also published under a CC By license, which permits the greatest freedom to retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute its contents.

The authors mistakenly use the term ‘rationale’ instead of ‘rational’ on page 41; otherwise the book is generally free of grammatical errors.

Although in important ways culturally relevant, the book fails to include enough women perspectives.

Overall, this textbook can work well for an introductory class in ethics if supplemented with additional readings or chapters that address the limitations I have already described.

Reviewed by Sarah Kath, Philosophy Instructor, Central Lakes College on 2/1/18

The approach taken in this text, while specific to the AQA philosophy and OCR religious programs, would work quite well with lower level/introductory ethics students, who have no background in philosophy. However, the book covers only 4 major... read more

The approach taken in this text, while specific to the AQA philosophy and OCR religious programs, would work quite well with lower level/introductory ethics students, who have no background in philosophy. However, the book covers only 4 major ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue theory and natural law theory. So, it misses social contractarianism, divine command theory, ethical relativism, and ethical egoism. I would have to supplement this text.

Part I covers the four classical ethical theories traditionally covered by introductory ethics courses plus one on situational ethics. The chapter content is straightforward and peppered occasionally with direct quotes from relevant philosophers. The thought experiments are effective and useful in helping students further connect with the abstract theories. That there is a section of “Problems” with the various theories is also excellent. The idea of helpful sections like “common student mistakes” was appreciated, and it does capture some of what my students tend to struggle with. Another benefit is that the text itself was very clear, basic and thorough in explaining ethical reasoning processes that many introductory students struggle to grasp. For example, they often struggle with conducting the hedonic calculus and recognizing the difference between act and rule utilitarianism, or applying the categorical imperative to various scenarios. Helpfully, this text goes into depth explaining and demonstrating how to understand apply these approaches to sample cases. So, although there are no exercises or quizzes with this text, the text itself provides plenty of discussion fodder. Additionally, the “Issues to Consider” and “Key Terms” sections which are very helpful and can be adapted for student reflection or discussion. Placing the references section at the end of each chapter with some resources that are “freely available” is very helpful for students who want to quickly look up additional resources. However, that drops off as the chapters progress. A nice addition would be a section containing further readings or additional resources. I certainly think it's possible to locate some freely available resources for the chapter on Virtue Theory.

Part II could be skipped in an intro to ethics course, or used in an intro to philosophy course. I didn’t review this section as I prefer to take an applied approach to philosophy.

Part III: Applied Ethics is pertinent to anyone who likes to incorporate some popular moral arguments and it nicely covers several major ethical dilemmas. The section on euthanasia is structured well in that it provides multiple pro and con arguments for the students to analyze. Initially I was unsure how relevant a section on “Stealing” is for students, but the application of Kantian ethics to the concept of property is quite good. The remaining sections contain theoretical reasoning by applying the ethical theories to the moral issues. These should make for a good beginning to discussion. However, they would be strengthened by the inclusion of pro/con arguments so students would have something to analyze.

Generally the text accurately summarizes the theories themselves and supplies relevant critiques of the theories. However, there is a strong bias toward religious reasoning that is evident throughout and particularly apparent in the treatment of natural law theory and euthanasia. There is also some inconsistency in the headings/section titles used throughout the book, which is confusing at best and at times appears deceptive. For example, the switch in category headings from “Problems” to “Objections” might be confusing to some.

As an example of the weaknesses of this text, the chapter on natural law theory only very briefly covers divine command theory, but students usually need more of an explanation on why religious ethics like this are abandoned. Although, I do recognize that even with a thorough analysis many students fail to fully grasp the implications of the Euthyphro dilemma; so, perhaps it is better to gloss over it in favor of Natural Law.

Another problem is that while the explication of the Natural Law position is solid, the critique is downplayed and ultimately hidden under a deceptive section title. First the critiques were called “Problems,” then “Objections,” and in this chapter they changed to “Some thoughts.” This is a letdown. It appears biased. The authors, as philosophers (lovers of wisdom and truth) have an obligation to maintain an evenhanded critique of strengths and weaknesses for all theories.

It is also an interesting choice to structure the last section as Fletcher’s situationism when I see more problems with relativism and a far greater need to clarify and critique that position. Moderate objectivism or ethical situationalism (see Pojman) would have been a better choice; however, I think again the author’s loyalties/origins have affected its inclusion.

In Part III, particularly the section on euthanasia, the authors also skew the analysis toward religion. Since I can’t assume all my students are Catholic, nor do I think that strictly faith based religious or Biblical reasoning is relevant as a critique, this section of the text falls short in modeling true philosophical reasoning and rational critique. However, the analysis of sexual ethics appears forthright and objectively handled, although instead of pro or con arguments we are given the various theories’ treatment of sexual ethics.

I don't think there will be an issue of this book going out of date. The examples/issues remain relevant. The theories are classics.

The text appears very clear and any jargon used is fully defined and explained through copious examples and applications.

Consistency rating: 4

As noted above, the switch in headings from "problems" to "objections" to "thoughts" is misleading and confusing. Additionally, there is a definite propensity toward religion and religious reasoning, which leads to uneven analysis in some points.

The layout of this text is lovely. The chapters could be reorganized and as I stated above, the entirety of part two could be skipped. Additionally, the effective use of headings allows certain sections of the text to be cut or supplemented.

The text's flow and organization is consistent and appealing. It is easy to section out, and the examples are appropriately inserted to support and clarify key concepts.

The interface is nice. It is published both as a PDF and online, so readers can choose their preference. The PDF has a nice book like setup, so you can flip to the next page and don't have to scroll downward through pages. Both the web and PDF version are very clear and clean. Additionally, for students who desire a print copy, the web version allows printing of chapters, sections, etc.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

While I did not do a close study, I only noticed a few minor grammatical issues like pluralization and possessives.

The text is fine. It might even be too wary of offending at the expense of sound analysis.

Overall, when paired with some additional readings in moral theories and arguments in applied ethics, this secondary text provides a solid basis for a lower level intro to ethics course.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I Normative Ethics

• Chapter 1 Utilitarianism
• Chapter 2 Kantian ethics
• Chapter 3 Aristotelian virtue ethics
• Chapter 4 Aquinas's natural law theory
• Chapter 5 Fletcher's situation ethics

Part II Metaethics

• Chapter 6 Metaethical theories

Part III Applied Ethics

• Chapter 7 Euthanasia
• Chapter 8 Business ethics
• Chapter 9 Conscience
• Chapter 10 Sexual ethics
• Chapter 11 Stealing
• Chapter 12 Simulated killing
• Chapter 13 Telling lies
• Chapter 14 Eating animals

Ancillary Material

About the book.

What does pleasure have to do with morality? What role, if any, should intuition have in the formation of moral theory? If something is ‘simulated', can it be immoral?

This accessible and wide-ranging textbook explores these questions and many more. Key ideas in the fields of normative ethics, metaethics and applied ethics are explained rigorously and systematically, with a vivid writing style that enlivens the topics with energy and wit. Individual theories are discussed in detail in the first part of the book, before these positions are applied to a wide range of contemporary situations including business ethics, sexual ethics, and the acceptability of eating animals. A wealth of real-life examples, set out with depth and care, illuminate the complexities of different ethical approaches while conveying their modern-day relevance.

This concise and highly engaging resource is tailored to the Ethics components of AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies, with a clear and practical layout that includes end-of-chapter summaries, key terms, and common mistakes to avoid. It should also be of practical use for those teaching Philosophy as part of the International Baccalaureate.

Ethics for A-Level is of particular value to students and teachers, but Fisher and Dimmock's precise and scholarly approach will appeal to anyone seeking a rigorous and lively introduction to the challenging subject of ethics.

About the Contributors

Mark Dimmock graduated with a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Nottingham, defending the theories of Moral Error Theory and Moral Abolitionism. He now works as a Philosophy Teacher at Torquay Boys' Grammar School.

Andrew Fisher is Associate Professor at the University of Nottingham and has been lecturing philosophy for fifteen years. He has published in metaethics, philosophy of education, philosophy of sport, philosophy of religion, philosophy for children and how to use technology in teaching. He is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and teaches philosophy to local primary school children.

Contribute to this Page

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

AQA Religious Studies A level essay structure

10 mark questions.

These questions just require demonstrating detailed knowledge on a topic.

If you are asked something specific about a theory, such as to examine its weaknesses, its value for religious faith, the implications of it for religious believers etc – you still need to explain the theory itself first before going on to do that.

Note that you are only required to explain things,  not evaluate them . Even if a 10 mark question asks you to examine the weaknesses of something, you must simply explain the weaknesses – not evaluate whether they succeed or could be countered.

15 mark questions

Very briefly introduce and explain the topic that is being debated. Say what your conclusion is going to be.

Three paragraphs of this structure:

Part 1. A view on the question. An argument either for or against the debate in question. A strength or a weakness.

Part 2. A criticism of the view explained in part 1. This could be a weakness that counters a strength, or a strength that counters a weakness, depending on what was in part 1.

At this point going back and forth some more times is optional.

Part 3 . Your judgement as to which point of view is successful and why.

Part 4. Link back to the question. Explain how that view being successful answers the question.

Conclusion:

Summarise the parts 3 and 4 of each paragraph and explain the overall conclusion that results from them.