AS Philosophy & Ethics
Course Handbook 2013 to 2014

[pic]

OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172)

http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/type/gce/hss/rs/index.aspx

OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172)
You are studying Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics and will be awarded an
OCR AS Level in Religious Studies. The modules and their weightings are:
|AS: |Unit Code |Unit Title |% of AS |(% of A Level) |
| |G571 |AS Philosophy of Religion |50% |(25%) |
| |G572 |AS Religious Ethics |50% |(25%) |

If you decide to study for the full A Level you will have to study the following modules at A2:
|A2: |Unit Code |Unit Title |(% of A Level) |
| |G581 |A2 Philosophy of Religion |(25%) |
| |G582 |A2 Religious Ethics |(25%) |

Grading

| |E |D |
|G571: AS Philosophy of Religion |70% |30% |
|G572: AS Religious Ethics |70% |30% |

GRADE A

Candidates select and demonstrate clearly relevant knowledge and understanding through the use of evidence, examples and correct language and terminology appropriate to the topics and course of study.

Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)

Candidates select accurate and relevant material. They explain clearly relevant features or key ideas, supported by examples or sources of evidence. They use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. They show evidence of being familiar with issues raised by relevant scholars, and a variety of views, where appropriate.

Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)

Candidates critically evaluate and justify a point of view through the use of evidence and reasoned argument. They construct coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples or sources of evidence. Identify strengths and weaknesses of the argument and use accurate and fluent expression.

GRADE C

Candidates demonstrate relevant knowledge and understanding through use of evidence, examples and some use of correct language and terminology.

Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)

Candidates select some accurate and relevant material. They explain some relevant features or key ideas, supported by examples or sources of evidence. They use mostly accurate a technical language and terminology. They show evidence of a variety of views, where appropriate.

Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)

Candidates demonstrate organisation and coherence. They offer answers that are evaluative, using argument and justification. However, elements of their responses will be descriptive. They use language that has some precision. They will use evidence and reasoned argument, and will identify strengths and weaknesses.

GRADE E

Candidates demonstrate limited knowledge and understanding through lack of evidence, examples and limited use of correct language and terminology.

Part A (Assessment Objective 1 / AO1)

Candidates select limited but relevant material. They show basic understanding of relevant features or key ideas, supported by occasional examples or sources of evidence.

Part B (Assessment Objective 2 / AO2)

Candidates demonstrate minimal organisation or limited coherence. They offer mainly descriptive answers with little argument, justification or evaluation. They use language that lacks precision.

AS Essay Feedback – Philosophy and Ethics
(Student to complete the form and submit with the essay. Teacher then completes the bold boxes)
|Student Name: |Tutor Group: |
|Date Set: |Deadline |
|Essay Title: |
|Targets for this task: (Remember to include the targets from your last piece of assessed work) |Targets met? |
|1. | |
| |Yes Partly No |
|2. | |
| |Yes Partly No |
|3. | |
| |Yes Partly No |
|AO1 – Knowledge and understanding |
|Grade |Band |Descriptor |
|A 21 |5 |21-25 |An excellent attempt to address the question showing understanding and engagement with the material; very high level of ability to |
| | | |select and deploy relevant information, accurate use of technical terms. |
| | | |Communication: answer is well constructed and organised |
|B 18 |4 |16-20 |A good attempt to address the question, accurate knowledge, good understanding, good selection of material, technical terms mostly |
| | | |accurate. Communication: generally clear and organised |
|C 15 |3 |11-15 |A satisfactory attempt to address the question; some accurate knowledge, evidence of appropriate understanding, some successful |
| | | |selection of material, some accurate use of technical terms. Communication: some clarity and organisation |
|D 12 | | | |
|E 10 |2 |6-10 |Focuses on the general topic rather than directly on the question; knowledge limited but partially accurate, limited understanding |
| | | |evident through lack of examples/evidence etc, selection often inappropriate, limited use of technical terms. Communication: some |
| | | |clarity and organisation |
| |1 |1-5 |Almost completely ignores the question; little relevant material, some concepts inaccurate, shows little knowledge of technical terms.|
| | | |Communication: often unclear or disorganised |
|AO2 – Analysis, evaluation and application |
|Grade |Band |Descriptor |
| |5 |9- 10 |An excellent attempt which uses a range of evidence to sustain an argument, comprehends the demands of the question, shows |
| | | |understanding and critical analysis of different viewpoints. |
| | | |Communication: answer is well constructed and organised |
|A 8 |4 |7-8 |A good attempt at using evidence to sustain an argument, some successful and clear analysis, likely to put more than one point of |
|B 7 | | |view. Communication: generally clear and organised |
|C 6 |3 |5-6 |A satisfactory attempt, some successful analysis which may be implicit through choice of examples or evidence. Communication: some |
|D 5 | | |clarity and organisation |
|E 4 |2 |3-4 |Some attempt to sustain an argument, views asserted, limited analysis, but not successfully justified. Communication: some clarity and|
| | | |organisation |
| |1 |1-2 |Very little argument or justification of viewpoint, little or no successful analysis. |
| | | |Communication: often unclear or disorganised |

|Grade |Marks |
|A |28 |
|B |25 |
|C |21 |
|D |18 |
|E |14 |

|Self-Assessment: |
|What mark would you allocate this work? /25 + /10 = /35 = % |
| |
| |
|What difficulties did you have completing it? |
| |
| |
| |
|Do you think you met your previous targets? |
| |
| |
| |
|How did you change your approach to ensure you achieved them? |
| |
| |
| |
|Structure and organisation |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|AO1 – Knowledge and understanding |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|A02 – Analysis, evaluation and application |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Overall Comment: |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Mark: ___________ Grade: _________ |
|To attain a higher mark you should: |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Targets for next assessed task: |
| |

Ancient Greece: AS Philosophy Checklist 1
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy: | | | | |
|Plato’s Analogy (Allegory) of the Cave | | | | |
|The role of the prisoners | | | | |
|The role of the shadows | | | | |
|The symbolism of the cave | | | | |
|The symbolism of the outside world | | | | |
|The symbolism of the Sun | | | | |
|The purpose of the journey out of the cave | | | | |
|The effect of the return to the prisoners | | | | |
|Strengths of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Plato’s Analogy of the Cave | | | | |
|The validity of the points made by Plato in the Analogy of the Cave | | | | |
|Plato’s The Republic VII.514A – 521B | | | | |
|Plato: the Concept of the Forms | | | | |
|The Form of the Good | | | | |
|Analogy of the divided line | | | | |
|The relation between concepts and phenomena | | | | |
|The concepts of “Ideals” | | | | |
|The relation between the Form of the Good and other Forms | | | | |
|Strengths of Plato’s Forms | | | | |
|Heraclitus’ river | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Plato’s Forms | | | | |
|The problem of infinite regression | | | | |
|Plato’s own self-critique in Parmenides | | | | |
|Aristotle’s criticism in Metaphysics | | | | |
|Bertrand Russell’s criticism in The History of Western Philosophy | | | | |
|The validity of the above points on the Forms | | | | |
|Aristotle: ideas about cause and purpose in relation to God | | | | |
|Material, efficient, formal and final cause in Aristotle | | | | |
|Prime Mover in Aristotle | | | | |
|Strengths of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover | | | | |
|The validity of the above points | | | | |
|Metaphysics Book 12 | | | | |
|The Euthyphro Dilemma | | | | |

Essay for Ancient Greek influences on religious philosophy:

|Part A: “Explain criticisms that have been made of Plato’s Theory of Forms.” [25] |
|A |You correctly identify and explain all the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You explain clearly relevant key ideas of Plato’s Forms,| |
| |supported by examples. You select accurate and relevant material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, | |
| |making clear their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You correctly identify and explain weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe relevant key ideas of Plato’s Forms, supported by | |
| |examples. You select some accurate and relevant material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing| |
| |their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You identify some of the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe some relevant ideas of Plato’s Forms. You select some limited| |
| |but accurate material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing some of their criticisms of | |
| |Plato’s Forms. Technical language and terminology is used with limited accuracy. | |
|Part B: “How valid are these criticisms, in your view?” [10] |
|A |You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You critically evaluate the criticisms in Parmenides, | |
| |Aristotle and Bertrand Russell. You give a clear personal point of view and justify it through the use of evidence and reasoned argument. | |
| |You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent | |
| |expression. | |
|C |You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You evaluate the some of the criticisms in Parmenides, | |
| |Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, but some of your answer is just descriptive. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, | |
| |using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe the strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s Forms. You show limited evaluation of the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle | |
| |and Bertrand Russell, with limited identification of the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Your argument demonstrates minimal | |
| |organisation or limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Judaeo-Christian Views: AS Philosophy Checklist 2
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Judaeo-Christian influences on religious philosophy: | | | | |
|God as Creator | | | | |
|The way the Bible presents God as involved with his creation | | | | |
|Creatio ex nihilo | | | | |
|Genesis 1 | | | | |
|Job 38:1 – 42:6 | | | | |
|Psalm 33 (33:6) | | | | |
|John 1:1-4 | | | | |
|Hebrews 11:3 | | | | |
|God as craftsman | | | | |
|Genesis 2 and 3 | | | | |
|Isaiah 29:16 | | | | |
|Jeremiah 18:1-6 | | | | |
|God as Omnipotent | | | | |
|God as Omniscient | | | | |
|God as Omnipresent | | | | |
|Compare creatio ex nihilo with Aristotle’s Prime Mover | | | | |
|Compare creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex Deo | | | | |
|Discuss whether, if God created the universe, God is therefore responsible for everything that happens in it. | | | | |
|Omnipotence and the Problem of Evil | | | | |
|Omniscience and the Problem of Evil | | | | |
|The Goodness of God | | | | |
|The ways in which the God of the Bible is seen as morally perfect | | | | |
|The ways in which the God of the Bible is seen as the source of human ethics | | | | |
|God as law-giver and judge - in a Biblical context, does God command things because they are good or are things are good | | | | |
|because God commands them? | | | | |
|The Decalogue: Exodus 20:1-17 | | | | |
|The Punishments of the Fall: Genesis 3 | | | | |
|Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 19 | | | | |
|The Book of Life: Revelation 20:11-15 | | | | |
|Compare what God commands in the Bible with the Euthyphro dilemma | | | | |
|Compare Divine Command Theory with the Euthyphro dilemma | | | | |
|The Incarnation and the person of Jesus | | | | |
|The Book of Job | | | | |
|Problems with God as law-giver and judge | | | | |
|Benevolence and the Problem of Evil | | | | |

Essay for Judaeo-Christian influences on religious philosophy:

|Part A: “Explain the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge.” [25] |
|A |You explain clearly the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, selecting accurate and relevant examples including the | |
| |Decalogue, Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Book of Life. You correctly apply Divine Command Theory in explaining God’s role as | |
| |law-giver, including a clear explanation of the Judeo-Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma. You are able to clearly explain how and | |
| |why God judges a person. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, selecting some accurate and relevant examples from the Decalogue, | |
| |Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Book of Life. You correctly identify Divine Command Theory in explaining God’s role as | |
| |law-giver, and explain the Judeo-Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You describe the Judeo-Christian concept of God as law-giver and judge, with some limited but accurate examples from the Decalogue, Adam | |
| |and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Book of Life. You might mention Divine Command Theory, or the Euthyphro dilemma. Technical language | |
| |and terminology is used with limited accuracy. | |
|Part B: “God has no right to judge human beings.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You clearly evaluate God’s right to judge using philosophical and Biblical evidence. You give a clear personal point of view supporting | |
| |either: the view that as we are all created by God, he is responsible for all that we are and do and as such has no grounds for making | |
| |judgements of us; or the view that since God has created human beings with ‘free will’ and given us laws by which to order our conduct he | |
| |has the right to make judgements about our success or failure to follow these laws. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument | |
| |supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You evaluate God’s right to judge using philosophical and Biblical evidence. You support either: the view that as we are all created by | |
| |God, he is responsible for all that we are and do and as such has no grounds for making judgements of us; or the view that since God has | |
| |created human beings with ‘free will’ and given us laws by which to order our conduct he has the right to make judgements about our | |
| |success or failure to follow these laws. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument.| |
| |You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You describe: the view that as we are all created by God, he is responsible for all that we are and do and as such has no grounds for | |
| |making judgements of us; or the view that since God has created human beings with ‘free will’ and given us laws by which to order our | |
| |conduct he has the right to make judgements about our success or failure to follow these laws. Your argument demonstrates minimal | |
| |organisation or limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Ontological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 3
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|The Ontological argument: | | | | |
|Anselm’s First Ontological Argument | | | | |
|Existence in intellectu and existence in re | | | | |
|Rejection of the Fool (see: Psalm 14:1) | | | | |
|Superiority of in re over in intellectu | | | | |
|Existence is a predicate | | | | |
|Definition of ontos and ontological | | | | |
|Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument | | | | |
|Anselm’s understanding of God | | | | |
|The difference between contingent and necessary existence | | | | |
|Reductio ad absurdum | | | | |
|Argument as Faith seeking Understanding | | | | |
|Thomas Aquinas’ support for Anselm’s Ontological Argument | | | | |
|The Strengths of Anselm’s Argument | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Anselm’s Argument | | | | |
|Challenge to Anselm from Gaunilo | | | | |
|Gaunilo’s analogy of the island in On Behalf of the Fool | | | | |
|Anselm’s response to Gaunilo | | | | |
|René Descartes’ Ontological Argument | | | | |
|Descartes’ understanding of existence as perfection | | | | |
|Descartes’ understanding that God cannot lack anything | | | | |
|The Strengths of Descartes’ Argument | | | | |
|Norman Malcolm and necessary existence | | | | |
|Charles Hartshorne: existence in intellecu and in re | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Descartes’ Argument | | | | |
|Pierre Gassendi and non-existence | | | | |
|Challenge to Anselm and Descartes from Immanuel Kant | | | | |
|Analytic statements and necessary existence | | | | |
|Existence is not a predicate | | | | |
|Responses to Kant | | | | |

Essay for the Ontological Argument:

|Part A: “Explain Anselm’s ontological argument.” [25] |
|A |You accurately explain how Anselm’s ontological argument attempts to demonstrate God’s necessary existence, clearly outlining Anselm’s a | |
| |priori proof for the existence of God and the acceptance of the truth of the phrase “God exists”. You clearly outline the argument using | |
| |existence in intelletcu, existence in re, and reductio ad absurdum to conclude that God must exist in reality. You clearly explain why | |
| |Anselm developed an argument predicated on proving God’s existence prior to, and not dependent upon, experience. You will also mention | |
| |the idea of necessary existence and Anselm’s attempt to make faith rational. You accurately use a range of technical language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|C |You accurately explain some of the features of Anselm’s ontological argument from the following: a priori proof; rejection of the Fool; | |
| |existence in intellectu; existence in re; reductio ad absurdum; argument predicated on proving existence prior to experience; necessary | |
| |existence; making faith rational; “being than which none greater can be conceived.” You make some use of correct language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|E |Limited and partially accurate knowledge of Anselm’s ontological argument, in answer which is mainly descriptive. You describe, partially,| |
| |the idea of “being than which none greater can be conceived.” You make limited use of correct language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “It is pointless to deny the logical necessity of the existence of God.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You clearly and critically evaluate to what extent Anselm’s ontological argument was successful in supporting his assertion that belief in| |
| |God was a logical necessity. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. Your | |
| |argument focuses on necessary existence, reductio ad absurdum, in intellectu and in re, and the extent to which the argument is valid in | |
| |logical terms. You analyse the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Gassendi. You demonstrate a clear understanding of | |
| |predicate and premise based philosophical arguments. You critically analyse and evaluate the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and | |
| |Pierre Gassendi. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument was in supporting his assertion that belief in God was a logical necessity, clearly identifying| |
| |the strengths and weaknesses. Your argument uses the idea of necessary existence. You mainly describe the challenges from Gaunilo, | |
| |Immanuel Kant and Pierre Gassendi. Your analysis of Anselm makes use of evidence and examples to analyse and evaluate. Your argument | |
| |demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You describe the ideas of necessity and contingency. You provide limited evaluation of the argument from necessity, having attempted to | |
| |give an opinion. Your opinion lacks evidence or justification. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. You | |
| |use language that lacks precision. | |

Cosmological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 4
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|The Cosmological argument: | | | | |
|Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument | | | | |
|Aquinas’ First Way: Motion | | | | |
|Aquinas’ Second Way: Causation | | | | |
|Aquinas’ Third Way: Necessary Being | | | | |
|The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument | | | | |
|Challenge from David Hume | | | | |
|Hume’s criticisms of the view that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. | | | | |
|Is the Prime Mover the Christian God? | | | | |
|The Strengths of Hume’s Challenge | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Hume’s Challenge | | | | |
|Immanuel Kant’s rejection of Necessary Being | | | | |
|Copleston’s Cosmological Argument | | | | |
|Argument put forward by Copleston in the 1947 radio debate | | | | |
|The universe needs explaining | | | | |
|Challenge to Copleston from Bertrand Russell | | | | |
|Argument put forward by Russell in the 1947 radio debate | | | | |
|The universe does not need explaining | | | | |
|Response to Bertrand Russell from Copleston | | | | |
|The Strengths of Russell’s Challenge | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Russell’s Challenge | | | | |
|Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument | | | | |

Essay for the Cosmological Argument

|Part A: “Explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument.” [25] |
|A |You clearly explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument demonstrating to what extent Aquinas’ versions are successful in proving there is some | |
| |kind of divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You include the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; | |
| |necessity and contingency; the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; and motion. Your answer is fully supported by | |
| |evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument identifying to what extent Aquinas’ versions are successful in proving there is some kind of | |
| |divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You include some of the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; | |
| |necessity and contingency; the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; or motion. Your answer is supported by some | |
| |evidence and examples. You use mostly accurate a technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using the ideas of causation, motion or necessary being. You answer has occasional | |
| |support from examples and evidence. You make limited use of correct language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “To what extent were Russell’s criticisms of the Cosmological argument successful?” [10] |
|A |You critically evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, making full use of the radio debate between Russell and Copleston. You identify | |
| |strengths and weaknesses of Russell’s argument and You justify a point of view clearly answering to what extent Russell was successful. | |
| |You will also include evidence from Kant, Hume and Leibniz. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples or | |
| |sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, mentioning the radio debate between Russell and Copleston. You identify strengths and | |
| |weaknesses of Russell’s argument, justifying your evaluation. You include evidence from Kant, Hume or Leibniz. However, elements of your | |
| |response are descriptive. Your argument is organised and coherent. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe Russell’s criticisms of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using little or no justification or evaluation. Your argument | |
| |has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Teleological Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 5
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|The Teleological argument: | | | | |
|Aquinas’ Teleological Argument – Argument to design | | | | |
|Aquinas’ Fifth Way: Design | | | | |
|Purpose and “guiding hand” | | | | |
|Intelligent Designer | | | | |
|The Strengths of Aquinas’ Argument | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Aquinas’ Argument | | | | |
|Paley’s Teleological Argument – Argument from design | | | | |
|The Watch Analogy | | | | |
|Purpose | | | | |
|Design | | | | |
|Complexity | | | | |
|The Strengths of Paley’s Argument | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Paley’s Argument | | | | |
|The Challenge from David Hume | | | | |
|Weak Ananlogy | | | | |
|Epicurean Thesis | | | | |
|Lack of perfection | | | | |
|God’s infinity and our limited nature | | | | |
|Creation by committee or by a team | | | | |
|The Strengths of Hume’s Challenge | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of Hume’s Argument | | | | |
|The Challenge from J.S. Mill | | | | |
|Nature as evidence of Creation’s inherently evil nature | | | | |
|Progress through pain and suffering as counter-evidence | | | | |
|The Challenge from Darwinism | | | | |
|Evolution by Natural Selection | | | | |
|Adaptation and variation | | | | |
|Richard Dawkins | | | | |
|The Strengths of the Challenge from Darwinism | | | | |
|The Weaknesses of the Challenge from Darwinism | | | | |
|Richard Swinburne’s defence of the Teleological argument | | | | |
|F.R. Tennant and the Anthropic Principle | | | | |

Essay for the Teleological Argument

|Part A: “Explain Mill’s challenge to the Teleological argument.” [25] |
|A |You clearly explain J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a | |
| |benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You clearly compare and contrast this with the claims made by William Paley and Thomas | |
| |Aquinas in favour of design. You demonstrate a clear understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a designer if the | |
| |world is apparently designed. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language | |
| |and terminology. | |
|C |You clearly J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a | |
| |benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You compare this with the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas in favour of | |
| |design. You demonstrate some understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a designer if the world is apparently | |
| |designed. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a | |
| |benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You might describe the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas. Your answer has | |
| |occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Evaluate the claim that the universe has too many flaws for it to be designed.” [10] |
|A |You critically evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You explain the strengths and weaknesses of | |
| |each argument. Counter-argument is presented by using relevant parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the relevant parts| |
| |of the different teleological arguments. You give a clear opinion for or against, fully justified and supported by evidence and examples. | |
| |You construct a coherent and well-organised argument. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You describe the strengths and weaknesses of each | |
| |argument. Counter-argument may be presented by using some parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the some parts of the | |
| |different teleological arguments. Elements of your response are descriptive. You give an opinion for or against, justified and supported | |
| |by evidence or examples. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins or David Hume. You might describe some of the strengths or some | |
| |of the weaknesses of their arguments. You might describe some of the counter-arguments from Augustine, Irenaeus or the teleological | |
| |arguments. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use | |
| |language that lacks precision. | |

Moral Argument: AS Philosophy Checklist 6
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|The Moral argument: | | | | |
|The Moral Argument from Immanuel Kant | | | | |
|Three postulates of morality | | | | |
|Summum bonum | | | | |
|Categorical Imperative | | | | |
|Innate moral awareness | | | | |
|Role of the conscience | | | | |
|Strengths of Kant’s Moral Argument | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kant’s Moral Argument | | | | |
|J.L. Mackie “ought does not imply can” | | | | |
|Brian Davies and “sufficient power and knowledge” | | | | |
|Rejection of consequences | | | | |
|Sigmund Freud’s Challenge to Kant’s Moral Argument | | | | |
|The role of the superego | | | | |
|The role of the ego | | | | |
|The role of the id | | | | |
|Freud’s sources of morality | | | | |
|The source of the conscience | | | | |
|The subjectivity of morality | | | | |
|Oedipus complex | | | | |
|Strengths of Freud’s Challenge | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Freud’s Challenge | | | | |
|God as the source of morality | | | | |
|John Cardinal Newman | | | | |
|Thomas Aquinas | | | | |
|John Hick | | | | |

Essay for the Moral Argument

|Part A: “Explain Freud’s view that moral awareness comes from sources other than God.” [25] |
|A |You clearly explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be seen as objective. You explain his | |
| |rejection of Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s ideas. Your explanation makes clear the importance of the Oedipus | |
| |complex, Freud’s model of the mind (id, superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of religion as an| |
| |obsessional neurosis. You also explain some of the problems of Freud’s views: his rejection by modern psychotherapists; the problems with | |
| |the evidential basis of his ideas. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical | |
| |language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be seen as objective. You describe his rejection of | |
| |Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s ideas. Your explanation states the importance of the Oedipus complex, Freud’s | |
| |model of the mind (id, superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of religion as an obsessional | |
| |neurosis. You also describe some of the problems of Freud’s views: his rejection by modern psychotherapists; the problems with the | |
| |evidential basis of his ideas. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|E |You describe Freud’s view of morality and moral objectivity. You mainly describe Freud’s ideas of Oedipus complex, id, superego, ego, | |
| |early childhood experiences, trauma, and religion as obsessional neurosis. You might mention his rejection of Kant’s moral argument. Your | |
| |answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “God is the only explanation of moral awareness.” Discuss. [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion; a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You evaluate the | |
| |strengths and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You assess the evidence Freud used to support his ideas, deciding if he succeeds in fully | |
| |explaining human moral awareness. You assess the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas Aquinas supporting moral | |
| |awareness coming from God. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion; a justified, coherent and organised argument, supported by some examples and some evidence. You explain the strengths| |
| |and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You describe the evidence Freud used to support his ideas, giving an opinion on his explanation of human| |
| |moral awareness. You describe the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas Aquinas supporting moral awareness coming from | |
| |God. Elements of your response are descriptive. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You give an almost entirely descriptive account of the views and theories of Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, John Cardinal Newman, John Hick| |
| |or Thomas Aquinas. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. | |
| |You use language that lacks precision. | |

Problem of Evil: AS Philosophy Checklist 7
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Challenges to religious belief: The Problem of Evil | | | | |
|The Nature of Evil | | | | |
|Natural Evil | | | | |
|Moral Evil | | | | |
|The Origin(s) of Evil | | | | |
|Epicurus and the Logical Problem of Evil | | | | |
|The Epicurian paradox | | | | |
|Epicurus’ Inconsistent Triad | | | | |
|David Hume and the Problem of Evil | | | | |
|Dialogues Concerning Human Understanding | | | | |
|Hume’s Inconsistent Triad | | | | |
|J.L. Mackie and the Inconsistent Triad | | | | |
|Gottfried Leibniz and the Definition of Theodicy | | | | |
|The difference between a defence of evil and a theodicy | | | | |
|Richard Swinburne and the need for a theodicy | | | | |
|Augustine of Hippo – “soul-deciding theodicy” | | | | |
|Privation of good / Evil as non-being | | | | |
|Perfect creation | | | | |
|The Fall | | | | |
|Original Sin and Total Depravity | | | | |
|The meaning of “soul-deciding” | | | | |
|God’s responsibility for evil | | | | |
|Strengths of Augustine’s Theodicy | | | | |
|Free will as the root of all evil | | | | |
|Explains natural and moral evil | | | | |
|Absolves God of all responsibility | | | | |
|Biblical support for salvation by faith (see: Arminianism and Calvinism) | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Augustine’s Theodicy | | | | |
|Evil must have been a choice from the moment of creation | | | | |
|How can an Angel fall (Satan/Lucifer) | | | | |
|Opposite to the theory of evolution | | | | |
|Hell: Origins and creation by a supposedly loving God | | | | |
|Irenaeus of Lyons – “soul-making theodicy” | | | | |
|Human nature as potentiality | | | | |
|The Fall as an exercise of free will | | | | |
|John Keats and “the vale of soul-making” | | | | |
|John Hick and Evil and the God of Love | | | | |
|The need for a real choice between good and evil | | | | |
|God’s responsibility for evil | | | | |
|Strengths of Irenaeus’ Theodicy | | | | |
|“Best possible world” hypothesis | | | | |
|Explanation of natural and moral evil | | | | |
|Parallels with the theory of evolution | | | | |
|Love is experienced through times of trial | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Irenaeus’ Theodicy | | | | |
|“acquiescence in the face of evil” | | | | |
|Evil is given dignity and purpose | | | | |
|Problems with apparent universalism | | | | |
|Challenges the idea of a God of love / God allows evil | | | | |
|D.Z. Phillips | | | | |
|Challenges to Theodicy | | | | |
|Antony Flew and the problem with theodicy | | | | |
|Other Responses to the Problem of Evil | | | | |
|Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defence | | | | |
|Richard Swinburne’s Free Will Defence | | | | |

Essay for the Problem of Evil

|Part A: “Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus.” [25] |
|A |You clearly explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a clear and concise explanation of the problem of evil using Epicurus and David Hume. Your | |
| |make clear the importance of omnipotence and benevolence to understanding the problem of evil. You explain the apparent logical | |
| |inconsistency between the classical theological definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy using | |
| |evidence and examples including: John Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic distance; and human potentiality. You make clear| |
| |where John Hick has emended or improved on Irenaeus. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range | |
| |of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a concise description of the problem of evil using Epicurus and David Hume. Your description of the | |
| |problem of evil includes the ideas of omnipotence and benevolence. You describe the apparent logical inconsistency between the classical | |
| |theological definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy using some evidence or examples including: John | |
| |Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic distance; and human potentiality. You state that John Hick has emended or improved on | |
| |Irenaeus. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe Ireaneus’ theodicy, with a brief description of the problem of evil. Your description of the problem of evil includes | |
| |the ideas of omnipotence and benevolence. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often | |
| |inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “The theodicy of Irenaeus cannot justify the existence of evil.” Discuss. [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You give a fully justified, coherent | |
| |and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: | |
| |“acquiescence in the face of evil”; evil being given dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the | |
| |arguments of D.Z. Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in support of Ireaneus. You use accurate and | |
| |fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You give a justified, coherent and | |
| |organised argument, supported by some examples and some evidence. You evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: “acquiescence in | |
| |the face of evil”; evil being given dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the arguments of D.Z. | |
| |Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in support of Ireaneus. Elements of your response are | |
| |descriptive. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Irenaeus’ theodicy, or the points supporting Irenaeus’ theodicy. Your argument has | |
| |minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks | |
| |precision. | |

Religion and Science: AS Philosophy Checklist 8
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Challenges to religious belief: Religion and Science | | | | |
|Religious Cosmology | | | | |
|Genesis and Creationism, and creatio ex nihilo | | | | |
|John Polkinghorne | | | | |
|Fred Hoyle | | | | |
|Continual creation | | | | |
|Young Earth Creationism | | | | |
|Strengths of Religious Cosmology | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Religious Cosmology | | | | |
|Scientific Cosmology | | | | |
|Big Bang Theory | | | | |
|Edwin Hubble | | | | |
|“Red shift” and the microwave background | | | | |
|Stephen Hawking | | | | |
|Strengths of Scientific Cosmology | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Scientific Cosmology | | | | |
|Evolution | | | | |
|Charles Darwin and evolution by natural selection | | | | |
|Richard Dawkins and molecular evolution | | | | |
|Stephen Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium | | | | |
|15 Evolutionary Gems | | | | |
|Evidence of common descent | | | | |
|Arthur Peacocke | | | | |
|Denis Alexander | | | | |
|Strengths of Evolution | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Evolution | | | | |
|Intelligent Design | | | | |
|Irreducible complexity and biochemical machines | | | | |
|Michael Behe and the mousetrap | | | | |
|The Discovery Institute and Unlocking the Mystery of Life | | | | |
|Link to the teleological argument | | | | |
|The fine-tuned universe and the anthropic principle | | | | |
|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | | | | |
|Strengths of Intelligent Design | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Intelligent Design | | | | |
|Paul Davies and The Goldilocks Enigma | | | | |

Essay for Science and Religion

|Part A: “Explain the concept of Irreducible Complexity.” [25] |
|A |You clearly explain Irreducible Complexity, linking it clearly to the discussion about Intelligent Design. You explain how Irreducible | |
| |Complexity and Intelligent Design are direct challenges to the established and generally accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You | |
| |explain the theories of Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You explain the problems with the validity of | |
| |using non-organic examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a| |
| |range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain Irreducible Complexity and describe the theory of Intelligent Design. You explain how Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent | |
| |Design are direct challenges to the established and generally accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You describe the theories of | |
| |Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You identify the problems with the validity of using non-organic | |
| |examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical | |
| |language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe Irreducible Complexity, with a brief description of the problem of evil. You describe the theories of Michael Behe on | |
| |molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and | |
| |often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “There is no evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe.” Discuss. [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised | |
| |argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate evidence from Michael Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, | |
| |David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. You assess the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the evidence from | |
| |The Discovery Institute. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by | |
| |examples or evidence. You evaluate evidence from Michael Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and | |
| |William Paley. You describe the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the evidence from The Discovery Institute. | |
| |Elements of your response are descriptive. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Michael’s Behe’s biological machines, and describe the challenge from Richard | |
| |Dawkins. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use | |
| |language that lacks precision. | |

Terminology and Key Terms: AS Ethics Checklist 1
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ethical theories, key terms and terminology | | | | |
|Definition and explanation of absolutist morality | | | | |
|Absolutist ethics | | | | |
|Objective | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperative | | | | |
|Divine Command Theory | | | | |
|Rule Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of absolutism | | | | |
|Weaknesses of absolutism | | | | |
|Definition and explanation of relativist morality | | | | |
|Relativist ethics | | | | |
|Subjective | | | | |
|Situation Ethics | | | | |
|Act Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Preference Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of relativism | | | | |
|Weaknesses of relativism | | | | |
|Definition and explanation of deontological ethics | | | | |
|Immanuel Kant: Kantian ethics and the Categorical Imperative | | | | |
|Divine Command Theory | | | | |
|Natural Law: the Primary Precepts | | | | |
|Definition and explanation of teleological ethics | | | | |
|Natural Law: the Secondary Precepts | | | | |
|Act Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Rule Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Preference Utilitarianism | | | | |

Essay for Ethical Theories

|Part A: “Explain the concept of relativist morality.” [25] |
|A |You explain clearly the concept of relativist morality, selecting accurate and relevant examples from different relativist ethical | |
| |theories. You explain the importance of moral truth varying according to culture, time, place and religion. You explain the need for an | |
| |approach to ethics that takes account of each human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how even relativist | |
| |theories do not completely reject moral rules, and explain how these rules are flexible in contrast to absolutist moral rules. Your answer| |
| |is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain the concept of relativist morality, selecting relevant examples from some relativist ethical theories. You describe the | |
| |importance of moral truth varying according to culture, time, place and religion. You describe the need for an approach to ethics that | |
| |takes account of each human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how the rules of relativist ethical theories | |
| |are flexible in contrast to absolutist moral rules. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You use mostly | |
| |accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You define relativist morality, describing some relevant examples. You describe how moral truth varies according to culture, time, place | |
| |and religion. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical | |
| |language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Relativist ethics are unfair.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported | |
| |by examples and evidence. You assess whether or not relativist ethical theories could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether| |
| |all moral responses are equal. You critically evaluate if ethical practices can be condemned or considered wrong – good becomes socially | |
| |approved, may vary between and within cultures, and consider if this is an unfair approach. You will compare and contrast this absolutist | |
| |ethics and absolutist ethical theories to show if relativist ethics is more or less unfair. You construct a coherent and well-organised | |
| |argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or | |
| |evidence. You assess whether or not relativist ethical theories could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether all moral | |
| |responses are equal. You evaluate if ethical practices can be considered wrong and consider if this is an unfair approach. Your argument | |
| |demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You describe some of the problems with relativist ethics, giving some of the weaknesses of different relativist ethical theories. You | |
| |might mention some of the strengths of absolutist ethics. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any | |
| |opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Natural Law: AS Ethics Checklist 2
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ethical Theories: Natural Law | | | | |
|Aristotle | | | | |
|Aristotle’s Theory of Causes | | | | |
|Efficient Cause | | | | |
|Final Cause | | | | |
|Eudaimonia | | | | |
|Purpose of life | | | | |
|Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law | | | | |
|Foundation in Aristotle | | | | |
|Efficient cause and God | | | | |
|Biblical (scriptural) background (esp. Genesis 1, 2 and 3) | | | | |
|Purpose and perfection | | | | |
|Reason , eudaimonia and the hierarchy of laws | | | | |
|Eternal Law | | | | |
|Divine Law | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Humans Law | | | | |
|Application to non-Christians | | | | |
|Precepts and reason | | | | |
|Five primary precepts | | | | |
|Secondary precepts | | | | |
|Apparent good | | | | |
|Real good | | | | |
|Doctrine of Double Effect | | | | |
|Strengths of Natural Law | | | | |
|Aspects common to all cultures and societies | | | | |
|Focuses on human character | | | | |
|Reason, emotions, passions and practical wisdom | | | | |
|The pursuit of happiness | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Natural Law | | | | |
|G.E. Moore | | | | |
|Kai Neilson | | | | |
|Karl Barth | | | | |
|Peter Vardy | | | | |

Essay for Natural Law

|Part A: “Explain the strengths of Natural Law theory.” [25] |
|A |You explain clearly the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas and its | |
| |origins in Aristotle. You explain how Natural Law is absolutist and depends on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You | |
| |give evidence for how Natural Law gives a clear cut approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common moral rules. You | |
| |explain the importance of the basic principles, and state why these could be considered positively. You explain how Natural Law considers | |
| |both intention and act, and why this is a strength. You explain the strength of focusing on human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer is| |
| |fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas and its origins in | |
| |Aristotle. You describe how Natural Law is absolutist and depends on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You state how | |
| |Natural Law gives a clear cut approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common moral rules. You describe the basic | |
| |principles, and state why these could be considered positively. You describe how Natural Law considers both intention and act, and why | |
| |this is a strength. You describe the strength of focusing on human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer has occasional support from | |
| |examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the advantages or strengths of Natural Law, giving an outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas. You | |
| |might include: God creating everything for a purpose, the advantages of common moral rules; intention and act; and eudaimonia. Your answer| |
| |has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Natural Law has no serious weaknesses.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised| |
| |argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess the claim that Natural Law gives a rational approach to morality and that its | |
| |basic principles are common to all societies and cultures, so the purpose of morality is the fulfilment of our natures, evaluating if this| |
| |a strength or not. You assess the claim that there is a common human nature and if it is possible to have a universal moral law. You | |
| |critically evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’ natural law and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if | |
| |Natural Law is undermined because it ignores the needs and feelings of the people involved and their particular situation. You use | |
| |accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument | |
| |supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your answer are descriptive. You assess the claim that Natural Law’s basic principles are | |
| |common to all societies and cultures, evaluating if this is a strength or not. You evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’ natural law | |
| |and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if Natural Law is undermined because it ignores the needs and | |
| |feelings of the people involved and their particular situation. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Natural Law. You might mention some of the strengths of Natural Law. Your argument | |
| |demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks | |
| |precision. | |

Kantian Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 3
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ethical Theories: Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Kant’s Copernican Revolution | | | | |
|The problem of objective knowledge | | | | |
|Phenomenon and phenomenology | | | | |
|René Descartes | | | | |
|Gottfried Leibniz | | | | |
|David Hume | | | | |
|Purpose of life | | | | |
|Reason | | | | |
|Good will | | | | |
|Autonomy of the will | | | | |
|Duty | | | | |
|Moral principles | | | | |
|Imperatives | | | | |
|Hypothetical imperative | | | | |
|Categorical imperative | | | | |
|The difference between the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical Imperative | | | | |
|Universalisation of maxims | | | | |
|Formula of the Law of Nature | | | | |
|Formula of End in Itself | | | | |
|Formula of a Kingdom of Ends | | | | |
|Theory of Duty | | | | |
|Summum bonum | | | | |
|Strengths of Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Reason | | | | |
|Golden Rule | | | | |
|Intrinsic value and universalisability | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|The problem of universalisability | | | | |
|The problem of separating “intention” from “ends” | | | | |
|Ignorance of result | | | | |
|Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and ends | | | | |
|Conflicting duties | | | | |
|W.D. Ross and prima facie duties | | | | |

Essay for Kantian Ethics

|Part A: “Explain, with examples, Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative.” [25] |
|A |You explain clearly Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of the Categorical | |
| |Imperative for deciding what our duty is. You explain how and why Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance | |
| |of “good will” and compare this with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples and might include examples of your | |
| |own. You include an explanation of a priori synthetic statements. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use | |
| |accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of the Categorical Imperative | |
| |for deciding what our duty is. You describe how Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of “good will” and | |
| |compare this with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples. Your answer has occasional support from examples or | |
| |evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. You describe how the Categorical Imperative is used for deciding what our | |
| |duty is. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and| |
| |terminology. | |
|Part B: “Kant’s theory has no serious weaknesses.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a fully justified, coherent and | |
| |well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible and that | |
| |there is conflict of duties. You assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral principles, and the | |
| |objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if Kantian Ethics helps or hinders human rights. You use | |
| |accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument | |
| |supported by examples and evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible | |
| |and that there is conflict of duties. You assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral principles, and the | |
| |objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if Kantian Ethics helps or hinders human rights. You use | |
| |language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Kantian Ethics. You might mention some of the strengths of Kantian Ethics. Your argument | |
| |demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks | |
| |precision. | |

Utilitarianism: AS Ethics Checklist 4
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Teleological, consequentialist and relativistic. | | | | |
|Principle of utility | | | | |
|Measurable and quantitative theory | | | | |
|Hedonic calculus | | | | |
|Universal hedonism | | | | |
|Eudaimonia | | | | |
|John Stuart (J.S.) Mill | | | | |
|Deontological, consequentialist and relativistic. | | | | |
|Happiness principle | | | | |
|Quality of pleasure | | | | |
|Higher and lower pleasures | | | | |
|Universalisability | | | | |
|Act and Rule Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Jeremy Benthan | | | | |
|J.S. Mill | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Other forms of utilitarianism | | | | |
|Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Peter Singer’s impartial spectator | | | | |
|R.M. Hare and Preference Utilitarianism | | | | |
|R.M. Hare and Universalisability | | | | |
|Richard Brandt, psychotherapy and Preference Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of Utilitarianism | | | | |
|W.D. Ross and prima facie duties | | | | |
|Injustice for the individual and eudaimonia | | | | |
|Intrinsic value and universalisability | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Utilitarianism | | | | |
|The problem of universalisability | | | | |
|The problem of separating “intention” from “ends” | | | | |
|Ignorance of result | | | | |
|Reliance on universal understanding of purpose and ends | | | | |
|Conflicting duties | | | | |

Essay for Utilitarianism

|Part A: “Explain the Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer.” [25] |
|A |You give a clear explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of Utility. You explain how Singer | |
| |refines Utilitarianism by focusing on the 7th criteria of the Hedonic Calculus. You compare and contrast Preference Utilitarianism with | |
| |Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You explain the role of the impartial| |
| |spectator and explain the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and | |
| |examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You give an explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of Utility. You compare and contrast | |
| |Preference Utilitarianism with Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You | |
| |describe the role of the impartial spectator and describe the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer | |
| |has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language | |
| |and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You describe the impartial spectator and describe the place of preference | |
| |for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often | |
| |inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “To what extent is Preference Utilitarianism the best form of Utilitarianism?” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or Rule Utilitarianism. You give a fully | |
| |justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess if Preference Utilitarianism overcomes the | |
| |weaknesses of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions, unjust results or being too impersonal. You critically | |
| |evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism protects minorities. You critically evaluate the weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism| |
| |(including difficulty in making decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to undermine | |
| |Preference Utilitarianism. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or Rule Utilitarianism. You give a justified, | |
| |coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You assess if Preference | |
| |Utilitarianism overcomes the weaknesses of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions, unjust results or being | |
| |too impersonal. You evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism protects minorities. You evaluate the weaknesses of Preference | |
| |Utilitarianism (including difficulty in making decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to | |
| |undermine Preference Utilitarianism. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism. You might mention some of the strengths or | |
| |weaknesses of Act or Rule Utilitarianism. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks | |
| |evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Religious Ethics: AS Ethics Checklist 5
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Ethical Theories: Religious Ethics – Christian Ethics | | | | |
|The Jewish roots of Christian ethics | | | | |
|The Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) | | | | |
|Imago Dei | | | | |
|Relationship with God | | | | |
|The rejection of legalism | | | | |
|The Biblical basis of Christian ethics | | | | |
|Reading individual ethical statements in the context of the whole Bible | | | | |
|The ethics of Jesus: Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7) | | | | |
|The ethics of Jesus: The Great Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40) | | | | |
|The ethics of Jesus: The Golden Rule (Tobit 4:15 and Matthew 7:12) | | | | |
|The ethics of Paul: life lived in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16, 18, 25) | | | | |
|The ethics of Paul: community ethic (Philippians 2:1-4) | | | | |
|The ethics of Paul: love in action (1 Corinthians 13) | | | | |
|The Kingdom of God and fulfilment of the Law | | | | |
|Love | | | | |
|Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) | | | | |
|Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) | | | | |
|Thomas Aquinas | | | | |
|Augustine of Hippo | | | | |
|Joseph Fletcher and Situation Ethics | | | | |
|Divine Command Theory | | | | |
|Absolutist views of Christian ethics | | | | |
|Relativist views of Christian ethics | | | | |
|Deontological approaches to Christian ethics | | | | |
|Teleological approaches to Christian ethics | | | | |
|The link between religion and morality | | | | |
|What makes an ethical theory a religious theory | | | | |
|Strengths of Christian ethics | | | | |
|Utilitarianism, goodness of God, and the Golden Rule | | | | |
|Kantian Ethics and Duty | | | | |
|Karl Barth and Natural Law | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Christian ethics | | | | |
|Compared with Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Compared with Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Compared with Natural Law | | | | |

Essay for Christian Ethics

|Part A: “Explain the ethical teachings of the religion you have studied.” [25] |
|A |You give a clear explanation of Christian Ethics. You explain the Biblical basis of Christian Ethics. You explain the Jewish roots of | |
| |Christian Ethics; the importance of Love to and the place of obedience in Christian Ethics. You explain Divine Command Theory and Natural | |
| |Law as examples of Christian Ethics. You compare and contrast Divine Command Theory and Natural Law with relativist approaches to | |
| |Christian Ethics. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|C |You give an explanation of Christian Ethics. You explain the Biblical basis of Christian Ethics. You describe the Jewish roots of | |
| |Christian Ethics; the importance of Love to and the place of obedience in Christian Ethics. You describe Divine Command Theory and Natural| |
| |Law as examples of Christian Ethics. You compare and contrast Divine Command Theory and Natural Law with relativist approaches to | |
| |Christian Ethics. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly | |
| |accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe different aspect of Christian Ethics. You describe Divine Command Theory and Natural Law. Your answer has occasional | |
| |support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Some religious ethics are too rigid for moral decision making.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion for or against Christian Ethics being too rigid for moral decision making, and assess if being rigid or | |
| |absolutist is a disadvantage. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You | |
| |evaluate the deontological and teleological approaches to Christian ethics, deciding if either leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You | |
| |compare and contrast Christian Ethics with non-Christian approaches to ethics (such as Utilitarianism), critically evaluating each theory,| |
| |and assessing which enables better moral decision making. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion for or against Christian Ethics being too rigid for moral decision making. You give a justified, coherent and | |
| |organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the deontological and | |
| |teleological approaches to Christian ethics, deciding if either leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You compare Christian Ethics with | |
| |non-Christian approaches to ethics (such as Utilitarianism); assessing which enables better moral decision making. You use language that | |
| |has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Christian Ethics. You might mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of | |
| |other ethical theories or approaches. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks | |
| |evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Abortion; Right to a Child: AS Ethics Checklist 6
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Applied Ethics: Abortion; The Right to a Child | | | | |
|The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion | | | | |
|The concept of personhood as applied to abortion | | | | |
|The right to life as applied to abortion and the rights of all those involved | | | | |
|The issues of infertility and the right to a child | | | | |
|The status of the embryo | | | | |
|Whether a child is a gift or a right | | | | |
|The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to abortion and the right to a child: | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Strengths of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Christian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Absolutist views on abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Relativist views on abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Deontological approaches to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |
|Teleological approaches to abortion and the right to a child | | | | |

Essay for Abortion; The Right to a Child

|Part A: “Explain how a follower of Natural Law might approach the issues surrounding abortion.” [25] |
|A |You give a detailed explanation how Natural Law supports the sanctity of life, ensoulment and personhood, clearly linking the Primary | |
| |Precepts to abortion. You explain how Natural Law is clear and unambiguous in its approach to abortion. You give a concise outline of | |
| |Natural Law, giving its origins in Aristotle and explaining the developments made by Thomas Aquinas. You explain how Natural Law is | |
| |absolutist, focusing on the Primary Precepts, and founded upon the idea that God creates everything for a purpose. You explain the | |
| |importance of using human reason in Natural Law to make moral decisions. You will also apply the Secondary Precepts and explain the | |
| |effects of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical| |
| |language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain how Natural Law supports the sanctity of life, ensoulment and personhood, clearly linking the Primary Precepts to abortion. | |
| |You explain how Natural Law is clear and unambiguous in its approach to abortion. You give a concise outline of Natural Law. You | |
| |describe Natural Law as absolutist, describing the Primary Precepts, and describing the idea that God creates everything for a purpose. | |
| |You describe the role of human reason in Natural Law to make moral decisions. You will apply the Secondary Precepts and describe the | |
| |effects of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are | |
| |descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe what Natural Law would say about abortion, giving a description of the Primary and Secondary Precepts. You may | |
| |describe the Doctrine of Double Effect or the role of reason in moral decision making. You will describe Natural Law as absolutist in its| |
| |approach to abortion. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical| |
| |language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “A relativist approach to the issues raised by abortion leads to wrong moral choices.” Discuss [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion for or against relativist approaches to abortion leading to wrong moral choices. You give a fully justified, | |
| |coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate different ethical approaches to abortion,| |
| |deciding if either absolutist or relativist approaches leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess if individual needs and situations| |
| |should be taken account of in moral choices related to abortion, and assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and | |
| |personhood. You assess the claim that relativist approaches make it difficult to know what the right choice to make is, thereby creating | |
| |moral ambiguity and a possible moral hazard. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion for or against relativist approaches to abortion leading to wrong moral choices. You give a justified, coherent and | |
| |organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate different ethical approaches| |
| |to abortion, deciding if either absolutist or relativist approaches leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess if individual needs | |
| |and situations should be taken account of in moral choices related to abortion, and assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity| |
| |of life and personhood. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of relativist ethical approaches. You might mention some of the problems of | |
| |relativist approaches when applied to abortion. You might mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of absolutist ethical approaches. | |
| |Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language | |
| |that lacks precision. | |

Euthanasia: AS Ethics Checklist 7
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Applied Ethics: Euthanasia | | | | |
|The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to euthanasia | | | | |
|The right to life as applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|The concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia | | | | |
|The concept of personhood as applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Issues around euthanasia | | | | |
|Persistent vegetative state (PVS) | | | | |
|James Rachels and passive vs. active euthanasia | | | | |
|The slippery slope | | | | |
|The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to euthanasia : | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Strengths of Natural Law applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Utilitarianism | | | | |
|John Stuart Mill and personal autonomy | | | | |
|Peter Singer and the sanctity of life | | | | |
|Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Christian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to euthanasia | | | | |
|Absolutist views on euthanasia | | | | |
|Relativist views on euthanasia | | | | |
|Deontological approaches to euthanasia | | | | |
|Teleological approaches to euthanasia | | | | |

Essay for Euthanasia

|Part A: “Explain why a follower of religious ethics might object to euthanasia.” [25] |
|A |You give a detailed explanation of how Christian Ethics supports objections to euthanasia. You explain the Biblical support for sanctity | |
| |of life. You apply the ideas of imago Dei, the Decalogue and Divine Command Theory. You explain how the Precepts of Natural Law are | |
| |against euthanasia. You explain why some Christians would reject the arguments of Situation Ethics and prioritise sanctity of life over | |
| |quality of life. You explain the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your answer is fully supported by clear evidence and specific | |
| |examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You explain how Christian Ethics supports objections to euthanasia. You describe the Biblical support for sanctity of life. You apply the| |
| |ideas of imago Dei, the Decalogue and Divine Command Theory. You describe the Precepts of Natural Law as applied to euthanasia. You | |
| |explain why some Christians would prioritise sanctity of life over quality of life. You describe the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your | |
| |answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical | |
| |language and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe what Christian Ethics would say about euthanasia, possibly giving a description of some of the Biblical evidence or | |
| |Natural Law. You may describe the Primary or Secondary Precepts and link these to euthanasia. You may describe the Doctrine of Double | |
| |Effect. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|Part B: “To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method for making moral decisions about euthanasia?” [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on euthanasia. You give a fully justified, | |
| |coherent and well-organised argument supported by specific examples and clear evidence. You critically evaluate the different version of | |
| |Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You| |
| |assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if individual needs and situations should be taken account of in moral choices | |
| |related to euthanasia, and assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You compare and contrast | |
| |Utilitarianism with other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on euthanasia. You give a justified, coherent and| |
| |organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the different version of | |
| |Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You| |
| |assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You might | |
| |compare and contrast Utilitarianism with other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use language that has | |
| |some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia. You might mention some of the | |
| |strengths or weaknesses of other ethical theories as applied to euthanasia. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited | |
| |coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Genetic Engineering: AS Ethics Checklist 8
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Applied Ethics: Genetic engineering | | | | |
|The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ how it applies to genetic engineering | | | | |
|The concept of personhood as applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Genetic engineering on humans | | | | |
|Human embryo research | | | | |
|Stem-cell research | | | | |
|Designer Babies | | | | |
|“saviour siblings” | | | | |
|Genetic testing and screening | | | | |
|Gene therapy / Germ line therapy | | | | |
|Human Genome Project | | | | |
|Genetic engineering on animals | | | | |
|Genetic engineering on plants | | | | |
|The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to genetic engineering : | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Strengths of Natural Law applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Christian Ethics | | | | |
|Joseph Fletcher | | | | |
|Paul Ramsay | | | | |
|Humans as “co-creator” | | | | |
|Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Absolutist views on genetic engineering | | | | |
|Relativist views on genetic engineering | | | | |
|Deontological approaches to genetic engineering | | | | |
|Teleological approaches to genetic engineering | | | | |

Essay for Genetic Engineering

|Part A: “Explain how a follower of Natural Law might respond to issues raised by genetic engineering.” [25] |
|A |You give a detailed explanation of how Natural Law can be applied to genetic engineering. You explain how Natural Law, as described by | |
| |Thomas Aquinas, is absolutist and deontological in its approach to Sanctity of Life. You explain how it is important for all actions to be| |
| |in accordance with the Primary Precepts and the limits set by the Secondary Precepts. You apply the idea of imago Dei to show how humans | |
| |have an essential and unalterable nature, and explain why manipulating could always be considered wrong. You also explain the moral | |
| |objections to embryo stem-cell research. You might compare and contrast with the reasons for limited support for adult stem-cell | |
| |research. You explain the issues of genetically modified crops and the moral objections to cloning and “saviour siblings”. Your answer is | |
| |fully supported by clear evidence and specific examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You give an explanation of how Natural Law can be applied to genetic engineering. You describe the approach of Natural Law to Sanctity of | |
| |Life. You describe the importance of the Primary Precepts and the limits set by the Secondary Precepts. You apply the idea of imago Dei to| |
| |show how humans have an essential and unalterable nature, and explain why manipulating could always be considered wrong. You also explain | |
| |the moral objections to embryo stem-cell research. You might describe or explain the issues of genetically modified crops and the moral | |
| |objections to cloning and “saviour siblings”. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and | |
| |terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe what Natural Law would say about genetic engineering, possibly giving a description of the Primary or Secondary | |
| |Precepts and link these to genetic engineering. You might describe the moral objections to embryo stem-cell research. You might describe | |
| |the issues of genetically modified crops and the moral objections to cloning and “saviour siblings”. Your answer has occasional support | |
| |from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Genetic engineering is ethically justified.” Discuss. [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion for or against genetic engineering being ethically or morally justifiable. You give a fully justified, coherent | |
| |and well-organised argument supported by specific examples and clear evidence. You assess if the potential advantages outweigh the | |
| |potential disadvantages, using ethical theories to support your answer. You assess if there any benefits for people and if the moral | |
| |objection of “playing God” is justifiable. You critically evaluate and apply different ethical theories, making it clear whether they | |
| |would be for or against genetic engineering. You assess issues around designer babies, “saviour siblings”, genetically modified crops and| |
| |gene therapy. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give an opinion for or against genetic engineering being ethically or morally justifiable. You give a justified, coherent and | |
| |organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You assess if the potential advantages | |
| |outweigh the potential disadvantages, using ethical theories to support your answer. You critically evaluate and apply different ethical | |
| |theories, making it clear whether they would be for or against genetic engineering. You use language that has some precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the moral objections to applied to genetic engineering. You might describe some of the ethical theories that | |
| |support genetic engineering. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or | |
| |justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

War and Peace: AS Ethics Checklist 9
|Learning Outcomes |Textboo|Notes |Essay |Revisio|
| |k | | |n |
|Applied Ethics: War and peace | | | | |
|“Just War” | | | | |
|Aristotle | | | | |
|Cicero | | | | |
|Ambrose of Milan | | | | |
|Augustine of Hippo | | | | |
|Thomas Aquinas | | | | |
|Francisco Suárez and Francisco de Victoria | | | | |
|Jus ad bellam | | | | |
|Jus in Bello | | | | |
|Jus post bellum | | | | |
|Ethical pacifism | | | | |
|Absolute pacifism | | | | |
|Contingent pacifism | | | | |
|Preferential pacifism | | | | |
|Religious pacifism | | | | |
|The application the different approaches of the ethical theories to war and peace : | | | | |
|Natural Law | | | | |
|Strengths of Natural Law applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Natural Law applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Kantian Ethics | | | | |
|Strengths of Kantian Ethics applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Utilitarianism | | | | |
|Strengths of Utilitarianism applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Utilitarianism applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Christian Ethics | | | | |
|William Manning and rejection of Pacifism | | | | |
|Strengths of Christian Ethics applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Weaknesses of Christian Ethics applied to war and peace | | | | |
|Absolutist views on war and peace | | | | |
|Relativist views on war and peace | | | | |
|Deontological approaches to war and peace | | | | |
|Teleological approaches to war and peace | | | | |

Essay for War and Peace

|Part A: “Explain how Utilitarianism approaches the issues of war.” [25] |
|A |You give a detailed explanation of how Utilitarianism can be applied to War and Peace. You explain the response of: Act Utilitarianism; | |
| |Rule Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism to issues of War and Peace. You explain how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to both | |
| |support and argue against a War, including how the Hedonic Calculus might change as a conflict progresses. You apply the “Just War” | |
| |criteria of: comparative justice, likelihood of success, and proportionality. You make it clear the differences in approach of Bentham, | |
| |J.S. Mill and Peter Singer. Your answer is fully supported by clear evidence and specific examples. You use accurately a range of | |
| |technical language and terminology. | |
|C |You give an explanation of how Utilitarianism can be applied to War and Peace. You describe the response of: Act Utilitarianism; Rule | |
| |Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism to issues of War and Peace. You explain how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to both | |
| |support and argue against a War, including how the Hedonic Calculus might change as a conflict progresses. You describe the differences in| |
| |approach of Bentham, J.S. Mill and Peter Singer. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language | |
| |and terminology. | |
|E |You mainly describe what Utilitarianism would say about war, possibly giving a description of the different versions of Act | |
| |Utilitarianism; Rule Utilitarianism; and Preference Utilitarianism. You describe how the Hedonic Calculus could be used to support or | |
| |argue against a War. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical | |
| |language and terminology. | |
|Part B: “Pacifism causes more harm than good.” Discuss. [10] |
|A |You give a clear opinion for or against pacifism causing more harm than good. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised | |
| |argument supported by specific examples and clear evidence. You assess if the potential harm caused by a nation not going to war is | |
| |greater than the potential harm caused by a nation fighting a war; using specific examples and ethical theories to support your answer. | |
| |You asses if Sanctity of Life is an absolute which supports the idea of all forms of violence being objectionable and assess if there is a| |
| |difference between individuals and nations or societies. You apply the Hedonic Calculus, “Just War” Theory and the idea of universal | |
| |justice. You use accurate and fluent expression. | |
|C |You give a clear opinion for or against pacifism causing more harm than good. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument | |
| |supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You compare and contrast the Hedonic Calculus, “Just War” | |
| |Theory and the idea of universal justice. You asses if Sanctity of Life is an absolute which supports the idea of all forms of violence | |
| |being objectionable and assess if there is a difference between individuals and nations or societies. You use language that has some | |
| |precision. | |
|E |You mainly describe some of the different forms of pacifism and mainly describe the idea of “Just War” theory. You might describe some of | |
| |the ethical theories that support pacifism. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks | |
| |evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision. | |

Philosophy at University http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/03/university-league-table-2014 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2013/jun/04/university-guide-philosophy
|Institution |Course Ranking |University |Students per |Course |Course Code |Offer Grades |
| | |Ranking |Teacher | | | |
|10:15 Universities | | | | | | |
|University of Cambridge (Russell Group) |8 |1 |14.5 |Philosophy |V500 |A*AA |
|University of Oxford (Russell Group) |3 |2 |13.5 |Philosophy, Politics and Economics |L0V0 |AAA |
|Top 20 for Philosophy | | | | | | |
|University of Birmingham (Russell Group) |15 |15 |19.8 |Philosophy and Sociology |VL53 |ABB |
|University of East Anglia |10 |17 |14.5 |Philosophy, Politics and Economics |L0V0 |ABB |
|Essex University |14 |63 |12.7 |Philosophy |V500 |BBB-ABB |
|Oxford Brookes University |4 |35 |17.9 |Philosophy |V500 |BBC |
|University of St Andrews |6 |4 |12.7 |Philosophy |V500 |AAB |
|University of Warwick (Russell Group) |11 |10 |14.3 |Philosophy |V500 |AAA |
|University of York (Russell Group) |16 |16 |18.6 |Philosophy and Sociology |VL53 |AAB |
|Local Universities | | | | | | |
|Newman University, Birmingham |34 |91 |18.4 |Applied Psychology and Philosophy & Ethics |CV85 |BBC |
|University of Wolverhampton |N/A |N/A |N/A |Philosophy and Sociology |VL53 |CC-CCD |
|Other Universities | | | | | | |
|University of Aberdeen |30 |43 |18.5 |Behavioural Studies and Philosophy |VV56 |BBB |
|Heythrop, University of London |46 |- |15.2 |Philosophy, Religion and Ethics |VV56 |BBB-ABB |
|Keele University |35 |45 |23 |Philosophy and Psychology |CV85 |BBB |
|Lancaster University |33 |11 |16.3 |Philosophy |V500 |AAB |
|Manchester Metropolitan University |47 |93 |23.1 |Philosophy and Psychology |VCM8 |BCC-BBC |
|St Mary’s University College |43 |89 |27.1 |Philosophy and Psychology |CV85 |BC + b |