Diploma and BA Philosophy

235 P095

Ethics: historical perspectives

First Examiners report
General comments
The most important general piece of advice that can be offered to candidates sitting
examinations in philosophy is to read all the questions over carefully, and, having
decided on which ones to answer, to make sure that you do in fact answer them.
There are clearly two aspects to this piece of general advice: one concerns the reading
of the questions, the other answering them. It is worthwhile taking each of these in
turn.
Many candidates do not spend enough time looking over the questions on the
examination paper. This is understandable, as there is a tendency to rush through
these questions, looking for those that seem to fit with the topics that you have
prepared. However, this is a mistake; it is worth taking some time considering the
whole range of questions on the paper in a more sedate way. On a historical paper, the
particular philosopher or text will be explicitly mentioned, and this might be the best
way for you to decide on which questions to answer. But on many other papers, a
quick and all too careless reading of the questions might well prevent you finding
those that would be in fact the best ones for you to attempt. There is a second more
subtle reason for spending some time doing this survey. Everyone is made anxious by
a first reading of the question paper. And this is not the best state of mind to be in
when you set about writing. However, if you decide in advance that you will spend
some minutes in analysing the questions on the paper, this activity itself a
philosophical one will go some way to putting you at your ease.
The point of the first reading of the question paper is to find those that look most
congenial; you should be aiming to draw up a long list of questions that you might
attempt. Having done this, you should think a little about each of the questions you
have chosen, in preparation for deciding finally on the three that you will attempt.
Ask yourself what each question requires of you. A discussion of this, though not
necessarily one that considers every aspect of it, will form the basis of a good answer.
Indeed, it would be sensible when attempting a question to begin by saying in your
own words what you think the question asks. In this way, you will show the examiner
that you have got hold of the main point of the question, and you will have eased your
way into the writing of your answer. Note that there is no need to rush through this
task.
Generally, there are three forms of question on any paper: those which invite
discussion of a quoted statement; those which in fact end in a question mark and
those which ask you to assess or critically assess some viewpoint or argument. On
this years paper, there are three with quoted statements, six are direct questions, and
three are invitations to critically assess some view. As noted above, one cannot
emphasise too strongly the need to interpret these direct questions to say what you
think they are asking since what you say will shape the whole of your answer.
All of the above advice is about your survey of the question paper. Yet, in giving it,
you will have seen how it turns directly into general advice about how to answer any
given question. Indeed, that is part of the point of encouraging you to do the survey in
the first place. You may, for example, find that whilst a question is on a topic that you

72

Examination papers and Examiners reports 2008

have prepared, you find that you are reluctant to consider that topic in the light of the
interpretations it invites. In this case, you would do better to answer another question.
Remember that the examiners are looking for two crucial ingredients in any answer:
relevance and argument. If you have prepared a whole lot of material about some
topic, but show no signs of understanding the specific question asked about that topic,
then your answer is going to be judged a poor one. Also, having interpreted a question
in a certain way, it is vital that you think of how the material that you have prepared
can be presented, not as assertions, but as arguments seeking to justify your answer.
Reviewing the above advice: survey the question paper; consider what kinds of
interpretation are invited by each of your long list of possible questions; having
decided on three questions that you want to attempt, begin your answers in each case
by explicitly saying what you think the question asks; finally, marshal the points you
want to make in a coherent order and make sure that they contain arguments and not
merely dogmatic assertions.
Finally, given that this paper is a historical one, you should give careful thought to the
way in which you bring in the views of specific philosophers when answering a
question. It is not enough to allow certain key words or phrases in the question to
trigger an outpouring of exposition. What you have to decide is how much of a
particular philosophers view is relevant to the question posed. The comments below
will include suggestions for this in each case.
Question 1
A great deal of Platos Republic is spent in answering this question affirmatively, and
you cannot possibly give a full account of that in your answer. What you have to do is
to condense the conclusion that Plato reaches in his account of justice in the Republic
the account which goes via the tripartite division of the soul and then apply it to
the question asked. Having done that, the main task is then to offer arguments aimed
at questioning (or supporting) Platos affirmative answer to the question. One way
might be to consider the arguments of Sachs to the effect that Plato somehow
changed the subject of justice in the Republic. Another might be to consider what
happiness consists in for Plato.
Question 2
Obviously the first thing to do here is to describe in some detail what it is that
Socrates does in fact claim, and to also give his reasons for the claim. On the face of
it, the idea that no one does something unjust knowingly sounds counter-intuitive.
Surely, it will be felt, many acts are done quite deliberately, though are unjust, and
known to be so by their agents. Socrates recognised these intuitions, but he felt
nonetheless that when one really did consider what an unjust act was, and what was
involved in knowing this, then one wouldnt find the initial intuition to be correct.
Given that he was insistent on the identification of knowledge and virtue, it is
unsurprising that he thought this. What you have to do is to discuss whether you find
Socratess arguments convincing. In partial defence of Socrates, you might for
example, think that the ordinary notion of doing something deliberately was not the
same as doing it knowingly, so that the ordinary intuition could be correct without
this directly contradicting Socratess claim. However, whichever arguments you
choose to consider, it is important to keep them in focus.
Question 3
The first part of this question is fairly direct: Aristotle had a conception of eudaimonia
(most often, though tentatively, translated as happiness) which he regarded as that at
which all our actions aim. The more complicated issue raised by the question is
specifying the role that the virtues play in our achieving eudaimonia. Early in the
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle described our human good the pursuit of eudaimonia

73

Diploma and BA Philosophy

as activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. But what exactly does in
accordance with come to? And, when you have said something about this, do you
think that Aristotle is justified in giving virtue this role? These are the kinds of issue
that you should be concerned with in answering this question.
Question 4
Very roughly, deliberation for Aristotle is the exercise of our judgment about some
situation or set of circumstances which results in our being in a position to make
choices. When properly conducted, deliberation results in an agents knowing what is
best in the circumstances, and, for Aristotle, this is essential to an agents being
virtuous. In effect, Aristotle gives a central role to knowledge and to our ability to
obtain it in his account of justice, and you have to evaluate his views about this.
Question 5
In the quoted material, Hume asserts his famous (even notorious) thesis that moral
judgement, and the moral concepts it involves, are grounded in the feelings or
sentiments that we typically experience in relation to an action or circumstance, rather
than grounded in any judgement about what is true or false about that action or
circumstance. That much seems clear, but many commentators have been puzzled by
Humes phrase mean nothing but, and have wondered whether he is thereby
committed to a thesis about the meaning of moral assertions. Others have had more
fundamental doubts about whether Humes conception of sentiments can support the
kinds of metaethical claims he makes (or that have been made on his behalf). Select
some of these issues dont try to cover everything and construct your answer
around them.
Question 6
Hume argues that morality is grounded on feeling or sentiment that it has a
subjective foundation but most of his work is devoted to explaining just how the
structure is built up from that foundation. Central to that task is Humes distinction
between natural and artificial virtues. A good answer to this question would explain
how he intends to construct his account of ethics on this subjectivist foundation, and
would explain just what role his natural/artificial distinction plays in this. Also, given
that you are asked to assess the importance of his distinction, any criticisms (or
otherwise) of his distinction, and of the construction, should be given. But, as with
most questions, it is important to be selective here. Dont try to say everything about
his account of ethics or about the distinction.
Question 7
The first task is straightforward: you have to carefully explain what the quotation
from Kant means. That is, you have to say something about Kants notion of a good
will, and also something about his view that it is the only thing that can be called
good without qualification. As noted, this is straightforward, but it is not easy. Kants
notion of a good will is crucial to everything he goes on to say about morality: the
quoted remark which comes at the very beginning of the Groundwork is not a casual
remark. Having outlined the role that the notion of the good will plays, what you have
to do then is to assess critically either that role or the notion itself.
Question 8
Kant offers four examples to illustrate the way the categorical imperative works, and
the prohibition against lying is one of them. A good answer to this question would
begin by showing exactly how Kant thinks the categorical imperative relates to
specific examples of moral (or immoral) behaviour. This requires some exposition of
the very notion of the categorical imperative, but mere exposition of the notion is not

74

Examination papers and Examiners reports 2008

enough. You must take seriously the demand in the question to assess how the
categorical imperative shows lying to be wrong. For only if you have explained this,
will you be in a position to say whether you think Kant is right to maintain this.
Question 9
The key problem here is Mills attempt to introduce a distinction between the quantity
and quality of pleasure or happiness. On the one hand, he insisted that the principle of
utility requires us to act so as to maximise the general happiness that will result from
our actions. But maximising seems to require us to be able to measure amounts of
happiness, even if approximately, and this in turn seems to require happiness to be
something which can be understood in quantitative terms. But when Mill speaks of
the quality of different kinds of happiness, this seems to undermine the very idea of
maximisation. Imagine trying to decide between an act which produces a range of
pleasures, some of which are qualitatively better than others. How can we put the one
kind up against the other? We cannot say: there will be this much pleasure or
happiness of this kind, and this much of a higher quality, so lets just maximise
among these two. This is because if we could do this, then we would have admitted
that differences in quality were really basically differences in quantity. A higher
quality pleasure for Mill would simply be one which had features that made it
quantitatively greater, just as Bentham originally allowed. But Mill was clearly trying
to get away from Benthams view. Given this, it is certainly plausible that there is a
kind of incoherence in Mills conception of happiness, and your answer should
confront this, either by pointing it out and accepting it, or by defending Mill.
Question 10
The quote from Mill is an admission that there is a prima facie conflict between the
demands of justice and those of utility. Such a conflict would suggest that someone
who strongly regards certain kinds of thing just or unjust might well find that very
conflict a reason to resist being a utilitarian. After all, if utilitarianism conflicts with
our ordinary and strong intuitions of what is just, that is surely some ground for not
accepting Mills moral theory. Of course, Mill doesnt think that there is a conflict
here he thinks that one can explain our intuitions of justice within the constraints of
his account and you should critically examine the arguments that he offers for this.
Question 11
Emotivism or expressivism is the subject matter of the question. On the face of it,
when we say of various actions that they are wrong, unjust, honest, corrupt, etc. we
seem to be making assertions. But the emotivist insists that this appearance is
deceptive, that what we are doing is expressing our pro- or contra-attitudes towards
those actions. Indeed, as the question suggests, the strongest version of emotivism has
it that moral claims are merely expressions of these emotions or attitudes. The fact
that emotivism suggests a wholesale revision to the way we ordinarily think of moral
judgements places a burden on the view: it must somehow account for the fact that
we dont think we are simply (merely) expressing emotions when we make these
judgements. Your task is that of assessing the plausibility of the emotivist claim.
Question 12
You have to say more about Moores argument. Why does it matter, if it does, that
identifying pleasure and the good (as perhaps a utilitarian might) implies that we are
doing no more than saying that pleasure is pleasure. Moore clearly intended his
argument to undermine any attempt to do what he called defining good. But it is far
from clear that, when his argument is examined in detail, it does any such thing.

75

Diploma and BA Philosophy

Second Examiners report

General comments
Upon reading an exam question, the first thing many candidates ask themselves is:
how does this relate to what I know? Then, focusing on a few key words in the
question, they call to mind everything they have learnt on the topic, and begin to
write. This is to approach the task of answering exam questions in the wrong way.
Instead, the first thing you should ask yourself is: what actually is the answer to this
question? This advice may seem too simple to be worth saying, but it is surprisingly
easy to forget in the heat of an exam. Under pressure to write something, it is
comforting and reassuring to focus immediately on the blocks of material that you
have studied and revised, only subsequently thinking about how to organise these
blocks into an essay. Yet it is very difficult, given this approach, to produce a proper
and focused answer to the question set.
The better strategy is to begin by temporarily putting the material that you have
learned to one side. Look at the question carefully, and take some time to understand
what it is asking. Then calmly consider what, in fact, you think the answer is. Resist
the urge to begin writing immediately, and give yourself several minutes to think
about it. When you are ready, state your answer to the question (often this will serve
as a good first sentence for your essay), and proceed to defend it, only now drawing
on your body of prior philosophical knowledge.
There are three advantages to this approach. First, it requires you to think carefully
about the precise meaning of the question. Too often candidates seem to rely on a
rough and ready interpretation of the question gleaned only from its key terms and its
position on the exam paper. Upon proper consideration of the question, you may
discover that it is not asking quite what you first thought it was. In some cases, this
may lead you to realise that you are not really prepared to answer the question, and
that you should attempt another question instead. In other cases, you may come to see
that the question is ambiguous, and can be answered in more than one way.
Second, adopting this approach will ensure that you select only that material that is
relevant to the question set. In virtually every case, the question will concern only one
portion of the material you have studied on a given topic. A key part of what the
examiners are looking for is the ability to decide which material is relevant to
answering a given question and which material must be omitted. This means that you
must avoid simply writing out everything that you know about the topic. In fact, it is
true to say that the very best candidates will leave the exam hall with most of their
knowledge undisplayed. This does not mean, however, that the undisplayed
knowledge is wasted. Its force is felt in the fact that the displayed material is perfectly
targeted to the question with nothing extraneous added in something that can be
achieved only if one knows a lot more than the answer to that particular question.
Third, this approach will help you to structure your answer in a tight and focused
way. Even when you have correctly selected the relevant material, you still must
organise it into a single continuous, coherent argument. The best structured
philosophical essays are usually those which take a clear stand on a question and then
provide arguments in favour of that position. This involves considering arguments
against the position being defended and rebutting them. If you think of yourself as
making a case for a position, rather than just writing down things you know, then
your essay will almost structure itself.

76

Examination papers and Examiners reports 2008

Question 1
As with many questions on this paper, it may be useful to think of your answer as
consisting in two parts. First, one must explain Platos reasons for believing that the
just person is happier than the unjust person. This requires some discussion of Platos
division of the soul and his argument concerning the four types of soul. However, in
doing this you should be careful to keep the material you present closely tailored to
the question and not to drift out into a general essay on the Republic. Second, you
must assess the arguments you have presented on Platos behalf, considering both
objections to his views as well as replies he might have made.
Question 2
Careful reading of this question will reveal that it does not require candidates to
assess Socrates reasons for this claim (or Platos); it asks simply whether there are
(any) good reasons to think that no one commits unjust acts knowingly. However,
since Socrates did in fact give careful arguments for this claim there is no reason not
to focus on those. Advancing Socrates arguments with care and precision in the first
part of your essay will make the second, critical part of your essay much easier. Good
answers often set the arguments out in premise-conclusion form, and then go on to
assess them for validity and soundness in a structured way.
Question 3
The first part of this question may be stated relatively simply, although it is important
to put it in an accurate and precise manner: Aristotle conceives of eudaimonia as
activity of the rational soul in accordance with virtue. It is in answering the second
part of the question that one must go further, delving into the arguments given by
Aristotle for conceiving of eudaimonia in this way. Be wary, however, of allowing
your answer to devolve into a general discussion of Aristotelian ethics. The emphasis
should remain on the role of virtue: why, for instance, is eudaimonia identified only
with virtuous rational activity, and not with any activity of the rational soul?
Alternatively, why cannot eudaimonia involve the virtuous activity of the nonrational soul? Very good answers to this question may contain responses to challenges
such as these.
Question 4
Deliberation plays a key role in Aristotles account of practical reason, the process by
which we come to decide to act in a particular way. Any good assessment of this role
must include a careful discussion of deliberations place in overseeing the process by
which desire and perception lead to action. This will then most likely lead on to
consideration of Aristotles conception of practical wisdom and its importance to his
ethical system. Remember at all times not only to report on Aristotles views but also
to offer some critical discussion of them.
Question 5
This quotation represents the heart of Humes sentimentalism. A good way to
approach a question like this is to begin by explaining in basic terms what is meant by
the quotation, and then to move gradually outwards, elaborating on the various ideas
contained within it. Be sure, however, not to stray too far from the question the very
best answers often centre upon a close reading of the quotation. For instance, you
might carefully consider the apparent semantic nature of Humes claim (you mean
nothing, but that), asking whether this yields a defensible position concerning the
meanings of moral terms as well as whether this is, after all, the best way to interpret
this passage.

77

Diploma and BA Philosophy

Question 6
The starting point for any good answer to this question is a clear and accurate
explanation of Humes distinction between natural and artificial virtues. This is no
easy task, and may occupy a large part of your answer. However, the question asks
for an assessment of the importance of this for Humes moral theory, and in order to
do well this should not be ignored. In order to assess the distinctions importance, one
must have an understanding of its point. Why does Hume make this distinction?
Which further problems does he think it will help him to solve? These are the issues
you should turn to once you have explained what the distinction is.
Question 7
A simple but effective way to begin an answer to this question is with an explanation
of the quoted claim. In this case, a good way to convey the significance of the claim
is to contrast it with rival views, much as Kant himself does: for instance, with the
view that pleasure is good in itself, or with the view that intelligence is good in itself.
Then, after having demonstrated that you have a full understanding of the content of
the claim, the main task is to try to explain its role in Kants broader theory: that is to
say, to explain why Kant makes this claim given his more general aims.
Question 8
When technical philosophical terms occur in a question, it is usually good practice to
offer explanations of them in the early part of your essay. So in this case it would be a
good idea to preface your main answer with a (brief) explanation of the term
categorical imperative. Then it would make good sense to go over Kants example
of the lying promise, which represents his main demonstration that lying is
inconsistent with the categorical imperative. This will give you a good basis for the
more critical part of the essay. However, you should be careful not to be drawn into a
general discussion of Kants views on the morality of lying. For instance, Kant has
been widely criticised for insisting that one must refrain from lying in all
circumstances; the question, however, asks only whether Kant succeeds in showing
lying to be morally wrong. This suggests instead that you focus on whether there
might be certain types of lie that in fact pass the categorical imperative. Excellent
responses might consider whether adopting a different formulation of the categorical
imperative affects the answer to the question.
Question 9
This is a comparatively straightforward question concerning Mills account of utility.
However, care is required even here. Having first explained Mills conception of
happiness (the key components of which include his hedonism, his distinction
between higher and lower pleasures, and his characterisation of the latter in terms
of the verdicts of competent judges), you should assess its coherence. Yet incoherence
is a specific charge, and not all objections to Mills account are objections to its
coherence. For instance, the charge that the idea of higher pleasures is objectionably
elitist is, while an objection to the account, not an objection which alleges
incoherence. By contrast, the charge that Mill cannot maintain his higher/lower
distinction without abandoning his hedonism is a challenge to the coherence of his
conception of happiness. Good answers to this question will recognise this point and
be careful to discuss only those objections that are relevant to the question.
Question 10
Before embarking on the main discussion, it is usually a good idea to try to restate
any quoted passage in your own words. This both demonstrates that you have
understood it and helps you to focus the ensuing discussion. In this case, the main
idea of the quoted statement is that ordinary morality seems to contain principles of
justice that are not derivable from the principle of utility. Mill goes to great lengths to

78

Examination papers and Examiners reports 2008

explain why our ordinary morality may have come to contain such principles and to
make reasonable the claim that principles of justice are in fact derivable from the
principle of utility. A good answer to this question will both accurately expound Mills
reasoning on this topic and consider possible problems with his arguments.
Question 11
Although this question mentions no historical figure, candidates attempting it would
be expected to know that the claim that moral assertions are simply expressions of
emotion is one notoriously made by early twentieth century emotivists, such as Ayer
and Stevenson. Good advice would be to pick just one prominent proponent of the
view and focus in detail on the arguments presented by that person; this will help to
keep your answer from becoming too general.
Question 12
This question is relatively narrow, inviting discussion on one very specific (though
crucial) argument of Moores. Though it may be helpful to offer some context (for
instance, that this argument is a key part of Moores case against naturalism and in
favour of his view that good is a simple, non-natural concept), you should be careful
to keep this brief and not to get too sidetracked onto broader issues. Excellent answers
to this question might discuss Moores argument in light of recent work on the
analytic a posteriori.

79