Exam prep: Essay questions
| Site: | Higher Philosophy |
| Course: | Kantian Ethics |
| Book: | Exam prep: Essay questions |
| Printed by: | Guest user |
| Date: | Friday, 4 April 2025, 10:03 PM |
Description
| ◀ Previous | Contents | Next ▶ |
1. Purpose
The two essays on the following pages were not written to illustrate a particular level of attainment. They have not been given a mark. Nor were they written to give the definitive correct answer to the set question. Writing essays is a skill and the kind of essay required in one subject can be different to the kind of essay required in another subject. In philosophy you would normally be expected to develop some kind of case, a position on a topic that might be debatable. It does, of course, mean knowing the relevant facts but it also means being able to make pertinent evaluative comments on what a text or philosopher says. The essays here are offered simply as examples as to how a philosophy essay might be written.
Should you want to see actual examples of essays written under exam conditions, the SQA Understanding Standards website provides examples of candidate evidence with commentaries explaining how the marks were awarded.
2. SQA 2015
“Kantian ethics is not a useful ethical theory.” Discuss.
SQA Higher Philosophy 2015
There are different ways of answering this question. You might give a quick overview of Kantian ethics to set the scene and then discuss the strengths and then the weaknesses (or vice versa) before summing up with a conclusion. However, this might lead to a somewhat fragmented essay that doesn’t ‘flow’. I have chosen to describe Kantian ethics and to use each piece of description as a peg on which to make some observation about a strength of the theory. I follow that by outlining some important criticisms. To help give the essay some structure the criticisms generally follow an order determined by the opening paragraphs but this isn’t adhered to rigidly. It would be possible to peg the weaknesses to the description and then follow with the strengths but since I knew that I was going to conclude by suggesting that, overall, Kantian ethics is not a useful theory it was better to have the criticisms leading into that conclusion. The conclusion doesn’t add anything new but does build on what has already been said earlier in the essay.
Exemplar answer.
| 1 |
Kantian ethics is deontological, i.e. it is based on duty. This is not a duty to others or to particular authorities it is the duty to follow the moral law within. This inner moral law is based on reason. The right thing to do is determined using reason and logic without making any reference to possible consequences. This idea of a moral duty fits with our intuition that morality is about obligations. From a human point of view if people are encouraged to focus on consequences they are likely to be influenced by whether or not they prefer a particular outcome. Consequences are also impossible to predict with certainty. Kantian ethics avoids both these problems. Its emphasis on reason also chimes with our idea that it is wrong to be guided by emotions. When we make a moral choice we should make it for the right reason. |
|
The categorical imperative, the inner moral law, comes in a number of formulations but of the two most commonly cited the first is, ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature’. A maxim is your own personal rule, which may be a good rule or a bad rule. You can tell it is a good rule if it is possible to universalize the rule, i.e. if you can logically will it to be a rule for everyone. This is irrespective or whether, in practice, you can actually get everyone to follow the rule. This formulation captures another important feature of morality—moral rules should apply to everyone. I may make personal choices such as to take more exercise but if something is a moral rule then it isn’t just a personal choice, it is something that everyone should do in those circumstances. |
|
| 2 | There is some flexibility built into the system for if trying to universalize the rule leads to a contradiction in conception, i.e. you cannot even imagine such a world for the attempt to universalize the maxim removes the conditions that are needed for the maxim to make sense, then you have a perfect duty not to perform the action. For Kant lying and making false promises would fall into this category. On the other hand, if universalizing the maxim led to a contradiction in the will you have an imperfect duty to do what you were trying to avoid. Kant’s example would be giving to charity—not giving to charity means willing others not to help you when you are in need, something you cannot rationally will, so you should help others to some extent some of the time. |
|
The second formulation is, “So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.” This certainly captures the idea that morality is about treating people with respect and not just using others. |
|
|
Whilst it is easy to identify some significant strengths to Kantian ethics there are also some very significant weaknesses. It may be true that we cannot predict consequences with complete accuracy but in many areas of life where planning is required it is necessary to make reasonable predictions. Such planning is not irrational and so it is not obvious that a rational moral theory has to exclude a consideration of possible consequences. |
|
|
If consequentialist theories have the problem that people might be skewed in the prediction of consequences due to wishful thinking Kantian ethics is little better for by carefully selecting the maxim it is possible to find a permissible course of action. If you wanted to drive faster than the speed limit then the maxim ‘break the law’ would lead to a contradiction in conception for if everyone did it the meaning of ‘law’ would disappear. However, ‘drive as fast as it is safe to do so’ leads to no such contradiction. |
|
| 3 |
The first formulation also leads to counter-intuitive conclusions. Not only does it rule out lying to the pursuing murderer but it also requires you to avoid doing things that seem perfectly innocuous. Using your pvr to skip the adverts leads to a contradiction in conception for if everyone did it there would be no point in adverts as a way of funding programmes but it is difficult to see this as immoral. Rather, if everyone did it then the broadcasters would just have to find another way of funding their programming. |
|
The emphasis on reason and ‘treating humanity’ seems to exclude animals from any kind of ethical consideration and this seems wrong. Morality is not just about how we treat humans. |
|
| 4 | Even taken on its own terms the categorical imperative leads to the wrong conclusion. ‘Punch someone in the face if you don’t like them’ would lead to a contradiction in willing. According to the system this means you have an imperfect duty. It cannot be right to say that when you don’t like someone you should avoid punching them in the face some of the time and to some extent! |
| 5 | The appeal of Kantian ethics depends on selecting particular examples that lead to the right answer. Every moral theory will look good when this is done. It is commendable to seek consistency but consistency does not mean never breaking a rule. It just means if it is OK for me to break the rule then it is OK for someone else to do so in the same circumstances. Kantian ethics does not have a monopoly on using reason. While it may remind us of some important aspects of morality consequentialist theories which combine the use of reason with experience are more likely to offer a better practical guide. |
957 words
When you have limited time it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. I said very little about the second formulation but just enough in the first half for me to be able to include the criticism about it excluding appropriate consideration of non-human animals. There are plenty of other criticisms that I might have selected for example, torturing people to extract information in terrorist situations might plausibly pass the first formulation but fail the second. This would be a problem for Kant. When he gives his four examples (suicide, false promises, fostering your talents and helping the needy) it is clear that he expects both formulations to lead to the same answer. You don’t have to say everything you know—select the best bits for the essay you want to write.
- It is a good idea to start with the more general and basic concepts before getting into the detail.
- This paragraph is mainly description but I have made it evaluative by introducing it as an indication of flexibility. It is a necessary piece of description because I later want to include the criticism related to contradiction in willing. (See 4)
- Notice I just refer to the pursuing murderer. The examiner will know what this means and there is no time in this essay to tell the story. A weaker essay will use up a lot of the time/words on this. However, just mentioning it like this flags up that I know about the story. I get all the same credit but for very few words.
- See note 2
- It is important to answer the question. In this case the ‘question’ was an instruction to ‘discuss’ the quotation. Simply listing the strengths and weakness without coming to a conclusion would not be enough in an essay like this.
3. SQA 2022
Some people think the law should be changed to allow assisted dying in cases where someone has a terminal illness and is facing the prospect of a painful and unpleasant death.
Explain and evaluate whether a follower of Kantian ethics would support such a change.
SQA Higher Philosophy 2022
It is important to remember that a scenario question is always just a device to get you to discuss the ethical theory. In this case, if you describe Kantian ethics, come up with a maxim that seems to allow assisted dying, and conclude by saying the theory gives clear advice and so is a helpful theory, it may appear that you have answered the question but you will have done so without engaging in any discussion of the theory. Unless there are clear instructions to the contrary, you should assume that an essay requires you to engage in some kind of debate. Before starting your essay it is always a good idea to ask yourself, 'What particular problems with the theory are highlighted by this scenario?' Your answer to this question will give you a very good idea of what you need to be writing about.
Exemplar answer.
| 1 |
The most natural reading of Kant is that he would generally disagree with voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying. |
| 2 |
Kantian ethics is a non-consequentialist theory, i.e. the consequences of an action are not what determine whether something is right or wrong. If something is right or wrong it is right or wrong irrespective of the consequences. In this particular case, whether or not legalising assisted dying reduces suffering or has unintended consequences for society is, for a Kantian, irrelevant. |
| 3 |
Kantian ethics is a deontological theory, which is to say we have a duty to follow the moral law and the moral law is summed up by the categorical imperative. There are two formulations of the categorical imperative that concern us: 1: Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature. 2: Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means. Despite appearing quite different, as far as Kant is concerned these two formulations amount to the same thing. They should both lead to the same moral advice. If they don't then that would show there was something wrong with Kant's theory. |
| 4 |
Kant also distinguishes between perfect duties to self and to others, and imperfect duties to self and to others. Perfect duties allow no exceptions; imperfect duties are such that they must be carried out to some extent and some of the time. |
| 5 |
To illustrate the two formulations and and the various duties Kant uses four examples. His first example, which he applies to both formulations, is that we have a perfect duty to avoid suicide. Being a perfect duty there are no exceptions to this. His reasoning is as follows: With regard to the first formulation Kant says someone would be acting on the maxim 'For love of myself, I make it my principle to cut my life short when prolonging it threatens to bring more troubles than satisfactions.' The attempt to universalise this maxim, he says, leads to a contradiction in conception for then the principle of self-love would lead simultaneously to a desire to both prolong and shorten life. When there is a contradiction in conception there is a perfect duty not to act on the maxim. With regard to the second formulation Kant says if someone escapes their burdensome situation by destroying themself, they are using a person (in this case themself) merely as a means to keeping themself in a tolerable condition up to the end of their life. There is a perfect duty to avoid using someone (including yourself) as a means only so there is a perfect duty not to commit suicide. It is clear that the same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it is always wrong to assist someone to end their life. |
| 6 | It is tempting to suggest there are alternative maxims that would lead to a different outcome. Certainly, the possibility of alternative maxims and the difficulty of identifying the correct maxim are criticisms of Kantian ethics but we should remember that this is Kant's own example and can, therefore, be taken as definitive as to how the theory should be applied. In any case, noting alternative maxims with a different outcome doesn't help us determine what a Kantian should do, it is, rather, a reason for saying the theory is flawed. If we look for another maxim because we don't like the outcome then we are acting like a consequentialist and trying to get a non-consequentialist theory to fit in with our consequentialist thinking. |
| 7 | The lengths to which Kant would go to ignore consequences becomes clear in his story of the pursuing murderer. You should not tell a lie even if you think it is the only way to save a life. These kinds of conclusions strike many people as absurd and are reason enough for rejecting Kantian ethics. However, we need to be careful. Rejecting the theory because we don't like the outcome looks dangerously like a fallacious appeal to consequences. Evaluating a moral theory by what it says about a single issue is, in any case, somewhat problematic. If, instead, it delivered a conclusion that was approved of that wouldn't necessarily make it a good theory as there might be all sorts of other reasons for rejecting the theory and if the theory is rejected because of these then what it does or does not say about assisted suicide becomes moot. |
| 8 | Kant rejects consideration of the consequences because they cannot be known for certain. It is true that consequences cannot be known with certainty but making reasonable predictions is an essential part of many life decisions, business planning, etc. If making reasonable predictions is such an essential feature of human existence it is, at the very least, odd that it should be excluded from moral reasoning. Kant wanted a moral law within that was a certain as the scientific laws that describe the natural world but perhaps there is no such law. Perhaps moral reasoning is always going to be more like a negotiation between competing interests. Kantian ethics reminds us to ask if it makes sense to want everyone to act in a certain way and to not make ourself an exception. It also reminds us to show respect to others and to treat people with dignity. However, it is probably wrong to assume that these considerations are by themselves enough to guide us when it comes to complex moral issues such as assisted dying. |
933 words
- This is a clear statement of the position I am taking but leaves open the possibility that there may be some situations where Kantian ethics might still allow assisted dying. For example, if 'humanity' is equated with our capacity for reason then perhaps it may be permitted for those in a permanent coma or even in cases of severe dementia. This would also open the possibility of involuntary euthanasia in these cases as well as voluntary euthanasia in accordance with an advance directive. It isn't necessary to discuss these cases in connection with the given scenario.
- Apart from those approaching the topic from a religious perspective, debates about assisted dying, whether for or against, are almost always a debate about consequences. It is crucial, therefore, to appreciate the non-cosequentialist nature of Kantian ethics. It is such a distinctive feature of the theory that it is likely to be a good starting point for many scenario based questions. An exception might be if the scenario is clearly directing you down the path of considering a conflict of duties.
- This is purely descriptive material. It is essential that you are able to state the two formulations. You also need to be able to explain and apply them. This is the essence of Kantian ethics. However, being able to accurately state them is a pre-requisite. A common error is to think that the second formulation is only about how you treat others. Note that it is about how you treat humanity 'whether in your own person or in that of anyone else'. The formulation rules out treating yourself as a means only. This is crucial to understanding why Kant is opposed to suicide.
- Making the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties helps to explain Kant's 'hard line' attitude to lying and, in this case, suicide.
- Knowledge of Kants four examples are not a required part of the course. They are not listed as part of the mandatory content. They are, however, included in Appendix 5 where it is said the relevant text extracts are included for 'illustrative purposes to exemplify the philosophical positions and arguments that candidates are required to study.' Even though they are not required, knowing Kant's own examples and how he used them will give a clearer understanding of how the two formulations work and what is meant by perfect and imperfect duties. In this essay it is obviously very helpful to know what Kant said about suicide.
- In this paragraph I am flagging up that I am aware of certain criticisms of Kantian ethics. In another essay this might have been developed by giving examples of maxims that would seem to lead to different answers.
- It is important not to get sidetracked into a long description of the pursuing murderer story. There is just enough here to show that I am familiar with it and it is a useful way of reinforcing the non-consequentialist nature of Kantian ethics and leads into the discussion of whether it makes sense to ignore consequences.
- In this final paragraph I have tried to give a balanced conclusion. By returning to the key issue of consequences flagged up at the beginning of the essay I hope to have given the essay a clear focus. A weak answer would simply say they disagree with Kant ignoring consequences. This paragraph goes further and argues why it is reasonable to take consequences into account. Nevertheless, I have also tried to draw out something useful from the Kantian approach whilst at the same time making it clear that I don't find it an adequate way of dealing with moral issues.