Doing philosophy with chatGPT

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 1.
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Heat oven to 180C/fan 160C/gas 4.
Beat together 225g softened unsalted butter and 225g caster sugar until pale and creamy, then add 4 eggs, one at a time, slowly mixing through.
Sift in 225g self-raising flour, then add the finely grated zest of 1 lemon and mix until well combined.
Do not use a waxed lemon. The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter.

1. What distinguishes a statement from other types of sentences? (1 mark)
2. Identify a statement in the passage above. (1 mark)
3. Give a counterexample to the universal claim in the above passage. (1 mark)

Marking instructions for Question 1

1. Award 1 mark for saying either that a statement asserts or denies a claim or that statements have a truth value, whilst other types of sentences do not.
2. Award 1 mark for ‘The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter.’
3. Award 1 mark for any appropriate counterexample, such as ‘this waxed lemon is not very bitter’.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 1.

1. A statement is a sentence with a truth value.
2. "The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter."
3. The zest from some waxed lemons is not bitter.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 3 marks.

The pupil's answer demonstrates a clear understanding of what constitutes a statement and provides an appropriate example of a statement from the given passage. The answer to part (c) is also appropriate and offers a valid counterexample to the universal claim made in the passage. Therefore, the pupil has correctly answered all three parts of the question and deserves full marks.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for correctly noting a statement has truth value.
2. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for identifying the statement.
3. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for the counterexample.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 2.
Read the following argument and answer the questions that follow.

‘A square has 4 sides.
A triangle has 3 sides.
Therefore, a square has more sides than a triangle.’

Arguments are often evaluated in terms of the acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of their premises.

1. Choose one of the premises in the above argument. What makes this premise acceptable?
2. What makes this argument deductive?

Marking instructions for Question 2

1. Award 1 mark for saying one of the following
• it’s an a priori truth
• it’s true by definition
• it’s a necessary truth
• it’s true
• it’s common knowledge

It will not be accepted if the candidate says that it is unambiguous or plausible.

2. Award 1 mark for saying the conclusion is established for certain or if the premises are true, the conclusion is true or any other appropriate answer.

No marks should be awarded for saying that a deductive argument moves from a general to specific claim or any other formation of this point.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 2.

1. "A triangle has 3 sides." By definition this must be true because as soon as another side is added, it's no longer a triangle.
2. You are going from small claims to a large one.

*** chatGPT says ***
For part (a), the candidate correctly identifies that "A triangle has 3 sides" is true by definition, and therefore earns 1 mark.

However, for part (b), the candidate's response is not accurate. They suggest that the argument goes from "small claims to a large one," but this is not a relevant criterion for why the argument is deductive. Therefore, no mark can be awarded for part (b).

Overall, the candidate earns 1 mark.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for saying the premise is acceptable because it is true by definition.
2. The candidate was awarded 0/1 mark.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 3.

Read the following argument.
Premise 1 — There was a massive spider in my sink this morning.
Premise 2 — I’ve just seen a massive spider running across my living room floor.
Conclusion —

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the premises?
Give two reasons for your choice.

1. My house is over-run by spiders.
2. There may be two massive spiders in my house.
3. There is no longer a spider in my sink.

Marking instructions for Question 3

If B is chosen:
Award 1 mark for each appropriate explanation, such as…
You would have to check the sink to establish whether or not there is still a spider in there. (1 mark)
You would have to have seen many more than two spiders to know that the house is over-run by spiders. (1 mark)
Because of ‘may be’, B is the weakest claim, and it would be reasonable to conclude that there may be two spiders if you have had two spider sightings. (1 mark)

If C is chosen:
Award a maximum of 1 mark if a reasonable explanation is given, for example the spider in the sink may have moved to the living room.

No marks if A is chosen.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 3.
B. Just because you have seen a similar looking spider, doesn't mean it's the same one and that's no reason to assume that there is no longer a spider in the sink.
Similarly, having only had 2 spider sightings, that doesn't warrant the thought that there is an infestation.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the pupil 2 marks for their answer to Question 3, as they have provided two appropriate explanations to support their choice of answer B. The first explanation acknowledges the need to check the sink to confirm whether there is still a spider there, which is a valid reason for choosing B. The second explanation points out that having only two spider sightings is not enough evidence to conclude that there is an infestation, which also supports the choice of B. Overall, the pupil's answer demonstrates a good understanding of the reasoning behind their choice of answer.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 5.
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

‘It’s simply not enough to ban plastic straws. There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean. There is a social media campaign to ban plastic straws. However, plastic straws are only a tiny fraction of the problem. Just by banning them, we are not going to solve the problem.’

Present the argument above in standard form.

Marking instructions for Question 5

Candidates may approach this question in different ways. Regardless of how
they approach it, they should receive credit for the following

• 1 mark for putting it into standard form, that is, laying out premises and conclusion each taking a separate line and labeled accordingly.
• 1 mark for recognising that ‘By banning plastic straws we are not going to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean’ is an intermediate conclusion
• 1 mark for including an appropriate premise and conclusion.

A correct representation of this argument in standard form would be:

P1: There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean.
P2: Plastic straws are only a tiny fraction of the problem of plastic in the ocean.
IC: By banning plastic straws we are not going to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean.
MC: It’s simply not enough to ban plastic straws.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 5.
P1: There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean.
P2: There is a social media campaign to ban plastic straws.
P3: Plastic straws are only a fraction of the problem.
C: It's simply not enough to ban plastic straws.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer includes three of the required elements: P1, P2, and C. However, it does not identify the intermediate conclusion, which is required for full credit. Therefore, I would award the pupil 2 out of 3 marks. They receive 1 mark for putting the argument in standard form and 1 mark for including appropriate premises and a conclusion. However, they do not receive the mark for recognizing the intermediate conclusion.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 6.
Read the following argument.
‘The lamb is ready to eat so you should go and set the table.’

1. Explain the ambiguity in this argument.
2. How does the ambiguity affect this argument?

Marking instructions for Question 6

1. Award 1 mark for pointing out that ‘the lamb is ready to eat’ can be understood in two different ways — either that the lamb is ready for its dinner or that the lamb is ready for your dinner. Maximum of 1 marks for (a)
2. Candidates may approach this question in different ways. To receive marks for their answer they must consider the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. 1 mark for an appropriate point and an additional mark for a development of that point. For example
• the fact that the statement is ambiguous makes the premise ‘the lamb is ready for its dinner’ unacceptable (1 mark) because this makes it difficult to say whether the premise should convince us of the conclusion or not (1 mark)
• if the lamb is ready for its dinner then you don’t need to set the table (1 mark). That reading of the premise makes the premise irrelevant to the conclusion (1 mark)
• the conclusion can only be drawn on the reading that the lamb is ready for your dinner (1 mark) because you would have no reason to set the table if the lamb is ready for its dinner (1 mark)
• ambiguity doesn’t affect this argument because the context makes clear what the meaning is (1 mark) because it would only be appropriate to set the table if it is the lamb that is being eaten for dinner. (1 mark)

Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 6.

1. The ambiguity here is to do with the word "lamb." One person may think that the speaker means the meat of a lamb has been prepared for a person to eat but another person may think that a baby sheep is ready for it's dinner.
2. It affects the argument because if the person who believes that a baby sheep is about to eat it wouldn't make any sense to set the table as the sheep wouldn't eat at the table. Therefore, that person is in the right to criticise the speaker's logic, meaning the table will never get set.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 1 mark for part (a)

The pupil correctly identifies the ambiguity in the argument, but does not fully explain it. They only provide one possible interpretation of "the lamb is ready to eat" rather than the required two.

Mark awarded: 1 mark for part (b)

The pupil provides an appropriate point, stating that the ambiguity affects the argument because one interpretation makes the premise irrelevant to the conclusion. However, they do not fully develop this point or provide additional points, so only one mark can be awarded.

SQA Commentary on Question 6(b)
The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that on reading that the baby sheep is ready to eat, it does not make sense to set the table. 1 mark was given for the claim that it would be right in this case to criticise the speaker’s logic.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 7.

1. What is confirmation bias?
2. Explain how confirmation bias might affect a police investigation.

Marking instructions for Question 7

1. Award 1 mark for confirmation bias involves seeking evidence that confirms what you already believe.
   Award 1 mark for confirmation bias involves ignoring evidence that would disprove what you already believe or point in another direction.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (a)
2. There may be a number of ways that confirmation bias could affect a police investigation, 1 mark should be given for explanation of how evidence is sought to confirm a belief and 1 mark for explanation of how evidence is ignored that counters their belief, for example:
   Award 1 mark for an explanation of how a police investigation might look for evidence that would back up a hunch that someone is guilty of a crime.
   Award 1 mark for an explanation of how a police investigation might ignore evidence that might indicate someone else is guilty of that crime.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 7.

1. Confirmation bias is when somebody tries to prove their theory when working something out instead of trying to disprove it, therefore they get further and further from the answer.
2. If suspect A didn't do the crime but an inspector is certain of his theory that suspect A did do the crime he will keep trying to prove that instead of trying to disprove and getting the answer that he didn't in fact do it. This means that the inspector wastes time when he could be proving that suspect B was the one who done it.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer correctly defines confirmation bias as the tendency to seek out evidence that confirms one's beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them. However, the answer in part (a) includes an additional and incorrect explanation, leading to a mark deduction. Thus, the pupil's answer should be awarded 1 mark for part (a).

In part (b), the pupil's answer provides a reasonable explanation of how confirmation bias can affect a police investigation by offering an example of an inspector being too certain of their theory and overlooking evidence that may point in another direction. As the answer covers both aspects of the marking instructions, it should be awarded 2 marks for part (b).

Therefore, the total mark for the answer is 3 out of 4.

SQA Commentary on Question 7(b)
The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for noting that the police may keep trying to prove his theory and 1 mark for noting that this would waste time when they could be proving that someone else had done it.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 8.

1. What is a fallacious appeal to emotion?
2. Give an example of a fallacious appeal to emotion and explain why it is bad reasoning.

Marking instructions for Question 8

1. Award 1 mark for stating that a fallacious appeal to emotion is when in an argument, instead of using relevant premises to persuade someone, emotion is used to manipulate people into accepting their conclusion. Maximum of 1 mark for (a)
2. Award 1 mark for any appropriate example. Award 1 mark for explaining why that example is fallacious.
   Candidates should not be credited with any marks for examples that are not fallacious.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 8.

1. A fallacious appeal to emotion is when somebody tries to convince somebody else of a conclusion by making them angry, sad, happy, embarrased etc instead of using reason to win them over.
2. Hector won't eat his greens so his dad says "Eat your greens, there are starving kids in poverty who would kill for that." This is bad reasoning as Hector's dad is making Hector feel bad for kids in poverty so he eats his greens when actually Hector eating his greens or not has no real impact on kids in poverty.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 2 marks.

Explanation:
The answer satisfies the requirements for both (a) and (b) parts of the question.

For part (a), the answer provides a definition of a fallacious appeal to emotion, although it is not as precise as the marking instructions. It also provides examples of emotions that could be used to manipulate someone in an argument. While the answer does not state that the emotion is used to replace relevant premises, it implies that the person is not using reason to win the argument, which is a similar idea. Therefore, the answer is worth 1 mark for part (a).

For part (b), the answer gives an appropriate example of a fallacious appeal to emotion, which is worth 1 mark. It also explains why the example is fallacious by stating that the appeal to emotion is not relevant to the argument and has no real impact on the situation at hand. Therefore, the answer is worth 1 mark for explaining why the example is fallacious.

Overall, the answer is worth 2 marks.

Is that 2 marks for part (b) making a total of 3 marks?

I apologize for the confusion. You are correct that the answer would receive a total of 3 marks if it received 2 marks for part (b). So, the answer would receive 1 mark for part (a) and 2 marks for part (b), for a total of 3 marks. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

1. The candidate was awarded 0/1 mark.
2. The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for the example and 1 mark was given for explaining that it was not relevant to the conclusion.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 9.

1. State the form of the denying the antecedent fallacy.
2. Give an example of denying the antecedent.
3. Using your example, explain the error in this form of reasoning.

Marking instructions for Question 9

1. Award 1 mark for ‘If P then Q; Not P; Therefore not Q’.
   No mark for answers starting with a universal claim rather than a conditional statement.
   Maximum of 1 mark for (a)
2. (Award 1 mark for any example. No mark for stating the form.
   Maximum of 1 mark for (b)
3. Award 1 mark each for any of the following points
• denying the antecedent is invalid
• the fact that P is false does not guarantee that Q is also false
• with reference to the example, an explanation of circumstances in which the consequent could be true even when the antecedent is false
• given the truth of ‘If P then Q’, the truth of P is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the truth of Q
• in the denying the antecedent fallacy it is assumed that P is a necessary as well as a sufficient condition for the truth of Q.

Or any other appropriate answer
Maximum of 3 marks for (c)

Answer 9.

1. If P then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q
2. If I go to the lemonade stand I can get lemonade. I didn't go to the lemonade stand. Therefore, I didn't get lemonade.
3. An error in the reasoning of this example is that it is entirely possible that I could have gotten lemonade somewhere else, like a supermarket. This translates to every type of argument that follows the same structure. Just because P didn't happen doesn't mean that Q can't happen.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer for (a) correctly states the form of the denying the antecedent fallacy and therefore is awarded 1 mark.

The pupil's answer for (b) provides an example of denying the antecedent, and therefore is awarded 1 mark.

The pupil's answer for (c) explains the error in the reasoning of denying the antecedent, specifically highlighting that the falsity of P does not guarantee the falsity of Q, and provides a relevant example to support their explanation. The answer is appropriate and insightful and therefore, is awarded the maximum of 3 marks.

Overall, the pupil is awarded 5 out of 5 marks for this question.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for correctly identifying the structure.
2. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for giving a correct example.
3. The candidate was awarded 2/3 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that in the example it is possible that the person could get lemonade somewhere else, 1 mark was given for the general explanation that even because P didn’t happen doesn’t mean that Q can’t happen.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 10.
When is an attack on the person (ad-hominem) not fallacious?
You may support your answer with an example.

Marking instructions for Question 10
Award 1 mark for noting that an attack on the person is not fallacious if it
is relevant to the conclusion of the argument.
Award 1 mark for an appropriate example.
Candidates should not be credited with any marks for examples that are fallacious.
Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 10.
If the ad hominem is relevant to the argument e.g. if you're having an argument about who is smarter one could say "You are extremely stupid." Even though it is an attack on the person, it is relevant to the argument taking place.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer correctly notes that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it is relevant to the conclusion of the argument, and provides an appropriate example to support their answer. Therefore, the pupil should be awarded the full 2 marks available.

Question 11.

Why does Descartes think the cogito is a truth he can be absolutely certain of?

Marking instructions for Question 11
Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a
development of that point, for example

• it is a self-evident truth that cannot be denied
• even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived
• it is impossible for him to doubt his own existence
• ‘I exist’ is necessarily true every time one thinks or conceives it
• it is contradictory to believe ‘I don’t exist’.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 11.
Descartes doubted everything and came to the conclusion that the only thing he can be certain of is himself because he is thinking and there cannot be thoughts without a thinker, therefore, he must exist.

*** chatGPT says ***

I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a relevant point: Descartes thinks the cogito is a truth he can be absolutely certain of because he is thinking and there cannot be thoughts without a thinker, therefore, he must exist.

This corresponds to the point: "even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived" in the marking instructions. However, the answer does not develop this point further or mention any of the other relevant points in the marking instructions.

SQA Commentary for question 11
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark for the claim that there cannot be thoughts without a thinker.

Question 12.
Explain what Descartes means by ‘clear and distinct perception’.

Marking instructions for Question 12
Award 1 mark for each of the following

• a perception is ‘clear’ when it is present and accessible to the attentive mind
• a perception is ‘distinct’ if, as well as being clear, it is separated from all other perceptions and contains only what is clear.

Any answer that shows an understanding of these terms as used by Descartes should be credited.
Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 12.
A clear and distinct perception is something that is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused for anything else.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a partial definition of clear and distinct perception as "something that is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused for anything else." However, it does not mention both of the relevant points in the marking instructions.

The answer only covers the "clear" part of the definition of clear and distinct perception, and it does not mention the idea of a perception being separated from all other perceptions and containing only what is clear, which is the "distinct" part of the definition. Therefore, the pupil has demonstrated some understanding of the concept but has not fully answered the question.

SQA Commentary on Question 12
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark for it ‘is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused with anything else’.

Question 13.
In Meditation 2, what reasons does Descartes give for his belief that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’?

Marking instructions for Question 13
Award 1 mark each for any relevant point, for example

• the cogito is Descartes’ absolute certain truth and he sees this clearly and distinctly
• if it were possible that he could have such a perception and it be false then he would not be able to trust in the cogito
• a non-deceiving God guarantees the truth of clear and distinct perceptions.

Or

Award 2 marks for presenting Descartes’ argument as follows

• P1 — If something I perceived clearly and distinctly could be false then perceiving ‘I exist’ clearly and distinctly would not be enough for me to be certain of it
• P2 — I am certain that ‘I exist’ because I have a ‘clear and distinct perception of it
• C — Everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 13.
Because clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused for anything else, they cannot be confused for anything false.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a relevant point: clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused for anything else, and therefore they cannot be false. However, this point is incomplete and does not fully address the question.

The marking instructions provide several reasons why Descartes believes that whatever he perceives very clearly and distinctly is true. The pupil answer only covers one of these reasons and does not mention the other relevant points. Therefore, the pupil has demonstrated some understanding of the concept, but the answer is not complete.

SQA Commentary on Question 13
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark was given for claiming that ‘Because clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused with anything else, they cannot be confused for anything false’.

Question 14.
Explain two problems with the claim ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’.

Marking instructions for Question 14
Award 1 mark for an appropriate point and an additional mark for a development of that point, for example

• how do we know Descartes is not mistaken about the claim that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’ (1 mark). He previously mistook the things he experienced from his senses to be real based on believing they were clear and distinct (1 mark)
• some things that Descartes doubts in Meditation 1 for example truths of geometry are later claimed to be clear and distinct. (1 mark) How was it possible for these to be doubted if they are meant to be certain (1 mark)
• Descartes claims often that man is ‘subject to error’. (1 mark)
• Therefore, could we be mistaken about having clear and distinct perceptions? (1 mark)
• Descartes’ explanation of what he means by clear and distinct perceptions is vague (1 mark) — what is clear and distinct to Descartes may not be clear and distinct to someone else (1 mark)
• the Cartesian Circle — In order to help guarantee that we can have knowledge based on the clear and distinct rule; Descartes brings in his proof for God (1 mark). His argument for God relies on clear and distinct perceptions. This is circular reasoning. (1 mark) No marks for just stating the Cartiesan circle.

A superficial explanation of a criticism may only be awarded 1 mark.
Maximum of 4 marks

Answer 14.
One problem is the problem with reason. Descartes said that he had to doubt everything in order to find what knowledge what truly indubitable. However, he doesn't seem to doubt his reasoning that "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true". This is bad for Descartes as it shows that he is unwilling to stick to his own rules, which shows lack of integrity, which means people are less inclined to believe him.
Another problem with this claim is the problem with language. This means that Descartes said he would doubt everything, but didn't even doubt the language that he was using. According to his own examples, the evil demon could be manipulating him to think that what he's writing makes sense but he is in fact writing in complete gibberish. This is an issue for Descartes as it, again, shows his lack of respect for himself.

*** chatGPT says ***
Based on the marking instructions, I would award this answer 2 marks. The first point about the problem with reason is relevant and developed to some extent, but it is not directly addressing the claim "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true." The second point about the problem with language is more directly related to the question, but it is not well developed and could be clearer in its explanation. Therefore, it earns 1 mark for each point.

SQA Commentary on Question 14
The candidate was awarded 4/4 marks. 1 mark was given for claiming that Descartes doesn’t doubt the claim that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’. 1 mark was given for expanding on this point to say that he is not sticking to the rules he set for himself. 1 mark was given for saying he doesn’t doubt his own language. 1 mark was given for developing this point with the possibility that the evil genius could be deceiving him into thinking it makes sense when it does not.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 15.
What does Mill mean by ‘higher pleasures’ and ‘lower pleasures’?

Marking instructions for Question 15
Higher pleasures appeal to higher faculties, lower pleasures are animalistic. (1 mark)

Maximum of 1 marks

Answer 15.
A higher pleasure is one that only a human can appreciate. A lower pleasure is one that even a pig could appreciate

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 1 mark

Explanation:
The answer accurately defines Mill's concept of "higher pleasures" and "lower pleasures" as outlined in the marking instructions. The answer correctly states that higher pleasures appeal to higher faculties and lower pleasures are more animalistic in nature. Although the answer presents these ideas in slightly different words, it still demonstrates an understanding of the core concepts, and therefore earns the full mark of 1.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 16.
Why did Mill draw the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

Marking instructions for Question 16
Any of the following should be awarded 1 mark

• Mill wanted to refute Bentham’s claim that all pleasures are equal
• Mill thought that morality should focus on quality as well as quantity
• Mill wanted to answer the criticism that Utilitarianism was a ‘swine philosophy’

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 16.
Mill believed that we should only ever indulge in higher pleasure and that lower. pleasures were for animilstic people who couldn't care less about true pleasure. It was said that "It's better to be a socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer touches on the idea of higher and lower pleasures, but it does not fully answer the question and it contains a misrepresentation of Mill's view. The pupil states that Mill believed we should only ever indulge in higher pleasures and that lower pleasures were only for "animalistic people" who did not care about true pleasure. This is a misrepresentation of Mill's view, which holds that some pleasures are intrinsically better than others, but that people can still legitimately enjoy lower pleasures. Additionally, the pupil's answer does not address the specific question of why Mill drew the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Based on the marking instructions, the answer should receive 0 marks as it does not address any of the possible reasons given for why Mill drew the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 17.
Why does Mill believe that a competent judge would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures?

Marking instructions for Question 17
Candidates should be awarded 1 mark for any appropriate point.
These are likely to include

• competent judges have experienced both higher and lower pleasures
• competent judges would consider the quality of pleasure, not just the quantity
• competent judges would regard some pleasures as more valuable than others — Mill thought it was undeniable that human pleasures are superior to animalistic pleasures
• Mill thinks no person would choose to become like an animal
• consistently choosing lower pleasures would be for a person to become like an animal or for an educated person to become ignorant
• to be happy is to exercise our minds/be involved in developing ourselves in some way
• ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.’ 1 mark for any description of this quote.

Maximum of 4 marks

Answer 17.
Mill believes a competent judge would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures because he believed that everybody would prefer higher to lower pleasures when given the option as higher pleasure expand our intellect and they broaden our horizons but lower pleasures simply indulge us like animals, like eating a big slice of cake or sunbathing, these do nothing for our minds and make us unhealthy. Anybody of sound mind would prefer to pick the higher pleasure like read a book over eat at a fast food restaurant as books help us undersdtand the world and they make us smarter but fast food basically poisons our bodies and makes us extremely unhealthy and can lead to heart problems which can lead to death in bad cases.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award this answer 2 marks out of a maximum of 4.

The first mark can be awarded for the explanation that Mill believed that competent judges would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures because higher pleasures expand our intellect and broaden our horizons, while lower pleasures only indulge us like animals. This is a correct statement and corresponds to the second and third bullet points in the marking instructions.

The second mark can be awarded for the correct identification and explanation of the quote "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question." This corresponds to the last bullet point in the marking instructions.

However, there are some inaccuracies and irrelevant information in the answer that do not correspond to any of the points in the marking instructions. For example, the specific examples of eating at a fast food restaurant or sunbathing are not relevant to the question and do not add to the explanation of Mill's belief. Additionally, the statement that fast food "poisons our bodies" is an opinion that is not necessarily shared by everyone and is not supported by any evidence or argument. Therefore, these inaccuracies and irrelevant information do not contribute to the overall mark.

SQA Commentary on Question 17
The candidate was awarded 3/4 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that Mill believed that everybody would prefer higher to lower pleasures when given the option because higher pleasures expand our intellect and broaden our horizons. 1 mark was given for the expansion of this claim using the examples of reading a book and fast food to explain the point.
1 mark was given for reference to the marking instruction quote ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ was added from the answer to Question 16.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 18.
‘Mill was wrong. I’d much rather go for a pizza than go to the opera.’
Explain why this could be seen as an unfair criticism of Mill’s higher and lower pleasures.

Marking instructions for Question 18
Candidates should be awarded 1 mark for any appropriate point.
These are likely to include

• this criticism wrongly assumes that Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures is based on his personal preferences
• going to the opera is his example of the sort of thing that would, if it appealed to the higher faculties, count as a higher pleasure
• going for a pizza is unlikely to ever be the kind of experience that would appeal to the higher faculties/exercise the mind/contribute to self-development
• Mill doesn’t say that people would always choose the higher pleasures over the lower pleasures
• Mill recognises that humanity is weak.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 18.
This could be seen as an unfair criticism as it is the opinion of one person being used to say that Mill's entire theory was wrong even when that person probably wasn't who he intended to read his theory. He intended this to be read by scholars like himself who would share some similar viewpoints. He didn't account for people who are more interested in greasy food than those interested in the art of opera.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer does not address any of the appropriate points listed in the marking instructions. Therefore, no mark can be awarded for this response.

The pupil's response focuses on the idea that Mill's theory was not intended for the general population but only for scholars like himself. However, this argument is not relevant to the question of why the criticism of Mill's higher and lower pleasures might be seen as unfair. The pupil's response also does not provide any analysis or explanation of Mill's theory or how the criticism misrepresents it.