Past Paper Short Answer Questions

In previous versions of Higher Philosophy there was no paper dedicated to short answer questions. There were, however a number of short answer questions included over the years.

Some caution needs to be exercised when using questions designed for earlier versions of the course as expectations may have been different. This is particularly so with questions dating from some years back. In addition, from 2019, short answer questions will receive a maximum of six marks per question.

Within limits it is entirely possible that essentially the same question can be awarded different marks in different years. Where there is more to say it is possible to allocate more or less marks and so adjust the difficulty of the question. Question setters may do this to adjust the overall difficulty of a paper. Pupils should always be advised to check the number of marks allocated to a question and to offer at least that number of discrete points to the marker.

Having said that all that, past short answer questions can still provide some idea of what kinds of questions might be asked.

 

 

 

Descartes

 

• 1 mark if the answer contains the sequence — v, i, iv
• 1 mark if the final two in a sequence of five are ii & iii in that order.

 

Acceptable answers would include:

• to sustain the doubts previously raised/to prevent his habitual opinions from returning
• to stop himself from believing things just because they are highly probable
• to enable himself to pretend for a time that his former opinions are utterly false
• to ensure that the distorting influence of habit no longer prevents his judgement from perceiving things correctly
• because God is supremely good and the source of truth.

Candidates can also be credited for saying that in Med 2 he adds, 'I will proceed in this way until I recognize something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least recognize for certain that there is no certainty'.

 

1 mark can be awarded for any appropriate objection, eg:

• Descartes says 'I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep' but our ability to even discuss the topic presupposes that this is not the case
• just because when we are asleep we cannot tell that we are asleep doesn't mean that when we are awake we are not able to know that we are awake.
   

 

1 mark to be awarded for each appropriate objection, eg:

• Descartes' conclusion is meant to be the result of doubting everything else but this conclusion seems to depend on him not doubting that he knows what existence and certainty are
• the concept of 'I' seems to contain more that the notion of conceiving something and the conviction that there must be something that is doing the conceiving may just be the result of the way our language works. Although the question uses the formulation found in Meditation II candidates may also respond to the formulation Descartes uses in the Second Replies — 'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist,' — this is acceptable and should be rewarded appropriately.

 

• A clear idea is one that is present to the attentive mind.
• A distinct idea is one that is not mixed up with anything that is not clear.

 

• The cogito.
• God's existence.
• 3+2=5.
• Any other relevant point.

NB the candidate should offer at least two different types of example.

 

• Does not build directly on the cogito of Meditation 2.
• Establishes a rule by which certain knowledge can be recognised.
• Looks back to the cogito and observes that he is certain of this.
• This knowledge is perceived clearly and distinctly.
• This now becomes a bench mark against which other propositions can be measured.
• Uses this to establish the existence of God.
• God is no deceiver and therefore guarantees C&DPs.
• God guarantees the reliability of those things perceived clearly and distinctly when they are no longer present to the mind.

NB the candidate can gain a maximum of two marks for explaining the cogito and two marks for detailing the trademark argument.

• Perceptions which are so self-evident that, while they are held in the mind, they - cannot logically be doubted.
• Something that gives rise to irresistible certainty.
• Clear = present to the attentive mind.
• Distinct = not confused with anything that is not clear.
• Known by the 'light of nature'.

 

• demolish all his existing opinions and start afresh.
• concentrate on principles rather than specific beliefs
• reject obvious falsehoods
• withhold assent from anything capable of being false
• reference to relevant metaphors, eg foundation of a building, credit should be given to metaphor of barrel of apples even though this is not in the Meditations. 

 

• The cogito has been established as a certain, foundational truth.
• A characteristic of the cogito is that it is perceived clearly and distinctly.
• General rule is then established that whatever else is perceived clearly and distinctly can also be called knowledge.
• A truth rule used to help Descartes build upon his foundation of knowledge.
• 'Clear' meaning — present to the attentive mind.
• 'Distinct' meaning — not confused with anything which is not clear.
• Examples of clear and distinct perceptions eg mathematical concepts. 

 

• Maybe Descartes' clear and distinct rule is an invalid generalisation?
• Problems agreeing which knowledge claims are in fact clear and distinct
• Needs God as a guarantor
• Cartesian circle 

 

• God is the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions.
• If God exists then the evil deceiver argument can be ignored because God wouldn't allow us to be deceived.
• God plays a significant role in Descartes' attempts to refute the sceptical arguments in Med. 6
• God is the guarantor of reason 

 

• He is looking for certainty so needs a method that is rigorous
• He only adopts those beliefs that he could say were beyond doubt
• He must withhold his assent from any belief that contains even the slightest doubt
• He focuses on categories of knowledge rather than individual beliefs
• His method attempts to undermine the foundations rather than individual knowledge claims
• If a belief can be doubted then all beliefs within that category must be rejected
• Focuses his doubts on a posteriori truths 

 

• The realisation that nothing is certain
• The conclusion that there are in fact no foundational truths so knowledge appears unattainable 

 

(The question is looking for a balanced answer so a maximum of 4 marks should be awarded for a discussion on either the strengths or weakness on their own)

Strengths

• Sceptical approach encourages us to examine all our deeply held beliefs and develop an open mind when doing philosophy
• Provided a good basis/principle for scientific certainty

Weaknesses

• Descartes doesn't apply his doubt to everything, e.g. his memory or his ability to reason.
• Hume — method leads to a sceptical dead-end
• Introduction of the evil deceiver makes success almost impossible
• The Dream argument is not wholly successful — just because you cannot tell when you are asleep does not mean that you cannot tell when you are awake.

 

Hume

 

Hume supports this claim through illustrations and arguments.

1 mark may be awarded to each substantive point/illustration eg:

• Adam
• marble, gun powder/magnetism, bread and milk nourishing humans but not tigers
• billiard balls
• cause and the effect are distinct
• the effect cannot be found in the cause.

A developed point may be awarded more than 1 mark.

 

1 mark can be awarded for each substantive point:

• Kant claims causation is necessary to make sense of experience
• science has made successful predictions about causation prior to observation, eg Einstein's theory of relativity
• constant conjunctions, eg collateral rather than direct
• is more than one event needed to assume causation?
• any other relevant point.

 

• For Hume all knowledge is based upon experience.
• Hume aims to show that all ideas are derived from impressions.
• Hume is offering an atomistic account of how we build knowledge from experience, and uses simple ideas as the building blocks.
• Every perception of the mind can be categorised as either an impression or an idea.
• Impressions may be either inward (e.g. emotions) or outward (i.e. the senses)
• The distinction between impressions and ideas is made on the basis of their force & vivacity.
• Simple ideas are copies of impressions and are put together using the operations of the imagination to form complex ideas.

A maximum of three marks will be awarded unless the answer makes clear that for Hume all knowledge is based upon experience. 

 

Hume presents two arguments to support his claim that all ideas are copies of impressions:

• Any idea can be traced back to prior impression. Hume provides the example of God.
• If there has been no impression then there is no possibility of forming the idea.

Hume provides four examples to support this:

• Defective sense organs.
• Lack of relevant experience.
• Certain personality types are unable to form certain ideas that conflict with their personality.
• The inability of humans to form ideas relating to non-human senses.

Candidates should be rewarded for each substantive point irrespective of how many arguments they explain.

Candidates should also be rewarded if they explain how Hume supports his earlier claim that an individual idea is a copy of an impression.

No credit should be given for simple description, e.g. describing simple and complex ideas. The answer must relate to the evidence Hume provides in support of his claims.

 

Points of Knowledge, Understanding and Analysis might include:

• Hume uses the missing shade of blue as a counter-example to his claim that all ideas are derived from impressions.
• He says if we imagine someone had seen every shade of blue except one, and that they were all spread out before him from lightest to darkest, he'd be able to detect a gap.
• As well as being able to detect the gap, he would be able to imagine the missing shade.
• This is a counter-example to Hume's theory because Hume thinks the missing shade of blue is a simple idea.
• Hume says the counterexample should not undermine the theory as a whole because it is so singular that it is scarcely worth observing.

Evaluative remarks might include the following:

• Hume could have said that the missing shade of blue is a complex idea, and candidates could comment on why he didn't do this.
• The same point could be made regarding any sort of graded scale - notes on a musical scale, roughness of sandpaper, heat of chillies, etc - and candidates could comment on the significance of this, as well as considering whether or not Hume realised that it might be extended in this way.
• Hume is genuinely trying to come up with a science of man and is exploring the only objection he can think of to his theory.
• Hume is aiming for a big and comprehensive picture with his theory of knowledge. Given the relatively insignificant role that this kind of example plays in our acquisition of knowledge (even if it is extended), Hume was right to say that it does not undermine his whole theory.
• Hume should have accepted that any counterexample to an 'all' claim disproves the claim.

 

Any 6 points:

• We gather ideas about the world through experience alone
• We generate mental representations of the outside world called impressions
• Impressions include internal and external perceptions, eg feeling angry or seeing a car
• Impressions are the lively original experiences, eg seeing a red apple
• Impressions come 'unbidden to the mind'
• We then make faint copies of the impressions
• These copies are called ideas, eg remembering a red apple
• Ideas can be summoned at will and constitute memories 

 

• These are explained by Hume's distinction between simple and complex ideas.
• Acts of the imagination are complex ideas which have been created by compounding, augmenting, diminishing or transposing simple ideas, which have in turn been copied from impressions 

 

Any 3 critical points, eg:

• Notable exceptions to his claim that impressions are usually lively and ideas usually faint
• Impossibility of comparing ideas with impressions (Barrier of ideas)
• Representative account leads to scepticism about the outside world (Barrier of impressions)
• Missing shade of blue appears to contradict his theory 

 

Utilitarianism

 

Intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent.

• 1 mark for identifying at least four; 2 marks for identifying all seven.

It is acceptable for a candidate to correctly explain an item rather than simply list the items, eg it would be acceptable to say 'nearness/remoteness' rather than 'propinquity'.
If a candidate states an item correctly but then gives an incorrect explanation and thereby show they do not understand the term they should still be credited as they would have been if they had simply given the term without the explanation. 

 

• having experience of both types of pleasure, ie the 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures. 

 

• 1 mark for saying that for act utilitarians, an action is right if it maximises happiness.
• 1 mark for saying that for rule utilitarians, an action is right if it conforms to a rule that is in place because it maximises happiness.

It is not sufficient to say rule utilitarians follow rules and act utilitarians don't follow rules for act utilitarians advocated the use of rules to assist in selecting the right action. 

 

Kantian ethics

 

• 1 mark for linking 'deontological' to the ethical position that morality is based on duty/obligation/it is a moral theory where morality is determined by something intrinsic to the action rather than the consequences. It is not enough to say it is to do with motives. 

 

• 1 mark for "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
• 1 mark for "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.
• 1 mark for "Act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

Due to there being different translations it is not necessary for the wording to be exactly as given here but it should be close enough to capture the important features of the formulation. In particular: - the first formulation concerns what we can logically will to be the case not what we would wish or desire to be the case or what we might successfully get people to follow; - in the second formulation (the humanity/end in itself formulation) it is not acceptable to say, "You shouldn't treat someone as a means" the crucial point is that they must always be treated as an end. 

 

• 1 mark for saying that you cannot conceive of a maxim becoming a universal law because the attempt to do so removes the conditions which make it possible 

 

• 1 mark for saying that a perfect duty is one that has no exceptions. A candidate may say that in Kantian ethics if attempting to universalise the maxim leads to a contradiction in conception then we have a perfect duty to refrain from acting on that maxim. 

 

• In Kant's philosophy this is a contradiction which some impermissible maxims are guilty of because, although they are possible to conceive, they are inconsistent with other maxims which any rational person would wish to assent to at some point. 

 

• Conflicting duties issue not resolved
• We have natural inclination to consider consequences in moral decision making
• Role of emotion is downplayed in favour of duty