The big idea: You've met three answers to 'what makes an act right?' — character, duty, results. None is a knockout winner.
What the exam rewards
- Not picking a favourite.
- Seeing what each theory gets right and where each has a blind spot.
- Then judging between them with a reason.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Start Studying Free Full access to Aimnova Pro · cancel anytime
Lay the three families out together and their trade-offs jump out.
What each gets RIGHT
- Virtue: fits real life — we admire good people, not rule-followers
- Duty: protects the individual — some things you just can't do to someone
- Results: takes consequences seriously — outcomes really do matter
Each one's BLIND SPOT
- Virtue: vague when you're stuck — 'be good' doesn't say what to DO
- Duty: can be cold — keep the rule even when it causes disaster
- Results: can trample one person for the many's benefit
A non-Western view of duty: dharma: Duty isn't only a Western idea. In Indian thought, dharma is the right way to act given your role and situation — closer to deontology than to results-counting.
What dharma adds: It shows the 'follow your duty' family runs across cultures too. And it adds a twist Kant lacks: your duties can depend on who you are (your role), not only on universal reason.
Checkpoint — the trade-offs: In one line: virtue is realistic but vague, duty protects but can be rigid, results matter but can trample the one. Hold these three trade-offs — they power every evaluation.
Memorize terms 3x faster
Smart flashcards show you cards right before you forget them. Perfect for definitions and key concepts.
Try Flashcards FreeYour first topic is free to keep • No credit card required
Weighing isn't listing all three — it's showing which measure fits a case best, and why.
Watch a clash get resolved: A nurse can save five patients only by quietly letting one die. Here is what each theory says.
| Theory | Its verdict |
|---|---|
| Results | Save the five. |
| Duty | You may not kill the one, even to help many. |
| Character | Asks what a wise, compassionate nurse would do — and might refuse the cold arithmetic. |
What a strong answer does: A strong answer doesn't just report the three verdicts; it argues WHICH measure should win HERE — perhaps that duty's protection of the one outweighs the numbers — and gives a reason.
Go further — higher-level insight: The sharpest move is to notice the theories may answer different questions rather than compete — so maybe a full ethical life needs all three. Arguing they combine rather than compete is a top-band conclusion.
Three different questions
- Virtue asks who to BE — good character to see the situation.
- Duty asks what you're REQUIRED to do — duties to protect the vulnerable.
- Results ask what to AIM at — an eye on outcomes.
Checkpoint — weighing: In one line: don't list the three — argue which measure fits the case, with a reason, and maybe show they work together. That's what Section B rewards.
How Section B works: Section B is the OPTIONAL-theme essay [25]: you pick one question from your theme (here, Ethics) and write a full argued response — no stimulus.
How to answer it
- The command is usually 'Evaluate' or 'Discuss'.
- Present a claim, argue for and against it, and reach a reasoned conclusion.
- Normative ethics is the richest ground for it.
IB-style questionEvaluate[25 marks]
Evaluate the claim that the right action is always the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Describing the theories instead of arguing the claim. 2. Only one side — 'Evaluate' needs for AND against. 3. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 4. One theory only — bring in a rival (duty or virtue). 5. Name-dropping — a name earns nothing without its argument.