The big idea: When the theories conflict on a real case, how do we ACTUALLY decide? That's the question the whole topic has been building to.
The same clash, three times
A dying patient
Virtue, duty and consequences pull different ways.
A profit-hungry firm
Virtue, duty and consequences pull different ways.
A starving stranger
Virtue, duty and consequences pull different ways.
Patient · Firm · Stranger
Applying ethics means turning a big theory into a verdict on one messy case — and the hard part is that the theories rarely agree, so we need a way to weigh them rather than just pick a favourite.
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.
When the theories clash, people reach for one of three moves — and each has a weakness.
The three moves
- Pick one theory and apply it strictly
- Balance them — weigh duty, consequences and virtue together
- Start from the case — judge THIS situation, use theory as a guide
The catch with each
- One theory alone gives answers that feel wrong in some cases
- Balancing has no fixed recipe — how much weight to each?
- Case-first risks just rationalising what you wanted anyway
Checkpoint — how we decide: In one line: when the theories conflict, don't just pick a favourite — weigh them against the actual case and give reasons others can test. Hold that — it's exactly what a §B essay does.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
Go further — higher-level insight: See how each field is the SAME clash on a different battleground. Biomedical, business and global poverty all set duty against consequences against virtue — the only thing that changes is the case. Showing that applied ethics is one method running on three problems, not three separate topics, is exactly the synthesis a top-band Section B answer needs.
The move that scores: In Paper 1 §B you don't just describe an issue. You argue a claim, test it against the strongest objection, weigh them, and reach a reasoned conclusion. That doing philosophy is what the markbands reward.
How Section B works: Ethics is an OPTIONAL theme, so it's examined in Paper 1 Section B: a straight essay [25] with NO stimulus. You're handed a CLAIM and asked to Evaluate or Discuss it.
The whole skill
Argue
Argue a view on the claim.
Test
Test it against the strongest objection.
Weigh
Weigh the view and the objection.
Conclude
Reach a reasoned conclusion — using the cases and thinkers from this topic as evidence.
Argue · Test · Weigh · Conclude
Evaluate the claim that we have the same duty to help distant strangers as to help those close to us.
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 — top bands need the objection. 3. No thinkers/cases — bring in Singer, the drowning child, special duties. 4. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 5. Name-dropping — a name earns nothing without its argument.