Key Idea: Topic 4.3 takes the three theories from 4.1 out of the seminar and into the real world: the hospital bedside, the boardroom, and the gap between rich and poor. Applied ethics asks — when it actually MATTERS, how do we decide? It feeds Paper 1 Section B, a 25-mark "Evaluate the claim that…" essay. The examiner loves a concrete case argued with real theory — this topic gives you both.
⚖️ The four big questions, one card each
Topic 4.3 at a glance
- 4.3.1 · Biomedical ethics — Ethics at the bedside — euthanasia, consent, resources. Run one case through three theories: consequences (does it reduce suffering?), the rule 'do not kill' (deontology), and the compassionate character (virtue). The same case, three verdicts.
- 4.3.2 · Business ethics — Is 'business ethics' a contradiction? One view: a firm's only duty is profit (Friedman) — obey the law, then maximise returns. The reply: firms owe more, to workers, customers and society (stakeholders), not just shareholders.
- 4.3.3 · Distribution of wealth — Do we owe anything to the distant poor? Singer's drowning-child argument: if you'd ruin your shoes to save a drowning child, distance can't matter, so you must give to save far-off lives too. Critics push back on how demanding that is.
- 4.3.4 · How do we apply ethics? — From theory to the real world. People actually decide by mixing theory, gut intuition and case comparison. No single theory settles hard cases cleanly — applying ethics is a balance, and that honesty is itself an exam point.
For ANY applied case, run it through all three lenses and watch them disagree. Consequences: what are the results (utilitarian)? The rule: is this the kind of act we must never do (deontology)? Character: what would a compassionate, honest person do (virtue)? The tension BETWEEN the verdicts is where the marks live — not in picking one lens and stopping.
✍️ Bring it together — a Section B question
Evaluate the claim that we are morally obliged to give to the distant poor as much as we would to save a child drowning in front of us.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Giving your opinion about the case instead of ARGUING it with theory. 'I think we should help the poor' is worth nothing on its own. Marks come from running the case through the theories — consequentialism, deontology, virtue — testing the analogy, weighing the objections, and reaching a reasoned conclusion. A concrete example is a tool for evaluation, never a substitute for it.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
The core move of applied ethics? Run one real case through all three lenses — consequences, the rule, character — and use the disagreement between their verdicts.
Euthanasia through three theories? Consequences: does it reduce suffering? Deontology: it breaks 'do not kill'. Virtue: what would a compassionate person do? Same case, three verdicts.
The profit-only view of business? Friedman: a firm's only social duty is to obey the law and maximise profit for shareholders. Reply: it owes stakeholders more than profit.
Singer's drowning-child argument? If you'd ruin your shoes to save a drowning child, distance can't matter morally — so you're obliged to give to save distant lives too.
The main objection to Singer? It's too demanding — taken strictly it consumes nearly all your resources; plus disanalogies (uncertainty, shared duty) weaken the pond comparison.
How do people actually apply ethics? By mixing theory, gut intuition and case comparison — no single theory settles hard cases cleanly, and admitting that is itself a mark-worthy point.
Exam tips
- Section B is a 25-mark 'Evaluate the claim that…' essay with NO stimulus — structure and evaluation carry the marks.
- Use a concrete case (euthanasia, aid, a firm) as a TOOL to test the claim, never as your whole answer.
- Name a thinker or theory ONLY with its argument — Singer or Friedman alone earns nothing.
- Weigh at least two theories on the case, then end on a reasoned conclusion, not a list.