Weighing the three theories

The big idea: You've met three answers to 'what makes an act right?' — character, duty, results. None is a knockout winner.

The skill the exam rewards isn't picking a favourite; it's seeing what each gets right and where each has a blind spot, then judging with a reason.

Lay the three families out together and their trade-offs jump out.

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. 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.

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. Results say save the five. Duty says 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. 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. Virtue asks who to BE, duty what you're REQUIRED to do, results what to AIM at — so maybe a full ethical life needs all three: good character to see the situation, duties to protect the vulnerable, and an eye on outcomes. Arguing they combine rather than compete is a top-band conclusion.

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. 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.

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.