The big idea: You've now seen the same thing happen three times: on a dying patient, on a profit-hungry firm, on a starving stranger — virtue, duty and consequences pull different ways.
So here's the question the whole topic has been building to: when the theories conflict on a real case, how do we ACTUALLY decide?
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 free for 7 days:
- 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 is to argue a view, test it against the strongest objection, weigh them, and reach a reasoned conclusion — using the cases and thinkers from this topic as evidence.
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.