Key Idea: Topic 4.1 is the engine room of the Ethics option. It asks the single question every moral argument stands on: what makes an action right? Three rival answers compete — look at the person's character, the rule they follow, or the results they cause. Ethics feeds Paper 1 Section B, a 25-mark "Evaluate the claim that…" essay. Own these three theories and you can argue almost any moral claim they throw at you.
🧭 The five big questions, one card each
Topic 4.1 at a glance
- 4.1.1 · What makes an action right? — The whole topic in one question. There are three places to look for 'right': the character of the agent (virtue), the rule they act on (deontology), or the results (consequentialism). Every moral argument picks one.
- 4.1.2 · Virtue ethics — Aristotle: be a good person and right action follows. Focus on character and the golden mean, not rules. MacIntyre adds that virtues only make sense inside a community and its practices.
- 4.1.3 · Deontological ethics — Some acts are just wrong, whatever the results. Kant's test: only act on a rule you could will everyone to follow. Duty, not outcome, decides. Divine command is a rival source of the same 'some things are simply forbidden' idea.
- 4.1.4 · Consequentialist ethics — Judge acts by results. Bentham: the greatest good for the greatest number, all pleasure counting equally. Mill refines it — some pleasures are higher than others, so quality matters, not just quantity.
- 4.1.5 · Weighing the three theories — Each lens has a blind spot: virtue is vague on hard cases, deontology can be rigid, consequentialism can justify horrors. A strong Section B answer plays them against each other rather than crowning one.
Ask where each theory looks to judge an act. Virtue looks at the agent (what kind of person does this?). Deontology looks at the act itself and its rule (is this the kind of thing one must never do?). Consequentialism looks at the outcome (what happens as a result?). Same action, three verdicts — that is the whole debate.
✍️ Bring it together — a Section B question
Evaluate the claim that the right action is always the one that produces the best consequences.
🔒 Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Explaining the three theories instead of using them to EVALUATE the claim. The examiner has read 'Kant thinks X, Mill thinks Y' a thousand times. Marks come from putting the theories to WORK on the exact claim: does this evidence support it or break it? Every paragraph should push the claim closer to 'accept' or 'reject', and you must reach a reasoned conclusion — never 'it's all subjective'.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
The three places to look for 'right'? The agent's character (virtue), the act and its rule (deontology), or the results (consequentialism). Same act, three verdicts.
Aristotle's core idea? Be a good person and right action follows. Cultivate virtues aimed at the golden mean between excess and deficiency — character, not rules.
Kant's test for a right action? Only act on a rule (maxim) you could will to become a universal law for everyone, and never treat a person merely as a means.
Bentham vs Mill? Bentham: greatest good for the greatest number, all pleasure equal (quantity). Mill: higher pleasures count for more (quality).
One blind spot of each theory? Virtue is vague on hard cases; deontology can be rigid (never lie, even to save a life); consequentialism can justify harming a few for the many.
How do you WEIGH the three? Play them against each other on the same case, show what each captures and misses, then reach a reasoned trade-off — don't just crown one.
Exam Tips
- Section B is a 25-mark 'Evaluate the claim that…' essay with NO stimulus — structure and evaluation carry the marks.
- Anchor every paragraph to the exact claim: does this move it toward accept or reject?
- Name a thinker ONLY with their argument — Kant or Mill on their own earns nothing.
- Use at least two rival theories against the claim, then end on a reasoned conclusion, not a list.