More Suggested Questions

Question 1

Explain what is meant by the affirming the consequent fallacy.
Give an example to support your answer. (2)

Answer 1

Candidates can gain 1 mark by demonstrating their understanding of the affirming the consequent fallacy.
Any of the following points are acceptable:
 in this fallacy it is incorrectly assumed that the fact that Q is true guarantees that P is also true (1 mark)
 in the affirming the consequent fallacy it is incorrectly assumed that Q is a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the truth of P (1 mark)
 given the truth of ‘If P then Q’, the truth of Q is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the truth of P (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for a correct example of affirming the consequent, for example:
P1: If you miss the bus then you will be late for school. P2: You were late for school.
C: You must have missed the bus.

Question 2

Explain the difference between an analogy used as part of an argument and an analogy used as an explanation. (2)

Answer 2

Award 1 mark for each of the following points:
 an account of how analogies are used in arguments, for example analogical arguments work by saying that X is true of A so X is probably also true of B because B is relevantly similar to A (1 mark)
 an account of how analogies are used as explanations, for example analogical explanations work by comparing something familiar or easy to imagine with something that is difficult to understand (1 mark)

Question 3

In your Higher Philosophy course you have studied what makes premises in an argument acceptable.
State any two examples of what might make premises in an argument unacceptable. (2)

Answer 3

Award 1 mark each for any two of the following points:
 the premise is ambiguous (1 mark)
 the premise can’t be accepted as true (1 mark)
 the premise appeals to an inappropriate authority (1 mark)
 the premise does not properly represent the facts pertaining to the conclusion (1 mark)

Question 4

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
‘If I exercise regularly then I will live a long and healthy life. But since I am not going to exercise regularly then I will not live a long and healthy life.’
Explain what is wrong with this type of argument.
In your answer you should focus on identifying and explaining a fallacy. (2)

Answer 4

Award 1 mark for identifying the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Award 1 mark for an explanation of the fallacy, for example:
 given the truth of ‘If P then Q’, the truth of P is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the truth of Q (1 mark)
 in the denying the antecedent fallacy it is assumed that P is a necessary as well as a sufficient condition for the truth of Q (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for accurate reference to the given argument, for example:
 the fact that P is false does not guarantee that Q is also false — with reference to the example, the person not exercising may still lead a long and healthy life (1 mark)
 exercise isn’t the only factor in living a long and healthy life — for example, genetics may play a big part (1 mark)

Question 5

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
‘Surely you know that we have a duty to pay our taxes. It’s because we get a health service and other benefits from government activities. We have a duty to do our share to finance these activities. And taxes are the way we do that. Stop moaning! Pay your taxes!’
Write the argument in the above passage in standard form. (3)

Answer 5

Candidates can gain marks as follows:
 for putting the argument into standard form, that is, laying out premises and conclusion, each taking a separate line and labelled accordingly (1 mark)
 for recognising that ‘taxes are the way to finance a health service and other benefits from government activities’ is an intermediate conclusion (1 mark)
 identifying the final conclusion (1 mark)
A correct representation of this argument in standard form would
be:
P1: We get a health service and other benefits from government activities.
P2: Taxes are the way to finance a health service and other benefits from government activities.
Intermediate conclusion: We have a duty to do our share to finance a health service and other benefits from government.
Conclusion: We have a duty to pay our taxes.

Question 6

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
‘Think again about what you’ve said. The Santa lie is morally justified. For a start, the lie is not permanent. You give kids the myth about Santa now but you tell them the truth when they’re older. It’s a mild deception. When kids grow up they accept that Santa isn’t real and remember the years of pleasure. Believing in Santa makes Christmas magical and perfect. Get a life!’
Present the argument in the above passage in an argument diagram. You should provide a suitable key to your diagram. (3)

Answer 6

Award 1 mark for a convergent argument diagram.
Award 1 mark for identifying the conclusion, ‘The Santa lie is morally justified’.
Award 1 mark for providing an appropriate key with statements labelled and omitting both ‘Think again about what you’ve said’ and ‘Get a life’.
Key
(1) The Santa lie is morally justified.
(2) The Santa lie is not permanent.
(3) You tell the kids the truth when they’re older.
(4) When kids grow up they accept that Santa isn’t real and
remember the years of pleasure.
(5) Believing in Santa makes Christmas magical and perfect.
Diagram

Question 7

Give an example of an argument which fits the following diagram. (1)

Answer 7

Award 1 mark for any correct example of a linked argument.
For example:
P1: Socrates is a man. P2: All men are mortal. C: Socrates is mortal.

Question 8

Arguments are often evaluated in terms of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency. To what extent are the premises in the following argument acceptable, relevant and sufficient to draw the conclusion?
‘Swimming is a safe exercise for people who have joint problems such as arthritis, because the water supports the swimmer. Furthermore, there is no stress on painful joints such as the ankle and knee.’ (3)

Answer 8

Award 1 mark for any of the following points: The premises are acceptable:
 on the grounds that they are common knowledge
 because it is known to be true
 because it can be accepted as true
Award 1 mark for the following point:
 The premises are relevant because some justification is provided to support the conclusion — the water supports the swimmer or there is no stress on painful joints.
Award 1 mark for the following point:
 The premises are acceptable and relevant — they are sufficient to have confidence in the conclusion.

Question 9

Evaluate the following argument. You should refer to acceptability, relevance and sufficiency in your answer.
‘The class notes for the geology course were difficult to read. The assignments for the class were hard to complete. Many pupils don’t enjoy geology. Therefore, the lecturer in the geology course was not competent in his knowledge of geology.’ (3)

Answer 9

Award 1 mark for saying that the premises are insufficient to draw the conclusion.
Award marks for other appropriate comments, for example:
 Even if each individual premise is true and therefore acceptable none of the premises is relevant to the conclusion (1 mark) that ‘the lecturer in the geology department was not competent in his knowledge of geology’. (1 mark)
 Even if it is the case that the class notes were difficult to read, the assignments hard to complete, and the pupils don’t enjoy geology, the lecturer might well be very competent in his knowledge of geology. (2 marks)

Question 10

(a) What is a fallacious appeal to emotion?

b) Why might a fallacious appeal to emotion affect the relevance of premises in an argument? (1 each

Answer 10

Award 1 mark for either of the following points:
 A fallacious appeal to emotion is an attempt to gain acceptance of a claim by appealing to some emotion rather than a reasoned appraisal of the facts. (1 mark)
 The premises stated by the arguer might not be relevant to their conclusion because they may play on emotion to manipulate the audience rather than on the argument. (1 mark)

Question 11

dentify and explain the fallacy in the following argument. You should refer to this argument in your answer.
‘Very soon after the politician made his speech at the museum, a devastating explosion happened. For the safety of the people who live and work in that area of Edinburgh, it is essential that the politician makes no more speeches there.’ (3)

Answer 11

Award 1 mark for identifying the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Award 1 mark for explaining the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, for example:
 This informal fallacy is falsely assuming that because some event followed another that it was caused by the first event, that because X and Y occur one after the other, the one causes the other. (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for explaining the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy in relation to the given argument, for example:
 Just because there was a devastating explosion very soon after the politician made his speech does not mean that there was a causal link between the two events. (1 mark)

Question 12

State three purposes of Descartes’ method of doubt. (3)

Answer 12

Award 1 mark for any of the following points:
 to find a firm foundation for knowledge (1 mark)
 to find something firm and lasting in the sciences (1 mark)
 to prove that God exists (1 mark)
 to prove the sceptics wrong (1 mark)
 to eliminate all sources of doubt (1 mark)
 to make a case for rationalism (1 mark)
This list is not exhaustive — award marks for any other accurate points.

Question 13

Outline Descartes’ dream argument. (4)

Answer 13

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
Candidates may explain the dream argument in different ways, but they might cover the following points:
 There are no certain signs that distinguish my waking life from being asleep and dreaming. (1 mark)
 If there are no certain signs that distinguish my waking life from being asleep and dreaming, then it is possible that I am not awake right now but rather dreaming I am awake. (1 mark)
 It is possible that I am not awake right now but rather dreaming I am awake. (1 mark)
 Descartes concludes that if he is dreaming right now then the beliefs he has gained from his senses may be open to doubt and could in fact be false. (1 mark)
 Descartes recognises that, even if everything is a dream, some simple and universal things are still real such as the truths of mathematics. (1 mark)

Question 14

Why does Descartes think the Cogito is a certain truth? (4)

Answer 14

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point, for example:
 Descartes says that the proposition ‘I am, I exist’ is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (1 mark)
 If this proposition is necessarily true, then it is a certain truth. (1 mark)
 The certainty is logical — Descartes can’t doubt that he is thinking. (1 mark)
 The cogito is Descartes’ absolute certain truth and he sees this clearly and distinctly. (1 mark)
 If it were possible that he could have such a perception and it be false, then he would not be able to trust in the cogito.
(1 mark)
 A non-deceiving God guarantees the truth of clear and distinct perceptions. (1 mark)

Question 15

Explain the purpose of Descartes’ examples of stones and heat in Meditation III. (4)

Answer 15

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
Award 2 marks for an explanation of Descartes’ position that:
 something cannot arise from nothing (1 mark)
 what is more perfect cannot arise from what is less perfect (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for Descartes’ claim that a stone cannot begin to exist without being created by something which contains all that we can find in the stone.
Award 1 mark for Descartes’ claim that heat cannot be produced in something that was not hot or at least that did not have ‘at least the same order of perfection as heat’.

Question 16

With reference to Descartes, what is meant by the ‘causal adequacy principle’? (3)

Answer 16

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
Candidates must show that they understand the causal adequacy principle to gain 3 marks, for example:
 The causal adequacy principle — ‘there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause’. (1 mark)
 The causal adequacy principle — ‘something cannot arise from nothing (1 mark) and also that what is more perfect — that is, contains in itself more reality — cannot arise from what is less perfect’. (1 mark)

Question 17

Explain two problems with Descartes’ Trademark argument. (4)

Answer 17

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
 The trademark argument relies on our innate idea of God, of perfection and the infinite. (1 mark) What if Descartes is mistaken and there is no clear and distinct idea of God?
(1 mark)
 Descartes’ claim that although he does not fully grasp the concept of the infinite, he nonetheless has a clear and distinct perception of it. (1 mark) Is it reasonable to expect that having a clear and distinct perception of something requires grasping the idea fully? (1 mark)
 Hume thinks we can come to the idea of God by simply augmenting qualities we know through experience of humankind. (1 mark)
Has Descartes only proved God’s existence to those people who similarly have such a perception? (1 mark) Should I take his word for it, if I do not have this kind of idea within my mind? (1 mark)

Question 18

With reference to Kant, what do you understand by ‘sovereignty of reason’? (3)

Answer 18

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
The following are examples of relevant points that candidates should make:
 Kant believed that pure practical reason was the governing principle of our moral reasoning. (1 mark)
 By basing morality entirely on reason its sovereignty is guaranteed. (1 mark)
 For Kant, to deny that stealing is wrong is the same as denying that 2+2=4. For that reason alone, Kant regards moral rules as binding on everyone. (1 mark)

Question 19

What did Kant mean by the ‘good will’? (3)

Answer 19

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
 The goodness of a moral act comes from something fundamental to the act itself (1 mark) — a good will that is good without qualification. (1 mark)
 He argues that a ‘good will’ is the only thing that is unquestionably good. (1 mark)
 A good will is not good because of what it achieves; it is intrinsically good in itself. (1 mark)
 The good will is the intention to do what is right because you recognise that it is your duty to do so. (1 mark)

Question 20

Describe what Kant said about duty versus inclination. (3)

Answer 20

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
The following are examples of points that candidates should make:
 Kant emphasises that, in determining our duty, we must take no account of our inclinations or happiness. (1 mark)
 This means that we can’t determine an action to be a duty just because we desire to do it or because it will make us happy. (1 mark)
 If we make moral decisions based on our inclinations, we are self-deceivers. (1 mark) We should know that following our duty may mean the sacrifice of our inclinations. (1 mark)
 Kant explains that only when we act out of duty do we make a conscious rational decision to act according to what is right. (1 mark)
 Our inclination is something we have simply because of our nature and this cannot be something that is morally praiseworthy (1 mark)
 However, Kant did not disregard inclinations altogether. Some inclinations, such as natural sympathy, may help us to perform our duties. (1 mark)
 What we must avoid is replacing the motive of duty with the motive of personal happiness. (1 mark)

Question 21

What does Kant mean by saying that we should never treat a human being simply as a means? Give examples to support your answer. (4)

Answer 21

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
 To use someone simply as a means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not, in principle, consent. (1 mark) This undermines their autonomy as a rational being. (1 mark) It is to treat a person in the way that we might treat an inanimate object, simply as a way to get what we want, regardless of their own goals. (1 mark)
 Kant is not saying that we can never use another person as a means to an end or that it’s wrong to do so. (1 mark) We can, for example, use taxi drivers to take us to our destination as long as we are treating them with respect as autonomous rational beings. (1 mark) If I pay the taxi drivers an appropriate amount and treat them well, I am not treating them simply as a means to an end but I am also treating them as an end.
(1 mark)

Question 22

With reference to Kant, explain the two ways that contradictions can arise through the process of universalising the maxim? (6)

Answer 22

Award 3 marks for each of contradiction in conception and contradiction in the will.
Contradiction in conception
The following are examples of points that candidates should make:
 When trying to universalise a maxim, a contradiction in conception arises from maxims that are flawed by their very internal logic. (1 mark)
 Maxims that lead to a contradiction in conception involve violations of a perfect duty (1 mark) or to put it another way, we
have perfect duties not to perform maxims that lead to contradictions in conception (1 mark)
 Kant uses the example of someone who promises to pay back money when he has no intention of paying it back. (1 mark) Such people are logically contradicting themselves because they are acting on the maxim that ‘people should make false promises whenever they can gain from it’ (1 mark) but if everyone was to use this maxim as a guiding principle then they would be unable to get the loan because no one would lend them money knowing that they were making a false promise. (1 mark)
Contradiction in the will
The following are examples of points that candidates should make:
 There is a contradiction in the will when it is not possible for a rational being to will that their maxim be universalised. (1 mark) This is because it contradicts other maxims that the person would rationally want to exist sometimes. (1 mark) Maxims that lead to a contradiction in the will involve a violation of an imperfect duty (1 mark) or to put it another way, we have an imperfect duty not to perform maxims that lead to contradictions in the will. (1 mark)
 Kant uses the example of developing talents. (1 mark) I can’t will that my maxim, ‘it is ok for me not to develop my talents’ is universalised as I cannot rationally will that no-one ever developed their talents. (1 mark)

Question 23

What is meant by a ‘deontological’ theory of ethics? (1)

Answer 23

Award 1 mark for either of the following:
 an ethical theory that defines ‘right’ as independent of consequences (1 mark)
or
 an ethical theory that focuses on ‘duty’ (1 mark)

Question 24

Describe two components of Bentham’s hedonic calculus. (2)

Answer 24

Award 1 mark for any two components from the following:
Award 0 marks if a candidate only gives the name of a component.
Intensity: How intense will the pleasure be?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty: How likely is the pleasure to happen? Propinquity: How immediate or remote is the pleasure?
The above four criteria are to do with measuring the amount of pain caused to the individuals most affected by the action.
Fecundity: How likely is it that the pleasures will be followed by similar pleasures?
Purity: How likely is it that the pain will be followed by other pains?
The above two criteria are to do with estimating pleasure and pain beyond the act itself.
Extent: How many people will experience the pleasure?
Extent is to do with the number of people affected by the action.

Question 25

Why did Mill develop the concept of higher and lower pleasures? (2)

Answer 25

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
 Mill rejected Bentham’s account of the best way to measure pleasures. (1 mark) He claimed that there are different kinds of pleasure and that the quality of those pleasures matters for the measurement of happiness. (1 mark)
or
 Mill was dealing with the accusation that utilitarianism was simply encouraging people to pander to their ‘animal appetites’ (1 mark) and, to do that, he focused on the idea that pleasures of the mind are superior to pleasures of the body. (1 mark) He believed that given the choice, no person would choose a life full of lower pleasures over a life with less overall pleasures but with some higher pleasures (1 mark)

Question 26

Describe the key features of classical utilitarianism. (6)

Answer 26

Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a development of that point.
Candidates should cover the following areas:
 Consequentialism (1 mark) — the moral rightness of an action is determined by the consequences that the act produces.
(1 mark)
 The Hedonic Principle (1 mark) — Hedonism is the view that pleasure or happiness is the only thing worth valuing. (1 mark)
 The Equity Principle (1 mark) — this aspect of the greatest happiness principle emphasises that everyone’s happiness counts equally in our deliberations. (1 mark)

Question 27

What is the essential difference between act and rule utilitarianism? (2)

Answer 27

Award 2 marks for clearly showing understanding of act and rule utilitarianism.
 Act utilitarianism says that an action is right if that action maximises happiness in any one particular situation. (1 mark)
 Rule utilitarianism says that an action is right if it follows a rule that maximises happiness generally even if, on some particular occasions, following the rule doesn’t maximise happiness.
(1 mark)

Question 28

Explain two criticisms of rule utilitarianism. (4)

Answer 28

Award 1 mark for stating a criticism and 1 mark for developing that point.
Award marks for any appropriate criticism, for example:
 It is difficult to construct objective rules that work for every situation. (1 mark)
 As with deontological ethical theories, there may be a problem with conflicting rules. (1 mark) An appropriate example may be given (1 mark)
 Rule utilitarians might be accused of ‘rule worship’ or inflexibility if they will never break a rule (1 mark), for example breaking the rule ‘do not tell a lie’ in order to save a life is, arguably, morally acceptable. (1 mark)
 Following general rules that are based on maximising happiness would possibly address the accusation of ‘tyranny of the majority’. (1 mark) This is because such rules would always protect the innocent, for example. (1 mark)

Question 29

Explain two criticisms of Bentham’s hedonic calculus. (4)

Answer 29

Award 1 mark for stating a criticism and 1 mark for developing that point.
 A problem with setting happiness or pleasure as the only appropriate goal of our action is that it is very difficult to measure or quantify. (1 mark) For example, how much happiness is produced from eating an ice cream and how does this compare to going on a rollercoaster? (1 mark)
 Bentham’s calculus makes quite a convincing attempt to develop a tool which allows us to compare dissimilar pleasures and pains (1 mark) but it could be argued that it’s almost impossible to compare different pleasures and pains. (1 mark)
 Even if different pleasures could be rated on a common scale, the seven criteria of Bentham’s scale make such quantification extremely complex in principle (1 mark), since there’s no unique way to combine the seven scores. (1 mark)
 Even if all the ‘mathematical’ calculations can somehow be managed (1 mark) there remains the difficulty of predicting the consequences of each facet of the potential action. (1 mark)
 The time-consuming nature of using the Hedonic Calculus is also a problem. (1 mark) Many moral decisions require a quick resolution, not a complicated system of calculation. (1 mark)