a level philosophy essay questions

This website works best with JavaScript switched on. Please enable JavaScript

• Centre Services
• Associate Extranet
• All About Maths

A-level Philosophy

• Specification
• Teaching resources

Assessment resources

• Answers and commentaries (5)
• Examiner reports (2)
• Mark schemes (8)
• Question papers (14)
• Paper 1 (15)
• Paper 2 (15)
• June 2022 (8)
• November 2020 (6)
• November 2021 (10)
• Sample set 1 (5)

Showing 29 results

Question paper: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 388 KB

Question paper (Modified A4 18pt): Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 310 KB

Question paper: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 482 KB

Question paper (Modified A4 18pt): Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 311 KB

Examiner report: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 173 KB

Examiner report: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 161 KB

Mark scheme: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 417 KB

Mark scheme: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - June 2022

Published 14 Jul 2023 | PDF | 361 KB

Answers and commentary: Paper 2 Section B The metaphysics of mind - November 2021

Published 2 Feb 2023 | PDF | 7.2 MB

Answers and commentary: Paper 2 Section A The metaphysics of God - November 2021

Published 2 Feb 2023 | PDF | 5.5 MB

Answers and commentary: Paper 1 Section A Epistemology - November 2021

Published 2 Feb 2023 | PDF | 6 MB

Answers and commentary: Paper 1 Section B Moral philosophy - November 2021

Published 2 Feb 2023 | PDF | 8 MB

Question paper: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 467 KB

Question paper: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 510 KB

Question paper (Modified A4 18pt): Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 377 KB

Question paper (Modified A4 18pt): Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 341 KB

Mark scheme: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 408 KB

Mark scheme: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - November 2021

Published 29 Jul 2022 | PDF | 385 KB

Question paper: Paper 1 Epistemology and moral philosophy - November 2020

Published 18 Jan 2022 | PDF | 447 KB

Question paper: Paper 2 The metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind - November 2020

Published 18 Jan 2022 | PDF | 465 KB

• Revision notes >

A-Level Philosophy Revision Notes

These concise and organised A-Level Philosophy revision notes condense complex subject matter into easily digestible chunks, making them ideal companions for your exam preparation. If you’re struggling to understand a topic, our expert Philosophy tutors can support you in your revision by creating a personalised study plan to set you on the path to success.

What is the difference between ethical naturalism and non-naturalism’s account of moral language?

How do you critically assess a theory, how can i effectively revise for a-level philosophy, particularly focusing on ethics and morality.

Comprehensive revision for ethics and morality involves understanding key theories like Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Virtue ethics. You could create comparison tables to highlight their differences and similarities or discuss ethical dilemmas and their application to real-life scenarios with friends. This will help you to develop your ability to critically evaluate arguments for and against these theories. Make sure you have a bank of examples to provide examples that support your analysis in the exam.

What's the best way to prepare for the philosophy of religion component of the A-Level Philosophy exam?

To excel in the philosophy of religion, prioritize the study of arguments for the existence of God, the problem of evil, and religious language. Familiarize yourself with the works of influential philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and Hume. Practice essay writing by dissecting and evaluating complex theological concepts, offering evidence and counterarguments to strengthen your essays.

How can I prepare for the logic and argumentation aspects of the A-Level Philosophy exam?

Mastering formal logic is essential. Familiarize yourself with logical symbols, truth tables, and valid argument structures. Practice analyzing and constructing arguments, identifying fallacies, and evaluating premises and conclusions. Use online resources and textbooks specifically designed for logic in philosophy. When revising, focus on famous philosophical debates like the nature of existence (ontological arguments) or the problem of evil (theodicy), employing logical reasoning to dissect these complex issues.

How should I approach revision for the essay-based questions in A-Level Philosophy exams, ensuring depth and clarity in my responses?

Craft well-structured essays by outlining your arguments beforehand. Clearly define your thesis statement and follow the PEEC structure (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Critique) in each paragraph. Provide real-world examples or historical contexts to illustrate your points effectively. Revise by writing timed essays under exam conditions to enhance your time management skills.

Let's get acquainted ? What is your name?

Nice to meet you, {{name}} what is your preferred e-mail address, nice to meet you, {{name}} what is your preferred phone number, what is your preferred phone number, just to check, what are you interested in, when should we call you.

It would be great to have a 15m chat to discuss a personalised plan and answer any questions

What time works best for you? (UK Time)

Pick a time-slot that works best for you ?

How many hours of 1-1 tutoring are you looking for?

My whatsapp number is..., for our safeguarding policy, please confirm....

Please provide the mobile number of a guardian/parent

Which online course are you interested in?

What is your query, you can apply for a bursary by clicking this link, sure, what is your query, thank you for your response. we will aim to get back to you within 12-24 hours., lock in a 2 hour 1-1 tutoring lesson now.

If you're ready and keen to get started click the button below to book your first 2 hour 1-1 tutoring lesson with us. Connect with a tutor from a university of your choice in minutes. (Use FAST5 to get 5% Off!)

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current Students
• Undergraduate Exams
• Faculty of Philosophy
• About Us overview
• Academic Visitors
• Administration overview
• Accessible Documents Checklist
• Video conferencing accessibility assessment guide
• Cambridge Women Philosophers
• Disability Access Guide
• Health and Safety
• How to find us

Important Dates

• Information Technology overview
• Using Google Meet
• Zoom User Guide
• Skype & PhoneConference Call and Screen Sharing
• Microsoft Teams getting started
• Panopto Recording & Publishing Overview
• Zoom Security Tips for public meetings
• Job Opportunities
• Newsletters
• Philosophy Green Team overview
• Waste & Recyling
• Green Team Events
• Welfare overview
• Welfare for Students
• Welfare for Staff
• People overview
• Teaching & Research Staff
• Director of Studies Area overview
• Director of Studies Part 1B
• Director of Studies Part II
• Postgraduate Advisors Area
• Support Staff
• Current Academic Visitors
• Academic Staff Administrative Roles
• Paper Co-Ordinators
• Research overview
• Research Projects and Networks
• Seminars and Discussion Groups
• Employment destinations of recent Faculty PhD students
• Research Funding Opportunities
• Recent Faculty books
• Open access at Cambridge
• Current Students overview
• Postgraduates overview
• MPhil Course Information (Includes examination protocols)
• PhD Course Information
• Organisational Matters
• Supervision
• Lectures and Seminars
• Faculty Resources
• Advice and Support
• PG Training Guide
• Room Booking Guidance
• Working Away
• Working While Studying
• Financial Support
• Postgraduate Calendar
• Deposit of Electronic PhD Theses
• Postgraduate Forms overview
• Appointment of PhD Examiners Form
• Risk assessment form RA1
• Risk assessment examples
• Conference expenses funding application form
• Postgraduate hardship funding application form
• MPhil Essays and Dissertations (Raven Login)
• MPhil Data Retention
• University Timetable
• Part IA Seminar (Discussion Group) Readings
• Undergraduate Tripos Students Information
• Lecture List
• Course Outlines and Reading Lists (for Philosophy Students and Staff)
• Course Outlines and Reading Lists (for auditors)
• Undergraduate Exams overview
• Sample Answers
• Craig Taylor Prize
• Extended Essays & Dissertations
• Data Retention Policy
• Part IA Past Exam Papers
• Faculty Plagiarism Policy
• Part IB Past Exam Papers
• Part II Past Exam Papers
• Guidelines for Examiners & Assessors (including Marking Criteria)
• Sample paper for Part II paper 9
• IB5 Sample Exam
• Undergraduate Writing Skills overview
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (mobi version)
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (epub version)
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (Word version)
• 09 Plagiarism 2018revJuly18
• Student Feedback & Support overview
• Student Representation & Student-Staff Committee
• Philosophy Student-Staff Committee Meeting Minutes
• SSC minutes 1May18
• Final SSCMinutes 30Oct18
• SSC Unconfirmed minutes 05 Feb 19
• SSC unconfirmedminutes 7May19
• Student Complaints Procedure
• SSC unconfirmed minutes 5Nov19
• SSC minutes 04 Feb 2020 4
• SSC minutes 5May2020 1
• Philosophy Faculty Guidelines for Discussion Sessions
• Prospective Students overview
• Prospective Postgraduates
• Prospective Undergraduates
• Suggested Preliminary Readings
• Prospective Undergraduate students - Frequently asked questions
• Prospective Postgraduate students – Frequently asked questions
• Events overview
• Past Events overview
• Past Events - Conferences, Workshops and Special Lectures
• The Roles of Knowledge
• The Roles of Knowledge Abstracts
• Limits of Duty programme
• The Limits of Duty
• Decision Theory Seminar
• No-platform and Hate Speech
• What is Domination?
• 6th Cambridge Graduate Conference on the Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics
• Universals_v2.pdf
• JohnSearle Lecture
• Immateriality, Thinking and the Self in the Long Middle Ages
• Papers Heal Metaphysical atomism and the attraction of materialism
• Oelze Summary of Talk
• WIP Conference Poster
• GoodmakersandgoodtakersTextsHO2.pdf
• Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) Cambridge Conference 2018
• Shyane Personal Identity handout 6th form conf 2019
• Richard Holton Handout 6th form conf 2019
• Library overview
• Accessibility
• Joining the library
• Borrowing from the library
• Philosophy eresources
• IT, printing and copying facilities
• Resources for undergraduates
• Resources for researchers
• Contact the library
• Intranet overview
• Undergraduate Teaching and Support Arrangements (including exam updates)
• Director of Studies Area
• Academic Teaching Resources and Protocols. 
• Samples for MPhil Examiners overview
• Philosophy File Share overview
• Postgraduates
• Undergraduate Writing Skills
• Student Feedback & Support

The following are real answers to Tripos questions. Following each answer is an indication of the expected class of an essay at this level together with a brief justification. They are supposed to give you some idea of what the examiners are expecting to see.

 We are very grateful to those undergraduates who agreed to release their papers for this purpose.

• 2i/2ii borderline answer for Paper 1 Metaphysics
• 2i/2ii borderline answer for Paper 1 Metaphysics (2)
• 2ii answer for Paper 1 Metaphysics
• First Class answer for Paper 2 Ethics and Political Philosophy
• 2i/2II Borderline Case for Paper 2 Ethics and Political Philosophy  21
• First Class answer for Paper 3 Logic
• First Class answer for Paper 4 Set Texts
• First Class for Paper 4 Set Texts (21)  
• First Class for Paper 4 Set Texts (21-2)  
• Model Answer and Marking Scheme for Paper 5 Formal Methods
• 2ii answer for Paper 1, Metaphysics and Epistemology
• 2i answer for Paper 3, Ethics
• Second 2i answer for Paper 3, Ethics
• First Class Extended Essay for Paper 3 Ethics Part 1  
• First Class Extended Essay for Paper 3 Ethics Part 2  
• First for Paper 5 Early Modern Philosophy (21).    
• First Class answer for Paper 1, Metaphysics
• First Class answer for Paper 8, Philosophical Logic
• 2i answer for Paper 1, Metaphysics
• 2i answer for Paper 11, Aesthetics

Latest news

View all news

Quick links

All News Items

Moral Sciences Club

Philosophy Lecture List

Philosophy Podcasts

Moodle Undergraduate Site

Intranet Teaching and Examining Arrangements

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by @CambridgePhilos

Information

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Photos by Ben Colburn displayed with his permission
• Philosophy Contact Details
• [email protected]
• Map of Sidgwick Site
• University Map

Other Links

• Email & Phone Search

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Overview – The Definition of Knowledge

The definition of knowledge is one of the oldest questions of philosophy. Plato’s answer, that knowledge is justified true belief , stood for thousands of years – until a 1963 philosophy paper by philosopher Edmund Gettier challenged this definition.

Gettier described two scenarios – now known as Gettier cases – where an individual has a justified true belief but that is not knowledge.

Since Gettier’s challenge to the justified true belief definition, various alternative accounts of knowledge have been proposed. The goal of these accounts is to define ‘knowledge’ in a way that rules out Gettier cases whilst still capturing all instances of what we consider to be knowledge.

A Level philosophy looks at 5 definitions of knowledge :

• Justified true belief (the tripartite definition)
• JTB + No false lemmas

Reliabilism

Virtue epistemology, infallibilism.

It’s important to first distinguish the kind of knowledge we’re discussing here. Broadly, there are three kinds of knowledge:

• Ability: knowledge how – e.g. “I know how to ride a bike”
• Acquaintance: knowledge of – e.g. “I know Fred well”
• Propositional: knowledge that – e.g. “I know that London is the capital of England”

When we talk about the definition of knowledge, we are talking about the definition of propositional knowledge specifically.

Justified True Belief

The tripartite definition.

In Theaetetus , Plato argues that knowledge is “true belief accompanied by a rational account”. This got simplified to:

‘Justified true belief’ is known as the tripartite definition of knowledge.

Necessary and sufficient conditions

The name of the game in defining ‘knowledge’ is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions.

For example, ‘unmarried’ and ‘man’ are both necessary to be a ‘bachelor’ because if you don’t meet both these conditions you’re not a bachelor. Further, being an ‘unmarried man’ is sufficient to be a ‘bachelor’ because everything that meets these conditions is a bachelor. So, ‘unmarried man’ is a good definition of ‘bachelor’ because it provides both the necessary and sufficient conditions of that term.

The correct definition of ‘knowledge’ will work the same way. Firstly, we can argue that ‘justified’, ‘true’, and ‘belief’ are all necessary for knowledge.

For example, you can’t know something if it isn’t true . If someone said, “I know that the moon is made of green cheese” you wouldn’t consider that knowledge because it isn’t true.

Similarly, you can’t know something you don’t believe. It just wouldn’t make sense, for example, to say “I know today is Monday but I don’t believe today is Monday.”

And finally, justification . Suppose someone asks you if you know how many moons Pluto has. You have no interest in astronomy but just have a strong feeling about the number 5 because it’s your lucky number or whatever. You’d be right – Pluto does indeed have 5 moons – but it seems a bit of a stretch to say you knew Pluto has 5 moons. Your true belief “Pluto has 5 moons” is not properly justified and so would not count as knowledge.

So, ‘justified’, ‘true’, and ‘belief’ may each be necessary for knowledge. But are these conditions sufficient? If ‘justified true belief’ is also a sufficient definition of knowledge, then everything that is a justified true belief will be knowledge. However, this is challenged by Gettier cases .

Problem: Gettier cases

Gettier’s paper describes two scenarios where an individual has a justified true belief that is not knowledge. Both scenarios describe a belief that fails to count as knowledge because the justified belief is only true as a result of luck .

Gettier case 1

• Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job
• Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”
• Smith also sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket
• Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
• But Smith gets the job, not Jones
• Then Smith looks in his pocket and, by coincidence, he also has 10 coins in his pocket

Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is:

• Justified: he hears the interviewer say Jones will get the job and he sees that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
• True: the man who gets the job (Smith) does indeed have 10 coins in his pocket

This shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not sufficient : you can have a justified true belief that is not knowledge.

Gettier case 2

Gettier’s second example relies on the logical principle of disjunction introduction (or, more simply, addition ).

Disjunction introduction says that if you have a true statement and add “or some other statement” then the full statement (i.e. “true statement or some other statement”) is also true.

For example: “London is the capital of England” is true. And so the statement “either London is the capital of England or the moon is made of green cheese” is also true, because London is the capital of England. Even though the second part (“the moon is made of green cheese”) is false, the overall statement is true because the or means only one part has to be true (in this case “London is the capital of England”).

Gettier’s second example is as follows:

• Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
• So, using the principle of disjunctive introduction above, Smith can form the further justified belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
• Smith thinks his belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is true because the first condition is true (i.e. that Jones owns a Ford)
• But it turns out that Jones does not own a Ford
• However, by sheer coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona

So, Smith’s belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”   is:

• True: “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” turns out to be true. But Smith thought it was true because of the first condition (Jones owns a Ford) whereas it turns out it is true because of the second condition (Brown is in Barcelona)
• Justified: The original belief “Jones owns a Ford” is justified, and so disjunction introduction means that the second belief “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is also justified.

But despite being a justified true belief, it is wrong to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge, because it was just luck that led to him being correct.

This again shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not sufficient .

Alternative definitions of knowledge

Gettier cases are a devastating problem for the tripartite definition of knowledge .

In response, philosophers have tried to come up with new definitions of knowledge that avoid Gettier cases.

Generally, these new definitions seek to refine the justification condition of the tripartite definition. True and belief remain unchanged.

JTB + no false lemmas

The no false lemmas definition of knowledge aims to strengthen the justification condition of the tripartite definition.

It says that James has knowledge of P if:

• James believes that P
• James’s belief is justified
• James did not infer that P from anything false

So, basically, it adds an extra condition to the tripartite definition . It says knowledge is justified true belief + that is not inferred from anything false (a false lemma).

This avoids the problems of Gettier cases because Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is inferred from the false lemma “Jones will get the job” .

• The tripartite definition says Smith’s belief is knowledge, even though it isn’t
• The no false lemmas response says Smith’s belief is not knowledge, which is correct.

So, in this instance, the no false lemmas definition appears to be a more accurate account of knowledge than the tripartite view: it avoids saying Gettier cases count as knowledge.

Problem: fake barn county

However, the no false lemmas definition of knowledge faces a similar problem: the fake barn county situation:

• In ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns
• Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this
• These beliefs are not knowledge , because they are not true – the barns are fake
• This time the belief is true
• It’s also justified by his visual perception of the barn
• And it’s not inferred from anything false.

According to the no false lemmas definition, Henry’s belief is knowledge.

But this shows that the no false lemmas definition must be false. Henry’s belief is clearly not knowledge – he’s just lucky in this instance.

Reliabilism says James knows that P if:

• James’s belief that P is caused by a reliable method

A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.

So, if you have good eyesight, it’s likely that your eyesight would constitute a reliable method of forming true beliefs. If you have an accurate memory, it’s likely your memory would also be a reliable method for forming true beliefs. If a website is consistent in reporting the truth, that website would also count as a reliable method.

But if you form a belief through an unreliable method – for example by simply guessing or using a biased source – then it would not count as knowledge even if the resultant belief is true.

Children and Animals

An advantage of reliabilism is that it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge. Typically, we attribute knowledge to young children and animals. For example, it seems perfectly sensible to say that a seagull knows where to find food or that a baby knows when its mother is speaking.

However, pretty much all the other definitions of knowledge considered here imply that animals and young children can not have knowledge. For example, a seagull or a baby can’t justify its beliefs and so justified true belief rules out seagulls and young babies from having knowledge. Similarly, if virtue epistemology is the correct definition, it is hard to see how a seagull or a newly born baby could possess intellectual virtues of care about forming true beliefs and thus possess knowledge.

However, both young children and animals are capable of forming beliefs via reliable processes, e.g. their eyesight, and so according to reliabilism are capable of possessing knowledge.

You can argue against reliabilism using the same fake barn county argument above : Henry’s true belief that “there’s a barn” is caused by a reliable process – his visual perception. Reliabilism would thus (incorrectly) say that Henry knows “there’s a barn” even though his belief is only true as a result of luck.

There are several forms of virtue epistemology (we will look at two), but common to all virtue epistemology definitions of knowledge is a link between a belief and intellectual virtues . Intellectual virtues are somewhat analogous to the sort of moral virtues considered in Aristotle’s virtue theory in moral philosophy . However, instead of being concerned with moral good, intellectual virtues are about epistemic good. For example, an intellectually virtuous person would have traits such as being rational, caring about what’s true, and a good memory.

Linda Zagzebski: What is Knowledge?

Formula for creating gettier-style cases.

Philosopher Linda Zagzebski argues that definitions of knowledge of the kind we have looked at so far (i.e. ‘true belief + some third condition ’) will always fall victim to Gettier-style cases. She provides a formula for constructing such Gettier cases to defeat these definitions:

• E.g. Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” when he is looking at the fake barns
• E.g. Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” when he is looking at the one real barn
• In the second case, the belief will still fit the definition (‘true belief + some third condition ’) because it’s basically the same as the first case
• But the second case won’t be knowledge, because it’s only true due to luck

Zagzebski argues that this formula will always provide a means to defeat any definition of knowledge that takes the form ‘true belief + some third condition’ (whether that third condition is justification , formed by a reliable process , or whatever).

The reason for this is that truth and the third condition are simply added together, but not linked  ( the belief is not apt , to use Sosa’s terminology ). The fact that truth and the third condition are not linked leaves a gap where lucky cases can incorrectly fit the definition.

Zagzebski’s definition of knowledge

The issues resulting from the gap between truth and the third condition motivate Zagzebski to do away with the ‘truth’ condition altogether. Instead, Zagzebski’s analysis of knowledge is that James knows that P if:

• James’s belief that P arises from an act of intellectual virtue

However, in Zagzebski’s analysis of knowledge, the ‘truth’ of the belief is kind of implied by the idea of an act of intellectual virtues. This can be shown by drawing a comparison with moral virtue :

An act of moral virtue is one where the actor both intends to do good and achieves that goal. For example, intending to help an old lady across the road but killing her in the process is not an act of moral virtue because it doesn’t achieve a virtuous goal (despite the virtuous intent). Likewise, helping the old lady across the road because you think she will give you money is not an act of moral virtue – even though it succeeds in achieving a virtuous goal – because your intentions aren’t good.

Intellectual virtue is similar: You must both have the correct motivation (e.g. you want to find the truth) and succeed as a result of that virtue (i.e. your belief turns out to be true because you acted virtuously).

Virtues motivate us to pursue what is good. In the case of knowledge, good knowledge is also true. Secondly, virtues enable us to achieve our goals (in the same way a virtuous i.e. good knife enables you to cut) and so intellectual virtues would enable you to reliably form true beliefs.

Sosa’s virtue epistemology

Another virtue epistemology approach to knowledge is Ernest Sosa’s definition of apt belief .

Sosa uses the following analogy to argue that knowledge, like a virtuous shot in archery, has the following three properties: Accuracy , adroitness , and aptness .

Returning to the fake barn county example , Sosa’s virtue epistemology could (correctly) say Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” in fake barn county would not qualify as knowledge – despite being true and formed by a reliable method – because it is not apt . Yes, Henry’s belief is accurate (i.e. true) and adroit (i.e. Henry has good eyesight etc.), but he only formed the true belief as a result of luck, not because he used his intellectual virtues.

Problem: children and animals

As mentioned in more detail in the reliabilism section above , a potential criticism of virtue epistemology is that it appears to rule out the possibility of young children or babies possessing knowledge, despite the fact that they arguably can know many things.

Infallibilism argues that for a belief to count as knowledge , it must be true and justified in such a way as to make it certain .

So, even though Smith has good reasons for his beliefs in the Gettier case , they’re not good enough to provide certainty . Certainty, to philosophers like Descartes, means the impossibility of doubt .

In the Gettier case, Smith might have misheard the interviewer say he was going to give Jones the job. Or, even more extreme, Smith might be a brain in a vat and Jones may not even exist! Either of these scenarios – however unlikely – raise the possibility of doubt.

Problem: too strict

So, infallibilism correctly says Smith’s belief in the Gettier case does not count as knowledge.

But it also says pretty much everything fails to qualify as knowledge!

“I know that water boils at 100 ° c” – can this be doubted? Of course it can! Your science teachers might have been lying to you, you might have misread your thermometer, you might be a brain in a vat and there’s no such thing as water!

So, whereas Gettier cases show the tripartite definition to set the bar too low for knowledge, infallibilism sets the bar way too high – barely anything can be known! In other words, we can argue that certainty is not a necessary condition of knowledge.

Knowledge from Perception>>>

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

OCR Ethics possible exam questions

These questions are taken from the wording of the specitication, meaning they could all actually come up in the exam. They are roughly sorted into easy, medium and hard.

Find revision notes for Ethics here.

Natural Law

Easy Does natural law provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Assess Aquinas’s natural law ethics.

Medium Can judging something as right or wrong be based on whether it achieves its telos? Is reducing ethics to telos the best way to make moral decisions? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? ‘Ethics can be derived from human nature’ – How far do you agree? Assess Aquinas’ claim that there is a tier of natural law between human and divine. How ethical are the primary precepts? Are there any primary precepts? Is there a moral law of God within human nature that is discoverable by reason?” Is human nature a source of moral guidance? Evaluate Aquinas’ view that human law should be related to the natural law. “Human law should be based on the divine law” – Discuss

Hard Is the universe designed with a telos? How ethically valid is the doctrine of the double effect? Does the doctrine of the double effect justify actions like killing in self-defence? If human nature is sinful, can natural law theory work? Analyse Aquinas’ four tiers of law. “The eternal, divine and human laws are the only valid laws” – Discuss. Critically assess Aquinas’ religious development of Aristotle’s concept of  telos .

Situation Ethics

Easy ‘Situation ethics provides a helpful method of moral decision-making’ – How far do you agree? Can judging something as right or wrong be based on the extent to which, in any given situation, agape is best served “Any action can be good, so long as the result is love” – Discuss

Medium Is Fletcher’s understanding of agape really religious? Does Fletcher’s view of agape reduce to wanting the best for the person involved in a given situation rather than a religious view. ‘The rejection of absolute rules makes situation ethics entirely individualistic and subjective’ – Discuss. Assess whether love should be the ruling norm in ethical decision-making. Is love the only intrinsically good? “If love is the end, that justifies the means” – Discuss “With the guiding principle of agape, moral laws are an unnecessary burden” – Discuss “Persons, not laws or anything else, are at the centre of ethics” – Discuss “the laws of Christian ethics are relative” – Discuss

Hard How successfully do Fletcher’s six propositions give rise to situation ethics? “Fletcher’s four working principles should be applied to all moral actions” – Discuss. Is conscience a verb or a noun? Is Fletcher correct that conscience is a term the describes attempts to make decisions creatively? “The laws of christian ethics cannot be relativised” – Discuss. “Persons should be at the centre of ethics” – Discuss. Does Fletcher have the most convincing theory of the conscience?

Kantian Ethics

Easy Does Kantian ethics provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Can judging something as right of wrong be based on the extent to which duty is best served? Is ethics deontological?

Medium ‘Excluding empathy and love from moral decision making is wrong’ – Discuss. Are categorical imperatives our duty? “Moral action is based on whether a maxim can be estabished as a universal law” – Discuss. Should we take a deontological and absolutist approach to ethics? Should our moral framework require treating others as ends? Are acts good in themselves regardless of consequences?

Hard To what extent is Kantian ethics is too abstract to be applicable to practical moral decision-making? Critically assess Kant’s view that the hypothetical imperative cannot be the imperative of morality. Is Kant correct that consequences are irrelevant to the morality of an action? “The three postulates must be accepted in obeying a moral command” – Discuss. Does ethics require postulating the existence of freedom, immortality and God? “Kantian ethics is overly reliant on reason” – Discuss. “Kantian ethics unduly rejects the importance of sympathy, empathy and love in moral decision-making” – Discuss. Should morality be based on hypothetical imperatives? Does Kant succeed in showing that hypothetical imperatives are not the imperatives of morality? “Consequences are irrelevant to moral decision-making” – Discuss. “When obeying a moral command, we accept the existence of immortality” – Discuss Would humanity’s highest ethical achievement be a kingdom of ends?

Utilitarianism

Easy Does utilitarianism provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Can moral judgement be based on the extent to which, in any given situation, utility is best served?

Medium Is it possible to measure good or pleasure and then reach a moral decision? “The moral action is the one which has the greatest balance of pleasure over pain” – Discuss. Is moral action a matter of following accepted laws that lead to the greatest balance of pleasure over pain? Is an action morally justified if it produces the greatest amount of good over evil? Assess whether rule utilitarianism successfully improves on act utilitarianism. Critically compare act and rule utilitarianism

Hard How morally valid is the hedonic calculus? “Morality is not based on utility” – Discuss. Should Utilitarianism aim to promote the greatest overall balance of good over evil or the greatest amount of good over evil? “The morality of a law depends on the consequences of following it” – Discuss

Easy Assess whether natural law is helpful for dealing with the issue of euthanasia Assess whether situation ethics is helpful for dealing with the issue of euthanasia ‘euthanasia can be the loving choice in some situations’ – Discuss. ‘euthanasia goes against God’ – How far do you agree? Can euthanasia ever be justified? To what extent is euthanasia morally good? What determines the value of life?

Medium Should a person have complete autonomy to choose euthanasia? Is quality of life a basis on which euthanasia might be justified? ‘Life should never be ended because it is sacred’ – Discuss. Can it ever be morally justifiable to end a person’s life without their consent? Must human life possess certain attributes in order to have value? Is euthanasia in the case of incurable illness morally justifiable? “The sanctity of life trumps autonomy” – Discuss What should we do with patients who are in a persistent vegetative state? “A person’s life can be justifiably ended at their request” – Discuss Is a secular approach best regarding euthanasia? “Religious approaches to euthanasia are better than secular ones” – Discuss

Hard “consent is the key factor in the ethics of euthanasia” – Discuss ‘The religious concept of sanctity of life has no meaning in twenty-first century medical ethics’ – How far do you agree? Is there a moral difference between euthanasia for incurable verses terminal illnesses? Critically compare sanctity of life with autonomy as principles for judging the issue of euthanasia Is there a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia? Critically compare the morality of voluntary with non-voluntary euthanasia

Business Ethics

Easy How useful is utilitarianism in dealing with issues in business ethics? Assess whether Kantian ethics applies successfully to business ethics What does it take for business to be ethical?

Medium Does the principle of utility lead to ethical business? ‘the categorical imperative leads to ethical business’ – Discuss. Is Corporate social responsibility just ‘hypocritical window-dressing covering the greedy profit motive of business. Can human beings flourish in the context of capitalism and consumerism? Assess whether corporate social responsibility makes business ethical To what extent is whistle-blowing ethical? How successful is Kantian ethics at dealing with the issue of (CSR/Whistleblowing/Globalisation)? How helpful is Utilitarianism at dealing with the issue of (CSR/Whistleblowing/Globalisation)? “Employees have no rights” – Discuss

Hard Assess whether globalisation encourages or discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business. Is good ethics good business? Should whistle-blowing be considered good ethical business practice? How should a business treat its stakeholders? What ethical significance do stakeholders have? What does morality have to say about the contract between employee and employer? Is profit-making moral?

Very hard Is the integration of economies with markets a greater ethical issue with globalisation than its integration with policy-making?

Meta-ethics

Easy Assess whether ethical terms such as good and bad have an objective factual basis that makes them true or false in describing something. Do ‘good’ and ‘bad’ reflect only what is in the mind of the speaker? Is the word ‘good’ meaningless? ‘Ethical naturalism is true’ – Discuss. Assess intuitionism Assess emotivism

Medium Does common sense suggest that people just know within themselves what is good and bad? “Values can be defined in terms of some natural property in the world” – Discuss. “Basic moral truths are self-evident” – Discuss. Can the word “good” be defined? “Ethical terms evince approval or disapproval” – Discuss.

Hard “What is meant by the word ‘good’ is the defining question in the study of ethics” – Discuss.

Critically compare relativism with absolutism How fully can emotivism be applied to relativism? Is meta-ethics the most important topic in ethics?

Easy Critically compare Aquinas and Freud’s view of the conscience Are the workings of God present in the conscience?

Medium ‘Freud makes more sense of the concept of guilt than Aquinas’ – Discuss. Does a theological approach to conscience work better than a psychological approach? Critically compare Aquinas and Freud’s views on the process of moral decision-making. Whose voice is the voice of conscience?

Hard Does conscience exist at all or is it an umbrella term for culture, environment, genetics and education? Is conscience merely an umbrella term for the psychological factors involved in moral decision making? Critically assess Freud’s psychosexual approach. What are the consequences for our understanding of the conscience of our having instinctive impulses. Is the conscience essentially the superego “Conscience is separate from reason” – Discuss “The conscience does not exist” – Disucss Is culture the most important factor in accounting for the conscience?

Does the feeling of guilt imply that there is one we feel guilty to? Does Aquinas’ theory of the conscience actually need his distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance?

Sexual ethics

Easy Are secular views on sexual ethics superior to traditional religious views? ‘Secular sexual ethics are an improvement on traditional religious views’ – How far do you agree? Assess religious views on sexual ethics How useful is natural law in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is situation ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is Kantian ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is utilitarianism in dealing with issues in sexual ethics?

Medium Do religious views on sexual ethics have a continuing role today? Are normative theories useful for issues within sexual ethics? Should sexual behaviour be entirely private or a matter of public norms and legislation? Assess Aquinas’ on sexual ethics Should sexual ethics be judged based on the loving thing to do in each situation? How successful is the categorical imperative applied to sexual ethics? ‘Issues in sexual ethics should be judged based on the principle of utility’ – Discuss. Can premarital sex ever be ethical? Can extramarital sex ever be ethical? Can homosexuality ever be ethical?

Hard To what extent are traditional religious views on sexual ethics relevant today? ‘Developments in religious views on sexual ethics have had a significant impact’ – Discuss. Have religious view on sexual ethics changed for the better?