AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]

My teacher said there's a good chance that the 25 marker for paper 1 will be something along the lines of "How should propositional knowledge be defined?" Does anyone know how they would structure an answer to this?

My guess is talking about k=jtb initially and why Plato says it is necessary for there to be a j condition (stability.) Then go on to talk about how it isn't jointly sufficient due to Gettier and talk about replacing the j condition with r , and then maybe of all the theories, talk about the best alternative (virtue epistemology). One thing my philo teacher emphasises is that you'll get more marks focusing on an in depth evaluation of 1-2 theories as opposed to trying to cram all of them and lacking explanation.

Is applied ethics a genuine possibility for being a 25 marker as we were never taught about it by our teacher?

Probably not best to try to rely on 25 marker predictions, but here we go:

Epistemology
What is knowledge (never come up)
Indirect realism (never come up)
Innatism (last 2019)

Moral
Utilitarianism (last 2019)
Applied (never)*
Moral realism (never) - but was antirealism last yr so maybe not

*on applied ethics - my teacher asked the chief examiner on a call whether an applied 25 could come up, and they gave a super ambiguous response apparently, something along the lines of "it hasnt happened before, but might happen, look at past questions to see what you think". Obviously still good to have a plan for it though

Yeah it's a possibility - but don't stress because honestly it's barely different from a normal normative ethics essay. You just have to explain what one (or two) of the ethical theories (util, kant etc) would say about the issue (application you need to know anyway for lower mark questions) and then evaluate those theories using the normal issues from the spec that you'd use if it wasn't an applied ethics essay,
E.g. - if the question is "is stealing always wrong?"
Kant would say yes
But - Kant's theory is flawed due to (clashing duties, ignoring consequences, etcetc)
So - Kant's judgement on stealing is wrong
Maybe Util better..?
If the question is "how convincing is Util on stealing"
Just do a normal util essay - but apply util to stealing at the start - then consider whether util's judgement is right by assessing whether util is valid, like normal!

What do you think for paper 2?

hi guys how would we structure a 25 marker on applied ethics as an example, "how convincing is the utilitarian account on stealing" i know all the content necessary for util i just wouldn't know how to structure it you know?? someone help me out would be appreciated hahaha

If we arrive at the conclusion that both normative theories fail, how should we conclude? We can't jump to the conclusion that the action is morally permissible right?

This is going off a grid of all the past paper questions fyi
God:
Concept and nature of god (last 2020)
Teleological (last 2019)
Religious language (never) - my teacher predicted this
Mind:
What do we mean by mind (never)
Behaviourism (never) - my teacher has predicted this
functionalism (last 2020)

I thought behaviourism had come up! Pretty sure it has. Property dualism hasn't though - nor a general physicalism question

PD hasnt come up specifically, but 2021 was "Can a dualist account of mental states be successfully defended? [25 marks]".
Could be a general physicalist question, similar to the one above
these have been the past mind questions:
2023 - Does mind-brain type identity theory give the right account of mental states? [25 marks]
2022 - To what extent is eliminative materialism correct? [25 marks]
2021 - Can a dualist account of mental states be successfully defended? [25 marks]
2020 - Does functionalism give a convincing account of mental states? [25 marks]
2019 - Is eliminative materialism convincing? [25 marks]

What's everyones conclusion for JTB essay? I can never decide between virtue epistemology and reliabilism, they both arguably don't defeat barn county so wtf? I'm considering a conclusion of none of them can be defined as knowledge

Final prediction for the 25s
Epistemology - How convincing is Indirect Realism (25)
Moral - To what extent can Utilitarianism be defended (25)

either indirect realism or innatism yes. For moral, either util, deontology, or moral realism