AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 - 13th May 2025 [Exam Chat]

so could you explain utilitranism and then a problem with the theory as whole (like tyranny of the majority) to explain why its perhaps not the best and then do this for a couple other theories like kant and virtue as well. Also would the 25 marker be with more vague options like "is eating animals wrong" or could it be on something more specific like "what is kant's view on lying".

it could be on either, the way to answer applied ethics questions is to write a normal essay just implementing the applied scenario throughout to explain why that theory may not be successful. If its a general one use 2/3 theories and evaluate if one just do like normal essay implementing applied situation

ok thanks that helps yeh, still hope its not as its just simpler to do the others like Kant but atleast im prepared now. Also another question, is it possible to get a 12 marker on meta ethics applied because i swear we never did that in class so im not sure. Is it on the spec? And if so what meta ethical theories do we even apply it to?

so could you explain utilitranism and then a problem with the theory as whole (like tyranny of the majority) to explain why its perhaps not the best and then do this for a couple other theories like kant and virtue as well. Also would the 25 marker be with more vague options like "is eating animals wrong" or could it be on something more specific like "what is kant's view on lying".

The way I've had recommended to me is to do the exposition for a theory e.g. Utilitarianism, then 1/2 criticisms explaining why we should not use it to provide us with moral guidance (if you are arguing against it). Personally I'd do Utilitarianism, Kant, Virtue ethics then opt for an Error theorist position as I feel it is the most clear overall - all moral propositions are cognitive but do not refer to any property in the real world and as such they are all false. Criticisms and responses are 20/25 marks so the majority of the essay must be based around why the main theories are good/bad.

I think it's risky and unnecessary to do all 3 normative theories and a meta-ethical theory. Just choose one or two! After all - to get the evaluation marks, it's not just a matter of presenting criticisms - the mark scheme says there must be 'robust defence' - which means you consider how those theories could be defended from those criticisms and then evaluate that defence. There's not enough room to do that for 4 theories, and you'll be spending too much time explaining theories too which risks overruning the AO1 requirement and wasting time.
Not to say that it couldn't be done like that but I think it's harder with no upside.

Thank you, I'll bear that in mind when it comes to essay planning. I understand that meta-ethics has come up under the form of anti-realism already, so I'd assume if we are to get quizzed on meta-ethics for the 25 marker it would be on the cognitivist/non-cognitivist debate. I have a plan for a question on non-cognitivism centered around the issues with emotivism and prescriptivism, could I apply this to a question on cognitivism too in the same format?

Yes the cog/non-cog theories ultimately counter each other on that point. However if it's realism or cognitivism - prob best to do naturalism and non-naturalism and then only one anti-realist or non-cog theory.
And vice versa, if it's anti-realim, prob best to do 2 anti-realist theories and 1 realist,
and if non-cog, prob best to do 2 non-cog theories and 1 cog.
And by doing a theory I mean briefly explaining it and then evaluating the arguments for/against it.

Hey guys wanted to ask a quick question about a couple of things to talk about in essays. For an essay about indirect realism , I usually do a paragraph also going through direct realism and the issues with it to back up and support IDR, do you think this is ok if I have the time. And then near the end I go onto idealism a bit as well. Can you bring these points up in an IDR essay or should you only talk about Indirect Realism?. Also for an innatism essay, it okay to just talk about Plato and Leibniz or should I bring in Descartes too? Thanks.

I think I personally would defend cognitivism either way as it is more intuitively appealing to me. So say the question was 'are the claims of cognitivism true?' would you recommend going through naturalism and non-naturalism, their issues/responses, then a non-cognitivist theory such as emotivism, issues such as the Frege-Geach problem, then conclude maybe that (my personal belief) error theory is the most cogent account of moral propositions, with a smaller criticism and response?

Yes that would work, though it's quite a lot to fit in an essay. The interesting part would be explaining why you think error theory is stronger in its cognitive views than naturalism/non-naturalism.

Personally for the IDR essay I'd make sure to go through its own exposition and all the criticism first. I personally disagree with it and would provide DR as an alternative, but if you have the time it could be worth further defending your stance with a smaller section on DR, providing all of IDR is covered.
In regards to innatism, you could mention Descartes but due to timing you then may struggle covering all the empiricist exposition and responses.

ok yeh that makes sense, I usually have time to write it, as long as it dosen't lose me marks to mention Dr and Idealism its good. And for Innatism I think its fine to just do Plato and the problems (like with the slave boy argument and world of forms), then Leibniz and his problems from Locke and then conclude the Tabula Rasa or something is the best.

You can't lose marks on the 25 marker for redundancy, so anything goes (but don't stray from the discussion), its just if you feel it is relevant and credit-worthy to the discussion, which I'd say DR and Idealism would be providing it is related to IDR. And for Innatism that sounds like a good idea, if you have more time I'd try and mention the issues with empiricism and how they overcome them for extra AO2.

I think naturalism and non-naturalism fall short due to issues not necessarily regarding cognitivism such as the naturalistic fallacy, the open-question argument etc. Mackie's argument that in participating in moral discourse we intuitively commit ourselves to the existence of moral value, and that the value of right and wrong seem to naturally apply are more compelling to me. Whilst error theory is unlikeable due to its nihilism I believe it doesn't render it incorrect, at least for the purpose of a strong judgement in an essay.

Awkward question but for AQA what exactly counts as plagiarism in the exam room? Basically all my essay plans are very similar to examples/guides I've found online (especially the alevelphilosophyandreligion site) to the point where I probably will end up using extremely similar wording/the same points in the exam. Is this a problem? At some point are they not gonna be like hmmm why are so many students using similar points, conclusion and wording? Would this then ever be an issue? I'm kind of concerned.

Awkward question but for AQA what exactly counts as plagiarism in the exam room? Basically all my essay plans are very similar to examples/guides I've found online (especially the alevelphilosophyandreligion site) to the point where I probably will end up using extremely similar wording/the same points in the exam. Is this a problem? At some point are they not gonna be like hmmm why are so many students using similar points, conclusion and wording? Would this then ever be an issue? I'm kind of concerned.