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

Reply 60

17

Original post

by olistudyvia

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.

People have been using my site for years and I've never heard of any plagiarism issues being flagged. To be frank I doubt most students would learn my essay plans totally word for word. They'd reproduce a less good version (mine are too long!). Or they'd creatively edit my plans, including things they learned from their teacher. Even my own students do that.

Regarding using the same points, I wouldn't worry about that - I'd guess that my essay plans, the other a level philosophy site, the lacewing text book and the cardinal/hayward/jones text book all share about 70% of the points. So students will largely be using the same points no matter what. And that's inevitable, since we are all using the standard popular responses philosophers have made against each other and in defence of themselves. I've just put them into more of an essay format than the text books do and explicitly added examples of weighting points.

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 61

mi_yur

2

anyone got a innate ideas essay plan ?

Reply 62

salty-parapet

12

does anyone have a list of potential 12 markers this year? also praying anti-realism doesn't come up i just dont get it at all

Reply 63

Kevin123y

5

Original post

by salty-parapet

does anyone have a list of potential 12 markers this year? also praying anti-realism doesn't come up i just dont get it at all

I think that if the 25 marker isnt on innatism and is on indirect realism instead, then it's pretty likley the 12 marker will be on innatism. This is because they have never had a 12 marker on it before in the past but they have had a couple on IDR.If this was the case, what would an innatism 12 marker look like? "Outline platos slave boy and an empircist response?" What was the response to slave boy empirically though, was it just that he could have used reason to come to the ideas of geometry instead. Or it could be "outline leibnizs vieew on innatism and lockes argument of no univeral assent."

Reply 64

eliza98760

10

" an empiricist response" is rather vague I assume you could use any empiricist response against innate ideas because thats essentially what the slave boy argument is trying to argue that there are innate ideas. "lockes argument no universal assent" is not specifically stated in the specification thus they could not ask a 12 marker asking for it. This is the spec for innatism: Arguments from Plato (ie the 'slave boy' argument) and Gottfried Leibniz (ie his argument based on necessary truths).
Empiricist responses including:

•

Locke's arguments against innatism

•

the mind as a 'tabula rasa' (the nature of impressions and ideas, simple and complex concepts)

and issues with these responses.

Reply 65

henry_shergold

7

Original post

by mi_yur

anyone got a innate ideas essay plan ?

•

plato slave boy -> uses reason + incoherence of world of the forms

•

leibniz necessary truths -> Locke/leibniz debate

•

tabula rasa + sensation and reflection

•

simple + complex ideas -> unique concepts (combining ideas response), chomsky and language (innate ideas vs capacity), colour spectrum (wittgensteins response), relational concepts (observed through repetition), babies having knowledge (again capacity vs ideas, breathing is hardly knowledge), differing beliefs (applied to innatism also + dependent on circumstance)

this might look like a lot but this is how i'd go about an innatism vs empiricism question, concluding that innatism is unnecessary as all can be explained through experience and reflection.

Reply 66

henry_shergold

7

Original post

by salty-parapet

does anyone have a list of potential 12 markers this year? also praying anti-realism doesn't come up i just dont get it at all

Anti-realism is the belief that mind-independent moral properties such as 'right' or 'wrong' don't exist (for a number of reasons). It's why emotivists argue that moral judgements are only expressions of belief (i.e. there is no right or wrong), and so forth. There is no such thing as objective moral truth. Hope this helps.

Reply 67

mi_yur

2

Original post

by henry_shergold

•

plato slave boy -> uses reason + incoherence of world of the forms

•

leibniz necessary truths -> Locke/leibniz debate

•

tabula rasa + sensation and reflection

•

simple + complex ideas -> unique concepts (combining ideas response), chomsky and language (innate ideas vs capacity), colour spectrum (wittgensteins response), relational concepts (observed through repetition), babies having knowledge (again capacity vs ideas, breathing is hardly knowledge), differing beliefs (applied to innatism also + dependent on circumstance)

this might look like a lot but this is how i'd go about an innatism vs empiricism question, concluding that innatism is unnecessary as all can be explained through experience and reflection.

yh thanks , the plan i had was plato then children innate knowledge then Locke but i feel the responses are the same for locke and innate knowledge in children because its just capacity /= knowledge

Reply 68

Oklpot

2

anyone got a semi specific plan for eating animals and simulated killing, im not too sure on what objections to raise against the normative ethical theories for these specific questions, like if i was to include Kant how would i object to his opinion for simulated killing or eating animals. I understand his opinions on them but for an essay im unsure on how i would go about providing a counter argument, same with aristotleian virtue ethics.

Reply 69

eliza98760

10

Original post

by Oklpot

anyone got a semi specific plan for eating animals and simulated killing, im not too sure on what objections to raise against the normative ethical theories for these specific questions, like if i was to include Kant how would i object to his opinion for simulated killing or eating animals. I understand his opinions on them but for an essay im unsure on how i would go about providing a counter argument, same with aristotleian virtue ethics.

you would object to Kant using his objections eg his view on stimulated killing is that its okay because its universalisable then you respond to that with the objection that not all universalisable maxims are moral so does that really show that stimulated killing is moral? etc. dont overcomplicate it utilise ur normal essays and adapt it, its essentially still an essay regarding how convincing these ethical theories are at guiding action

Reply 70

olistudyvia

9

Original post

by Joe312

People have been using my site for years and I've never heard of any plagiarism issues being flagged. To be frank I doubt most students would learn my essay plans totally word for word. They'd reproduce a less good version (mine are too long!). Or they'd creatively edit my plans, including things they learned from their teacher. Even my own students do that.
Regarding using the same points, I wouldn't worry about that - I'd guess that my essay plans, the other a level philosophy site, the lacewing text book and the cardinal/hayward/jones text book all share about 70% of the points. So students will largely be using the same points no matter what. And that's inevitable, since we are all using the standard popular responses philosophers have made against each other and in defence of themselves. I've just put them into more of an essay format than the text books do and explicitly added examples of weighting points.

Ok that's good to hear! I like to think I've got at least some unique bits in my essays anyway lol.

I have to ask, have you had any thoughts on good conclusions for your moral realism essay points?

I hadn't come across the point about how a Foot-style virtue ethics actually arguably overcomes moral nihilism, and the separation of value/facts stuff. I was surprised that I quite like a moral realist/naturalist conclusion, so part of me wants to try and structure an essay around that.
But on the other hand, I think I MAYBE instinctively understand Mackie's error theory arguments a little bit better, so if I get lost in the exam (can happen) I feel like I might be able to dig my way out of a hole better.

Also this is all complicated by the fact I think the question will be phrased in terms of cog/non-cog this year, and I still want my conclusions/integration to be laser focused but tend to get muddled about.

Do you have any advice on this?? Or some good clear source recommendations for the Foot virtue ethics stuff?

Thank you so much

Reply 71

Joe312

17

Original post

by olistudyvia

Ok that's good to hear! I like to think I've got at least some unique bits in my essays anyway lol.
I have to ask, have you had any thoughts on good conclusions for your moral realism essay points?
I hadn't come across the point about how a Foot-style virtue ethics actually arguably overcomes moral nihilism, and the separation of value/facts stuff. I was surprised that I quite like a moral realist/naturalist conclusion, so part of me wants to try and structure an essay around that.
But on the other hand, I think I MAYBE instinctively understand Mackie's error theory arguments a little bit better, so if I get lost in the exam (can happen) I feel like I might be able to dig my way out of a hole better.
Also this is all complicated by the fact I think the question will be phrased in terms of cog/non-cog this year, and I still want my conclusions/integration to be laser focused but tend to get muddled about.
Do you have any advice on this?? Or some good clear source recommendations for the Foot virtue ethics stuff?
Thank you so much

You could use the Foot presentation of the nihilism issue to overcome anti-realism yes, but you'd have to explain a bit about her form of naturalism (explained in my naturalism paragraph - as the response to the is-ought gap). Either by including that whole paragraph in the essay somewhere - or just explaining a bit more about it in that nihilism paragraph.

Meta-ethics was very hard to create paragraphs for because of the diversity of questions. Combined with it being a hard topic already certainly makes it a challenge.

If you prefer to argue for error theory, then leave out the Foot stuff and say that the nihilism objection just fails because it attacks the emotional attractiveness rather than the actual truth of anti-realism. That would be totally fine.

I do go into more detail about Foot and the virtue ethics revivalists in my main meta-ethics article. However I'd say it's quite close to the exam so learning extra stuff at this point isn't a great idea. I've included it, but you could absolutely get full marks with something else instead.

Also, there's no way to predict the question topic or how it will be phrased, so I wouldn't rely on predictions! But yes it's good to be ready for a cog/non-cog question.

My paragraph about moral disagreement works very well for a question like that (ends up saying Mackie is right)

But so does the naturalism vs is-ought gap - since the is-ought gap attacks the cognitivist claims of naturalism as well as its realist claims.

They could even phrase the question by asking you whether the origin of moral principles is emotion/attitude/society/reason!

Reply 72

mi_yur

2

has anyone got any tips from getting from 17 marks in an essay to more like 23 24 other than just understanding content well

Reply 73

Joe312

17

Original post

by mi_yur

has anyone got any tips from getting from 17 marks in an essay to more like 23 24 other than just understanding content well

If you're stuck at 17 based on knowing the content really well you're probably not doing weighting, integration and maybe not robust defence.

Reply 74

Oklpot

2

wanted to ask, if we get a 12 marker on apply aristotelian virtue ethics to stealing , would we argue from aristotles view on stealing(how it never falls within the mean) or would we argue from a broader virtue ethicist perspective(in that it is context dependent and you need to utilise phronesis)

Reply 75

jackiplier28

2

Original post

by Oklpot

wanted to ask, if we get a 12 marker on apply aristotelian virtue ethics to stealing , would we argue from aristotles view on stealing(how it never falls within the mean) or would we argue from a broader virtue ethicist perspective(in that it is context dependent and you need to utilise phronesis)

I'd say both if you have time. if you find one easier maybe focus on that one but bring in the other as an alternative/more developed or specific view.

Reply 76

minniew.06

3

Original post

by miameni

Hi, I'm currently in Year 13 and I was wondering if anyone had a list of every possible 25 marker? In particularly I'm wondering whether it's like a 25 marker per topic i.e. 'Is utilitarianism correct?' or would they be able to ask specifics like 'Is non-hedonistic utilitarianism correct?'. I am trying to gather as many plans as possible so it would be great to know, thank you!!

hiya, my predictions for the 25 markers tomorrow are either Kantian Ethics or a Metaethics question on either Cognitivism or anti-realism as neither of those things have come up yet, praying its not on metaethics tho 😭

Reply 77

spicedtree

10

Is it likely that Rationalism vs Empiricism or Scepticism will come up? If so which question?

Reply 78

Oklpot

2

Original post

by spicedtree

Is it likely that Rationalism vs Empiricism or Scepticism will come up? If so which question?

scepticism came up two years ago so probably not again

Reply 79

olistudyvia

9

If there was a 25 marker on how convincing is (util/kant/ave) on specific applied issues, or just a general is it wrong to (applied issue)?.

Could you just plan every possible essay to say 2/3 specific relevant discussions of whichever theory/applied issue they choose, and then basically every single time end with the conclusion that no it's not wrong/no the theory is not convincing because wrongness doesn't exist (Mackie's arguments)

or is this a bit obvious and messy in some cases?

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated