A level AQA philosophy Applied ethics
2024 Exam Review
STEALING: utilitarianism - Answer>> According to act: it is
dependent on the situation. People have no moral right to
property over and above its utilitarian benefits and so if an act of
stealing results in a greater good then it would be morally
acceptable to steal.
E.g. somebody can steal food to save their life if they are starving.
Also robin hood scenario
According to rule: despite individual instances of acceptable
stealing according to act, having a rule of don't steal leads to the
greatest happiness overall.
A society that permitted stealing would be one in which nobody
could trust anyone. Everyone would live in constant fear of being
robbed by someone who thought they were acting in the interest
of the greatest happiness. Overall, this would lead to a less happy
society so this seems to suggest we would follow the don't steal
rule.
STEALING: Kant - Answer>> The maxim would be 'I want to
steal this thing'. If I will stealing to be universal law, then anybody
could steal whatever they wanted, but if anyone could steal
whenever they wanted, the very concept of personal property
would not exist. If there was no such thing as personal property,
the very concept of stealing doesn't make sense. Therefore,
willing that 'I want to steal this thing' leads to a contradiction in
conception. This means that stealing violates the categorical
imperative, and so not stealing is a perfect duty.
STEALING: Aristotle - Answer>> Some actions can never fall
within the golden mean - and stealing is one of these. Acc. to
Aristotle, stealing is an injustice as it deprives a person of what is
justly and fairly theirs. Even in extreme cases, Aristotle would
, likely maintain that stealing is wrong. Aristotle makes a distinction
between unjust actions and unjust states of affairs. A starving
child may well be an unfortunate situation, but that's just the world
is sometimes. It is much worse to deliberately and freely choose
to commit unjust actions even if they are in an attempt to
counteract unjust states of affairs.
SIMULATED KILLING: Utilitarianism - Answer>> Acc to act: it is
morally acceptable. The person watching the film or playing the
game gains pleasure from the simulated killing, and the person
'being killed' does not actually suffer as it is fictional. Therefore
there is a net gain of happiness and so it is morally acceptable.
--------> however, if this is likely to decrease happiness through
increased exposure making people more likely to kill, then it
would not be morally acceptable.
Rule: would only rule it out if these studies came back to be true.
SIMULATED KILLING: Kant - Answer>> Murdering people in
video games does not lead to a contradiction, a contradiction in
will, or violate the humanity formula. For that fact, simulated killing
does not go against the categorical imperative. However, Kant
could think this takes away from your imperfect duty to develop
your talents.
SIMULATED KILLING: Aristotle - Answer>> According to
aristotle, being a good person is not just knowing what the virtues
are, it's about acting on them until these virtues become habitual.
Aristotle may well argue that if someone spends a lot of time
playing video games that involve simulated killing then they may
develop bad habits, or be distracted from developing good habits.
However, it is the case that it could be seen as just as killing
fictional people has no real injustice involved.
The outcome is very situational. A virtuous person may partake in
simulated killing in moderation as a form of entertainment, and
2024 Exam Review
STEALING: utilitarianism - Answer>> According to act: it is
dependent on the situation. People have no moral right to
property over and above its utilitarian benefits and so if an act of
stealing results in a greater good then it would be morally
acceptable to steal.
E.g. somebody can steal food to save their life if they are starving.
Also robin hood scenario
According to rule: despite individual instances of acceptable
stealing according to act, having a rule of don't steal leads to the
greatest happiness overall.
A society that permitted stealing would be one in which nobody
could trust anyone. Everyone would live in constant fear of being
robbed by someone who thought they were acting in the interest
of the greatest happiness. Overall, this would lead to a less happy
society so this seems to suggest we would follow the don't steal
rule.
STEALING: Kant - Answer>> The maxim would be 'I want to
steal this thing'. If I will stealing to be universal law, then anybody
could steal whatever they wanted, but if anyone could steal
whenever they wanted, the very concept of personal property
would not exist. If there was no such thing as personal property,
the very concept of stealing doesn't make sense. Therefore,
willing that 'I want to steal this thing' leads to a contradiction in
conception. This means that stealing violates the categorical
imperative, and so not stealing is a perfect duty.
STEALING: Aristotle - Answer>> Some actions can never fall
within the golden mean - and stealing is one of these. Acc. to
Aristotle, stealing is an injustice as it deprives a person of what is
justly and fairly theirs. Even in extreme cases, Aristotle would
, likely maintain that stealing is wrong. Aristotle makes a distinction
between unjust actions and unjust states of affairs. A starving
child may well be an unfortunate situation, but that's just the world
is sometimes. It is much worse to deliberately and freely choose
to commit unjust actions even if they are in an attempt to
counteract unjust states of affairs.
SIMULATED KILLING: Utilitarianism - Answer>> Acc to act: it is
morally acceptable. The person watching the film or playing the
game gains pleasure from the simulated killing, and the person
'being killed' does not actually suffer as it is fictional. Therefore
there is a net gain of happiness and so it is morally acceptable.
--------> however, if this is likely to decrease happiness through
increased exposure making people more likely to kill, then it
would not be morally acceptable.
Rule: would only rule it out if these studies came back to be true.
SIMULATED KILLING: Kant - Answer>> Murdering people in
video games does not lead to a contradiction, a contradiction in
will, or violate the humanity formula. For that fact, simulated killing
does not go against the categorical imperative. However, Kant
could think this takes away from your imperfect duty to develop
your talents.
SIMULATED KILLING: Aristotle - Answer>> According to
aristotle, being a good person is not just knowing what the virtues
are, it's about acting on them until these virtues become habitual.
Aristotle may well argue that if someone spends a lot of time
playing video games that involve simulated killing then they may
develop bad habits, or be distracted from developing good habits.
However, it is the case that it could be seen as just as killing
fictional people has no real injustice involved.
The outcome is very situational. A virtuous person may partake in
simulated killing in moderation as a form of entertainment, and
