Jamieson’s Method and Moral Theory: Answering question (b)
In the second part of this two-part article, Robin Harrigan shows you how to tackle the (b) question on Jamieson’s passage in the Unit 4 Implications paper
Edexcel A2 Unit 4: Implications —Philosophy of religion
The first thing you should do when you see the question in your Unit 4 Implications paper is to work out where in Jamieson’s article the exam passage is from. This will indicate what ideas the examiners want examined in question (a) and evaluated in the light of implications for understanding religion and human experience in question (b).
■ The passage could be taken from the introduction where Jamieson gives a summary of what his article is about.
■ The second section, The nature of moral theories, is where he explains that the core assumption about ethical theories (the dominant conception) has been undermined by the anti-theorists — those modern ethical philosophers who have brought about this change in modern ethics by rejecting most ethical theories. However, he does not wholly agree with the anti-theorists because people both create and use moral theories, or theory fragments, in conversations.
■ The third section, The methods of theorising, is a discussion about the basic beliefs and ideas that form the basis of traditional ethical theories. These could be a single foundational belief (foundationalism) or a group of beliefs (coherentism).
■ In Jamieson’s final section, The role of examples, he defines the different types of examples that ethicists use as tools to explain their theories in order to show that one kind — imaginary examples — are not useful.
Each section has trigger words that will help identify where the exam passage is from:
1 contemporary moral philosophers, problems of theory, crisis of method
2 dominant conception, anti-theorist, reconciling theory and practice
3 foundationalism, coherentism and moral intuitions
4 examples
Starting your essay
A good start to your essay would be to explain in a paragraph or two what the exam passage is about. Then you should show how it fits into the article as a whole. There are several ways to do this and there is no right or wrong way.
■ One way is to systematically explain the whole article, emphasising how the exam passage fits in.
■ Another way is to concentrate almost entirely on the section of the article where the exam passage is from, with a brief overview of the main points of the rest of the article.
■ Alternatively, with some good knowledge, you could focus on a key point or two in the exam passage, filling out the essay with a broad view of that particular ethical issue.
Whichever way you use, what the examiner is looking for is breadth of knowledge and understanding, both about the article and the rest of the ethics course. You could also bring in ideas and examples from other A-level courses and from your general reading about ethics, philosophy and current affairs. The essay is a chance to show the examiner your expertise in grasping ideas and relating them to other issues, and particularly in AO2 the implications of these ideas on religion and human experience, justifying your own views on what Jamieson is saying.
Question (b)
Do you agree with the ideas expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religious and human experience. (20 marks)
Obviously your answer depends on the passage set in the exam. However, you can help yourself to prepare by taking Jamieson’s ideas in his conclusion and elsewhere and developing your answers from them. Below are suggestions for evaluating each section of the article.
The introduction
Do you agree with the ideas expressed?
It is difficult not to agree with Jamieson that there are disputes among modern ethical theorists who are both anxious and sceptical about the role ethical theories play, and concerned with the methods of creating theory. The implications of these views are that the study of ethics is in a process of change.
You could support the idea of disputes among ethicists by referring to what you know about, for example, modern virtue ethicists — Elizabeth Anscombe, Alasdair MacIntyre and Philippa Foot. Also refer to the end of the Schneewind article where he writes that MacIntyre and Bernard Williams are interested in new ideas such as communitarianism. The anti-theorist section of this article supports these introductory ideas.
What are the implications for religion?
Religious people derive their morality from their sacred books, their leaders and their religious institutions. They trust these and do not have the same sense of conflict. However, the society around them is changing. Think of the ways that religions have had to face up to modern ethical issues such as homosexuality, abortion and divorce.
IT IS DIFFICULT NOT TO AGREE WITH JAMIESON THAT THERE ARE DISPUTES AMONG MODERN ETHICAL THEORISTS
JAMIESON EVALUATES THE DOMINANT CONCEPTION, CONCLUDING THAT IT IS NOT USEFUL IN MAKING MORAL THEORY.
What are the implications for society?
Anxiety and scepticism could breed uncertainty and discontent. How do individuals, society and governments respond to this state of affairs? Can you think of examples in news stories in the media? This could affect the relationship of justice to law and punishment.
Having justified these ideas, how will you dispute them?
Think of those groups in society that will not be affected by this. Religion often stands firm in the face of moral conflict. In October 2014 the Roman Catholic Family Synod met to discuss moral issues such as the wider acceptance of homosexuality, but the meeting ended with few concessions made. You could refer to the divine command theory here as well as natural moral law, which are absolute rule systems.
You will need to end with a conclusion summing up the arguments you have made about the ideas in the exam passage.
The nature of moral theories
In this section Jamieson evaluates the dominant conception, concluding that it is not useful in making moral theory. His view in his conclusion is ‘that moral theories are derivative of moral theorizing, that moral theorizing is part of everyday moral practice’ as expressed by the anti-theorists. However, he also believes that moral theories and moral practice are not mutually exclusive. The implications are that universal theories such as natural moral law, Kantian deontology and utilitarianism are no longer considered useful because they are based on the outmoded concepts of actions, agents and consequences. However, theories based on character and motivation, such as virtue ethics, are valid.
Do you agree with the ideas expressed?
If you agree, you will need to show how morality often comes from ordinary people in everyday life and not from academic or intellectual circles. Give examples from the passage and the ethics course to support this. You could refer to Aristotle and Aquinas as both drew on the empirical experience of human reasoning to inspire their ethical writings. It would also be helpful to evaluate modern virtue ethics, Hume and Ayer’s emotivism and G. E. Moore’s intuitionism, and include why these ideas are of use in human experience.
To dispute this, you can show the value of an ethical theory such as Bentham’s utilitarianism in bringing about major changes in society — for example, the Factory Act of 1833, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 and the Prison Act of 1835. Democratic government is based on utilitarian principles. People often make decisions in everyday life based on the utilitarian view of what will benefit more people. Peter Singer’s work on alleviating world poverty shows the benefit of this kind of moral response in the human experience.
Use your knowledge of religion to support and refute your views. Religion is diverse, with some groups being bastions of tradition based on ancient teaching and beliefs, and others responding to the changing times and priorities by taking into account such issues as gender equality, medical ethics and so on. Sum up your argument.
The methods of theorising
Jamieson’s views in the conclusion are ‘that both foundationalism and coherentism are problematical’. The implication is that if there is no trustworthy basis for ethical theories then they will lose their authority and efficacy.
Do you agree with the ideas expressed?
To support this, show that the Enlightenment enterprise (as outlined by Schneewind) to discover a basis for morality apart from God is fraught with difficulty. You should evaluate the problems of the core ideas behind consequentialism and deontology as well as intuitionism, emotivism, social contract theory and so on. The implication for religion is that, without an alternative, God is the only sure foundation for ethics, but the implication for human experience is a relative and possibly subjective view of morality.
If you reject Jamieson’s view you will argue that theories such as utilitarianism, natural moral law and Kantian ethics have a sure foundation. An evaluation of intuitionism’s view that basic moral truths can be derived by the human mind might also be useful here. The implication for religion is that God is not necessarily the source of good — as in Socrates’ view in the Euthyphro dilemma that God commands something because it is good in itself. Multicultural human experience is ennobled by the ideas of foundationalism and coherentism giving human autonomy (as explained by Schneewind) validity and authority.
Again, conclude by summing up your arguments.
The role of examples
Jamieson’s opinion in his conclusion is that ‘appeals to imaginary cases are often misleading and unreliable’. The implication is that any example that draws on futuristic or fantasy scenarios is not useful in explaining ethical theory, but that most other examples are.
Do you agree with the ideas expressed?
To support his view, evaluate the use of ‘other’ worldly examples to induce normal moral intuitions. Evaluate specific examples such as Tooley’s cat or Robert Nozick’s experience or pleasure machine and other fantastical thought experiments. You could also explain how nonimaginary types of examples are useful as ‘intuition pumps’ — for example, the use of torture for interrogation to support utilitarianism. The implications for religion would be that much of sacred literature which describes a metaphysical world would lose its impact. The implication for human experience is that we could not learn from science fiction, fantasy or metaphysics.
To refute Jamieson’s view, you could show the value of imaginary examples because they remove us from the immediate emotions of an event so that we can think more clearly, or they allow us to ‘think out of the box’. They are only a step away from literary or hypothetical examples and as such can serve a useful purpose. The implication for religion is the valuing of visionary, mystical and apocalyptic writings as a means to learn moral lessons. For human experience it means that imagination can be a tool in learning moral lessons which will impact on society.
Conclude by summing up your arguments.
Final comments for the exam essay
If the conclusion of Jamieson’s article is included in the exam passage then you could pick and choose any or all of the above to evaluate. Remember that question (b) is an argument. It is your chance to show off your philosophical abilities. The marks will be awarded for argument and evaluation. Use a dialectical structure, which means setting points of view against each other. A stated view needs to be justified, then refuted and then argued for again. Utilise evidence from moral philosophers, ethical theories, news stories and so on to support or refute positions. In the Implications paper there are no limits to what you can draw on to support your philosophical arguments.
