Getting into the top band

Getting an A can be achieved just by being formulaic, but to do better you need to actually understand why you do all that - understand what’s going on

Essays need to have a line of argument running through them, can’t just be cut and paste

Content must all be precise and correct to get into the top band: on top of this you need

  • a clear argument with a line running throughout

  • signposting, integrating, substantiating claims

  • use philosophical language

  • sophisticated evaluation, weighting things and substantiating claims

  • in-depth analysis, reflecting and making reasoned judgements

Don’t just juxtapose different theories - either write it entirely on the one in the topic, or use them to critically engage with the question (harder to do)

Don’t presuppose merits of the theory - they have to be supported

Back up all your claims

Put examples in

‘refutes’ → is too strong, means to prove something false, use objects or replies

‘counter-intuitive’ → not always a bad thing

Example Paragraph: [11/25]

The objections and responses don’t respond to each other, they are just contrasting responses

They don’t support any of their claims that something is successful

Needs better integration

More philosophical language

Using language

Technical terms need to be embedded correctly

“Interactionist property dualism claims that phenomenal properties can have physical effects. But this rejects the principle of causal closure.”

“Interactionist property dualism claims that phenomenal properties can cause physical effects. But this violates the principle of causal closure” → much better sentence

‘have’ is really ambiguous, whether ‘cause’ makes it clear that its a causal relationship

‘rejects’ makes it seem like property dualism openly disagrees with the principle, and even objects to it, whereas ‘violates’ shows that it is incompatibile with and a problem for PD

Explain

Analyse — unpacking how something works, why it happens needs improving

Evaluate

to form reasoned judgements: need a richer judgement assessing the theories and whether they are convincing or successful, making judgements about these things

  • write down a list of criteria

  • think about why each are individually important

  • rank the criteria, which might be more important and is this the same in all situations

Metaphysics of Mind:

internally coherent (theoretical application) (issue for dualism, behaviourism, lack of logical consistency)

coheres with the phenomenology of our mental life - especially for theories concerning the nature of consciousness (practical application)

coheres with empirical science, applicable in the real world - more inclined to accept it, we can understand how it would be the case (dualism, EM supported by it)

allows for self-knowledge (issue for epiphenomenalism, behaviourism)

can account for mental causation (epiphenomenalism, dualism)

counter-intuitive - if paired with a lack of empirical evidence

hard problem of consciousness (issue for physicalism according to dualists)

problem of other minds (challenges dualism, supports physicalist)

Ethics:

Does it provide clear moral guidance (clashing duties for Kant, virtue ethics)

Is it internally coherent, if it isn’t it’ll provide misleading guidance (issue for utilitarianism)

Does it motivate us (there appears to be a binding force to morality, can it explain this) (virtue ethics)

Does it take into account our moral intuitions (Kant issue with axe-murderer) Does it have realistic expectations of us (Kant, utilitarianism

Is it efficient (utilitarianism)

Can it be applied to a range of situations (virtue ethics is the best)

Intentions, because these are a factor in decision making, two people doing the same thing with different intentions (issue for utilitarianism and Kant)

Does it recognise the moral importance of intentions, integrity, partiality

Need to prove anything e.g. hedonism (utilitarianism needs to prove hedonism, function argument for virtue ethics, morality is categorical not hypothetical for Kant)

Metaethics:

metaphysically light (often an issue for realism, supports anti-realism)

high explanatory power e.g. why do we feel passionate about moral judgements (supports emotivism, challenges emotivism)

isn’t counter-intuitive regarding how we think of morality

doesn’t go against scientific discoveries in cognitive sciences (issue for realism, epistemological queerness)

can explain the moral ‘ought’ (statements of reason

can account for moral progress (issue for anti-realism)

is internally coherent