Is Kantian deontological ethics a convincing normative ethical theory?
AQA A-Level Philosophy | Paper 1 | 2027 Predicted Paper | Mark Scheme Question 10
Is Kantian deontological ethics a convincing normative ethical theory?
[25 marks]
What is expected in the answer?
This is a 25-mark evaluative question, weighted AO1 = 5 marks and AO2 = 20 marks. Students need enough accurate knowledge of Kant to establish the theory, but the majority of the answer should analyse objections, possible Kantian responses, and the relative strength of those arguments before reaching a justified conclusion.
There is very close AQA precedent here. The 2021 Paper 1 mark scheme assessed the question “To what extent can Kantian deontological ethics be defended?” and explicitly stated that students did not need a lengthy explanation of Kant at the beginning. Understanding could instead be demonstrated through the arguments and counterarguments used in the evaluation.
Levels of response
Marks | Descriptor |
21–25 | A sustained and clearly directed argument. Detailed and precise knowledge is integrated into evaluation. Arguments and counterarguments are presented strongly, weighed against one another, and used to support reasoned judgements throughout and in the conclusion. |
16–20 | A clear and largely sustained argument. Knowledge is detailed and generally accurate. Relevant objections and responses are developed and there is a clear overall judgement, although evaluation may not be consistently as precise or penetrating. |
11–15 | A clear attempt to answer the question through argument. Knowledge is mostly accurate and there is some developed evaluation, but discussion may be uneven, insufficiently integrated or lacking in sustained judgement. |
6–10 | Some relevant argument is present, but the response lacks depth or coherence. Objections may be listed rather than genuinely evaluated. |
1–5 | Limited relevant knowledge with little sustained analysis. The answer may be largely descriptive, fragmented or one-sided. |
0 | Nothing written worthy of credit. |
AQA’s examiner reports emphasise that the strongest 25-mark responses balance objections and defences, sustain a coherent line of argument, and explicitly explain why some arguments deserve more weight than others. Simply calling an argument “strong” or “weak” without explaining why does not amount to developed evaluation.
Indicative content
Students do not need to include every point below.
The current specification requires:
the good will
acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty
hypothetical and categorical imperatives
the first formulation of the categorical imperative
contradiction in conception and contradiction in will
the second formulation
clashing duties
problems with universalisability
whether consequences determine moral value
the value of motives such as love, friendship and kindness
Philippa Foot’s claim that morality consists of hypothetical rather than categorical imperatives.
The good will and acting out of duty
Kant argues that a good will is morally good in itself.
A person has a good will when they make decisions for moral reasons, acting out of duty, rather than merely acting in accordance with duty for some other motive.
For example, two people might both tell the truth:
one tells the truth because doing so benefits them
the other tells the truth because they recognise that it is their duty.
Both act in accordance with duty, but Kant gives moral worth to the second person’s motive.
Strength
This can be defended because morality seems to concern more than fortunate consequences.
Someone who tries to do the morally right thing should not become morally worse merely because events outside their control lead to an unfortunate outcome.
Kant therefore protects moral judgement from moral luck by grounding moral worth in the agent’s rational motive.
Objection: love, friendship and kindness
The specification explicitly raises the objection that Kant may ignore the value of motives such as love, friendship and kindness.
Suppose someone helps a friend because they genuinely love them.
It seems strange to suggest that this motive lacks moral value unless the person acts primarily from duty.
Possible Kantian response
Want to read more?
Subscribe to revision-notes.com to keep reading this exclusive post.
