Ethics questions at A Level Religious Studies (RS) ask you to apply theories to real or imagined scenarios and then reach a justified judgement. The big three frameworks you’ll meet are Utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and Natural Law. Success = clear AO1 (accurate theory + scholar) + decisive AO2 (weigh, counter, conclude).

Quick overview of the three frameworks

Utilitarianism (consequences)

• Core idea: The right act maximises overall happiness/well-being.
• Key versions: Act (Bentham’s hedonic calculus) vs Rule (Mill — follow rules that maximise happiness long-term); Preference utilitarianism (Singer).
• Strengths: Practical, outcome-focused, impartial.
• Challenges: Minority rights, measuring happiness, justice in hard cases.

Kantian Ethics (duty & respect)

• Core idea: Moral worth comes from acting out of duty according to the Categorical Imperative.
• Tests: Universalise your maxim (no contradictions); treat persons as ends in themselves (Humanity Formula); act as if legislating for a kingdom of ends.
• Strengths: Protects dignity/rights; consistent rules.
• Challenges: Inflexible in dilemmas; conflicting duties.

Natural Law (purposes & flourishing)

• Core idea: Good acts align with human telos and the primary precepts (Aquinas): preserve life, reproduce, educate offspring, live in an ordered society, worship God.
• Tools: Real vs apparent goods; virtues; Double Effect (an action with a bad side-effect can be permissible if the intended effect is good and proportionate).
• Developments: Proportionalism (some modern Catholic ethicists), Finnis’ basic goods.

How to apply theories to scenarios (fast routine)

1. Identify the morally relevant facts (agents, rights, harms, intentions, long-term effects).
2. Apply each theory in 3 steps: state the principle → apply to the facts → give a mini-conclusion.
3. Weigh up where they conflict and decide (which principle has priority here—and why).

Ready-to-use paragraph frames (PEEL/PEACE)

• Utilitarianism: “Point: Rule Utilitarianism would forbid/permit … Evidence: Mill’s general happiness rule … Analysis: In this case the rule … protects long-term welfare by … Counter: However, in emergencies … Evaluate: Therefore, in this scenario, following/bending the rule is more likely to maximise overall well-being because …”
• Kant: “Point: The maxim ‘…’ cannot be universalised / violates the Humanity Formula. Evidence: Kant’s CI. Analysis: If everyone did … we’d face a contradiction in … Counter: A duty conflict may arise (e.g., truth vs life-saving). Evaluate: Here, respecting persons as ends rules out … even if …”
• Natural Law: “Point: The act aligns/conflicts with the primary precepts (e.g., preserve life, ordered society). Evidence: Aquinas; Double Effect. Analysis: Intention is to …; the harmful effect is a side-effect and proportionate/not proportionate. Evaluate: Therefore it is permissible/not permissible.”

Mini examples

Euthanasia (terminal pain):

• Utilitarianism: Permissible if total suffering is reduced (consider long-term effects, safeguards).
• Kant: Typically impermissible—risk of using self/others as means; life has dignity not price (debate on duties to self).
• Natural Law: Direct killing violates preserve-life; Double Effect can allow pain relief that foreseeably shortens life if intended end is analgesia.

Lying to protect someone:

• Utilitarianism: Might permit if it prevents grave harm and doesn’t erode trust rules overall.
• Kant: Lying fails universalisation; violates respect for persons (contested in extreme cases).
• Natural Law: Truthfulness is a secondary precept serving ordered society; proportionalism debates rare exceptions.

Triage (limited ventilators):

• Utilitarianism: Prioritise expected lives/years saved to maximise outcomes.
• Kant: Beware treating people as mere means; selection must respect equal dignity (use non-instrumental criteria).
• Natural Law: Preserve life and fairness; avoid direct killing; selection by clinical prognosis can be justified if non-discriminatory.

Common pitfalls (and fast fixes)

• Describing without judging: End every paragraph with a mini-conclusion.
• Name-dropping scholars: Link them to how your conclusion changes (AO2).
• Mixing theories: Keep one theory per paragraph to avoid muddle; compare in the evaluation.
• Ignoring intentions/effects: Vital for Kant (intentions/duties) and Double Effect (intent vs side-effect).

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to cover all three theories in one essay?

Not always, but evaluative prompts usually expect comparison. Two well-developed theories with clear judgement often score better than three shallow summaries.

How many scholars/quotes should I use?

Quality over quantity: one precise scholar or key term per paragraph (e.g., Mill’s rule utility, Kant’s Humanity Formula, Aquinas’ Double Effect) tied to your conclusion.

How do I show top-band AO2?

Present the best counter, explain its impact on the claim, then justify your decision with reasons (rights/duty vs outcomes vs precepts) for this scenario.

What if theories clash?

Make the clash explicit (e.g., dignity vs utility). Decide which value has priority here and why; acknowledge costs of your decision.

Ready to practise with real scenarios?