WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR common mistakes
WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing an essay that summarises what Bentham, Kant or Aristotle said about a moral dilemma instead of constructing and defending the candidate's own evaluative position on it, so the response reads as a report on the thinkers rather than an argument.
Candidates revise by memorising content from textbooks and past notes, so under time pressure they retrieve and display knowledge rather than answering the question's evaluative instruction. The habit of 'show what you know' feels safer than committing to a contestable claim.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis answering the exact evaluative verb in the question (e.g. 'X is justified only to the extent that...'), then plan each paragraph as a step in defending that thesis. Use theorists instrumentally: 'Kant's formula of humanity rules this out because...', not 'Kant believed...'. Finish with a short check that every paragraph links back to the thesis.
Presenting a counterargument and then dismissing it with a bare assertion ('however, this is wrong') or a rhetorical question, without engaging the strongest version of the opposing view.
Candidates treat counterarguments as a box to tick for structure, and they fear that conceding anything will weaken their conclusion. They also often attack a weaker version of the opposing view because it is easier to knock down.
What to do instead
Practise steelmanning: state the objection in its strongest form, with its best supporting reason and, where relevant, its best theorist. Then respond with a specific reason (a distinction, a counterexample, a cost the objector must accept), and where appropriate concede a limited point while showing the thesis survives. Use phrases like 'The strongest form of this objection is...' and 'This succeeds against a crude reading but not against...'.
Treating 'utilitarianism' as a single doctrine and evaluating it only by the 'trolley problem' or a single 'greatest happiness' slogan, ignoring distinctions between act and rule consequentialism, hedonistic and preference versions, and the difference between criteria of rightness and decision procedures.
Textbook summaries and classroom examples compress the theory into a memorable slogan, and candidates reuse the same example regardless of the question. Distinctions between variants are not salient until a candidate has tried to defend a version against a serious objection.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table for each normative theory: core criterion, what is valued, how it handles rules, how it handles persons, and its two strongest objections. When answering, name the specific variant you are using and say why, and match the objection to the variant (e.g. rule consequentialism answers some integrity objections but faces the collapse objection).
Using 'deontology' as a synonym for 'following rules' and describing Kant's ethics as 'do your duty and never lie' without explaining the categorical imperative tests, the role of universalisability, or the distinction between acting from duty and merely in accordance with duty.
Everyday use of 'duty' and 'rule' is imported into philosophy, and candidates learn Kant's conclusions (e.g. on lying) without the reasoning that generates them. The formula-driven structure of Kantian ethics is easily lost in paraphrase.
What to do instead
Practise applying the formulas explicitly to a case: state the maxim, universalise it, identify the contradiction (in conception or in will), then test the same maxim through the humanity formula. Always distinguish motive from conformity to duty using a contrast case (the honest shopkeeper who is honest only for profit).
Confusing the fact/value distinction and the is/ought gap, so that a candidate moves from a descriptive premise about what people do or what is natural to a normative conclusion without acknowledging the inference, or conversely claims that any appeal to facts is a fallacy.
The is/ought point is often taught as a label to spot in arguments rather than as a thesis about inference, and candidates overcorrect by treating all empirical evidence as irrelevant to ethics. Meta-ethical vocabulary (cognitivism, realism, expressivism) is also used loosely.
What to do instead
In argument analysis, label premises as descriptive or normative and check whether a normative conclusion follows only with an unstated normative premise; supply that premise explicitly and assess it. Separately, note that empirical facts can be relevant to applying a norm even if they cannot by themselves generate one. Define meta-ethical terms once in your own words before using them.
Answering an applied ethics question with a general theory lecture, never identifying the specific morally relevant features of the case (consent, capacity, harm, distribution, uncertainty, rights of future persons) and never reaching a concrete recommendation.
Candidates feel that demonstrating theoretical knowledge earns marks and that committing to a practical recommendation is risky. They also lack a procedure for moving from a case to a judgement, so they retreat to theory.
What to do instead
Use a fixed scaffold: state the case's key facts and the decision to be made; identify two or three morally relevant features with reasons; apply one or two theories to those features specifically; address the strongest objection; state a clear recommendation with conditions and note residual costs. If the question permits, say what would change your mind.
Equating 'free will' with 'acting without external coercion' and concluding determinism is irrelevant because we are free whenever no one is forcing us, without distinguishing compatibilist and incompatibilist senses of freedom or addressing the consequence argument.
The ordinary-language sense of 'free' (not in handcuffs) is dominant, and the technical distinction between freedom of action and freedom of will is not intuitive. Candidates also conflate determinism with fatalism.
What to do instead
Define at least two senses of freedom explicitly (freedom from coercion vs. ultimate self-determination) and state which one the question concerns. Reconstruct the consequence argument in premise form and say exactly which premise a compatibilist rejects and why. Illustrate with a contrast case such as a coerced action versus a determined but uncoerced one.
Presenting the problem of evil only as 'bad things happen, so God cannot exist' and treating the free will defence as an automatic answer, without distinguishing logical from evidential versions, moral from natural evil, or the difference between a defence and a theodicy.
The problem is memorable in its simplest emotional form, and the free will response is widely repeated in introductory material. The distinctions that determine whether the argument succeeds are technical and easily missed.
What to do instead
Map the argument family: logical problem (claim of contradiction), evidential problem (claim about probability given suffering), and defences versus theodicies. For each, state the exact premises and which premise the response targets. Note explicitly that a free will defence addresses moral evil and must be supplemented for natural evil, and assess whether the response meets the version actually under discussion.
Treating 'justice' and 'equality' as interchangeable, so that Rawls's difference principle is described as 'helping the poor' and Nozick's entitlement theory as 'selfishness', with no account of the original position, the veil of ignorance, or the historical versus patterned distinction.
Political slogans in public debate flatten the concepts, and candidates recall conclusions rather than the structure of the theories. The device of the original position is easily mistaken for a factual claim about history.
What to do instead
For each theorist, write the question they are answering, the device or argument they use, and the conclusion it supports. For Rawls, explain the veil of ignorance as a device for testing impartiality and derive the two principles from it. For Nozick, state the three entitlement principles and the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Then compare on a specific policy question.
Quoting or paraphrasing a primary text from memory and attributing a position to an author without locating the passage, its argumentative context, or the distinction the author is drawing, so that the citation is decorative rather than evidential.
Candidates memorise famous lines and use them as authority markers, and they often read extracts without the surrounding argument. Under exam pressure, the line is recalled more reliably than its function in the text.
What to do instead
For each set text, keep a short log: the passage, the claim it supports, the argument step it belongs to, and one likely misreading. In essays, introduce quotations with their function ('Aristotle uses the function argument here to establish...') and follow with analysis rather than restatement. If you cannot reconstruct the context, paraphrase the argument instead of quoting.