MATSEC SEC Ethics common mistakes
MATSEC SEC Ethics · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing an answer that describes what people do or what the law permits, instead of taking a position on what ought to be done and defending it.
Candidates confuse the descriptive task (sociology, law, religious practice) with the normative task ethics demands; the question asks 'should' but the answer reports 'do'.
What to do instead
Before writing, restate the question to yourself as 'Ought X to be done?' and open with a one-sentence thesis. Check every paragraph: if it only reports facts, add the evaluative claim it supports or cut it.
Using a theory's name as if it settles the issue ('This is utilitarian, therefore it is right') without actually running the reasoning through the case.
Label-dropping feels like showing knowledge, and under time pressure candidates substitute a keyword for an argument.
What to do instead
For each theory you invoke, state the criterion it uses (e.g. greatest net welfare, respect for persons as ends, virtue and flourishing), apply it to the specific facts, and then state what it concludes and where it conflicts with the rival theory.
Presenting only one side of a contested issue and ignoring the strongest objection, so the conclusion looks assumed rather than argued.
Candidates argue for the view they hold and treat counter-arguments as weakening their case rather than as required steps in ethical reasoning.
What to do instead
Build a short dialectic: thesis, strongest objection stated fairly in the opponent's terms, your reply, revised conclusion. Credit is given for engaging the best objection, not for certainty.
Confusing consequentialist and deontological reasoning mid-answer, so the same paragraph appeals to outcomes and then to duties without noticing the tension.
Everyday moral talk mixes both idioms, and candidates have not practised separating the structure of each theory.
What to do instead
Before writing, sketch two columns: what each theory would emphasise in this case. Then commit to one line of reasoning per section and flag explicitly when you are showing a clash between theories.
Treating relativism or subjectivism as a safe escape ('it depends on the culture', 'it is a personal opinion') and so never reaching a justified judgement.
It feels tolerant and avoids the risk of being wrong, and candidates mistake it for open-mindedness.
What to do instead
Distinguish describing different moral codes from claiming no cross-cultural evaluation is possible. Then argue for a standard, or explain precisely why the question cannot be settled, giving reasons rather than shrugging.
Answering a question about a specific applied dilemma (euthanasia, animal testing, whistleblowing) with a general essay on the theory, never touching the details of the case.
Theory is easier to revise and recall than applying it, so candidates write what they have memorised.
What to do instead
Anchor each paragraph to a named feature of the case (a right, a consequence, a relationship, a vulnerable party). If a sentence could appear unchanged in an answer about a different dilemma, replace it with case-specific analysis.
Making factual or conceptual errors about the theories themselves, such as equating Kant's categorical imperative with the golden rule, or claiming utilitarianism ignores consequences.
Revision from summaries rather than primary or reliable sources leaves slogans in place of doctrines.
What to do instead
Learn one precise formulation and one standard objection for each major theory, and be able to state what each theory is not. Verify definitions against a reputable textbook before the exam.
Ignoring the structure of the question: missing the second part of a two-part prompt, or failing to use the case material or stimulus provided when the question directs attention to it.
Candidates write the first thing that comes to mind and do not parse the command words or the number of required elements.
What to do instead
Underline the command words and each distinct task in the prompt, number them, and check at the end that every numbered element has a matching paragraph.
Writing a long unstructured narrative with no clear conclusion, so the examiner cannot tell which judgement is being defended.
Time pressure and stream-of-consciousness drafting push the thesis to the end or leave it implicit.
What to do instead
Use a visible skeleton: thesis in the introduction, one paragraph per argument, a short conclusion that restates the judgement and its main support. Practise timed plans of two or three minutes before writing.
Failing to distinguish moral, legal and prudential questions, for example arguing that because something is legal it is therefore morally acceptable.
Law and morality overlap in everyday discussion, and candidates slide between them without noticing the inference is invalid.
What to do instead
Explicitly separate the three questions in your plan: what the law requires, what is prudent, and what is morally justified. Where they diverge, say so and explain which one the question is asking about.