A Level Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion Summer Preparation Booklet

NAME: ______

‘Schooling deprived of religious insights is wretched education.’

Welcome to A Level PRE at AJK! We are delighted that you have decided to continue your studies in this amazing subject, and we look forward to starting teaching you in September. The course is exciting yet challenging, and will allow you to answer questions of philosophy, ethics, and religion in much more detail than at GCSE.

To ensure that you are ready for this step up, we have made this preparation pack for you to start to begin thinking about some of the topics we will be covering next year, and also to show you the way in which you will be thinking in the subject. You will be making use of many more texts and doing some of your own research too, so this is a great place for you to start to dip your toe into A Level work.

Good luck with the tasks, and we look forward to seeing you in September!

The PRE Department

Page Contents Complete? Date

3 Course Overview

4 Section A—Task 1: The Design Argument

6 Section A—Task 2: The Ontological Argument

8 Section A—Task 3: The Cosmological Argument

10 Section A—Task 4: A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge

11 Section A—Task 5: Putting it All Together

12 Section B—Task 1: Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism

13 Section B—Task 2: Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics 14 Section B—Task 3: A Difficult Situation

15 Section B—Task 4: Applying Utilitarian and Deontological Ethics

20 Section B—Task 5: More Pandemic Ethics—Putting it All Together

24 Section C—Recommended Reading

Course Overview Exam Board: AQA

There are two components to the course, the first of which you will be studying in Y12. Component 1 looks at Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, and is assessed by one 3 hour exam. Use the box below to write down any questions you want to ask in September, or feel free to email them to Mr Norton.

Questions for September, or email to [email protected]

Section A: Philosophy of Religion

Task 1: The Design Argument (30 mins) Watch the following video and make notes: https://youtu.be/tnoQZA8MA6A ______

This explains William Paley’s argument for the existence of God, which is based on the idea of the universe having a designer. The argument can be summed up as follows: 1) A watch has certain complex features (e.g. it consists of parts, each of which has a function, and they work together for a specific purpose). 2) Anything that exhibits these features must have a designer. 3) (From 1 and 2) Therefore the watch has been designed by a designer. 4) The universe is like the watch in that it possesses the same features, except on a far more wondrous scale. 5) Therefore, the universe, like the watch, has been designed, except by a wondrous universe maker—which can only be God. 6) Therefore God exists.

Make a list of 10 key-words which will help you to remember Paley’s design argument:

Put these things in order in of how ‘well designed’ you think they are:

1) ______2) ______3) ______4) ______5) ______6) ______7) ______8) ______9) ______

Why have you picked 1 and 9? Why are they well designed/not well designed? ______

STRETCH: Why do you think some people would say that the universe isn’t well designed? ______

Section A: Philosophy of Religion

Task 2: The Ontological Argument (45 mins) Watch the following video and make notes: https://youtu.be/pPVVjFFuUMk ______

This explains Anselm of Canterbury’s argument for the existence of God, which is based on the idea that if God is the greatest possible being, He must exist in reality as well as in the mind. The argument can be summed up as follows: 1) God is the greatest possible being. 2) It is greater to exist in understanding and in reality, than in understanding alone. 3) Therefore the greatest possible being, God, must exist in understanding and in reality. 4) Therefore God exists.

Make a list of 10 key-words which will help you to remember Anselm’s ontological argument:

Draw and label your own perfect island. Think about:

• Where it is

• What is on it (in terms of buildings, things to eat etc)

• What the weather is like

• Who is there etc This is your own place of paradise, so make it as luxury as possible! Remem- ber, you would have to live here for the rest of your life, so make it exactly how you would want. For example, Mr Norton’s island would have a steak restaurant on it serving the best meat in the world, and a cinema with huge comfy chairs and ac- cess to every film ever made. It would also have a water park with the fast- est slides ever… and so on!

My perfect island...

Anselm’s big idea is that something this perfect is even more perfect if it actually exists. Because nothing can be more perfect than God, then He absolutely has to exist!

Section A: Philosophy of Religion

Task 3: The Cosmological Argument (45 mins) Watch the following video and make notes: https://youtu.be/gqN87vzauRM ______

This explains St Thomas Aquinas’s argument for the existence of God, which is based on the idea that everything has a cause. The argument can be summed up as follows: 1) Everything that happens has a cause. 2) The universe, like everything else, must have been caused. 3) That cause can only be God. 4) Therefore God exists.

Make a list of 10 key-words which will help you to remember Aquinas’s ontological argument:

The Cosmological Argument states that everything has a cause. You are going to think about how things in your life have causes. Choose a starting point and see how far you can go! Mr Norton’s example is there to help you.

Mr Norton’s example… Your example… This morning I had a cup of tea

I was thirsty and I like tea

I like tea because I drink it all the time

I didn’t used to like tea but then I started drinking it

I started drinking tea because my Mum decided to make me a cup of tea

My Mum drinks tea because when she was born people didn’t drink water they just drank tea

Because people didn’t drink water as much there was less plastic being thrown away

The metal industry in the UK used to be much bigger than the plastic industry… and so on!

Section A: Philosophy of Religion

Task 4: A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge (30 mins) In Philosophy, we can gain knowledge in two ways:

1) A Priori Something is knowable if we can understand it using language, and in no other way (such as human experience). In short, we gain knowledge through thinking and understanding. For example, ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ is true, because we understand that the word ‘bachelor’ means ‘unmarried man’.

2) A Posteriori Something is knowable if we can experience it. For example, ‘it is raining outside’ is true if we see that it is raining, because we have human experience of different types of weather.

Come up with two propositions (statements) which are true A Priori, and two propositions which are true A Posteriori. 1) ______2) ______3) ______4) ______

Of the three arguments for the existence of God that we have looked at (the Design Argument, the Ontological Argument, and the Cosmologi- cal Argument), two are a posteriori, and one is a priori. Can you work out which argument corresponds to which method of gaining knowledge? Design Argument: ______Ontological Argument: ______Cosmological Argument: ______

Section A: Philosophy of Religion Task 5: Putting it All Together (45 mins) In your view, which is the best argument for the existence of God of the three we have looked at? Why? ______In your view, which argument for the existence of God of the three we have looked at is the weakest? Why? ______

STRETCH: Do you think we can be sure of knowledge gained in an a priori way, or in an a posteriori way? Do you think it is possible to have one without the other? ______

Section B: Ethics Task 1: Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism (45 mins) Watch the following video and make notes: https://youtu.be/uvmz5E75ZIA ______

In short, we can explain Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism as ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’.

Consider this scenario: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveller, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine check-up. In the course of doing the check-up, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one

What would Jeremy Bentham do in this situation?

What is the problem with deciding like Bentham?

What would you do? Why?

Section B: Ethics Task 2: Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics (45 mins) Watch the following video and make notes: https://youtu.be/ZOoJ9Cq3oKM ______

In short, we can explain Kant’s Deontological theory as ‘choose to do things only when you are certain that you would want everyone to act in this way in similar situations.’

Consider this scenario: A mass-murderer is at your door, and he is looking for best friend. Your best friend is hiding upstairs under the bed. The mass-murderer asks you if your friend is inside.

What would Kant do in this situation?

What is the problem with deciding like Kant?

What would you do? Why?

Section B: Ethics Task 3: A Difficult Situation (1 hour) Consider the following scenario: There is a train hurtling down the track, and it’s braking system has failed. It is currently heading towards a van parked on the track, which has five people inside. If the train hits the van they will all die. You can divert the train by pulling a lever, and this changes the train’s direction onto a track which is heading towards a car parked on the track, with one person inside. If the train hits the car that person will die.

Would Bentham pull the lever? Why/why not? ______

Would Kant pull the lever? Why/why not? ______

Would you pull the lever? Why/why not? Which view (Kant vs Bentham) do you side with? ______

Section B: Ethics Before you make your decision, you get some more information: The person in the car is your Grandmother!

Would Bentham pull the lever? Why/why not? ______Would Kant pull the lever? Why/why not? ______Would you pull the lever? Why/why not? Which view (Kant vs Bentham) do you side with? ______

STRETCH: You have just looked at an adapted version of an ethical dilem- ma called ‘The Trolley Problem’. Watch the following video which is an introduction to the classic Trolley Problem. How similar were your views to the explanation in the video? Ethically speaking, are you more concerned with the consequence, or the action required to bring about that consequence? https://youtu.be/yg16u_bzjPE ______

Section B: Ethics Task 4: Applying Utilitarian and Deontological Ethics (1h30mins) Read the following article. It is quite long so take your time and try to take notes as you go, and use a highlighter for key information. There is a list of definitions at the end for difficult words, which you may find helpful.

The Moral Cost of Coronavirus

COVID-19 is now a global pandemic. As cases rise rapidly, one effect will be to raise deep and troubling ethical issues. If the UK follows Italy, as it is predicted to, one such ethical issue will be an extreme demand placed on healthcare resources, specifically intensive care. Indeed, given differences in ICU beds it may well be that the challenges facing the NHS exceed those seen in Italy. Effective triage is the appropriate response to ensure that in spite of a severe mismatch between supply and demand allocation of resources is fair. In an overwhelmed system with critically unwell patients, doctors must decide which patients get oxygen, intensive care, both, or neither.

Fundamentally, this is a question of ethics and distributive justice. In answering this question Italy has opted for a utilitarian approach: “the principle of maximizing benefits for the largest number”. That allocation must be towards “those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success”. Indeed, American ethicists have also suggested that utilitarianism in some form is the best response to rationing in the face of coronavirus. Under the circumstances, utilitarianism seems to be the necessary and proportionate response. Whilst this might be the only ethical option, for doctors on the frontlines this represents a paradigm shift in how they practice and carries costs that must be considered over the longer term.

Deciding which patient should take the last remaining ICU bed is a decision for doctors. Rationing and making tough decisions are not unfamiliar; however, doctors’ approach to moral decision-making tends to be deontological in nature. Medicine takes place within discrete interactions between individuals. By this very fact of the doctor-patient relationship, doctors often set aside questions of the greater good emphasising patient- centeredness, the needs of the person in front of them and putting that patient’s inter- ests first. Being the predominate way that doctors interact with their patients, not to mention the way that the GMC admonishes doctors to act, places these values at the core of what it means to be a good doctor. Indeed, these moral values are the heart of practicing medicine and a significant part of a doctor’s moral identity. This is a princi- pally different way of thinking about ethics and the doctor-patient relationship to utilitarian ways of thinking.

Section B: Ethics The decision to shift policy towards the rationing of intensive care based on utilitarianism does not belong to doctors. However, under the circumstances and given their exper- tise, society will entrust doctors to enact this policy making the hard decisions on the ground. In a certain sense this is simply ‘part of the job’ and no doubt doctors will rise to the challenge and do their best. Nevertheless, these decisions carry immense moral burdens. Burdens which doctors cannot refuse.

The two most important burdens are moral responsibility and moral risk. Taking responsibility for deciding how to best ration your resources at a population level, knowing this will inevitably lead some people to die, is immense. The weight of responsibility and the inherent stresses must not be underestimated. Given what is at stake, it is vital that doctors make the right decision. Nevertheless, the pace of change, working in a busy and overwhelmed system and the vagaries of applying the principle of “maximising benefits for the largest numbers” in the real-world leaves plenty of room for moral mistakes. The costs of these will weigh heavily on doctors. Moreover, these uncertainties might make it ambiguous whether doctors did the right thing for the individuals they are caring for. Again, this may be a source of profound distress for doctors reflecting back on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moral injury is often understood as a psychological harm caused by transgressing ones deeply held values. We have noted that many of doctors most deeply held values both as people and as professionals are at odds with the demands of a public health emergency. One risk to doctors in tackling the myriad of difficult moral choices that COVID- 19 hands them is that of moral injury. Where doctors must make utilitarian decisions at the expense of their more deontological values, the sacrifice of these values has a psychological cost. What this recognises is that by working at the focal point of the pandemic doctors not only risk their physical welfare but their moral character.

Choosing between patients knowing that this may lead to death presents an impossible situation and leaves doctors facing ‘unavoidable moral failure’. Either the doctor per- forms as a deontologist prioritising the needs of the individual patient in front of them or as a utilitarian maximising the greater good. Either way, important moral principles are violated. Whatever the doctor does, something of moral value is lost. Whilst following utilitarian principles might be all things considered best, and the doctor has little other option, many will still retain feelings of guilt and remorse.

Section B: Ethics COVID-19 is likely to be a global tragedy. In amongst its wide-ranging effects for patients, healthcare systems and society there will be a cost for doctors. As coronavirus forces doctors to make deep and challenging ethical decisions it may also ask healthcare professionals at the coalface to sacrifice their fundamental values for the greater good. There will be a great human cost to COVID-19, however we must not overlook the moral cost in our response to this public health emergency.

By Joshua Parker & Mikaeil Mirzaali, Journal of Medical Ethics https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/03/16/the-moral-cost-of-coronavirus/

Definitions: Ethicists: Someone whose judgement on ethics is trusted by a specific community, in this case the health service. ICU: Intensive care unit. GMC: General Medical Council. Paradigm shift: A change in approach or underlying assumption. Therapeutic success: Recovering from an illness.

Answer the following questions arising from the reading: 1) What is the difference between utilitarian and deontological ethics? 2) In terms of COVID-19, how might a doctor choosing to follow utilitarian ethics have a different approach to patients to a doctor choosing to follow deontological ethics? 3) What is ‘moral injury’? 4) What do you think the correct approach is to allocating medical resources and beds during the pandemic? Do you think it should be on a first-come first-served basis? Age? Chance of surviving? Level of in- come? Contribution to society? 5) Imagine you are an ICU doctor. You have one bed left and there are two COVID-19 sufferers who need the space. One is a 90-year old woman, who has won prizes for ground-breaking research into pan- demics. The other is a 17 year old boy who has dropped out of college. Who would Bentham give the bed to? Who would Kant give the bed to? What about you? 18

Section B: Ethics ______

Section B: Ethics Task 5: More Pandemic Ethics—Putting it All Together (1h30mins) Listen to the following podcast from a series called ‘The Global Philosopher’, hosted by Michael J. Sandel, a world-famous philosopher who works at Harvard University. The show deals with various ethical questions surround- ing COVID-19, and has a panel of over a dozen ethicists from across the world to answer them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h63r

You can take notes here: ______

______

Section B: Ethics

Answer the following questions arising from the podcast: 1) Do you think stockpiling is ethical? Would either Bentham or Kant choose to stockpile during lockdown? 2) Do you think it is ethical for phones to track people’s locations in order to know who is an who isn’t carrying out social distancing measures? 3) Consider this scenario. Your next-door neighbours are having a party and you can hear the music next door. You peek over the fence and see that they have got about 30 guests, and a really good array of food and drink. They have a pool in their back garden, and people are hanging out there and generally having a great time. It looks like a cool party. Your next-door neighbour sees you looking in and invites you over. You live on your own, so no one will know you have broken social-distancing rules. Would either Bentham or Kant go to the pool- party? If they chose not to go, would either Bentham or Kant inform the police about their neighbour’s social gathering? 4) Do you think the UK’s response to the pandemic has been utilitarian or ontological? What evidence can you think of to support your view? 5) In general, do you think Kant’s deontology or Bentham’s utilitarianism is a better way to make decisions? ______

Section B: Ethics ______

Section C: Recommended Reading

The following are recommendations for books which will aid your studies in PRE next year, and may make you want to look in more depth at a particular topic. Wider reading can push you into the highest bands if displayed well in exam an- swers, and is something you may well enjoy doing as you start to do more independent study and find your own inter- ests within the subject.

Peter Vardy, The Puzzle of Ethics and The Puzzle of God Both of these books are written as companions to the Philosophy and Ethics module of the PRE A Level, and has been the standard book for teachers and students alike for the last 20 years. Together they cover all of the ethical and philosophical questions you will look at in year 12. They are written in language which is incredibly accessible, and introduce you to relevant further reading should you want to do so.

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Probably the most famous atheist polemic (a strongly worded attack) against religion. Has chapters on each of the proofs for the existence of God, and is a good way to introduce how atheists might react to these arguments.

Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Basics A very good short introduction to various ethical and philosophical issues. A bit more difficult than the other books above, but would be a useful book to refer to for anyone studying Politics/Psychology/Sociology as well!

The cheapest way to buy these books is second-hand, either on Amazon (look for the ‘Used and New’ option), or on abebooks.co.uk. They shouldn't be more than a few pounds each.