Which of these two arguments is clearer? Why? Clarity and Precision Which of these two arguments is clearer? Why? The argument from perceptual variation is against direct realism. Direct realists argue that we see the world directly with nothing getting in the way and no sense data. Perceptual variation occurs when we see things differently depending on the circumstances in which we are perceiving it (i.e. direction / distance). Since objects can appear differently in different circumstances, the direct realist either has to accept that they change depending on the perceiver or that direct realism is flawed. We know objects don’t change so we can conclude that direct realism is flawed. Direct realists argue that we see the world directly as it really is (i.e. objects we perceive have the properties we perceive them to have). The argument from perceptual variation is a criticism of this view. Perceptual variation occurs when we see the properties of objects differently depending on the circumstances of our perception (i.e. distance / lighting). Due to this variation the direct realist either has to argue that the properties we perceive change constantly, or that the properties do not change and direct realism is false. We know objects don’t change so therefore direct realism is false. Correct but messy – the order of the answer seems off and the language is not as clear as it could be. The conclusion is not entirely correct, if the argument is correct then DR is false, not just flawed. Correct and much clearer – organisation seems better and they explicitly use the language given in their definition of DR to attack the theory (i.e. they discuss properties). The arguments conclusion is correctly written.

Essay Writing – What makes a good philosophy essay? What can you remember?

Recapping the Mark Scheme – What are we looking for? 25 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme    25 AO1—5 AO2—20 21-25 The student argues with clear intent throughout and the argument is sustained. A complete and comprehensive response to the question. The content is correct and the student shows detailed understanding. The conclusion is clear, with the arguments in support of the conclusion stated precisely, integrated coherently, and robustly defended. The overall argument is sustained, and reasoned judgements are made, on an ongoing basis and overall, about the weight being given to each argument—so crucial arguments are identified against less crucial ones. Technical philosophical language is used precisely, clearly and consistently throughout. Think carefully – What do you think your weaknesses / strengths are given your previous marks?

Sample Essay (Ethics) Read through the essay: What is good about it? Highlight / Underline / Annotate one example for each of the marking criteria: The student argues with clear intent throughout and the argument is sustained A complete and comprehensive response to the question. The content is correct and the student shows detailed understanding. The conclusion is clear, with the arguments in support of the conclusion stated precisely, integrated coherently, and robustly defended. The overall argument is sustained, and reasoned judgements are made, on an ongoing basis and overall, about the weight being given to each argument—so crucial arguments are identified against less crucial ones. Technical philosophical language is used precisely, clearly and consistently throughout. Read through the essay: What is good about it? What could be better? Don’t focus on the content, focus on the way it is written and whether or not it hits the criteria of the mark scheme. Why is this a high grade essay?

Introductions In order to answer this question it is first necessary to evaluate what makes an ethical theory “good.” First of all, the theory must be practical; easy to apply to everyday situations. It should also provide a full understanding of moral dos and don’ts. This essay will focus on Act and Rule Utilitarianism and it will ultimately conclude that while Rule Utilitarianism is stronger, neither theory is a good basis on which to make moral decisions.

Main Writing Another, for some bigger, issue with Act Utilitarianism is problems with calculation. This is often considered a bigger problem because it means the theory is impossible to apply to everyday moral decision making. Bentham does not explain how we go about measuring things such as “intensity” or “remoteness” of the pleasure or pain. Any methods we think of seems either unrealistically rigid or within the realms of science fiction. For example, measuring “intensity” on a scale from 0 – 10, with 0 representing indifference. There is a further, related issue of unforeseen consequences. We may know that action (A) will have consequence (B) in 5 minutes time, but consequence (B) will inevitably have other consequences and these will have other effects, and so on, until the end of time. In fact, future unforeseen consequences may completely alter the overall outcome in terms of the amount of pain and pleasure caused. At what point does one make a calculation? This lack of practicality in calculation hugely weakens the utilitarian position.

Conclusions To conclude, Act Utilitarianism is a weak theory facing the issue of ignoring the importance of moral relationships and the criticism of problems with calculation. A stronger theory is Rule Utilitarianism which faces less issues with calculation. However, there is still the problem of defining pleasure and its issue concerning motives and character. Therefore, although Rule Utilitarianism is the stronger of the two versions of the theory, neither can withstand critical scrutiny and neither should be the basis for making moral decisions.

Putting This In Context – Critically Assess Direct Realism What would you include in this essay? Write a brief introduction using the information we’ve put together. (Remember it should include what you’re going to cover and what you’re ultimately going to conclude).

Critically Assess Direct Realism What is good about this section of writing? What could be better? One major issue for direct realists is the problem of illusions. In the case of illusions our senses are being deceived by something going on in the world around us (for example a stick appearing bent when placed in water). If our senses are being deceived then there is no way we can be seeing the world directly (if we were, we would know the stick is really straight) and therefore direct realism must be false. One response to this theory comes from Philosophical Direct Realists, they argue that in the case of illusions we simply need to explain what we are perceiving in more detail. If we do this, then there should be no issue matching our perceptions to the world. In the case of the pencil in water then, we should say we are perceiving a pencil that LOOKS bent due to refraction, and in reality there is a pencil that looks bent due to refraction. Thus, our perceptions match up with reality and we can be said to be perceiving directly.

Critically Assess Direct Realism Which is the better conclusion? Why? Overall direct realism is a weak theory of perception. It appeals to common sense and is simple but these strengths aren’t good enough to deal with the weaknesses of the theory. Perceptual variation, time-lag and illusions weaken direct realism irreversibly and a final issue of hallucinations (when you see something that isn’t actually there – meaning you can’t be seeing reality directly) puts the nail in the coffin. Even if we consider the responses from philosophical direct realists it’s still not really enough to save direct realism and we should therefore look at something else – if we are seeing reality directly then why is there not one shape we all perceive when looking at an object? Or why do some people see things other’s cant? Overall direct realism is a weak theory of perception. Whilst the fact it’s often considered to be the common sense view, and it’s simplicity do lend it some strength, it’s not enough in the face of the issues covered here. Problems of illusion and perceptual variation undermine the theory massively and the responses from philosophical direct realists are simply not good enough (as both suggest there is some amount of ‘mediation’ in our perceptions) to save it. Overall then we can conclude that direct realism is not a good theory of perception and should be replaced with something better able to deal with these issues.

The Language of Questions The way a question is worded can and will dictate what you should include in your answer: Critically Assess Direct Realism Direct Realism is the strongest theory of perception. Discuss. Assess the claim that we perceive objects directly.

Key Tips: Read the question carefully. Ensure everything in your plan works towards answering the question. You may find you don’t need to include every theory we’ve covered so far. Your introduction should clearly lay out what you’re going to do and how you’re going to answer the question. If there is any doubt as to what the question is asking, you should explain clearly the parameters in which you’ll be working. Your first paragraph(s) after the introduction should clearly define any key terms you need, usually this will mean giving a basic outline of the theory – this does not need to be in depth, we’re primarily looking for AO2 (arguments) not AO1 (information) in essays. This goes for any other explanations of theories in your essay. Don’t overdo them. Keep in mind you need to balance your essay – this may mean admitting there are some strengths of the theory before tearing it to shreds, alternatively it may mean acknowledging weaknesses later. Use examples and technical language to help you explain key arguments. Technical language does not mean complicated, it means using key words properly. Use mini-conclusions to help link each argument back to the question so it’s clear where you are headed. Does the argument prove a theory false / correct or just strengthen / weaken it? After each section weigh up the arguments considered, this may mean after each argument or after each response (weighing them together) are they good or bad arguments in relation to your conclusion? Why? You don’t need to cover every argument we have looked at in lesson – look for the crucial ones first, then any you think you can write about effectively, then any others you wish to include. 3 “lines” of argument should be enough. Conclusions should summarise what you’ve done, not introduce new information. They should bring together all you’ve written and clearly answer the question. They are not a surprise twist!

We Perceive the World Through Sense Data. Discuss.