A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 1Harlington School · Philosophy · Moral Philosophy

Kantian ethics

For Kant the question is never 'what will happen?' It is 'what am I doing — and could everyone do it?'

The
big
question

Is an action right because of the will behind it and the maxim it follows — whatever its consequences?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The Kant line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

Rightness is INSIDE you · the will and the ruleRightness is TESTED against the world · the issues

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Moral philosophy is one question in three sizes: what makes an act right, what to do in THIS case, and what 'right' even means. Kant answers the first with reason alone.

◀ Refer back · Utilitarianism
Is the right action the one that produces the greatest happiness?

Every objection to utilitarianism — the scapegoat, the surgeon — was a case where the ACT mattered apart from its result. Kant starts right there.

Retrieve: Write the scapegoat in one sentence. Underline the word that names what Kant thinks is being done to him.
The big idea

Going from left to right, the theory moves from inside the person to outside: from the will, to the rule, to the people affected, to the world's objections. In the essay, you decide how far a morality built from reason alone can go before it needs something we WANT.

Look ahead · Aristotelian virtue ethics ▶
Is the right action whatever the virtuous person would do?

Kant judges the act by its rule. Aristotle judges the PERSON by their character. Next lesson the kind, loving person gets a theory of their own.

Prime: Note it down: does a kind act done out of love deserve moral credit? Next lesson gives the 'yes' side a theory.
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Autumn 1–2 · weeks 8–13. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 8

The map: can an act be right whatever its consequences?

The good will, the two formulations, the issues, Foot.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 8–9

The good will, duty and the imperatives

Acting from duty; hypothetical and categorical; maxims.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 10

The universal law formulation

Contradiction in conception, contradiction in the will; perfect and imperfect duties.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 11–12

The humanity formulation

Ends and mere means; consent; dignity and rights.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 13

The issues and Foot's challenge; applied

Clashing duties, consequences, motives; morality as hypothetical; the four applied issues; the ladder.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four parts of Kant's theory, side by side

Why is the result not the whole story? But Kant denies that the RESULT is what makes an act right or wrong. The scapegoat is wrong even if it makes everyone else happy. Why? Because an innocent person is USED. The wrong is in the act itself, and in the will behind it. So Kant builds morality from the other end: not from what we want, but from what REASON tells anyone to do. The lesson has three parts. The good will: rightness is in the motive. Then one test with two forms: could everyone act on your rule? And could the people involved agree to it?

Form one

The universal law formulation

Act only on a rule that everyone could act on. If your rule could not be a law for all, you may not act on it.
1A command with an 'if' binds only people who want the goal. The moral law has no 'if': it binds every thinking person, whatever they want.
2Stage one — can you IMAGINE everyone acting on the rule? 'Make false promises when in need' fails: promising would die. A contradiction in conception: a PERFECT duty.
3Stage two — could you WANT everyone to act on it? 'Never help others' can be imagined, not wanted: you will need help too. A contradiction in the will: IMPERFECT duty.
4It is not the golden rule. It does not ask what YOU would like done to you. It asks what could be a law for all.
Strength It gives you a method, not a feeling. It explains why cheating, lying and free-riding are wrong: you make an exception of yourself. And it works out duties instead of just assuming them.
Weakness Silly rules pass it. Some bad rules pass it too, if you are happy to be treated the same way. And harmless rules fail it. The verdict depends on how you word the rule — and the test does not tell you how.
Form two

The humanity formulation

Treat every person as an end, never MERELY as a means. Could they agree to how you are using them?
1Things have a price; people have dignity. You cannot trade a person's dignity for a good result — not even a very good one.
2You may use people as a means — the plumber, the driver — IF they can agree to it. Trick them or force them, and they cannot agree: now you use them MERELY as a means.
3The scapegoat and the surgeon are wrong at once: the victim is used for others' good and could never agree.
4It also asks more of you: help others reach their goals, and develop your own. Treating people as ends is more than not using them.
Strength It says exactly what is wrong with the scapegoat. It explains rights and dignity. And it is the form most people find obvious once they hear it.
Weakness 'Merely' does all the work, and Kant does not define it. Animals cannot reason, so the test does not reach them. And it can clash with the first form — as at the murderer's door.
The foundation

The good will and duty

Only the good will is good without limits. An act has moral worth only when it is done FROM duty.
1Being clever, brave, rich or happy can all serve evil. Only a good will is good in every possible case.
2Acting IN LINE with duty (the shopkeeper honest for profit) has no moral worth. Acting FROM duty — because it is right — does.
3Duty is respect for the moral law: acting on a rule reason gives, not on a feeling, however kind the feeling is.
4So rightness is settled before the result. A good will that fails through bad luck 'would still shine like a jewel'.
Strength It puts moral worth where we put praise and blame — in what the person MEANT, not in luck. And it explains why the scapegoat is wrong however well it turns out.
Weakness It seems to make feeling worth nothing: a kind act done out of love earns no moral credit. And Kant admits we can never be sure, even of ourselves, that we acted from duty.
The challenge

The issues and Foot's challenge

Clashing duties, ignored results, discounted feelings — and the claim that morality was never categorical at all.
1Clashing duties: 'do not lie' and 'protect the innocent' collide at the door. Kant says true duties never clash — few believe him.
2Results: a theory that bans the lie that saves a life has, critics say, forgotten what morality is for. Kant: the liar owns whatever follows from the lie.
3Other motives: love, care and sympathy seem to have worth of their own. Kant makes them worthless unless duty is also there.
4Foot: 'do not eat with your fingers' has no 'if' either — yet it binds no one who does not care. Perhaps morality is the same.
Strength The issues land: real duties clash, real results matter, real love has worth. And Foot's point is hard to answer without going in a circle — WHY is the person who does not care irrational?
Weakness Kant can reply. Duties that seem to clash are badly described. Results count in choosing HOW to do your duty. And the person who ignores morality is not just rude: they deny that others can think and choose — a contradiction.
04

Six cases — result and act pointing different ways

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the false promise next to the fake notes. Both are wrong for Kant. Say what is DIFFERENT: which form of the test catches each one? Does the other form catch it too?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the universal law test. Find a rule that passes it and is plainly not moral. Find one that fails it and is plainly fine. Say what that does to the test.
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Grant that the murderer at the door is a cost for Kant. Now say what Kant KEEPS by refusing to lie that a utilitarian loses. Is it worth it?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Run the six cases through both forms of the test. Where do the two forms agree? Where do they part? Say the rule that predicts when they part.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by a 'categorical imperative'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. Binds unconditionally, whatever the agent wants
  2. Contrast the hypothetical in half a sentence
  3. One example.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline Kant's distinction between acting from duty and acting in accordance with duty.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Both defined
  2. The shopkeeper
  3. Which has moral worth and why
  4. The role of the good will.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain how the universal law formulation shows that making a false promise is wrong.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. State the maxim
  2. Universalise
  3. The contradiction in conception (promising collapses)
  4. So a perfect duty not to.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain the humanity formulation and one issue with applying it.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Ends vs merely means
  2. Consent as the test
  3. Dignity
  4. The issue ('merely' undefined, or animals excluded, or conflict with the universal law test)
  5. Kant's reply.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is Kantian ethics the correct account of what makes an action right?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. The theory stated
  3. One formulation tested on the murderer at the door
  4. Foot's challenge weighed
  5. Judgement that names what utilitarianism cannot explain and Kant can — or the reverse.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Apply both formulations to all four AQA issues — stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, telling lies. Find the issue where they give different answers. That is your Q05 paragraph.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Moral Philosophy Companion runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Moral Philosophy Companion — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Moral Philosophy Companion is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan 'Is Kantian ethics the correct account of what makes an action right?' — thesis, one case through both formulations, Foot, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying each part of the theory clearly and exactly. AO2 is running ONE case through it and the objections — and reaching a judgement you have earned.
09

Watch

Kantian ethics — watch for the good will, duty and the categorical imperative — Philosophy Vibe, 8:25

▶Kantian ethics · 8 min
Watch for: the good will, duty and the categorical imperative — Philosophy Vibe, 8:25↗▶Kant and categorical imperatives · 10 min
Watch for: Kant's ethics in ten minutes — CrashCourse, 10:27↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say the universal law form of the test in your own words.
  2. What is the difference between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in the will?
  3. Give one strength AND one weakness of the humanity form.

Challenge

Argue: Which form of the test would you defend in a 25-mark answer — and which single case would you use to test both?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying each part of the theory clearly and exactly. AO2 is running ONE case through it and the objections — and reaching a judgement you have earned.