Ethics 2025 Exam Predictions

First of all lets discuss the elephant in the room…that philosophy exam. A couple of big curve balls from OCR. This is the first time they have asked the same topic three years in a row. Not only that, the question on union is closely linked to last year’s question on mysticism (part of the definition of mysticism is union), it is also pretty much identical to a question asked in the AS 2023 exam. Now of course OCR can do this (they can do anything they want!) but when there are so many areas that have never been asked, I am so bored of seeing RE. Secondly, as far as I can tell, they have never asked a very similar question in the first and second year exam in the same year (in this case ‘materialism’). On the whole a harder paper, with tricky wording (all the wording is all on the spec though) and 4 topics that I would say are less popular with students. Onwards and upwards towards ethics.

As I say every year, this is the hardest exam to predict because there are many question variations (topics asked on their own or as application) and a significant number of areas have already been asked over the years. On this note, I must be clear that I do not share my predictions with you to be correct, I share them with you to give you an idea of what to expect or what to be prepared for. I make my predictions simply by looking at previous questions, recognizing the obvious gaps (using the spec) and making possible questions from here (trust me no secret magic trick, I would be a pretty poor magician if I only got 2 out of 4 tricks right each time). So here goes…

Specific questions could be:

  1. Euthanasia and/or Situation Ethics: You could get a specific question on Situation Ethics. E.g. the six propositions (or four working principles asked in 2024 in first year) or “Fletcher’s understanding of agape means nothing more than wanting the best for the person involved in a given situation.” Discuss. You could also get a specific question on Euthanasia. E.g. “There is a moral difference between medical intervention to end a patient’s life and medical non-intervention to end a patient’s life” Discuss or “Quality of life is the only important issue when making moral decisions about euthanasia.” Discuss (asked in 2022 first year) Finally you might be asked an application question such as: Assess the view that situation ethics is of no help with regard to the issue of euthanasia. Situation ethics was not asked last year nor was euthanasia. There are also a number of areas of the spec for situation ethics that have never been asked. Don’t forget you could get a question on both SE and euthanasia in the same paper (and yes you can answer both if you want to).
  2. Utilitarianism: Never been asked in the second year (without business ethics/ sex), so any question on utility, hedonic calculus or act vs rule is possible. You might also get a question such as “The strengths of Bentham’s utilitarianism outweighs its weaknesses.” Discuss. Or “It is not possible to reach a moral decision based on the measure of pleasure.” Discuss. Most obvious choice…but is it too obvious? Don’t forget you could be asked a question that just wants you to discuss the normative theory and not apply it to an ethical situation (in this case business).
  3. Sex Ethics: Specifically on premarital sex, extramarital sex or homosexuality e.g. “No theory is useful when dealing with issues surrounding homosexuality.” Discuss. Or specific to Kant e.g. ‘To what extent can issues surrounding sex ethics be judged as good, bad, right or wrong based on the extent to which duty is best served.’ You could also get a general question such as: To what extent do religious beliefs and practices have a continuing role in the area of sexual ethics. I would be extremely surprised if a sex ethics question is not asked this year. Examiners usually like at least two application questions and there are a lot of areas of sex ethics that have not been asked (e.g. Kant with Sex ethics or a specific issue).
  4. Conscience: General Q e.g. “Conscience is just an umbrella term for moral decision making based on culture and environment not God.” Or “Conscience is a result of guilt not the presence of God.” Discuss. Conscience has not been asked since 2022, this means they might asked a similar question to one that has been asked in the past (check out the video on YouTube of previously asked questions) or a new area of the spec similar to the questions I’ve written above. 
  5. Business Ethics and/ or Utilitarianism: General Q on Business e.g. “Globalisation discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business.” Discuss. Or Business with Utilitarianism e.g. “Utilitarianism is not useful when making ethical decision regarding issues surrounding business ethics.” I think you may get a business question and a utilitarianism question. Utilitarianism and business have not been asked since 2019 – however I doubt they will ask for Utilitarianism and Utilitarianism with business 9but it is possible and yes you can answer both). I think the question will be a general business theme (probably not whistleblowing as this is the only theme that has been asked in 2021). It could be a business question that has been asked in the first year such as “good business decisions are always good ethical decisions”.

Other possibilities: Corporate Social Responsibility (asked in the first year exam 2024) or globalisation (Business Ethics). Also: Critically assess the view that people just know within themselves what is good, bad, right and wrong from a common-sense approach (linking to intuitionism – Meta Ethics).

Good luck to all of you! You have worked very hard, so this is your opportunity to show off! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Monday 16th June at 6.00 ( https://www.youtube.com/live/91XyqVwQuqM?si=JRWesAdrceUE4oMe) for last minute exam support.

*Note: I sometimes refer to the exams by the first and second year. This is because OCR still set a paper for students who wish to sit the exam in the first year of the course (formerly known as the AS year), however most colleges no longer do this. The second year refers to the full A level exam (sat by everyone who completes the course) covering all 32 units.

*Important Update* – in the AS exam they have asked 1. ‘The most useful approach to business ethics is provided by utilitarianism.’ Discuss. 2. Assess the view that Kantian ethics is of little help in moral decision making. 3.’The five primary precepts are the most helpful part of natural law in moral decision making.’ Discuss. Going by the pattern in the philosophy exam, I am not discounting another question on business with Utilitarianism being asked in this exam too.

Philosophy 2025 Exam Predictions

As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. I did however predict one topic Q spot on last year (analogy) and two other topic areas on Plato and Cosmological (not quite the right wording of the questions though)– so go me!

We have to be prepared that the exam board could ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first-year exams (e.g. they asked a Q on Descartes in 2023 and a very similar question on Descartes appeared the year before in the first-year exam). The examiners might also repeat topics over multiple years, so just because it was asked last year does not mean the topic wont also appear this year as well (e.g. a question on Religious Experience has been asked in both 2023 and 2024). The examiners could also use the same wording (repeat the same questions), so going over my ppt on previously asked questions will help prepare you further (https://youtu.be/qUHXa_3rlhA).

With all this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I were going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

  1. Soul, Mind and Body:Aristotle presents the most comprehensive view of the soul.’ Or Critically assess the view that the mind can be fully explained by material interactions. Or “The mind-body distinction is a category error” Discuss. My reasoning behind this choice is that it was not on last year’s paper and there are a number of obvious gaps from the spec that haven’t been asked before.
  2. Ontological: Critically assess the view that existence can be treated as a predicate. Or ‘The ontological argument does not justify belief in God.’ Discuss. This is a top runner for me. Ontological has not been asked since 2021! There are also a considerable number of questions the examiners have never asked. You could also get a question on Kant (only asked in the first year 2018) or Gaunilo (asked in the second year 2021 or in the first year 2024 –they like to ask similar questions from the first-year exam in the following second year exam). Also ‘predicate’ is a clear part of the spec that has not appeared in the first-year exam either.
  3. Problem of Evil: ‘Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy gives some purpose to natural evil’ Discuss. Or ‘The need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ cannot justify the existence or extent of evils.’ Discuss. It must come up!!!! I’ve been waiting for this one for years. I think the examiners have forgotten that this is part of the spec. Poor John Hick. Is this going to be the year?
  4. Nature of God: “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human freewill.” Discuss. Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss. A number of areas of NOG that have not been asked, so two obvious questions would be Swinburne and/or benevolence. There is going to be at least one question from the second-year topics and since all areas of Religious Language 20th century have been asked (no obvious gaps) and Religious Language: Analogy was asked last year, it seems that this year NOG seems likely.

Alternative Q (I think these are unlikely but if the examiners are wanting easy question options, these are obvious gaps from the spec that have not been asked):

Continue reading “Philosophy 2025 Exam Predictions”

RS Exam Support 2025

Powerpoint of Past Exam Questions:

Powerpoint of Gaps and Possible Questions (if you would like a copy of these ppts):

Predictions:

Live Streams for last minute exam support:

Links to last year’s live streams (membership exclusive):

Philosophy:

Ethics:

DCT:

Don’t forget to check out the Examiner’s Report summaries (Essay Writing Tips (Examiner’s Report 2024) and Goldilocks and the Three Exam Papers) These will give you an insight into what the examiner’s are looking for and what to avoid.

Do the exam markers for DCT need a reality check?

Am I the only one that feels DCT is becoming like a bad dream? The harder the students work, the higher the expectations for success become (analogous to running in a nightmare and getting nowhere). There is no possible way that within the contact time allocated to cover the whole spec (all 32 units), that the depth and breadth of understanding beyond the ‘artificial’ is achievable. How is it possible to teach the nuances of a 2,000 year old religion, without dedicating hours beyond our contact time? Maybe I just can’t see the wood for the trees anymore but after reading last year’s examiner’s report (which I compared to goldilocks and the seemingly impossible task of getting the porridge ‘just right’) this year’s DCT examiner’s report is no improvement. Let’s have a closer look…

What was said in the examiner’s reportWhy I have an issue with it
For the Q on Heaven – examiners mentioned how the ‘new earth’ theology enhanced many answers! Also the consideration of the transformation of space and time (e.g. Parousia) might broaden some candidate’s repertoire. Finally how ‘some candidates lacked precision (when discussing Beatific Vision) and could have drawn further on scholarly sources.’Now I appreciate that students need to do some wider reading but when the students are already ladened down with content, how are they supposed to find the time to explore at length every aspect of the specification (to this level of detail) that contact time in the classroom just cannot facilitate? Not only this, how are the students then meant to remember all this extra information for the slim possibility it might come up in the exam. It just seems very unfair to me and does not recognise that there is only so much information students can retain. Here’s a thought, if the examiner’s want a deeper exploration, why not take out some content!
For the Q “assess the claim that love (agape) is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethics.”– it was noted how candidates ‘seemed to answer a slightly different question’ evaluating whether any other subdivisions in the topic were sufficient as the only source and concluding that a combination is best.I was confused by this comment, as one approach that I would assume is valid, especially with the wording ‘only source’ would be to discuss other types of sources. The most obvious would be the sources within the rest of the topic on Moral Principles – am I wrong in this understanding? I’m really not sure how students would answer a whole essay just on agape without drawing heavily on ethics.
Further to the question above, it continues to say that candidates might do well to have a ‘secure breadth and depth of understanding of what agape is’ suggesting that ‘one possibility might be to begin with the NT and broaden outwards.’Is it just me or does this come across as horrendously patronising (or am I being sensitive)? Patronizing in the sense that obviously it would benefit students to have a secure breadth and depth of all tiny aspects of a massive spec but we (us teachers and students) live in reality! To then point out that the New Testament is a good place to start – who do they think we are – clearly not trained academics who have studied religion (or some variation) at high level and therefore wouldn’t think to consult the original source of agape for Christians. Totally out of touch.
Best answers were able to differentiate between denominations and the challenges they encounter with other faiths rather than as a homogeneous group (for a question on Pluralism and Society).  As with many of the examiner’s comments and my continuing problems with them, this one once again falls under expectations vs reality. We hardly have time to cover what is on the actual spec, so to have the expectation that we start to delve into denominational encounters as well, is just laughable. Once more, how much wider reading and time do you think students have?
The examiners recommended that the best answers adopted a thinking and writing style specific to success in this paper, rather than one that would work in Philosophy or Ethics.  What writing style would that be then? I was unfamiliar that there was a different style expected for DCT which deviates from the standard mark scheme on the website.
 “At the heart of successful answers was a clear understanding of the complexities of Christianity.”  And it wouldn’t be an examiner’s report for DCT without this old chestnut. Why does it never say this for Philosophy or Ethics? The reason is because it is expected that these topic areas are mostly new to students. However, for many students the study of Christianity is also new, they haven’t necessarily been brought up Christian, attended Sunday School/ Church or received a Christian education, so why is it expected that in 6 months (over two years – this is roughly the time we have to spend on DCT) it is expected that students know the ‘complexities’ of a 2,000 year old religion?
The examiners are ‘aware of the artificial nature of an exam specification’ whilst continuing that higher marks are given to students who:

1. Knew there were more than two liberation theologians,

2. Understood the Bible to be more significant than some isolated quotations,

3. Understood that relationships with other faiths goes beyond Scriptural Reasoning and inter faith dialogue.
What an odd way to describe a specification – I have never thought of it as artificial just necessary in order for students to have parameters on what to study, learn and practice. If students were only provided with topics, whilst this would be a more organic approach – isn’t this university standard? Why should the fact it might be deemed ‘artificial’ be a bad thing at this level of academia? I also found the comments regarding higher marks to be quite patronising and to be honest a bit mean. Would such comments be added to the Hinduism examiner’s report or the DIT? When the specification is designed to rein in the scope of study to make it manageable to the age of the students, why then is it deemed necessary to criticise this expectation and move the goal posts?
The most successful responses are where the students were able to think ‘like a Christian theologian.’This seems a highly questionable form of assessment – does the student think like a Christian Theologian or not? How would one make such a judgment? And why is it deemed necessary – would you say does the student think like an ‘ethicist’, ‘historian’ or ‘psychologist’ – maybe the examiner’s would? I’m once again not convinced that the examiner’s would be expecting the students to think like a Hindu Indologist (I think that is the right term) or a Buddhist scholar so why is the bar of expectation so high for Christianity?
It was also noted that some candidates were ‘rather scathing’ about Christians e.g. Evangelicals as out of date – this should be challenged by centres while teaching the nuances of religious studies.A synonym for ‘scathing’ is critical – I was under the impression that students should be critical in their analysis of all arguments being presented. Yes it is noteworthy if the students are rude, condemning without justification and thus should be challenged by centres but arguing that a perspective is out of date with justification is not something I would challenge. How are students meant to achieve the top marks for A02 f they are not allowed to be critical? I’m not sure at 18 years old students can really appreciate the nuances of a perspective (they often see Christianity no different than they see Plato or Kant).

Please check out the Shorts on YouTube (and Tik Tok) where I go through my Top Tips on ‘How to Improve your Essays’ and ‘How to achieve an A*’