A Guide to Morality Essays

In the morality section you will be asked two questions – one worth 10 marks and one worth 20 marks. The examples below focus on the conflict option but the advice would work for any unit you might be studying. So even if you’re not studying this particular unit, hopefully this will still be helpful.

Candidates tend to include too much knowledge and understanding about conflict and fail to focus on the moral issues. But questions are actually very simple when you break them down a little.

10-mark questions

Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from consequences of war for the economy.

In a question like this, you can be awarded 6 marks for knowledge and understanding and 4 marks for analysis.

At first, this might look like a difficult question, but the trick is to work backwards! Let’s look at what that means…

Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from consequences of war for the economy.

You should recognise this language from the mandatory content! So, let’s start by describing a consequence of war for the economy and giving an example:

One consequence of war for the economy is the destruction of infrastructure. Roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals often become targets or collateral damage in conflicts, leaving a country with billions of dollars in repair costs.(KU) For example, the Syrian civil war has led to the destruction of much of the country’s infrastructure, crippling the economy and making it difficult for people to access essential services.(KU)

Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from consequences of war for the economy.

Now we need to describe a moral issue that this consequence causes:

A moral issue related to infrastructure destruction is whether it is justifiable to target these facilities during war. On one hand, some argue that disabling infrastructure can be necessary to weaken an enemy’s ability to fight or support its forces. On the other hand, others believe that targeting civilian infrastructure is morally wrong, as it directly harms innocent people and hinders a country’s recovery long after the war ends.(KU)

Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from consequences of war for the economy.

Now identify a non-religious response you have studied and describe what they believe:

One non-religious viewpoint I have studied is Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham wrote that ‘an action is right if the greatest amount of happiness is created for the greatest number of people.’(KU) Bentham developed this theory to create the ‘hedonic calculus’ which includes more factors in the calculation such as the intensity of the happiness and the length of time it would last.(KU) John Stuart Mill then developed it further and that there were ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures and that intellectual ones should be prioritised over animalistic ones.(KU)

We have already scored six knowledge and understanding (KU) marks!

Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from consequences of war for the economy.

Notice that the question does NOT ask for the non-religious response to the consequences of war. It also does NOT ask for your opinion or judgement. So, what comes next is applying what Utilitarian’s think to the moral issue.

Therefore, on the one hand Utilitarians would not view this as a moral issue because weakening an enemy’s ability to fight, would make victims of war very happy as there would be less chance of them getting hurt in the war by fighting. (A)

But on the other hand, Utilitarians view all people as equal and the enemy would be very unhappy so if they were factored in then this would become a moral problem.(A)

At this point, if you are struggling to think of more responses to the moral issue, you could identify a second moral issue and then explain how a utilitarian would respond. Or you could simply keep explaining how they could respond to the initial issue:

Additionally, a Utilitarian following JS Mill’s additional factors might highlight that suffering through the loss of infrastructure would create long-term, lasting suffering due to loss of job opportunity or access to education – even if there is momentary relief from fighting. Therefore, they would view it as a moral issue too. (A)

However, a Utilitarian could also maintain that the intensity of happiness that victims could experience through seeing a disruption of fighting could outweigh this long-lasting suffering. For example, the satisfaction seeing a dictators power crumble would be a higher pleasure than the suffering of lacking wealth. (A)

20-mark questions

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

In a question like this you can be awarded up to 10 knowledge and understanding, 5 analysis, and 5 evaluation marks. It also helps to work backwards through these questions – whilst the analysis is wider than on a 10 mark question, it does help to follow the same structure.

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

One alternative to war is sanctions. These are penalties imposed by countries or international organizations to change a government’s behaviour without using military force. Sanctions can limit trade, freeze assets, or reduce diplomatic relations.(KU) A recent example is the sanctions placed on Russia by the EU after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The EU even targeted the assets of individuals known to support the Russian government.(KU)

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

The moral issue here is whether sanctions are fair, as they often hurt ordinary people more than the leaders they target. Supporters argue that sanctions can effectively pressure governments to change their harmful actions. In contrast, critics say they mainly punish civilians, leading to suffering without achieving the desired results.(KU)

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

With questions like this you need to avoid generic statements like ‘Christians believe’ because that fails to acknowledge the diversity of belief amongst religions. Instead try to identify a set position:

One religious response is that of Thomas Aquinas who developed ‘Just War Theory.’ One of the key criteria of this theory is that war must be a ‘last resort.’(KU)

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

Therefore, Aquinas wouldn’t see this as a moral issue because by applying sanctions, they are trying to avoid war itself and the suffering it then causes.(A)

Evaluate religious responses to moral issues arising from alternatives to war.

However, I think that this response is flawed because innocent people are still suffering through sanctions. Even if the countries are not a ‘war’ they are failing to protect non-combatants.(E)

Then you can repeat that structure:

But on the other hand, Jesus did say “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.(KU) Therefore, a Christian like Aquinas could be praised for encouraging an alternative to war that does avoid physical violence. Particularly because the point of sanctions is to deescalate tensions and to bring about peace.(A) Therefore, I also think Aquinas response is a good one because his ‘Just War Theory’ is supported by teaching from the Bible.(E)

At this point, the essay has scored 5KU, 2A, and 2E. Therefore, we are going to aim to do that again, but add some more in depth analysis and evaluation to try and pick up those marks.

Mark the section below – do you think this would score 20 overall?

Another alternative to war is non-violent action, including civilian peacekeeping and community defence, where conflicts are resolved without violence. Organizations like the United Nations promote these approaches, such as their recent civilian peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, which helps protect communities and prevent further violence. The moral issue here is whether non-violence is effective in stopping conflicts. Advocates argue it can lead to lasting peace by empowering communities. However, critics worry that it might not be enough to deter aggressors, allowing conflicts to escalate. For example, in Rwanda the UN were there as peace observers but this did nothing to stop the genocide and in some instances, made it much worse. One religious response is that of Christian Pacifists. They believe that life is a scared gift from God, and the biblical teaching “Thou shalt not kill” is a clear command. Therefore, they would be very supportive of non-violent action to avoid war, because it is aiming to avoid any death.  They are more likely to support initiatives that promote dialogue between opposing groups or programs that strengthen community ties, aiming to build a lasting peace that doesn’t rely on force. But I disagree with this position, because it clearly does not always work as in the case of Rwanda and talking cannot stop machetes, bullets, or bombs. I think that it is weak as a religious response because it also fails to protect the innocent people who suffer due to this violence. It should be a Christian’s duty to protect the vulnerable as Jesus did. As Simon Wiesenthal once wrote, “For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”