Everybody already agrees

Open almost any answer on this theme and the first paragraph explains that poverty is a bad thing and that prejudice is wrong. ⚠️⚠️ THOSE SENTENCES ARE TRUE, AND THEY ARE WORTH NOTHING, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONE THING NOBODY IN THE DEBATE CONTESTS. Every religious tradition on this specification opposes poverty. Every non-religious position you will study opposes it too. The same goes for prejudice, and for the idea that people are of equal worth. Nobody is arguing the other side of those. ⭐⭐ SO WHAT ARE THEY ARGUING ABOUT? WHAT FOLLOWS. Who is obliged to act. How much they are obliged to give or do. Whether the obligation falls on the individual or on society arranging itself differently. Whether it is owed to everybody equally or to some people first. And whether failing to act is a private shortcoming or a public injustice. ⭐ THOSE ARE REAL DISAGREEMENTS, AND THEY ARE WHERE THE MARKS LIVE. Here is the thing that makes the theme click. Two people can hold the same belief, word for word, and still end up doing different things about it, because they draw a different obligation out of it. One person believes every human being is of equal worth and concludes that they personally must give away a substantial share of what they have. Another holds the identical belief and concludes that the real answer is changing the arrangements that produce poverty, since private giving treats the symptom. ⚠️ NEITHER HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE BELIEF. THEY HAVE DRAWN DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS FROM IT, AND THAT STEP IS THE THING THE EXAM IS ACTUALLY ASKING ABOUT. ⭐⭐ WHICH GIVES YOU A TEST FOR EVERY SENTENCE YOU WRITE IN THIS THEME: IS THIS A CLAIM ABOUT THE GOAL, OR ABOUT WHAT FOLLOWS FROM IT? A claim about the goal is agreed before the question starts. A claim about what follows can be argued, supported, and disagreed with, which is what an evaluation needs. ⭐ AND IT MAKES THE RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS COMPARISON SHARP INSTEAD OF VAGUE. The interesting comparison is rarely that one side cares and the other does not. It is that two sides may want the same outcome and disagree completely about whose job it is. ⚠️ ONE THING TO SETTLE BEFORE GOING ON. THIS MODULE DESCRIBES WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE AND WHAT THEY TAKE THOSE BELIEFS TO REQUIRE. IT TAKES NO SIDE, IT JUDGES NOBODY FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE, AND IT NEVER SUGGESTS ANY PERSON OR GROUP HAS FAILED A DUTY. Carry one question through everything that follows: what does this belief commit someone to doing, and does that actually follow?

One goal, several duties

The same shared starting point, and three of the places people part company over what it requires. Every position belongs to those who hold it.

Tap the two that could be argued

Tap the TWO statements that somebody could reasonably disagree with, rather than ones everybody in the debate already accepts.

The duty to relieve poverty falls on individuals rather than on how society is arranged
People owe more to those nearest them than to strangers far away
Poverty is a bad thing
Human beings are of equal worth

Why the opening paragraph is wasted

A student opens an answer on wealth and poverty by explaining at length that poverty causes suffering and should be reduced. Why does that earn so little?

Because every position on this specification already agrees with it, so nothing has been argued and the disagreement lies entirely in what follows from it
Because it is not true that poverty causes suffering
Because the answer should only discuss religious views
Because the point should have been made more briefly

Five terms used precisely

Five terms, each defined by what it is. The last two are the pair candidates most often blur together.

Match each starting point to the duty drawn from it

The belief that every person is of equal worth
The belief that wealth is held in trust rather than owned outright
The view that what matters morally is the capacity to suffer and to flourish
The belief that a community is responsible for its own members
The view that poverty is produced by how things are arranged

Many conclude that treating anybody as lesser is wrong whoever they are, which makes discrimination a matter of principle rather than of kindness
Many conclude that giving is a duty owed rather than a generosity offered, since what is given was never wholly theirs
Many conclude the obligation reaches anybody who can suffer, which extends it beyond any one group or country
Many conclude that those nearest have the first claim, and that duty begins with the people you are actually among
Many conclude that private giving treats the symptom, and that the real obligation is to change the arrangements

Two that follow from the step

Select the TWO statements that follow from the disagreement being about obligations rather than goals.

Two people can hold exactly the same belief and reasonably end up doing different things about it
The sharpest religious and non-religious comparison is often between two sides who want the same outcome and differ about whose job it is
Positions that disagree about obligations must disagree about whether the problem matters
Whichever obligation is more demanding is the more religious one

Evaluating without attacking a belief

The evaluation question on this theme asks you to weigh a statement and reach a judgement. Doing that well on religious material needs one specific habit, and it is the habit that keeps the answer both fair and sharp. ⭐⭐ EVALUATE THE STEP FROM THE BELIEF TO THE OBLIGATION, NOT THE BELIEF ITSELF. Whether a belief is true is not what the paper is marking, and an answer that argues against somebody holding it has changed the subject. Whether a particular duty really follows from that belief is arguable, and that is where the credit is. SO SET OUT THE BELIEF FIRST, AND ATTRIBUTE IT. ⚠️ MANY CHRISTIANS, MANY MUSLIMS, MANY HUMANISTS, SOME WITHIN A TRADITION AND NOT OTHERS. THE WORDS BELONG TO SOMEBODY, AND SAYING WHOSE IS PART OF THE ANSWER RATHER THAN A COURTESY. ⭐ THEN STATE THE OBLIGATION THEY DRAW FROM IT, AT ITS STRONGEST. A duty you have made easy to dismiss has not been weighed. THEN ASK WHETHER IT FOLLOWS, AND WHETHER ANOTHER DUTY WOULD FOLLOW JUST AS WELL. ⭐ THAT SECOND QUESTION IS THE MOST USEFUL ONE IN THE THEME, BECAUSE THE HONEST ANSWER IS OFTEN YES, AND SAYING SO IS WHAT SHOWS YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE DIFFER. AND THEN JUDGE, AND SAY WHAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND. Either conclusion can earn full marks. ⚠️ THREE HABITS THAT COST MARKS HERE. ⚠️ THE FIRST IS ARGUING FOR THE GOAL. Nobody is against it, so every word spent there is spent on the agreed part. ⚠️ THE SECOND IS TREATING A WHOLE TRADITION AS HAVING ONE VIEW. ⭐ DISAGREEMENT WITHIN A TRADITION IS USUALLY MORE INTERESTING THAN DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN TRADITIONS, AND THE SPECIFICATION EXPECTS YOU TO KNOW IT EXISTS. ⚠️ AND THE THIRD IS REACHING FOR A FIGURE OR A NAMED ORGANISATION YOU ARE NOT SURE OF. This theme is argued perfectly well in terms of more, less, some and many, and a half-remembered statistic is a liability rather than evidence. One last thing. Everybody in this debate is trying to answer a serious question about what they owe other people. An answer that treats every position as held in good faith is both fairer and, as it happens, better history of ideas than one that does not.

Two people who agree completely

Here are two people. Neither is real, neither belongs to any particular tradition unless it is said, and nothing about their circumstances is described, because the argument does not need any of it. They agree on this, exactly and without reservation: every person is of equal worth, and somebody without enough to live on has a claim on those who have more than they need. ⚠️ THAT IS THE WHOLE OF THEIR AGREEMENT, AND IT IS COMPLETE. NEITHER IS PERSUADED OF IT LESS FIRMLY THAN THE OTHER. The first person concludes that they must give, personally and regularly, a substantial share of what they have. Their reasoning is that the claim is on THEM: it is not satisfied by hoping somebody else meets it, and a duty that waits for others to act is not being treated as a duty at all. The second person concludes something different. They accept the claim entirely and hold that meeting it by giving is treating the symptom. If people end up without enough because of how things are arranged, then giving eases the result while leaving the cause untouched, and the obligation is therefore to change the arrangement. ⭐⭐ NOW NOTICE WHAT HAS AND HAS NOT HAPPENED HERE. ⚠️ NEITHER HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE SHARED STARTING POINT. NEITHER IS LESS COMMITTED TO IT. AND NEITHER HAS MADE AN ERROR OF REASONING THAT THE OTHER COULD SIMPLY POINT OUT. ⭐ THEY HAVE DRAWN DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS OUT OF ONE STARTING POINT, AND THAT STEP IS WHERE THE ENTIRE DISAGREEMENT LIVES. And now the useful part, because each can say something real to the other. The first can ask the second what happens to somebody in need while the arrangement is being changed, since changing arrangements is slow and the need is immediate. ⭐ THE SECOND CAN ASK THE FIRST WHETHER A DUTY THAT NEVER LOOKS AT WHY THE NEED KEEPS ARISING IS ONE THAT CAN EVER BE DISCHARGED. ⭐⭐ BOTH OF THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS, AND NEITHER IS ANSWERED BY RESTATING THE THING THEY BOTH ALREADY BELIEVE. ⚠️ AND NOTE WHAT AN ANSWER SHOULD NOT DO WITH THIS: IT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THAT ONE OF THEM CARES MORE. They care identically. They disagree about what caring requires.

Order an evaluation that stays fair

Put these six moves into the order that produces an evaluation this specification credits.

Note briefly what all sides already agree on, and move past it
State a belief, attributed to those who hold it
State the obligation they draw from it, at its strongest
Ask whether that obligation really follows from the belief
Ask whether a different obligation would follow from it just as well
Reach a judgement, and say what would change it

Build the sentence that locates the argument

This is the sentence a strong answer on this theme is built around. Assemble it.

The question behind giving

Asked about charity and giving, a student lists what several organisations do. Why does that not answer the question well?

Because the examinable question is what obliges somebody to give, how much, and to whom, and a list of what organisations do answers none of those
Because naming organisations is not permitted in this subject
Because only religious giving counts on this specification
Because the student should have listed more organisations

The obligations run

Five questions on goals, duties and evaluation. Three lives.

Complete the human rights facts

Entitlements held to belong to every person simply because they are human are _____. The idea that a society should be arranged so that people are treated fairly and share in what it produces is _____. Judging somebody before knowing them, on the basis of a group they are taken to belong to, is _____. Acting on that, so that somebody is treated differently because of it, is _____.

human rights social justice prejudice discrimination equality charity poverty duty

Three evaluations to sharpen

Three students write evaluation answers on this theme. Nothing they say is false, and each is missing the move that would earn the marks.

A student spends half an answer establishing that everybody should be treated equally, then concludes. What is missing?
An answer says that Christians believe giving is a personal duty and humanists believe it is society that should act. What is wrong with that as it stands?
A student argues that the personal duty to give is the stronger position because private giving helps somebody immediately. Is that the strongest version?

Evaluate a duty, not a belief

Evaluate this statement: "Those who have more than they need have a duty to give to those who have less." Refer to religious and non-religious views, and reach a judgement. Either conclusion can earn full marks if your reasoning supports it.

Say in one sentence what all the positions here already agree on, and move past it
Give one religious belief and the obligation many draw from it, attributing both
Give one non-religious view and the obligation many draw from it, attributing both
Explain how two people holding the same belief can reasonably draw different duties from it
Note a disagreement within a tradition rather than presenting it as holding a single view
Ask whether the duty in the statement really follows, and whether a different duty would follow just as well
Reach a judgement, say what would change it, and give no figure or named organisation you are not sure of

Issues of Human Rights

Use it, the way the marks are given

What you'll cover