Issues of Life and Death

Five topics, or one question asked five times?

This theme looks like a list of separate arguments. Where the universe came from. Whether life is sacred. Abortion. Euthanasia. What happens after death. Looking after the planet. Most students revise them one at a time, and then an exam question asks them to connect two and they have nothing to say. ⚠️ THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE. THEY ARE ONE QUESTION ASKED AT FIVE POINTS ON A SINGLE TIMELINE. Where did life come from? What makes it valuable? When, if ever, may it be ended? What happens afterwards? And what do we owe the world that carries it? ⭐⭐ AND HERE IS THE PART THAT EARNS MARKS: WHAT SOMEONE ANSWERS AT ONE POINT LIMITS WHAT THEY CAN CONSISTENTLY ANSWER AT THE NEXT. If a person holds that life is a gift from God, that commitment does not stay where it was made. It reaches forward into what they say about the end of life, and outward into what they say about the planet. ⭐ THE POSITION IS NOT FIVE SEPARATE OPINIONS. IT IS ONE COMMITMENT, FOLLOWED THROUGH. ⚠️ AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF SOMEONE WHO HOLDS NO RELIGIOUS BELIEF. THIS IS THE HALF STUDENTS GET WRONG MOST OFTEN. A non-religious position is not the religious one with God removed. It starts somewhere else, and it reaches its own conclusions by the same kind of reasoning. ⭐ IT IS A CHAIN TOO, AND IT HAS TO BE STATED AS ONE. This matters for a practical reason. ⚠️ THE EVALUATION MARKS IN THIS SUBJECT ARE NOT FOR LISTING VIEWS FOR AND AGAINST. They are for showing why somebody holds a view and how it follows from something they committed to earlier. A list is not an argument. A chain is. One question to carry through everything that follows: what did this person have to believe first, in order to say this?

The same five questions, two chains

The timeline runs down the first column. The other two follow one chain each, from its own starting point. Neither is the standard version of the other.

Tap what the chain idea actually claims

Tap the TWO statements that follow from treating this theme as a chain of commitments.

• Evaluation marks go to showing why a view is held, not to listing views on both sides
• A non-religious position is a chain with its own starting point, not a religious one with God removed
• Everyone within a religion reaches the same conclusion, because they share the same starting point
• The five topics in this theme are best revised as five unconnected arguments

What Darwin did and did not claim

A student writes that Darwin proved there is no God, and that this is why some Christians reject evolution. Where does that go wrong?

• Evolution by natural selection explains how living things change over time; it is not an argument that God does not exist, Darwin did not offer it as one, and many Christians accept it while holding that God is the source behind the process
• The biology is disputed, so the student should not rely on it
• Nothing much, except that all Christians now accept evolution
• Nothing; that is a fair summary of the argument

Five terms, stated plainly

Five terms, each defined by what it is. Where each one sits in a chain, and who holds it, is the work of the steps that follow.

Match each starting point to what follows from it

Two that follow from following a chain

Select the TWO statements that follow from treating each position as a chain of commitments.

• Two people can share a starting point and still reach opposite conclusions, because they weigh later steps differently
• A Humanist argument against causing avoidable suffering is a reasoned position, not simply an absence of religious belief
• Everyone in a religious tradition holds the same view on abortion and euthanasia
• The safest structure for an evaluation answer is a list of arguments for followed by a list against

Writing the evaluation without flattening anyone

You have already met the habit that matters most on this paper: state a view as the people who hold it would recognise it, and say who holds it. ⚠️ THAT DOES NOT CHANGE HERE. WHAT THE CHAIN IDEA ADDS IS A SHAPE FOR THE ANSWER ITSELF. ⭐ WORK BACKWARDS BEFORE YOU WRITE FORWARDS. ASK WHAT THIS PERSON HAD TO BELIEVE FIRST, IN ORDER TO SAY THIS. Then write the chain out in order, and each link is a mark. NAME THE STARTING COMMITMENT. What does this person hold about where life comes from, or about what makes it valuable? SHOW THE STEP. Because they hold that, this follows. The word doing the work is because, and it is the word most missing from weak answers. REACH THE CONCLUSION. Only now does the actual issue appear. THEN DO THE SAME FOR A POSITION THAT DISAGREES, starting from ITS commitment rather than from the first one with a part removed. ⭐ AND IF YOU CAN MANAGE ONE MORE THING, DO THIS: SHOW TWO PEOPLE WHO SHARE A STARTING POINT AND STILL DIVERGE. It is the hardest move in the subject and the clearest evidence that you understand the reasoning rather than the labels. ⚠️ THREE HABITS THAT COST MARKS ON THIS THEME IN PARTICULAR. ⚠️ THE FIRST IS WRITING THAT A WHOLE RELIGION THINKS SOMETHING. Name who. Some, many, the Catholic Church, this tradition: all of these are safer and all of them score better than a blanket claim that is not true. ⚠️ THE SECOND IS TREATING A NON-RELIGIOUS VIEW AS AN ABSENCE. It has its own starting point and its own reasons, and it has to be given them. ⚠️ THE THIRD IS REACHING A CONCLUSION YOU HAVE NOT ARGUED FOR. You are not marked on which side you come down on. You are marked on whether the reasoning got you there, so a judgement you have earned is worth more than the one you think is expected.

One issue, reached from two directions

Take the last question on the timeline, because it shows the chain most clearly and nobody has to be hurt for it to work. What do we owe the world? Two people give almost the same answer: that damaging the planet is seriously wrong and that they are obliged to do something about it. ⚠️ AND THEY GET THERE BY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ROUTES. AN ANSWER THAT SAYS ONLY "BOTH CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT" HAS THROWN AWAY EVERYTHING WORTH SAYING. THE FIRST PERSON IS A CHRISTIAN, AND THEIR CHAIN STARTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TIMELINE. They hold that the world was made by God and does not belong to them. From that, the world is entrusted rather than owned, and the traditional word for someone looking after property on behalf of its owner is a steward. ⭐ NOTICE WHAT THAT DOES TO THE ARGUMENT: DAMAGING THE PLANET IS NOT SIMPLY A BAD OUTCOME, IT IS A BREACH OF TRUST. They are answerable for it to someone. And because they hold that people are made to resemble God, harm that falls hardest on the poorest is not a side effect of the problem but a second wrong inside it. THE SECOND PERSON IS A HUMANIST, AND THEIR CHAIN STARTS SOMEWHERE ELSE ENTIRELY. They hold that the universe and everything alive in it came about through processes with no purpose behind them, and that this world is the only home anyone is ever going to have. ⭐ THERE IS NO ONE TO REPAIR IT AFTERWARDS AND NOWHERE ELSE TO GO, WHICH IS NOT A WEAKER REASON FOR URGENCY THAN THE FIRST ONE. IT IS A DIFFERENT ONE. And because they ground their ethics in evidence and in human welfare, they will tend to argue from what is measurably happening to people now. Humanists UK runs an initiative called Humanist Climate Action on exactly this basis. ⚠️ NOW WATCH THE TWO CHAINS COME APART, WHICH IS THE PART THAT SEPARATES A GOOD ANSWER FROM A VERY GOOD ONE. Ask them why future generations matter. The first can say the trust was never theirs to spend. The second can say those people will be able to suffer and there is no later world in which it is put right. ⭐ BOTH ARE REASONS. NEITHER IS THE OTHER ONE WITH A PIECE MISSING. And ask two people from the same tradition, and they may still part company over how much weight to give economic hardship now against harm later. ⚠️ THAT DISAGREEMENT IS NOT A FAILURE OF EITHER CHAIN. IT IS WHERE THE REAL ARGUMENT IS, AND IT IS WHERE THE MARKS ARE.

Order the chain as an answer runs it

Put these six moves into the order that turns a position into an argument rather than a list.

• Name what this person holds about where life comes from, or what makes it valuable
• Show the step: because they hold that, this follows
• State the conclusion they reach on the actual issue
• Do the same for a position that disagrees, starting from its own commitment
• Show two people who share a starting point and still diverge, and say where
• Give a judgement that follows from the reasoning you have just set out

Build the because that carries the argument

This is the sentence that turns a stated view into a reasoned one. Assemble it.

The life and death run

Five questions on following a chain and stating a view accurately. Three lives.

Complete the life and death facts

The belief that life is holy because it is given by God is the _____. A judgement about the conditions and experience of a particular life is a judgement about _____. A non-religious approach basing its ethics on reason, evidence and human welfare is _____. The process by which characteristics helping survival become more common over generations is _____.

Three answers to strengthen

Three student answers on this theme. In each case the mark is in the reasoning, and none of them turns on which view you personally hold.

• An answer lists four arguments in favour of a position and four against, accurately, and then says both sides have good points. Why does it not reach the higher bands?
• A student writes that non-religious people have no real basis for saying anything is wrong, and so cannot argue about these issues. How would you correct it?
• An answer states, correctly, that the Catholic Church opposes abortion, and then writes that this is therefore the Christian view. What needs changing?

Argue it as two chains

Choose ONE issue from this theme. Explain how a religious position and a non-religious position each reach a conclusion about it, and reach a judgement of your own.

• Name the issue, and name the starting commitment of the first position rather than opening with its conclusion
• Show the step from that commitment to the conclusion, using because at least once and saying who holds the view
• Do the same for a non-religious position, starting from its own commitment rather than from the first one with God removed
• Explain how two people who share a starting point might still reach different conclusions on this issue, and say where they part company
• Avoid writing that a whole religion holds one view; name who holds what
• Finish with a judgement that follows from the reasoning you have set out, whichever way it goes