HKDSE Ethics and Religious Studies Paper 1 (Ethics) Mock Paper (2027)

Model answer (4 marks)

The first is a normative statement: it makes a value judgement about what ought or ought not to be done, and cannot be proved or refuted by observation alone. The second is a descriptive statement: it reports a state of affairs (public attitudes) that can be checked by survey evidence.

The difference is that a descriptive statement answers “what is”, while a normative statement answers “what ought to be”. From “most people oppose it” you cannot infer “it is immoral”, because ought cannot be derived from is (Hume's is–ought gap) — a majority attitude may itself be mistaken.

Marking guidance: 2 marks for correctly classifying both statements; 2 marks for explaining that facts cannot by themselves establish a value judgement.

Model answer (4 marks)

Utilitarianism judges acts by the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Bentham's hedonic calculus; Mill's distinction of quality as well as quantity). On act-utilitarian grounds, if the total benefit of the tutoring (improved results and confidence for the tutees, a stronger communal ethos) outweighs the cost (the tutors' lost study and rest time), the arrangement is morally acceptable; if not, it is not.

Limitation: welfare is hard to quantify and compare between persons (how do you add one student's fatigue to another's improvement?), and a purely aggregative standard ignores distribution — it can licence sacrificing a few students' interests for the “greater good”, even when the burden falls on the same group every time.

Marking guidance: 2 marks for applying the utilitarian standard to the case; 2 marks for identifying and explaining one limitation (measurement, distribution or predicting consequences).

Model answer (4 marks)

Kant does not judge by consequences but by whether the maxim of the act can pass the categorical imperative. Under the formula of universal law: if “a school may compel its high achievers to work without pay for institutional targets” were universalised, voluntary service would lose its meaning — the moral worth of service rests precisely on its being voluntary — so the maxim contradicts itself. Under the formula of humanity: we must treat persons as ends, never merely as means. If students are assigned this work without consent, they are being used as instruments of the school's objectives, which is impermissible.

The conclusion is therefore conditional: deontology does not object to the arrangement if it is genuinely voluntary, but rejects it if it is compulsory.

Marking guidance: 2 marks for correctly applying either formula; 2 marks for drawing the voluntary / compulsory distinction with it.

Model answer (4 marks)

Intrinsic value belongs to something worth pursuing for its own sake (honesty, knowledge, friendship). Instrumental value belongs to something valuable because it brings about something else (a report card, a degree).

Example: reading beyond the syllabus. The knowledge and the pleasure of reading have intrinsic value — they would be worth having even with no examination attached — while reading skill also has instrumental value as a means to examination performance, further study and employment. The two are not mutually exclusive: one thing can carry both, and it also can carry value of one kind only.

Marking guidance: 2 marks for accurate definitions; 2 marks for an example that displays both kinds and explains them.

Model answer (4 marks)

Divine command theory: moral law comes from God's commands, so doing good means obeying God; religion is therefore the foundation of morality, and without belief there is no ultimate basis for it.

Moral autonomy (e.g. Kant): a rational agent legislates the moral law for itself; obligation derives from reason, so morality does not depend on religion. Believers and non-believers alike can tell right from wrong.

Evaluation: divine command theory faces the Euthyphro dilemma — if good is good only because God commands it, morality becomes arbitrary; if God commands it because it is already good, the standard of goodness does not come from God after all. The claim “no belief, no morality” therefore overstates the case: religion can supply motivation and community support, but it is not a necessary condition of moral life.

Marking guidance: 2 marks for accurately presenting the two positions; 2 marks for identifying a difficulty or reaching a reasoned judgement.

Model-answer points (20 marks)

(a) Conditions for a reasonable restriction (8 marks)

(b) Argumentative lines (12 marks — any defensible standpoint may score; the quality of argument decides)

Common losses: saying “the government should” without naming the right concerned (privacy, personal freedom, religious freedom); in (b), using a theory without stating its premise (e.g. asserting “utilitarianism” while never explaining maximisation).

Model-answer points (20 marks)

(a) 12 marks

(b) 8 marks For the slippery slope to stand, it must be shown that abuse would follow necessarily once a regime is opened, not merely that it might. Against it: institutional safeguards (multiple independent assessments, competence requirement, repeated confirmation, cooling-off periods, terminal and irreversible condition only, written advance consent) cut the main path from voluntary to involuntary cases; in jurisdictions that permit voluntary euthanasia (the Netherlands, Belgium, some US states), involuntary killing remains illegal and is prosecuted, so “inevitably” is too strong. For it: once a society accepts that life may end to relieve suffering, elderly people who feel a burden may experience implicit pressure — structural rather than legal permission. A good answer concludes that the slope is an empirical risk to be managed by institutional design, not a reason to refuse all legalisation.

Common losses: treating “voluntary” and “involuntary” as the same act; appealing only to religious authority (“life is sacred”) without giving a reason others can weigh; ignoring the practical question of who determines that a condition is irreversible.

Model-answer points (20 marks)

(a) 8 marks In defence of the boundary: disease involves the loss of a normal function and can be identified by medical standards, so therapy restores function, whereas enhancement has no settled “normal” level — its standard shifts with social expectation, and once allowed, an endless competition follows. Against the boundary: it blurs in practice (congenital deafness, height as a medical criterion); the same technique carries the same risks whichever purpose it serves, so purpose alone may not hold the line. A workable compromise replaces the single therapy/enhancement dichotomy with three criteria: risk and reversibility, whether the beneficiary is the person edited, and whether inequality is widened.

(b) 12 marks The formula of humanity forbids treating others as mere means. Designing a baby makes the unborn child a means to the parents' expectations, family prestige or competitive advantage — the conditions of the child's existence are fixed in advance; worse, those judged “not good enough” and not implanted have their dignity denied. The objection that parental expectation and education already shape children can be answered: influence is not determination — degree matters. Nor can “the child will be grateful” justify it, since another party is deciding for someone who cannot consent. Conclusion: while therapy for serious disease can be justified by a duty of care, selection by parental preference struggles to pass the formula of humanity.

Model-answer points (20 marks)

Length guidance: a 20-mark question in Paper 1 expects roughly 700–900 words. Structure: standpoint sentence → define the concepts → two or three layers of argument → the strongest opposing case → your reply → a concrete conclusion.