Philosophy is not a collection of settled answers — it is a discipline of argument and counter-argument. VCAA explicitly expects students to raise relevant objections to viewpoints and assess their force. An objection must target the premises or reasoning of an argument, not just assert a different conclusion.
A strong philosophical objection does at least one of the following:
1. Denies a premise — shows the premise is false or implausible
2. Challenges an assumption — identifies a hidden assumption and questions it
3. Shows the conclusion doesn’t follow — reveals a logical gap (non sequitur)
4. Offers a counter-example — finds a case where the argument’s conclusion is clearly wrong
VCAA FOCUS: Examiners expect you to evaluate objections, not just list them. Explain why the objection has force and whether the original thinker can respond.
Objection: If pleasure were the only good, rational people would plug into an experience machine that delivers continuous pleasant experiences. But most people would refuse — they want actually to achieve things, have real relationships, and be a certain kind of person. Therefore, pleasure is not the only intrinsic good.
Hedonist response: Mill might argue that the machine provides only lower pleasures; a person who understood higher pleasures would refuse for reasons consistent with refined hedonism. But this risks circularity — it seems to smuggle in non-hedonic values.
Objection: If the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the standard, it seems a sadist’s pleasure should count — if enough people enjoy cruelty, it might be justified. This is morally counterintuitive.
Mill’s response: He claims utilitarianism, properly understood, would never endorse this because the long-term consequences (distrust, suffering) outweigh momentary cruel pleasure. Critics reply this is an ad hoc rescue.
Objection: Aristotle’s account of eudaimonia seems to privilege a narrow conception of human excellence — the life of a Greek gentleman philosopher. It excludes those who lack education, leisure, or civic participation (women, slaves, manual workers in Aristotle’s own society).
Aristotelian response: Contemporary neo-Aristotelians like Martha Nussbaum argue the theory can be reformed: a pluralistic list of capabilities (not just intellectual virtues) constitutes flourishing. But critics note this departs significantly from Aristotle.
Objection: Aristotle acknowledges that eudaimonia requires external goods (friends, resources, good looks, civic participation). A person can be virtuous but fail to flourish through bad luck. This seems to make the good life hostage to fortune, which is deeply unsatisfying.
Aristotle’s partial reply: Virtue provides resilience in the face of misfortune — the virtuous person endures adversity with characteristic excellence. But Aristotle concedes that extreme deprivation (e.g., losing all one’s children) can defeat flourishing.
Objection: Sartre’s radical freedom ignores the ways our freedom is situated — shaped by body, history, culture, and relationships. We cannot simply choose to be anything; our past, our social context, and our embodiment genuinely constrain us.
Sartre’s response: He does not deny that situations constrain us; he insists we are always free to respond to our situation, even if the range of options is narrow. Being in chains constrains action but not the attitude we take toward being chained.
Objection: If there is no fixed human nature and we create our own values through choice, any life seems equally valid — the Nazi and the humanitarian both choose “authentically.” Existentialism offers no grounds for moral criticism.
de Beauvoir’s response: Not all choices are equally authentic. Choosing to oppress others contradicts the very freedom that grounds authentic choice — genuine authenticity requires willing freedom for all, not just oneself.
| Objection | Core Challenge |
|---|---|
| Situationism (Harman, Doris) | Empirical psychology suggests character traits are less stable than virtue ethics assumes; behaviour varies enormously with situation |
| Guidance deficit | “Act virtuously” tells us what to be but gives little guidance on what to do in specific dilemmas |
| Relativism of virtues | Different cultures recognise different virtues — whose list is correct? |
When raising an objection:
1. State the objection clearly — what exactly is being challenged?
2. Explain why it has force — which premise does it deny, and why is that denial plausible?
3. Consider a response — can the original thinker answer the objection, and how successfully?
4. Reach a verdict — does the objection fatally undermine the position or merely qualify it?
EXAM TIP: Do not just list objections. Examiners award higher marks for students who evaluate whether the objection is decisive or whether the thinker has a convincing response.
COMMON MISTAKE: Writing “a criticism of this view is that it is wrong” is not a philosophical objection. An objection must identify a specific claim and explain why it is false, implausible, or unsupported.
