One of Clarendon’s students was recently given the following questions in his Westminster 11+ interview:
If you were to witness a bank robbery, where you knew the stolen money was going to be given to good charitable cause, would you report the crime?
I know what you’re thinking – snitches get stitches – but that’s probably not what Westminster were looking for. This is an open, nuanced question that examines normative ethics, not that your year 6 students could possibly be expected to reference Kant, Bentham et al. Instead, Westminster would have been looking for a response with a clear line of reasoning, articulated well.
However, we thought it might be instructive to apply different branches of ethics to the problem.
Deontological Ethics
The 18th century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant would have applied his Universal Law to the problem. We do not need to know the consequences to know that stealing – in general – is bad. Therefore, we must report the crime.
Utilitarian Ethics
This consequentialist philosophy judges an action on whether it maximises utility or brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Your year 6 student might need to ask a few questions about the bank’s insurance policy and the charity’s effectiveness rating, but they might be able to turn a blind eye.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle would have asked questions about the underlying motivations of the robber and, indeed, the bystander, in working out the virtue of the actions of those involved. Murky stuff, as it would be quite hard to gauge the altruism of the robber as a bystander.
Moral nihilism
To stand out from the crowd of applicants at 11+, we would recommend a student cite moral nihilism – no moral truths exist – and reject the question outright.
—
Of course, it’s the way you argue your case. If you want any help with interview prep, please get in touch.
