Comparing viewpoints and defending a position on the good life: VCE Philosophy
“The skills of critically comparing viewpoints, developing perspectives and formulating and defending a philosophical position, including for contemporary living”
To compare two texts, state the question, set out each view fairly, identify what they share, locate the exact point of disagreement (a premise, an assumption or a definition), then assess which is more plausible and why. To defend a position, state your thesis early, give two or three reasons, bring in an example from outside the texts, raise the strongest objection and answer it, then draw out an implication for how people live. Finish with a judgement, not a summary.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Beyond analysing a single argument, you must compare viewpoints by weighing the plausibility of their premises, the assumptions they make and the quality of their reasoning, then develop perspectives and defend a position using precise language. The study design also asks for implications for contemporary living, and use of examples from applied philosophical and non-philosophical sources. Unit 3 requires an essay task in school-assessed coursework, so this skill is directly assessed.
A comparison template
- Frame the question. For example: what role should self-discipline play in the good life?
- Outline each view, with its key premise. Use correct terms and name the text.
- Connections. What do they agree on? (Both may think the good life suits human nature.)
- Differences. Where exactly do they part? Prefer a precise point such as 'Callicles equates the good with satisfied desire, Socrates does not'.
- Objections that apply to each.
- Comparative judgement. Which premise or reasoning is stronger and why.
Avoid a list of 'A says, B says'. Interleave: one paragraph per point of comparison, not per author.
Developing a perspective
A perspective is your considered view, informed by the texts but not just repeating them. Build it by:
- Choosing the viewpoint you find most plausible and noting what you borrow.
- Noting where you disagree with it and why.
- Testing it against cases (your own, or from literature, news or history).
- Considering what it implies for how we should live.
Using examples
Examples from applied philosophical sources (for instance, ethics case discussions) and non-philosophical ones (news, film, history, everyday life) should do work: illustrate a premise, test a principle or show a consequence. An example that merely decorates earns little. Choose one that bears on the exact point at issue.
Contemporary living
The study design points to practical consequences of a viewpoint, for example for how societies are arranged, for how we treat distant strangers, and for our duties towards animals and the environment. Ask of any view: if people lived by it, what would change? For instance, accepting Singer's principle changes how one thinks about personal spending and aid; accepting Mill's harm principle shapes how one views regulation of personal choices.
Essay plan: 'The good life depends on freedom and authenticity.' Discuss with reference to set texts.
Thesis: freedom and authenticity are necessary but not sufficient for a good life.
Paragraph 1 (de Beauvoir): freedom is the source of value, and evading it is a failure, so a life lived by borrowed values is deficient. Link to Mill: individuality needs liberty.
Paragraph 2 (Nietzsche): herd conformity stunts greatness. Compare: de Beauvoir ties freedom to others, Nietzsche to rank. Difference matters for how each judges compassion.
Paragraph 3 (objection): authentic does not mean good. Example: someone who authentically commits to exploiting others. Here Socrates and Aristotle add that the good life also needs virtue and relationships.
Paragraph 4 (contemporary link): social media pressure to conform makes authenticity a pressing issue. But that also shows that others can shape what I think I authentically want, so authenticity requires reflection.
Conclusion: freedom and authenticity are the form of a good life, while virtue, relationships and a concern for others fill in much of the content.
Practice questions
What is the difference between describing and comparing two viewpoints?
Model answer: Describing sets out each view in turn. Comparing identifies connections and differences, locates the premise or assumption on which they diverge, and evaluates which is more plausible.
Suggest one non-philosophical example that could test Mill's harm principle and explain how.
Model answer (sample): Compulsory seatbelt laws. They restrict a person's freedom for their own protection, which the harm principle disallows, but supporters argue the cost of injuries falls on others, so the harm principle may apply after all. The case shows the difficulty of drawing the line between self-regarding and other-regarding actions.
A defended position is not the same as a one-sided one. The strongest essays state the best objection to their own view and explain why it does not defeat it.