This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR Ethics

Did any one else find this really hard?
Two out of the four questions seemed to be directed towards the AS syllabus (the utilitarian/Christian ethics one and the embryo research) which threw me. I dont know about anyone else but we havnt covered that stuff since year 12.
I did the other two (conscience and warfare) but found they were worded strangely and so I was never entirely sure whether I was answering the question or not. For example, were we supposed to explain Just War Theory? (I did, just to be sure) and how much were we supposed to write about other forms of killing, such as euthanasia and abortion? (which, now i come to think about it, I also havn't thought about since last year).

Ah well, its over now. And I cant really complain - the philosophy of religion questions were nice. I just left feeling really frustrated becasue if they'd asked about freewill and determinism or something I could have done so much better. Did anyone else have a similar reaction? Or is that just my school?

Reply 1

siobhan86

u were supposed to have revised yr 12 stuff cos the A2 ethics includes yr 12 and yr 13 theories and stuff

i did question 3 and 4... question 1 was gd but jst didnt feel i would have had enough to write for it

i didnt write about just war theory - i think i shud have really, but i did write about utilitarianism - either warfare killing/ other killings could be seen as justifiable depending on if they produced greatest happiness for majorirty, yet both are unjustifiable according to rule utilitarianism cos it goes against the rule do not kill, again kant would say both are wrong cos of the same reason as rule util, and it cannot be universalies cos pacifists and relgious believes feel life is sacred, then either could be more justifiable relative to culture/ time/ place, etc, or in relation to love - situation ethics and for the 'other' killings i jst mentioned euthanasia but forgot about abortion

for question 4 i did about how life is sacred, even at embryo stage so cannot be destroyed/ harmed due to relgious belief on all life is of worth to god and natural law - all things have a purpose, but then again, married couples should be allowed to fulfill roles as parents, and then embryo research could get rid of diseases, etc and improve quality of life which is what god wanted ppl to have, but then discussed that kant would also oppose embryo research, where as utilitarianism and situation ethics would premit embryo research - dnt know if it was right to do that but i thought it would show i have understood that relgious belief is not the only thing that holds back/ allows progress

question 2 was a bit iffy... hence y i didnt do it

but yer, it did seem to focus upon religious views this yr.... i thought determinism would come up, i wanted it to, it usually does, or sexual ethics/ environmental ethics... o well

Reply 2

Reema

14

I did the first question - conscience as voice of God versus learned. I brought in the views of Butler, Newman as "voice of God"/"intuitionistic" and Aquinas (middle way). And then juxtaposed it with the views of Freud, Piaget and Kohlberg...all the time analysing how far they related to voice of God/learned. And also criticising the theories with each other.

The killing in warfare one was sneaky, and in my opinion, unfair because it had already been on a specification paper released for ethics before i.e exact same question. I was actually shocked they put it in. The specification mark scheme for it that I had says the following -

"Candidates need to consider whether killing is always wrong, as an absolute rule, or whether there are some circumstances which allow it, and if so, whether war is one of those circumstances. Some might consider the ethics of killing, discussing issues of abortion, euthanasia, animal rights and so on alongside warfare to discern whether killing during war is more or less justifiable. Others might concentrate on the ethics of war specifically exploring pacifist arguments, the Just War and so on."

You can see how vague the mark scheme is anyway. I wouldn't worry about the Just War Theory (I wrote about it), but I think if you argued well otherwise it'd be considered just as good.

There's a similar mark scheme for a similar question on conscience also ("Discuss critically the belief that conscience is the voice of God"), again also very vague --->

"Candidates could consider the views of Paul, Aquinas, Newman, Butler and Freud, in a discussion of the nature of conscience and its significance for ethical decision-making. Issues arising might include those who appear to have no conscience at all or those who claim to hear the "voice of God" in a manner which suggests mental illness, or instances where different people conscientiously arrive at completely different decisions."

The emphasis is probably far more on line of argument and essay skills/selecting relevant info I guess.

edit - I hope it gives you all a bit more peace of mind :wink:

.

edit 2 :colone:

rm just suddenly realised, again, to my horror - "To what extent is the religion you have studied consistent with a utilitarian approach to ethics"....did that come up as well? For people's interest, it's from the Specimen Materials in 2000....

Mark Scheme for that:

"The main principles of Utilitarianism should be understood, and the different forms, such as act, rule and preference Utilitarianism. Answers will vary according to the religion studied; it will probably be explained that there are elements of Utilitarianism in the religious ethics, but that there are fundamental differences, such as that the pursuit of happiness is not given prime importance even though the practice of the ethical system might suggest that behaving in such a way as to achieve the maximum good is the right course of action".

Reply 3

magdalaina

OP

Thank you! That does give me peace of mind to know that we could focus on Just War. I think you're right that they dont really mind what we write about as long as its well argued. I was just worried I'd completely missed the point. Lol. Sounds like a didn't though, so thanks.

Reply 4

Meeker2005

hey yeah i found it tricky as well, just was to hot and bothered to do it. Well gutted doin this at uni and then wana be an RE teacher

Reply 5

siobhan86

i know... the hot weather is jst soo annoying - ucant sleep at night, u cant revise in the day then exam time u get all bothered

i think though, that generally, so long as you put forward a gd argument and are clear and use scholars, etc then u shud b ok

Reply 6

gj305

2

i was also shocked at the questions , as they were availiable on the ocr website it really shcoked me! although in my conscience essay i put bentham instead of butler duh! totally messed up there didnt i! did anyone else put the sociological view of conscience down in that essay???

Reply 7

siobhan86

what???? why were the questions available on the website? and where is this website?

Reply 8

twirliegirlie

i did the conscience and embryo research ones. They were definately worded strangely, I seemed to be babblin on bout everythin in an attempt to answer them. I'm just glad its over! Any advice on the synoptic? xx

Reply 9

Reema

14

siobhan86

what???? why were the questions available on the website? and where is this website?

It was on the OCR official website as a specimen paper (i.e an example paper to get students used to the format). I don't know whether they were there this year - but my teacher gave us all a copy of the past papers. And hey presto - the exact replica of some of the qs on the specimen come up. Certainly gave me the shock of my life...whatever else I was expecting, I wasn't expecting the *exact same wording* of the essays!

I can imagine a number of teachers complaining to OCR about this this year actually. I would if I was a teacher - it's just not fair. It gives some student a psychological advantage over others...

Reply 10

digitalparadox

1

I did the conscience and the warfare questions because those were the only two i could actually do! The other two were like last years work and i had no idea what they were going on about!! I thought the conscience and warfare questions were ok - I just talked about Aquinas, butler, newman, st.augustine as those who said it was from god (although aquinas noted it has to be educated so he was kinda in between) and then i put the more mordern approaches such as vincent mcnamarra, richard gula, the second vatican, freud, hegel, jean piaget whom all believed that the conscience is all about development and then i related it to it been learned....i hope i answered that question well, but i don't want to be complacent! i've just got another synoptic paper to go and i know that that is going to be hard! For the second ques on warfare, i went on about the four positions, with realism, pacifism and militarism mentioned in small paragraphs (relating to the ques all the time) and then about just war theory in loads of detail (going on about jus ad bellum and jus in bello etc) and then i explained what utilitarianism, natural law and kantian ethics would say about killing in war....

so thats all what i put in - i so need an A in this subjects **prays to God** but it is all on what the examiner thinks about it now.... :frown:

did anyone else put similar things to what i included or did they same questions? My whole year did the same ques as me because those were the only ones we revised!!

Reply 11

magdalaina

OP

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. I dont know who half those people are!
I talked about: divine command theory (Augustine and St Jerome), Aquinas, Butler, Newman, Freud, Piaget, Durkheim (briefly) and cultural relativism. Do you think I should have mentioned others? Oh dear

Reply 12

digitalparadox

1

magdalaina

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. I dont know who half those people are!
I talked about: divine command theory (Augustine and St Jerome), Aquinas, Butler, Newman, Freud, Piaget, Durkheim (briefly) and cultural relativism. Do you think I should have mentioned others? Oh dear

nah don't worry about it - my comment wasn't designed to worry! (maybe i constructed it wrong..) but i didn't mention durkheim - does that give u comfort? lol. We shall just wait and see...u seemed to have mentioned the essentials and u don't need a 'perfect' answer to get an A so there shouldn't be anything to worry about...its just the synoptic that u should worry about because its got a huge weighting and its soo difficult to see what they are getting at...watch this space...

Reply 13

RachelBabyfrog

14

Lol, I only mentioned Butler, Aquinas and Freud and then explored the issues myself... you're all making me feel bad :wink:

I did the war question and loved it. It was my favourite topic.

The philosophy paper was ok too- I did miracles and then had a whale of a time doing religious language! My favourite topic in philosophy for some reason... can't beat a bit of via negativa.

Reply 14

Reema

14

Butler, Aquinas and Freud are those that are specifically mentioned on the syllabus. As long as you mentioned them - you should be fine. Most people who mentioned Newman did him because he was the scholar who stated conscience is the "voice of God". Nevertheless Butler is incredibly similar to Newman....

Rachel, I did exactly the same questions as you for RS! Conscience, War for ethics, and then Miracles and Religious Language for philosophy. Religious Language is my baby for sure :wink:

...I love that topic! Can't say I'm much into Via Negativa although I did bring it in at the outset, but I do like Analogy (esp. Ramsey) and the Verification/Falsification Principles. It's by far the most challenging and fascinating thing we've done all year...the rest has sort of bored me :wink:

. I also like doing Free Will in Ethics - what a shame that didn't come up! Ah well, it's bound to be essential for synoptic.
Was your miracles essay centred around Hume? Most of mine was a criticism/assessment of Hume, bringing in Swinburne, and at the end I had a little bit of time so I brought in Wiles.

Reply 15

magdalaina

OP

hey, I did those questions too. And I totally agree about relgious language being the most interesting - you actually had to think about it. Lol.

About the miracles question - I wasn't sure they were asking about Hume becasue his theory revolved around the quality of miracle claims and this was a question about the logic of miracles. I mentioned him primarily as an example of a realist interpretation of miracles becasue my conclusions revolved about the realism/anti-realism debate. I think they were more inteding us to write about Hick and Wiles (rejection on the grounds of a priori logic and violation of the God of classical theism). But i guess as long as you draw it back to the question then it doesnt really matter.

Reply 16

Reema

14

I wrote about Hume primarily regarding his *definition* of miracles rather than the questioning of testimony of miracles' claims although I did bring that in to argue that even he accepted that miracles could not be undermined on a logical basis. I wrote about his definition and the question as being too rigid - "The breaking of a natural law by volition of a particular deity", arguing for a more anti-realist approach (impact on religious believer alongside this). This allowed for me bringing in Swinburne, Relativity of Science argument and Hick. Somehow I linked to Wiles and Problem of Evil at the end. I hope my essay was okay...

Reply 17

RachelBabyfrog

14

Reema

Butler, Aquinas and Freud are those that are specifically mentioned on the syllabus. As long as you mentioned them - you should be fine. Most people who mentioned Newman did him because he was the scholar who stated conscience is the "voice of God". Nevertheless Butler is incredibly similar to Newman....

Rachel, I did exactly the same questions as you for RS! Conscience, War for ethics, and then Miracles and Religious Language for philosophy. Religious Language is my baby for sure :wink:

...I love that topic! Can't say I'm much into Via Negativa although I did bring it in at the outset, but I do like Analogy (esp. Ramsey) and the Verification/Falsification Principles. It's by far the most challenging and fascinating thing we've done all year...the rest has sort of bored me :wink:

. I also like doing Free Will in Ethics - what a shame that didn't come up! Ah well, it's bound to be essential for synoptic.
Was your miracles essay centred around Hume? Most of mine was a criticism/assessment of Hume, bringing in Swinburne, and at the end I had a little bit of time so I brought in Wiles.

Yeah, most of my miracles essay was about Hume, with a bit of Swinburne and Wiles too.

My class loved the Via Negativa because we once spent almost an entire lesson playing the Via Negativa game... one rule- say what God is not! God is not a horse, etc. It was entirely ridiculous, but we'll never forget what it is! Two people made a song called 'God is not a fish' to the tune of 'We Will Rock You' as well. Our RS class is was special!

OCR Ethics

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you