[Xæthon]

(Original post by tastetherainbow)
Thanka, that's reassuring to hear! I dot suppose you're studying any RS related subject at the moment?

Oh I'm still studying it! Finishing off the A level a week on Thursday (:

[Applepie:)]

You know for Aristotle's part B question that wena little something like this ''A univserse created by nothing is similar to a universe created by a creator''.... What does that question mean?

[Applepie:)]

Also, for the 'Discuss the issues surrounding Euthanasia'' What were you supposed to talk about? I know, on the previous pages it's been talked about...but let me tell you what I wrote *gulp*: I wrote stuff like when facing Euthanasia a lot of things need to be given thorough thought such as examining how much right an individual has to go through with euthanasia by judging their condition and seeing how severe is it, is a person right to die just because they are unhappy or because they are actually physically suffering? And just blabbed on how severe a person’s situation is and then I think I brought in Christian ethics and that they'd be against it 100% and reasons why...and then I think I brought in util and said it depends on how much happiness killing off that individual would bring i.e. to his family and friends and himself. I didn't dabble much on theories but rather just talked about it on a whole like, the issues of it...
AHEM...
IS THAT OKAY Philosophy went really well I believe. But this one went poop. How bad is this? *cries cries cries cries cries*

[Applepie:)]

AND for ''what right does a person have to a child'' question, or however it was phrased... I wrote stuff like urmmm well I brought in Kant by saying that a person/couple would not have the right to a child according to Kantian ethics IF for example, that couple was only having a baby so they could get a free house from the council (in better words and more descriptive in the exam)...I then went on to talk about, well question in the exam writing down that the issues surrounding the right individuals have to have a child would reflect on gays/lezbo's and elderly couples desires to want to have a child. An elderly women may not be seen to have the right to bear children because her life expectancy isn't as high as it used to be and compared to younger couples who could probably play the parental role better and the risk of dying while the child is still young wouldn't be as high as an elderly persons...And then the child would be at a disadvantage if their parent died And then the gays wanting a child...I spoke about that is it normal, should they have the right and that it would require in-depth thought and all that jazz because it's not the natural thing or something like that...

I'm so worried.

[Wa 007]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
Rights and personhood
Sanctity vs Quality
Doctrine of Double effect (because I did like a whole paragraph on the Church and Natural Law)
Slippery Slope
Kill vs Let Die
Dignity w/ Hospice

I included more scholars and ethical theories than I explained each of those issues; apparently you weren't supposed to do that.

So you were nt supposed to mention ethical theories right?

[joelchan]

(Original post by Wa 007)
So you were nt supposed to mention ethical theories right?

What do you mean not supposed to?! Did you think they just taught you that for fun? Of course you needed to. You should have used the Issues as a framework and then weaved in theories where relevant. Otherwise anyone could have done the exam and written about the issues themselves. In fact the general studies exam on tuesday asked pretty much the same question but on Genetics. They wouldn't have expected theories.

[Wa 007]

What do you reckon the grade boundaries will be for ethics?

[Wa 007]

(Original post by joelchan)
What do you mean not supposed to?! Did you think they just taught you that for fun? Of course you needed to. You should have used the Issues as a framework and then weaved in theories where relevant. Otherwise anyone could have done the exam and written about the issues themselves. In fact the general studies exam on tuesday asked pretty much the same question but on Genetics. They wouldn't have expected theories.

But it was an applied question and you were nt supposed to just throw theories at them , i briefly liked it to Utilitarianism and talked about Christian Ethics but this was only for a couple of lines. Of course, you had to talk mainly about the principles as that is what moral issues are.

[Wa 007]

(Original post by ManPowa)
I hated this paper. Not much on ethical theories at all. Just question 4, which as the closest

Q1 applied
Q2 Applied
Q3 applied

Q4 finally some theoryyyy

Answered euthanasia and question 4.

Sorrry ahah but what is applied ethics - do you need to mention theories in it? Thanks

[JakeAReynolds]

I punched the air when I saw this paper! (not literally, the invigilators are strict enough as it is)

I did the questions on euthanasia and war, and brought in ethical theories every now and then but not too much - although the question 'how would a follower of the religion you have studied justify going to war' was brilliant to bring in Aquinas and Fletcher! I didn't bring in any Kant in the whole paper though, as far as I can remember...

Didn't like the look of the IVF question, not sure why...perhaps I hadn't revised it as much as the others. There wasn't as much to talk about, I thought!

[Wa 007]

(Original post by JakeAReynolds)
I punched the air when I saw this paper! (not literally, the invigilators are strict enough as it is)

I did the questions on euthanasia and war, and brought in ethical theories every now and then but not too much - although the question 'how would a follower of the religion you have studied justify going to war' was brilliant to bring in Aquinas and Fletcher! I didn't bring in any Kant in the whole paper though, as far as I can remember...

Didn't like the look of the IVF question, not sure why...perhaps I hadn't revised it as much as the others. There wasn't as much to talk about, I thought!

What did you talk about for q2 then mate?

[JakeAReynolds]

(Original post by Wa 007)
What did you talk about for q2 then mate?

War? I discussed the Just War Theory (Jus ad bello, jus in bellum and jus post bello), discussed Biblical interpretations of justifying going to war, talked about how followers of situation ethics may justify going to war and brought in Natural Law and the primary precepts - aka how war may ultimately preserve life and maintain an ordered society.

[Wa 007]

(Original post by JakeAReynolds)
War? I discussed the Just War Theory (Jus ad bello, jus in bellum and jus post bello), discussed Biblical interpretations of justifying going to war, talked about how followers of situation ethics may justify going to war and brought in Natural Law and the primary precepts - aka how war may ultimately preserve life and maintain an ordered society.

aha i meant for euthansia

[JakeAReynolds]

(Original post by Wa 007)
aha i meant for euthansia

Woops!!

For euthanasia I mentioned:

• Many think that euthanasia is used by people to relieve a burden on their family
• John Keown's slippery slope argument and the Hospice Movement argument
• Mahoney's argument from faith - 'dying is not a distant struggle from a lonely God'
• The arguments between the pros and cons of passive and active euthanasia
• Argument that euthanasia is not 'dying with dignity'

And for the 'quality of life is the least important issue when considering euthanasia' question I talked about:

• Could be important because it determines what kind of state somebody is in re. suffering
• Not important from a personal autonomy view: we are all free to make choices, so quality of life should not come into euthanasia
• Argument over what counts as 'quality of life' - brought in Mill, who would argue that conscious patients in constant pain have a better quality of life than coma patients, because they can reason, read, debate, etc. - higher pleasures v. lower pleasures
• Fletcher and situation ethics - quality of life is important because if the quality is poor, euthanasia is arguably the most loving thing

that's all I can remember ATM!

[Wa 007]

(Original post by JakeAReynolds)
Woops!!

For euthanasia I mentioned:

• Many think that euthanasia is used by people to relieve a burden on their family
• John Keown's slippery slope argument and the Hospice Movement argument
• Mahoney's argument from faith - 'dying is not a distant struggle from a lonely God'
• The arguments between the pros and cons of passive and active euthanasia
• Argument that euthanasia is not 'dying with dignity'

And for the 'quality of life is the least important issue when considering euthanasia' question I talked about:

• Could be important because it determines what kind of state somebody is in re. suffering
• Not important from a personal autonomy view: we are all free to make choices, so quality of life should not come into euthanasia
• Argument over what counts as 'quality of life' - brought in Mill, who would argue that conscious patients in constant pain have a better quality of life than coma patients, because they can reason, read, debate, etc. - higher pleasures v. lower pleasures
• Fletcher and situation ethics - quality of life is important because if the quality is poor, euthanasia is arguably the most loving thing

that's all I can remember ATM!

ah that sounds good! did you mention any theories for euthanasia though?

[JakeAReynolds]

(Original post by Wa 007)
ah that sounds good! did you mention any theories for euthanasia though?

Nope, only references in the second part of the question! I was talking to one of my teachers (the best teacher in the school, been teaching for 30 years!) about the paper afterwards and he said that ethical theories weren't necessary for that question, hence why I referred to them more in the part b euthanasia and for both parts of war

[Wa 007]

(Original post by JakeAReynolds)
Nope, only references in the second part of the question! I was talking to one of my teachers (the best teacher in the school, been teaching for 30 years!) about the paper afterwards and he said that ethical theories weren't necessary for that question, hence why I referred to them more in the part b euthanasia and for both parts of war

yeah i was the same i did nt like it to many theories, only in the part b, awesome haha, so what do you reckon the grade boundaries will be?

[JakeAReynolds]

(Original post by Wa 007)
yeah i was the same i did nt like it to many theories, only in the part b, awesome haha, so what do you reckon the grade boundaries will be?

No idea of knowing is there! I reckon they might be average/lower than usual because most people in my school found the paper quite good...only time will tell!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[GeorgeN11]

(Original post by JakeAReynolds)
War? I discussed the Just War Theory (Jus ad bello, jus in bellum and jus post bello), discussed Biblical interpretations of justifying going to war, talked about how followers of situation ethics may justify going to war and brought in Natural Law and the primary precepts - aka how war may ultimately preserve life and maintain an ordered society.

I did this question, talked about the Just War theory, Situation Ethics and also Natural Law. I was speaking to some and they did not mention Situation Ethics or Natural Law So we bagged some more points there.

Also, In the just war theory, I have been questioning whether I put Jus In Bellum before Jus Ad Bello. Would you get significantly marked down for mixing them up, If i did put them the wrong way round, I still explained their purpose, for example the war has to comply with the initial criteria, must be started by proper authority etc. and then mentioned afterwards about not using excessive force and protecting civilians etc.

[JakeAReynolds]

(Original post by GeorgeN11)
I did this question, talked about the Just War theory, Situation Ethics and also Natural Law. I was speaking to some and they did not mention Situation Ethics or Natural Law So we bagged some more points there.

Also, In the just war theory, I have been questioning whether I put Jus In Bellum before Jus Ad Bello. Would you get significantly marked down for mixing them up, If i did put them the wrong way round, I still explained their purpose, for example the war has to comply with the initial criteria, must be started by proper authority etc. and then mentioned afterwards about not using excessive force and protecting civilians etc.

Fingers crossed!

And nah, don't worry that's such an easy mistake to make...most people wouldn't have put in the Latin stages of the theory, so long as you explained them an examiner can't mark you down for it! We all make minor errors!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App