[Sanchezington]

Any help on free will and meta ethics im kinda confused ????

Hi, what in particular did you need help on ?

[bethq]

ahhhh right, first of all can we get a question on revelation and holy scripture or not?! or is it just in the book still because it was on the previous specification? ...keep hearing different things.

also, have a feeling if its conscience itll be about whether its reliable or something, dont know why... anyway who would say its reliable and who wouldnt? im guessing religious scholars would say its reliable because it comes from god, but aquinas says it can err, so is it still reliable or not?

[SBradford]

(Original post by bethq)
ahhhh right, first of all can we get a question on revelation and holy scripture or not?! or is it just in the book still because it was on the previous specification? ...keep hearing different things.

also, have a feeling if its conscience itll be about whether its reliable or something, dont know why... anyway who would say its reliable and who wouldnt? im guessing religious scholars would say its reliable because it comes from god, but aquinas says it can err, so is it still reliable or not?

Aquinas said it isn't always correct, but you should still follow it.


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

[lampshade1]

(Original post by bethq)
ahhhh right, first of all can we get a question on revelation and holy scripture or not?! or is it just in the book still because it was on the previous specification? ...keep hearing different things.

also, have a feeling if its conscience itll be about whether its reliable or something, dont know why... anyway who would say its reliable and who wouldnt? im guessing religious scholars would say its reliable because it comes from god, but aquinas says it can err, so is it still reliable or not?

we can get a question on revelation and holy scripture, they've just put it in the religious experience part of the specification

[jaya44]

Has a question on Predestination have come up before?

[Illmatic94]

Meta ethics in a nutshell

COGNITIVE THEORIES

Ethical naturalism - Ethical statements are factual and therefore verifiable/falsifiable and therefore hold the same meaning as none ethical one. Example in OCR textbook.

1. Non ethical statement - This person died on the 20th of June 1950. (e.g. verifiable through non-direct obsevation)

2. Ethical statemnt - This person was a good person. Verifiable by looking at what we perceive as 'good actions'

Criticism - 'Naturalistic fallacy' = Using evidence to verify/falsify moral statements. Bring in Hume 'wrong to derive an ought from an if.'

Intuitionsim

Moore - Good is indefinable but recognisable through intuition. Bring in example of colours e.g. cant define blue but still recognise it, this is the same with a 'good act'

Criticism - Why do different people see different acts as good and bad if it is intuitional?

Prichard - No definition for 'ought' but we still know what we ought to do. This is slightly stronger as he statespeople have different morals because development was relative. However, this is also a criticism as Prichard does not explain how moral development works.

NON - COGNITIVE

Emotivism - Ayer = Vienna circle. Only analytic and synthetic statements have meaning. Ethical statements just express emotion/feelings AKA the booh/hurray theory.

Stevenson - Not only an expression of emotion but a way to influence others based on our beliefs.

Criticisms - Rachels - Moral judgements may seem arbitrary

Anyone willing to explain Prescriptivism for me?

[ManPowa]

(Original post by bethq)
ahhhh right, first of all can we get a question on revelation and holy scripture or not?! or is it just in the book still because it was on the previous specification? ...keep hearing different things.

also, have a feeling if its conscience itll be about whether its reliable or something, dont know why... anyway who would say its reliable and who wouldnt? im guessing religious scholars would say its reliable because it comes from god, but aquinas says it can err, so is it still reliable or not?

Hiya

what does 'err' mean?

[soybntree]

could anyone explain Ludwig Wittgenstein in relation to religious language? cheers

[swiftylol]

(Original post by jaya44)
Has a question on Predestination have come up before?

Don't think so.

[Sem193]

(Original post by jaya44)
Has a question on Predestination have come up before?

No, not really. On the Specimen paper it came up, but a question about it hasn't come up since the specification changed. That's why I'm revising it.

[Xæthon]

(Original post by EllJay10)
Well tonights Simpsons episode was on miracles and visions, I'll take that as a sign

Haha, exactly what I was thinking when watching it. I hope miracles does come up, along with life after death or religious language.

[del1rious]

(Original post by soybntree)
could anyone explain Ludwig Wittgenstein in relation to religious language? cheers

He basically doesn't place any value on the content of religious language, whether it is true or not etc. because religious believers are part of a language game that only they understand, and atheists do not understand because they are not part of the "game". it allows religious language to still be meaningful, whereas verification and falsification would say its not.

sorry its all a bit jumbled in my head, totally burnt out!!

[harrietariley]

Prescriptivism - R.M. Hare (and Thomas Hobbes in some respect but that's a bit vague and complicated)

Hare believed ethical statements were not JUST statements of emotion or opinion. You are also PRESCRIBING what the other person should do. For example "Murder is wrong" is also saying "you should not murder." Therefore, ethical statements work like imperatives. In this sense, it offers an explanation for ethical language (which the other meta ethics theories don't really) and it also offers consistency; not only do you want the other person to abide by that rule, you will do so yourself too. He thought that all people recognise good, although it cannot be defined (he compared it to a primary colour; everyone recognises it but can't really define it) so we use good in a relation to a set of standards e.g. a good book is interesting, or a good person is one we want to emulate.

[harrietariley]

(Original post by Illmatic94)
Anyone willing to explain Prescriptivism for me?

Prescriptivism - R.M. Hare (and Thomas Hobbes in some respect but that's a bit vague and complicated)

Hare believed ethical statements were not JUST statements of emotion or opinion. You are also PRESCRIBING what the other person should do. For example "Murder is wrong" is also saying "you should not murder." Therefore, ethical statements work like imperatives. In this sense, it offers an explanation for ethical language (which the other meta ethics theories don't really) and it also offers consistency; not only do you want the other person to abide by that rule, you will do so yourself too. He thought that all people recognise good, although it cannot be defined (he compared it to a primary colour; everyone recognises it but can't really define it) so we use good in a relation to a set of standards e.g. a good book is interesting, or a good person is one we want to emulate.

[bethq]

(Original post by ManPowa)
Hiya

what does 'err' mean?

just be wrong basically! our conscience can err (be mistaken) if we follow an apparent good or something

[khillsdon]

Anyone else feel as they know very little?
Very worried and i will not to do buisness ethics!

[bethq]

i was confident on free will and determinism, until i read an examiners report who said a lot of the answers just got basic marks because they were just retelling scholars and their views etc and didnt show actual understanding with examples etc... so now that im looking at it im so stuck with libertarianism and soft determinism any help?

[Sit Down!]

I'm feeling confident on everything except business ethics. Luckily we have a choice. GOSHYOSHY.

I'm so having a nap after this exam. 8:45 is too early for my face. GOOD LUCK FOR TOMORROW EVERYONE!

[swiftylol]

(Original post by ManPowa)
Hiya

what does 'err' mean?

"Error" -> Invincible (Not your fault) and Vincible (could have been avoided)

[bethq]

soft determinism anyone? PLEASE really dont get it!!!!