[Caston]

AHHHH 3 DAYS TO GOO

[brighteyes1994]

That's environment, business and virtue ethics revised so far for me now - onto conscience next I think

[et cetera]

(Original post by IceCool)
Yeah i really don't get Kant on soft determinism. Soft determinism as a whole is horrible! Could anybody explain it better the the textbook?

(Original post by bubbletrouble)
hey can someone explain what jean paul satre and kant say about freedom, i cannot make sense of it at all!!

Fundamentally, with Kant, he says that freedom is a postulate of practical reason (the opposite of rational reason). He suggests that it is our own self-awareness, which we use to understand the world as it is, forces on us the idea that we are free - so we cannot dispose of the idea that we are free without ceasing to see ourselves as the originator of our actions (within the wider worlds.

J-P Satre - basically says freedom should be the goal and measure of our lives. Man makes himself as a result of the choices he makes.

[tdkr]

(Original post by IceCool)
Yeah i really don't get Kant on soft determinism. Soft determinism as a whole is horrible! Could anybody explain it better the the textbook?

doubt determinism will come up again as it has already for the past 2 years i think

[SBradford]

Do people really think conscience will come up?

Revision notes on meta-ethics:

Cognitivsm - statements are subject to being true or false.
Non-cognitvism - statements are not subject to being true or false. (hurrah, ouch, etc)

Cognitivist theories:

Naturalism (Bradley, also Aquinas (sort of)), he said that we can see that ethical statements can be true or false by using empirical data. For example, we can see that genetic engineering is good because it saves peoples lives. Aquinas (1224 - 74) fits into this kind of because of his primary precepts (which, he said, were good) For example, we can see that abortion is wrong because it goes against the precept, preservation of life.

Naturalism critics David Hume (1711 - 76) said that naturalism was a "naturalistic fallacy" where you "cannot derive and ought from an is" meaning just because something happens in nature, it doesn't suggest that it should happen. However, Aquinas counter this by arguing that what happens in nature is God's will and so it should happen. (I wouldn't talk too much about Aquinas in a meta-ethics question because it's specifically discussing ethical language, not religious language - although it is a useful synoptic link.)

Non-naturalism/Intuionism (this is still a cognitive theory, don't get confused about that. (G.E.Moore) he agreed with Hume and argued that "good, bad" cannot be defined. He said that "good" was in it's simplest form (he compared it to the colour yellow. Yellow is just yellow, you cannot define it because it's just that, yellow.) "Good is good". However, the reason this is still a cognitive theory is because he still argues that good and bad can still be know (just not defined). He argued that we know what is good and bad through our intuition. W.D.Ross adapted this by adding "prima facie duties" these our duties (could compare to Aristotle here with his virtues.) which we "just know" to do in certain situations.

Sorry it's a little vague, this is all from the top of my head. I'll update this bit later.

Non-cognitive theories:

Emotivism (A.J.Ayer (1910 - 89)) he argued that ethical language is non-cognitive, that it isn't subject to being true or false. (Important to note here that A.J.Ayer is a logical positivist who created the weak verification principle.) He believed that statements were only meaningful if they be verified analytically (truth is in the definition. For example "All unmarried men are bachelors") or synthetically (through empirical senses.) He said that ethical language is neither. When we say "Murder is wrong, charity is good" we are essentials saying "Boo to murder, hurrah to charity" it's just our emotions, not absolute truth.

Prescriptivism (R.M.Hare) Basically adapted Ayer's emotivism by saying that they are emotions, but also when you make an ethical statement, you are saying what your opinion is but also stating what action other people should take (influenced by Kant's 1st imperative.) When I said "murder is wrong" I am saying that I think murder is wrong, so I won't murder, and you shouldn't either.

[bubbletrouble]

i think determinism has come up for last 4 papers lol and sexual ethics has been on there the last 5 papers, and thanks et cetera for explaining it though i still dont understand:
is he basically saying that we have to be free in order to make moral choices using reason which isnt determined? "ought implies can" so we have to have freedom?
but we are still determined in other aspects

[swiftylol]

Does anyone know what the difference is between Newman and Augustine's views on conscience?

[SBradford]

(Original post by swiftylol)
Does anyone know what the difference is between Newman and Augustine's views on conscience?

I think (not entirely sure):

They both agreed that the conscience is the voice of God.
Augustine believed it is God telling us what is right and wrong.
Newman believed it to be the voice of God, but not giving us commandments to follow.

[05tollec]

(Original post by swiftylol)
Does anyone know what the difference is between Newman and Augustine's views on conscience?

Ok there is very little difference but the conscience in Augustine's work is divine love and effectively god's voice so if examined properly will always give the same answer.

Phillip Rule describes Newman's conscience as a personal engagement in the struggle to conceive ideas and verify their truthfullness and some may say this personal engagement limits the objectivity of conscience... Of course Newman may well have felt that the conscience did produce objective truth his critics can claim that it doesn't whereas on Augustine's ideas no such claim can be made

The distinction probably isn't brilliant but I hope it helps XD

[05tollec]

(Original post by bubbletrouble)
i think determinism has come up for last 4 papers lol and sexual ethics has been on there the last 5 papers, and thanks et cetera for explaining it though i still dont understand:
is he basically saying that we have to be free in order to make moral choices using reason which isnt determined? "ought implies can" so we have to have freedom?
but we are still determined in other aspects

Kant refers to soft determinism as a "wretched subterfuge" he personally felt that we must postulate liberty or we could not be held responsible for our action and hence there would be no reason for some to achieve the summun bonum (pretty much what you said).

I hope this helps Thursday is going to be fun XD.

[swiftylol]

(Original post by SBradford)
I think (not entirely sure):

They both agreed that the conscience is the voice of God.
Augustine believed it is God telling us what is right and wrong.
Newman believed it to be the voice of God, but not giving us commandments to follow.

(Original post by 05tollec)
Ok there is very little difference but the conscience in Augustine's work is divine love and effectively god's voice so if examined properly will always give the same answer.

Phillip Rule describes Newman's conscience as a personal engagement in the struggle to conceive ideas and verify their truthfullness and some may say this personal engagement limits the objectivity of conscience... Of course Newman may well have felt that the conscience did produce objective truth his critics can claim that it doesn't whereas on Augustine's ideas no such claim can be made

The distinction probably isn't brilliant but I hope it helps XD

Thanks to both of you! Think I got it now

[raaachek]

So Conscience is likely to come up??

[LittleMissCurious]

Does anyone know about the synoptic? Like what topic goes with what? HELP, I have no idea!

[ManPowa]

For conscience which theories or philosophers would agree that conscience is innate and which ones would disagree with conscience not being innate??

HELP!!

[Jemimah7]

(Original post by Sem193)
I don't know what will come up, lol. I was thinking Environmental Ethics/Business Ethics, Sexual Ethics, Virtue Ethics and Freewill and Determinism, but that combo has come up before I definitely think that Environmental/Business Ethics and Sexual Ethics are going to come up because they didn't come up in January this year which is strange because they seem to come up all the time. I'm really scared about doing this exam because one of out teachers has been absent for months and we've hardly gotten through any work

I am in exactly the same position! My teacher was off for 3 months! and we had no cover teacher ie no lessons ie teach yourself!
& when she was in she was useless!

I HATE meta ethics, i really want to miss it off my revision completely, whats everyone think to that?

[Jemimah7]

(Original post by SBradford)
Do people really think conscience will come up?

Revision notes on meta-ethics:

....

Sorry it's a little vague, this is all from the top of my head. I'll update this bit later.............

The fact you know that from the top of your head has made me PANIC! and i have 2 and a bit days to go! SO worried!

[Jemimah7]

http://philosophicalinvestigations.c...tent&Itemid=54

This essay is amazing and has given me some grounding on how to start my essay! So thank you to whoever uploaded it! But i just want to clarify... Can we use 'I Think' on our essays? Or does it have to be Objective? My teacher has always told us not to use 'I' but this essay claims to have got 100%. My teacher is crap btw so do not hesitate to say she is wrong!

[Joell3]

(Original post by Jemimah7)
http://philosophicalinvestigations.c...tent&Itemid=54

This essay is amazing and has given me some grounding on how to start my essay! So thank you to whoever uploaded it! But i just want to clarify... Can we use 'I Think' on our essays? Or does it have to be Objective? My teacher has always told us not to use 'I' but this essay claims to have got 100%. My teacher is crap btw so do not hesitate to say she is wrong!

I use 'I believe', 'I find it more likely that' etc. all the time and I'm getting A/A*'s in class and managed to get 90percent last year

[SBradford]

(Original post by Joell3)
I use 'I believe', 'I find it more likely that' etc. all the time and I'm getting A/A*'s in class and managed to get 90percent last year

I agree, we're always told not to put "i think", etc. But I always do and I'm also doing fine. However, I wouldn't spend too much on your own opinion and focus on other philosophers.

[Sem193]

(Original post by Jemimah7)
I am in exactly the same position! My teacher was off for 3 months! and we had no cover teacher ie no lessons ie teach yourself!
& when she was in she was useless!

I HATE meta ethics, i really want to miss it off my revision completely, whats everyone think to that?

:O Really? It sucks doesn't it? I feel like I know nothing :/ Yeah, I have two teachers and one of them 'disappeared' but the other one has so many meetings and she's been sick a couple of times too. Sometimes her lessons are useless too. I could learn more at home. I hope we both get good grades It's not really fair on us.

I like Meta, but at first I thought it wasn't going to come up so I didn't revise it. Now I'm just revising Naturalism and Non-Naturalism. What have you revised? Good luck btw