A2 - May question RS OCR philosophical/ ethics investigations

Decent enough papers today, IMO. The wording of some of the questions was a bit odd but once I established which topic each question was about they were okay.

For Philosophy I did the 'Wittgenstein's language games' and 'belief that God is eternal' questions.

For Ethics I did the 'innate sense of right and wrong' and 'ethical business practice' questions.

TSR iPod App

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 85

swiftylol

18

Original post by PatrickD

Decent enough papers today, IMO. The wording of some of the questions was a bit odd but once I established which topic each question was about they were okay.

For Philosophy I did the 'Wittgenstein's language games' and 'belief that God is eternal' questions.

For Ethics I did the 'innate sense of right and wrong' and 'ethical business practice' questions.

TSR iPod App

What did you write for Wittgenstein and butler?

Reply 86

Original post by swiftylol

What did you write for Wittgenstein and butler?

For the Wittgenstein question I ran out of ideas quite quickly and probably repeated myself a bit too much. In my answer I:

•

Outlined his theory of Language Games, using the analogy of chess

•

Used Verificationism and Falsificationism as comparisons and to criticise Language Games, although I tried not to write too much about them as that wasn't the focus of the question

•

Listed a few criticisms and strengths such as how it excludes atheists but also explains why they do not understand/find meaning in religious language

•

Ultimately came to the conclusion that it does allow religious statements to have meaning for those within the game and that it recognises that religious statements should not be treated in the same way as scientific statements as other religious language ethicists seem to believe

For the Butler question I tried to focus my answer on Butler but inevitably brought in other philosophers to criticise him. To answer this question I:

•

Outlined Butler's claim that conscience (or sense of right and wrong as the question referred to it) is an innate faculty of reflection from God which "magisterially exerts itself" without the use of reason

•

Suggested this view may be convincing to intuitionists (briefly mentioning the idea of good known through intuition from meta-ethics) and appeals to the idea that sometimes people just seem to know what is right or wrong in a situation but they can't explain why

•

Argued that, because Butler's concept involves the existence of God, it is wholly unconvincing to atheists

•

Countered this by saying that, although Butler suggests that conscience is God-given, it does not have to be and the concept of an innate sense of right and wrong may still have some relevance to atheists

•

Commented on how Newman holds a similar view to Butler and uses the concept of an innate faculty as a moral argument for the existence of God

•

Criticised Butler's claim using Aquinas' belief that conscience was reliant on right reason, arguing that people often use reason in moral dilemmas rather than mere intuition

•

Introduced the psychological approaches of Freud and Fromm, stating that social factors affecting people's decisions and morals, for example in the Jamie Bulger case (an over-used example, I know), made Butler's claim less convincing

•

Concluded with my personal opinion that a Thomist approach, combined with elements of a developmental, socially-shaped conscience is more convincing than Butler's claim of an innate sense of right and wrong.

Reply 87

MrJpp6

For the Butler question I tried to focus my answer on Butler but inevitably brought in other philosophers to criticise him. To answer this question I:

Outlined Butler's claim that conscience (or sense of right and wrong as the question referred to it) is an innate faculty of reflection from God which "magisterially exerts itself" without the use of reason
Suggested this view may be convincing to intuitionists (briefly mentioning the idea of good known through intuition from meta-ethics) and appeals to the idea that sometimes people just seem to know what is right or wrong in a situation but they can't explain why
Argued that, because Butler's concept involves the existence of God, it is wholly unconvincing to atheists
Countered this by saying that, although Butler suggests that conscience is God-given, it does not have to be and the concept of an innate sense of right and wrong may still have some relevance to atheists
Commented on how Newman holds a similar view to Butler and uses the concept of an innate faculty as a moral argument for the existence of God
Criticised Butler's claim using Aquinas' belief that conscience was reliant on right reason, arguing that people often use reason in moral dilemmas rather than mere intuition
Introduced the psychological approaches of Freud and Fromm, stating that social factors affecting people's decisions and morals, for example in the Jamie Bulger case (an over-used example, I know), made Butler's claim less convincing
Concluded with my personal opinion that a Thomist approach, combined with elements of a developmental, socially-shaped conscience is more convincing than Butler's claim of an innate sense of right and wrong.

Really? I didn't focus on Butler's view besides the first paragraph, just kept referring back to his view constantly throughout the essay in comparison to others. I mentioned Butler, Newman, Aquinas, Freud, Piaget/Kohlberg and Fromm, plus a little bit on Mcdonagh and a quote from her.

Can't even remember the wording of the questions I did - chose q 2 and 4 for the philosophy and 1/3 for the ethics. Thought they were nice questions. :smile:

Reply 88

Original post by PatrickD

Decent enough papers today, IMO. The wording of some of the questions was a bit odd but once I established which topic each question was about they were okay.

For Philosophy I did the 'Wittgenstein's language games' and 'belief that God is eternal' questions.

For Ethics I did the 'innate sense of right and wrong' and 'ethical business practice' questions.

TSR iPod App

what did u write for the eternal question ?

Reply 89

Original post by tdkr

what did u write for the eternal question ?

•

Introduced the idea of God's eternity seen as either eternal or everlasting (I focused my answer mostly on God being eternal/timeless)

•

Outlined Boethius' concept of God's eternity as "the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life"

•

Briefly explained how Aquinas held a similar view to Boethius

•

Used Flew's 'Nero' quote to criticise Boethius' view as incoherent

•

Explained that God's timeless knowledge of all of history, combined with His omniscience, questions the existence of free will

•

Extended this point to question His just nature - how can we be rewarded or punished if we have no free will?

•

Countered this with Boethius' argument that God has no foreknowledge, He merely sees all at once

•

Raised the problem of how an eternal God can act within a temporal world

•

Expanded on this to question whether prayer is meaningful if God is eternal and how God can love us if He is separate from us.

•

Briefly raised the point that perhaps an everlasting view of God, as proposed by Swinburne, is more coherent, fitting in with reports of miracles and Biblical accounts of God's action

•

Concluded that, although belief in an eternal God raises many problems, it is more in keeping with the traditional notion of God's perfect nature than an everlasting view which implies God changes over time and is therefore not perfect.

TSR iPod App

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 90

bubbletrouble

1

Original post by PatrickD

•

Introduced the idea of God's eternity seen as either eternal or everlasting (I focused my answer mostly on God being eternal/timeless)

•

Outlined Boethius' concept of God's eternity as "the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life"

•

Briefly explained how Aquinas held a similar view to Boethius

•

Used Flew's 'Nero' quote to criticise Boethius' view as incoherent

•

Explained that God's timeless knowledge of all of history, combined with His omniscience, questions the existence of free will

•

Extended this point to question His just nature - how can we be rewarded or punished if we have no free will?

•

Countered this with Boethius' argument that God has no foreknowledge, He merely sees all at once

•

Raised the problem of how an eternal God can act within a temporal world

•

Expanded on this to question whether prayer is meaningful if God is eternal and how God can love us if He is separate from us.

•

Briefly raised the point that perhaps an everlasting view of God, as proposed by Swinburne, is more coherent, fitting in with reports of miracles and Biblical accounts of God's action

•

Concluded that, although belief in a eternal God raises many problems, it is more in keeping with the traditional notion of God's perfect nature than an everlasting view which implies God changes over time and is therefore not perfect.

TSR iPod App

i second your answer!! what did you get at AS

Reply 91

raveen789

9

Original post by PatrickD

•

Introduced the idea of God's eternity seen as either eternal or everlasting (I focused my answer mostly on God being eternal/timeless)

•

Outlined Boethius' concept of God's eternity as "the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life"

•

Briefly explained how Aquinas held a similar view to Boethius

•

Used Flew's 'Nero' quote to criticise Boethius' view as incoherent

•

Explained that God's timeless knowledge of all of history, combined with His omniscience, questions the existence of free will

•

Extended this point to question His just nature - how can we be rewarded or punished if we have no free will?

•

Countered this with Boethius' argument that God has no foreknowledge, He merely sees all at once

•

Raised the problem of how an eternal God can act within a temporal world

•

Expanded on this to question whether prayer is meaningful if God is eternal and how God can love us if He is separate from us.

•

Briefly raised the point that perhaps an everlasting view of God, as proposed by Swinburne, is more coherent, fitting in with reports of miracles and Biblical accounts of God's action

•

Concluded that, although belief in a eternal God raises many problems, it is more in keeping with the traditional notion of God's perfect nature than an everlasting view which implies God changes over time and is therefore not perfect.

TSR iPod App

I got similar points to you put kept more of Beothius I wish i said something but looked more at Swinburne oscar cullman Augustine a bit and a few others but I Mostly put similar stuff to you how eternal effects his omnipotence and omniscience but not so much on Beothius :/ I need to scrape a B to get an A so I hope I did well I don't think you would lose to many marks for
Not mentioning him but I mentioned most of your other points and some of my own :smile:

Reply 92

Original post by PatrickD

•

Introduced the idea of God's eternity seen as either eternal or everlasting (I focused my answer mostly on God being eternal/timeless)

•

Outlined Boethius' concept of God's eternity as "the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life"

•

Briefly explained how Aquinas held a similar view to Boethius

•

Used Flew's 'Nero' quote to criticise Boethius' view as incoherent

•

Explained that God's timeless knowledge of all of history, combined with His omniscience, questions the existence of free will

•

Extended this point to question His just nature - how can we be rewarded or punished if we have no free will?

•

Countered this with Boethius' argument that God has no foreknowledge, He merely sees all at once

•

Raised the problem of how an eternal God can act within a temporal world

•

Expanded on this to question whether prayer is meaningful if God is eternal and how God can love us if He is separate from us.

•

Briefly raised the point that perhaps an everlasting view of God, as proposed by Swinburne, is more coherent, fitting in with reports of miracles and Biblical accounts of God's action

•

Concluded that, although belief in a eternal God raises many problems, it is more in keeping with the traditional notion of God's perfect nature than an everlasting view which implies God changes over time and is therefore not perfect.

TSR iPod App

i put down all of that too, but in a more 'direct'/brief-ish way, i got As at AS and need a high B in philosophy and ethics to get an overall A

Reply 93

Original post by bubbletrouble

i second your answer!! what did you get at AS

Glad to hear it! I got an A overall last year with 91 in Philosophy and 100 in Ethics. :smile:

Original post by raveen789

I got similar points to you put kept more of Beothius I wish i said something but looked more at Swinburne oscar cullman Augustine a bit and a few others but I Mostly put similar stuff to you how eternal effects his omnipotence and omniscience but not so much on Beothius :/ I need to scrape a B to get an A so I hope I did well I don't think you would lose to many marks for not mentioning him but I mentioned most of your other points and some of my own :smile:

The marking is all positive so they won't actively take marks off if information is missing or wrong, although of course it might limit the mark they give you if there's not much detail. They won't expect you to have included everything so I wouldn't worry. :smile:

Original post by tdkr

i put down all of that too, but in a more 'direct'/brie-fish way, i got As at AS and need a high B in philosophy and ethics to get an overall A

Yeah, brevity is probably actually better as I possibly waffled on a bit too much. I got an A at AS and need a C (74%) for an A overall. I'd like to get an A* but after today I'm not convinced I'll get one now. :tongue:

Reply 94

Original post by PatrickD

Glad to hear it! I got an A overall last year with 91 in Philosophy and 100 in Ethics. :smile:

that is insane! i got 94 in the ethics and 86 in philosophy last year. well done, what you doing at uni ?

Reply 95

Original post by tdkr

that is insane! i got 94 in the ethics and 86 in philosophy last year. well done, what you doing at uni ?

Haha, thanks. You didn't do too badly yourself! :biggrin:

I'm hoping to do chemistry at York but if there's any optional modules or relevant societies on offer I'd love to carry on studying a bit of philosophy.

What about you? :smile:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 96

raveen789

9

Yeah, brevity is probably actually better as I possibly waffled on a bit too much. I got an A at AS and need a C (74%) for an A overall. I'd like to get an A* but after today I'm not convinced I'll get one now. :tongue:

Yeah I got 90% last year but I'm finding A2 so much harder :frown:

Reply 97

Original post by PatrickD

Haha, thanks. You didn't do too badly yourself! :biggrin:

I'm hoping to do chemistry at York but if there's any optional modules available I'd love to carry on studying a bit of philosophy.

What about you? :smile:

hoping to do law at uni of sheffield :smile:

what's your offer ?

Reply 98