This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR Philosophy and Ethics Study Group (AS & A2)

Thanks^

The following is a recent essay I did, my teacher gave me a C, sorry I can't remember the exact mark out of 35, but I'd just like to know how I could improve. Also, is the part B answer the write way to structure those types of questions?

a) Explain Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God
Kant’s moral argument is the postulate that God exists due to the existence of morality. The argument is based on a priori knowledge. So, rather than developing the argument by experience, he turned to the moral law within us for evidence, which is an innate understanding he believed came from God.
Kant’s moral argument is based on the idea that our morality is objective and universal, because we all have the same understanding of morality. For example, actions like murder and rape will always be wrong. Thus, he would argue that culture, circumstances or period of history is irrelevant and so actions are either right or wrong, which also portrays his absolute approach for the argument.
Kant’s moral argument involves following the categorical imperative, which is a right action carried out for no other reason than duty itself, rather than getting something out of the action.
Kant’s argument consists of three main parts, which are called the postulates of morality. The first one is autonomy, which is the idea that an action is moral if you choose to do it. For example, if you were schizophrenic who hears voices telling you to rob a bank and then you do it, it’s not a moral decision. Kant believed that if we were not free to make our own decisions than we could achieve a state of moral perfection because we would not be in control or responsible for our good or bad actions. This idea also means Kant rejects the divine command theory and that what is right is what God commands us to do. He believed that God wills the moral law, which we discover through reason.
The second postulate of Kant’s argument is immortality, the idea that there must be an afterlife for us which gives us perfect happiness. This is because even if we carry out virtuous acts in this world, they could still lead to bad outcomes which could make us or other people involved unhappy. Therefore, perfect virtue we carry out in this world must be rewarded by perfect happiness, which must exist in the next life.
The third postulate for his argument is God. This is assumed because if there is another life where humans can achieve immortality, God is the necessary connection between virtue and happiness which is implied by summum bonum, which is the idea of the supreme good. Since we are obliged to attain summum bonum, God must exist to make sure this occurs.
To conclude, his argument consisted of it being logical for perfect virtue to be rewarded by perfect happiness, this happiness cannot be achieved without God and an afterlife, so therefore God must exist to provide us with the summum bonum.

b) ‘Moral awareness has nothing to do with God’. Discuss
Some would agree with the statement they would believe our sense of morality is not a universal, objective code coming from code, Rather, it is relative, which can be portrayed by the idea of cultural relativism. This is the idea that society approves and disapproves of certain actions, due to the situation’s own demands for human development in that particular context. Therefore, these people would argue that morality is a product of human culture rather than God.
However, some would disagree with the statement and say God is related to our moral awareness, instead of cultural relativism for example. This is because they could argue morality is objective and there is some things that are always considered either right or wrong. This can be presented by the universal human rights, which is an objective idea that consist of rights that all humans should have. Also, these people could argue that it is common sense that to behave morally we should behave consistently, thus this shows an absolute idea makes more logical sense than a relativist approach. This would favour Kant’s argument that links our sense of morality to the existence of God.
On the other hand, scientists would argue that morality could have nothing to do with God without having to be relativist. Dawkins is responsible for the theory of evolution, so he would argue that as humanity evolves, so does its moral consciousness. If we lived in an immoral society where murder was normal, we would have quickly died out as a species. Therefore, he would argue our moral values do not come from God but are evolved attitudes to help us survive.
However, some people, like Divine Command theorists, would still argue that there must be a purpose for being good. They would see this purpose as being God. So, they would argue that if people are perfectly virtuous in this life it will gain them a connection with God and happiness in the next, which is why we have any reason to be moral at all. As, when we are being moral, we do not consider the implications they have on the future of our species, like evolution suggests. These people would therefore argue that our morality is indeed due to God.

Reply 21

FlowaPowa

8

Also, in the actual essay I do do paragraphs, it's just gets displayed a bit dodgy on TSR lol..
The following is one of my essays for ethics, I would also appreciate it anyone could have a read of it and give me some feedback :smile:

a) explain how natural law theory can be used to decide the right moral action. 30/35mins
Natural law has Aristotelian routes, as he influenced Aquinas with his idea of the four causes and how everything has an ultimate purpose, known as Eudaimonia or happiness. Aquinas added a Christian perspective to Natural Law, as he believed that something is good if it achieves it’s final purpose and the final purpose of humans was to be more like God by striving towards perfection. Although he made clear that this was only possible in the afterlife, it is the driving force for humans to follow the NLT, in order to unite with God.
Aquinas’ NLT can be used to decide the right moral action through the idea of the primary precepts. These include: preserving life, ordering society, worshipping God, education and reproduction. A precept is a general moral rule that should be followed by all human beings and the precepts are descriptive, as it gives you a list of what you should do. This can be used to decide the right moral action because it gives you a clear guideline of the main five ideas that moral decisions are based on, which can be easily applied to any situation. It also tells us that an action is bad if it does not agree with any of these precepts. For example, killing will be seen as a bad moral action because it goes against the primary precept of ‘preserving life’, which helps us to decide the right moral action by not killing.
Aquinas portrays the idea of the secondary precepts, which can be derived from the primary. These are prescriptive rules which can be created by the use of reason and expanding on a primary precept. For example, ‘stealing is wrong’ is a secondary precept derived from the primary precept of ‘ordering society’, because if stealing was allowed there would be no order in society and there would be havoc. Therefore, the secondary precepts are used for individuals to make a moral decision that relates to their particular situation by considering which of the primary precepts it relates to, which allows flexibility in the approach. This ultimately allows us to decide the right moral action by the use of reason and judgment of scenarios.
As Aquinas believed that everyone had the natural desire to become perfect and strive towards being like God, no one wants to pursue evil. So, when people do bad actions, they are doing an ‘apparent good’, meaning they thought it was good when in actual fact it wasn’t due to poor use of reason. For example, a fornicator may believe they are doing good because they are receiving pleasure out of the action. So, if individuals use reason and judgment wisely, the primary and secondary precepts allow individuals to decide the right moral actions and avoid apparent goods or bad actions.

b) To what extent is natural law the best approach to ethical decision making? 10/15mins
Natural law is a good approach to ethical decision making because it is an absolute theory, so it is clear cut and actions are either seen as right or wrong. This is good because it means that moral decisions can be made quickly and there can be no disagreement about whether an action is right and wrong, so avoids complication. As well as being fair and equal for everyone in all situations, so there is no discrimination. For example, killing is always wrong because it is against the precept of ‘preservation of life’, so in two situations where people had killed someone, there would be no exceptions due to their intention for example. This ensures that it is a good approach due to it’s just nature and how the same type of crime will always be wrong with no exceptions.
However, some may argue that it is not a good approach because it doesn’t look at situations independently, meaning there is no consideration of the motivation or intention of an action. For example, if a terrorist started shooting people in a public place and someone with access to a gun shot him down which killed the terrorist, people would argue the person who killed him cannot be considered as bad as a murderer. This is because the intention of this person was most likely to save lives by stopping the shooting, rather than killing a man for fun. Either way, NLT has the primary precept of ‘preserving law’ and would see both situations equally as bad.
On the other hand, you could argue that it is good that there is no discrimination between situations, as intention is hard to judge at times. So, maybe the person who killed the terrorist was indeed killing for ‘fun’ and this leads him committing more horrendous killings in the future, because his behaviour was defended.
Many would suggest it being a deontological theory is a bad thing because it is human nature to think about the outcomes of an action. So, following the natural law theory could involve carrying out a good action that results in a bad consequence. Such as, not allowing a woman to have an abortion who is so ill that she will clearly die if she is made to continue with her pregnancy. As a result the woman dies because the preservation of life of the foetus was thought about without any consideration of the outcome, and as a result the baby will grow out without and mother and so a poor quality of life. This portrays how it is not a good approach to ethical decision making because it could lead people making decisions that cause more harm than if they were avoided.
However, you could argue that it is good that the Natural Law theory is deontological because the outcomes are often unpredictable, meaning even human reason can’t predict the future. So it prevents random moral actions being undertaken that could lead to more harm than good.
Also, the NLT in its name itself causes some confusion about the ethical decision making process. As it raises the question, what is natural? For example, should we keep an ill patient alive by hospital treatment, or is this seen as unnatural?
Overall it could be seen as the best approach to ethical decision making because it is simple and easy to apply to all situations, in any place at any time. However, at the same time it causes a lot of conflicting ideas about what is considered natural and how on earth it could be possible to judge two separate situations using the five primary precepts, with no exceptions.

Reply 22

Naomi12

10

Original post by FlowaPowa

Also, in the actual essay I do do paragraphs, it's just gets displayed a bit dodgy on TSR lol..
The following is one of my essays for ethics, I would also appreciate it anyone could have a read of it and give me some feedback :smile:

a) explain how natural law theory can be used to decide the right moral action. 30/35mins
Natural law has Aristotelian routes, as he influenced Aquinas with his idea of the four causes and how everything has an ultimate purpose, known as Eudaimonia or happiness. Aquinas added a Christian perspective to Natural Law, as he believed that something is good if it achieves it’s final purpose and the final purpose of humans was to be more like God by striving towards perfection. Although he made clear that this was only possible in the afterlife, it is the driving force for humans to follow the NLT, in order to unite with God.
Aquinas’ NLT can be used to decide the right moral action through the idea of the primary precepts. These include: preserving life, ordering society, worshipping God, education and reproduction. A precept is a general moral rule that should be followed by all human beings and the precepts are descriptive, as it gives you a list of what you should do. This can be used to decide the right moral action because it gives you a clear guideline of the main five ideas that moral decisions are based on, which can be easily applied to any situation. It also tells us that an action is bad if it does not agree with any of these precepts. For example, killing will be seen as a bad moral action because it goes against the primary precept of ‘preserving life’, which helps us to decide the right moral action by not killing.
Aquinas portrays the idea of the secondary precepts, which can be derived from the primary. These are prescriptive rules which can be created by the use of reason and expanding on a primary precept. For example, ‘stealing is wrong’ is a secondary precept derived from the primary precept of ‘ordering society’, because if stealing was allowed there would be no order in society and there would be havoc. Therefore, the secondary precepts are used for individuals to make a moral decision that relates to their particular situation by considering which of the primary precepts it relates to, which allows flexibility in the approach. This ultimately allows us to decide the right moral action by the use of reason and judgment of scenarios.
As Aquinas believed that everyone had the natural desire to become perfect and strive towards being like God, no one wants to pursue evil. So, when people do bad actions, they are doing an ‘apparent good’, meaning they thought it was good when in actual fact it wasn’t due to poor use of reason. For example, a fornicator may believe they are doing good because they are receiving pleasure out of the action. So, if individuals use reason and judgment wisely, the primary and secondary precepts allow individuals to decide the right moral actions and avoid apparent goods or bad actions.

b) To what extent is natural law the best approach to ethical decision making? 10/15mins
Natural law is a good approach to ethical decision making because it is an absolute theory, so it is clear cut and actions are either seen as right or wrong. This is good because it means that moral decisions can be made quickly and there can be no disagreement about whether an action is right and wrong, so avoids complication. As well as being fair and equal for everyone in all situations, so there is no discrimination. For example, killing is always wrong because it is against the precept of ‘preservation of life’, so in two situations where people had killed someone, there would be no exceptions due to their intention for example. This ensures that it is a good approach due to it’s just nature and how the same type of crime will always be wrong with no exceptions.
However, some may argue that it is not a good approach because it doesn’t look at situations independently, meaning there is no consideration of the motivation or intention of an action. For example, if a terrorist started shooting people in a public place and someone with access to a gun shot him down which killed the terrorist, people would argue the person who killed him cannot be considered as bad as a murderer. This is because the intention of this person was most likely to save lives by stopping the shooting, rather than killing a man for fun. Either way, NLT has the primary precept of ‘preserving law’ and would see both situations equally as bad.
On the other hand, you could argue that it is good that there is no discrimination between situations, as intention is hard to judge at times. So, maybe the person who killed the terrorist was indeed killing for ‘fun’ and this leads him committing more horrendous killings in the future, because his behaviour was defended.
Many would suggest it being a deontological theory is a bad thing because it is human nature to think about the outcomes of an action. So, following the natural law theory could involve carrying out a good action that results in a bad consequence. Such as, not allowing a woman to have an abortion who is so ill that she will clearly die if she is made to continue with her pregnancy. As a result the woman dies because the preservation of life of the foetus was thought about without any consideration of the outcome, and as a result the baby will grow out without and mother and so a poor quality of life. This portrays how it is not a good approach to ethical decision making because it could lead people making decisions that cause more harm than if they were avoided.
However, you could argue that it is good that the Natural Law theory is deontological because the outcomes are often unpredictable, meaning even human reason can’t predict the future. So it prevents random moral actions being undertaken that could lead to more harm than good.
Also, the NLT in its name itself causes some confusion about the ethical decision making process. As it raises the question, what is natural? For example, should we keep an ill patient alive by hospital treatment, or is this seen as unnatural?
Overall it could be seen as the best approach to ethical decision making because it is simple and easy to apply to all situations, in any place at any time. However, at the same time it causes a lot of conflicting ideas about what is considered natural and how on earth it could be possible to judge two separate situations using the five primary precepts, with no exceptions.

I think one of your issues is the length comparatively - your part B for both seems almost as long/longer than the part A, which suggests you're spending time wrongly, as A is weighted much higher. I used to get the timings wrong because I was much more interested in the part B questions, but when I sorted that out my marks greatly improved :smile:

Also, you seem to jump right into the question, so making a clearer introduction could really improve the structure - hope that helps! I got full UMS after sorting out my structure so it's really worth working on even if it sounds irrelevant :smile:

Reply 23

FlowaPowa

8

Original post by Naomi12

I think one of your issues is the length comparatively - your part B for both seems almost as long/longer than the part A, which suggests you're spending time wrongly, as A is weighted much higher. I used to get the timings wrong because I was much more interested in the part B questions, but when I sorted that out my marks greatly improved :smile:

Also, you seem to jump right into the question, so making a clearer introduction could really improve the structure - hope that helps! I got full UMS after sorting out my structure so it's really worth working on even if it sounds irrelevant :smile:

Thanks, I'll defo think about that when writing my next essays! I either write too much or too little for my part b :colondollar:

Wow, full UMS!! that's so good, I'm aiming high but I got an E in my trial exam! :frown:

So I really need to get my sh#t together

Reply 24

Iggy Azalea

OP

14

Original post by BrendhaUchiha

Hi, I was wondering if any of you had tips for year 12s? I'm doing the AS this year and Im fine with the content but I can't do part Bs, so any of you have specific techniques that you remember from last year?

B questions are quite straightforward when you get the hang of it. Part A wants to explain every relevant detail possible, apply examples, look at the core ideas but remain neutral about the whole thing. Part B however doesn't want an explanation and instead wants a short piece of reflective writing full of your opinion and why you think that this.

If you want to master part Bs, I recommend you actively start making opinions on the ideas you study. So if you study genetic engineering, starting developing a stance on it. Or start comparing ethical theories and think about which one you prefer. Look for loopholes in philosophical arguments or find evidence that might support an idea (like the Big Bang).

To write the answer, you simply argue each point, which you can do in two ways, either by point-paragraphing or molded arguments.

Point-paragraph method is relatively simple:

Introduction, short statement expressing your viewpoint.

1) Point
2) Counter Point
3) Point

Conclude, and justify why you dismiss the counter point.

Molded-paragraphing is also fairly straightforward:

Like the above method, have a opinionated and justified introduction/conclusion.

Each paragraph should be similar to this:

State a point to support your view
Give a brief explanation, with evidence or example.
State why people would disagree.
Say why you think they're wrong and why (use evidence to help)

Make about 2 of these paragraphs and that's it. By the way, don't be afraid to flip the question now and then. For example, in my exam, I had a question on whether God is more believable than the Prime Mover. I explained both sides of the argument, but ultimately said that the Prime Mover isn't meant to be a worshipped or believable entity, unlike God, so the statement is really wrong.

Both essay methods are fine, point paragraphs are more standard and helps make planning easier. Molded-paragraphing is slightly harder but it's a good skill to learn if you want to do A2, where you have to merge both Part A and B together in one big hellishly complicated essay. :colondollar:

Reply 25

redms

1

i think you need to spread your time a bit better. what you've written is good, you just need to work on getting more content into part a and being more concise in part b. also make sure you keep emphasising and explaining your personal point of view in part b, theyre looking for a holistic response. i wouldn't worry, once you hack it, you've got it for good! i didnt do very well in my first few essays last year but then i got some structure help and ended up with 93 ums in philosophy and 98 in ethics! structure means a lot more than most people would think! other than polishing your structure technique, RS is basically a bit of a memory game (at AS anyway), all you have to do is remember the arguments and learn their evaluation points! you'll be fine, i wouldnt worry, just try get the structure thing sorted asap. practice makes perfect :smile:

Reply 26

FlowaPowa

8

Original post by redms

i think you need to spread your time a bit better. what you've written is good, you just need to work on getting more content into part a and being more concise in part b. also make sure you keep emphasising and explaining your personal point of view in part b, theyre looking for a holistic response. i wouldn't worry, once you hack it, you've got it for good! i didnt do very well in my first few essays last year but then i got some structure help and ended up with 93 ums in philosophy and 98 in ethics! structure means a lot more than most people would think! other than polishing your structure technique, RS is basically a bit of a memory game (at AS anyway), all you have to do is remember the arguments and learn their evaluation points! you'll be fine, i wouldnt worry, just try get the structure thing sorted asap. practice makes perfect :smile:

Thanks so much for the advice!! I'll try to practice essay writing as much as I can around my other subjects :smile:

Reply 27

The Empire Odyssey

21

Original post by Iggy Azalea

I so agree with you on this. The subject is surprisingly content heavy. All of my friends that take History and Biology find RS to be the most time-consuming.

What is also important to note is that nobody has a grounding of Philosophy and Ethics when they start the course. So you essentially go through an intensive run through of all the terms and theories. You get quite a bit of brain-ache from time to time.

What really annoys me is the exams themselves. You have to write like hell. I did 18 pages in that painful AS 3 hour-long exam. And you have to be a really good essay writer in my opinion.

Thankfully, I have some pretty good teachers which made it easier to cope with. But even then you do have to do a lot of extra reading outside of lessons, we even have to cover a whole topic each year on our own.

I do think the topics are really interesting though. And once you've learnt something, you start seeing it everywhere. Even watching TV, I could label each character to the ethical theory they follow. Plus things like Plato's Cave, as well as the God's arguments for existence take a long time to sink in. But it's cool when you realised you've grasped it.

Oh I know. I had brilliant teachers. At like explaining and stuff, but it was basically (if you're in uni now oyu'll understand) we'd copy of board whilst she spoke. And that was basically it. Esp for Philosophy. But there was way more content in A2, like so much more counter arguments and criticisms you had to learn.

And the cruel irony of my statement is the fact is; now that I'm in uni studying English Lit and Medieval History, I shall be starting my whole first year again studying English Lit and Philosophy somewhere else aha!

Reply 28

The Empire Odyssey

21

Original post by BrendhaUchiha

Hi, I was wondering if any of you had tips for year 12s? I'm doing the AS this year and Im fine with the content but I can't do part Bs, so any of you have specific techniques that you remember from last year?

I got full marks for my AS Philosophy my teacher said it was an A* answer and got a B for my AS Ethics.

What I remember doing is just basically interweaving my points.

Question B is criticism so you have to argue the case first, then criticize it to death!

I personally think my essay writing came quite natural in the subject because at the time I took English Language, History and English Literature and they all follow the same structure. You use evidence to support what you're saying and then criticize it by stating an alternative opinion by using another piece of evidence. Follow that structure and you'll be fine.

Reply 29

Livbish

2

I'm doing AS, and find paper 1 fine. It's paper 2 that i'm struggling with, because the topics are so broad. Did anyone else have this problem?

Reply 30

JellyandBean

Iggy, can you explain these criticisms of Aquinas' Teleological Argument? I particularly don't understand Swinburne's...

image.jpg516.3KB

Reply 31

Maryam Tsui

Original post by Iggy Azalea

Hi everyone :hello:

This is an open thread for anybody taking A Level Philosophy. Feel free to exchange notes/essays, ask for exam advice, clear up any confusion and chat about the subject in general.

Here are the provisional exam dates:

AS:
Philosophy of Religion - Thursday 14th May
Religious Ethics - Tuesday 19th May

A2:
Philosophy of Religion - Wednesday 10th June
Religious Ethics - Wednesday 17th June

(NOW CONFIRMED DATES)

Specifications
The full specification can be found here.
Philosophy specification can be found here.
Ethics equivalent and revision source is here.

Recommended Study sites:

YouTube (especially 1, 2 and 3)
RS Revision
Philosophical Investigations (new site for Philosophy and Ethics)
Project Gutenberg (for finding quotes)
Stanford Philosophy
IEP

Books:

OCR Student Book (AS & A2)
P&E Through Diagrams (1)
AS OCR Workbook (Philosophy, Ethics)
A2 OCR Workbook (Philosophy, Ethics)
AS/A2 Religious Ethics textbook (1)
AS/A2 Philosophy of Religion textbook (1)
Understanding Philosophy of Religion for AS & A2 (1)
Understanding Religious Ethics for AS & A2 (1)

*Remember you don't need to buy these at all, just head to the library.
** Or you can buy used copies from either Amazon or eBay at fair prices.

Other Study Resources:

Text to Mind Map
Quizlet
Memorangapp

ENJOY!

I do AS and i was wondering what exam technique you use because I use the LPEEL structure (L-link to previous paragraph, P-point one per paragraph, E- evidence this is an example, E- explain and L-link to the question)

Reply 32

intelligent con

14

Any predictions on whats coming up this year for AS?

Reply 33

hamdai

Original post by Iggy Azalea

Hi everyone :hello:

This is an open thread for anybody taking A Level Philosophy. Feel free to exchange notes/essays, ask for exam advice, clear up any confusion and chat about the subject in general.

Here are the provisional exam dates:

AS:
Philosophy of Religion - Thursday 14th May
Religious Ethics - Tuesday 19th May

A2:
Philosophy of Religion - Wednesday 10th June
Religious Ethics - Wednesday 17th June

(NOW CONFIRMED DATES)

Specifications
The full specification can be found here.
Philosophy specification can be found here.
Ethics equivalent and revision source is here.

Recommended Study sites:

YouTube (especially 1, 2 and 3)
RS Revision
Philosophical Investigations (new site for Philosophy and Ethics)
Project Gutenberg (for finding quotes)
Stanford Philosophy
IEP

Books:

OCR Student Book (AS & A2)
P&E Through Diagrams (1)
AS OCR Workbook (Philosophy, Ethics)
A2 OCR Workbook (Philosophy, Ethics)
AS/A2 Religious Ethics textbook (1)
AS/A2 Philosophy of Religion textbook (1)
Understanding Philosophy of Religion for AS & A2 (1)
Understanding Religious Ethics for AS & A2 (1)

*Remember you don't need to buy these at all, just head to the library.
** Or you can buy used copies from either Amazon or eBay at fair prices.

Other Study Resources:

Text to Mind Map
Quizlet
Memorangapp

ENJOY!

Do you think you could help me with Greek Philosophy? I just can't seem to wrap my head around Aristotle's Metaphysics Book 12..

Reply 34

Iggy Azalea

OP

14

Original post by hamdai

Do you think you could help me with Greek Philosophy? I just can't seem to wrap my head around Aristotle's Metaphysics Book 12..

Is this for OCR AS? If so, you don't need to know much about Aristotle's work in Metaphysics, and more about the general concepts that differ from Judeo-Christian philosophy.

If not, I can try to help, but it's obviously a good idea to get out YouTube, there's some really good, straightforward info on there.

Reply 35

Samt98

3

What are your prediction for this years AS philosophy and ethics?

Reply 36

lenafma

1

Predictions for AS Philosophy and ethics what topics?

Reply 37

alexandraxmarie

3

Original post by spiritandteeth

Good thread, btw, Iggy.

For anyone who's starting AS this year (or continuing it if you have a three-year sixth form), I have a collection of essays, sets of notes and presentations - the latter of which are extremely extensive - on nearly all the topics in both Philosophy and Ethics. The ones to which I currently have home access are attached below. All 10/10 or 25/25. I also got 100 UMS in both exams, so I suppose I can give advice on revision and essay-writing techniques . . . ?

That's incredible! what revision techniques did you use as I'm finding it really difficult to revise for it!

Reply 38

Smithy-Smiths

10

Original post by FlowaPowa

Thanks^

The following is a recent essay I did, my teacher gave me a C, sorry I can't remember the exact mark out of 35, but I'd just like to know how I could improve. Also, is the part B answer the write way to structure those types of questions?

a) Explain Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God
Kant’s moral argument is the postulate that God exists due to the existence of morality. The argument is based on a priori knowledge. So, rather than developing the argument by experience, he turned to the moral law within us for evidence, which is an innate understanding he believed came from God.
Kant’s moral argument is based on the idea that our morality is objective and universal, because we all have the same understanding of morality. For example, actions like murder and rape will always be wrong. Thus, he would argue that culture, circumstances or period of history is irrelevant and so actions are either right or wrong, which also portrays his absolute approach for the argument.
Kant’s moral argument involves following the categorical imperative, which is a right action carried out for no other reason than duty itself, rather than getting something out of the action.
Kant’s argument consists of three main parts, which are called the postulates of morality. The first one is autonomy, which is the idea that an action is moral if you choose to do it. For example, if you were schizophrenic who hears voices telling you to rob a bank and then you do it, it’s not a moral decision. Kant believed that if we were not free to make our own decisions than we could achieve a state of moral perfection because we would not be in control or responsible for our good or bad actions. This idea also means Kant rejects the divine command theory and that what is right is what God commands us to do. He believed that God wills the moral law, which we discover through reason.
The second postulate of Kant’s argument is immortality, the idea that there must be an afterlife for us which gives us perfect happiness. This is because even if we carry out virtuous acts in this world, they could still lead to bad outcomes which could make us or other people involved unhappy. Therefore, perfect virtue we carry out in this world must be rewarded by perfect happiness, which must exist in the next life.
The third postulate for his argument is God. This is assumed because if there is another life where humans can achieve immortality, God is the necessary connection between virtue and happiness which is implied by summum bonum, which is the idea of the supreme good. Since we are obliged to attain summum bonum, God must exist to make sure this occurs.
To conclude, his argument consisted of it being logical for perfect virtue to be rewarded by perfect happiness, this happiness cannot be achieved without God and an afterlife, so therefore God must exist to provide us with the summum bonum.

b) ‘Moral awareness has nothing to do with God’. Discuss
Some would agree with the statement they would believe our sense of morality is not a universal, objective code coming from code, Rather, it is relative, which can be portrayed by the idea of cultural relativism. This is the idea that society approves and disapproves of certain actions, due to the situation’s own demands for human development in that particular context. Therefore, these people would argue that morality is a product of human culture rather than God.
However, some would disagree with the statement and say God is related to our moral awareness, instead of cultural relativism for example. This is because they could argue morality is objective and there is some things that are always considered either right or wrong. This can be presented by the universal human rights, which is an objective idea that consist of rights that all humans should have. Also, these people could argue that it is common sense that to behave morally we should behave consistently, thus this shows an absolute idea makes more logical sense than a relativist approach. This would favour Kant’s argument that links our sense of morality to the existence of God.
On the other hand, scientists would argue that morality could have nothing to do with God without having to be relativist. Dawkins is responsible for the theory of evolution, so he would argue that as humanity evolves, so does its moral consciousness. If we lived in an immoral society where murder was normal, we would have quickly died out as a species. Therefore, he would argue our moral values do not come from God but are evolved attitudes to help us survive.
However, some people, like Divine Command theorists, would still argue that there must be a purpose for being good. They would see this purpose as being God. So, they would argue that if people are perfectly virtuous in this life it will gain them a connection with God and happiness in the next, which is why we have any reason to be moral at all. As, when we are being moral, we do not consider the implications they have on the future of our species, like evolution suggests. These people would therefore argue that our morality is indeed due to God.

Hi I'm also doing RS this year!! But I do Philosophy and Jewish Scriptures... There's only a few things that I would comment on fir your part a):
-You didn't comment on the concept of moral absolutism.... Although you did mention it implicitly you did not overtly refer to the concept
-Furthermore, if you don't mind me saying whilst the Schizophrenic example was interesting I would not necessarily use it in this argument. Rather, I would discuss the importance of Conscience as a precursor for determining our morality and go onto explain that Kant argues that our conscience is in fact the voice of the divine
-And finally I would recommend revisiting previous concepts of altruism and duty.... and when you are referring to the Summum bonus I would recommend making reference to the respite for the virtuous and how Kant believes that we are all striving for Summum bonus

For your B part I can think of one gleaming error:
-YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED FREUD! Id, super ego and ego... Whilst are terribly complicated form the basis of great critical responses
-I'd also talk about the subjectivity and realisation of morality to challenge others

That's all I can think of in an otherwise faultless essay! Good luck in the exam!

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 39

Laurenjjjs

Original post by The Empire Odyssey

If you need any advice, feel free to reply. I've just completing this. After being predicted a C for my A-level, I got a B (it was my hated subject).

Have some fabulous resourcing and revision aids you could use too :smile:

Hey how did you get a B? I feel like I'm really struggling im literally just trying to memorise the topics now, my essay writing skills are terrible as I struggle to structure essays. Times running out and I'm feeling really negative to the point where all I want to do is pass and get a C :frown:

do I still have time to turn this around?

OCR Philosophy and Ethics Study Group (AS & A2)

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you