The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion]

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Noodlzzz
Can anyone explain Prichard and Ross' contributions to intutionism? Not really getting :/


Prichard
Prichard believed that we use both our faulty of reason and intuition in moral dilemmas. Our reason gathers together the facts whilst our intuition uses these facts and decides what to do with them.

E.g. When considering whether to commit suicide, our reason will collate the facts such as whether it will cause pain to us and our families whilst our intuition decides whether we suicide is actually good or bad, and whether we should go ahead with it. This explains why sometimes, we are shocked by people’s reactions to situations – our intuition may tell us to do something that others will do differently.

Moral obligations help our intuition decide what to do. These are like first impressions we gain from a situation. However, these obligations can cause moral dilemmas when they come into conflict with one another. E.g. If your best friend committed murder and you swore to secrecy, and the police late questioned you on this – there is a conflict between loyalty and trust. Do you breech your friend’s loyalty in a bid to remain honest and truthful to the police? In this case, it is evident that there is a moral dilemma

There are different levels in the ability to intuit – apply your intuition to other situations. Prichard argues that different people have clearer intuitions of moral obligations than others

Ross
Ross built upon Moore and Prichard’s work, accepting Moore’s argument that you cannot define goodness in natural terms. He argued that there are seven prima facie duties, which are duties on first appearance. They are promise-keeping, non-maleficence , beneficence, respect, reparation for harm done, justice, self-improvement and gratitude.

We are expected to follow these prima facie duties, unless there is a higher duty that overrides it.

Oh and he also said that •some actions are good to do, whilst others are right to do. Something can be a right action, but if it is done for the wrong reason then it may not be good. E.g. Giving charity is a right action, but if done to show off then it is not necessarily good
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by purplefrog
last two papers, not years :p: the main focus was on business ethics for the last two papers and then on environmental ethics for the two papers before that (incl. specimen)


Oh thanks! :smile: I dunno if I want it to come up though. I'm still feeling a bit uneasy about that unit
Can someone explain the views of Augustine and Calvin on Theological Determinism/Predestination please?

My teacher barely taught this!

Thanks :smile:
Reply 143
Avatar for jbarfie
jbarfie
Noticed that life after death and religious language have appeared on all the papers! I recoken both won't come!
Reply 144
Avatar for fb5300
fb5300
does anyone know what the january 2011 OCR A2 questions were for religious ethics please ?? x
Original post by fb5300
does anyone know what the january 2011 OCR A2 questions were for religious ethics please ?? x


Spoiler

(edited 12 years ago)
sorry, I'm probably being really idiotic but could someone please clarify for me:
Hare's view of Prescriptivism...

I can't get my head round how it is a non-cognitive theory yet the fact something is valued as 'good', in order for us to prescribe it, is based on 'a set of moral standards' - so therefore it seems it's cognitive?

Would you just say it's a cognitive aspect in an essentially non-cognitive theory or am I just getting confused?!

Could someone please point out the strengths and weaknesses too please, as before I thought a weakness was that someone could prescribe anything they wanted depending on their own view of morality/their own principles. but on http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-06-00.htm it says "To think rationally about ethics, we need to be informed, imaginative, and consistent; the most important part of consistency is to follow the golden rule. This approach can show that Nazi moral beliefs are irrational -- since Nazis wouldn't be consistent in their moral beliefs if they knew the facts of the case and exercised their imagination."!?!

Thank you to anyone that can help me out!!!
(sorry for the long post) I'm stressing now, as I haven't even covered 1 topic for both philos and ethics in thorough detail, let alone remember half the views of particular scholars.... aaaah
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 147
Avatar for anick_xx
anick_xx
Hi I'm also doing the A2 Philosophy paper on the 13th June.

I was thinking of only revising life after death, religious experience + the nature of god... There is so much to do and so little time I doubt I'll be able to get through anything else :s-smilie:
Do you think it i just revise those 3 topics really really well I'd be okay?

As there's only 5 topics + we only have to answer 2 questions do you think I could get away with it?

PLEASE HELP, I'm really stressed :frown:
Original post by anick_xx
Hi I'm also doing the A2 Philosophy paper on the 13th June.

I was thinking of only revising life after death, religious experience + the nature of god... There is so much to do and so little time I doubt I'll be able to get through anything else :s-smilie:
Do you think it i just revise those 3 topics really really well I'd be okay?

As there's only 5 topics + we only have to answer 2 questions do you think I could get away with it?

PLEASE HELP, I'm really stressed :frown:


Skipping 1 is ok, 2+ is a big risk.
Original post by anick_xx
Hi I'm also doing the A2 Philosophy paper on the 13th June.

I was thinking of only revising life after death, religious experience + the nature of god... There is so much to do and so little time I doubt I'll be able to get through anything else :s-smilie:
Do you think it i just revise those 3 topics really really well I'd be okay?

As there's only 5 topics + we only have to answer 2 questions do you think I could get away with it?

PLEASE HELP, I'm really stressed :frown:


I would only recommend not learning one... learn 4 really well as it is far less of a gamble just in case one of the topics you thought you loved comes up with a really awkward question making you answer two lesser topics instead.
Original post by mytsrusername
sorry, I'm probably being really idiotic but could someone please clarify for me:
Hare's view of Prescriptivism...

I can't get my head round how it is a non-cognitive theory yet the fact something is valued as 'good', in order for us to prescribe it, is based on 'a set of moral standards' - so therefore it seems it's cognitive?

Would you just say it's a cognitive aspect in an essentially non-cognitive theory or am I just getting confused?!

Could someone please point out the strengths and weaknesses too please, as before I thought a weakness was that someone could prescribe anything they wanted depending on their own view of morality/their own principles. but on http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-06-00.htm it says "To think rationally about ethics, we need to be informed, imaginative, and consistent; the most important part of consistency is to follow the golden rule. This approach can show that Nazi moral beliefs are irrational -- since Nazis wouldn't be consistent in their moral beliefs if they knew the facts of the case and exercised their imagination."!?!

Thank you to anyone that can help me out!!!
(sorry for the long post) I'm stressing now, as I haven't even covered 1 topic for both philos and ethics in thorough detail, let alone remember half the views of particular scholars.... aaaah


The way I see it is that Prescriptivism is sort of an extension of Ayer's Emotivism. When we make moral statements, we are expressing our opinions about a certai action, but we are also prescribing it to others, which is something that Ayer does not discuss.

As part of emotivism, Ayer said that only cognitive language is meaningful - something which is factual and can proven true or false. Everything else is simply an expression of our opinion - therefore, ethical language is non-cognitive.

In the same way, Prescriptivist's such as Hare argued that ethical language is about us expressing our own opinions - like Ayer - but at the same time, we are also prescribing these as laws to others. So when talking about murder being wrong, we are saying that 'We do not like murder and noone should commit murder'. We are doing more than what Ayer says; we are not JUST expressing our opinion, we are also saying what others should and shouldn't do.

So, since it's still opinion based, it is in essence a non-cognitive theory. It is not factual, but an opinion which we impose upon others.

If I'm wrong here, I hope someone jumps in and tells me!

Hopefully that makes sense :smile:


Ohhh and to answer your point about strengths and weaknesses, I'd agree! I think that a main weakness of it is that if we genuinely think something is good, then we will have no problem prescribing it as a law to others. Take Hitler for example. He thought that ethnic cleansing was morally right, and happily prescribed this law; we know that this is wrong, but this theory supports his behaviour.

Other weaknesses:
- How do we settle conflicts? One person may think that murder is acceptable, whilst others would oppose it.
- It suggests that there are no moral absolutes - everything is based upon our opinion. So things like murder are not universally wrong, it depends upon the person.

Strengths:
- It explains why we often disagree about what is right and wrong.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 151
Avatar for anick_xx
anick_xx
Original post by purplefrog
I would only recommend not learning one... learn 4 really well as it is far less of a gamble just in case one of the topics you thought you loved comes up with a really awkward question making you answer two lesser topics instead.


Thanks for your help :smile: Yeah i was thinking about it + learning only 3 is a bit risky actually I'll learn miracles too and leave religious language :smile:
Original post by mytsrusername
sorry, I'm probably being really idiotic but could someone please clarify for me:
Hare's view of Prescriptivism...

I can't get my head round how it is a non-cognitive theory yet the fact something is valued as 'good', in order for us to prescribe it, is based on 'a set of moral standards' - so therefore it seems it's cognitive?

Would you just say it's a cognitive aspect in an essentially non-cognitive theory or am I just getting confused?!

Could someone please point out the strengths and weaknesses too please, as before I thought a weakness was that someone could prescribe anything they wanted depending on their own view of morality/their own principles. but on http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-06-00.htm it says "To think rationally about ethics, we need to be informed, imaginative, and consistent; the most important part of consistency is to follow the golden rule. This approach can show that Nazi moral beliefs are irrational -- since Nazis wouldn't be consistent in their moral beliefs if they knew the facts of the case and exercised their imagination."!?!

Thank you to anyone that can help me out!!!
(sorry for the long post) I'm stressing now, as I haven't even covered 1 topic for both philos and ethics in thorough detail, let alone remember half the views of particular scholars.... aaaah


Cognitive and non-cognitive refer to meaning not external (where prescribing action is meaningful to that individual, and saying 'boo' murder is also meaningful to them) but internal. Aka does the word good in and of itself have meaning?

Cognitive theories say that yes, good does have an internal absolute and universal meaning (they differ on how to find it and what this entails) whereas non-cognitive theories say no. They believe the word good only has external meaning for that individual. The word 'good' doesn't have anything intrinsic about it that implies what is right, it is the individuals own meaning they attach good
Reply 153
Avatar for anick_xx
anick_xx
Original post by Noodlzzz
Skipping 1 is ok, 2+ is a big risk.


Yeah I agree :smile:
I'll do life after death, religious exp, nature of god and miracles :smile:
Original post by Noodlzzz
How can a God who is all loving allow evil? How can a God who is all knowing allow free will? Either he lacks an attribute, or he is or he is not the traditional God. Either way he is not worthy of worship.


oh yes, I remember now. Thanks!
Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp
x

Original post by Noodlzzz
x


Is anybody able to explain and distinguish between Liberty of Spontaneity and Liberty of Indifference to me? Which one promotes free will and choosing?

I keep getting muddled up between the two and can't link my scholars to them :angry:
Any help in their definitions/implications and linking to scholars will be so much help
Original post by purplefrog
Is anybody able to explain and distinguish between Liberty of Spontaneity and Liberty of Indifference to me? Which one promotes free will and choosing?

I keep getting muddled up between the two and can't link my scholars to them :angry:
Any help in their definitions/implications and linking to scholars will be so much help


Liberty of indifference is the idea that the deliberation we feel in an ethical dilemma is real. We have the free will to choose between abortion and keeping the baby. Smart coined the the term 'utopia thesis'. The idea that God created man wholly good, and this moral goodness requires a flexible nature to choose ones own path, including giving in to temptations. This is very similar to the free will defence

Liberty of spontaneity is the idea that while we feel we have a sense of deliberation in a moral dilemma, it is an illusion. If we understand free will like scientists do (for exmple, neuroscience shows that our brain 'chooses' 7 seconds before our consicous choice does) then we would accept hard determinism. Locke gave the example of a man waking up in a locked room. He thinks he's free to walk out the door, but this is just an illusion. Voltaire argued that this illusion sense of free will is they're conscious of their actions, but ignorant of the causes. He gave the example of a drunk man. He is conscious he's talking a load of bull, but he believes that the cause is his free will not the alcohol
Original post by Noodlzzz
Liberty of indifference is the idea that the deliberation we feel in an ethical dilemma is real. We have the free will to choose between abortion and keeping the baby. Smart coined the the term 'utopia thesis'. The idea that God created man wholly good, and this moral goodness requires a flexible nature to choose ones own path, including giving in to temptations. This is very similar to the free will defence

Liberty of spontaneity is the idea that while we feel we have a sense of deliberation in a moral dilemma, it is an illusion. If we understand free will like scientists do (for exmple, neuroscience shows that our brain 'chooses' 7 seconds before our consicous choice does) then we would accept hard determinism. Locke gave the example of a man waking up in a locked room. He thinks he's free to walk out the door, but this is just an illusion. Voltaire argued that this illusion sense of free will is they're conscious of their actions, but ignorant of the causes. He gave the example of a drunk man. He is conscious he's talking a load of bull, but he believes that the cause is his free will not the alcohol


So spontaneity = determination and indifference = free will?

very counter-intuitive names :rolleyes:
Original post by purplefrog
So spontaneity = determination and indifference = free will?

very counter-intuitive names :rolleyes:


Yes, and yes very misleading!

What about remember it as spontaneity as in spontaneous combustion - we don't choose to combust!
Original post by Noodlzzz
Yes, and yes very misleading!

What about remember it as spontaneity as in spontaneous combustion - we don't choose to combust!


Genius :biggrin: Also makes a great analogy to the wanabe-medic that is me
I would rep you, but it says I need to rep other people before repping you again...

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you