Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Genius

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...

Your also a UCL'ian right? Found out Hondereich is a philosophy lecturer there!

Reply 161

purplefrog

Original post by Noodlzzz

Your also a UCL'ian right? Found out Hondereich is a philosophy lecturer there!

Indeed I am :yes:

No way! That's incredible!! *goes off to google*
If I get my grades, I'll definitely be sneaking into some philosophy lectures then by the looks of things :p:

Reply 162

jbarfie

Could someone just confirm for me the views of Hume on free will and determinism as one book is telling me he's a libiterian and another that he's a soft determinist!?

Reply 163

Noodlzzz

Original post by jbarfie

Could someone just confirm for me the views of Hume on free will and determinism as one book is telling me he's a libiterian and another that he's a soft determinist!?

He's a bit of both. Hume believed we are completely free (if you remember his is/ought naturalistic fallacy, he argued we have no obligation & therefore free). However, he critises other libertarians for going as far as to dismiss causality. He says that we need some determinism to have free will. For example:

I want to hit you --> I do hit you

If there was no causal chain of desire to action, or even the physics of me punching you everything would be random. And if everything is random, we can't have moral responsibility as by me hitting you, we can trace that back to my desire to do so and therefore label me as morally responsible. If no causal chain existed and my desire to hit you led me to hug you instead then I am not free or responsible.

Reply 164

jbarfie

Original post by Noodlzzz

Ah ok so determinism sort of motivates our action but we still decide if we do that action?

Reply 165

Noodlzzz

Original post by jbarfie

Ah ok so determinism sort of motivates our action but we still decide if we do that action?

We are constrained by laws of cause and effect, but this is what makes us free. So yes, we do have freedom to decide over an action and determinism does cause the action

Reply 166

jbarfie

Original post by Noodlzzz

We are constrained by laws of cause and effect, but this is what makes us free. So yes, we do have freedom to decide over an action and determinism does cause the action

Ok thanks for your help :smile:

Reply 167

SpriteOrSevenUp

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

Sorry I haven't even heard of that :O but it seems like someone has already answered your question :smile:

Reply 168

Torrresss

"Religious Language is meaningless" Discuss.

What Key points need to be made in this essay. I am really struggling to structure a good plan for this q.

Reply 169

jbarfie

Original post by Torrresss

"Religious Language is meaningless" Discuss.

What Key points need to be made in this essay. I am really struggling to structure a good plan for this q.

This is a really open question!
But it's asking you to consider the fact that ethical language is meaningless so you have to consider staring with verification and falsification then demonstrate how it could have meaning e.g symbol, analogy, language games, via negativa

Reply 170

Noodlzzz

Original post by Torrresss

"Religious Language is meaningless" Discuss.

What Key points need to be made in this essay. I am really struggling to structure a good plan for this q.

Cognitive theories
Logical positivists/Vienna circle
Verification principle - Ayer said religious language is meaningless as it can't be verified (remember emotivism?) distinguished between strong and weak verification - however, Hick said that through eschtalogical verification we can verify if God exists
Falsification principle - influenced by Karl Popper. Statements only have meaning if they can be falsified. Flew said that religious don't allow anything to be said against God and therefore their statements are meaningless 'God dies a death of a thousand qualifications'. Hare said that people have bliks, and as only beliefs can't be verified or falsified - they are meaningless to the outside world, but to that individual it has a lot of meaning. Mitchell said that religious do allow falsifications, but they put faith first and use qualifiers
Via negativia - it is very hard to talk about God univocally or equivocally without bringing him down to human level or getting something wrong. Instead we must say what he is not e.g. he is not evil. So if religious langauge is said correctly in this way it is meaningful, anything propositional is not
Non-cognitive theories
Wittgenstein - proposed theory of language game - words only have meaning in context and in certain groups. Saying God is good is meaningful until I tell it to an atheist and then we're talking about two different versions of 'good' and 'God'
Analogy, symbol and myth - wouldn't talk about them as much as the others but say they do have non-cognitive meaning but need to be understood in certain ways, not as univocal propositions
If you have time you could chuck in some meta-ethics to be synoptic

Reply 171

Oxmatt

Does anybody know what Ted Honderich's distinctive views are... I know he's a hard determinist but not much else specific to him, and he's named on the syllabus, so I'm stumped.

Reply 172

Noodlzzz

Original post by Oxmatt

Does anybody know what Ted Honderich's distinctive views are... I know he's a hard determinist but not much else specific to him, and he's named on the syllabus, so I'm stumped.

Most people don't accept hard determinism because of the depressing nature of it. We have an innate hope that we're, if we accept the truth of hard determinism we're accepting an 'incubus of depressing reality'. When we accept hard determinism we lose moral responsibility, hope and rationalisation of punishment

Reply 173

Anna Louise

Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp

Hahahahahaha!! There's nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm! aha :P

Meta-Ethics better come up! If it doesn't then I am going to rip my exam paper up and storm out of the room. Haha jokes, I need an A* in this subject fml...no chance of me storming out unfortunately :frown:

hahahaha

My revision is ok, but there's far too much to learn :frown:

How about you?

PS: Sorry for the late reply!

hahaa :P i know ! i'm kinda putting all my eggs in one basket here :P lmao i think i might join you in that ! samee, well not for uni, but to keep the old parents happy, i have 196 ums at the moment so i'm confident on getting an A but i think an A* may be pushing it a bit. What about you ? what did you get last year ? and how come you really need an a*.. ? your not one of those oxbridge geeks are you.. ? :tongue:

hahaa jokess ! i know, it's literally killing me ! the same :/ but mehh i'll push through !

and it's okay, only just saw your reply so i'm a bit late in getting back to you too.. must be karma :wink:

ahaa !

Reply 174

purplefrog

Got two topics left to learn (and consequently revise :p:

) Life after death and Nature of God!
What should I revise next? These are my worst two topics by far (combined with business ethics)... I'm not sure which gives me the most material to write in essays though (I'm thinking its life after death?) Can anybody point me in the right direction as to which allows me to develop an argument more easily without getting lost in clouds of logic? Joys of self-teaching.

Reply 175

Oxmatt

Original post by Noodlzzz

Many thanks :smile:

Reply 176

Cluedosays

What do you think some likely questions will be on? Most of the topics have been pretty well covered...

Reply 177

Dixxy

Original post by Cluedosays

What do you think some likely questions will be on? Most of the topics have been pretty well covered...

i fear Meta Ethics may make an appearance. Other than that, my money is on business ethics (possibly in relation to an ethical theory)

as for philosophy.. omnipotence or god as eternal (for attributes of god) and verification/falsification (religious language) have yet to make an appearance

i would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this

Reply 178

Ideal.

Both sexual ethics AND business/enviromental ethics have come up every time. My bet is at least one of them won't be in the paper (Probably sexual ethics, as there's less in it). I have a strong feeling that Virtue ethics and Meta ethics will come up - which is good, as they're my favourite topics :smile:

Reply 179

SpriteOrSevenUp

Original post by Dixxy

Yeah I've predicted that for Philosophy it will be Religious Language (Falsification, Verficiation, Via Negativa or Language Games) and the Nature of God Omnipotence or Benevolence)

For Ethics I say Virtue Ethics and Meta-Ethics (Or so I hope...those are my two favourite units!)