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

Is anyone else not revising business and the environment for ethics on monday? I Havnt been taught it so was gonna risk not doing it in hope i can do 2 from the other 3.

What do you reckon will be on the ethics paper?

Reply 409

Kar09

Original post by umm123

Thankyou

I'm still a little unsure as to what counts as a numinous experience though.

As the definition talks of a 'wholly other' then surely its any experience where God or a higher power presents himself directly?

If this were the case then would religious experiences such as visions/voices count as a 'numinous' experience? Furthermore, if this were true then what makes a numinous experience vastly different from your bog standard religious experience? :colondollar:

If that makes any sense at all :tongue:

Ermm.. yeah, I guess you could say that 'the wholly other' can be interpreted to be an experience where God or a higher power presents himself directly...

Hahaha.. good evaluation skills. :wink:

Ermm.. I suppose you could mention in the essay that visions/voices can be 'numinous' experiences as the mystic may interpret it to be God's revelation to him/her. However, you could question whether the voice weren't from anything else. For example, the voice may be telling the person to go and kill another person. This would not be the voice of God. Also, you could mention that J.L. Mackie states that the person may be under the influence of drugs. Hmm.. you could question in the essay whether there is a difference between a numinous experience and a religious experience, I guess.

Sorry if it doesn't help. :redface:

Reply 410

Ideal.

Original post by DaintyDoll

I don't think it has meaning because it's classed as an individual's opinion and so cannot be verified as meaningful.

if this isn't right I do apologise :smile:

Ok. Just looked up the mark scheme and it says this: "Candidates might consider what is meant by the word ‘meaningful’ according to the approaches of cognitivists and non-cognitivists in meta-ethics."

Does anyone know what meaningful means to each of them?

Reply 411

Hi guys

I am rather confused about Richard Swinburne and his criteria for knowing if a religious experience is genuine or not. What is the difference between the principle of testimony and the principle of credulity? They both seem the same to me :/

Also, does anyone know Anthony Flew's idea of the ten leaky buckets? I have forgotten it and can't find it in my notes anywhere (they are a mess!)

Reply 412

Original post by Ideal.

Ok. Just looked up the mark scheme and it says this: "Candidates might consider what is meant by the word ‘meaningful’ according to the approaches of cognitivists and non-cognitivists in meta-ethics."

Does anyone know what meaningful means to each of them?

Cognitivists = ethical language is meaningful
Naturalism - ethical language is meaningful as it is subject to true and false the same as non ethical language
Non-naturalism - ethical language is not subject to true or false but is meaningful because we know intiutively what people mean by ethical words.

Non-cognitivists - ethical language is not meaningful as it is not subject to true or false
Emotivism - ethical language is not meaningful as it is simply a statement of emotion

Reply 413

Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
How would you answer it?

Reply 414

Oxmatt

Original post by sloth1

Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
How would you answer it?

We're due a meta-ethics question, so I don't see why not. And that's the sort of 'look at me, I'm a stretch and challenge question' question that they like to ask these days.

Seems to me to be a roundabout way of asking 'assess intuitionism'. So I'd probably do that - look at whether intuitionism holds water. That said, it could easily end up being an absolutism/relativism question, or even a conscience question. I'd probably try and mix in as much as possible (though not too much just to keep it coherent).

Reply 415

Original post by sloth1

Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
How would you answer it?

Hmm, that would be a tough one because you could interpret that either as meta-ethics and if people can understand good in a meaningful way, or you could interpret is as conscience...

Reply 416

Aw yeah i didnt even think it could have been conscience but it could be now you've said it. I think there's definitely gonna be a meta question though, I really dont like that everyone knows what good is, I hope its something different :/

Reply 417

emilylikeeee

11

Original post by zszs

Can anyone explain Maurice Wiles to me please? What is he going on about?? :s-smilie:

Hello

I'm going to use this a revision exercise :smile:

Hope it helps!

• Christian Theologian who disagreed that God performs miracles
• In the NT Jesus turns water into wine to avoid a host’s embarrassment. As kind as this may be, it seems odd that God would intervene there and yet allow the holocaust take place. Wiles claims the God of the Bible is arbitrary and unfair, benevolence cannot exist if God performs miracles. A God who performs miracles is not worthy of worship.
• The sole activity of God is creation and sustaining of the universe, this was his one and only miracle. All other miracle stories are true in only a symbolic sense.
• As further evidence against miracles, Wiles notes that as “violations of nature” miracles are by definition rare, else the concept of laws would become meaningless.
• Strengths of Wiles’ view- Allows a belief in God but also a firm knowledge of science. It could be seen to solve the problem of evil- God does not intervene against evil because he is bound by the laws of nature and because if he intervened for one, he’d have to intervene for all (or else he’d be showing favouritism).
• Weaknesses of Wiles’ view- Does not meet traditional Christian view which shows God acting more directly and suggests many Biblical stories are not true. Wiles’ ideas rely on the view that we can rationalise God, but perhaps we can’t and should accept that we will never truly understand why God may appear arbitrary.

Reply 418

Original post by sloth1

Aw yeah i didnt even think it could have been conscience but it could be now you've said it. I think there's definitely gonna be a meta question though, I really dont like that everyone knows what good is, I hope its something different :/

I reckon there is almost guaranteed to be a meta-ethics question as it hasn't come up since Jan 2010. If it were the everyone knows what good is question, it would basically just be asking you to compare cognitive and non-cognitive theories, so it probably wouldn't be that bad :smile:

Don't worry yourself unnecessarily!

Reply 419