Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion]
Scroll to see replies
Original post by xbabycakes
This is true. You're one of the lucky ones! I'm already kind of in biology mode because of the resit, but to change from philosophy to biology in less than an hour is going to be tricky!
That's very true, but then once you are in the exam I'm sure you will be fine! Plus, although resits are a pain, it will help you in the long run when doing the synoptic elements of unit 5
Original post by Anna Louise
okay thank you so if you don't include things learnt from as would this mean we can't hit the a* band ?
and i'm guessing stating that, in the topic of life after death, the fact that plato believed the 'goal' of the sole was to re-call what it previously knew about the 'world of the forms', prior to being incarnated within a body, is including this synoptic element ?
i've also seen john hick's eschatological aspect mentioned within this topic, think this was about how 'good' people went to heaven- a form of reward, and 'wicked' to hell and a state of separation from god- a form of punishment, which falls in line with the christians belief about life after death.. please correct me if i'm wrong !
so yeahh if i mentioned things like this would this be hitting the synoptic element of paper ? sorry if i'm coming across thick
i just really want to keep my a* !
so if you don't include things learnt from as would this mean we can't hit the a* band ? and i'm guessing stating that, in the topic of life after death, the fact that plato believed the 'goal' of the sole was to re-call what it previously knew about the 'world of the forms', prior to being incarnated within a body, is including this synoptic element ?
i've also seen john hick's eschatological aspect mentioned within this topic, think this was about how 'good' people went to heaven- a form of reward, and 'wicked' to hell and a state of separation from god- a form of punishment, which falls in line with the christians belief about life after death.. please correct me if i'm wrong !
so yeahh if i mentioned things like this would this be hitting the synoptic element of paper ? sorry if i'm coming across thick
i just really want to keep my a* !Yes they'd all be included. I guess the examiners just want to look for an all-rounded answer. Obviously they'll be more synoptic bits for some topics than for others. For example, on the application of bussiness/sexual ethics, kant, utilitarianism and natural law are all synoptic because we did them last year.
Original post by skygirl999
That's very true, but then once you are in the exam I'm sure you will be fine! Plus, although resits are a pain, it will help you in the long run when doing the synoptic elements of unit 5
Yep. I re-sat Biol 1 as well (don't laugh..
) because I wanted to get 90+ to increase my chances of getting an A (I got a B last year). So that's helped with synoptic too. I just need to go over Biol 2 now as well! Gahhh it's never ending 
Original post by goofy-blues
so.. is it fair to say meta ethics and virtue ethics will defs come up as each has only come up once?
personally i think they should give the applied ones a break - they come up EVERY time.
personally i think they should give the applied ones a break - they come up EVERY time.
Yeah I think will both be on, What kind of question do you think it will be? because they've already had describe strengths and weaknesses.
Could someone give me an example of a soft determinism view?
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Original post by philly.tidd
Anyone got a concise list of criticisms of virtue ethics?
It occurs to me that it is not applicable to the modern world (arguably) as people are easily tempted and decieved about what will make them a better person (I don't actually agree with this)
Another stems from this - it is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted
Golden Mean promotes mediocrity (arguably just a misunderstanding of Aristotle)
This is my problem I think, every criticism I think of seems to just be from a misunderstanding of the theory itself and therefore no real threat.
Help would be appreciated, ta
EDIT: I suppose also we can be confused about who is our role model - i.e. in tyrannical regimes such as those in the Middle East or North Korea
It occurs to me that it is not applicable to the modern world (arguably) as people are easily tempted and decieved about what will make them a better person (I don't actually agree with this)
Another stems from this - it is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted
Golden Mean promotes mediocrity (arguably just a misunderstanding of Aristotle)
This is my problem I think, every criticism I think of seems to just be from a misunderstanding of the theory itself and therefore no real threat.
Help would be appreciated, ta
EDIT: I suppose also we can be confused about who is our role model - i.e. in tyrannical regimes such as those in the Middle East or North Korea
Criticisms
- Doesn't actually tell you how to act in an ethical dilemma, perhaps utilitarianism etc gives you more help. We have to rely on the fact that we are virtuous enough to do the right thing. A theory which fails to guide is not a good theory. [Hursthouse replied to this criticism saying that the point of virtue ethics isn't to tell you how to act virtuously but how a virtuous person would think].
- There is no way of deciding which virtue to follow when two virtues clash unless one is a Cardinal virtue [Macintrye said to consider Lifes Narative Unity and decide whats most important to your telos if you're confused with virtues]
- Some morals could be seen to be developed immorally. Courage could be gained through fighting in a war, but if you disagree with the war itself you may not think the agent is moral.
- The fact that there is no numerical value between excess/golden mean/ deficiency makes its confusing, subjective and hard to know what to do
- Roubert Louden says that there some actions which should be completely morally wrong at all times, eg rape, Aristotle does not allow for any absolute rules at all.
- Morality should be about other people as it deals with our actions and the way in which they effect others. Virtue ethics is near selfish as it only deals with the agent itself [Aristotle and others said that virtues are all about developing the good of society at the same time as the good of the individual. The two are not separate things]
- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck; many things outside our control influence or moral development. If the development of virtue (and vice) is subject to luck, is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that was outside of their control? Further, some accounts of virtue are dependent on the availability of external goods. Friendship with other virtuous agents is so central to Aristotelian virtue that a life devoid of virtuous friendship will be lacking in eudaimonia. However, we have no control over the availability of the right friends. How can we then praise the virtuous and blame the vicious if their development and respective virtue and vice were not under their control?
Hope that helps, if you want strengths as well let me know.
Original post by DaintyDoll
Could someone give me an example of a soft determinism view?
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Ghandi fasted because he wanted to free India (free choice) but the desire to fast was determined by his upbringing and religion
Original post by DaintyDoll
Could someone give me an example of a soft determinism view?
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Like a situation where our action is considered free and one that would be considered determined from a compatible view
Thank you
Soft determinism isn't sometimes your free somtimes your determined, rather every action has a prior causes but these are so complex and numerous they don't mediate our freedom.
For example, I punch you. This can be explained by my high stress levels causing changes in my brain, being provoked, a genetic vulnerability towards aggression, boredom etc. but to be able to explain all these determinisms is impssible and so vast it's not a good enough explanation for why I shouldn't be morally responsible. I punched you regardless of why, I shoud be punished.
Original post by emilylikeeee
Criticisms
- Doesn't actually tell you how to act in an ethical dilemma, perhaps utilitarianism etc gives you more help. We have to rely on the fact that we are virtuous enough to do the right thing. A theory which fails to guide is not a good theory. [Hursthouse replied to this criticism saying that the point of virtue ethics isn't to tell you how to act virtuously but how a virtuous person would think].
- There is no way of deciding which virtue to follow when two virtues clash unless one is a Cardinal virtue [Macintrye said to consider Lifes Narative Unity and decide whats most important to your telos if you're confused with virtues]
- Some morals could be seen to be developed immorally. Courage could be gained through fighting in a war, but if you disagree with the war itself you may not think the agent is moral.
- The fact that there is no numerical value between excess/golden mean/ deficiency makes its confusing, subjective and hard to know what to do
- Roubert Louden says that there some actions which should be completely morally wrong at all times, eg rape, Aristotle does not allow for any absolute rules at all.
- Morality should be about other people as it deals with our actions and the way in which they effect others. Virtue ethics is near selfish as it only deals with the agent itself [Aristotle and others said that virtues are all about developing the good of society at the same time as the good of the individual. The two are not separate things]
- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck; many things outside our control influence or moral development. If the development of virtue (and vice) is subject to luck, is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that was outside of their control? Further, some accounts of virtue are dependent on the availability of external goods. Friendship with other virtuous agents is so central to Aristotelian virtue that a life devoid of virtuous friendship will be lacking in eudaimonia. However, we have no control over the availability of the right friends. How can we then praise the virtuous and blame the vicious if their development and respective virtue and vice were not under their control?
Hope that helps, if you want strengths as well let me know.
- Doesn't actually tell you how to act in an ethical dilemma, perhaps utilitarianism etc gives you more help. We have to rely on the fact that we are virtuous enough to do the right thing. A theory which fails to guide is not a good theory. [Hursthouse replied to this criticism saying that the point of virtue ethics isn't to tell you how to act virtuously but how a virtuous person would think].
- There is no way of deciding which virtue to follow when two virtues clash unless one is a Cardinal virtue [Macintrye said to consider Lifes Narative Unity and decide whats most important to your telos if you're confused with virtues]
- Some morals could be seen to be developed immorally. Courage could be gained through fighting in a war, but if you disagree with the war itself you may not think the agent is moral.
- The fact that there is no numerical value between excess/golden mean/ deficiency makes its confusing, subjective and hard to know what to do
- Roubert Louden says that there some actions which should be completely morally wrong at all times, eg rape, Aristotle does not allow for any absolute rules at all.
- Morality should be about other people as it deals with our actions and the way in which they effect others. Virtue ethics is near selfish as it only deals with the agent itself [Aristotle and others said that virtues are all about developing the good of society at the same time as the good of the individual. The two are not separate things]
- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck- Virtue ethics leaves us open to luck; many things outside our control influence or moral development. If the development of virtue (and vice) is subject to luck, is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that was outside of their control? Further, some accounts of virtue are dependent on the availability of external goods. Friendship with other virtuous agents is so central to Aristotelian virtue that a life devoid of virtuous friendship will be lacking in eudaimonia. However, we have no control over the availability of the right friends. How can we then praise the virtuous and blame the vicious if their development and respective virtue and vice were not under their control?
Hope that helps, if you want strengths as well let me know.
Thanks! Yeah might as well go for strengths as well while we're at it...
I'm sure this has been done throughout the thread but what are the predictions for the philosophy paper? I took the ethics paper in Jan and I found it pretty difficult so I hope you lot get better papers
I'm hoping for a question on language games and one on one of God's attributes me thinkies.
I'm hoping for a question on language games and one on one of God's attributes me thinkies.
Original post by philly.tidd
Anyone got a concise list of criticisms of virtue ethics?
It occurs to me that it is not applicable to the modern world (arguably) as people are easily tempted and decieved about what will make them a better person (I don't actually agree with this)
Another stems from this - it is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted
Golden Mean promotes mediocrity (arguably just a misunderstanding of Aristotle)
This is my problem I think, every criticism I think of seems to just be from a misunderstanding of the theory itself and therefore no real threat.
Help would be appreciated, ta
EDIT: I suppose also we can be confused about who is our role model - i.e. in tyrannical regimes such as those in the Middle East or North Korea
It occurs to me that it is not applicable to the modern world (arguably) as people are easily tempted and decieved about what will make them a better person (I don't actually agree with this)
Another stems from this - it is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted
Golden Mean promotes mediocrity (arguably just a misunderstanding of Aristotle)
This is my problem I think, every criticism I think of seems to just be from a misunderstanding of the theory itself and therefore no real threat.
Help would be appreciated, ta
EDIT: I suppose also we can be confused about who is our role model - i.e. in tyrannical regimes such as those in the Middle East or North Korea
1. Criticism of Golden Mean. Doesn't work for every virtue, many virtues are not at a mid way point but inherently good, e.g. loyalty, promise-keeping, compassion. Good in themselves
2. What point between two extremes is the virtue found? Where is courage found between foolhardiness and cowardice?
3. Robert Louden argues that VE is of little practical help when a person is faced with a dilemma-we can't tell always tell what a virtuous person would do in our shoes. E.g. if baby is going to born with disabilities what would mother do? Some virtues conflict, e.g. being brave, compassionate and be pragmatic. Virtues seem to be mutually exclusive but when brought together clash
4. William Frankena argues that virtue cannot be separated from principles and rules as a different system. We know generosity to be a virtue because we recognise the principle which says we have a duty to those less fortunate than ourselves. Without such rules and principles we wouldn't know how to judge whether a characteristic was to be admired as a virtue
5. Some might argue that VE is self-centred because it is agent centred. Rather than helping someone out of genuine concern, VE outs oneself first to chosen course of action most beneficial to the character. Counter: it takes society seriously with eudaemonia
6. Argued that being and doing cannot be separated in such an easy way, one having priority over the other. Virtuous people cannot be just virtuous. Nobody can be generous without giving, or brave unless this is put into practise
7. Concept of virtue is culture dependent because VE is relativist. It is difficult to hold virtue up as the highest good when it is seen in different ways by society. In some parts of India funeral suicide is virtuous in other countries suicide is a sin. Challenges idea that we all recognise the virtuous person, also challenges the idea that virtuous character is unshakeable.
8. Because it depends on culture it may be sexist. Virtue comes from Latin meaning manliness. Characteristics of ideal man often different from those of ideal woman. Aristotle's own views that women were inferior to men, has influenced thinkers like Aquinas. A virtuous woman might be one who acts out her gender role as specified in society, but this concept of virtue is not accepted by many women. Mary Wollstonecraft argued in Vindication of the Rights of Women that concept of virtue excludes women because by definition it is involved with qualities of ideal manliness
9.Susan Wolf in Moral Saints argues that it is difficult to be attracted by concept of being virtuous person. People who cultivate virtues are likely to be boring, because their actions would devote them to activities and they would give up interesting hobbies. Argues that virtues should only be practised in moderation. Louis Pojman counters by saying that dullness is worth paying for saintliness
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by philly.tidd
Thanks! Yeah might as well go for strengths as well while we're at it...
Ahh well this is my virtuous deed for the day, I must be nearing eudaimonia by now... :')
- Can be followed by religious and secular groups. Religious people could model themselves on Jesus, non religious could model themselves on another person eg Mother Theresa
- Avoids the absolutist nature of deontological ethics and the subjectivist nature of teleological ethics, things are justified if eudaimonia is achieved
- Its based on character. Surely its better for someone to show compassion because its a virtue they have come to possess than because they think its their duty (as Kant says)
- Virtues develop ourselves and those around us EG we should kindness to improve ourselves, but this will generally have a beneficially effect on society and those around us as well. A eudaemonist would say that the good of the self and the good of others are not separate things.
DONE
Original post by Noodlzzz
Soft determinism isn't sometimes your free somtimes your determined, rather every action has a prior causes but these are so complex and numerous they don't mediate our freedom.
For example, I punch you. This can be explained by my high stress levels causing changes in my brain, being provoked, a genetic vulnerability towards aggression, boredom etc. but to be able to explain all these determinisms is impssible and so vast it's not a good enough explanation for why I shouldn't be morally responsible. I punched you regardless of why, I shoud be punished.
For example, I punch you. This can be explained by my high stress levels causing changes in my brain, being provoked, a genetic vulnerability towards aggression, boredom etc. but to be able to explain all these determinisms is impssible and so vast it's not a good enough explanation for why I shouldn't be morally responsible. I punched you regardless of why, I shoud be punished.
Ahh ok, thank you
Original post by KieranJones
Does anyone happen to have a model answer for any business/environmental/sexual ethics questions?
If a question like "To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering the issues surrounding homosexuality?" were to come up, I wouldn't know anything more I could say than:
-Traditional Christianity disapproves
-Modern protestantism approves
-Catholicism disapproves
-Christian approaches are therefore contradictory
For instance, what "ethical theories" do they mean? The only A2 ones I can think of are virtue ethics and Christian ethics, so do they want the student to just mention those two, or rely on the ethical theories taught at AS (Kant, Utilitarianism, etc)?
Please help - I desperately need an A in this subject!
Kieran
If a question like "To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering the issues surrounding homosexuality?" were to come up, I wouldn't know anything more I could say than:
-Traditional Christianity disapproves
-Modern protestantism approves
-Catholicism disapproves
-Christian approaches are therefore contradictory
For instance, what "ethical theories" do they mean? The only A2 ones I can think of are virtue ethics and Christian ethics, so do they want the student to just mention those two, or rely on the ethical theories taught at AS (Kant, Utilitarianism, etc)?
Please help - I desperately need an A in this subject!
Kieran
At A2 you need to know how all the AS ethical theories+virtue ethics apply to sexual ethics and environment/business ethics. In answer to your question, I think it would be good to contrast different ethical theories e.g. religious vs. non religious theories and assess the most helpful. Take a look at the mark scheme for the question
Original post by xbabycakes
Yep. I re-sat Biol 1 as well (don't laugh.. ) because I wanted to get 90+ to increase my chances of getting an A (I got a B last year). So that's helped with synoptic too. I just need to go over Biol 2 now as well! Gahhh it's never ending
) because I wanted to get 90+ to increase my chances of getting an A (I got a B last year). So that's helped with synoptic too. I just need to go over Biol 2 now as well! Gahhh it's never ending I'm not laughing, its better to do resits and get the grades than fail because you are too lazy! Besides, I have a friend who is literally resitting all the units this summer :/ I'm not sure A-levels were for her to be honest, because she is doing that for most subjects. As for it being never ending, it will all be over in like 2 weeks and then we have a massively long summer
Is biology going to be your last exam?Original post by xbabycakes
Yes they'd all be included. I guess the examiners just want to look for an all-rounded answer. Obviously they'll be more synoptic bits for some topics than for others. For example, on the application of bussiness/sexual ethics, kant, utilitarianism and natural law are all synoptic because we did them last year.
aw good ! thank you
yeahh i guess so ! god i hate this subject, because i'm soo bad at juggling the two subjects, can't believe we have to sit them on the same day this doesn't apply to any other humanities subject ! yeahh i guess so ! and ahh yeahh i hadn't thought of that ! thanks very much for your help
Original post by clementinemary
I'm sure this has been done throughout the thread but what are the predictions for the philosophy paper? I took the ethics paper in Jan and I found it pretty difficult so I hope you lot get better papers
I'm hoping for a question on language games and one on one of God's attributes me thinkies.
I'm hoping for a question on language games and one on one of God's attributes me thinkies.
i personally think both attributes of God and attributes of God will come up. That and life after death and either religious experience or revelation of scripture.. but apparently religious experience, miracles and revelation of scripture are merged
but i'm not entirely sure !anyways i'm putting my bets on life after death coming up and religious language so going to make sure i know those two uber well ! and then am going to have a look over religious experience. really wouldn't want to answer on attributes of God or revelation of scripture.. though i definitely think attributes will come up !
obviously i can't me entirely sure, so don't shoot the messenger ! hahaa :P hope this helps
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (J625/06-10) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- 2022 exam paper philosophy of religion,ethics and Buddhism.
- A Level Philosophy / Religious studies
- I need help for a levels
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- CCEA Religious Studies. GCSE and A-Level thread
- Philosophy A-Level advice
- OCR A Level Religious Studies Religion and ethics H573/02 - 14 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- How to get A* in a level ocr religous studies
- A Level Choices: English Lit or Philosophy and Ethics
- OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Christian perspective J625/06 - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Not sure if I should do Philosophyðics A-Level
- Is OCR RE A level harder than AQA?
- A-Level Options for History and Politics / PPE
- need help on bonhoeffer :( !!!
- Philosophy at Oxford PPL
- A-level English Study Group
Latest
Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 1 week ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 1 week ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023
