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

F. H. Bradley

He said you could establish 'good' by your place in society, right?

I am reading: 'Bradley argued that in order to be a good person we must know our own position in society and its duties, and carry out those duties.'

Which seems like what he was saying was more of an ethical theory... I think it's just that the source I'm reading doesn't explain it properly... He doesn't seem to talk about the authority of the terms 'good' and 'bad'...

Could you expand on it a bit? Just a sentence or whatevs so I can put it in my notes. Thanksssssss

just wondering what does everyone use to revise ?

i have the ocr textbooks which i used on their own last year, they seem to cover all the topics thoroughly and in depth !

but this year i have another textbook i've been using which i think i prefer called, religious studies advanced, second edition, it's by sarah k tyler and gordon reid, and is browny/gold. just wondering will it effect my grade if i kind of abandon the official ocr textbook ? this textbook seems to have the exact same information if not a little more. what do guys think ?

The official OCR textbook sucks. Our teacher strongly encourages everyone going for a B or above to use other materials.

I use:
AS/A2 Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics for OCR by Robert A. Bowie - gives everything in very concise notes
and
An Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics, 2nd ed. by Mel Thompson - excellent for elaboration

So I can use the first one to give me "categories" for revision, and then if I can't remember a lot of stuff from one particular small area, I'll look in the other book which details each of those areas in two or three paragraphs.

I have a feeling Verification/Falsification will come up... or is that wishful thinking? :P

Both!

Similar to Aristotle, saw good as culturally relative. We must understand our place in society to know what we should do according to our duty of our roles (nicked of Kant) and culutrally relative virtues through role models (nicked of Aristotle). Once we understand these we have a duty to do so (again, Kant).

Meta-ethics = a normative ethical theory reworded with a bit of hippie jargon of 'man what does good even mean? Man screw the establishment defining it for us dude' added on and then proposed as something radically new and revolutionary in the field. It's just pot smoking plagiarists :P

But if it was culturally relative, wouldn't this make it non-cognitive?

And what about other ethical words, sorry, still not clear on how he is arguing that ethical language as a whole is meaningful.

EDIT: is it that he is saying we can know it through reason in a similar way to Kant? i.e. our duties are absolute?

Think I'm pretty much just thinking aloud now lmao.

No, he thinks it is 'natural' to stick to our duties according to our position in society, he opposed doing duty for itself in a Kantian way. It is cognitive because it is naturalist-he is deriving what we should do (stick to our duties) from (what he thinks is) a natural fact (where we are in society)

Can someone explain perscriptivism to me please?

Can someone explain perscriptivism to me please?

Ugh i'm a mess. I know Rel.Lang ok enough for me.
I to an extent know Nature of God & Attributes.
I need to re- revise Miracles but I know its pretty straight forward and I need to re revise completely rel. exp.

I'm not touching life after death either.

...Then theres ethics. Fml.