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

I'm pretty sure in the OCR book it said that provided you don't mix up what the two philosophers said (in this instance, talking about Irenaeous' theodicy while using Augustine's name and then saying he believed in predestination), they understand that it happens, so I'd doubt the penalty would be too strict if it was just a one-off.

Thanks for your reply.

I wrote about Augustine's theodicy, and the whole idea that evil is a privation of good and so does not exist as a substance. I just said that it was Irenaeus and not Augustine, so I didn't get the theories mixed up it was just the name.

What kind of penalty do you think it would be? A couple of marks, or more severe than that?

Thanks again

Hicks' Replica Theory is true!

Extramarital sex Why were you not homosexual?

Only I could know the entire syllabus, get a beauty of a paper, and manage to cock it up that bad :/
I just jumbled on and on and on...

I know people exactly like you, despite the fact that they know the syllabus inside and out they always come out of exams saying that they've only done enough for a B, despite the fact that they've never got anything less than 90%

You'll have done fine, I'm also a complete rambler

Hi can some pit up the actual Ethics question please

How did everybody else find it?

You certainly included more than i did for religious language
but why didn't you mention Hicks replica theory in body/soul, i thought that was one of the main points??

.

You certainly included more than i did for religious language
but why didn't you mention Hicks replica theory in body/soul, i thought that was one of the main points??

I did body and soul... Said at the beginning I was aiming to disprove the distinction so that was my theme kinda thing
- Plato, strengths then annihilation
- Descartes, criticism by Ryle
- Said that the dualism thing wasn't working for me, I preferred materialism
- Identity theory, strengths
- Dawkins view, strengths
- Then a last minute rush about Ghosts being evidence for a soul and falling in love being more than a bodily thing, but then criticised again...
^So you brought in disembodied existence? I was going too, but then I didn't think it was entirely relevant, related, but not necessary?

Ethical Language, boy I mucked this up, not a bad essay but FAR too general, needed to do more about emotion, I just did a general meta essay :/

Responsibility over actions, we did so differently :/ I did
- Determinism and strengths, brought in Darrow and Mary Bell the murderer
- The Fall and so a bit of Augustine and how they say we're not responsible
- Predestination and how we're not responsible
- A ramble about how the conscience could be to blame if its corrupt
- Then I did two pages arguing the opposite, so saying we are responsible, so Libertarianism, Theological determinism, taking the Bible symbolically, Using other sources of authority to the conscience
^Think my structure was too odd for this

And I also did omniscience- again was aiming to show it's not a problem
- Problem with senses
- Free will (lol this paragraph was 2.5 pages) so predestination, and then counter arguments of Boethius (Brought in Middle knowledge) and Swinburne


:/ :/ :/
Yours look better

That's fantastic! I really love your approach to question 2 in ethics. So robust and synopsises (is that a word) the entire unit! I'm sure you laced it together well. I was going to bring in the conscience, but i fell short of time because i spent 50 minutes on ethics Q1 and so only have 35 mins for the other question, so i tried to keep it under one topic though really wanted to do more on theological determinism and conscience. Your answer is like my dream one