AQA Philosophy A2 June 2013

If anyone has any revision notes for Philosophy of the Mind I would be immensely grateful if I could see them!

Can anyone who does philosophy of mind please explain to me Wittgenstein's private language argument,

Doing Political and Moral philosophy! But studying only the normative ethics side of the latter to cut down revision.


Anyone have any ideas as to what might come up?
Or any example high grade essays? Need to get that essay writing back into practise!
- Resitting in my gap year to get my C last year up to a B to get into the uni I want.

Doing Political and Moral philosophy! But studying only the normative ethics side of the latter to cut down revision.


Anyone have any ideas as to what might come up?
Or any example high grade essays? Need to get that essay writing back into practise!
- Resitting in my gap year to get my C last year up to a B to get into the uni I want.

Hmmm, quite risky to only revise Normative Ethics. Purely because, "Moral Truth" and "Denial of Moral Truth" are two distinct parts of the syllabus, so it is possible that "Moral Decisions" (Normative Ethics) doesn't come up at all...I mean, so far, that hasn't happened, but you'd technically have no grounds for complaint if it did.

You should be fine though...

I have a feeling that "Weakness of the Will" might come up for Moral Truth/Denial of Moral Truth, or perhaps something to do with "Reasons for Action". Hopefully something will come up on "Transcendent Moral Truth" or "Moral Truth Based On Natural Fact"

For normative, I have a strong feeling about Utilitarianism since Virtue Theory came up last year...

Anyway, I wrote a really lengthy essay that goes over all the Normative Theories you need to know including advantages and criticisms. It got 48/50. You wouldn't be able to write all this in the actual exam since we only get an hour for Moral Philosophy, but nonetheless, you should follow this kind of structure if you're aiming for an A.

Anyway, hope this helps and best of luck to you in getting your B!

can anyone give me a summary of how liberty rights justice and the law interrelate, i found the textbook notes really brief and confusing

thanks

The file requires a password to open! What is it?

1. Language is analogous to the rules of a game
2. The rules of a game, by definition, must be able to be broken
3. In a 'private language' - one where you are the only participant (and everyone else is a robot for example - solipsism), the rules cannot be broken, as you are the one setting the rules and so whatever you say must be true
4. ∴ A private language is impossible
5. ∴ ∃ other minds

Criticism: only shows that at the conception/formation of our language there must have existed other minds. Could be the case that lots of people existed and language evolved etc. etc. but then you were plucked out of that and your brain was placed in a vat. I.e. no way of showing that RIGHT NOW there are other minds.

can anyone give me a summary of how liberty rights justice and the law interrelate, i found the textbook notes really brief and confusing

Basically, there's not a lot you need to know for this I think, but briefly:

1) If liberty is based on Natural Rights, then this means our liberty is independent of laws and legislation as Natural Rights existed prior to the state. John Locke contests this view through his thesis on both the "State of Nature" and "Law of Nature". You can also refer to Kant's Deontological Ethics.

2) If our liberty is based on Positive Rights, then this means our liberty is dependent on laws and legislation as rights are created through laws and legislation, thus only exist through the state. If our liberty is dependent on laws, then our liberty can be increased (in a Democracy for example, refer to John Stuart Mill, Locke, and Nozick) OR it can be decreased (In a resolute state for example, refer to Plato, and some extent Edmund Burke's Conservatism)

3) If our liberty is based on Utility, then no automatic connection can be made between the liberty and the law. If we use the "utility principle" in order to create laws to safeguard our rights, it can either increase or decrease our liberty. For example, if utility (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) is brought about by people being able to freely go for a run in the park, then our liberty is increased. However, if the greatest amount of happiness was brought about by torturing young children, then the liberty of young children is decreased, as the utility principle would be able to pass a law that gives people the right to torture young children.

I'm not entirely sure how to fit Justice in there tbh with you...

thanks a lot !
what about finis he has a bit on human rights where could i put him and marx ?

Also what about justice and nation states

Looking for strengths/weaknesses of cognitivism (both transcendent and naturalism) please, I have a few but not enough. Focusing more on normative and applied ethics but I'm making sure I also know meta-ethics just in case they decide to be evil and not include the former!

Strengths of Cognitivism are very hard to find, since we haven't actually found any universal moral truth...The best kinds of advantages lie in the grounds of religion such as the 10 Commandments providing moral truth to some extent, or how many different cultures adopt the same ethical principles, etc...

Erm, as for criticisms:

1. (Transcendent)
- Mackie's Error Theory (criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms)
- Elitism & the corresponding issue of "Charlatan Leadership" (criticism of Plato's theory of Forms)

2. (Natural)
- Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism")
- The Open Question Argument (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism" - however, this criticism cannot be used unless you refer to the Naturalistic Fallacy first)

Erm, thing is, they're really big specific criticisms that often have reference to a philosopher, rather than little insignificant criticisms that are too general and vague. So, if you know all of those ^ then you don't need any little ones, they'll be enough for you to do well - it's on the syllabus!

If you want me to explain any of the criticisms I've mentioned, I will