AQA Philosophy A2 June 2013

By Sentimentalism, I mean David Hume's version of Ethical Naturalism which basically stated that all our moral actions should be motivated by benevolence - sympathy and empathy. For example, we should not cause physical harm to others, because sympathy and empathy, for an array of reasons, guide us into not doing so. This theory is strikingly similar to Joseph Fletcher's "Situation Ethics" where morality is guided by the most loving thing to do.

You could apply this to abortion in the following way:

1. Hume may condemn abortion under Sentimentalism as abortion is murder, and murder is not a product of sympathy or empathy, thus is immoral.

2. Hume may condone abortion as the most loving thing to do - if a fetus will one day be born and develop into a child that has terminal health problems, or will suffer grave economical oppression due to his family's living standards, then aborting the child, out of sympathy and empathy, is the most loving thing to do.

State of Nature is way too hard to apply to abortion, I think - I'm sat here right now thinking how to explain it, but I don't think it's possible, mostly because the state of nature is hypothetical and abortion is real... so just don't bother with it - forget I said it

Structure for essays

Introduction
- Outline the key terms of the question (For example, if a key term is "duty", explain what duty is)
- Develop the key terms of the question by relating it to a a theory/philosophical position. (For example, duty relates to deontology, particularly Kant's deontology, so briefly discuss this)
- State whether you are arguing in favour or against the question. (Lets say hypothetically that you are in favour of deontology)

Main Body
ARGUMENT ONE: State Kant's Categorical Imperative and the advantages of it. Link it back to the essay question.
COUNTER ARGUMENT: State what is wrong with Kant's Categorical Imperative and how another theory may overcome these issues (For example, utilitarianism). Link it back to the essay question.
RETORT: State what is wrong with Utilitarianism, and why is cannot be maintained. Link it back to the essay question.
ARGUMENT TWO: Bring in another deontological argument which defeats the criticisms of Utilitarianism. Link it back to the essay question.

Conclusion
(I'm awful at conclusions, I just write whatever I can think off, making sure I link it back to the essay question)

I hope this helps to some extent. I know it doesn't seem like you would have written much following this structure, but remember 3 things:

My predictions, based on past papers.

Political Philosophy:
- Natural vs. non-natural rights
- Distributive justice

Moral Philosophy:
- Cognitivism
- Deontology (applied to a practical issue)

Okay I was 100% content until I read this thread.

I'm doing moral philosophy and have only learnt the normative ethics part. Surely they couldn't ask 2 questions on moral truth?!

This is great! For the first part (I'm doing political philosophy for example) would it be a similar layout?

Anyone got a plan if a Rights question might come up?

I'm doing a Rights mindmap but struggling to pinpoint the key arguments to definitely remember as there aren't many names being thrown around : as in for Liberty I put positive and negative liberty, Mill and Liberalism, Burke and Conservatism and abit of Anarchism for depth.
Then obviously objections/replies/evaluation points.

I can PM you an essay I wrote about rights if you like? I talked mainly about Locke, Kant, Bentham and Marx, I think.

That would be great! Oh goddd I have none of them!

I have stuff like choice and interest theory? Abit of Freeden and Marx but only that and Mill but all his stuff relating to Utility

Ah ok just checking you realised what topic it came under


Posted from TSR Mobile