OCR AS Philosophy & Ethics: Official Thread for May/June 2016

Can someone explain Kants objections to the ontological argument please because I don't really understand them. Thanks

Posted from TSR Mobile

Criticism 1 - Hypothetically speaking, Kant accepts the concept of existence belonging with the concept of God and so by default it would be self-contradictory to deny that an all-perfect being has existence. However, Kant would argue that it is not self-contradictory to deny God in the first place - just because an all-perfect being requires existence it does not follow that there is an all-perfect being in the first place.
"To posit a triangle and yet reject it's three angles is self-contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with it's three angles. The same holds true of the concept of an absolutely necessary being" (Critique of Pure Reason). This shows he has read Descartes' version of the Ontological Argument and is therefore a direct criticism to him.
The idea of existence of God does belong necessarily to the concept of God but that does't mean the idea of God has to be anything more than an idea. Even if 'existence' is a predicate of God and so therefore cannot be denied, that does't mean you can't deny the subject and it's predicate together, "There is no contradiction in denying the reality of a conceptual being who has necessary existence" (Mackie, Miracle of Theism)

Criticism 2 - Descartes makes the assumption that existence is a predicate of God, which can be included in the definition of something, for example "being married." However, Kant argues that existence cannot be a predicate of God as it adds nothing to the definition of 'God.' Kant uses an example of 100 thallers (gold coins) to support his criticism - you can imagine (in intellectus) 100 gold coins and you could see 100 gold coins in re (in reality). Both look the same and hold the same currency the only difference is one actually exists and one doesn't. When explaining what 100 gold coins is in reality you wouldn't add "it exists" in the definition and therefore existence is not a predicate.

Hi. Does anyone know what the question were last year?

Q1. a) Explain the belief that God is both lawgiver and judge
b) 'God is not Good'. Discuss.

Q2. a) Explain the teleological argument and Hume's criticisms of it.
(b) ‘Hume successfully demonstrates that there is no evidence for the existence of God.’ Discuss.

Q3. (a) Explain what Kant believed about the innate moral awareness in human beings.
(b) ‘Moral awareness is more about guilt than God.’ Discuss.


Q4. (a) Explain what Aristotle meant by material, efficient, formal and final causes.
(b) To what extent was Aristotle successful in explaining the world?

Hope this helps

Does anyone know whether the Kalam Argument could come up???

I'll be happy with a B as this is my fourth subject that I'll drop after this year. If this course didn't include ethics then I might of been able to get an A

Does anyone know how to structure this question "explain the concept of Aristotle's prime mover"
So like the 4/5 main paragraphs

I would say no! But revise small on it but focus on the other main stuff

What are your other subjects?

Guys, Hey i am so scared, stressed, depressed! i dont know what to do , where to start? i am going to FAIL! i know nothing, literally nthing. HELp plEASE SOMEONE

Paragraph 1 = brief biography of Aristotle
Paragraph 2 = Initial ideas about the existence of the universe and how it applies to the efficient and final cause.
Paragraph 3 = Realisation that the universe is in a constant stage of entropy and motion
Paragraph 4 = How the prime mover applies to God and its attributes
Paragraph 5 = Conclusion which includes the nature of God according to Aristotle

Good luck!



What are you focusing on/hoping to come up?



Chemistry, maths and English literature but I may pick up physics next year. What about you?

French, English language and English literature. How are you feeling about English lit?

Paragraph 1 = brief biography of Aristotle
Paragraph 2 = Initial ideas about the existence of the universe and how it applies to the efficient and final cause.
Paragraph 3 = Realisation that the universe is in a constant stage of entropy and motion
Paragraph 4 = How the prime mover applies to God and its attributes
Paragraph 5 = Conclusion which includes the nature of God according to Aristotle

Good luck!



What are you focusing on/hoping to come up?



Chemistry, maths and English literature but I may pick up physics next year. What about you?

Thanks you helping me out with the prime mover! God luck too! what does entropy and motion mean?

My exam board is AQA B, meaning that it is one of the linear reformed A levels, so I'm doing the exam next year.

Entropy = constant state of change.
Motion = movement.

You're welcome and good luck!

So basically I would write the essay like this:
Introduction: Give some context about Augustine eg he was a christian philosopher (354-430CE) ect then outline what Augustine said: "either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not: if he cannot then is is not omnipotent; if he will not then he is not omnibenevolent" (other wise known as the inconsistent triad) so this led to Augustine developing his soul deciding theodicy.
Middle:-
P1: Peoples response to evil decides their destiny.
P2: God created everything
P3: Evil is not a substance of God
P4: Evil is a privation of Good
P5: so evil is is not a product of God
Therefore: there is no problem
You can also talk about original sin and the fall from grace (genesis 2) and how it relates to Augustinian theodicy. Also don't forget to mention how Augustine believed we were "seminaly present in the loins of Adam" so evil= necessary goodness and an opportunity to absolve us of our sins
Conclusion: summarise and address the question again
Hope this helps. Good luck.


Posted from TSR Mobile

So basically I would write the essay like this:
Introduction: Give some context about Augustine eg he was a christian philosopher (354-430CE) ect then outline what Augustine said: "either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not: if he cannot then is is not omnipotent; if he will not then he is not omnibenevolent" (other wise known as the inconsistent triad) so this led to Augustine developing his soul deciding theodicy.
Middle:-
P1: Peoples response to evil decides their destiny.
P2: God created everything
P3: Evil is not a substance of God
P4: Evil is a privation of Good
P5: so evil is is not a product of God
Therefore: there is no problem
You can also talk about original sin and the fall from grace (genesis 2) and how it relates to Augustinian theodicy. Also don't forget to mention how Augustine believed we were "seminaly present in the loins of Adam" so evil= necessary goodness and an opportunity to absolve us of our sins
Conclusion: summarise and address the question again
Hope this helps. Good luck.


Posted from TSR Mobile