The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Well it's a little late now. I did the exam. And it went well strangely. I'll probably get hit by a bus to make it up for it.
Original post by VivekJ555
Predicted 25 Marker Philosophy Q's
Anyone else have different predictions?

1A) Explain Plato's Analogy of the cave
2A) Explain concept of 'Creatio ex nihlo'
3A) Explain Paley's version of the Teleological (Design) argument
4A) Pending



Posted from TSR Mobile



Not even close dude
Original post by charrose4x
did anyone else talk about hume in 3b because i did and not sure if its right now lol

I did, I talked about the judaeo christian god allowing natural evil as a punishment or to build divine qualities, then moral evil as a result of free will to take away free will being an unjust and unloving thing to do as man would be like slaves. Then I spoke about the prime move being perfect therefore a good god but unaware of evil as it would detract from perfection to think about anything else rather than its self as it said A GOD not a judaeo christian god
Original post by htrowslec
I did, I talked about the judaeo christian god allowing natural evil as a punishment or to build divine qualities, then moral evil as a result of free will to take away free will being an unjust and unloving thing to do as man would be like slaves. Then I spoke about the prime move being perfect therefore a good god but unaware of evil as it would detract from perfection to think about anything else rather than its self as it said A GOD not a judaeo christian god

wrong comment to reply to, sorry hahah
Reply 444
part A question 1 is ONLY Anslems argument and views etc

Part B question 1 is The Criticisms and agreements on how gods existence is necessary
Original post by Helzbay
part A question 1 is ONLY Anslems argument and views etc

Part B question 1 is The Criticisms and agreements on how gods existence is necessary


Yes ! Gaunilo is meant to be in the 10 marker along with Plantinga and Kant. You don't get marks for analysis in the 25 mark question!
Thanks guys 😉 At least the Philosophy predictions were accurate.
Original post by nihil_nimis
Alright good I think I did that, thank you


I looked at the 2009 examiner report for the question "explain irenaues' theodicy" and it said candidates who related it to hick were credited so all good.
Lol. If you wanted to talk about Plantinga and Gaunilo in the 25 marker, you won't get marked down for it. You needed to make sure you definitely evaluated their arguments in A02 though.
Original post by SubZero~
Lol. If you wanted to talk about Plantinga and Gaunilo in the 25 marker, you won't get marked down for it. You needed to make sure you definitely evaluated their arguments in A02 though.


Yeah his secound ontological argument in Proslogion chapter 3, was a response to Gainilo's criticism about the island anyway. I don't know why someone said it wasn't.
Original post by sianne4c
You'd get marks for it so long as for the most part you mentioned Anselm and didn't spend the whole toe talking about Ganilo


philo.jpg
Those who think you dont get marked if you mentioned Gaunilo in the Anselm question and also those who have a misconception that Anselms second argument was formed after Gaunilo's critisim, check out the examiners report on the same question in June 2010. :smile:
Original post by nizmo786
philo.jpg
Those who think you dont get marked if you mentioned Gaunilo in the Anselm question and also those who have a misconception that Anselms second argument was formed after Gaunilo's critisim, check out the examiners report on the same question in June 2010. :smile:


I've found two different opinions from past mark schemes so I'm posed in a difficult position.
Anyone know any good sources to help with the ethics side of things, particularly applied ethics?
It's over. It's done. Why are you still contemplating how crap you've all done....
Original post by ThatGuyJosh
I've found two different opinions from past mark schemes so I'm posed in a difficult position.


I'm pretty sure that he wrote his second argument at the same time at his first it was simply another justification. They were both in Proslogian I think. You could see his second argument as a response but he didn't see Gaunilo's work and write another argument based on that :smile: it's just that Gaunilo never noticed his second argument haha!
It's over guys! Let's focus on religious ethics now
how would I answer this question?

describe the concept of moral absolutism? 25 mark
Original post by bethrosina
I'm pretty sure that he wrote his second argument at the same time at his first it was simply another justification. They were both in Proslogian I think. You could see his second argument as a response but he didn't see Gaunilo's work and write another argument based on that :smile: it's just that Gaunilo never noticed his second argument haha!


👍👍👍
Reply 458
Just for any of you guys wondering here is a recap of the Questions in the Exam (I believe), hope it helps:smile::

Questions in OCR As Philosophy Exam 2016:
1. a) Describe Anselm's Ontological Argument to prove the existence of God
b) 'God's existence isn't logically necessary'-Discuss
2. a) Explain how Kant used the existence of morality to postulate the existence of God
b) 'morality is a psychological need, not a proof of God's existence.' Discuss.
3.a) How does Iraneus' theodicy justify natural and moral evil in the world
b) 'A good God doesn't exist as there is evil in the World'-Discuss
4. a) Explain why the existence of Irreducible Complexity in some molecules implies an intelligent designer
b) To what extent is irreducible complexity a creationist delusion
So what were the 25 markers?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply