Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 460

duckpost

could you right about the teleological argument for Q4?

Reply 461

carpe.noctem

Original post by duckpost

could you right about the teleological argument for Q4?

I don't see where it would fit in, maybe as a criticism in the part B ?

Reply 462

Hayjayk89

Hi guys, could someone tell me the 2015 ethics questions that came up for as level and what your predictions/teachers predictions would be

Reply 463

Sarahm123

It would be credited if you used other proponents of the Ontological argument, such as Plantinga and Malcolm in your part A on Anselm, as you can use the modern Ontological arguments to explain, compare, and contrast them to that of Anselm's to enhance your explanation and understanding of the topic as a whole. As long as Anselm has been explained comprehensively, there is no issue in using the modern philosophers to support your explanation.

Reply 464

asdfghjkl99

Original post by Hayjayk89

Hi guys, could someone tell me the 2015 ethics questions that came up for as level and what your predictions/teachers predictions would be

Hey! This is what Philosophical Investigation thinks:

1.a. Explain the Natural Law theory of ethics.
b. “Natural Law theory is inflexible when considering issues surrounding abortion”.
DiscussRationale: it’s about time we had natural law actually named in a question.

2. a. Contrast the utilitarianism of Mill with that of Singer.
b. “Singer’s utilitarianism is superior to Mill’s”.
DiscussRationale: Singer isn’t mentioned very often but he’s in the syllabus. So why not this year do a contrast?

3. a. Explain a Kantian approach to issues surrounding going to war.
b. “Kant’s approach would guarantee peace”.
DiscussRationale: I think war or pacifism is coming up this year. Why not link it to Kant, who after all wrote an essay on perpetual peace?

4. a. Explain what is meant by an absolute theory of ethics. (or – contrast absolute and relative theories of ethics).
b. “Absolute ethics is inflexible”.
DiscussRationale: absolutism in a question hasn’t been asked for some time.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Keep in mind only 2 of their predictions were correct for philosophy. But you never know, these could all come up. Hope i helped. Good luck revising!! x

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 465

asdfghjkl99

For 1a. Explain Anselm's attempt for the existence of God. I wrote more for part B which i shouldn't have! I thought i was running out of time so i rushed it. I hope the examiners don't mark me down on how messy of an answer it is.

Reply 466

duckpost

Teleological argument is the design argument and question four asked about irreducible complexity and design... Surely it'd fit in?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 467

emmanelson

Hi GUys !

Just wondered if anyone had any helpful you tube videos to revise from (when i cant concentrate) so for philosophy i had been using Mr McMillan REvise ? ANy similar ones or just useful ones?

Reply 468

TarotOfMagic

Does anyone know the 2015 ethics questions? Also, what do you guys predicte will come up for ethics?

Reply 469

carpe.noctem

Original post by emmanelson

Hi, I haven't been able to find any good ones, if you find some could you let me know please, thank you.

Reply 470

ItsKiara

Original post by nujam438

how would I answer this question?

describe the concept of moral absolutism? 25 mark

Literally just did this question two days ago.
Id define it thoroughly in the intro, talk about Plato (briefly) and how Ancient Greek influences were important for the development of absolutism and Plato's forms which were absolute and objective (but don't go off on one on Plato, keep this concise and brief as its ethics not philosophy) then talk about how it's shaped ethical theories, and give examples but focus on only the absolutist parts, so If you mention natural law, don't go off on one about the secondary precepts. Discus primary precepts in detail and why they are absolute. Then talk about Kant and his categorical imperative and why it's absolute. Then talk about divine command and why it's absolute (gods word)
The biggest challenge for these questions is going off on a tangent and losing the focus so keep linking back to the question and you should be fine (I.e the primary precepts of NLT are absolute because .... Etc etc , furthermore these aspects also emphasise the absolutist nature of this theory... Etc)
There is so much to write.
Then as a bonus if you get time, you can talk about how absolutism has shaped society (ethicists love modern examples) and do a para on human rights and how they are important set of objective laws to help an ordered society (make sure you don't end up evaluating).

Hope this helps!

Reply 471

Zino98

For everyone asking about mentioning another scholars in the question of the ontological argument in Thursday's Philosophy exam....

You get marks and you'll be credited for using other proponents of the ontological argument - you could easily write a paragraph about Descartes' and how compare / contrast / link / or even just talk about his argument in general in about a paragraph - same with Plantinga or Malcolm. Enhancing your explanation shows your understanding of the whole argument. As long as Anselm has been explained comprehensively since this was the main focus of the question, there is no issue in using other philosophers to support your explanation.

If you didn't talk about other philosopher versions or additions to the argument - it's fine - there's no negative marking
As long as you name dropped scholars in the 10 marks it'll be fine
Yes, others may attain higher marks for showing more understanding of the argument by explaining other philosophers versions in addition to Anselm, but as long as you answered the main focus of the question in good detail, you'll be fine.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 472

tristannew

For question 1b did it HAVE to mention the ontological argument? If it doesn't does that make it impossible to score well or score at all?

Reply 473

Hayjayk89

Anyone have any really good ethics revision notes or videos to share, I would be very appreciative

Reply 474

Grace.xo

Original post by tristannew

For question 1b did it HAVE to mention the ontological argument? If it doesn't does that make it impossible to score well or score at all?

Yeah because the whole 'logical necessity' is the basis of the ontological argument

Reply 475

MorganColey

Original post by RueXO

can you dm me?

Reply 476

Grace.xo

So do people now think that if you reference to Hick you'd get more marks yeah?? Just panicking coz I spoke about hick, don't want it to be irrelevant.

Reply 477

J0eJ0e994

Original post by Grace.xo

So do people now think that if you reference to Hick you'd get more marks yeah?? Just panicking coz I spoke about hick, don't want it to be irrelevant.

Previous examiner report for the same question said candidates who mentioned hick were credited. As long as you stated it was modern day you'll get more marks.