Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd actually kill to have a justice essay for Political Philosophy, I know the Rawls/Nozick debate like the back of my hand, it came up in June 2011 though so I don't hold particularly high hopes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    I'd actually kill to have a justice essay for Political Philosophy, I know the Rawls/Nozick debate like the back of my hand, it came up in June 2011 though so I don't hold particularly high hopes.
    what kind of points could you write in favour of nozick? i can't find many reasons for his side of the debate..

    i think that rights is likely to come up, along with either liberty or justice.. rights hasnt come up since 2010 and justice and liberty since 2011; it was ideologies and nation states. but i wouldnt bank on any set topic coming up, they may well just ask a different kind of question regarding nation states or ideologies. or they might have a crossover question that goes over more than one topic e.g. 'should distributive justice apply globally'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im self teaching the whole a level and I did quite well with the AS but the structure seems really different for the A2 i'm really struggling to get the information into essay form for Unit 3, how long exactly should the 50mark essays be and what seems to be a better way to put the information for good marks, a few deeply explained points or lots of little ones because it seems quite muddled and broad...

    and does anyone have any predictions for moral and political I left my studying a little late...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    what kind of points could you write in favour of nozick? i can't find many reasons for his side of the debate..

    i think that rights is likely to come up, along with either liberty or justice.. rights hasnt come up since 2010 and justice and liberty since 2011; it was ideologies and nation states. but i wouldnt bank on any set topic coming up, they may well just ask a different kind of question regarding nation states or ideologies. or they might have a crossover question that goes over more than one topic e.g. 'should distributive justice apply globally'
    Respects autonomy – each person’s talents and abilities belong to them and so they have a right to keep whatever they gain from them.

    If a certain distribution is just, then as long as the transfer is voluntary, the different distribution is just – the Difference Principle is irrelevant.

    It allows for the progression of society whilst ensuring injustices are rectified.

    These are just the 3 I have on the computer, when I'm writing an essay on it I usually come up with my a few more of my own based on what I've written, like how Nozick avoids some of the weaknesses of Rawls.

    I hate rights, really hope it doesn't come up. Unless the other question was terribly mean I'd avoid rights at all costs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollyblyth)
    a few deeply explained points or lots of little ones because it seems quite muddled and broad...
    heyo holly. Definitely go in depth rather than skimming over lots of theories responses to a point. Which is really hard (I dunno about moral/political, but for E&M/mind there's sooo much to learn... and last year's questions were really specific about a tiny part of them)

    good luck

    oh also I tend to write 5/6 pages per question for Phil3, on normal A4 paper, the exam paper has thicker margins, don't really know if that's a lot or too little though...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any revision notes on: Plato, Politics, Normative Ethics, Meta Ethics?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    Respects autonomy – each person’s talents and abilities belong to them and so they have a right to keep whatever they gain from them.

    If a certain distribution is just, then as long as the transfer is voluntary, the different distribution is just – the Difference Principle is irrelevant.

    It allows for the progression of society whilst ensuring injustices are rectified.

    These are just the 3 I have on the computer, when I'm writing an essay on it I usually come up with my a few more of my own based on what I've written, like how Nozick avoids some of the weaknesses of Rawls.

    I hate rights, really hope it doesn't come up. Unless the other question was terribly mean I'd avoid rights at all costs.
    thanks lol i'd definitely prefer rights to nation states any day though! to me it seems the issues around rights are mainly just whether they are deontological or utilitarian and natural or positive. i can send you an essay i did on rights if that might help!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    thanks lol i'd definitely prefer rights to nation states any day though! to me it seems the issues around rights are mainly just whether they are deontological or utilitarian and natural or positive. i can send you an essay i did on rights if that might help!
    I'm not even revising nation states, a choice between rights and nation states would be my worst nightmare, and that would be great! Please do. Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    for moral philosophy I've noticed that on all the past papers there is one question on normative ethics and the other is on meta ethics, is it a really silly idea to just learn utilitarian, kant and virtue ethics and their applications or do you reckon that is a bit too much of a gamble?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollyblyth)
    for moral philosophy I've noticed that on all the past papers there is one question on normative ethics and the other is on meta ethics, is it a really silly idea to just learn utilitarian, kant and virtue ethics and their applications or do you reckon that is a bit too much of a gamble?
    I've been thinking the exact same thing. I think I'm going to do everything but with more of a focus on normative ethics, remember it can also be applied so make sure you have a practical dilemma to apply the theories to - I chose abortion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Model essays for Phil of Mind or Episimology andn Metaphysics anyone?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    I've been thinking the exact same thing. I think I'm going to do everything but with more of a focus on normative ethics, remember it can also be applied so make sure you have a practical dilemma to apply the theories to - I chose abortion.
    My advice is learn everything for Moral Philosophy, just perhaps give a little bit more time to Moral Decisions. Thing is with AQA, they seem to have a little bit of a theme going and then they CHANGE EVERYTHING. For example, every year for political philosophy, a question concerning some aspect of Liberty has come up, APART from 2012, where there we no questions concerning liberty directly :P So who says they wont chuck normative out the window this year?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by millie-rose)
    Hey can anyone help me? My teachers have told me different things about what the Naturalistic Fallacy is (moral philosophy)... which one is right?!

    My teacher said-
    Naturalistic Fallacy is about the attempt to define good being a mistake, G.E.Moore's good is like yellow etc. yellow is undefinable. To try and define good is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Open Question arguments can also be included.

    My tutor said-
    None of the above but that the naturalistic fallacy is the is-ought gap that you cannot derive an 'ought' from fact- also known as the 'fact-value gap'. ---- I though this theory was Hume's is-ought theory and didn't think it was included among the Naturalistic Fallacy argument, perhaps it is?

    I'm so confused!

    Sorry, I don't know if anyone's replied to you yet :P
    Erm, your teacher is right. If you were in an exam, you would right that line of argument for the Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.

    You're also right - "Is/Ought Gap" is Hume, whereas "Fact/Value Gap" is Hegel (They're both virtually the same thing, apart from Hume's is slightly more modernist and can be more easily accommodated to morality)

    You can link the Naturalistic Fallacy to the Is/Ought Gap, by saying:

    -- "In Principia Ethica, G.E Moore professes that moral terms are unqualified bearers of predicates - this means that they are simple, coherent as a whole, analyzable and indefinable. They are the ultimate terms of reference and cannot be defined or equated natural properties such as happiness, as maintained by Utilitarian proponents, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham...Moore's "Naturalistic Fallacy" compels to David Hume's "Is/Ought" theory. Hume declared that no moral propositions could be derived from any number of facts, which is in accordance to Moore's argument that moral terms cannot be defined in the terms in, thus derived from, natural facts" --

    You may want to check your textbook/notes to make sure I've got that right since I've pretty much just wrote it off the tip of my tounge, but I think that's maybe what your tutor was getting at, perhaps? Getting the A*/A grades is all about finding those subtle links, so I've been told ^.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can anybody explain Weakness of the Will in relation to Plato's God-independent transcendent moral truth? I understand what Weakness of the Will is but I don't exactly see what impact it has on Plato's morality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    Can anybody explain Weakness of the Will in relation to Plato's God-independent transcendent moral truth? I understand what Weakness of the Will is but I don't exactly see what impact it has on Plato's morality.
    Yeah, the link isn't really made too clear, but basically...

    Plato, through the Form of the Good, advocates that Knowledge is Virtue, which means that those who acquire knowledge of the Form of the Good will know how to act morally, therefore will act morally. This is because knowledge of morality, is pretty much the same as doing morality.

    In terms of "Weakness of the Will", Plato claims that Weakness of the Will is impossible, because those who know how to act morally, will always act morally, therefore, you can not have any weakness of the will, because if you know what the right thing to do is (through your knowledge of the Form of the Good), you will always act in a way that is morally right. This is because knowledge is virtue.

    Also, the philosophers, who will obtain knowledge of the Form of the Good, do not have "desires of the flesh", which means they never have a desire to act in a way that is not moral, therefore cannot act immorally.

    So basically, for Plato, there is no weakness of the will.

    Plato's student, Aristotle, however, disputes this, and claims that Plato's argument is basically bullsh*t, and of course there is weakness of the will.

    Ha. Silly Plato.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by p44v9n)
    oh also I tend to write 5/6 pages per question for Phil3, on normal A4 paper, the exam paper has thicker margins, don't really know if that's a lot or too little though...
    Yeah 5 to 6 pages in the exam is what you should be aiming for under timed conditions. Any less might suggest that you haven't really explored the questions, and any more might suggest you've kind of waffled on, and potentionally gone over the hour time limit, giving you less time to do your next question, thus running out of time and getting a U or some sh*t, since AQA Philosophy seem to like giving out those...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Yeah, the link isn't really made too clear, but basically...

    Plato, through the Form of the Good, advocates that Knowledge is Virtue, which means that those who acquire knowledge of the Form of the Good will know how to act morally, therefore will act morally. This is because knowledge of morality, is pretty much the same as doing morality.

    In terms of "Weakness of the Will", Plato claims that Weakness of the Will is impossible, because those who know how to act morally, will always act morally, therefore, you can not have any weakness of the will, because if you know what the right thing to do is (through your knowledge of the Form of the Good), you will always act in a way that is morally right. This is because knowledge is virtue.

    Also, the philosophers, who will obtain knowledge of the Form of the Good, do not have "desires of the flesh", which means they never have a desire to act in a way that is not moral, therefore cannot act immorally.

    So basically, for Plato, there is no weakness of the will.

    Plato's student, Aristotle, however, disputes this, and claims that Plato's argument is basically bullsh*t, and of course there is weakness of the will.

    Ha. Silly Plato.
    Thank you for clarifying, I understood Weakness of the Will but didn't grasp how it was a criticism - could you effectively say that Aristotle suggests (and we can see in society today) that people do go against their better judgement and show weakness of will so Plato and Socrates' argument that it is impossible is not a good one? Thanks again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Sorry, I don't know if anyone's replied to you yet :P
    Erm, your teacher is right. If you were in an exam, you would right that line of argument for the Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.

    You're also right - "Is/Ought Gap" is Hume, whereas "Fact/Value Gap" is Hegel (They're both virtually the same thing, apart from Hume's is slightly more modernist and can be more easily accommodated to morality)

    You can link the Naturalistic Fallacy to the Is/Ought Gap, by saying:

    -- "In Principia Ethica, G.E Moore professes that moral terms are unqualified bearers of predicates - this means that they are simple, coherent as a whole, analyzable and indefinable. They are the ultimate terms of reference and cannot be defined or equated natural properties such as happiness, as maintained by Utilitarian proponents, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham...Moore's "Naturalistic Fallacy" compels to David Hume's "Is/Ought" theory. Hume declared that no moral propositions could be derived from any number of facts, which is in accordance to Moore's argument that moral terms cannot be defined in the terms in, thus derived from, natural facts" --

    You may want to check your textbook/notes to make sure I've got that right since I've pretty much just wrote it off the tip of my tounge, but I think that's maybe what your tutor was getting at, perhaps? Getting the A*/A grades is all about finding those subtle links, so I've been told ^.
    Thanks so much :-)!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    Thank you for clarifying, I understood Weakness of the Will but didn't grasp how it was a criticism - could you effectively say that Aristotle suggests (and we can see in society today) that people do go against their better judgement and show weakness of will so Plato and Socrates' argument that it is impossible is not a good one? Thanks again.

    It's cool, we're all here to help each other. Yeah, that'd be a brilliant argument. Although it's not essential, you could bring in Donald Davidson's argument that even though we know that "x", all things considered (for example, we know that x is the most morally right action), is best, we still avert to performing "y", because "y" brings more pleasure than "x".

    For example, all things considered, we know it is best not to steal from Topshop.
    x = Not stealing.
    However, if we steal, we can have the pleasure of getting a load of expensive and luxurious items for free.
    y = Stealing.

    Therefore, although "x" is clearly best, we may instead do to "y" due to the pleasure it brings. This is evident in society, where criminals often make a rational calculation of the benefits of committing a crime. Therefore, this shows that even though people do know what is morally right, we are not fully rational creatures, and we sometimes give into desire and act in our own self-interest, rather than act in the interests of morality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    It's cool, we're all here to help each other. Yeah, that'd be a brilliant argument. Although it's not essential, you could bring in Donald Davidson's argument that even though we know that "x", all things considered (for example, we know that x is the most morally right action), is best, we still avert to performing "y", because "y" brings more pleasure than "x".

    For example, all things considered, we know it is best not to steal from Topshop.
    x = Not stealing.
    However, if we steal, we can have the pleasure of getting a load of expensive and luxurious items for free.
    y = Stealing.

    Therefore, although "x" is clearly best, we may instead do to "y" due to the pleasure it brings. This is evident in society, where criminals often make a rational calculation of the benefits of committing a crime. Therefore, this shows that even though people do know what is morally right, we are not fully rational creatures, and we sometimes give into desire and act in our own self-interest, rather than act in the interests of morality.
    Word! Very Humean, I will be sure to use that. Thanks again.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.