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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My predictions, based on past papers.

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

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    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:
    1. You only have an hour and cannot write everything.
    2. "Quality, not quantity" If you go into depth with your points with clear examples and reasons for accepting/rejecting the position, you be able to easily pick up marks.
    3. The question (in this case) is asking you to focus on duty and deontology, not every normative ethics position. utilitarianism is only used as a counter-argument to show that you have an understanding of the implications of deontology, even though you support it.
    This is great! For the first part (I'm doing political philosophy for example) would it be a similar layout?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    My predictions, based on past papers.

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

    Moral Philosophy:
    - Cognitivism
    - Deontology (applied to a practical issue)
    I really, really, REALLY hope you're right about the political philosophy questions! I also think there's a possibility that there might be something about the tension between natural rights and substantive theories of justice, like those put forward by Rawls and Marx...that might make for an interesting question...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonny_page)
    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?!
    That's what I'm hoping for! When you read over the spec they do two separate paragraphs one explaining moral truth etc then the whole other on moral decisions so I feel quite confident they would not do two on the first.

    Examiners aren't necessarily trying to make you fail (as I thought last year a lot). Well I hope not haha...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    This is great! For the first part (I'm doing political philosophy for example) would it be a similar layout?
    Yeah, this model can be applied to any type of Philosophy essay Basically, you need to figure out what the question is asking you, and narrowly focus on those key terms, offering counter arguments to boost both your A01 and A03. And don't forget - LOADS of examples for A02.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys, anyone here studying epistemology and metaphysics? I was just wondering, is all of epistemology underpinned by metaphysics?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My personal predictions (Based on past papers)

    Politics:
    Rights vs. Utility, can it be reconciled?
    The extent to which redistribution can be justified
    or 'What does it mean to be free?' Positive vs. Negative freedom

    Morality:
    Moral truth as relational properties (blerghhh)
    Kant's universal laws derived from reason as a decision procedure necessary for a moral problem
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lingo-Flamingo)
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    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
    Oh, no, I think what you have should be fine! I think different centres teach different things, but as long as it's relevant to the question, I'm sure whatever you write will be fine! I'll just send you the essay now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know a critique of Kierkegaards tragic hero analogy as well as his idea of a leap of faith for religious experience topic?
    Struggling to find it in my notes..:/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kierkegaard argument only shows that faith is not unreasonable and doesn't show that we should leap in a particular way. Not much to say about it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's not religious experience it's about faith and reason and whether belief in god is relational or irrational


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm predicting- moral philosophy: either transcendent moral truth or relational properties
    then hopefully Kant on a moral problem

    political philosophy: hopefully a grounding of rights or utility and rights question
    and then the state as an organic entity
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How would a Rights and Utility question go about being asked/answered?


    Feel there is not enough to go on from this textbook...
    They've got the argument etc then two objections but that's it..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also what is the likelihood of Natural rights coming up again with rights? - Feel now I should more revision into the grounding of and utility but don't want to do this unadvised!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=aaf;43103526]Kierkegaard argument only shows that faith is not unreasonable and doesn't show that we should leap in a particular way. Not much to say about it

    Okay thank you, it's just because I didn't really have any criticisms of it, and yeah I know it's because I was doing religious experience all night must of gone to my head and made me get them mixed up
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ah ok just checking you realised what topic it came under


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaf)
    Ah ok just checking you realised what topic it came under


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just hoping that doesn't happen in the exam now ..
    Only one day left oh my god..
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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