Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought we weren't allowed to talk about it yet?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's fine because it's AQA. you allowed to talk straight after as it is a UK based Board


    What questions did Political/Moral people do??
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    I thought we weren't allowed to talk about it yet?
    no one is talking about it :sly:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ahhh okay In that case, I shall moan about it! I did 'Assess eliminative materialism' and 'Assess the possibility of miracles', the first of which I ran out of stuff to right and kept repeating about qualia. Lost the thread of my second argument, going from saying that the argument is self-defeating to saying that it is impossible to deny that I have beliefs and emotions through introspection, but I justified it by probably repeating the stuff about qualia again. With the second one, I thought it went well enough until I spoke to my friend afterwards, and he said he thought I'd made a mistake on one of my points, and that I could miss out on a couple of marks because of it, but it wasn't as terrible as I was expecting!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, didnt realise you'd written about moral question... i shall hang my head in shame!
    I did the same question, but i have no hope in my answer ha! Epic fail occured, started off with Kant and his Cat imperative, critiqued,then wrote about Utiliarianism and how you have to look at consequence of an action and related it to GHGN... i screwed that one up! third year here i come!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Did moral- deontology and miracles
    ergh messed up big time i think..can't remember what i put..shoot me now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the minimal intervention question for politics and the mind body interaction question for philosophy of mind.
    Just talked about dualism and the problems of it in the mind question and discussed the different ideologys views of the role of the state in the politics one. I was expecting the questions to be harder though, because the questions on the specimen paper were awful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the question from philosophy of religion on relgious experience. WHAT THE HELL DID THE QUOTE MEAN!! How did you find it?

    FML
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AG_SILVA)
    Did anyone do the question from philosophy of religion on relgious experience. WHAT THE HELL DID THE QUOTE MEAN!! How did you find it?

    FML
    Bahh I would have done that question if I had understood the quote! How on earth was that relateable to religious experiences?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Assessing Natural Rights for Political
    and
    The Relativism one for Moral

    Thought it wasn't tooo bad. Glad it's over now though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To get an accurate gauge of the exam's difficulty, you need to get the smart people's opinions on it:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    x
    (Original post by clarehistory101)
    x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The question for mind and body relations, as it let me discuss like 3 different theories, and i did assess arguments again natural law and i defended natural law via hart. did anyone make really concise arguments, i just seemed to ramble on and on fml
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A New Hero)
    Assessing Natural Rights for Political
    and
    The Relativism one for Moral

    Thought it wasn't tooo bad. Glad it's over now though.
    how did you answer the natural rights question?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    To get an accurate gauge of the exam's difficulty, you need to get the smart people's opinions on it:
    keeping your option's open. i like your style
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can I ask, for anyone doing the eliminative materialism question in section A, what were your arguments if you were arguing against it? I feel I rambled slightly..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    To get an accurate gauge of the exam's difficulty, you need to get the smart people's opinions on it:
    Lool, not smart mate- just really good teachers!!!

    I thought the questions were pretty beautiful to be honest, really open ended and mostly reflected the main themes of the syllabus quite well. I was quite surprised that the moral realism question was about cultural relativism, though, cos there didn't seem to be much about it in either textbooks. There were like no philosophers mentioned who advocated or directly argued against relativism so it was more just down to you just knowing the arguments and being able to come to a reasoned conclusion. I was a bit annoyed that they hadn't picked a q on the things i really revised, ie is/ought gap, naturalistic fallacy, emotivism etc, though of course you could link them in, they weren't particularly relevant to the q.

    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    well, what did you all think?

    I did the minimal intervention question for pol...
    I did that question too. Looks like you did really well on that, congrats, looks like you gto a lot of depth there. I thought it was great, so open- you could take it anywhere really, discuss justice, or instead go down the positive/negative freedom debate (or both) or do loads of other stuff lol. I did mostly the freedom thing, though a bit of justice in too. Stated liberalism, nd explained, writing about nozick and mill. then criticised it as not enough having enough negative freedom from the anarchist viewpoint. Just after that said "the same criticisms of tolerance can be applied to liberalism as a whole" then talked about marcuse's repressive desublimation for the synoptic marks :p:

    Then i was like anarchism and marxism offer substantive criticisms but don't offer viable alternatives, then spent the rest of the essay discussing the conservative approach, based on positive freedom and the emphasis on the whole "no man is an island" thing.
    Basically ended up concluding that clearly some liberal concepts need to be used in order to prevent tyrannies, so things such as rights, freedom of speech etc, whilst also adopting some of conservatism nd just tried to make a sophisticated fusion with conservative and liberal elements lool :P
    (Original post by A New Hero)
    Assessing Natural Rights for Political
    and
    The Relativism one for Moral

    Thought it wasn't tooo bad. Glad it's over now though.
    Were you able to mention any philosophers in that one? I did that too, but was only properly able to talk about c.s. lewis and thomas aquinas, nd that wasn't even from philosophy classes or the textbook but from my own reading so i don't think they'll find them to be the best people to quote :s
    Edit: typoooos!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the rejection of natural rights one for politics and the relativism one for moral. I mistakenly tried to reject natural rights with an appeal to social utility, and had to go into Mill and his naturalistic utilitarianism, so I'm sure I was no where near what the mark scheme wants at all. Realised this around 45 minutes into the political essay and then was so panicked that I left out large chunks of evaluation in the moral one.

    Basic argument for the political one was that natural rights, if based in human characteristics would be inviolable, this could work against social utility. If it is a natural fact that humans desire utility and thus it should be maximised then inviolable rights contradict this and can be rejected. Oh by the way the is/ought gap creates major problems for both naturalistic utilitarianism and for natural rights. The end. Which is basically a moral philosophy essay not a political one

    For the moral one my argument pretty much ended up as moral relativism somewhat supports the quote, in that it agrees that there is no universal moral truth, but that there is moral truth within a culture. Absolutist cognivitism would reject the quote, as the differences in moral judgements can be explained through appeals to different factors when saying what are truths or not. Had the most awful conclusion where I basically said, if the factors argument didn't work, they would have to appeal to some other cognitivist argument or say one culture is wrong. Ah well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Lool, not smart mate- just really good teachers!!!

    I did that question too. Looks like you did really well on that, congrats, looks like you gto a lot of depth there. I thought it was great, so open- you could take it anywhere really, discuss justice, or instead go down the positive/negative freedom debate (or both) or do loads of other stuff lol. I did mostly the freedom thing, though a bit of justice in too. Stated liberalism, nd explained, writing about nozick and mill. then criticised it as not enough having enough negative freedom from the anarchist viewpoint. Just after that said "the same criticisms of tolerance can be applied to liberalism as a whole" then talked about marcuse's repressive desublimation for the synoptic marks

    Then i was like anarchism and marxism offer substantive criticisms but don't offer viable alternatives, then spent the rest of the essay discussing the conservative approach, based on positive freedom and the emphasis on the whole "no man is an island" thing.
    Basically ended up concluding that clearly some liberal concepts need to be used in order to prevent tyrannies, so things such as rights, freedom of speech etc, whilst also adopting some of conservatism nd just tried to make a sophisticated fusion with conservative and liberal elements lool :P
    Thanks! I really like your approach to it actually, far more coherent and decisive than mine. I think I would struggle for the AO3 marks if everyone wrote as good an answer as that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)


    I did that question too. Looks like you did really well on that, congrats, looks like you gto a lot of depth there. I thought it was great, so open- you could take it anywhere really, discuss justice, or instead go down the positive/negative freedom debate (or both) or do loads of other stuff lol. I did mostly the freedom thing, though a bit of justice in too. Stated liberalism, nd explained, writing about nozick and mill. then criticised it as not enough having enough negative freedom from the anarchist viewpoint. Just after that said "the same criticisms of tolerance can be applied to liberalism as a whole" then talked about marcuse's repressive desublimation for the synoptic marks :p:

    Then i was like anarchism and marxism offer substantive criticisms but don't offer viable alternatives, then spent the rest of the essay discussing the conservative approach, based on positive freedom and the emphasis on the whole "no man is an island" thing.
    Basically ended up concluding that clearly some liberal concepts need to be used in order to prevent tyrannies, so things such as rights, freedom of speech etc, whilst also adopting some of conservatism nd just tried to make a sophisticated fusion with conservative and liberal elements lool :P
    Thank you so much, you've just made me feel so much better about my essay! I went along the same lines as you and thought i'd done it wrong once I spoke to everyone else!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A philosopher of mind, here.

    Think the question on Eliminative Materialism was okay, I basically outlined the theory, noted that it was not reductive but analogous to other scientific reforms like the abandonment of 'humours' or 'caloric fluid', talked about its strengths - that it fitted with science and followed scientific practice, that scientific findings seemed to back it up as an account of desires (used the Churchlands' example of the man who develops a sexual desire for young girls, is diagnosed with a brain tumour, has the tumour removed and finds the desire gone, too), then used this to jump onto how it is a better account of mental causation (brought in Cartesian dualism here faaairly quickly to show how some theories of mind really struggle with mental causation and mind-body interaction, and I noted the problem of the Law of Conservation of Energy for Descartes, which is a particularly compelling criticism when set alongside a science-fuelled theory like Eliminative Materialism). I then added that it solved the problem of other minds, was parsimonious if correct, and that it avoids positing any 'mysterious' other substance - like metaphysical mind.

    Then I talked about the first big criticism - that it fails actually to give an account of WHAT, if not metaphysics, might actually be responsible for consciousness and generally, the phenomenon we experience and call 'mind' - and said that the Eliminative Materialist can't simply refuse to give an account of this, because surely, we are directly acquainted with consciousness. I added that even if 'mind' is just brain activity, it seems to lead to the view that I could complain of a headache, a neurologist could examine me and, were I not exhibiting the brain-state for 'pain' (e.g. c-fibres firing), could tell me that I was wrong about my own qualia. Which just seems absurd, and totally against the private nature mind seems to have. I then noted that the eliminative materialist could reply that this is just a misunderstanding - that admittedly, it is difficult to accept now that one day science will have advanced sufficiently to remove the 'privacy' we are habituated at present to thinking mind has - but that this does not mean 'privacy' is not an illusion, based on ignorance.

    I then said that this leads to another problem for the eliminative materialist - that it is a theory based on the hypothetical, that there is no real proof to back up the view that 'one day' science will be able to account for consciousness as brain-activity. It is just a hypothesis. I said that the eliminative materialist could still accept this, but then by their own logic, it is a hypothesis which could be overturned later in favour of an even better, or more accurate account of 'mind' - and so that would mean accepting the possibility of their theory proving inaccurate.

    I then went on to press this point - that it doesn't seem to be a true account of the phenomena we call 'mind', and that it can't really explain intentionality or qualia in purely naturalistic terms - with the 'Mary the Colourblind Scientist' thought experiment, and Nagel's Bat. I pointed out that both of those thought experiments attack all naturalistic accounts, including reductionism, and that only dualist theories seemed successful in accounting for the properties of subjectivity, privacy, intentionality, etc which mind seems so intuitively to have. Naturalist accounts leave a 'gap' between 'how it might work' and 'how it feels'.

    I said that the analogy with the Caloric seemed to be a false analogy, in the end, too - caloric, after all, was a complete misunderstanding of 'heat', but it seems that consciousness may well be a real and valid phenomenon in and of itself. I concluded that I thought that explaining this consciousness in a theory of mind was more important than explaining, say, mental causation - and so I'd probably look to some sort of dualism. In any case, I regarded it as a huge problem for eliminative materialism and found it ultimately an unconvincing theory, especially given that there was currently no real scientific proof to suggest it be adopted as a correct account of mind.


    And for moral philosophy, I attempted the question on Kant and duties - but I failed horribly, didn't get past an exposition of why he believed moral motivation should come from duty (or reason; I used those two terms interchangeably) - i.e that reason is part of the noumenal, free self whereas desires and beliefs are part of the causally-determined phenomenal self... and that as 'ought implies can', moral actions have to be free to BE moral, and so must come FROM reason - and a brief illustration about a sweetshop owner choosing whether or not to raise his prices after school to trick children into paying more: and that if he did choose not to, this still wasn't truly moral unless he acted out of REASON, or just because it was right; if he had not-raised-his-prices out of a desire not to get caught, this would not be moral. Then I got to putting down the implication that self-interest must be divorced from morality, although it can coincide.

    I'm not sure what I would have said at that point - I ran out of time (but love me! I made your grade boundaries go down...) - but I think I would have gone on to explain how the categorical imperative is to be used to show exactly how we should act in a particular situation. Also would have noted the strength - that although there are moral laws, we can also go by a case-by-case basis thanks to reason. Then I'd have shown how the categorical imperative seems to fail in a conflict between two duties.
    I'd have argued then that Kant's deontology only seems to have to follow anyway, if you subscribe to Kant's view in the first place - and that other, entirely different accounts of moral motivation are possible. I'd probably have brought in utilitarianism here, as allowing for an act to be moral by redefining what 'being moral' means, and I'd have explained why this seems to give a better account of motivation. Then I'd have explained why this fails, why rule utilitarianism tries to fix this and how rule utilitarianism fails, too, and how it all falls prey to the problem of naturalising morality, i.e. the naturalistic fallacy. Then, maybe I'd have pointed back to deontology as an account which avoids this. Then I'd have spoken about the Arguments from Queerness and how deontology as a whole seems to falter here. Or... something.

    I just hope I can still scrape a B in the A-level overall...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 20, 2012

University open days

  • Staffordshire University
    Everything except: Midwifery, Operating Department Practice, Paramedic Undergraduate
    Sun, 21 Oct '18
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

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.