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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What are the predictions on what will come up in the exam for Philosophy and Ethics A2? I plan to revising everything, but I'm a bit cramped for time and need to focus more on specific parts!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Does anyone else hate business ethics? I may not even bother revising it because there is only going to be one question on it if it does come up
    I really dislike writing questions on it. The Jan 2011 question:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "The environment suffers because business has no ethics. Discuss."
    would literally be the last question I would answer on the paper. It seems like you're being asked to make descriptive economic judgements rather than ethical ones, which doesn't leave that much room for ethical debate, imho.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    I really dislike writing questions on it. The Jan 2011 question:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "The environment suffers because business has no ethics. Discuss."
    would literally be the last question I would answer on the paper. It seems like you're being asked to make descriptive economic judgements rather than ethical ones, which doesn't leave that much room for ethical debate, imho.
    Exactly. Let's hope that they don't bother putting it in this exam so we have better choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    I really dislike writing questions on it. The Jan 2011 question:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "The environment suffers because business has no ethics. Discuss."
    would literally be the last question I would answer on the paper. It seems like you're being asked to make descriptive economic judgements rather than ethical ones, which doesn't leave that much room for ethical debate, imho.
    yeah i agree. I hate the business and environmental ethics questions. I was reading examiners reports from last year and it said not many people answered those questions (they're the hardest topics) so there will probably be one every year to force the exam centers to teach it properly, it's really important issues... bla bla..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, confused again! Does anyone understand Kant's views on determinism? At first I thought he was a soft determinist...but now I'm not sure because from what I have been reading he might be a libertarian?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Ok, confused again! Does anyone understand Kant's views on determinism? At first I thought he was a soft determinist...but now I'm not sure because from what I have been reading he might be a libertarian?
    Kant basically said we should assume free will if morality is to exist, otherwise we can't be accountable for our actions, so theoretically a libertarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My teacher pointed out that in meta-ethics, free will and determinism and conscience essays you will nearly always be asked the same things. For meta-ethics it will be whether ethical terms mean anything, for free-will and determinism whether morality is possible, and for conscience whether it is the voice of God. There will be nuances in the actual question asked, but the issues in these topic areas are limited. Of course for the applied ethics questions there is going to be 10-15+ possible combinations, the 5 theories applied to sexual ethics, business or the environment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did Augustine say about predestination?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    What did Augustine say about predestination?
    Augustine said only God can choose who’ll receive the grace of salvation ‘The potter has authority over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honour & another for contempt’
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Augustine said only God can choose who’ll receive the grace of salvation ‘The potter has authority over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honour & another for contempt’
    Is this linked to his theodicy in any way?

    and what about John Calvin? Thanks
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Is this linked to his theodicy in any way?

    and what about John Calvin? Thanks
    Calvin - man is inherently evil because of the fall. If we were free we would always reject God. God in his grace allows some of us to be saved through predestination

    Calvin is very similar to Augustines theodicy in reliance on original sin. However, I'm not sure if Augustine's theodicy directly relates to his views on the elect, sorry!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Kant basically said we should assume free will if morality is to exist, otherwise we can't be accountable for our actions, so theoretically a libertarian.
    Ok thank you, makes a lot more sense now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    “God” is a symbol. The reality is an Absolute state.

    Therefore “God” cannot act. “God” the Absolute is everywhere. On every level of creation known and unknown to a human mind. Therefore “God” cannot move since no where to move to. Therefore “God” cannot act.

    “God” has no attributes whatsoever as any attribute is a limit and “God” is Absolute.

    So that bins all theistic religions of the bat.

    “God” cannot know anything of creation, and has nothing to do with creation. “God” is not inside or outside creation. “God” has no inside or outside.

    “God” exists as self-existent. Creation cannot exist without “God”. In that sense only can “God” be said to cause creation.

    The nearest conception a mind can get to Absolute is nothingness. But for a mind nothingness equates to vacuity, nihilism, and a mind cannot think of no attributes.

    Yet every conception of “God” runs intro contradiction since duality is trying to define unity. No chance.

    As Lao Tzu wrote “Darkness within darkness. The Gate to all Mystery”.

    Mankinds attempt to make sense leads to human inventions. Yet even the bible says, “Thou shalt not worship graven images” Doesn't restrict to just physical images and mental are far more insidious.

    You can never know “God” only be God. “Be still and know that I am God.” But all creation is movement without beginning or end. So creation in part or whole can have no knowledge of the Absolute. Only “God” can be “God”. “Be still and know that I am God”.

    So your tutors are spinning wheels and wasting there time and yours unless you are beginning to appreciate that even knowledge is a limit to be transcended as knowing is a requirement and “God” has no requirements.

    Hope this just helps you question the questions a bit more.

    Have a great day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Ok, confused again! Does anyone understand Kant's views on determinism? At first I thought he was a soft determinist...but now I'm not sure because from what I have been reading he might be a libertarian?
    Kant sees us as spanning two realms - the phenomenal 'things as they appear' realm and the noumenal 'things as they are' realm. Our will lies in the noumenal and if we have a good will which acts only upon reason then we are free - if we follow the whims of the phenomenal passions then we are allowing ourselves to be determined by them. The whole drive behind Kant is this attempt to gain autonomy - and he sees the only way to do this as to follow the categorical imperative - which is based upon reason and does not depend upon the phenomenal realm.

    However if we follow hypothetical imperatives then we place our actions as the whims of "if". So if we have the imperative "if it rains then put up an umbrella" then our will is determined by whether or not it rains.

    All in all, Kant is complex but ultimately a libertarian - all of us can be free (even if not all of us are). Just remember your AS ethics on Kant and you'll be fine
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taxpayer)
    “God” is a symbol. The reality is an Absolute state.

    Therefore “God” cannot act. “God” the Absolute is everywhere. On every level of creation known and unknown to a human mind. Therefore “God” cannot move since no where to move to. Therefore “God” cannot act.

    “God” has no attributes whatsoever as any attribute is a limit and “God” is Absolute.

    So that bins all theistic religions of the bat.

    “God” cannot know anything of creation, and has nothing to do with creation. “God” is not inside or outside creation. “God” has no inside or outside.

    “God” exists as self-existent. Creation cannot exist without “God”. In that sense only can “God” be said to cause creation.

    The nearest conception a mind can get to Absolute is nothingness. But for a mind nothingness equates to vacuity, nihilism, and a mind cannot think of no attributes.

    Yet every conception of “God” runs intro contradiction since duality is trying to define unity. No chance.

    As Lao Tzu wrote “Darkness within darkness. The Gate to all Mystery”.

    Mankinds attempt to make sense leads to human inventions. Yet even the bible says, “Thou shalt not worship graven images” Doesn't restrict to just physical images and mental are far more insidious.

    You can never know “God” only be God. “Be still and know that I am God.” But all creation is movement without beginning or end. So creation in part or whole can have no knowledge of the Absolute. Only “God” can be “God”. “Be still and know that I am God”.

    So your tutors are spinning wheels and wasting there time and yours unless you are beginning to appreciate that even knowledge is a limit to be transcended as knowing is a requirement and “God” has no requirements.

    Hope this just helps you question the questions a bit more.

    Have a great day.
    A.J. Ayer would not like you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    Kant sees us as spanning two realms - the phenomenal 'things as they appear' realm and the noumenal 'things as they are' realm. Our will lies in the noumenal and if we have a good will which acts only upon reason then we are free - if we follow the whims of the phenomenal passions then we are allowing ourselves to be determined by them. The whole drive behind Kant is this attempt to gain autonomy - and he sees the only way to do this as to follow the categorical imperative - which is based upon reason and does not depend upon the phenomenal realm.

    However if we follow hypothetical imperatives then we place our actions as the whims of "if". So if we have the imperative "if it rains then put up an umbrella" then our will is determined by whether or not it rains.

    All in all, Kant is complex but ultimately a libertarian - all of us can be free (even if not all of us are). Just remember your AS ethics on Kant and you'll be fine
    Thank you so much! I fully understand it now! Previously I didn't have a clue what the textbooks were going on about when they were saying about a phenomenal and a noumenal realm, but that makes a lot more sense so thank you!

    You should write the textbooks :P For some reason they always feel the need to write the ideas in a jumbled fashion, or they just shove in technical words (such as the two realms) without explaining them!

    Thanks for the help, and if I don't see you around here again then good luck in the exam!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, for philosophy: religious language is this correct:
    Non-cognitive theories: Falsifcation principle and verification principle
    Cognitive theories: Via negativa, Analogy, symbol and myth, language games.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Ok, for philosophy: religious language is this correct:
    Non-cognitive theories: Falsifcation principle and verification principle
    Cognitive theories: Via negativa, Analogy, symbol and myth, language games.
    Source? Cause I'm pretty sure you've got that completely wrong.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by taxpayer)
    “God” is a symbol. The reality is an Absolute state. Apart from fitting with your concept of 'God' why else should we subscribe to your belief - prove it

    Therefore “God” cannot act. “God” the Absolute is everywhere. On every level of creation known and unknown to a human mind. Therefore “God” cannot move since no where to move to. Therefore “God” cannot act. Your concept of a pantheistic God doesn't mean he can also be theistic as in he can act within the nature he created

    “God” has no attributes whatsoever as any attribute is a limit and “God” is Absolute. Absolute is an attribute, and again, prove it

    So that bins all theistic religions of the bat.

    “God” cannot know anything of creation, and has nothing to do with creation. “God” is not inside or outside creation. “God” has no inside or outside. If God is everywhere, he is creation. Your also ascribing him attributes (or lack of)

    “God” exists as self-existent. Creation cannot exist without “God”. In that sense only can “God” be said to cause creation. You just said that God has nothing to do with creation, make your mind up and of course - prove it

    The nearest conception a mind can get to Absolute is nothingness. But for a mind nothingness equates to vacuity, nihilism, and a mind cannot think of no attributes. Why can't a mind think of no attributes? You just describe a lack of belief in religion, your moving from nihilism to equating that with the only way of thinking of 'nothing'

    Yet every conception of “God” runs intro contradiction since duality is trying to define unity. No chance. Why?

    As Lao Tzu wrote “Darkness within darkness. The Gate to all Mystery”.

    Mankinds attempt to make sense leads to human inventions. Yet even the bible says, “Thou shalt not worship graven images” Doesn't restrict to just physical images and mental are far more insidious.

    You can never know “God” only be God. “Be still and know that I am God.” But all creation is movement without beginning or end. So creation in part or whole can have no knowledge of the Absolute. Only “God” can be “God”. “Be still and know that I am God”. You can only be God, then you say, only God can be God - clarify or contradiction.

    So your tutors are spinning wheels and wasting there time and yours unless you are beginning to appreciate that even knowledge is a limit to be transcended as knowing is a requirement and “God” has no requirements.

    Hope this just helps you question the questions a bit more.

    Have a great day.
    At least put forward a decent argument
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Source? Cause I'm pretty sure you've got that completely wrong.
    She has it correct if by labelling the theories as cognitivist she means that they are affirming something factual about God.
 
 
 
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.