Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Hello, my text book only applies the titles 'non-cognitive and cognitive' to the meta-ethical theories.
    I'm not sure whether they apply to religious language too?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone outline to me in full the 'agent centred' feature of virtue ethics, and the benefits and criticisms of this please? Thanks.

    PS. quote me!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh fml, this exam will be the death of me!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaintyDoll)
    Oh fml, this exam will be the death of me!
    If I had a pound for every time I've said this, I wouldn't need to get the grades to go to university! I'd be a millionaire instead.

    Just remember, it'll all be over in 5 days!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    She has it correct if by labelling the theories as cognitivist she means that they are affirming something factual about God.
    Textbook definition of cognitive: a statement that is subject to being true or false.

    Apart from Vie Negativa none of those are statements subject to being true or false.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philly.tidd)
    Can someone outline to me in full the 'agent centred' feature of virtue ethics, and the benefits and criticisms of this please? Thanks.

    PS. quote me!
    By being 'agent-centred', we mean that Virtue Ethics focuses upon the individual moral-agent involved, unlike other normative ethical theories that focus on us following a set of rules to fulfil a particular end. For example, Utilitarianism claims that a moral action promotes pleasure and minimises pain. We should do something because it fulfils this maxim. For Virtue Ethics, there are no maxims that we should follow; we should simply do things that allow us to grow as virtuous people, and help us to achieve eudaimonia. In this sense, we should strive to become moral individuals, and focus on utilising our potential to become virtuous. This means that it focuses on the agent involved, rather than the outcome and the like.

    A benefit of this is that it acknowledges that we are not moral if we just follow a set of rules. Just because someone gives charity because it is promotes pleasure, it doesn't mean that the moral agent is good, or even moral. We could be giving money to charity because we want to show off to others - according to Utilitarianism, this does not matter because is maximises happiness. However, we know that a person is not necessarily moral if they do something 'good' because rules tell them to. Instead, we should give charity because it is the virtuous thing to do for us as agents, and leads to human flourishing.

    Another strength is that we may actually get closer to understanding morality if we look at it in terms of becoming a good person. Following rules kinda destroys the reduces ethics to something which is done without reason. We do not murder for example because Natural Law tells us not to, not because we understand why it is wrong. This removes the need for our conscience, and human discretion. We do things without questioning it, almost like the Divine Command Theory. Virtue Ethics on the other hand allows us to use our conscience and act accordingly to virtues, focusing on the agent rather than the consequences.

    A problem with this is that it is very hard to apply to real life dilemmas. It is all good saying that we should strive to become virtuous individuals, and act using virtues, but how do we apply to real life? In the case of globalisation for example, how do businesses decide whether to utilise cheap labour in developing countries? Also, you could say that fields such as business are not to do with virtues - they are too competitive to even consider virtues. Business is a dominated by a 'dog eat dog' mentality, and virtue ethics does not fit in with this. It's not about becoming a good person, it's about maximising profits. Businesses don't care about being good agents lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    If I had a pound for every time I've said this, I wouldn't need to get the grades to go to university! I'd be a millionaire instead.

    Just remember, it'll all be over in 5 days!
    Ahh, it's so difficult and so much to remember!

    That's true, this time next week all my exams will be done; that day will be amazing :')

    Also, does anyone know what grade i'd need to get overall to get a C for my final grade if, I got 145 UMS at AS? (it's a B)

    I will be happy with a C in this subject, if I do better than that then I will literally be gobsmacked!

    Thanks if anyone can work this out for me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey can someone give me some pointers please im a bit unsure on meta-ethics
    How would i go about deciding if ethical language is meaningful? can non-cognotive ethical theories still be meaningful even if they are meerly expresssions?
    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey hey hey again.

    Having some real problems with sexual ethics. (We ran of time in class and never got to fully cover it--so my notes are pretty shocking). I'm allllrightish with the Natural Law approach and the advantages/disadvantages with that butttt...looking back at the past papers it seems highly unlikely that Natural Law applied to sexual ethics'll come up. (Oh noes). I've been trying to work out how the various ethical theories apply to seuxal ethics (and the strengths/weaknesses of those approaches) on my own, but I've become really, really stuck. Could anyone share with me any ideas about Utilitarianism, Kant, Virtue Ethics and Christian Ethics?

    Thank youuu
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    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!
    That's very kind of you

    Good luck for the exam too!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaintyDoll)
    Ahh, it's so difficult and so much to remember!

    That's true, this time next week all my exams will be done; that day will be amazing :')

    Also, does anyone know what grade i'd need to get overall to get a C for my final grade if, I got 145 UMS at AS? (it's a B)

    I will be happy with a C in this subject, if I do better than that then I will literally be gobsmacked!

    Thanks if anyone can work this out for me
    I got 2 D's the first time i did these A2 modules and i have an A and a B at AS and my result was a C overall so you should be fine... if you want to calculate it by doing an average to see what you would get, add your individual AS scores and predicted A2 scores. The average is your grade. They're out of 100 so anything over 60 is a C.

    (i think i'm right, it's how i've been calculating mine...)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I need an A in both exams. :eek3:

    Currently re - summarising my notes and am going to record my notes soon aswell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S1800)
    Hey can someone give me some pointers please im a bit unsure on meta-ethics
    How would i go about deciding if ethical language is meaningful? can non-cognotive ethical theories still be meaningful even if they are meerly expresssions?
    Thanks
    The term 'meaningful' is used in the sense of the 'meaning' of a sentence. For the Logical Positivists (who are behind many of the attacks upon ethical language) the meaning of a statement is intimately related to what would make it true. So for them if something cannot be shown to be true or false then it is meaningless. Cognitive ethical theories, theories that believe ethical facts to be objective, have language with meaning in this sense.

    To get to your question, non-cognitive theories are theories that explicitly deny any direct factual meaning to their theories. So going by the definition of what the meaning of a sentence requires from the Positivists, non-cognitive theories cannot be meaningful.

    Two points to note. The first is cautionary - this isn't meaning as in "the meaning of life" or "Love is a meaningful feeling", but as in "what does that word mean?" So I've made the mistake before, and you might have, of calling ethical language meaningful because of its use to people, but the Positivists aren't talking about this at all. The second is that the Positivist definition of meaningful is controversial - so you could argue that any ethical language is meaningful because of it being its own language game (Wittgenstein) etc.

    Sorry for the essay, hope it helped!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Source? Cause I'm pretty sure you've got that completely wrong.

    (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.
    Ineluctable is correct - we've just had a repeat of the previous mix up. Can't remember who else said it, but it depends on how you ask the question to determine what's cognitive or not. The methods of language aren't inherently cognitive or non-cognitive themselves.

    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    She has it correct if by labelling the theories as cognitivist she means that they are affirming something factual about God.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Just finished (learning) revising all RS topics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What does one need to know aboot environmental ethics?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No.1 Loner)
    What does one need to know aboot environmental ethics?
    3 main views:
    Deep ecology
    Shallow ecology
    Gaia

    Link these to whether they see nature as instrumental or intrinsically valuable.

    Apply ethical theories to the environment, its protection (whether we should and to what extent) and to be able to justify why this theory would adopt such a stance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    3 main views:
    Deep ecology
    Shallow ecology
    Gaia

    Link these to whether they see nature as instrumental or intrinsically valuable.

    Apply ethical theories to the environment, its protection (whether we should and to what extent) and to be able to justify why this theory would adopt such a stance.
    Would I need to know a religious approach to the environment?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No.1 Loner)
    Would I need to know a religious approach to the environment?
    Yes, between the ideas of dominion and stewardship and the thoughts of St. Paul
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Yes, between the ideas of dominion and stewardship and the thoughts of St. Paul
    Little help on St.Paul?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
The home of Results and Clearing

3,194

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Undergraduate
    Tue, 21 Aug '18
  2. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 22 Aug '18
  3. University of Buckingham
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

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.