Turn on thread page Beta

Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion] watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Ok, essay stucture question. I just planned "conscience is the voice of God" and I don't know what would be the best way to structure the ideas...
    Structure # 1
    Discuss the people who believe conscience is the voice of God - Augustine, Butler and Newman
    Discuss the weaknesses
    Therefore perhaps a secular approach is better
    Discuss the secular scholars - Freud, Piaget and Fromm
    Discuss the weaknesses
    Therefore perhaps the most coherant theory is that conscience comes from reason
    Discuss Aquinas and the strengths and weaknesses of his theory.
    Conclude

    OR structure #2 where I would mix up the secular and religious views:
    Discuss Augustine and Newman
    Discuss weaknesses
    Maybe a secular view is better
    Discuss Freud
    However this eliminates God - Discuss Butler
    Weaknesses
    Discuss Piaget and Fromm
    Weaknesses
    Discuss Aquinas
    Conclude

    Which structure would you say is better? I think #1 would be easier to follow the line of discussion, but then #2 is more like a debate...?
    That's quite a lot of philosophers for that question. I think It might be better to analysis Augustine and Newman, who agree with the question. Then argue that it is instead a gift from God, or the result of society which would be Freud, Piaget etc. That way it would be quite easy to have a view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Non-cognitive / cognitive refer not to their conclusions of meaning, but their approach.

    So Ayer's verfication principle is cognitive because his method is based on true/false propositions about language in general. He then concludes that because reliigous language can't be verified, it is meaningless.

    He then developed emotivism, a non-cognitive (in meta-ethics non-cognitive is based on the NON existance of objective good) explanation for religious language that states when we talk about God, we're not making factual judgements but boo-hurrahs.
    YES! I finally get it.

    Just to clarify then, for Philosophy:
    Cognitive:
    - Verification Principle
    - Falsification Principle
    - Language Games
    - Via Negativa

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Symbol
    - Myth
    - Analogy

    Ethics:
    Cognitive:
    - Naturalism

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Emotivism
    - Prescriptivism
    - Intuitionism

    Hopefully these are correct!

    Thanks in advance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are there definitely going to be two applied questions!? So there'll be one on sexual ethics and also either business/ environment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    I'm also strugglign on conscience. The Jan 2011 question was: "critically assess the claim that conscience is the voice of reason". I'm not really sure who said it was the vocie of reason. I understand Aquinas was of this view, but why? Was it because in the use of synderesis+conscienta we use "repeated right reason" to form ethical judgements? The mark scheme also said that Freud was of this view - my textbook didn't say anythin gabotu that! Does anyone know to what extent Freud is rational, it's something to do wqith the super-ego :s
    Aquinas said conscience is reason used correctly to work out Gods will, so i'd focus on him.
    It's because we need reason for the Synderesis which allows us to understand the moral principles.
    Then we need reason to apply them using the Conscientia.


    You could also argue Piaget and Kohlberg who believe, if your conscience has developed enough that it based around reason as we make our own rules instead of just abiding by the rules of society.

    The obvious opposition to his would be Augustine and Newman who just say it's God's voice
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    YES! I finally get it.

    Just to clarify then, for Philosophy:
    Cognitive:
    - Verification Principle
    - Falsification Principle
    - Language Games
    - Via Negativa

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Symbol
    - Myth
    - Analogy

    Ethics:
    Cognitive:
    - Naturalism

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Emotivism
    - Prescriptivism
    - Intuitionism

    Hopefully these are correct!

    Thanks in advance
    Intuitionism is cognitive. Verification and falsification are non-cognitive (because they assert that nothing factual can be said about religious language)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umm123)
    Are there definitely going to be two applied questions!? So there'll be one on sexual ethics and also either business/ environment?
    It's not guaranteed. They could, if they wanted, put three applied ethics questions on the paper but they haven't done that yet.

    In the past though, there has always been two applied ethics and two non-applied questions.

    You could gamble it I guess
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clevergecko)
    It's his more empirical (earlier) approach which influenced the Vienna circle and led them to the VP. It's the idea that language is meaningful if it refers to real world objects - that we can 'picture' the statement.
    Surely that is equally inapplicable to meta-ethics? And wouldn't you have to represent language games as the work of the later Wittgenstein?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    It's not guaranteed. They could, if they wanted, put three applied ethics questions on the paper but they haven't done that yet.

    In the past though, there has always been two applied ethics and two non-applied questions.

    You could gamble it I guess
    But if they put three applied topics on there would probably be mass protests because they would be only 25% of the questions on over 50% of the material!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, could somebody please explain the naturalistic fallacy and how it relates to ethical naturalism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    It's not guaranteed. They could, if they wanted, put three applied ethics questions on the paper but they haven't done that yet.

    In the past though, there has always been two applied ethics and two non-applied questions.

    You could gamble it I guess
    Thanks

    I think I will take the gamble, I just hope they suddenly don't decide to only put one applied question on the exam :eek:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Sorry to be an idiot, but can you please explain how it is related to euthyphro dilemma?
    Because he said that that which is willed by God is good. Therefore, we must use our conscience given by God to see what is good (as told by God). For example, the guilt I feel for pushing an old lady over is because it goes against my conscience where God said 'Thou shall not push old ladies over because I command it to be bad'

    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    YES! I finally get it.

    Just to clarify then, for Philosophy:
    Cognitive:
    - Verification Principle
    - Falsification Principle
    - Language Games
    - Via Negativa

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Symbol
    - Myth
    - Analogy

    Ethics:
    Cognitive:
    - Naturalism

    Non-Cognitive:
    - Emotivism
    - Prescriptivism
    - Intuitionism

    Hopefully these are correct!

    Thanks in advance
    Intuitionism is cognitive because what is good is objective, we just can't use the environment to find it out.

    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Intuitionism is cognitive. Verification and falsification are non-cognitive (because they assert that nothing factual can be said about religious language)
    No they don't assert that. They assert that all language can be applied to the principles of verifaction and falsification be it 'I had rice crispies for breakfast' or 'Jesus is the son of God'

    They do conclude talking about God is meaningless because the religious shift the goal posts/ no way of verifying. However, they are still using a factual approach. If Jesus came down tomorrow and had God DNA then something factual can be said about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Surely that is equally inapplicable to meta-ethics? And wouldn't you have to represent language games as the work of the later Wittgenstein?
    It's relatable to the cognitive/non cognitive debate. Could relate it to Ethical naturalism and moore's intuitionism. Particularly to his explanation of good using 'yellow' - whereas we can picture what that is the Wittgenstein sense, we can't good.

    And yes you'd have to represent language games as later. A reconsideration of meaning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dixxy)
    is religious language definitely going to come up? i mean, it always has done, but there is a chance they could miss it out completely? (i hope not!)
    i don't know, i'm wondering the same thing ! I hope it's up, but then again they could miss it off completely :/ but there are definitely parts of the topic which haven\t been covered yet.. so fingers cross ! i'm putting all my money on this and life after death coming up. so if they're not i'm seriously screwed come tomorrow !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KieranJones)
    Also, could somebody please explain the naturalistic fallacy and how it relates to ethical naturalism?
    Moore describes the naturalistic fallacy in terms of open and closed questions, whereas a closed question is necessarily the case by definition, an open question is not.

    Closed: George is a brother, but is he male and a sibling?
    Open: George is a brother, but is he a dancer?

    What Moore said ethical naturalists were doing was to define ethical terms with open questions, which therefore made no sense.

    For example the utilitarians defined good as 'pleasure' but then we must ask, 'but is pleasure necessarily good?' the answer to that is no, and so to define good in these terms makes no sense and gets us no closer to a true definition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clevergecko)
    Moore describes the naturalistic fallacy in terms of open and closed questions, whereas a closed question is necessarily the case by definition, an open question is not.

    Closed: George is a brother, but is he male and a sibling?
    Open: George is a brother, but is he a dancer?

    What Moore said ethical naturalists were doing was to define ethical terms with open questions, which therefore made no sense.

    For example the utilitarians defined good as 'pleasure' but then we must ask, 'but is pleasure necessarily good?' the answer to that is no, and so to define good in these terms makes no sense and gets us no closer to a true definition.
    So basically, closed questions = analytic, open questions = synthetic? I think I understand now. I found this elsewhere on TSR:

    Naturalistic fallacy: You cannot define moral terms in naturalistic terms. You cannot define goodness in terms of pleasure because they don't mean the same thing. How do we know this? Because if they meant the same thing then we would be contradicting ourselves by saying 'x is good but not pleasurable' in the same way as we would contradict ourselves by saying 'John is a bachelor but isn't an unmarried man'. But it seems that we don't contradict ourselves in such a way. Therefore they don't mean the same thing and so moral terms cannot be defined in naturalistic terms. This is Moore's famed open question argument.
    That seems to agree with what you're saying, right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KieranJones)
    So basically, closed questions = analytic, open questions = synthetic? I think I understand now. I found this elsewhere on TSR:



    That seems to agree with what you're saying, right?
    Yup that's right. Sometimes you see moore misquoted as using hume's law (also known, pretty confusingly, as the naturalistic fallacy) of the is/ought distinction. They are similar though, I guess.

    I am quite proud of the fact that I'm regurgitating this from memory alone :P haha.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Because he said that that which is willed by God is good. Therefore, we must use our conscience given by God to see what is good (as told by God). For example, the guilt I feel for pushing an old lady over is because it goes against my conscience where God said 'Thou shall not push old ladies over because I command it to be bad'
    Is this not divine command theory rather than the euthyphro dilemma? (The euthyphro dilemma is the dilemma of whether things are good because God commands them, or if God commands things because they are good independently)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by skygirl999)
    Is this not divine command theory rather than the euthyphro dilemma? (The euthyphro dilemma is the dilemma of whether things are good because God commands them, or if God commands things because they are good independently)
    divine command theory is the voluntarist approach of the euthyphro dillemma which Augstine follows. Two words same thing (I feel like Ryle )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't know whether to start revising sexual ethics or free will and determinism.. i've given up on philosophy :/ advice please !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clevergecko)
    It's relatable to the cognitive/non cognitive debate. Could relate it to Ethical naturalism and moore's intuitionism. Particularly to his explanation of good using 'yellow' - whereas we can picture what that is the Wittgenstein sense, we can't good.

    And yes you'd have to represent language games as later. A reconsideration of meaning.
    Oh ok thanks.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,578

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. SAE Institute
    Animation, Audio, Film, Games, Music, Business, Web Further education
    Thu, 16 Aug '18
  2. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  3. University of Bolton
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?

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.