Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone else think business ethics will come up this year over the environment ? x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anna Louise)
    does anyone else think business ethics will come up this year over the environment ? x
    Yes, I do! Jan 2011 was environmental and business together ("The environment suffers because business has no ethics" Discuss) and on a side note, they aaalways do sexual ethics, so I don't think they'll repeat it AGAIN!

    But then again, it really is risky to rely on guessing, so i would revise both (environ and business) if you have time!

    PLEASE could someone help clarify/send me their notes on the Omnipotence of God, as I have a feeling it will come up...
    Beforehand I thought it was a pretty simple topic, but now I've completely confused myself! How do we assess it in relation to eternal views (timeless/everlasting) as well as the diff views of 1) God can do anything, including the logically impossible 2) God can do anything that is logically possible 3) God has the power to do anything that is logically possible for a perfect God to do??! Also- scholars to include?

    Hope this makes sense, and thanks to everyone who's spent the time to go through past questions and predict for this year!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Was getting 95-100% in A2 ethics mocks, took the exam in Jan and got 64%....
    Yeah my confidence is rock bottom right now, dreading the day with both exams, my essay writing skills just aren't there. I cannot write critically, I'm awful. Help me, please?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    @Emily: Theres a possibility that your teachers at school are marking the exams too leniently?

    I'd say:
    - Study the mark scheme and examiners reports in depth
    - Make sure your writing style and exam technique is on point.
    - Know your stuff, do further reading around the topic involved and consult with your teachers for tips etc.

    --

    Alright time to start properly revising for A2 Philosophy and Ethics.

    *Notes
    *Recorded voice notes

    Hows everyone else doing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Was getting 95-100% in A2 ethics mocks, took the exam in Jan and got 64%....
    Yeah my confidence is rock bottom right now, dreading the day with both exams, my essay writing skills just aren't there. I cannot write critically, I'm awful. Help me, please?
    You aren't the only one. I got 40/100 in the Ethics paper in January despite having got a B in my Ethics mock (and my teacher was an OCR examiner) - though I looked at the Ethics questions and didn't understand how to answer any of them, so I can't help on that front.

    I can help with Philosophy though, this essay was virtually the same as the one which came up in the Jan exam, my teacher gave it near enough full marks, and I memorised it for the exam which I got 89/100 for (and I didn't even finish my 2nd question.)
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: doc Assess Hume's reasons for rejecting miracles.doc (28.0 KB, 4947 views)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any notes on the Ethics unit 'Determinism and Free will' that they're willing to share?

    If so, send them my way Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anna Louise)
    ME TOO ! sorry that was just a little too enthusiastic but i really do hope this comes up ! it's only been up once out of the three times and that was on the very first paper (january 2010) so i'm pretty confident it will come up ! going to make sure i know it really well, hope your revision's going well too x
    Hahahahahaha!! There's nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm! aha :P

    Meta-Ethics better come up! If it doesn't then I am going to rip my exam paper up and storm out of the room. Haha jokes, I need an A* in this subject fml...no chance of me storming out unfortunately hahahaha

    My revision is ok, but there's far too much to learn How about you?

    PS: Sorry for the late reply!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    This exam is probably going to kill me, I swear. -.-
    I've been making notes from the textbooks (the thick ones, the all Ethics in one, Philosophy in another >.>) and trying to plan exam questions. I've been getting low A's in my Philosophy but B/C's in my Ethics, sigh. I'm worried that even if I can nail it outside of the exam once I'm in the exam it's all going to go seriously wrong.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelly1000)
    You aren't the only one. I got 40/100 in the Ethics paper in January despite having got a B in my Ethics mock (and my teacher was an OCR examiner) - though I looked at the Ethics questions and didn't understand how to answer any of them, so I can't help on that front.

    I can help with Philosophy though, this essay was virtually the same as the one which came up in the Jan exam, my teacher gave it near enough full marks, and I memorised it for the exam which I got 89/100 for (and I didn't even finish my 2nd question.)
    Thank you thank you thank you!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forever a Gnome)
    This exam is probably going to kill me, I swear. -.-
    I've been making notes from the textbooks (the thick ones, the all Ethics in one, Philosophy in another >.>) and trying to plan exam questions. I've been getting low A's in my Philosophy but B/C's in my Ethics, sigh. I'm worried that even if I can nail it outside of the exam once I'm in the exam it's all going to go seriously wrong.
    Same. This exam is the bane of my life.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Can anybody tell me Anthony Flew's contribution to Religious Language? I often see him coupled with Falsification and John Wisdom's parable of the gardener ("death my a 1000 qualifications")... but what exactly did Flew say? Or does he just endorse Wisdom in saying Rel. Lang is meaningless?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Same. This exam is the bane of my life.
    Of my very existence. :ahee:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Can anybody tell me Anthony Flew's contribution to Religious Language? I often see him coupled with Falsification and John Wisdom's parable of the gardener ("death my a 1000 qualifications")... but what exactly did Flew say? Or does he just endorse Wisdom in saying Rel. Lang is meaningless?
    Flew argued that since religious language cannot be falsified - proven false - it is meaningless.

    He borrowed Wisdom's analogy to try and prove his point. He claimed that in the parable of the gardener, the believer continuously altered their argument in order to fit in with new 'evidence' they found. When the believer couldn't catch the gardener, he claimed that the gardener must be some transcendent, invisible being. This changed his argument from being about a physical gardener to a transcendent one.

    Since his argument changed, it was incapable of being falsified. In the same way, religious believers continuously change the way in which they approach God, making it incapable of being proven wrong. Instead, they change their argument to fit in with new criticism, never truly allowing it to be falsified.

    E.g. When people say that 'God is love', and others challenge this with natural disasters, claiming that a benevolent God would not allow these to happen, they alter this statement to mean 'God's is love...BUT his love is different from human love. We do not truly understand him'

    They prevent it from being falsified, so it is meaningless!

    Hope that helped
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Flew argued that since religious language cannot be falsified - proven false - it is meaningless.

    He borrowed Wisdom's analogy to try and prove his point. He claimed that in the parable of the gardener, the believer continuously altered their argument in order to fit in with new 'evidence' they found. When the believer couldn't catch the gardener, he claimed that the gardener must be some transcendent, invisible being. This changed his argument from being about a physical gardener to a transcendent one.

    Since his argument changed, it was incapable of being falsified. In the same way, religious believers continuously change the way in which they approach God, making it incapable of being proven wrong. Instead, they change their argument to fit in with new criticism, never truly allowing it to be falsified.

    E.g. When people say that 'God is love', and others challenge this with natural disasters, claiming that a benevolent God would not allow these to happen, they alter this statement to mean 'God's is love...BUT his love is different from human love. We do not truly understand him'

    They prevent it from being falsified, so it is meaningless!

    Hope that helped
    Cheers, thanks for clarifying that Was pretty much what I thought in the first place, he states rel lang is meaningless as believers refuse to have it falsified by shifting the boundaries.

    And what was Mitchell's criticism of this? I know Hare spoke about Bliks (which i understand but won't expand on here to save time) and Swinburne said we know things that needn't be falsified (analogy of toys never coming to life)... I never understand the point Mitchell was trying to make though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Cheers, thanks for clarifying that Was pretty much what I thought in the first place, he states rel lang is meaningless as believers refuse to have it falsified by shifting the boundaries.

    And what was Mitchell's criticism of this? I know Hare spoke about Bliks (which i understand but won't expand on here to save time) and Swinburne said we know things that needn't be falsified (analogy of toys never coming to life)... I never understand the point Mitchell was trying to make though.
    Ohhh Basil Mitchell claimed that religious believers do not change their arguments to suit new criticism. Instead, they do look at opposing evidence, but they try and view it in a positive light.

    He gave the example of a French stranger who said that he was fighting the Germans. He saw this stranger around and saw him sometimes fighting the Germans, and other times it appeared as though he was fighting the French. However, since he had faith in the stranger and had no reason to doubt him, he interpreted every action as him fighting the Germans, even though it didn't appear that way. In the same way, religious believers may see opposing information, but choose to look beyond it and interpret it as a good thing.

    They're not necessarily changing their original argument. They are just sustaining their old opinion by viewing God's behaviour as good.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Ohhh Basil Mitchell claimed that religious believers do not change their arguments to suit new criticism. Instead, they do look at opposing evidence, but they try and view it in a positive light.

    He gave the example of a French stranger who said that he was fighting the Germans. He saw this stranger around and saw him sometimes fighting the Germans, and other times it appeared as though he was fighting the French. However, since he had faith in the stranger and had no reason to doubt him, he interpreted every action as him fighting the Germans, even though it didn't appear that way. In the same way, religious believers may see opposing information, but choose to look beyond it and interpret it as a good thing.

    They're not necessarily changing their original argument. They are just sustaining it but viewing God's behaviour as good.
    Ahhh! Thanks so much and that concludes my revision on Rel Language
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Ahhh! Thanks so much and that concludes my revision on Rel Language
    Waheyyyyyy hi5! What do you have left to revise?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Waheyyyyyy hi5! What do you have left to revise?
    everything else... I've just started RS revision :p: just did the spec question on analogy vs symbols... my answers seems reflective of the AO1 points... just forgot to mention that symbols can be used when words can't express something >.<
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hey, I was just wondering how everybody would answer these ethics questions:

    'Virtue ethics is of little use when dealing with practical ethics.' Discuss. (35)

    and

    'The problem with virtue ethics is that it gives no definite answers to moral problems.' Discuss. (35)

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks so much
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by help2help)
    hey, I was just wondering how everybody would answer these ethics questions:

    'Virtue ethics is of little use when dealing with practical ethics.' Discuss. (35)

    and

    'The problem with virtue ethics is that it gives no definite answers to moral problems.' Discuss. (35)

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks so much
    Well for both of them I'd structure it in the various aspects of VE:

    Origins
    Agent centred
    Eudimonia
    Golden mean
    Practice
    Role models
    Modern perspectives

    For the first question I'd relate back to the question about practicality throughout. e.g. in origins mention it's relation to natural law and how it can be seen as an extension of that and therefore practical there. How the golden mean avoids issues of relativism and absolutism so is very practical for certain ethical issues e.g. contraception, but not others like rape etc. Also, how modern perspectives argue it's the most practical theory. I'd chuck in a bit of synoptic, especially with natural law and mention how in VE's avoidance of being a normative ethical theory, it is

    For the second it's exactly the same question, but a bit more absolute. Only thing I'd do differently was contrast it more to absolute theories like Kant to demonstrate how it fails to provide absolute answers, only relative ones.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012

University open days

  • Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
  • Birmingham City University
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.