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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    His basis of sentience, or what we should look after is based on consciousness/ability to feel pain. So he would say it's ok to tear down trees as they can't feel pain, but not ok to kill a dog as it does (he said other utilitarians were speciest). My evaluation is, while this works in theory, in practice he would condone abortion on the basis the child can't feel pain and also those in a vegatitive state on life support for the same reason. Furthermore, he points out himself that he's only speculating plants can't feel pain, so if his guess work is wrong, we shouldn't be destroying rainforests.
    Thank you very much for explaining it to me, it makes a lot more sense now! Environmental ethics just seems to be such a complicated topic, but now I am revising it properly it seems to be making much more sense, especially with the help of your notes to complement my other resources, so thank you
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    For those bored of notes, 4OD have a couple of documentaries by Dawkins called 'root of all evil', covers propositional faith, loudes miracles, inconsistent triad and much more stuff that is epically Dawkins!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Howdy howdy howdy

    Was wondering, does anyone have any idea how to answer one of the very open-ended applied ethics theories such as:

    Ethical theories are of no use when talking about Sexual Ethics (Or something along those lines...)

    Do I give all five view points? And how would I go about structuring one of these? We never practiced anything like this in the lesson...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Cluedosays)
    Howdy howdy howdy

    Was wondering, does anyone have any idea how to answer one of the very open-ended applied ethics theories such as:

    Ethical theories are of no use when talking about Sexual Ethics (Or something along those lines...)

    Do I give all five view points? And how would I go about structuring one of these? We never practiced anything like this in the lesson...
    I'd either focus on 2 (1 absolute, 1 telelogical) or just give examples throghout. You could contrast ethical theories to another area to talk about conscience, such as conscience or meta-ethics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know whats come up (topic wise) for A2 Philosophy and A2 Ethics since the specimen paper?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cluedosays)
    Howdy howdy howdy

    Was wondering, does anyone have any idea how to answer one of the very open-ended applied ethics theories such as:

    Ethical theories are of no use when talking about Sexual Ethics (Or something along those lines...)

    Do I give all five view points? And how would I go about structuring one of these? We never practiced anything like this in the lesson...
    Whatever works, as the OCR January 2011 report said about a similarly open ended question "those who focused on answering the question were successful whatever approach they took".

    It doesn't matter whether or not you choose to look at psychological views of the conscience or contractarian approaches, whichever you think pose the biggest challenge to ethical theories is the one you should talk about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nayberay)
    Does anyone know whats come up (topic wise) for A2 Philosophy and A2 Ethics since the specimen paper?

    Ethics:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pi...Dk4ODg3Mjg2ZGQ

    Philosophy
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pi...zODExNmE&pli=1

    Don't click the links if you don't want to know the past questions!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    Ethics:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pi...Dk4ODg3Mjg2ZGQ

    Philosophy
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pi...zODExNmE&pli=1

    Don't click the links if you don't want to know the past questions!
    Your are officially awesome!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    For the environment, you need to consider:
    Whether the environment (plants and animals) have intrinsic or extrinsic value. So like does the environment have value in itself, or is it merely there for human use.

    From here, you could talk about the different theories:
    1. Eco-holism - Gaia hypothesis
    2. Shallow ecology - Plants and animals are here for humans to exploit them for their own uses
    3. Deep ecology - Plants and animals have value in themselves, and should not be exploited. We need to preserve them as they deserve to exist for their own sake.

    Urmmm other issues would be like whether the environment suffers as a result of business e.g. building factories everywhere, pollution and the like.

    Those are the only two I can think of at the moment.

    Hope it helped a bit
    Thanks much

    Am I right in saying these are the scholars for each view:

    1) ecoholism = Lovelock
    2) shallow = singer
    3) deep = leopold, naess, taylor
    4) anthropocentric = kant, aquinas, (old) church, descartes, Mill

    Bentham acknowledged animals feel pain too so said we should incl. in hedonic calculus
    Virtue and Situation Ethics are very flexible on this issue and can go either way (though would tend towards preserving environment)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Thanks much

    Am I right in saying these are the scholars for each view:

    1) ecoholism = Lovelock
    2) shallow = singer
    3) deep = leopold, naess, taylor
    4) anthropocentric = kant, aquinas, (old) church, descartes, Mill

    Bentham acknowledged animals feel pain too so said we should incl. in hedonic calculus
    Virtue and Situation Ethics are very flexible on this issue and can go either way (though would tend towards preserving environment)
    The ones I have bolded are the ones which I haven't been taught. My teacher didn't teach us about Descartes or Taylor, so I don't know there.

    I'd say Mill didn't hold an anthropocentric view on the environment, because he saw admiring nature and its beauty as a higher pleasure...so we should preserve it.

    With Aquinas you could swing it both ways - if we use nature to prove statements like 'murder is wrong' then surely we should preserve it. Although he did say that humans were above animals.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    The ones I have bolded are the ones which I haven't been taught. My teacher didn't teach us about Descartes or Taylor, so I don't know there.

    I'd say Mill didn't hold an anthropocentric view on the environment, because he saw admiring nature and its beauty as a higher pleasure...so we should preserve it.

    With Aquinas you could swing it both ways - if we use nature to prove statements like 'murder is wrong' then surely we should preserve it. Although he did say that humans were above animals.
    Ah right, fair point on Mill and Aquinas
    Descartes basically likened animals to organic robots saying they're not rational and act completely on impulses so should not be attached with any moral significance.

    Can you help give me pointers in distinguishing between what Naess and Leopold said?
    I have for Naess:
    - all life is equal and should be allowed to flourish
    - no hierarchy in importance of organisms
    - proposed agenda to reduce population growth, shift policy away from economic growth, live in smaller communities, not to plunder the earth, promote biodiversity
    - called Xian views of dominion arrogant.
    - everything is interconnected

    What did Leopold say? All I have is that he agreed that every thing is interconnected :s

    I really hate this topic. It's so woolly! However I'm trying to piece it together coherently as I think there's a good chance of it coming up seeing as it was business ethics for the past two exams.

    EDIT: for anybody wanting a good summary of envrionmental ethics: http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/re...mental-ethics/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot revise!! One thing I've found today which I think is awesome should business ethics actually come up is this, plus on the rsrevision.com website they do have some silly little games that help you check basic knowledge (I've focused more on the ethics side, I'm not sure exactly what there is for philosophy!). Sorry if someone's already said this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    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.
    thanks for that. so essentially, what you're saying is structure it by having each paragraph as the list you mentioned above, obviously linking it to the question?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Ah right, fair point on Mill and Aquinas
    Descartes basically likened animals to organic robots saying they're not rational and act completely on impulses so should not be attached with any moral significance.

    Can you help give me pointers in distinguishing between what Naess and Leopold said?
    I have for Naess:
    - all life is equal and should be allowed to flourish
    - no hierarchy in importance of organisms
    - proposed agenda to reduce population growth, shift policy away from economic growth, live in smaller communities, not to plunder the earth, promote biodiversity
    - called Xian views of dominion arrogant.
    - everything is interconnected

    What did Leopold say? All I have is that he agreed that every thing is interconnected :s

    I really hate this topic. It's so woolly! However I'm trying to piece it together coherently as I think there's a good chance of it coming up seeing as it was business ethics for the past two exams.

    EDIT: for anybody wanting a good summary of envrionmental ethics: http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/re...mental-ethics/
    All I know for Leopold is that he was sort of the founder of Deep Ecology. He urged us to expand Ethics to not just dealing with humans and moral dilemmas, but also about how we interact with the environment.

    From his initial thinking, Naess formed his own ideas regarding Deep Ecology.

    Naess argued the following:
    - The environment has intrinsic worth, not instrumental value
    - We should respect all living organisms, from a carrot to a human being - we are all equal
    - He rejected the idea that we are superior to animals and plants because:
    - We have a soul
    - We have reason
    - We have consciousness

    For him, the idea of stewardship is flawed, as it encourages humans to think that they are superior.

    Oh and he wrote some book/essay with Sessions which outlined the 8 main points of Deep Ecology!

    :O Business has come up for the last two years? Wooooooo I hate Business Ethics, although after revising it I feel slighty better about it.

    I agree though. This unit is a bit all over the place LOL
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    :O Business has come up for the last two years? Wooooooo I hate Business Ethics, although after revising it I feel slighty better about it.
    last two papers, not years :p: the main focus was on business ethics for the last two papers and then on environmental ethics for the two papers before that (incl. specimen)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Can anyone explain Prichard and Ross' contributions to intutionism? Not really getting :/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Can anyone explain Prichard and Ross' contributions to intutionism? Not really getting :/
    Ross said that we have moral duties and that in every situation we intuit what these duties are. It is down to our judgement as to how to act to meet these duties or not, but we know what is right and wrong from them. He established a list of 7 prima facie duties being: reparation of damages, promise keeping, beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, justice and self-improvement.

    Pichard says we have 2 components: reason and intuition. reason allows us to gather info on the situation and intuition tells us whats right and wrong. We use our intuition and judgement to choose how to act.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Can anyone explain Prichard and Ross' contributions to intutionism? Not really getting :/
    Prichard argues that our moral intuition matures with age and is therefore less developed in some than in others. This is an important contribution because it can somewhat explain why different people have different intuitions.

    Ross I'm not so sure about what he adds to intuitionism, apart from the idea of Prima Facie duties. If anything he takes away from it, because as Moore seems to be an ideal utilitarian it shows how people end up with different ideas from 'the same' basis.

    I think that's right... hope it helps!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone quickly explain the inconsistant triad? My AS notes have gone walkabouts.. thanks!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    Can someone quickly explain the inconsistant triad? My AS notes have gone walkabouts.. thanks!
    How can a God who is all loving allow evil? How can a God who is all knowing allow free will? Either he lacks an attribute, or he is or he is not the traditional God. Either way he is not worthy of worship.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.