Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by copril)
    This question also confused me... Wiles argument says that miracles don't happen (there are not individual acts, the only miracle is creation)-- not that God doesn't exist... Perhaps, it's just before Wiles comes to his conclusion? I haven't really got a clue, I really doubt this would be how a question was worded though-- it's a bit of a trick question...
    Okay thank you for helping!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For meta ethics, does anyone actually say ethical language is meaningless? I know Ayer says its meaningful to some extent and all the others say its meaningful one way or another?

    Also what's the difference between innate and God-given? If its God-given does that mean its innate?

    Would appreciate any help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not anxious for this exam, like all the other ones, i'm bloody terrified!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GLOB)
    Anybody else absolutely terrified for this exam? I feel so unprepared


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Me


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi can anyone explain to me the difference between the timeless god and the everlasting god?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username_valid)
    For meta ethics, does anyone actually say ethical language is meaningless? I know Ayer says its meaningful to some extent and all the others say its meaningful one way or another?

    Also what's the difference between innate and God-given? If its God-given does that mean its innate?

    Would appreciate any help
    someone please?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username_valid)
    someone please?
    All the cognitive theories would imply that ethical language is meaningful as, well, they see it as fact! If its objective then it describes the way the world is, which they would see is meaningful as it arguably offers some form or objective moral rules. For Ayer's emotivism ethical language is meaningless as it is neither analytic nor synthetic (the only types of meaningful language)
    Sorry that's all my brain can get out at the moment, its late and I've just go into bed :P just try and interpret the theories really, they don't always say explicitly whether or not religious language is meaningful
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by strawberryswing)
    All the cognitive theories would imply that ethical language is meaningful as, well, they see it as fact! If its objective then it describes the way the world is, which they would see is meaningful as it arguably offers some form or objective moral rules. For Ayer's emotivism ethical language is meaningless as it is neither analytic nor synthetic (the only types of meaningful language)
    Sorry that's all my brain can get out at the moment, its late and I've just go into bed :P just try and interpret the theories really, they don't always say explicitly whether or not religious language is meaningful
    Thank you!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hi! Sorry, it's a quick question really! I haven't done much revision on Meta Ethics and I'm worried that it'll come up tomorrow! I'm quickly trying to run through it now but could anyone give me a quick run-down of the key ideas? It'd be awesome if you could!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanC55)
    Hi! Sorry, it's a quick question really! I haven't done much revision on Meta Ethics and I'm worried that it'll come up tomorrow! I'm quickly trying to run through it now but could anyone give me a quick run-down of the key ideas? It'd be awesome if you could!
    Hey! Okay-
    2 sections, cognitive and non cognitive
    Cognitive- Objective views on what good and bad means, and good and bad have meaning.
    -Intuitionism, G.E Moore, he said that good is indescribable, it is a simple word like the colour yellow, people intuitively know what good is, people recognise it.
    -intuitionism, W.D Ross- prima facie duties (don't understand them )
    -intuitionism, H.R Pritchard- people recognise moral obligation

    Non cognitive
    -emotivism, work of A.J Ayer, based on his views from the logical positivists, basically good and bad are meaningless because they are merely emotions- boo/hurrah theory. For him the only meaningful statements are those which are analytic and synthetic then there is C.L Stevenson who agrees with Ayer but says that words such as steal try and influence the listener because of the emotion.
    R.M Hare has the theory of prescriptivism and says that when people talk of stealing as wrong they mean that 'I shouldn't steal and neither will you' through the emotion etc the person prescribes an action to another
    Hope that helps sorry if some of it is unclear!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone, don't panic - remember free will is just an illusion, you don't really have any control over how well you'll do in this exam
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xMr_BrightSide)
    Everyone, don't panic - remember free will is just an illusion, you don't really have any control over how well you'll do in this exam
    Hhaha thanks that made me laugh very much needed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username_valid)
    someone please?
    There's emotivism Stevenson, who says that ethical language is meaningless, then prescriptivism however that arguably fails to do what it attempts to do (prove it to be meaningless). The naturalists and intuitionist that attempt to prove ethical language to be meaningful fail to do so in a convincing way, as weaknesses are the open question argument ,naturalistic fallacy and the verification principle itself fails its own test, intuitionism is too subjective
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    any predictions for ethics and philosophy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone any good with Boethius I'm rubbish anyone able to give a summary or any tips ?x
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xMr_BrightSide)
    Everyone, don't panic - remember free will is just an illusion, you don't really have any control over how well you'll do in this exam
    I'll try and explain that to my parents when I fail. "No mum! I pre-determined to fail! According to Darrow it's your fault anyway!"

    yeah, I can see that ending well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hannahm1995)
    Hey! Okay-
    2 sections, cognitive and non cognitive
    Cognitive- Objective views on what good and bad means, and good and bad have meaning.
    -Intuitionism, G.E Moore, he said that good is indescribable, it is a simple word like the colour yellow, people intuitively know what good is, people recognise it.
    -intuitionism, W.D Ross- prima facie duties (don't understand them )
    -intuitionism, H.R Pritchard- people recognise moral obligation

    Non cognitive
    -emotivism, work of A.J Ayer, based on his views from the logical positivists, basically good and bad are meaningless because they are merely emotions- boo/hurrah theory. For him the only meaningful statements are those which are analytic and synthetic then there is C.L Stevenson who agrees with Ayer but says that words such as steal try and influence the listener because of the emotion.
    R.M Hare has the theory of prescriptivism and says that when people talk of stealing as wrong they mean that 'I shouldn't steal and neither will you' through the emotion etc the person prescribes an action to another
    Hope that helps sorry if some of it is unclear!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hannah you're amazing! Thank-you! I'm just running through it now.

    one thing though, what does the word Objective mean in this context, it keeps coming up and I can't get my head around it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to fail!!!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanC55)
    Hannah you're amazing! Thank-you! I'm just running through it now.

    one thing though, what does the word Objective mean in this context, it keeps coming up and I can't get my head around it.

    I think it's that the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' have absolute meanings that are fixed?

    Also, 'prima facie' duties, from what i understand, are certain and intuitive obligations (in comparison to other duties, which are less certain), but can be overriden by another obligation that may be more pressing. Examples of prima facie obligations are things like fulfilling promises and promoting the good of others. Ross basically says that these moral obligations are just as much a part of the nature of the universe as a mathematical statement.

    Hope that helped!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warda3)
    I'm going to fail!!!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'll join you in the failing club
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.