OCR A2 Philosophy and Ethics - help needed!

I have the philosophy and ethics exams on Wednesday and I am really worried. Can anyone answer any of these questions...

1) Which thinkers can you talk about in relation to revelation through scripture other than William Temple and Francis Schaeffer, and what would you say about them?

2) With a religious language question that asks you about one specific idea such as analogy or symbolic language should you compare it to other ideas, and how would you structure it?

3) What would you say about Kant in relation to war???

Any other helpful advice or notes would also be appreciated, I really need to do well in this and I'm so worried about it. Thanks

Reply 1

lilac spooge

As for the first one I can’t help you with, were advised not to do revelation through scripture so I haven’t revised it as such.

For the second question, if the question asks you for one idea at least 70% of that essay should be on that idea. You do put the other ideas for making religious language meaningful but a strengths and weaknesses to the original idea. Say if the exam asked you about Myth then you would support or critise it with the ideas of symbol or analogy. Oh if you can always try and include language games :wink:

But I hate religious language so I’m hoping it doesn’t come up.

For Kant you just have to remember what he said originally.

1, There should be a universal maxim

2, you should not use human as a means to an end

3, any decision agreed, should be made by a lawful authority

From the start you can see there is a problem with war, war be definition is killing off humans for a better cause. For Hitler it was to make a better Germany and thus a better world. For Bush it was to give the Iraq people a better life...(and some oil)

However as long as some steps are followed, war can be justified. These steps are pretty much what is stated by Aquinas in the 'jus in bello'. This means don't go around killing civilians, because that would be using humans as a means to an end.

As for the universal maxim this is pretty much self explanatory. Only go to was if it is universally accepted.

This universal acception should be decided by a lawful authority. Usually this means the government of the country that is wishing to go to war. Governments have been voted in by the people of that country so therefore express the views of that country. As we know going from the Iraq war this is often not the case.

In modern society, the lawful authority is the UN. That means under Kant, the war in Iraq was not a 'Just War'. The UN never gave permission for the USA to go to war.

If anybody else went to war on another country, with out UN backing, they would be up for war crimes but because it’s America they get left off....

Well I'm sorry this was a bit useless....my best unit is freewill and determinsim and the environment

I hope you do really well in the exam

oh if you have any assements of the varificaion principle, it would be greatly acepted....ive seen to have mised placed mine so dont know them....