UNIT 3 - DEVELOPMENTS EDEXCEL A2 Religious Studies

Hi there,

I know that the naturalistic fallacy is when you cannot move from a 'non-moral premise' to a 'moral conclusion'; the idea of the was mainly used in G E Moore's Emotivism, for example, if I made the statement 'I ought to give to charity', we cannot just assume that 'giving to charity is good', it is considered a jump in logic and therefore incorrect, I believe that the naturalistic fallacy is the 'is ought gap'

Do you mean intuitionism? Emotivism is Ayer. The naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought gap are essentially the same thing; they both criticize moving from a description of the world to a prescriptive moral statement because you need a principle in between the two to fill the gap - e.g. I see torture causes pain, painful acts are wrong, torture is wrong rather than I see torture causes pain, torture is wrong.

Reply 61

nicoupton

1

Original post by paradoxicalme

Do you mean intuitionism? Emotivism is Ayer. The naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought gap are essentially the same thing; they both criticize moving from a description of the world to a prescriptive moral statement because you need a principle in between the two to fill the gap - e.g. I see torture causes pain, painful acts are wrong, torture is wrong rather than I see torture causes pain, torture is wrong.

So sorry, of course I mean Intuitionism!! Oops, at least I got the wrong here not in the exam haha! But yes you are essentially right, they are the same thing. I'm quite comfortable in explain the Naturalistic Fallacy, but not really the whole theories of Intuitionism and Emotivism...any tips?

Reply 62

username1042689

21

Original post by nicoupton

So sorry, of course I mean Intuitionism!! Oops, at least I got the wrong here not in the exam haha! But yes you are essentially right, they are the same thing. I'm quite comfortable in explain the Naturalistic Fallacy, but not really the whole theories of Intuitionism and Emotivism...any tips?

Here's my notes from an essay plan I'm doing:

Intuitionism: Derived from faults in Ethical Naturalism. Moral statements are propositional and good is objective, but good is undefinable due to it being a ‘simple notion’ – analogised with yellow. We discern what is good by intuition – i.e. ‘understanding immediately, without using reason’ – it is self-evident to us intuitively. Emotivism: Moral statements are non-propositional since good is metaphysical and metaphysical statements fail the test of the Verification Principle. Therefore Ayer argues that all moral statements are merely matters of opinion (although influenced by the facts). Good = what the individual approves of; moral statements are only meaningful if ‘good’ comes to mean the observable property of ‘liked/approved of’.

Reply 63

memoona123456

8

Hoping for Oontological, Religious Langauge, and NML!

Reply 64

missaaaay

Hey,
if it asks for views you should refer to falisfication and verification using scholars such as Flew and Ayer. If it asks for types, it will usually give you a choice of three or four such as; Analogy, symbol, myths

Reply 65

username1042689

21

If an OA question doesn't come up I'm legitimately going to cry
Going to do OA (or atheism if I have to), either Kant or NML (don't mind that much, would prefer Kant) and Meta-Ethics (I haven't seen anything to suggest ME won't come up).

Reply 66

LoveEnglishDick

3

Original post by paradoxicalme

If an OA question doesn't come up I'm legitimately going to cry
Going to do OA (or atheism if I have to), either Kant or NML (don't mind that much, would prefer Kant) and Meta-Ethics (I haven't seen anything to suggest ME won't come up).

Come on. What's the chances of OA not coming up?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 67

username1042689

21

Original post by LoveEnglishDick

Come on. What's the chances of OA not coming up?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Small, but possible. There could be an RE question and an Atheism question. It may have come up every year so far but that doesn't mean it will this year.

Reply 68

jadeetyraa

Absolutely hated this paper

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 69

username1445222

18

Original post by jadeetyraa

Absolutely hated this paper

Posted from TSR Mobile

It was not the best at all. I'm pretty sure I messed up my ethical language essay and wasn't actually answering the question x.x

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 70

nicoupton

1

I answered Religious Language, Deontology and Ethical Language. I thought Religious Language was pretty good (Verification & Falsification for part i, and then Symbolism and linked to Language Games for part ii). Deontology was decent as it was a generic essay, so nailed that. Ethical language was quite tricky, and as it had a quote using 'good', I just wrote about Moores Intuitionism for part i and related back to the question set, started to run out of time for ii, but did the best I could while answering the question at the same time.

Definatly not the easiest paper, but I did better than expected! I'm content :smile:

Reply 71

alconnow

2

Answered all the questions but couldn't finish it all :frown:

Reply 72

LoveEnglishDick

3

I had 10 minutes left over at the end, but I finished the whole booklet?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 73

Drunken Bard

8

Totally bombed that exam, spent way too much time on Religious experience, rushed religious language and was in such a rush to finish Deontology that I began to repeat myself. Oh well!

Reply 74

AbbieBatts

How do you think you did? I did these too. What did you write for Religious Language and Ontological part a?

Reply 75

AbbieBatts

What did you do for rel lang????

Original post by Drunken Bard

Totally bombed that exam, spent way too much time on Religious experience, rushed religious language and was in such a rush to finish Deontology that I began to repeat myself. Oh well!

Reply 76

Drunken Bard

8

Original post by AbbieBatts

What did you do for rel lang????

First question spoke about how religious language is non-cognitive, vienna circle, logical positivism etc..

Second part is where I messed up though, I only talked about the language game theory and that was it, I felt I had to move onto Deontology when there was only about 25 minutes left of the exam.

Reply 77

nicoupton

1

Original post by Drunken Bard

First question spoke about how religious language is non-cognitive, vienna circle, logical positivism etc..

Second part is where I messed up though, I only talked about the language game theory and that was it, I felt I had to move onto Deontology when there was only about 25 minutes left of the exam.

Seems like you would have done fine for part ii if you explained it well enough! You will get credit for talking about language games, but I focused on Symbolism and how language games defended symbolism.

Reply 78

debs_111

3

This paper was worded horribly, loads of people came out crying. Can't believe the life after death question and ethical language!!!!

Reply 79

username1042689

21

I thought it was okay. Deontology and ethical language were worded in a kind of icky way but for EL I talked about how different cognitivists understand good (ethical naturalists, intuitionists) and did a tiny bit on non-cognitivism, then saved emotivism and prescriptivism for part 2 and talked about how they might 'solve' the dilemma by saying that we should understand good in a relative sense as corresponding to different people's views and beliefs. Deontology I found quite nice (just had to tailor to the wording of the question), and ontological argument had a nice part 1 and I didn't mind the atheism part 2 because I've done an OA&ACR question before. Overall I thought it could have been a lot worse :smile:

And I had 60 seconds to spare at the end which is more than I ever have :tongue:

UNIT 3 - DEVELOPMENTS EDEXCEL A2 Religious Studies

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you