username3525234
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Thanks
0
reply
username3525234
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
Bump
0
reply
Estreth
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Just a couple of points on the content of your argument:

1. Non-cognitivism is not the view that moral truths cannot be proved; and even if it were, it does not follow from the fact (if it is one) that moral truths cannot be proved that there are no moral truths. Lots of things are difficult to prove but that doesn't mean there's no truth to be had in the first place. (There's a truth about what you had for lunch last Wednesday but you'd be hard pressed to prove it.) Non-cognitivism is the view that first-order statements about morality (e.g. murder is wrong) do not express propositions, and therefore cannot be true or false. (Compare anti-realism, which is the view that there are no mind-independent facts about morality.)

2. Practically all aspiring and first year law students seem to be moral relativists; that is, they believe that what is morally right for one person may be morally wrong for another, that morality is all 'just a matter of opinion'. Most of those likely to read your essay will consider this a highly implausible view (in my opinion, with good reason). This doesn't mean you shouldn't argue for it - no views are 'off limits' - but it does mean that it needs arguing for. The trouble with your argument here is that you use the supposed truth of moral relativism to argue against a moral statement. Of course, all statements that offer purported truths about morality can be undermined if moral relativism is true. But that's quite a cheap way of undermining such statements. And since the premise (moral relativism) is an independently implausible one, it makes for an underwhelming argument. Let me reiterate that you are in excellent company in your relativist views - 90% of students sitting the LNAT will agree with you. But that's why an argument that assumes moral relativism and uses it as the central premise in an essay about morality will not look all that impressive.
1
reply
PKB2503
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Is this type of question pretty common for the LNAT? If so I am screwed.
0
reply
Estreth
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by PKB2503)
Is this type of question pretty common for the LNAT? If so I am screwed.
No, not only not common but pretty much unheard of, I think. It's too long, it's too abstract, and you won't get a quote from Aristotle (or anyone, I would think).
0
reply
Alsmithine
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Your writing is superb. Your arguments are well thought although I don't quite agree with your interpretation of some theories. That said, the writing is great.
I only have a problem with your thesis statement. Firstly, the thesis statement should be the last sentence of the first paragraph and so that is worth noting.
Secondly, your thesis statement is vague and ambiguous... The use of the word "nonsensical" as the foundation of your thesis is not only absurd but also unacceptable.
Your thesis statement ought to be more specific and telling.
Great work and success
Regards
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (19)
17.12%
I need help researching courses (8)
7.21%
I need help with filling out the application form (6)
5.41%
I need help with my personal statement (43)
38.74%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (26)
23.42%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (2)
1.8%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (7)
6.31%

Watched Threads

View All