The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

A level Edexcel 'implications' revision- JUST ETHICS

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
Boo_2
Just some more ideas... :smile:


thanx but wot is rachels actually suggesting im a bit confused
Reply 61
Avatar for Boo_2
Boo_2
12
James Rachels said that universal love is a higher principle than family love, and our obligations and duties towards family members should be an indication of our general obligations towards mankind. Eg. parents should look after their children - because they are their children andthis is their duty - but this doesn't mean they should totally neglect and ignore all the other children in the world. This can be interpreted as him saying they should simply help a child that is not their own to stand up when they have fallen over, or can be extended as far as sharing their wealth equally to help the starving children in Africa.. As I just said, what Rachels is saying is open to your own interpretation.
Reply 62
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
Boo_2
James Rachels said that universal love is a higher principle than family love, and our obligations and duties towards family members should be an indication of our general obligations towards mankind. Eg. parents should look after their children - because they are their children andthis is their duty - but this doesn't mean they should totally neglect and ignore all the other children in the world. This can be interpreted as him saying they should simply help a child that is not their own to stand up when they have fallen over, or can be extended as far as sharing their wealth equally to help the starving children in Africa.. As I just said, what Rachels is saying is open to your own interpretation.



thanx ur rrellli goood at this how ru revising?
Reply 63
Avatar for ARVEE
ARVEE
I thought Rachels used the example of a parent and child to show how it undermines the possibility of personal relationships. A parent cares for their child out of duty, not because they actually want to - which he then relates to all relationships with family and friends.
Reply 64
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
do Lafollette and Rachels argue the same thing??
Reply 65
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
ARVEE
I thought Rachels used the example of a parent and child to show how it undermines the possibility of personal relationships. A parent cares for their child out of duty, not because they actually want to - which he then relates to all relationships with family and friends.

i thin thats the second part of his argument he begins by sayin that we hav to consider the intrests of everyone not only our intimates then theres the idea of duty (bring in Kant) and that we hav to be partial in order to fulfil our duties yet we can't have a duty to everyone > so we are impartial
Reply 66
Avatar for ARVEE
ARVEE
no i dont think so because then Lafolette goes on the say there are some 'undesirable consequenses'..? not sure??
Reply 67
Avatar for Boo_2
Boo_2
12
ARVEE
I thought Rachels used the example of a parent and child to show how it undermines the possibility of personal relationships. A parent cares for their child out of duty, not because they actually want to - which he then relates to all relationships with family and friends.


No, what you just said is the response to Rachels, not what he actually said. Rachels said that parents cannot ignore the needs of other children than their own. I quote Lafolette: "But not so preferential, Rachels claims, that they can justifiably ignore the needs of other, less well of children".
Reply 68
Avatar for Boo_2
Boo_2
12
wytpak1
do Lafollette and Rachels argue the same thing??


no! Rahcels argues in favour of impartiality and Lafolette sums up what he is saying, offers counter arguments, doesn't necessarily say he is outright wrong but doesn't agree with him, either. He just clarifies what he is saying.
Reply 69
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
sorry im stil confused can sum1 break this down

rachels argument starts as... we hav to consider obligations of mankind in order to understand our own persoanl relationships...ryt?

then he goes onto to say that we hav to be impartial in certain relationships

and concludes morality is superior to personal relationships

I missing some premise here hellp!!
wytpak1
u given up?


Nah i havent bro what makes u say that? and im from the same place as your flag lol
Reply 71
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
tkDangerTime
Nah i havent bro what makes u say that? and im from the same place as your flag lol

lolll yet u failed to realised im a sis ahaha brap brap pk1
wytpak1
lolll yet u failed to realised im a sis ahaha brap brap pk1


Ah my bad, sorry!
Reply 73
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
lol its kl hows the revision goin
The exam is titled as being 1hr 15mins, but we only have to do a 24 + 16= 40mark question. What is that about? 75 mins for 49 marks?
wytpak1
lol its kl hows the revision goin


ah not good u know sis going to have to be a blagging job again. How about urz?
anyone else think that there is practically NOTHING to write an interesting essay on in the last 2 pages of MMT?!?

id quite like the anscombe thing to come up personally
Reply 77
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
tkDangerTime
ah not good u know sis going to have to be a blagging job again. How about urz?

same this is supposed to b my A or i can forget about uni lol im stil goin over personal relationships coz its coz a good likelihood of cumin up (prayin lyk nethin) jameisons i got a modal answer gona lern that off and otherwise im hopin for the best but im startin to realise how much i underestimated this paper
Reply 78
Avatar for chlobo
chlobo
1
Has anyone got a sample essay they've wrote on LaFollette? My teachers only spent our last 2 lessons going over this so I don't have a clue what I'm supposed to be writing! Any help would be great :smile:
Reply 79
Avatar for wytpak1
wytpak1
BEHEMOTH101
hi my name is sonia sobti i went 2 tha ethics conference last month and i think they said schneewind is defo gna cme up bt im nt 100% because i fell dwn the stairs and ma memory is realy bad


oh poor thing hope u get better..erm who sed that its cuming up coz i was at the conference last month with sarah tyler and gorden reid but that was for the philosophy paper

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you