AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]

Watch this thread
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
How is everyone feeling about the paper 1 exam?
Do you have any predictions for the essays that will come up?
Are you only revising the advanced info?
Any topics you are struggling with?
1
reply
H4S5A4N
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I predict that the 25 marker for epistemology is gonna be most likely definition of knowledge I predict that the 25 marker for ethics is probably a comparison of the ethical theories or a moral anti realism one as we have not had meta ethics yet.
Last edited by H4S5A4N; 1 month ago
1
reply
sham_04
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
1.Im gonna fail
2.Epistemology-either definition of propositional knowledge/intuition deduction thesis. For Moral Philosophy probably metaethics worded around anti-realism.
3.Yeah only revising advanced info
1
reply
john appleseed 1
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Why moral anti-realism as the 25? Surely its too narrow to be the 25?
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by john appleseed 1)
Why moral anti-realism as the 25? Surely its too narrow to be the 25?
moral realism is off spec and Kant was done last year, so its between Util, Virtue ethics and anti-realism i think.

Honestly of all three anti-realism would be the best i suck at VE
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by sham_04)
1.Im gonna fail
2.Epistemology-either definition of propositional knowledge/intuition deduction thesis. For Moral Philosophy probably metaethics worded around anti-realism.
3.Yeah only revising advanced info
I reallllly hope it isn't intuition / deduction thesis, it would be nice to have a JTB essay considering that was the first essay my class did
0
reply
sham_04
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by ivywalkerrr)
I reallllly hope it isn't intuition / deduction thesis, it would be nice to have a JTB essay considering that was the first essay my class did
Yeah I'm hoping for JTB as well but have an IDT essay prepared just in case AQA feel mean
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
I would certainly be ready for an anti-realism 25 mark question - or even non-cognitivism - or EVEN a question about the source of moral judgement - reason, emotion or society. I'm pretty sure they could ask the question like that. Perhaps even "Assess whether ethical language is meaningful".

It would be worth learning one moral realism paragraph for that kind of essay. You would want an argument for realism and/or cognitivism just to provide the balance of having considered all sides of the debate.
Last edited by Joe312; 1 month ago
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Joe312)
I would certainly be ready for an anti-realism question - or even non-cognitivism - or EVEN a question about the source of moral judgement - reason, emotion or society. I'm pretty sure they could ask the question like that. Perhaps even "Assess whether ethical language is meaningful".

It would be worth learning one moral realism paragraph for that kind of essay. You would want an argument for realism and/or cognitivism just to provide the balance of having considered all sides of the debate.
what do you think you would argue on a realism V anti-realism essay? personally i would definitely argue for anti-realism as it's the easier of the two + prescriptivism i think deals with the nihilism thing p well
Last edited by ivywalkerrr; 1 month ago
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by ivywalkerrr)
what do you think you would argue on a realism V anti-realism essay? personally i would definitely argue for anti-realism as it's the easier of the two + prescriptivism i think deals with the nihilism thing p well
That sounds pretty good yeah. I think a solid realism paragraph where you show that there are no objective moral properties would world well. Perhaps moral realism countered by Mackie's relativism and/or queerness arguments.

The Nihilism thing is good and then perhaps the issue of ethical language? Again prescriptivism arguably comes out on top for the use of ethical language.. though there's a good case to be made for Mackie's view of ethical language.
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Joe312)
That sounds pretty good yeah. I think a solid realism paragraph where you show that there are no objective moral properties would world well. Perhaps moral realism countered by Mackie's relativism and/or queerness arguments.

The Nihilism thing is good and then perhaps the issue of ethical language? Again prescriptivism arguably comes out on top for the use of ethical language.. though there's a good case to be made for Mackie's view of ethical language.
yeah Mackie sort of does the dunking on moral realism thing but you could also add the naturalistic fallacy / open question argument to cement the point.

that's also true! but I think prescriptivism deals with the issue of moral nihilism better, so emotivism < Mackie < prescriptivism imo

over all defiantly would prefer an anti-realism essay. Ethics is my least favourite module, deffo what i will do worst on, but meta ethics is really good (in a prescriptive and emotive way)
Last edited by ivywalkerrr; 1 month ago
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by ivywalkerrr)
yeah Mackie sort of does the dunking on moral realism thing but you could also add the naturalistic fallacy / open question argument to cement the point.

that's also true! but I think prescriptivism deals with the issue of moral nihilism better, so emotivism < Mackie < prescriptivism imo

over all defiantly would prefer an anti-realism essay. Ethics is my least favourite module, deffo what i will do worst on, but meta ethics is really good (in a prescriptive and emotive way)
It's hard to use the naturalistic fallacy or open question argument against realism in general since technically it only attacks naturalism, but not intuitionism (non-naturalism) which is a realist theory. So it doesn't disprove moral realism in general.

essay questions on normative theories should be fine! You just need three paragraphs based on three of each theory's issues.
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Joe312)
It's hard to use the naturalistic fallacy or open question argument against realism in general since technically it only attacks naturalism, but not intuitionism (non-naturalism) which is a realist theory. So it doesn't disprove moral realism in general.

essay questions on normative theories should be fine! You just need three paragraphs based on three of each theory's issues.
But you can use it to attack naturalism, offer up intuitionism as a response -> moral nihilism thing is a blatant issue with Intuitionism. Yeah, I'm not to bad on the issues, but they are the essays I always feel less confidant on >_< what of the four topics are your favourite?
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by ivywalkerrr)
But you can use it to attack naturalism, offer up intuitionism as a response -> moral nihilism thing is a blatant issue with Intuitionism. Yeah, I'm not to bad on the issues, but they are the essays I always feel less confidant on >_< what of the four topics are your favourite?
Yeah that would make sense if you then counter intuitionism - but how is moral nihilism an issue for intuitionism?

Personally I like meta-ethics and Utilitarianism the most.. just my favorite theories! I'm actually a tutor so I'm not doing the exam.
Last edited by Joe312; 1 month ago
0
reply
ivywalkerrr
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Joe312)
Yeah that would make sense if you then counter intuitionism - but how is moral nihilism an issue for intuitionism?

Personally I like meta-ethics and Utilitarianism the most.. just my favorite theories! I'm actually a tutor so I'm not doing the exam.
ahhh maybe I'm wrong on this but because intuitionism gives no external criteria for judging a moral intuition as valid or not, so all moral intuitions are equal. Therefore calling something moral loses its meaning because anything is moral if it is what you think is moral. So no one can justify Killing Vs Not killing, rape Vs consensual sex etc as one could conceivably have a moral intuition for either, and we have no external criteria provided by intuitionism to judge which one is right. ergo nihilism. I might have misunderstood nihilism though :') You will know better then me

oh right! sorry I assumed you were a student >_< Yeah I think the whole theory of mind topic is the best, specifically functionalism then after that meta-ethics!
0
reply
reeldn
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Joe312)
I would certainly be ready for an anti-realism 25 mark question - or even non-cognitivism - or EVEN a question about the source of moral judgement - reason, emotion or society. I'm pretty sure they could ask the question like that. Perhaps even "Assess whether ethical language is meaningful".

It would be worth learning one moral realism paragraph for that kind of essay. You would want an argument for realism and/or cognitivism just to provide the balance of having considered all sides of the debate.
I thought the sources of our morals has been eliminated from the exam as it isn't on the advanced material list. Do we still need to know this?
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by ivywalkerrr)
ahhh maybe I'm wrong on this but because intuitionism gives no external criteria for judging a moral intuition as valid or not, so all moral intuitions are equal. Therefore calling something moral loses its meaning because anything is moral if it is what you think is moral. So no one can justify Killing Vs Not killing, rape Vs consensual sex etc as one could conceivably have a moral intuition for either, and we have no external criteria provided by intuitionism to judge which one is right. ergo nihilism. I might have misunderstood nihilism though :') You will know better then me

oh right! sorry I assumed you were a student >_< Yeah I think the whole theory of mind topic is the best, specifically functionalism then after that meta-ethics!
Moore's Intuitionism does hold that intuitions are objective though. They are subjectively apprehended, but objectively true. Similar to numbers (he likes the maths analogy). It's not that something is moral just because someone thinks it is moral. Moore thinks that ultimately if we had the same moral experience, were able to express our intuitions clearly, at the same level and focused on the same situation - we would have the same intuition.
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by reeldn)
I thought the sources of our morals has been eliminated from the exam as it isn't on the advanced material list. Do we still need to know this?
If you look closely at the spec - the soures of our morals is in the 'meta-ethics' category - not the moral realism category. Same goes for cognitivism vs non-cognitivism. So I think technically they could include it.. not 100% sure though.
0
reply
reeldn
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
How would you structure an essay on normative ethical theories if it asks more broadly? One paragraph on each of the theories evaluating the essential features of the feature?

I am very scared for moral philosophy
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by reeldn)
How would you structure an essay on normative ethical theories if it asks more broadly? One paragraph on each of the theories evaluating the essential features of the feature?

I am very scared for moral philosophy
Yeah that would be fine! Maybe choosing the evaluations that are quite comparitive - such as evaluating Kant on whether his rejection of consequentialism is valid or assessing utilitarianism on whether its rejection of rights (which are deontological) is valid.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (38)
26.21%
As I expected (47)
32.41%
Harder (53)
36.55%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (7)
4.83%

Watched Threads

View All