The Student Room Group

Eduqas A Level Religious studies 2024

Scroll to see replies

Reply 480

Original post
by Ambiguous Super
Oh cool. Yes I did pelagius and Arminius and I also did Situation Ethics.


I did that as well. What did u talk about?

Reply 481

Original post
by alevel2086
it was about libertarianism and how humans know whats right and wrong💀i didnt do pelagius bc i kept mixing it up with augustines theodicy😭😭

oh okay i understand pelagius is more of the rebel/bad boy. 😂

Reply 482

Shout out to MoDesignss as well for the predictions. Absolute hero.

Reply 483

Original post
by Ben_464747
I did that as well. What did u talk about?

I can't remember much for q1 but in the A02 I mentioned a lot about secularity/21st century where freedom is more dominant than religious view so they are no longer convincing. Pelagius and Arminius have conflicting views so there is no coherent approach either. I wrote smth else but can't remember.

I mentioned S.E being partially effective. it can allow anything to be deemed as moral so long as there is a loving intention. I also mentioned it being effective bcuz of it putting people first (personalism) and it not being legalist. I mentioned about the case of abortion and how S.E deals effectively with this but from a christian point of view it undermines the value of human life (sanctity of life). I wrote some other stuff too lol. But in general, I said non-believer will not understnad what agape is as it is a religious value so outside the religious frame work it is difficult to understand.

For the homosexuality question I spoke about agape coming before religious laws/moral laws. So, a situationist would accept a homosexual relationship if it has a long-term loving outcome e.g the life long commitment to one another. it can be impractical in some circumstances too especially if the relationship is driven by lust so not so effective here.

Mentioned jesus disobeying the laws but pardoning the woman who committed adultery and for disoberying rules of the sabbath. Situation ethics centres around the moral behaviour and example of jesus so the situationist can refer to jesus in their own moral decision making.

Love = justice, and for a long time gay relationships have been frowned upon or punished. so the most loving thing is to permit it if it promotes happiness rather than inflicting suffering.

Wrote a load more but my hands are aching so sorry 😆 what did you write?

Reply 484

omg section a was disgusting

Reply 485

I missed out on 20 marks for ao1 for Pelagius and Armenius but I did natural moral law and the 30 mark essay
Does anyone think I can get a B because I’m dwelling so badly
(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 486

Original post
by yxsria
I missed out on 20 marks for ao1 for Pelagius and Armenius but I did natural moral law and the 30 mark essay
Does anyone think I can get a B because I’m dwelling so badly

I remember in the last ethics mock we had I messed up because the A section was on emotivism or intuitionism and I didn’t revise it that well so only got like maybe 10 marks on the a01 and like 3 for a02 but my overall grade rounded out to just hitting an A because of my philosophy and Islam paper so there is definitely still hope for a B

Reply 487

Original post
by Ambiguous Super
Interest to know what everyone did in section B. Most popular question by demand, I guess, will have been Q5 on the divine command theory.


For me it was between DCT and SE bc I predicted both of them as well as the 30 markers, ended up choosing DCT tho

Reply 488

Original post
by walkertabs
For me it was between DCT and SE bc I predicted both of them as well as the 30 markers, ended up choosing DCT tho

Okay that's good!

Reply 489

Original post
by Ambiguous Super
I can't remember much for q1 but in the A02 I mentioned a lot about secularity/21st century where freedom is more dominant than religious view so they are no longer convincing. Pelagius and Arminius have conflicting views so there is no coherent approach either. I wrote smth else but can't remember.
I mentioned S.E being partially effective. it can allow anything to be deemed as moral so long as there is a loving intention. I also mentioned it being effective bcuz of it putting people first (personalism) and it not being legalist. I mentioned about the case of abortion and how S.E deals effectively with this but from a christian point of view it undermines the value of human life (sanctity of life). I wrote some other stuff too lol. But in general, I said non-believer will not understnad what agape is as it is a religious value so outside the religious frame work it is difficult to understand.
For the homosexuality question I spoke about agape coming before religious laws/moral laws. So, a situationist would accept a homosexual relationship if it has a long-term loving outcome e.g the life long commitment to one another. it can be impractical in some circumstances too especially if the relationship is driven by lust so not so effective here.
Mentioned jesus disobeying the laws but pardoning the woman who committed adultery and for disoberying rules of the sabbath. Situation ethics centres around the moral behaviour and example of jesus so the situationist can refer to jesus in their own moral decision making.
Love = justice, and for a long time gay relationships have been frowned upon or punished. so the most loving thing is to permit it if it promotes happiness rather than inflicting suffering.
Wrote a load more but my hands are aching so sorry 😆 what did you write?


Same for SE on homosexuality, I talked about the bible against it. I also talked about how fletcher refused to partake in sexual debates. And for the 30 marker I talked about SE’s focus on personalism and for the point against I talked about William Barclay.

Reply 490

Original post
by yxsria
I missed out on 20 marks for ao1 for Pelagius and Armenius but I did natural moral law and the 30 mark essay
Does anyone think I can get a B because I’m dwelling so badly

From the mark scheme:

Positive marking It should be remembered that candidates are writing under examination conditions and credit should be given for what the candidate writes, rather than adopting the approach of penalising him/her for any omissions. It should be possible for a very good response to achieve full marks and a very poor one to achieve zero marks. Marks should not be deducted for a less than perfect answer if it satisfies the criteria of the mark scheme. Exemplars in the mark scheme are only meant as helpful guides. Therefore, any other acceptable or suitable answers should be credited even though they are not actually stated in the mark scheme. Two main phrases are deliberately placed throughout each mark scheme to remind examiners of this philosophy. They are: “Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant points should be credited.” “This is not a checklist, please remember to credit any valid alternatives.”

Reply 491

Original post
by Ben_464747
Same for SE on homosexuality, I talked about the bible against it. I also talked about how fletcher refused to partake in sexual debates. And for the 30 marker I talked about SE’s focus on personalism and for the point against I talked about William Barclay.

YESS! I spoke about barclay too. 😄

Reply 492

I know it’s positive marking but do you get marked down for wrong info. I did like 2 sentences of wrong info which might mark me down for like overall essay coherence but I won’t directly get marked down for it will I?

Reply 493

Original post
by alevelsudent101
I know it’s positive marking but do you get marked down for wrong info. I did like 2 sentences of wrong info which might mark me down for like overall essay coherence but I won’t directly get marked down for it will I?
I'm not too sure. If the rest of your essay is clear it should be okay??

Reply 494

Original post
by Ambiguous Super
I'm not too sure. If the rest of your essay is clear it should be okay??

Don't stress too much about it. My friend got an A overall last year and got a B in her mocks so I think the examiners will be nice.

Reply 495

Original post
by chimmy_onwudiwe
i did DCT and pelagius/armenius

Me tiooo

Reply 496

I hated the section a stuff. I did libertarianism but I couldn't remember what Rogers or sirigu said properly. Like I knew what they said but not any quotes or specific information and I didn't want to get it muddled up. I wrote about sartre and kant and Holbach. Was gonna mention Chisholm but ran out of time :/ I did DCT in section b. I hope it was well written because it was a nice question and I feel like most people would have gone for that one. I'm so glad it's over but now I have this dread. I hate that we have to wait till August to find out our results.

Reply 497

Original post
by matching-citizen
I remember in the last ethics mock we had I messed up because the A section was on emotivism or intuitionism and I didn’t revise it that well so only got like maybe 10 marks on the a01 and like 3 for a02 but my overall grade rounded out to just hitting an A because of my philosophy and Islam paper so there is definitely still hope for a B
Thank you guys it means a lot that I can still hope for getting a B. Im sure I’ll get it. Lemme just have a positive mindset

Reply 498

anyone do the natural law q? have seen a lot more about DCT than i would’ve expected
libertarianism really ****ed me over, i basically just did sartre and sirigu with two sentences on roger’s and waffled some implications at the end…

Reply 499

Original post
by frog13
anyone do the natural law q? have seen a lot more about DCT than i would’ve expected
libertarianism really ****ed me over, i basically just did sartre and sirigu with two sentences on roger’s and waffled some implications at the end…


I think I wrote mostly about sartre. So you're good. I focused on linking every point to the implications though because I had a mental block and couldn't remember who said what. So I made sure the explanation was coherent. In my part b I talked about kant and Holbach - we have not learned about kant and Holbach at our school. But it is part of the wjec eduqas spec, according to philosophy ninja lady whos videos I watched for revision 😭 am I totally screwed if I didn't talk about sirigu and Rogers?

Quick Reply