Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

AQA A2 Philosophy(old spec) 17th June

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

laughingwithpicasso

So very worried. Aristotle is a nightmare. And I feel like I know nothing about Political Philosophy. Damnit.

Reply 21

nicole2567

Im doing mill and political philosophy

harm principle came up last year so it wont be that....and i think it will be social contract theory for political philosophy

Reply 22

overhung

Me too.
Social contract theory would be so incredibly easy.
I'm just bored of Mill though.
I really haven't worked, but I feel strangely confident about the knowledge I have.

Reply 23

Handel_Fan09

Anyone doing Nietzsche? What a right royal pain in the backside it is! Ah well, I'm not making my firm offer now =S Insurance is a dead cert though =D My other unit is political =P

Reply 24

Clarkman

Also doing Political and Nietzsche. Rather concerned.

Reply 25

username233397

Social contract would be nice. Although the worry is that everyone else will find it easy as well! Is this the last year of this specification?

Reply 26

Nasher and Basher

I am so dreading this exam

Reply 27

calvertj

im doing mill and political philosophy..
going to blag mill but havent looked at it at all because im a lazy student.. luckily i know a few things having done my synoptic on 'on liberty'

polticial philosophy im hoping for an ideology question as the 18 marker and something on the state for the essay (i.e. asses the view that the functions of the state should be minimal)

good luck to all you budding philosophers out there
xxxx

Reply 28

username258587

political philosophy and mill
i really don't understand punishment/law

and how do you structure? if it's, say, "assess explanations of the relationship between laws and rights" would you do natural law/ positive law/ no relationship (eg anarchism)
or would you go through the ideologies...

Reply 29

username258587

also
Assess the view that the distinction between authority and power does not survive close examination
???

Reply 30

username233397

What are evaluation points for mills tyranny of the majority?

Reply 31

Sorry...Alright...Well...

calvertj

Every single thing you have said in this post I agree with. Have you been stalking me?

Reply 32

Jazmine

I can't say I've revised either. Not enough to remember. I somewhat gave up on Philosophy. I don't want to go in to the exam ><
But, it's worth a shot. Perhaps I'll have an extremely generous examiner. I did Ayer, but I'm not going to revise that. I think I can get through that without revision. For some reason, that's at least stuck in my head!! But if they ask me a question on a particular Chapter... I'm pretty much screwed. So, I might go over that tonight. ANYWAYS, off to read Political Philosophy notes~

Good luck everyone, hope you all do well!

Reply 33

Aesop

Difficult question.I really don't understand this whole natural law / positive law business. Can anyone give me a quick explanation on how they'd answer this question in that fashion? :biggrin:

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 34

username258587

natural- human, moral law. locke loved it. existed in state of nature, needs to be protected by an arbiter (would accept a sage but hard to find a unanimously approved-of sage)
positive law- natural law too abstract, all laws created by the state. bentham: natural law "nonsense on stilts"

I DON'T UNDERSTAND PUNISHMENT. ahhhhh!!! and law is ******* me uuuupp! this is really hard, can anyone p-m me past essays?

Reply 35

Aesop

Thanks for clarifying, I think I understand. As far as I see it, Natural law is related to either a deontological or consequentialist theory of rights. The former being illustrated in Locke's state of nature (rights to liberty etc) and Nozick's property rights (every individual entitled), the latter being some utilitarian or perhaps even Rawlsian (justice as fairness gives the best result; rights attributed) rights. Both rights could be part of a natural law. However such rights would be disputed by any Marxist, for they are quintessentially individualistic. The Marxist must demand that the relationship between natural law and its rights fails to take into account the social nature of people. Additionally, natural rights are always disputed, especially when it comes to things like labour and property ownership.

In contrast, legal positivism denies that law is based upon principles, nor that law is unjust if it does not comply with those rights. Rights under legal positivism are legal rights, and that is all (hence nonsense on stilts).

What questions do you have about punishment? Maybe I can help. I'm just writing all this crap so maybe I can remember it tomorrow.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 36

overhung

Your definition of legal positivism is sort of flimsy though. Legal positivists accept that law may have ethical underpinnings, but they simply assert that it is not identical or derived from ethics.

Reply 37

username258587

nozick was not in any way rawlsian; rawls: justice as fairness, nozick: justice as entitlement. they were oppooooooooosssiitteeesss (yes?)

2 criticisms against punishment as a deterrent. er...

Reply 38

Aesop

overhung

Your definition of legal positivism is sort of flimsy though. Legal positivists accept that law may have ethical underpinnings, but they simply assert that it is not identical or derived from ethics.

Do you have any links I could check out for legal positivism? I'm doing this A level online and the stanford is drowning me in text...

Reply 39

overhung

I think you misread his post, because he clearly made a distinction between Rawls and Nozick.

Don't you mean 2 criticisms of deterrent as a punishment?

1) When used as an internal punishment, deterrence is shown to be largely ineffectual. e.g. Most criminals who are imprisoned and released, are more than likely to be re incarcerated.

2) The mindset of criminals tend to accept that going to jail is a possibility when committing a crime, so prison as a deterrent wont seem to change their ways.