Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think your teacher’s structure works very well from the plans. I think the difference with my structure is that the themes are separated, whereas the one you follow merges different themes into the PACE structure which also works very well. Your paragraphs must be huge to cover all that information! All I would say is keep a strong line of argument throughout so your argument is clear from the start of the paragraph and this will help you avoid over concept crowding (does that make sense?)
Is an evaluative point at every paragraph necessary? You get 24 marks for evaluation so it needs to be over half of your essay. You can either do full paragraphs of evaluation or integrate evaluation throughout. My advice is to add evaluation to every paragraph, as you should be only using description that is relevant to your line of argument/question and thus driven by evaluation/ argument anyway.
What paragraph structure to you best recommend? it totally depends on the question (e.g ethics application questions have a different structure) but generally 3-4 paragraphs works with a clear theme per paragraph – that links to the question – by theme I mean one area of the topic – outline the theme in 2-3 lines then evaluate it using names/ arguments for and against it.
How detailed does A01 explanation need to be? To score the full 16 marks it needs to show a depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding but does not have to cover everything you have learn in that topic (only what is relevant to the question). So extra details, wider reading, things beyond the usual are helpful for higher marks. the examiner’s have to know that you actually understand what it is you are talking about through the detail you use.
How do you recommend planning in the exam? Use the first few minutes (no more than 5) to write down line of argument and key points/ words you want to raise in your answer.
Hi Sarah, I’m sorry to say that Plato and Aristotle are the only two podcasts that have not been created due to time restrictions during revision. However I am happy to answer any questions you might have, I also have the coveralls if you would like to sue them with the powerpoints 🙂
Hi, a question like this one is found in the Kant section of the specification not meta ethics. This would be a Kant question, so you would answer it from a Kantian perspective e.g how Kant judges an act: good, bad, right or wrong. This could be applied to business ethics if required. Hope this helps 🙂
Hi Nathan, thanks for your question. To reach band 6 of the mark scheme it requires evidence of “deep understanding through a complex and nuanced approach to the material used.” Nuanced by definition looks at subtle changes in meaning so as far as your essays are concerned this is showing an examiner that you have the confidence over the scope of the topic, making synoptic links to other ideas of relevance and bringing it altogether so your essay has flow. This is definitely a skill that comes with practice and it is not obvious like using technical terms but is more in the feel of an answer that a student develops their line of argument, showing a depth of understanding in the topic that flows and comes together in a holistic manner. Sorry I cannot be clearer or more specific because the wording is very subjective, so you asked a great question! Hope this helps a little 🙂
Hi Sarah, if the question is NL and Euthanasia – only compare to SE. If NL and Sex Ethics you can compare to any of them: SL, Kant or Util. My advice is only compare to one other that is either the best or the worst as a comparison, any more topics and you run the risk of getting bogged down in detail and not evaluate enough 🙂
Hi Sarah,
I don’t think ‘negation’ would be a key word for RL just more mature language. I am guessing it is when I say: “Whilst not believing in God, they use via negativa to convey the essence of ultimate reality, which cannot be described except as the negation of things we know from the physical world.” Negation in this sense means to deny, so in this sense a denial of things in this world to understand an ultimate reality.
Spelling: ‘via eminentiae’. Yes Aquinas supports this to show that what we say and know of God is limited 🙂Hi Lorraine,
As Sarah has said above – dualism is the separation between body and soul but it doesn’t necessarily have to be just in humans, however Plato/ Descartes do just focus on it in that way.
Dawkins talks about soul 1 and soul 2. Soul 1 is the religious superstitious concept, that is not based on fact or truth. Soul 2 is consciousness, human intellectual and spiritual power, higher development of moral faculties and feelings and imagination – all rooted in the body. He acknowledges there is mystery around human ‘consciousness’ = what makes us different from other species ect but does not link this to a soul, just an area not discovered by science yet.
Hope this helps,
Aimee
Hi Sarah,
Jesus focused upon individuals, often in one to one situations and often people who where not liked in society. Whereas Fletcher’s agape from St Paul’s ideas are more based on unconditional love on a bigger scale. St Paul brought in the idea of agape to stop feuding Christian communities, so it is about applying it on a bigger rather than individualistic scale.I think your point above is spot on. A problem with SE is how do you know when a situation is ‘extreme’ enough to break the rules. Plus if you break the rules because of Agape love, you are still breaking the law = illegal and will be punished accordingly, so it doesn’t have a lot of application in reality 🙂
Hi Sarah,
Rule is Mill so happiness.
He is rule because the rule is to look at happiness for everyone in the actions we do.
Higher pleasures are the focus, so avoiding being a pig satisfied/fool and constantly seeking beyond these.
I would do both. Find your own issues with Bentham and raise the ones mentioned by Mill and then say why Mill’s criticisms work/ dont work. 🙂Lower pleasures are those that animals experience/focus on e.g food so money wouldn’t necessarily fall under a lower pleasure. I guess you could link by saying that people in sweatshops because of the environment have less opportunity to achieve higher pleasures.
It would totally depend on the question. If it was utilitarianism and business then you would need to explore different avenues, if Mill then focus on Mill etc.Your logic in the second point is right. Reason to work out what naturally happens in line with PP but euthanasia means someone is dying and therefore passive euthanasia is removing medicine/excessive means to let nature take its course. NL would always promote trying to save life but at some point no matter what you do they are going to die so forcing them to take means to stay alive such as chemotherapy is not required. I think you are getting confused with the euthanasia part. Dont forgot euthanasia is only permissible in extreme situations where a person is dying. Someone that needs a blood transfusion or transplant or pace maker can go on living for years, so NL would promote the use of reason to support the PP in these cases. But for someone with a terminal illness for example that is considering euthanasia, NL cannot and would not permit forcing of treatment. Hope this clarifies for you.
Hi sarah, we use reason to work out through casuistry what is and is not natural. Sometimes reason can justify the use of means to preserve life such as pace makers but these are not natural but if the intention is to preserve life then it can work with doctrine of double effect. This argument works because the person’s life will continue with that support however if a person is dying then forcing extraordinary means/ burdensome approaches is not acceptable as the natural course at some point is death. So preserve life where you can but at some point the line has to be drawn. I have explained this in a slightly different way in your earlier questions on euthanasia too 🙂
