Derrick Jarman's film: Wittgenstein

Derrick Jarman's film, Wittgenstein, illustrates the entire life of Ludwig Wittgenstein including all the major turning points in this significant philosopher’s life and the many struggles he faced during his lifetime. But the question has to be asked as to whether Jarman does Wittgenstein justice by demonstrating his revolutionary ideas of philosophy and developing our understanding why some consider him to be one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. 

After watching Jarman’s portrayal of Wittgenstein you immediately realise the troubled life he led. What is apparent is the frustration that he experienced in his attempts to find himself. You witness the doubts he has with himself and the usefulness of philosophy, and the various quests he undertakes, such as fighting in World War I and teaching in schools, in the hope that he will find answers. Jarman brilliantly conveys that Wittgenstein from a young age displayed the makings of a genius and many important philosophers of the time, such as Bertrand Russell, recognised his philosophical potential. But Wittgenstein had difficulties in meeting these expectations and the biggest problem was that he had such innovative ideas yet he could not express them in an appropriate way. Jarman provides useful insight as to why Wittgenstein was highly critical of himself and that he consequently experienced periodic depression and contemplated suicide. All of which is essential in gaining a full of appreciation of his contributions to philosophy and offers an explanation why he only published just one slim book, Tractatus. The film demonstrates how his ideas of language were completely ground-breaking and how at first some could not understand them and believed he was purely insane. Nonetheless, they too eventually grasped his brilliance. It shows how philosophy impacted his whole life and was not simply just his work.

Conversely, to gain a full comprehension of the film it demands a basic knowledge of Wittgenstein’s work. Additionally, it could be argued that some of Wittgenstein’s greatness is lost in the unique and quirky way the film was directed. By concentrating much of the film on the complex and unstable nature of Wittgenstein for some viewers his ideas may lose their impact and that is the depiction of Wittgenstein they are left with after the film has finished. Furthermore, Jarman could have delved deeper into the theories of Wittgenstein and their influence on various studies so that we gained a greater understanding of his significance.

Ultimately, we believe that Jarman’s film is an incredibly useful insight into the life of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It conveys the wisdom and greatness of Wittgenstein in a way that would attract a whole new audience and educate those who are unaware of his philosophical notions. It aids those who are studying his ideas to gain a greater understanding by having knowledge of his mentality. It condenses his whole life into a 70 minute film yet it provides a truthful portrayal of the life he led and his important theories.

 Beth and Danniella

Can SItuation Ethics be seen as a good theory to follow?

Situation ethics was devised by Joseph Fletcher and is right or wrong actions depending on the situation. In situation ethics there are no universal moral rules or rights because the outcome of the action depends on the situation. It states that sometimes other moral principles can be set aside in certain situations if the idea of love is best served. Paul Tillich (a famous philosopher) said “Love is the ultimate law” this analogy is based on agape love meaning unconditional and the scholar Fletcher believed that by forming an ethical system based on ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ as this was taught by Jesus in the bible . Situational ethics is a teleological theory because it is concerned with outcome or consequences of the action being carried out. Sometimes in situation ethics the end can justify the mean but this depends on whether the situation is intrinsically bad. Fletcher believed that moral decisions made should be based on the quote ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ and that the theory / analogy does not only apply to religious people as every consequence can be good or bad. This type of ethics also requires the individual to genuinely care and want to do good and therefore simple rationality isn’t the human way to go. It also takes into account the overriding superiority of the actual human entity rather than the rules acting as the governing authority. The following are the working principles of situation ethics.

A strength of situation ethics is that is a teleological argument and this  means that the action can change according to the situation the person has been put in rather that being the same every time because teleological refers to the idea of relative morality. Fletcher also argues that the consequences are the most important element of the action because it can affect people/ the person. The action itself can be seen as unimportant as long as it brings the most loving outcome.

Situation Ethics put’s people before rules and this follows the working principle, Personalism. As Jesus said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath’ meaning that the Sabbath day should be a time for man rather than just to follow strict rules. This is important as it prevents people being forced into following rules. Also the fact that people come first is something that most people would agree with and find preferential. This gives an override option for situations where rules do not seem appropriate. An example of this can be rape; a girl has been forced into sexual activity against her will. Fletcher would argue that abortion can be seen as the most loving thing for the girl. The family and the girl may feel it is the right thing to do even though they believe abortion is wrong. However, this can cause issues.

Situation ethics is relevant to both secular and religious beliefs. Fletcher based the theory on Jesus’ teachings, although the ethic requires no grounded belief in God.  The theory follows the fundamental principle of ‘love thy neighbour’ and many of the parables which demonstrate agape, preached by Jesus, such as the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’. It can also be said that Jesus taught the same flexible morality, ‘man was made for Sabbath, not Sabbath for man’.

Another strength of Situation Ethics, particularly in the ever-changing 21^st century, is that it is current and up to date because it is flexible and shows concern with producing the most loving outcome. Advancements have been made in medical science and are still being made for example, procedures such as stem cell research and genetic engineering may offer dilemmas for religious believers; they may agree that the foetuses have sanctity of life, and shouldn’t be used even if it helps people. However, Situation Ethics would say that it is acceptable, as long as it produces a loving outcome, helping and saving people. Where elements of Natural Law and other strict laws in religion may not directly address current issues, leaving decision making difficult, Situation Ethics stays relevant as it can always be applied to an individual case, always based on the outcome of agape love.

Situation ethics can be seen as independent, and this means  that you can make your own choices and do not have to restrict yourself to rules laid down by religious institutions which may be outdated and unsuited to today’s society and this type of decisions occur in everyday life.  This is good as it means that people do not have to feel pressured to make certain decisions which they may not want to and do not feel pressured to follow Biblical teachings, and they can decide what is best according to the idea of agape love (love for humanity) and this means ensuring the best outcome according to the situation. Situation ethics also avoids conflict of duty ass one experiences in absolutist systems. Where moral rules collide, situation ethics gives a way of resolving the conflict and this is Love.

A weakness of situation ethics is that you cannot always predict the long term consequences of actions. Therefore an action may have good intentions but it may still result in a bad outcome and, this can stop people from doing good as they fear the outcome. For example, Nina Rosenstand (a famous philosopher) gives the example of the neighbour who decided to turn on the heating in his friend’s house so it would be warm when he returned from holiday, accidentally set the house on fire. The neighbour’s intentions could be seen as good and therefore driven by love, but it failed to produce a loving outcome. This shows a slaw in situation ethics as the consequences of the actions can be difficult to predict. Also situation ethics can be seen as unsuitable for everyone because atheists and those of other faiths might not want to follow the example of Jesus.

A major weakness to Situation Ethics was the Church and its criticisms. The Church believed that strict rules like the Ten Commandments had been in place for so long that there was no need now to change them, as they contained wisdom which had been in place for thousands of years. These rules are necessary to keep order in the world, as many would argue that without rules we would descend into moral chaos. Some people in the religious sector criticised situation Ethics as they believe human beings couldn’t act without our emotions guiding our actions. Furthermore, they say that Situation Ethics isolates the Church because it allows people to make decisions independently, rather than turning to the Church for help.

Situation ethics is concerned with acting for the greatest amount of love and we could say that it will always be acting for good. However, it fails to take into account each person’s individual subjective nature. For example, one person may consider acting to save the life of a loved one to be the most loving thing, whereas another may think that euthanasia could be acting for the greatest love. This could also have the effect of justifying ‘crimes’ which one person may consider to be loving, but another might consider to be wrong  and this can be seen in one of the fundamental principles; Love is the only rule. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing. each person can make a different decision in the same  circumstances to someone else and this shows that there is a big flaw in the ethical ideology of Situation ethics, showing it is not a practical ethic for today’s society.

Situation ethics is a good theory because it can be seen as universal, as it is a non-christian view. However, situation ethics allows people to abuse the idea of love. An alternative to situation ethics is Bernard Hoose’s proportionalism. He believed that situation ethics failed by not having any rules apart from acting out of love. Hoose’s combined situation ethics with natural law. This means it is not deontological in nature but it gives guidance to what to do in certain situations therefore, it does not leave each person as a moral decision maker that is considered to be isolated.

 

EO.

Wittgenstein film review

This is certainly a shockingly playful biopic about one of the 20th century most intellectual, and fabulously gay, philosophers. Derek Jarman is able to captivate the audience throughout Wittgenstein’s journey to discover a true success.

 The film, 'Wittgenstein', is unbelievable. Whether unbelievable is seen as a positive description or a negative one, is up to you.

 The 70minutes production, which included theatrical elements, explores Wittgenstein's idea, the 'Language Game', a well-known principle which has been implicated and still used in the classroom today. Unfortunately, the philosopher’s theory came at a cost, as years of discovery and research into a whole ‘new world’ led to a series of mental issues developed later in his life.

The audience are able to follow his reasons and logic behind his theory. This gave the audience a lot to think about; though it is complicated to get through at first, it is certainly interesting once you get the hang of it.

Wittgenstein tried to solve all of philosophy's problems. He dismissed the idea that language is one way or another separate and equivalent to reality and argued that without understanding the concept of something, you opinions and definitions are meaningless.

Jarman portrays a very thin line from genius to absolute lunacy. The film is a direct echo of Wittgenstein’s personality. In some ways, the philosopher reminds me of the overly intellectual Physician, Sheldon Cooper, from the ‘Big Bang Theory’.

 

The performance has been praised and considered “remarkable” by his biographer, Ray Monk.

Personally, the film failed to provide me with a useful insight into one of the greatest philosophers and his theory of Language Games. Although, his revolutionary ideas affect disciplines as diverse as philosophy of mind, psychology, the natural sciences, linguistics, mathematics, logic and the arts, there were certain scenes I completely lost track in what was going on.

Don’t get me wrong, Jarman’s show on Wittgenstein is perfect in terms of understanding his childhood and adulthood as the writer seemed too focused on his psychological issues as oppose to his philosophical ideas. Even so, the film was performed by the characters superbly, which is good enough for me.

Bravo.

 

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. From 1939–1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge and Philosopher Bertrand Russell described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.”

The film directed by Derek Jarman provided an insightful portrayal of his life and story. We felt that the acting gave a realistic representation of how Wittgenstein would have discovered his ideas and theory, and showed the true human nature of his discoveries. Throughout the play it shows how his philosophical work had affected his various relationships which we feel shows a different aspect to his character and allows the audience to see how his work was perceived by many around him. It also realistically showed that Wittgenstein would have faced struggles and criticism in his work, even from those he valued as friends allowing the audience to see how he would have been constantly trying to justify his ideas.

However the play also had some negative aspects as we feel that it was very focused on his psychological state, which is portrayed as unstable at points, rather than his philosophical ideas and theories. This distracts from the essential points that he is trying to make which can make Wittgenstein seem less significant. Another choice by Jarman was to portray Wittgenstein’s character as erratic where this may not have been completely true and for many this may influence their view of Wittgenstein.

Overall the style of the play can seem rather distracting from the character of Wittgenstein, but the portrayal of the events of his life and his story provides an accurate account of Wittgenstein’s life.  

 

Emma and Ella 

Just because its Christmas

Just because it’s Christmas

The Catholic Church has designated the four weeks preceding Christmas as Advent, a time to “prepare the way of the Lord” for His coming as our King and Saviour.

It seems fitting that Advent is the beginning of the liturgical calendar, for it is a season of spiritual preparation marked by an eager longing for the birth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ. There are age-old Advent practices, some of which are mentioned in this FAITH FACT, which will help children and families live closer to Christ. The practices are time-tested and prove. A family’s strong and living faith will become their heritage and a mode to reinforce the religious practices cantered in the liturgy.

“When there are empty mangers to fill with straw for small sacrifices, when the Mary candle is a daily reminder on the dinner table, when Advent hymns are sung in the candlelight of a graceful Advent wreath, children are not anxious to celebrate Christmas before time. That would offend their sense of honour. Older children who make Nativity sets, cut Old Testament symbols to decorate a Jesse tree, or prepare costumes for a Christmas play will find Advent all too short a time to prepare for the coming of Christ the King.” These are hopeful thoughts as we prepare to incorporate some of these liturgical activities into our home life during Advent to enable us to truly celebrate Christmas. It is a shame that many do not fast during Advent, because without a fast there can really be no feast at Christmas. Traditionally, all great feasts have been preceded by a time of fasting, which makes the feast itself more joyful. Sadly, Advent today has supplanted by "the Christmas shopping season," so that by Christmas Day, many people no longer enjoy the feast.. Fasting and other forms of penance, such as prayer and alms giving, help to purify our hearts and prepare us for the celebration of Christmas. The Church especially encourages participation at weekday Masses during Advent, because in the Eucharist we find the source and goal of our Advent preparation: Christ Himself, whose sacrifice reconciles us with God.

So it seems many Catholics change there lifestyle for 24 days in December, they pray more often seeking help and guidance as they put their needs second for the purpose of helping others, in order to strengthen their faith and as an act of kindness and goodwill, so surely these small acts performed make a huge difference on the world, this is why December is seen as a time of harmony and love. 

But, if our faith is strong enough to guide us through these 24 days of goodwill, then why don't we continue for the following 341 days? would is make the world a better place? in my opinion yes.

The simplest things can make the biggest difference, every Christmas at my school, in our religious classes we fill shoe boxes with gifts for a charity called Samaritan purse, this is a gift of love and gives hope to the developing world. The smallest item can put the biggest smile on a child's face. This is an example of helping others and making a difference, imagine if we could do this every month? image how many lives we could change?

God gave us Jesus as a gift, so that we could grow closer to God, and we should carry on the celebration and live out the teachings of the bible in every day that we live, as a thank you to god for giving us the greatest gift.

Faith and goodwill should be part of every day life, not just for Christmas.

A.S

Does the end always justify the means?

Utilitarianism is a theory that states an action which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is morally right. Jeremy Bentham, who devised this theory, said that this principle will help you come to the decision of whether an action is good or bad. Bentham saw pleasure as the ultimate goal for ethics. His aim was to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. John Mills developed this theory focusing on maximising the general happiness. Taking Bentham’s and Mill’s statements of utilitarianism into consideration, it asserts that any action can be justified as long as it brings about more pleasure than pain. This tells us that sometimes the end does justify the means. The ‘end’ being the outcome of our actions and the ‘means’ being the actions taken in order to reach this result. This phrase refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based only on the outcome, not on the action itself. 

If we followed this idiom, we would be acting on the idea that if you need a specific outcome, the way we get there is not important. Can the benefits of something, as the final result, outweigh the harm caused during the process? This is what causes disputes on whether or not we can justify the means by the end. Utilitarianism suggests that an action is morally right if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This suggests that the means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for the greatest number. We could say that this supports the idea that the ends do justify the means. However, in the process of reaching an aimed goal, there might be many damages produced, causing pain. Pain goes against the theory of utilitarianism as the idea is to minimise pain whilst maximising pleasure. Even if the outcome produces maximum happiness for many people, what happens to the people hurt in the process? There will always be a minority that are not satisfied as their needs are not met; which is a major flaw in the system of utilitarianism. 

There are many examples of this e.g. abortion. If a woman has fallen pregnant unintentionally for various reasons such as rape, it is not expected of her to keep the baby. It could be a very mentally challenging act if she was to give birth to, and raise the child. In this case, the blameless conclusion would be to abort this baby. However, the actions that cause the loss of the baby are seen as morally wrong. Therefore, just because the conclusion of a decision may be good, the actions that enabled this conclusion may not be so good.


AC

Is utilitarianism relevant in the 21st century?

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, meaning that it looks at the consequences of an action to decide whether that action is right or wrong. It generally relies on the principle of utility, which is a measure of how useful an action is. Utilitarianism is a relativist system as it does not provide fixed moral rules however, is flexible in a given situation.

Jeremy Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism in 1789 and he stated that the principle of utility will help a person to decide whether an action is good or bad. He believed in quantitative utilitarianism which is “the greatest good for the greatest number”. In other words, an action is right if it brings about the greatest good for the majority of people.  Bentham was a psychological hedonist; he was concerned with the role of pleasure and pain in decision making. He used the hedonic calculus to measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty and extent. Bentham also said that every situation is judged individually and every action is judged on its own merits (act utilitarianism).

John Stuart Mill developed Bentham’s theory and thought that searching for basic pleasure was an animal instinct, and that humans are capable of more than this. He believed in higher and lower pleasures; the higher pleasures, pleasures of the mind, being things such as education and the lower pleasures, pleasures of the body, being things such as food (qualitative utilitarianism). Mill had respect for rules that are formed to benefit society (rule utilitarianism).

The principle of hedonism (happiness) is very important and both Bentham and Mill argue that intrinsic good (the only thing that is good in itself) is happiness or pleasure. This supports the fact that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is echoed in the current educational climate, where “happiness” has been taught subject in many schools. Schools are encouraging their students to fulfil their higher pleasures (pleasures of the mind) in hobbies they offer to them such as different kinds of sport and art. Bentham is careful to balance out pleasure with pain when referring to the quantity of happiness that we achieve through our actions. His utilitarianism promotes selfless acts which discourage selfish acts such as lying or stealing, therefore it is showing that by choosing to act more morally with selfless acts we will be creating a better and happier environment for everyone. What brings humans happiness should be decided by looking at the consequences of our actions because it keeps everyone in touch with the day to day matters which is why utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century.

The principle of hedonism is a timeless principle as it reminds us that we should strive to achieve happiness whilst avoiding pain. We should work towards the greater good and overlook our individual differences. Bentham said, “The greatest good for the greatest number”. This could be put into action in governments of the 21^st century as it will always help to satisfy the needs of the majority which is the best thing a government can hope for in its country.  Although this may seem unfair as the minority is being “forgotten” it is, however, fairer long-term. If governments strive to make everyone happy all the time, it will become more likely that no one will end up happy. Utilitarianism brings about more happiness which is relevant in today’s society. Therefore, Utilitarianism is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain.

However, utilitarianism can also be seen as not being relevant to the 21^st century because by promoting happiness over other goods, it reduces morality to being simple. Morality is complex, challenging and torn between conflicting duties and interests that often bring about equal amounts of pleasure and pain. This means that there must be some other way of differentiating between what is considered right and wrong.

Some people may argue that happiness isn’t powerful enough to make people act in the 21^st century. People continue to carry out actions that cause more overall pain than happiness such as forcing sex on a person or the abuse and neglect of children. There needs to be punishments in place to discourage these kinds of actions. Therefore, many would say that Utilitarianism supports evil by placing the emphasis on the outcomes of an action rather than the action itself. Also, there must be more to life than achieving happiness and avoiding pain which therefore must mean that hedonism seems to go against our common sense.

Overall, I think that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain. 

H.D

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy comes from the Greek words ‘philos’, which means love, and ‘sophia’, meaning wisdom, therefore the word literally means ‘love of wisdom’, implying that through philosophy a person can acquire wisdom. As a matter of fact, commonly the general public believe philosophers, those who study philosophy, study fundamental problem such as existence of the universe and life, and moral values which is correct to a certain extent however philosophy itself does not contain information unlike science and various other studies, it is not a body of knowledge therefore by studying philosophy you are not inevitably entitled to knowledge. In fact it is often described as an activity where one asks philosophical questions such as ‘how was the world created?’ and ‘how ought we to live?’ and answers them by critically analysing previous conclusions made by others to these questions to determine an answer.

 

If we were to think philosophy as an activity, we could say that philosophy is a way of thinking to guide a person to think critically and open-mindedly so that they can answer philosophical questions well, and to think critically and open-mindedly means that a person must examine all evidence, including their own experiences, without being prejudiced or ignorant to other people’s conclusions to reach an unbiased and logical conclusion. Therefore through philosophy a person thinks independently and outside what they have been brought up to believe in, which means philosophy involves examining world-views, eliminating ignorance, deepening understanding and seeking reasoning to build convincing arguments where the truth is separated from the false which then allows a person to obtain wisdom. Philosophy also involves eliminating confusion, as those who study philosophy try to make sense through critical reflection so that they can develop clear definitions that is consistent and non-contradictory with reasons to justify their conclusion.

 

Philosophy can be separated into several subtopics: metaphysics which is the theory of reality, epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, ethics which is the theory of moral values, politics which is the theory of legal rights and government and aesthetics which is the theory of the nature of art therefore in each branch of philosophy different issues are addressed for example if one was to study metaphysics they would examine everything about reality. In philosophy, philosophers have different, contradicting views but the common aim is to gain the truth and unlike science where an scientific experiment can be carried out to determine the correct answer, in philosophy even the method for discovering the truth is an argument therefore philosophy is a study where one explores values, broadens experiences and learns to control their emotions and beliefs they have been taught to reach a conclusion as close as to the truth as possible.

 

In the past, questions that are raised by philosophy were answered by religion in reference to a higher authority (e.g. God). Philosophy of religion is concerned with questions regarding religion, which includes the nature and existence of God therefore philosophy of religion is very different from theology because theology automatically assumes that God exists. Philosophy of religion is mostly concerned with western ideas of God, therefore this includes the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Therefore issues raised concerning God in philosophy of religion refers to a being that is:   

• Masculine
• The only God (The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic)
• Immaterial therefore the being is made of spirit not matter 
• Omnipresent
• Omniscient
• Omnipotent
• Omnibenevolent
• Self-creating

A God that exhibits these characteristics is described the God of classical theism.

 

Philosophy of religion answers questions using valid, logical arguments and critically examining evidence therefore one could conclude that philosophy answers religious questions with the method of philosophy.

S.J.M.

Can punishment be justified?

After studying justice, law and punishment, I decided to research further into a controversial topic within the justice system; can punishment be justified? The imposing of penalties upon offenders who have broken society's laws seems intuitively justifiable, but the question I shall attempt to answer here is whether it is philosophically justifiable.

The basic moral question about punishment is an old age one: ‘What justifies the infliction of punishment on people?’ Punishing people certainly needs a justification, since it is almost always something which is harmful, painful or unpleasant for the recipient. When individuals steal, kidnap, or kill, we generally say this is wrong; but when a criminal is fined, imprisoned, or executed we deem it acceptable.  Though most people would endorse the punishment of criminals if asked, it is likely that they have not seriously considered the possibility that the amount of suffering inflicted counts so heavily against the practice that it is in fact wrong.

Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground.  D. D. Raphael, a British author, is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender.

To justify an act is to say that it is good or right. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.

Regarding the justification of punishment, philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Philosopher Kant agreed with this statement on the basis that a person cannot be treated merely as a means to some independent aim and must also be treated as an end unto himself. In other words, a person may not be treated merely as a tool or a chess-piece.

From researching this topic, I have come to the conclusion that to claim whether punishment is justifiable or not is dependent upon the nature of the act which the person has engaged in and the individual circumstances to why one has sinned against God and their neighbours.

By E.C :)

 

 

Solution for Social Evils

 

The observation of our today’s world enabled me to recognize that despite the growing prosperity of our economic and cultural progression, our international community is still unable to prevent and resolve many of the social evils that are still very much present in today’s society. The fact that our growing capability to embark upon these problems is becoming greater, yet we’re still unable to tackle them shows the inadequacy of the social as well as legal system. Such observation led me to believe that identification of the right tools to reconcile these problems is the key. Amongst some of the answers are ethical theories not only due to their ability to deal with a wider spectrum of problems on an international level but also due to their simplicity and basic ethical framework that they offer for both believers and non-believers.

An example of one would be Kant’s deontological theory. When looking at this particular theory we’re able to note that the theory is more concerned with actions rather than its results putting emphasis on one’s reasoning. His theory is structured based on two particular beliefs, one being that morality is rational and since rationality is universal, possessed by all human beings. Second one being that fulfilling one’s duty is the right thing to do in addition to the fact that we ought to do it. We’re able to see that ethical theories provide a moral agent with the structure needed for the making of moral decisions.

 When looking at Kant’s theory in particular we’re able to note that the emphasis on duty helps us to recognize the fact that as human beings our inner moral sense differs and is stronger or weaker towards meeting some obligations over others. Surely if we all acted out of duty and did what we meant to do more of evil would be prevailed? Whether out of duty or not if we all donated to charity surely the charity is more likely to help its cause. We’re able to see that the use of ethical theories such as Kant’s deontological theory could be seen as an answer to some of the social evils. However, some might say that it is important to note that although ethical theories provide us with the moral basis; it is the application of the theory that could potentially resolve them not the theory itself. The fact is that like most solutions this one too isn’t perfect, it is therefore up to us to ensure its success as the success of ethical theories depends on our own willingness to oblige them.

S.S

 

 

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

The debate whether children are born into the world with a predisposed knowledge of God, or whether as humans we are merely born with a sense of curiosity which we replace with the divine, continues to be a struggling argument for the existence of God. This poses the question: despite theological claims, do we have reason to believe that we are born believers in God?

On the surface I was curious to know what people’s immediate responses would be to such an in-depth question. Through researching on the internet and asking people I know personally, I was astonished to find out that most of the replies I received disagreed with the idea that we could be born with an innate idea of God. Many of the reactions I received held the view that the concept of God was, and still is, merely passed down from parents, relatives, friends and society through each generation. I also found responses which stated that the human mind is naturally geared to try and work things out. However, when it is a struggle for us to find a convincing answer a god is a good enough explanation to fulfil the gap in such situations. Others purported that the answer lies within the human imagination, for if everyone was without knowledge where has any concept arisen from? However, is religion not a far reaching concept for someone to imagine out of nowhere? Or can we use the analogy of language; that like religion we are born without knowledge and so have to be taught in order to know?

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He states that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. In one study conducted by Dr Barrett six and seven year olds were asked why the first bird existed, and replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice". Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap. Dr Barrett stated this as evidence that from an early age children understand the natural world is different from manmade objects. He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers, claiming that "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, similarly suggests that supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force that already exists. His work, supported by other researchers, suggests that people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality. Professor Hood believes research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works.

These findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who have long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'. However, supporters of the counter argument that everyone is born atheist and religion is learned, claim that we are born forgivably an ‘ignorant sort’ of which we couldn’t be anything more. Thus, the fact that we don’t visibly display knowledge of God isn’t, alone, very interesting since, when people call themselves atheists, they don’t usually mean to convey their ignorance. What is more interesting to talk about is the kind of beliefs that babies unaided by religion naturally form as their minds develop. Dr R. Elisabeth Cornwell, an evolutionary psychologist, who I came across while researching claims that we are born scientists. Dr Cornwall uses the example that when babies sit in their highchairs and throw stuff off they observe what their caregiver does. The caregiver will presumably pick the object up, which will delight the baby for they have received a response, so they will then drop the object again. However while doing this the baby’s observing that the object always falls, and so the baby is also testing gravity. Dr Cornwall states that babies start off with nothing, but then through our natural instincts start to test the world: ‘Then somehow adults send them off to school where we kill the little scientist within them.’ Dr Cornwall states that religion isn’t born within us; it is used as a way to close doors for young and curious minds to explore and to ask questions. This supports the view from the counter argument stance that, without submersion into religion as a child, we would most likely maintain the position of a person without knowledge of faith.   

As a whole there is no absolute answer, therefore making all claims merely speculations. It is up to us, as individuals, to decide subjectively what we believe. From researching and discussing such an in-depth topic myself, I have definitely opened my mind to new ideas, exploring the possibilities of other points of view.   

By D.J 

Does religion still have a place in society?

After studying various critiques of religious belief, I find myself questioning whether religion still has a place in our society.

Many people believe that in our modern scientific society religion is rendered redundant. With the theories of Evolution, Big Bang and so forth to explain our existence, religion no longer serves any purpose. Although the 2011 Census revealed that Christianity was the largest religious group in England and Wales, with 33.2m people, its size has decreased by 15% since 2001 and it has the oldest age profile of all the main religious groups. One in five Christians are now aged 65 or over. Furthermore, a quarter of the population in England and Wales do not now have a religion, with this figure increasing rapidly.
 
Richard Dawkins, a strong advocate of the atheist position, claims that religion is ‘an indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism, division and terror’. For Dawkins, religion is completely unnecessary as it prohibits us from developing our knowledge and asking the essential questions for humanity to grow. He asserts that religion is the absolute root of all evil.

Many people believe that we do not need religion for life to have meaning. We can personally make the decision as to whether something has meaning by determining how much value it has to us as free thinking individuals. We do not need a god or any supreme being to guide us to value the love we share with our family and friends or life experiences, such as finding self-fulfilment or achieving our dreams. We alone have the responsibility to make the decision as to what has value and meaning; thus religion is completely pointless.

However, I believe that religion still plays a significant role in our society. Often it is the case that even firm atheists in times of hardship and in their deepest despair find themselves turning to God in an attempt to find hope and reassurance that all will be well. An interesting case is that of the prominent philosopher, Anthony Flew, who spent much of his career promoting atheism. But in 2004, at the age of 81, he asserted a belief in deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. Moreover, religion plays an essential part in the process of mourning. When people are overwhelmed with a sense of loss or extreme anguish they turn to an omnibenevolent God to find strength, love and comfort in an extremely difficult time in their lives.

Furthermore, our fundamental values are shaped by Christianity and therefore are integral to society even though we may not be aware of such profound influence. They aid us to develop a conscience and to know right from wrong. Gospel values, such as love, honesty and kindness, enable society to function smoothly and in harmony with those around us. It enables us to recognise our self-worth and we become the very best versions of ourselves. We are more likely to develop altruistic tendencies showing willingness to help others, and to derive happiness from spiritual rather than materialistic rewards.

Religion has been a constant feature in society, from ancient times to modern day, and its significance affects everyone to some degree – large or small. Even though we are a nation of scientific progress, religion and science can coexist.

 

By B.O'M

 

Are the Classical Philosophers Still Relevant?

 

Many modern philosophers cite the Classical Philosophers as influences; but are the philosophies of Socrates and his students Plato and Aristotle still relevant? For me personally, I would not hesitate in answering “yes.”

Socrates, who is termed as “the father of philosophy” is incredibly important in the growth of classical philosophy. Not much of his life is known and we only know of his “philosophies” through the writings of Plato, arguably his most devoted and well-known student. The most interesting aspect of Socrates’ life, for me at least, is his death. He was sentenced to death by the Athenian government for his controversial ideas and died by drinking hemlock. Plato writes in his Phaedo that Socrates’ last words were "Crito [one of Socrates’ closest friends], we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." I find this interesting and yet conflicting on the surface. Asclepius was the god of healing. Why I find this so conflicting is Socrates was sentenced to death supposedly for his outspoken atheism and for “corrupting young minds.” However, many interpretations of this are that Socrates was referring to death – death is freedom for the soul and for the mind; in death the soul is heading for an idyllic place where it is free from society’s constraints. Fast forward two thousand five hundred years later and many people believe in the same sort of concept; albeit in a religion of some kind.

We are much more knowledgeable about Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy, because unlike Socrates, they wrote down their philosophies. The most famous concept of Platonism is the Theory of Forms. This theory suggests that the world was far from perfect, but that there is a perfect world in which people were once acquainted with. Plato believed that we were somehow damaged by living in the imperfect world in which we live; but we could get reacquainted with the perfect world by listening to our own human reasoning. This is similar to the Augustinian Theodicy and this is because Augustine, like many of Early Christian philosophers was heavily influenced by Platonism.

Aristotle is more concerned with ethics as opposed to philosophy and is especially concerned with humankind’s ability to be virtuous. He believed that studying philosophy and being contemplative was the best way of reaching eudaimonia; a Greek word meaning the maximum wellbeing. Alasdair McIntyre, a Scottish philosopher, famous for his work in Virtue Ethics is a modern day Aristotelian. His belief that with good character comes good judgement stems from Aristotle’s work.

 I think it is very clear that the Classical Philosophers are fundamental still. However, why are they still paramount to philosophy and ethics today? I think the answer is simple. Although they lived thousands of years ago; the issues that were problematic for philosophy and ethics then are still causing problems for philosophers now. 5^th Century Athens was a place that was a cultural hot spot so to speak; the tragic playwrights were the “celebrities” of the day and they were becoming more daring and began asking questions about the Greek gods in their plays. An example of this is Euripides’ “The Bacchae,” a play in which the hero not only questions the god Dionysus’ existence, but the god himself and his all-female followers are shown to be moral deviants. Philosophy was thriving in an age in which the citizens were discovering agnosticism and becoming more aware of the world around them; and it is my belief that unless either religion or atheism become extinct; in another two thousand years’ time there will be another philosophy student making the same point about the Classical Philosophers as I have.

 

By L.L.

 

 

Human Understanding

 

“A philosopher knows that in reality he knows very little. That is why he constantly strives to achieve true insight. Socrates was one of these rare people. He knew that he knew nothing about life and about the world. And now comes the important part: it troubled him that he knew so little.”  ― Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World

Whilst reading 'Sophie's World', I was especially struck by the thinking of Socrates. Being one of the most influential Greek philosophers, Socrates was ultimately concerned will helping others to realise true insight; to view the universe as he did. Socrates wanted to show everyone how completely oblivious they are to the wonders around them. Even though Socrates was writing before Christ and therefore before science, when we really think about what we know about the world, even today, we realise we know very little. We are able to explain how things happen in nature; how the tides are controlled by the moon, how plants use photosynthesis to produce food and how different species adapt to survive in their environments. However, in reality, we know very little of why these things happen. Socrates in particular was especially concerned with how little we know of the universe. He therefore is widely known for his constant need and want of knowledge.

What we truly know and what we perceive about the universe and its existence are, in fact, very different. One can believe that there is a higher being that is eternal and created the universe in His own image whereas someone else may believe in science, the Big Bang Theory and that when we die, we just cease to exist. However, neither can really know how correct they are in their beliefs, the universe may have begun as a result of the Big Bang but we may also find that there is indeed life after death. This is what Socrates was ultimately concerned with; our lack of true knowledge. The idea of the human soul is a subject that has created a lot of scepticism in modern society, the idea of is one of the main ideas within Christianity and therefore it is widely believed. However, what if the idea of life after death is just believed because it is a comfort to us? The idea that we just cease to exist after death is much harder for us to accept as it does not bring comfort for those we have lost. The atheistic view would state that there is no eternal soul and therefore cannot be life after death, however, neither view can ever really know which idea is correct.

If we take away the moral part of the world; God, then there is no real reason why humans should strive to be good. Therefore, maybe religion is used as more of a way to order and control society rather than as a comfort to us. Obviously there are people who oppose this view, they believe that faith is ones' true connection to God and through that connection they are able to learn how they should live their lives. However, if there were no morals or principles as a result of religious belief, would society still function adequately? Would individuals feel a need to show compassion, love and respect for others? Some would argue that our human reason would help us to act correctly towards society, but what if our human reason stems from religion and without it, humans have no understanding of the difference between right and wrong? It is therefore evident that, although we as humans have developed greatly, we are still to learn a lot about life, the universe and ourselves.

E.A.C

Time To Take Action

Mayhem. Absolutely mayhem. Just when we thought the destruction and barbaric killing of thousands of Syrians in the Ghouta chemical attack wasn’t enough, we were proven wrong. Men and women who have dedicated years to save the lives of others are now being threatened to leave Syria as hospitals have been destroyed or wrecked in attacks. There is no question at this stage that Syria is at ‘breaking point’ and yet it appears that this horrific situation is simply being dismissed as another story on top of all the other 'unfortunate' current affairs happening during this period. It makes me think how an international community can allow this evil and suffering to happen.

It has been confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations that over 15,000 doctors have left Syria due to the conflict and threat of imprisonment if they continue to aid causalities. In turn, there are shocking injuries going unattended; women giving birth without the support of a medical team; people who are undergoing life-saving surgery and amputations without anaesthetic; and victims of sexual violence having nowhere to turn to.

David Cameron has linked the devastations happening in Syria to the Holocaust.

Edmund Burke famous quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” is a perfect example which highlights Britain's failure to take action and support Syrians. This is why evil occurs in today’s society. The signatories to the letter in The Lancet say it is "arguably one of the world's worst humanitarian crises since the end of the Cold War".

Don’t get me wrong, I am completely aware of the issues and necessary procedures that we must put to attention before finalising on an idea that will impact the country as a whole but we should surely start considering the two primary guidelines of the Just War Theory. This theory outlines ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘how should a war be fought?’ Just war is the standard method of assessing the morality of war. This is a basic moral guide for religious believers today.

Jeremy Bentham developed a theory that states an act should be done for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Therefore, an act will be moral if it benefits the majority rather than the minority. As Christians it is our moral duty to “not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”. In other words, if we decide as a country to intervene and help Syrians, we should ensure that there will be a reasonable proportion between the injustice being fought and the suffering inflicted by war. This includes the use of weapons that must be proportional to the threat and only minimum force should be used and civilians should be protected as far as possible.

Studying RE at A level has really helped me to see life in a new prospective. Honestly, I love it. It is not just because it allows me to gain a deeper understanding of my faith, the creation of laws or taking part in ethical and philosophical debates but it enables me to grow with the changing nature of religion in Britain today which could impact the attitude of millions, urging us to help those who need it most.

Picture from BBC News website - used for educational purposes

Community

As we begin a new school year, our focus shifts towards our school community. We are lucky enough at Sacred Heart that we belong to a loving and understanding community of faith, however I feel that this unity that lives in our school is not replicated in the wider community. Religion means something unique to each individual and that is what makes it such a powerful and diverse topic in our modern society. Living in a multicultural society such as the U.K, I would have thought that we would become much more understanding and open-minded, yet what has actually developed among some is deep rooted misunderstanding leading to many conflicts we see in the world today. Religion is unfortunately now seen as a ‘taboo’ subject as we may be afraid to upset or offend others around us. However I believe these differences should be celebrated and we should all seek to fully understand others in their own journeys of faith.

‘The greatest evil in the world is ignorance.’-Albert Camus.

This quote truly speaks to me in reference to this subject as not wanting to immerse ourselves in different cultures and religion leads to ignorance, and not fully understanding other religions can lead to the troubles we witness today such as the recent anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYwrgHONSc

This video clip shows how despite Ricky Gervais being a well-known atheist, he feels we are all entitled to our right to the freedom of speech and believes that we should all have the right to believe what we feel is right for us. We are extremely lucky in the U.K to have the freedom of speech, where our opinion can be voiced and these differences in society can exist without fear of the consequences. I feel that as we begin our new school year we should attempt to replicate the respect and consideration we have for others at Sacred Heart, in the local area and begin to see a change for the better.

By E.D

Why Philosophy?

So why study philosophy at A-Level or even at University?

• It encourages independent thought - can you think for yourself?
• It investigates the most profound questions we can ask - is there anything more important to study?
• It encourages dispute and challenge - can you come to reasoned conclusions?
• It opens mind and builds character - are you able to change and develop the way you think?
• It helps to understand complex and difficult arguments and ideas - can you learn and apply new skills?
• It develops self-understanding - are you ready to think independently and come to new conclusions about yourself, the human race and the world around you? This is real education!

Read more <here>

Welcome!

Welcome to the Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School A-Level Religious Studies blog. We are embarking on an ambitious project to take it in turns to blog at least weekly on some aspect of our EdExcel A-Level course which covers both philosophy and ethics. 

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living" and careful reflection upon our lives and the world around us is an important part of our study of both philosophy and ethics. We hope this blog will help us in our understanding as we work towards both AS and A2 qualifications in this subject. Feel free to join in the discussion!

The RE Department

Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School, Upminster

Please keep all comments posted polite, respectful and constructive. Anything that is not appropriate will be removed.