AO2 Flashcards
Weaknesses of virtue ethics
McIntyre : what virtues ? Some sets of virtues contradict
Hume : is ought gap
NML strengths
Universal , applies to all
Bowie : clear rules
NML weaknesses
Hume : is -ought gap
Neilson: solid grounds for holding human nature not universal
Moore : naturalistic fallacy (can’t define good )
Strengths of rel exp
Arg from neuroscience / intoxication ignore possibility that these are means by which we communicate with God
Swinburnes opening premise strong , it IS irrational to doubt ones own experiences
OA weaknesses
Kant 2- existence is not a real predicate
Hume : as traits of God contradictory , any being with any two can be considered “greatest conceivable “ therefore meaningless
Real exp weaknesses
Donovan - “feeling certain “ and “being right”
Hume : incompatibility of experiences cancel each other out
Persinger : mag feels can induce similar effects
Falsification weaknesses
Hare : parable of the dons ; rel statements reflect bliks
Flew : bliks unorthodox
Mitchell : parable of the partisan
Flew : surely there is a limit
Symbols and myth strengths
Recognises that rel Lang offers more than just facts about the world
A valuable attempt to bypass verification : falsification debate + get back to rel Lang
Symbols and myth weaknesses
Tillich unclear about what “symbols participate …” Means
Tillich anchors symbols with “God is being itself “ - what does that mean ?
If non -cognitive , no Way to know if two believers are in agreement
Deontology (kant )
Strengths
Grosch +large : Kanet provides clear , absolute rules
Supports our notion of human rights
Deontology (Kant ) discussion point
Conflicts of duties - killer at the door
Ross : hierarchy of duties
-he decides based on what ?
Analogies strengths
Successfully navigates katophatic +apaphatic ways
A viable way to make cognitive statements about God
Analogues weaknesses
Ferre : ‘analogies of attribution admit To no control ‘
Strivers : in analogies of proportion , we understand status of first 3 , can’t understand God so …
Lang games strengths
Wittgenstein is right that Lang is fluid and variable
Right to note that to understand meaning we must look at the context
Rel Lang weaknesses
Believers will say rel statements DO assert facts about the world
Phillips -unless in that form of life can’t understand game + so can’t comment. Surely we can criticise all sorts of things about rel without being religious
