Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Religion > Religion end of year exam > Flashcards

Religion end of year exam Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Religion Crash Course flashcards
1
Q

SIKHISM: Founder

A
  • Guru Nanak
  • Born in 1469 in Punjab
  • His parents were Hindus and he uses to live alongside Muslims
  • “I shall follow God’s path” - does not agree with either religious views
  • Believed in equality of everyone
  • Guru = “Enlightenment” means teacher, spiritual guide, mentor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

SIKHISM: Text

A
  • Guru Granth Sahib
  • The last Guru, Gobind Singh, decided that nobody was worthy to become his successor and that to select someone would go against the principles of equality.
  • Sikh scriptures were to be the Guru and guide Sikhism’s followers
  • The text expresses Sikh beliefs, which includes writings by both Hindus and Muslims
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

SIKHISM: 5 K’s - significance

A
  • Kesh: Uncut hair. This shows obedience to God’s will by interfering with nature as little as possible. A turban is worn, usually by men, to keep the long hair tidy.
  • Kangha: Wooden comb. The long hair must be kept neat and tidy, and not allowed to become matted like that of some holy men.
  • Kachera: White shorts, to be worn under clothes. These symbolize purity and modesty, and were practical for people who might have to fight.
  • Kara: Steel bangle. The circle represents eternity; the steel: strength and purity. Worn on the right arm, the sword arm, it is a reminder to fight only for God.
  • Kirpan: Short sword. A reminder to defend truth and what is right. Today, symbolic kirpan brooches are often worn instead of the short sword itself.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Systems: God’s Law

A
  • Some philosophers argue that definitions of right and wrong cannot lie with the society or the individual
  • Looked for some higher standard of right and wrong — the law of God
  • God’s law is seen as a system of universal rules of action, rules which prescribe certain kinds of acts and proscribe others, all enforced by God.
  • This approach also explains why we feel obliged to do what is right; we do not want to be punished or, on a higher level, we simply do what God asks of us.
  • Religious perspective
  • Beliefs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Systems: Mores

A
  • Not explicitly outlined rules/ laws to follow for people to be socially acceptable
  • Based on everyday experiences and feeling
  • Societal functions, that people care about
  • Mores of society that do not govern us
  • Subtle differences that one thinks are acceptable and one who does not understand.
  • Example: Common courtesy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Systems: Utilitarianism

A
  • The locus of ethics is in the outcome of the situations.
  • Consequential ethics
  • Concerned with the consequences of their actions
  • Locate mortality in the consequences
  • Collective happiness
  • Greatest good for the greatest number
  • Actions should make more good, more good in the world
  • More concerned with the consequences
  • Even if the act caused harm, if it brings more good in the long term
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Systems: Categorical imperative

A
  • Immanuel kant; believed that ethics does not have anything to do with the consequences of our acts.
  • Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions
  • Do the right thing
  • Do it because it is the right thing to do
  • Wrong even if it brings about the good results
  • Do a good thing because of duty
  • “Can this rule become a universal rule for all human beings to follow”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Competing Values: values

A

Values:
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something, merit, worth (regard in which an idea/something is held)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Competing Values: social norms

A

Social Norms: not explicitly outlines rules, expected behaviours within the community

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Fallacies

A

Fallacies: A false or mistaken idea, false use of logic, sometimes aimed at deceiving an audience into accepting a claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Post Hoc Fallacy

A

Post Hoc Fallacy:
- example: “John Howard raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Howard is responsible for the rise in crime”

  • Is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurs after another it must have occurred as a result of it.
  • Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it is caused.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Bandwagon

A

Bandwagon: A false or mistaken idea, False use of logic, sometimes aimed at deceiving an audience into accepting a claim as a fallacy and then endorsing something simply because it is popular.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Either/or

A

Either/or: An issue is presented as having only two choices, when it may have more. It can be used with an emotional fallacy as well.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Post Hoc

A

Post Hoc:
This occurs when one event follows another and we draw the conclusion that the first event caused the second, when in fact, the two events are not related.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Red herring

A

Red herring: An irrelevant fact is brought up to distract from or side step the main issue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Slippery Slope

A

Slippery Slope:
- Certain generalized consequences will result if a particular course of action is taken.

  • If there is clear and reasonable evidence to support that likelihood, the argument may be sound.
  • If the cause-effect relationship is oversimplified, the result is inevitable, and there is no evidence to support that claim.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Ad hominem

A

Ad hominem: An attack on the character of an opponent in an attempt to undermine their status, therefore undermining the strength of their argument.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY

Logical fallacies: Strawman

A

Strawman:
- Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument, with a weaker argument, in an attempt to dismantle it.

  • For instance: “Religion is only about belief, which means you won’t listen to any reason!”
19
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Pacifism:

A

Pacifism: the principal opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Peaceful, unrealistic, enabling them, if someone fights don’t have to fight back. A movement away from fighting during a dispute.

Absolute Pacifism: believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence, killing is always wrong, Participating in war will always lead to further conflict.

Conditional pacifist: War is wrong, but there are some circumstances where it is necessary.

Selective Pacifism: Opposes all usage/development of weapons of mass destruction.

Active pacifist: Strongly believes in pacifism and advocates for it in their day to day life

20
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Pacifism:

A

Pacifism: the principal opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Peaceful, unrealistic, enabling them, if someone fights don’t have to fight back. A movement away from fighting during a dispute.

Absolute Pacifism: believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence, killing is always wrong, Participating in war will always lead to further conflict.

Conditional pacifist: War is wrong, but there are some circumstances where it is necessary.

Selective Pacifism: Opposes all usage/development of weapons of mass destruction.

Active pacifist: Strongly believes in pacifism and advocates for it in their day to day life

21
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Religious war theory

A
  • The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:
    1. Taking human life is seriously wrong
    2. States have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
    3. Protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence.
  • The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought
  • The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
  • The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
22
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Religious war theory:

A
  • The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: 1. taking human life is seriously wrong
    2. states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
    3. protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence.
  • The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought
  • The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
  • The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
23
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus ad bellum - the right to go to war

A

Just Cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. both sides did the wrong thing,

Legitimate Authority: Only duty consituated public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Political bodies

Peaceful intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose - correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. intuition for the war, for a justice cause and solely for that purpose, expensive for countries. To get Revenge is not allowed.

Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. Only using weapons is unlikely to succeed.

Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Negotiation with the enemy.

24
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus ad bellum - the right to go to war

A

Just Cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. both sides did the wrong thing,

Legitimate Authority: Only duty consituated public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Political bodies

Peaceful intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose - correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. intuition for the war, for a justice cause and solely for that purpose, expensive for countries. To get Revenge is not allowed.

Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. Only using weapons is unlikely to succeed.

Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Negotiation with the enemy.

25
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus in bello know and understand - right conduct in war

A

Distinction/ Non-combatant immunity: The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilians residential areas that include no military targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and even attacking neutral targets

Proportionality: Armed forces must use proportional force. I.e proportional to achieving the ends. Comparable, correlated

Military necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. Harm caused on civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. To limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction

Fair treatment of prisoners of war: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat; it is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

No Evil in itself/Reciprocity (malum in se): Armed forces are not justified in breaking these rules in response to the emey breaking these rules.

26
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus in bello know and understand - right conduct in war

A

Distinction/ Non-combatant immunity: The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilians residential areas that include no military targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and even attacking neutral targets

Proportionality: Armed forces must use proportional force. I.e proportional to achieving the ends. Comparable, correlated

Military necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. Harm caused on civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. To limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction

Fair treatment of prisoners of war: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat; it is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

No Evil in itself/Reciprocity (malum in se): Armed forces are not justified in breaking these rules in response to the emey breaking these rules.

27
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus post bellum (definition)- an emerging theory that builds on the just war theory

A
  • Rebuilding after the war, help the victim after the war
  • Justice after war, repair, help, the victim has to reconstruct + rebuild
  • Recreating peace
  • Truth + reconciliation commision, to understand what had happened, how to rebuild.
  • Emerging theory
28
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus post bellum (definition)- an emerging theory that builds on the just war theory

A
  • Rebuilding after the war, help the victim after the war
  • Justice after war, repair, help, the victim has to reconstruct + rebuild
  • Recreating peace
  • Truth + reconciliation commision, to understand what had happened, how to rebuild.
  • Emerging theory
29
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Just War Theory: Jus post bellum (definition)- an emerging theory that builds on the just war theory

A
  • Rebuilding after the war, help the victim after the war
  • Justice after war, repair, help, the victim has to reconstruct + rebuild
  • Recreating peace
  • Truth + reconciliation commision, to understand what had happened, how to rebuild.
  • Emerging theory
30
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

Geneva Convention

A
  • A series of international diplomatic meetings that produced a number of agreements
  • Examples: Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, a group of international laws for the humane treatment of wounded or captured military personnel, medical personnel and non-military civilians during war or armed conflicts
  • The agreements originated in 1864 and were updated in 1949 after World War II.
  • Purpose is to make is to provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and the fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.
  • Rules that apply in the time of war, wounded, medical staff, prisoners of war, 4 different conventions, updated regularly.
31
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

International Committee for the Red Cross (I.C.R.C)

A
  • Established in 1863
  • Aims to promote the rules of war and help people affected by conflict and armed violence.
  • They ensure humanitarian protections and assistance for victims of war and other situations of violence.
  • To protect and assist victims during armed conflict, international healthcare.
  • Mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict.
32
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

International Criminal Court (I.C.C)

A
  • Tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
  • The aim is to hold those responsible/ accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.
  • Justice is a key prerequisite for lasting peace, lead to long term peace, stability and equitable development in post- conflict societies
  • Headquarters: The Hague, the Netherlands
  • Laws about war, impossible to monitor the crimes
33
Q

THEORIES OF WAR

International humanitarian Law (I.H.L)

A
  • Is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict.
  • It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare.
  • Know as the law of war or the law of armed conflict
  • Applies in only armed conflict; it does not cover internal tensions or disturbances such as isolated acts of violence.
  • Examples: Prohibit torching prisoners, medical workers cannot be stopped, have to let them through.
34
Q

Define Holy War

A

A war to bring god into the world, to spread the word of god.

35
Q

Ethical egoism

A
  • Ethical egoism claims that I morally ought to perform some action if and only if, and because, performing that action maximizes my self-interest.
  • Ethical egoism states that we are always morally required to do what’s in our own self-interest.
36
Q

JUDAISM - WAR
The bible looks at war
Source 1:

A

Source 1:
Specific kind of war, against those, the seven tribes, who live in the promised land, they are immoral and you cannot negotiate with them.
Obligatory war, mandatory, seven nations, stakes are high, they will have a bad influence on war.

37
Q

JUDAISM - WAR
The bible looks at war
Source 2:

A

Source 2:

  • War you don’t have to engage in
  • Voluntary war, turning away troopes of war, not worried about
  • Do you really want to be here?, almost finished your home?, feeling disjointed?, mind is elsewhere, are you engaged?, about to get married?, let them enjoy their lives
  • The mindset is not there, anyone afraid or disheartened, only want the strongest people, not cowardly troops here, not a war for survival, not absolutely necessary
38
Q

JUDAISM - WAR
The bible looks at war
Source 3:

A

Source 3:
When you go to battle, if they want to surrender to you, you may siege the town.
Surround them, siege, eventually surrender to you, do not trust the males, they won’t trust you, women and children will survive, as treasures, the wealth of the town, of any value of the town, you can keep them.
Voluntary, optional war.

39
Q

JUDAISM - WAR
Not all the Wars are the same
Mandatory war
Voluntary war

A

Case 1
Mandatory war, food is being raided, need defence, save the inhabitants
Case 2
Voluntary war, stole, need food, the captured the land

40
Q

JUDAISM - WAR

Milchemet Mitzvah

A

Milchemet Mitzvah:

  • Obligatory war - everyone has to fight,
  • against the seven nations and amalek,
  • defence war,
  • war of survival,
  • war of defence,
  • ordained by god - holy war protects physical and spiritual
41
Q

JUDAISM - WAR

Milhemet Reshut

A

Milchemet Reshust Voluntary war - if soldiers are getting married, growing a vineyard, building a house, anyone who isn’t courageous, support of the people, do not have to go to war

42
Q

JUDAISM - WAR

The IDF Spirit

A

The spirit of IDF Spirit draws on four sources - know these sources

  1. You cannot break regular laws
  2. The ethical principle, identity card, soldiers, guid all the decisions based off of this document.
  3. Idf is the military wing of the israeli government, support traditional people through their values, jewish people and non-jewish
  4. The army is there for a higher purpose, universal values (natural disasters), helps in the middle east, contributed its army
43
Q

JUDAISM - WAR

Understanding the war on Terror and the 2004 Asa Kasher directed Military Ethics for the War on Terror

A

In 2004 a team of professors, commanders and former judges, led by the holder of the Ethics chair at Tel Aviv Uni, Asa Kasher, developed a code of conduct which emphasizes the right behaviour in low intensity warfare against terrorists

44
Q

JUDAISM - WAR

Intifada (define)

A

the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The first intifada lasted from 1987 to 1993, and the second began in 2000.

Religion (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions