-
Seasonal Offer:
This title is part of our Seasonal Offers promotion.
 Trade In this Item for up to £1.10
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Understanding Religious Ethics: A Complete Guide for OCR AS and A2 Student Book (A Level Re) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £1.10, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
Product Description
Product Description
Thorough, engaging and accessible - this series is a companion volume to Libby Ahluwalias popular Understanding Philosophy of Religion for AS & A2, and covers the OCR specification for AS and A2 Religious Ethics.
About the Author
Richard Wright is Head of Religious Studies at Solihull School.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
I have noticed two major errors in this book, and unfortunately they were the first two things I read:
Pp. 52-53:
The author writes that the 'Hypothetical Imperative is concerned with moral ends. The moral agent examines how a moral end is to be achieved.'
This is wrong. Hypothetical Imperatives for Kant are precisely NOT moral, but conditional upon a subjective end. This is why Kant contrasts the subjective Hypothetical Imperative with his objective, moral, Categorical Imperative.
Pp. 231-233:
The author writes that 'these causal links, which are predetermined, lead on to human free will ... Without these predetermined events, Hume believes, you would not have free will'.
This is completely and utterly wrong. I don't know why the author wrote this in trying to explain the Soft Determinism of David Hume, I find it bizarre. The correct explanation (briefly) is this:
What we call causal necessity (the 'laws of nature') are inferred through a posteriori constant conjunction (as such they are subject to the problem of induction, and so not as predetermined as the author suggests). Motive and action, which pertain to free will, are also based on their experienced constant conjunction. Therefore, both Hard Determinism and Libertarianism have the same justification: constant conjunction, and this is why Hume is referred to as a Soft Determinist or Compatibilist.
For confirmation of this, read David Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding', §8-Of Liberty and Necessity.
For these two unforgivable mistakes alone, I should not recommend the book.
Pp. 52-53:
The author writes that the 'Hypothetical Imperative is concerned with moral ends. The moral agent examines how a moral end is to be achieved.'
This is wrong. Hypothetical Imperatives for Kant are precisely NOT moral, but conditional upon a subjective end. This is why Kant contrasts the subjective Hypothetical Imperative with his objective, moral, Categorical Imperative.
Pp. 231-233:
The author writes that 'these causal links, which are predetermined, lead on to human free will ... Without these predetermined events, Hume believes, you would not have free will'.
This is completely and utterly wrong. I don't know why the author wrote this in trying to explain the Soft Determinism of David Hume, I find it bizarre. The correct explanation (briefly) is this:
What we call causal necessity (the 'laws of nature') are inferred through a posteriori constant conjunction (as such they are subject to the problem of induction, and so not as predetermined as the author suggests). Motive and action, which pertain to free will, are also based on their experienced constant conjunction. Therefore, both Hard Determinism and Libertarianism have the same justification: constant conjunction, and this is why Hume is referred to as a Soft Determinist or Compatibilist.
For confirmation of this, read David Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding', §8-Of Liberty and Necessity.
For these two unforgivable mistakes alone, I should not recommend the book.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
I have found this by far to be the best of the three OCR textbooks available for Religious Ethics.
It has much more substantial and in-depth pages on how to apply each ethical theory to all the issues. Considering this is how the ethical issues are generally tested; this make this textbook far more useful and invaluable than the other two by far.
It also very clear and I have found that everything explained is done so in an understandable and coherent way. It has almost been as much a pleasure to read it as it has to have used it for my revision.
Yes there are those mistakes as pointed out by the other reviewer. However, all the textbooks have such issues sadly and it is a shame this one does. What is important is that the rest of the book is absolutely excellent. Now that one is aware of such mistakes they should hopefully be changed (which they might have since the book appears to have been reprinted) or you simply ignore those paragraphs - which isn't a loss since you now know the alternative and the everything out is explained correctly and very well.
It has much more substantial and in-depth pages on how to apply each ethical theory to all the issues. Considering this is how the ethical issues are generally tested; this make this textbook far more useful and invaluable than the other two by far.
It also very clear and I have found that everything explained is done so in an understandable and coherent way. It has almost been as much a pleasure to read it as it has to have used it for my revision.
Yes there are those mistakes as pointed out by the other reviewer. However, all the textbooks have such issues sadly and it is a shame this one does. What is important is that the rest of the book is absolutely excellent. Now that one is aware of such mistakes they should hopefully be changed (which they might have since the book appears to have been reprinted) or you simply ignore those paragraphs - which isn't a loss since you now know the alternative and the everything out is explained correctly and very well.
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
