Exam help!

[Damsbo]

So I just got my question today, I have 3 days to prepare for the oral exam.
The "class" is: Christianity, Life enlightment and citizenship. <-- sort of a philosophy class, I might add.
The question I got is: Ethics in Christianity. Jesus' preach can be included.

Now I dont know how to translate what I called "Jesus' Preach", the direct translation would be: "The Mountain Preach".

Im suppose to discuss the topic for around 30 minutes, so any input and though is VERY welcome. PLEASE dont bash religion so that the thread will be closed, I really need the help; so please keep it constructive.

My plan so far, is to start out by talking about the "golden rule" and no, its not the threeway, its the "do to others, as you will have them do to you" rule.Then talk about what Jesus preached, then talk about Kant's view on Ethics - and close it by putting democracy in a parallel with ethics, and ethics in the modern society.

Thoughts?

[Projali]

You're probably talking about "The Sermon on the Mount" which I guess is in Matthew?

[Kasierith]

Its a bit difficult to give input on a multifaceted class, without understanding specifically what went into it.

Are you allowed a physical outline (powerpoint)? What other restrictions are placed on the project?

Mixing Kant and religion sounds just... messy. It may have been presented differently in ways to tie it in... but remember that Kant believed in moral absolutes. While a lot of his ideas can connect to Christianity, there are shades of gray in Christianity. Whats more, Christianity cares about others. If an act violates a perfect law, Kant wouldn't care if you saved a million lives, it would still be immoral. Christianity peeled away a lot from that absolutism when it split from orthodox Judaism.

If you want to talk about ethics in Christianity, I would look at the progression of it over the years (going, of course, without the knowledge that your class has built up and is therefore the desired relevant information). Early Christianity - Roman - Split between east and west - establishment of papal order - split of protestants from the church - development of the modern Church. You can then poke at a number of different ethical mindsets; for example, during the era of papal order, ethics were based on fear and self preservation, so they were essentially utilitarian during that phase of Christianity.

[Damsbo]

Yes it is "The Sermon on the Mount", from Matthew.
I'm not allowed to do anything but sit on the chair, infront of the proffessors and talk aboutt he topic. I am also not allowed to say "I think that..", I can only say "Kant said that "X" therefore we can conclude that..."
What you say Kasi, sounds about more summarizing in a historic point of view - I dont think they'd like that. I can summarize what christianity finds to be "ethical", and then I have to talk aobut pro's and con's, and compare it to whatever..
My teacher loves Kant, Løgstrup and Nietzsche, so anything they've said about ethics would go straight to his pants, unfortunately, I'm no expert on them

[Kasierith]

Yes it is "The Sermon on the Mount", from Matthew.
I'm not allowed to do anything but sit on the chair, infront of the proffessors and talk aboutt he topic. I am also not allowed to say "I think that..", I can only say "Kant said that "X" therefore we can conclude that..."
What you say Kasi, sounds about more summarizing in a historic point of view - I dont think they'd like that. I can summarize what christianity finds to be "ethical", and then I have to talk aobut pro's and con's, and compare it to whatever..
My teacher loves Kant, Løgstrup and Nietzsche, so anything they've said about ethics would go straight to his pants, unfortunately, I'm no expert on them

Nietzsche.... yuck... though a logical interpretation of Christianity's history is essential in his philosophy. History has a lot of power, it might not apply to what you need, but don't dismiss how influential it can be in a presentation.

Your entire presentation sounds like a mess, not something I'd like to go into without a lot of preparation. Ethics and religion are not the same. They often cross paths, because one can lead to the creation of the other, but they aren't the same. I guess you could go into that, and talk about how Kantian deontology and... wait, what part of Christianity would you be talking about? Catholicism might be close to Kant in some ways, but Methodism? Flexibility is a central part of Methodist philosophy. Or you could go into Christian deism, or baptism, or orthodox.... they're all going to have slightly different interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. I guess the best way to do it would be to select one of the main Christian subgroups, and then go through every main part of the Sermon on the Mount and discuss how Kant would view that group's interpretation. For example: Kant likes this part because it focuses on the integrity of the individual and free will. But he didn't like this part because doing what one thinks is right would be impeding on the free will of others. One thing that both could come together in a lot is that even "evil" people are capable of doing good, so that would be definitely something to build in

[Rotted]

How can it be a oral exam, when your not allowed to say I think, or I believe, that isn't a opinion for a exam, thats just going to be reciting lines from memory of what youve learnt tbh,

anyways can you give us anything more specific?

EDIT

Break it down, do one topic at a time, say what your going to talk about

then say a 'character' give back ground information on them

then move on to the story

then say what the characters said, then give your conclusion of that, but again Idk how you can give a conclusion of what someone said if you can't say your opinion on what they said

[Damsbo]

It sounds like a good idea, to let Kant interpret the preach, so to say. I'll look into that. But the main question doesn't include a certain type of christianity nor does it implement there has to be one. It's just ethics in general, in this case christianity's view on it. And if you combine all religions into one, the golden rule is the thing they all have in common. So if I focus on that, I cant go wrong, sort of.. I think letting Kant "view" the cons of it would be good. I think if I include too many genres of religion or the history of it, I'll be in deep waters..

I dont really know what else to do with this exam. There is no guide-lines. Only the topic, and then it's up to the student to figure out what to do with it.

[Catta]

Since you are danish and i went to religion oral exam to here is my two cents...

I suspect they want you to mention many of the ethics that appear in the old testament which conflicts with Jesus' new teachings... Things like turning the other cheek compared to the vengeful god of the old testament and so on and so forth...

Also maybe you should mention the problems of deciding whats ethical in a modern society and maybe bring in something about the Ethic Council of Denmark...


Anyway - cant say much about the specifics - i got Islam and drew excerpts from the Quran and an article in my exam...

[Kasierith]

It sounds like a good idea, to let Kant interpret the preach, so to say. I'll look into that. But the main question doesn't include a certain type of christianity nor does it implement there has to be one. It's just ethics in general, in this case christianity's view on it. And if you combine all religions into one, the golden rule is the thing they all have in common. So if I focus on that, I cant go wrong, sort of.. I think letting Kant "view" the cons of it would be good. I think if I include too many genres of religion or the history of it, I'll be in deep waters..

I dont really know what else to do with this exam. There is no guide-lines. Only the topic, and then it's up to the student to figure out what to do with it.

The golden rule does definitely apply to Kant. It is, in fact, his little loophole that he used to get around opposition.. I personally think he used it to cheat his own beliefs, but he uses the golden rule to establish things like revenge. If you break a maxim, by doing so you forfeit your own right to have others treat you as an individual with free will. He also uses inverse maxims, as does the golden rule. Kant would also disagree with the literal form of the golden rule due to its application to people. He would twist it to say "Do no act that you would not wish done to you," ignoring how it affects anyone else. So be careful with how you phrase his views. Also, remember that not even the golden rule applies the same way to every part of Christianity... some will bend it around to suit their individual practices, or decide that it applies only to a certain populations like the original ten commandments.

Or you could do what I would do, and go completely off the deep end, force utilitarianism into everything, and attempt to mentally bully your teacher into an A.