Philosophy 1301

John Locke

John Locke was a British Empiricist. So, he was trying to show that there are no innate ideas. The following argument can be reconstructed from the reading: 1) There are no innate principles that are given universal assent 2) It is a contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the soul that the soul does not perceive or understand 3) There are those who do not perceive or understand these "innate ideas" _____ tf (4) There are no innate ideas Locke states that "children and idiots" are unaware of some of these ideas that are called innate. Since there cannot be innate ideas of which you are unaware, if there were such ideas, everyone would have them - but, they do not. It is important to Locke to disprove innate ideas because, as an Empiricist, he believes that all knowledge comes from the senses. Just as Descartes is known for the cogito, Locke is known for tabula rasa, or "blank slate". According to Locke, we are all born with a blank slate that is then filled with ideas that come from experience and perception. All knowledge, according to Locke, arises from the senses or the mind - from sensation and reflection. We obtain sensible qualities from our senses as they convey perception of objects to the mind. Then, we get more ideas through reflection, which involves perception of the operations of the mind (eg, thinking, doubting, reasoning). All of our ideas originate from sensation and reflection. Ideas are the objects of the understanding when a person thinks. There are two kinds of ideas, simple and complex. They enter our mind as simple, uncompounded, ideas. Complex ideas are formed from simple ideas by our mind. So, there is never an idea in our minds that did not originate in experience. Locke distinguishes 'idea' and 'quality'. An idea is what the mind perceives in itself - the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding. A quality, on the other hand, is the power to produce an idea. The quality is in the object and is causing us to have the idea of the object. These are original, or primary, qualities and secondary qualities. The primary qualities produce simple ideas - like solidity and extension - and our ideas are true copies of what is really out there in the object itself. Secondary qualities, however, are not in the object, but are "mere powers" that produce sensations in us (like, colors, taste, etc.). For example, if you look at a piece of white chalk, it appears white - but if you look at it through a red filter, it looks red. Accordingly to Locke, if the whiteness were in the chalk itself, it would always look white - since it appears red through the filter, the color isn't in the object but is a secondary quality that causes the idea of the color in us. Locke also distinguishes impressions from ideas. Impressions are what we experience first hand, whereas ideas are what we get second hand, in the mind. Our ideas of primary qualities resemble what is in the body itself, while our ideas of secondary qualities has no resemblance in the object itself. The real qualities exist in the object, but not the secondary qualities. So, according to Locke, we start with a tabula rasa. Using sensation and reflection, we get simple ideas that we can combine in many ways (for example, to create an idea of a big, green monster). We must experience simple ideas but not complex ideas - they are formed by the combining of simple ideas. The primary qualities are in the object itself, but the secondary qualities are powers. Like Descartes, Locke held that the substratum held the properties. As an Empiricist, Locke should deny substratum, as it cannot be experienced. He could not explain it, but he could not give it up.

Kant

Kant's theory is a very famous classical treatment of ethics. Kant is a rationalist, foundationalist (he's looking for a foundation), universalist (it has to be universally applicable), and a deontologist. Kant begins with our ordinary ways of thinking about morality. He analyzes this to discover the underlying principle, as he searches for the supreme principle of morality. He wants to find the supreme principle to use as his foundation. Reason is key for Kant - to know the correct rules of morality, we need to use reason. So, according to Kant, morality is for rational creatures only - and by this, he means to exclude all nonhuman animals. Kant talks about a good will. A good will is good in itself, good without limitations. Duty contains good will - with good will, you recognize your moral duty. According to Kant, the morality of an act depends on the motive of the agent. An act has moral value or rightness only if the motive for the act was a good will. Suppose, for example, there is a man on a beach who is sunbathing and just wants to be left alone to sunbathe in peace. A young toddler wanders into the water and is drowning. The man does not want to save the child - he has been waiting for a long time for this chance to be alone with the sand and the sun. He finally decides to jump in and save the child. Is what he does moral? According to Kant, it depends on his motive. If the sunbather realizes that this is the president's child - so, if he saves the child there will likely be a reward - it is not moral. If he saves the child because he might get publicity (he might be on television or in the newspaper), it is not moral. If, however, he decides to save the child because it is his duty, then, according to Kant, his act if moral. For Kant, it is the motive, or maxim, that counts. The same action can be moral when one person does it but not moral when another does it because their motives for doing the action differ. Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who does not overcharge an "inexperienced customer". So, I can send my little kid to the store, and he will return with the items and proper change. The shopkeeper could overcharge him - perhaps tell him there is no change - but he does not. According to Kant, this is not an example of the shopkeeper doing something moral. Even though he could get away with overcharging my kid, he does not because if he did, word would get out that he takes advantage of those who are "inexperienced". He wants a reputation for honesty and integrity, so he treats everyone honestly. This, according to Kant, is motivated by self-interest, not duty, and hence, is not moral. Hence, a good will does the right thing for the right reason - it is good through its willing. In a morally good action, the special value is the motivation behind it - the principle by which it was chosen or willed. Kant focuses on duty. There are three motivations available: 1) from duty; 2) immediate inclination (want to do it); and, 3) means to further an end. An act is not moral if it is done from, say, duty and inclination - this maxim lacks moral content (the act is done in conformity with duty, not from duty). The only motivation behind a moral action is that it is done from duty. It is the maxim that is the key. The moral worth is in the maxim. It is also important to Kant that the proper motive be universalizable - can it be a universal law (can it apply to everyone)? If you make a promise without intending to keep that promise, you cannot will that to be a universal law - promises would be meaningless if everyone made them without intending to keep them. You need to ask if you can will your maxim to become a universal law. Kant looks at imperatives - these are the forms that commands take. There are two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical or categorical. A hypothetical imperative is one in which an action is a means of achieving something else: "In order to achieve X, you should do Y" or "To obtain a certain end, X, perform a certain means, Y". The command is hypothetical - you are only commanded to do Y if you are interested in X. For example, "if you want an ice cream cone, go clean your room" - this imperative will not apply to any of the people who do not want an ice cream cone. Moral rules are not like this, as they have to apply to everyone. With the sunbather example, above, one hypothetical imperative would be: "In order to gain a reward, save the drowning toddler." Some people are uninterested in rewards, so this hypothetical imperative would not apply to them. So, it cannot be a moral rule. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, represent an action as objectively necessary in itself. There is no reference to another end. It tells us what to do unconditionally. For example: "Do Y!" This is an imperative that applies to everyone. And, according to Kant, this is the form that moral rules must take. So, Kant has found his supreme principle of morality (his foundation), namely, the Categorical Imperative. In our reading selection, Kant gives three different versions of his Categorical Imperative. One version states: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." (p. 353) A second version of the Categorical Imperative states: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature." (p. 353). This forms the foundation of Kant's ethics. There is a two part test to determine if there is a moral duty to act on your maxim. Look at your maxim and ask: 1) could this maxim possibly become a universal law? (can there be a world where everyone acted like that?) If it is not possible, it is not a moral maxim. If it is possible, go to part 2. 2) can I consistently will that this should happen (or be the case)? If no, it is not a moral maxim. If yes, there is a moral duty to act on that maxim. The third version of Kant's Categorical Imperative is a little different: "So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (p. 356) People are ends in themselves and are to be treated as ends, never as means to ends, and this includes oneself. Using a person as a means is morally wrong for Kant. So, according to Kant, there are three possibilities of our act: 1) Our act is in accord with moral duty, but it is done because of inclination or desire 2) Our act is in accord with moral duty and is done solely out of a recognition of and respect for the moral law 3) Our act violates our moral duty In (1), we do what duty requires but for the wrong reason; therefore, there is no moral worth. In (2), we are acting out of good will; therefore, there is moral worth. In (3), we violate the Categorical Imperative; therefore, our act is morally wrong. As Kant is a universalist, it is important that we can universalize - ask yourself "what if everyone did it?" His focus is on the maxim of the action. There are some unwelcome consequences of Kant's view. For example, suppose your neighbor tells you that she and her husband are going away for the weekend. She hands you her gun and asks you to promise to keep it safe until Sunday night when you return it to her. You promise. She knocks on your door Sunday morning - she and her husband have been arguing all weekend and returned early - he is now trying to kill her with a butcher's knife, and she wants her gun back. According to Kant, you cannot return the gun to her - you promised to keep it until Sunday night. Breaking promises is not a maxim you can will to be a universal law, so you may not break the promise. Consider a different example - your neighbor bangs on your door, tells you her husband is trying to kill her, and asks you to hide her. You agree, and she is hidden at your house. Her husband comes to your door and asks you "do you know where my wife is?" According to Kant, you cannot lie to him - lying involves a maxim that you cannot will to be a universal law - so, you must reveal where she is hidden, even if it means that he will kill her.

Analysis types

"analytic philosophy" - it involves critical analysis or examination. Analytic Philosophers perform "conceptual analysis", where concepts are analyzed. The primary tool of the Philosopher is symbolic logic, or argumentation, as claims must be supportable with reason.

define Philosophy

"lover of wisdom" - it refers to the activity of seeking wisdom, Philosophers seek the truth.

Types of reasoning

1) Induction: is based on probabilities - the conclusion is generalized from specific instances. For example, on every day that I can remember, the sun rose in the morning. From these numerous experiences of sunrises, I find it highly probable that tomorrow morning the sun will also rise. In an inductive argument, you infer from past experiences. "All swans are white". I am simply inferring this conclusion from my past experiences - the more experiences I have had, the stronger the probabilities of my inferred conclusion. I can also make a prediction, based on my experiences, that the next swan I see will be white. Now, suppose you introduce me to a black swan. At this point, I learn that my conclusion and my prediction are both wrong, as they were limited by my past experiences. This demonstrates the problem with inductive reasoning. Although we use this form of reasoning a great deal, it is limited by a person's experiences. 2) Deductive: also known as an Aristotelian syllogism - is an argument involving premises and conclusions. Such an argument is "an attempt to establish a conclusion being true." There is one statement (the conclusion) that follows from (or, is implied by) other statements (the premises). Here is an example of a deductive argument: 1) All men are mortal 2) Socrates is a man _______ therefore, 3) Socrates is mortal

bio

Bioethics, or medical ethics, is a large area of applied ethics that involves professional codes (for example, prohibiting doctors from participating in executions), research (for example, shall we test new products on prisoners awaiting execution or serving life sentences without parole?) abortion, health care, and even health law (for example, privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality). Some other issues include artificial insemination (should we set limits on the number of children the "octomom", currently on welfare with fourteen children, may have? who owns the frozen embryos in the event of a divorce?), treating children (who is the patient and where is the confidentiality?), treating adolescents (now where is the confidentiality?), use of medical advances to choose your baby's gender or eye color, and death and dying with dignity. With each of these issues - and the many other issues in medical ethics - how would our different ethical theories answer the questions? One big issue that arises in bioethics is informed consent. The informed consent doctrine requires decisions to be made by patients after they have been informed. It is a moral and legal doctrine about decisionmaking. It is tied to autonomy and includes the right to refuse treatment. But, questions remain: what information does a patient require? which patients? which decisions? who provides the information? etc. Another, related issue is competency. There are no degrees of competency. If the patient is not competent, who makes the decision? This leads to substituted decisionmaking - decisionmaking for those no longer competent. An advanced directive is a document that a person completes now, making decisions about medical treatment in the future. The person might say, for example, that he/she does not want to live on machines. If there is an advanced directive, the decision has already been made by the patient (even though he/she is not currently competent). A durable medical power of attorney is a document in which a person appoints someone close to him/her to make medical decisions in the event that he/she is no longer competent. In this document, the person selects someone he/she trusts to make decisions for him/her regarding his/her health care. The selected person then has the authority to make substituted judgments for the incompetent patient. Both of these documents are very important - I highly recommend that you complete both. Do not put these provisions in your will - your will is not read until after you have died, and these documents are needed while you are still alive! It is a good idea to give a copy of each to your doctor so that the information is in your medical records. Another big issue in bioethics is abortion. Some people believe all abortion is wrong, some believe it is permissible as a last resort (for example, if the mother's life is in danger), others believe it is acceptable at different times during pregnancy. Sometimes the differences in these opinions are traced back to when each person believes that personhood begins. Some people believe that as soon as the sperm and egg join to create an embryo, personhood is gained; others believe that personhood requires conscious self-awareness, so the fetus is not a person until much later; others believe that personhood depends upon the fetus's ability to survive outside of the womb; etc. Other issues that arise under the abortion question include a woman's right to her own body and the fact that outlawing abortion leads to an increase in illegal and unsafe abortions. The sanctity of human life, the woman's individual freedoms and right to control her own body, and safety are just a few of the sub-issues that underlie the complicated question concerning abortion.

Forms

According to Plato, the truth involves knowing the forms. He distinguishes the forms from the many. Philosophers see and study the form, while practical people see the many. For example, the practical people can see the beautiful flower, the beautiful painting, the beautiful susnset, etc. These are all instances of the form The Beautiful - all of these examples participate in the form The Beautiful. But, most people can only see beauty in the instances, connected with the things that participate in the form. Philosophers, after study and so forth, are able to see The Beautiful - they can see the participants and the form itself. Most people, however, are unable to see the form itself.

Bishop Berkeley

Another British Empiricist was Bishop Berkeley (pronounced Bark' lay). Bishop Berkeley was an Idealist - that is, he believed that there is one kind of thing existing in the world and that is ideas (mental). Berkeley claimed to be the defender of common sense, and he tried to show that there is no such thing as material substance. According to Berkeley, sensible things are perceived by the senses immediate (not mediate, through the intervention of others). These sensible things are not in the objects themselves. For example, if you have a bowl of warm water and your one hand has been in the freezer and your other hand has been in the fire, when you place both hands in the bowl, the water will feel hot to the one hand and cold to the other. The water, Berkeley pointed out, cannot be both hot and cold. So, these qualities are not in the water itself. Berkeley also rejected substratum, or substance. His argument in favor of Idealism follows: 1) All we can perceive, or be aware of, are our own ideas 2) Ideas cannot exist outside of, or independent of, a mind 3) Things are what can be perceived _____ tf 4) Things are collections of ideas and cannot exist independently of mind (things cannot exist unperceived) In this way, Berkeley moved from common sense to Idealism - things are real, they are just ideas in mind. Locke believed that primary qualities are real, but not secondary. Berkeley took this a step further - the primaries are ideas, and there are no qualities "out there". The saying that is associated with Berkeley is esse est percipi - "to be is to be perceived". Suppose that you and I are having a conversation. We finish, I leave the room, and you begin doing something else. You are no longer thinking of me - when I entered the empty hallway, and thus no one is thinking of me, do I no longer exist? A similar question was raised, regarding Berkeley's position: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?" After all, as premise (2), above states, ideas cannot exist outside of a mind. According to Berkeley, this is not a problem: 1) Things exist independently of his [Berkeley's] mind (he is not the author) - ideas are real, not produced by him. 2) Ideas must exist in, and be produced (caused) by, a mind 3) They must exist in some other mind (a superior mind) _____ tf (4) God exists So, basically on Berkeley's theory, if no one is there, then no, the falling tree would make no noise. However, God is always there (everywhere), so yes, the tree would make a noise, as God is there to hear it.

aminal

Another big area in applied ethics is animal rights. What rights do nonhuman animals have? Should they have rights (moral and legal)? Animal rights used to be a fringe movement, but it has become more mainstream. Although there exist fringe animal rights organizations that, say, blow up laboratories or set free animals caged in laboratories or fur farms, this represents a very small proportion of those who argue for the rights of animals. There are also people and organizations who are not in favor of animal rights but who are concerned about animal welfare. And, there is also a growing movement involving animal law (the State Bar of Texas, for example, has an Animal Law section). These three areas can be separate or they can overlap in different ways. Peter Singer is the philosopher who is most famous for his theory concerning the rights of animals (his best known work on the topic is Animal Liberation). Singer is a Utilitarian (like Mill) except that his answer to the first question facing all utilitarians is "interests", and his answer to the second question is "all sentient beings". It is not that Singer is particularly an animal lover - he simply extended his ethical theory, using reason and argument. Singer begins by noting an analogy between the fight for women's rights and the fight for animal rights. The reasons that were given in support of women's rights also support rights for animals. According to Singer, equality does not mean that everyone must be treated equally - it means that there has to be equal consideration. 'Sentience' is key for Singer. A sentient being has the capacity to suffer and to experience enjoyment. It is this capacity that permits a being to have interests - and to have those interests included in Singer's utilitarian calculus. There are some who argue that nonhuman animals have no interests. Descartes, for example, considered animals to be "unconscious automata" - there is a story that Descartes had a cat pinned to a board and was skinning it alive. The cat was screaming in pain - when a friend asked him about it, Descartes said it only seems to be in pain, but it is not human and has no soul, so it is not experiencing pain. People will often make an inference like this - from perceived behavior to what the person is feeling - with other people, but claim that such an inference is not justified with nonhuman animals. According to Singer, if you deny the inference that the animal is in pain (even though it is exhibiting the behavior we associate with pain) while making the inference when it comes to other humans, you are a speciesist. Speciesism, like the other "isms" we use, refers to the practice of treating animals of a nonhuman species differently than those of our own species. It is a prejudice against members of other species, in favor of members of our own species. Singer argues that being of a different species is not a sufficient reason, in and of itself, to treat a sentient being differently. There are many issues arising in Animal Rights. One involves the use of animals in research. Singer talks about the real experiments behind the movie Projext X. These involved using monkeys on a flight simulator called a Primate Equilibrium Platform. The monkeys were given electric shock until they learned to keep the platforms level. After thousands of electric shocks, when they learned to keep the platforms level, they were exposed to sometimes lethal doses of radiation or chemical warfare agents to determine how long they could continue flying the platform (despite the nausea and vomiting). Dr. Donald Barnes was a principal investigator involved in these experiments, until he began questioning the value that the results of the experiments on monkeys might have for humans. Dr. Barnes resigned and has since been an opponent of animal research. Animal Liberation, Chapter 2 (1990). Another research issue involves the use of the Draize eye test, used to test cosmetics. In these tests, cosmetics or other irritating substances are placed in the eyes of rabbits, as these animals cannot cry and flush the substances from their eyes. Another major animal rights issue involves factory farming. A dated statistic states that over 100 million cows, pigs, and sheep and five billion poultry are killed in the U.S. per year for food - and that does not include the slaughter of horses for food. But, these animals are not being raised on pastoral family farms; rather, the raising of animals for slaughter is a big business, and corporations house these animals in factory farms. Such a place for chickens, for example, include a huge structure without windows. The chickens spend their lives in small cages. The conditions, including lighting, are manipulated to produce the biggest chicken possible. Chickens are social animals, and the stress of so many chickens stuffed so close together raises stress levels. As the stressed chickens peck at each other, the "farmers" "debeak" the chickens - a hot blade is used to slice off the end of the chicks beak. This process causes a great deal of pain and damage. Because of the pecking and debeaking, the animals develop infections and are given antibiotics. They breathe the air that is contaminated from the waste of so many animals. Chickens may be given growth hormones to produce the largest chickens possible in the shortest amount of time. Egg layers are also kept in cages, these with sloping wire floors, and are subject to debeaking. Sometimes the toes of the chickens kept in cages grow around the wire floor, and they cannot move. Veal calves are taken from their mothers and spend their lives in a small wooden pen where they cannot turn around and can lie down with difficulty. They are iron starved, as it is this anemia that produces "white meat". Pregnant mares are restrained so that their urine can be collected to produce the drug Premarin (pregnant mares urine) - after they deliver, they are quickly re-impregnated so that they will continue to produce urine. Nursing sows and milking cows are also restrained in factory-like settings. These animals become stressed under these unnatural conditions. Many develop infections and require repeated dosings of antibiotics. Not only are the antibiotics passed on when these animals become food, but the massive use of antibiotics helps contribute to our problem of bacteria that are becoming resistant to known antibiotics. The increased demand for meat has led to increased grazing land for cattle - which has led to the razing of a large amount of the world's rain forests so they can be converted into grazing land. The use of animals in entertainment is another animal rights topic. Circuses that use animals have come under scrutiny for their treatment of their animals - for example, undercover video was taken of the Ringling Brothers elephant trainers hitting the elephants with long metal hooks on sticks. Many animal rights advocates recommend alternative circuses (like Cirque du Soleil) that do not use animals at all. Petting zoos can also face charges of mistreatment of their animals. Other zoos, too, have often been the target of charges of mistreatment of its animals. Although there are zoos with horrible living conditions or care of their animals, other zoos are working hard to reproduce animals' natural habitats and to provide their animals with the mental stimulation that they need. A major animal rights problem facing us all is pet overpopulation. In seven years, one female cat and her offspring can theoretically produce 420,000 cats, and one female dog and her offspring can theoretically produce 67,000 dogs. Stray cats and dogs usually do not live very long lives, and they can pose risks to people. Puppies and kittens are so cute - often people adopt them, but when they are no longer puppy/kitty cute - or when they become "inconvenient" - they take them to a shelter or simply abandon them on the side of a road. Our shelters are overrun with abandoned animals. Most shelters do not have the resources to maintain all these animals and are forced to euthanize many of them. Some shelters will sell these animals to research labs (former pets are much easier to work with). Backyard breeders are creating litters of puppies (or kittens) without looking at the genetics of the parents and how their litters may impact the future of the breed. Simply spaying or neutering our pets will make a major impact on this issue (though it is not the entire solution) - and, it is often healthier for our pets. These are just a few of the topics covered by animal rights (and, just a brief introduction to these topics). I highly recommend that you read Singer's Animal Liberation. Be sure to think about how each of our ethical theories would answer these applied ethical questions.

Personal identity

Another question arising in Philosophy of Mind is Personal Identity - what makes you the same person over time? Look at yourself in a mirror, and look at a baby picture of yourself - what is it that makes you the same person? Two main theories (answers) to the Personal Identity question are 1) persistence of memory, and 2) bodily continuity. The latter theory states that you are the same person as the baby in the picture because of bodily continuity through time. But, you and that baby do not have any cells in common. And, what happens if you have to amputate an arm? An arm and a leg? Have a heart transplant? Where will we find the line when enough of your body is missing or changed that you are no longer identical to that person? (Anyone remember the Six Million Dollar Man?). The former theory states that you are identical with the baby in the picture because of persistence of memories. Do you remember any memories from when you were a baby that size? And, what happens if you suffer from total amnesia - do you suddenly become someone else, no longer identical to the person in the baby picture? Suppose two men are driving and have a head-on collision. The one man sustains horrible whole body injuries, but his brain is undamaged, while the other man's brain has turned to mush, although his body has sustained little, if any, damage. So, the surgeons transplant the first man's brain into the second man's body. To which wife does this man go home? Who is the survivor? The question of Personal Identity is asking what makes a person? And, this is the question that Dennett is considering in "Where Am I?" After his surgery, Dennett named his different parts: Yorick is his brain; Hamlet is his body; Fortinbras is his new body; and, Hubert is his computer brain. Dennett considers four different answers to his question: 1) Where Hamlet goes, there goes Dennett 2) Where Yorick goes, there goes Dennett 3) Dennett is wherever he thinks he is (location of point of view is location of person) 4) Dennett is in two places - both inside the vat and outside it (even though it felt like all of him was going into the tunnel in Oklahoma) (be sure that you understand each of his answers). One minute he was in Oklahoma, and the next he was disembodied in Houston. Subsequently, he was given a new body, and he wondered where his personhood - and personality - were retained. If Dennett had been Yorick and Hamlet, with Fortinbras, did Dennett survive Hamlet? Hubert was identical to Yorick. If Yorick were disconnected, would Dennett survive with Hubert? If an additional body were found for Hubert, would they be twins? Which brain-body combination would be recognized as the real Dennett? Another alternative for identity is the possibility that Dennett is simply a process - this process was originally running on Yorick and controlling Hamlet and later was running on Hubert and controlling Fortinbras (like software).

Laws2

Another topic that falls under Philosophy of Law is legal punishment. There are theories of legal punishment, and there is the application of those theories. Why do we punish? Why do we impose legal punishment upon criminals? The different theories of punishment answer this question differently. One theory of legal punishment is deterrence. According to this theory, the purpose of punishment is to deter - that is, to stop the criminal (both this particular criminal now and other potential criminals in the future). This theory looks to the future and hopes to change future behavior. A second theory of punishment is retribution. On this theory, punishment is justified by desert. That is, the criminal is to be punished because he deserves to be, based upon what he has done. This theory, then, is a past oriented theory - you did it, you pay. Retribution theorists believe that punishment is justified - deserved - because of what you did. The theory believes in the doctrine of lex talionis - an eye for an eye (like for like). A third theory of punishment is restitution. According to this theory, we punish to make good to the victim. Under our criminal system, when a crime is committed, the victim is not just the person harmed by the crime but also all of us - that crime harms our entire community. In criminal cases, it is the State who brings the criminal action. So, under the restitution theory, the goal is to make the victim whole - both the actual victim and the community. A fourth theory of punishment is incapacitation. On this theory, the criminal is punished by being incapacitated. The most common form of incapacitation (though not the only form) is incarceration. Once the criminal is incapacitated, he can no longer harm our community. And lastly, a fifth theory of punishment is rehabilitation. According to a rehabilitation theorist, we punish a criminal in order to rehabilitate him. There are various forms that this rehabilitation can take. There are other theories of punishment, but these are the main justifications offered for legal punishment. When trying to sort out what would be the appropriate punishment to impose for a particular crime, it is useful to understand why we punish. One example of the application of punishment theory is the death penalty. Should the death penalty be an available form of criminal punishment? Each of the major theories of punishment reviewed above has a different answer to this question. Be sure that you understand how each theory would answer the question and why it would reach that answer. When considering whether the death penalty should be an option in a case, should it matter who the victim was (a police officer, a young child, a gang member)? Should it matter who the criminal is (a teenage gang member, a serial killer, a noncitizen illegally in the country)? The U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed death penalty statutes from different states, and states are required to have certain procedural safeguards in place to try to prevent arbitrary imposition. Does it matter how the death penalty is to be imposed? Most states currently use lethal injection. The Supreme Court has reviewed the common lethal injection "cocktail" and has rejected a request to require the presence of a doctor. The American Medical Association's code of ethics prohibits doctors from taking an active role in executions. The death penalty raises many interesting legal and philosophical questions. And, this is only one example of an application of punishment theory.

Learning Activity 11.4

Aquinas is a proponent of Natural Law theory. According to Aquinas, God's rule of the world is through Eternal Law. Participation in the Eternal Law by rational beings is Natural Law. According to the first precept of Natural Law, "we should do and seek good, and shun evil." (p. 343). There are three levels to seeking good, based on our natural inclinations: 1) preserving our human life (as a thing) 2) preserving our species (as an animal) 3) through our rational nature, to know truth and live peacefully (as a rational animal) These are our natural inclinations for good that belong to the Natural Law. To be moral, we must actively seek and follow these inclinations. Aristotle asks "What is 'the good'"? He is searching for the ultimate good - something that is sought for itself. Does 'the good' mean more prestige or making me a better person? Aristotle is aware that all knowledge and undertakings seek some good - for example, health is the good sought by medicine and victory is the good sought by generals. The good depends on function - for example, the eye is for seeing; it is good if it performs well. Aristotle begins his search for the good with those with political expertise/the sovereign because this group of people knows the expertises for cities and for each group of people. He believes that they are familiar with the end of the human good. He finds that the good for those with political expertise is honor. This is not the sort of good that Aristotle is searching for. Like the good for medicine and generalship, it is too superficial. Aristotle is searching for the good that is sought for itself, not for the sake of something else. This good is complete and self-sufficient. Aristotle concludes that this ultimate good is happiness. Happiness, Aristotle believes, is always chosen for itself, not because of something else. 'Happiness' "is some activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence...." (p. 336) According to Aristotle, there are two parts to the soul, a rational part and a nonrational part. The rational part possesses reason. The nonrational part of the soul is also divided into two - one of these parts has no reason, while the other part can be obedient to reason. So, part of the soul is rational (it possesses reason), while part of the other (nonrational) part of the soul is responsive to, or listens to, reason. Both of these are needed for happiness. Aristotle talks about excellences. Excellences are similarly divided, into intellectual excellence and excellence of character. The rational part of the soul has intellectual excellence. Reason can carry out its function, and this excellence increases with teaching. The nonrational part of the soul that is responsive to reason has excellence of character. This allows the appetites and desires to function, and this excellence comes from habituation. Both excellences seek the intermediate (not either extreme). Each part of the soul seeks its respective excellence. Each part must attain the excellence associated with it. These are also known as virtues (Aristotle's theory is also known as virtue ethics). So, the good that we seek is happiness. We attain this good by living rationally (both parts of the soul). This happens when both parts of the soul seek their excellences: intellectual excellence and excellence of character. By doing this, we attain happiness and, therefore, are moral. Rachels ethical theory is Cultural Relativism. According to Cultural Relativism, "there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more." (p. 399) For example, in the Eskimo culture, non-productive elderly are expected to wander off to die, while our culture believes that we should take care of our non-productive elderly. A Cultural Relativist would say that there is no right or wrong way to treat the non-productive elderly - wandering off is right for the Eskimo culture but wrong for ours, while caring for these people is right for our culture but wrong for the Eskimos. Rachels talks about the example of the Calatians and the Greeks. For the Greeks, the respectful thing to do is to burn the body of your deceased father, while for the Calatians, the respectful thing to do is to eat his body. When the Calatians learned about the Greek tradition and the Greeks learned about the Calatian tradition, each was horrified. This is a version of the Cultural Differences Argument: 1) Different cultures have different moral codes __________ tf 2) There is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. There are several problems with this argument, but a major one is that it moves from belief to the actual. It is possible that there are different beliefs yet still one actual truth (one or more of the beliefs can be wrong). Rachels uses an analogous argument to show that this argument is problematic: there are societies that believe that the earth is round and societies that believe that the earth is flat. Just because these cultures have different beliefs about the shape of the earth does not mean that there is no objective scientific truth about its shape. So, there can be a moral truth and people just do not know it. For example, it could be that the Greeks were correct in how they handled the body of deceased fathers, it could be that the Calatians were correct, it could be that there is no "correct" way, or it could be that there is a correct way and both of these were wrong (for example, perhaps our tradition of burying the bodies of our deceased fathers is the morally correct tradition). We cannot reach a substantive conclusion merely from beliefs. This is simply a logical point; the conclusion does not follow. According to Rachels, there are three consequences of Cultural Relativism. One, we can no longer say that customs of other socities are morally inferior to our own. Two, right and wrong can be determined just by looking at our society's standards (we can no longer criticize our own society's code). And, three, "moral progress" is called into doubt - there is no moral progress or social reform because the code we have simply is the standard. Rachels believes that cultures do not really differ as much as we may think. If we ask why that culture holds that belief (or, does that act), we will find agreement on these basics (although perhaps not with the solution that is selected). Be sure that you understand his position and review the example that he gives. Rachels also contends that there are three values that all cultures must have in common: 1) protecting infants; 2) telling the truth; and, 3) prohibiting murder. Does this prove that morality is not relativistic?

mill1

Mill is a teleologist - specifically, he is a utilitarian (a form of consequentialism). So, rightness and wrongness for Mill are related to the goodness or badness of consequences. Mill is a follower of Bentham. They are both hedonistic utilitarians - a hedonistic theory of good holds that happiness or pleasure is the only intrinsic good and unhappiness or pain is the only intrinsic bad. Remember, there are two questions that all teleologists must answer. For Mill, the good is happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain), and everyone's value is counted the same. Like Kant, Mill is looking for the fundamental principle of morality. He finds it in the Greatest Happiness Principle (sometimes called the Principle of Utility). The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right as they tend to maximize the goodness of all and wrong as they tend to oppose the goodness. Mill believes that the prospect of pleasure or pain is always the motive of acts and that any theory that does not reflect this is inadequate. A theory like Kant's, relying on pure reason, cannot motivate us. The right act, according to Mill, yields the most pleasure - we are motivated to act morally and avoid pain. According to Mill, there are higher, aesthetic pleasures - such as enjoying a good opera or viewing a beautiful painting - that humans can appreciate but other animals cannot. These higher qualities count, too. The other animals share with us the physical pleasures (such as eating), but humans also enjoy these aesthetic pleasures. According to Mill, if you do not agree that the aesthetic is of higher quality, then you are simply not acquainted with it and are on the same level of these other animals. Specifically, Mill states: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." (p. 361) So, if you disagree with Mill regarding these higher qualities, you obviously are on the level of the pig. To determine which act is morally correct, Mill advocates a hedonistic caluculus. This is a method to measure and weigh the amounts of happiness and unhappiness. There are two main factors to be considered when determining the hedonistic value of pleasure and pain: 1) intensity, and 2) duration. The greater the intensity of a pain, for example, the more pain there is; the longer duration of a pain, the longer there is pain. Bentham uses a quantitative theory of goodness, considering the intensity and duration of the pleasure or pain; Mill, however, uses a qualitative theory of goodness - he considers intensity, duration, and quality in his calculations. In applying his hedonistic calculus, Mill considers the intensity, duration, and quality of pleasure and pain for everyone for all the possible actions. For example: Me You John Doe total Act A -50 +75 0 +25 Act B -200 +400 +100 +300 Act C +400 -400 -400 -400 For the Ethical Egoist (who answers the second question with "me", calculating only what has the most overall pleasure for me), the moral act for me to do would be Act C. The Utilitarian, however, considers the net value of pleasure and pain for everyone. So, the moral act, according to the Utilitarian, is Act B, as it provides the most overall good for all. Motive does not matter for the Utilitarian - it is the net value of the good brought about by the consequences. Mill's theory includes sentient beings. And, when doing the hedonistic calculus, everybody's pleasure and pain counts equally. A problem with Mill's theory is that it focuses solely on the consequences. For example, a doctor finds a healthy homeless man who has no family and no friends. He puts him in the hospital for a week and treats him like a king. Then, he gives the man anesthesia and wheels him into surgery where he removes his heart, lungs, liver, both kidneys, both eyes, skin, and other organs - all shipped off for organ transplants. The man dies, but the doctor is able to save the lives of at least eight people (probably more). Adding up the consequences of the eight saved lives (and the happiness of their friends and family) and comparing it to the consequences of the death of the one friendless, family-less homeless man yields a much greater consequence in favor of the doctor's actions. But, do we really think that what the doctor has done is the right thing to do?

Descartes

Descartes was a rationalist - a rationalist believes we can obtain knowledge through reason, whereas an empiricist believes we can only obtain knowledge through our senses. Descartes was not a skeptic (someone who believes that there is no knowledge). His project in the Meditations is to show the Cartesian skeptic that there is knowledge ('Cartesian' refers to Descartes; the 'Cartesian skeptic' is one who believes that there is no knowledge because, to have knowledge, we need absolute certainty, a high standard that we cannot attain). Descartes's plan was to adopt the skeptic's methodology - doubt anything that is not known with absolute certainty - and to show that skeptic that, even on his own terms, there is knowledge. Many misunderstand Descartes's project and believe that he was advocating Cartesian skepticism - but, in fact, he believed that there is knowledge and that he could prove that using the skeptic's methodology. To do this, Descartes began by doubting anything that was doubtable. He systematically examined everything that he thought he knew, and if it was possible that he did not know it, he dismissed it. He was looking for anything that he might know with absolute certainty - anything that is 'certain and indubitable'. While examining his beliefs, he used three "tools" or arguments: the sense argument, the dream argument, and the evil genius argument. The first argument is the sense argument: 1) We believe things based on our senses 2) Sometimes our senses deceive us 3) At the time of deception, we do not know we are being deceived _____ tf 4) Our senses might be deceiving us now _____ tf 5) We ought to doubt all sense based information Because the knowledge we gather through our senses might be illusory, we should doubt all sense based knowledge. The second argument is the dream argument: 1) We dream 2) We are deceived in dreams 3) We do not know, at the time we're dreaming, that we're being deceived (there is no criterion for distinguishing waking from dreaming) 4) If we don't know that we're not dreaming right now, then we do not know that we are not now being deceived 5) We don't know that we are not now dreaming _____ tf 6) We don't know that we are not being deceived now (perhaps we will wake up in five minutes) 7) It is posssible that material objects exist in only in our dreams _____ tf 8) We cannot know with certainty of the existence of material objects Together, these first two arguments show that we have no knowledge of the physical world - all empirical evidence is dubious. Descartes's third argument, the evil genius argument, completes his initial project by calling into doubt necessary truths (math, logic, etc.): 1) An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being can deceive us about everything (even necessary truth) 2) Unless we know that there is no evil genius, we do not know that we are not deceived about everything 3) We do not know that there is no evil genius _____ tf 4) We do not know that we are not deceived about everything _____ tf 5) Even necessary truths can be doubted (we know nothing) After applyng these three arguments, Descartes looks to see if there is anything that he knows that is certain and indubitable that he can use as his foundation (Descartes is a foundationalist, and he is searching for a foundation upon which he can rebuild knowledge). He finds that there is one thing that survives his three arguments, namely the cogito (cogito ergo sum): 1) We seem to perceive, think, believe 2) If our senses deceive us, if we're dreaming, or if there's an evil genius, we have to be perceiving, thinking, believing 3) Doubting is a form of thinking 4) If we are thinking, we must exist - we cannot be deceived into thinking we exist if we do not _____ tf 5) I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum) Any attempt to think that you do not exist means that you do. Descartes has found something that is certain and indubitable. This, then, becomes the foundation upon which he will rebuild all knowledge. (Descartes is famous for his cogito). So, Descartes was searching for a foundation - anything that can be known that is certain and indubitable - and discovers the cogito (I think, therefore I am). He knows only his mind and that he is mental stuff, but intends to use this as a foundation upon which to rebuild all his knowledge. To do this, Descartes needs to show that our ideas are reliable respresentations of the material world. And, to do that, he needs God and must prove God's existence. He makes some preliminary distinctions. First, Descartes distinguishes 'substance', 'property', and 'essence'. Substance is the metaphysical "stuff" which possesses properties - it is the unperceived thing underneath all the properties. A property is an attribute or characteristic something has - when you describe something, you give its properties. So, your shirt, for example, may have short sleeves, black color, a vee neck, cotton material, and so forth. These are all properties of your shirt that you can use to describe it. The substance is underneath, holding all the properties together (you do not just have a bundle of loose properties). The essence, then, is one or more of the properties that cannot be changed without destroying the identity of the thing. With your shirt, you can change the color and the sleeve lengths without destroying the identity of the shirt, so these properties are not part of the essence. Perhaps if you cut off the arms and head holes you no longer have a shirt - if so, then those properties are part of the essence of the shirt. Second, Descartes distinguishes formal and objective reality. Ideas have objective reality, whereas properties and substance have formal reality. Substance has a higher degree of formal reality, though, because the properties need the substance to exist. Descartes uses these distinctions in his Cosmological proof for God. Cosmological proofs are causal proofs, starting with something kown to exist and reasoning back to God as the only possible cause of their existence. 1) The idea of God that I have is of an infinite substance and so contains infinite objective reality 2) Effects can contain no more reality than their causes 3) This idea of God must be caused by something with at least as much reality as the idea contains itself _____ tf 4) It must be caused by an infinite substance which exists formally - God Basically, Descartes is saying that he has an idea of an infinite being. As he, Descartes, is a finite being, this idea has to be caused by something else that has at least as much reality as the idea. There are several problems with this argument, however. First, why do we need formal reality to cause ideas - why can't there simply be ideas? Second, what caused God? Why does there have to be a starting point, and why does God have to be the cause? But, the main problem is third, namely why do we believe premise (2)? According to Descartes, we know premise (2) is true through the "natural light of reason". But, this is still a point in his project when his reason is to be doubted. According to Descartes, after this proof, he knows that God exists. As God does not deceive (deceiving is a mark of imperfection), now Descartes can trust his reason. This leads to the Cartesian Circle. At first, Descartes decides he cannot trust his reason. Now, he proves that he can trust his reason because God exists. However, to prove that God exists, Descartes needed to use his reason (premise (2)). So, at a time when reason was not to be trusted, Descartes used his reason to prove that God exists so that he can prove that he can use his reason. Descartes also distinguishes two faculties, will and understanding. He concludes that if he believes only what he understands clearly and distinctly, he will avoid error

Hume

Hume was also a British Empiricist. He distinguished perception and recollection, with recollection being weaker. We get an impression from perception and then a duller idea from recollection. So, the impressions I got from my perception of the ice cream cone I had earlier are much stronger than the ideas of that cone that I now recollect. Perceptions are divided into two classes, 1) thoughts or ideas, and 2) impressions, with the former having less force than the latter. All our ideas are copies of our impressions. According to Hume, analysis of our thoughts and ideas result in simple ideas that are copied from prior sense data. In addition, he points out that people who are without a sense are without corresponding ideas; if that sense is restored, so will be the ideas that correspond to the sense. The objects of our reason or inquiry, according to Hume, are relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas - like mathematics - are discoverable by thought. Matters of fact, on the other hand, are not gathered by thought but are known through reasoning founded on cause and effect. We have knowledge of cause and effect, said Hume, through experience. Because of our experiences of causes bringing about certain effects, we believe that these effects will follow from those causes in the future. In reaching these conclusions, we employ the Principle of Induction which says that the future will resemble the past. But, Hume pointed out, this brings about the Problem of Induction - why do we believe that the future will be like the past? Because in the past, the future resembled the past. But, this is circular, as we are relying upon the principle we are trying to justify in the justification. No matter how many times a cause is followed by an effect, it does not justify our claim that it will do so in the future. We believe the Principle of Induction - that the future will resemble the past - because in the past, the future resembled the past, and this is the very principle that we are trying to justify. (Hume, of course, did not doubt cause and effect - he just did not think that there was an adequate philosophical explanation). Hume agrees that there is no knowledge without justification, and, like Descartes, he believes that the standard for that justification is absolute certainty. Unlike Descartes, however, Hume concludes that there is no knowledge. And, he agrees with Locke that secondary qualities are not in the object, but he goes a step further and also concludes that primary qualities also are not in the object.

Learning Activity 11.0

In Ethics, are we concerned with acts (which ones are morally right or morally wrong?), people (what makes a person good or bad?), rules (which ones are right or wrong?), or intentions (which are good or bad?)? Can something be both morally good and bad? From where does our moral system arise? These are a few of the questions that are considered when studying ethical theory. When we talk about right and wrong (moral, not legal), we begin with rights and responsibilities. A 'right' is an entitlement - a claim to something against someone else, whereas a 'responsibility' is an obligation. There are a number of important distinctions made in ethics. One is the distinction between meta-ethics and normative ethics. Meta-ethics focuses on theory - which theory is justified, what are the meanings of moral terms, are there moral facts or truths? Normative ethics, on the other hand, looks at conditions under which an action is right or wrong - what ought (or should) we to do? A second distinction is between objective and subjective. Sometimes objective views are also called universal or absolute, while subjective views are also called relative. If a view is objective or absolute (universal), it does not depend on our beliefs. It is true independent of anyone thinking it. So, if someone believes something is ethically objectively true - for example, that capital punishment is morally wrong - he or she believes that even if all people were suddenly to vanish, it would still be morally wrong. A subjective or relative view, on the other hand, is one which depends on our beliefs. A person who believes that ethics is subjective believes that there is no objective standard - that is, there is no one correct answer (for example, death by stoning might be morally right in that country, but not in ours). If there are two cultures, A and B, and during war, culture A always kills its captured enemies, while culture B never kills its captured enemies, someone who believes in subjective or relative views would say that killing captured enemies is morally right for culture A but morally wrong for culture B - there is no objective or universal right or wrong, it is relative. Of course, it is possible that there is an absolute moral truth and one of the two cultures is simply wrong (or, perhaps they are both wrong). Taking a different example, if someone believes that it is always morally wrong to kill innocent children, he or she is holding an objective (universal/absolute) view. On this position, a culture that requires the sacrifice of an innocent child would be morally wrong. A third distinction is between deontology and teleology. A teleological view is one that evaluates the rightness or wrongness based only on the goodness or badness of the consequences (teleology is sometimes also referred to as consequentialism). There are two questions for the teleologist to answer: 1) What is the good? and 2) Whose value do we consider? For example, is pleasure the only good (and pain the only bad)? Do we consider everybody, just ourselves, a select few, etc? Different answers to these two questions yield different teleological theories. Ethical egoism, for example, answers the second question with just me - to determine the correct act, look for the one that maximizes the good (however we define it) for me. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, answers question two with everyone - to determine the correct act, look for the one that maximizes the good (however we define it) for everyone (everyone counts the same). Different Utilitarians define the good (question one) differently. But, all teleologists look only to the consequences to determine right and wrong. Deontology is basically the opposite of teleology. Someone who is a deontologist believes that right and wrong do not depend only on the consequences - other factors may be involved.

Learning Activity 8.4

Mill's selection deals with the rights and obligations of government. According to Mill, a just government is one that maximizes individual freedom and minimizes government interference. When dealing with society's control over the individual, Mill believes that one simple principle governs, namely the Harm Principle. Basically, the Harm Principle states that government can interfere with an individual only to prevent harm to others. This is a doctrine of laissez-faire - hands-off government. The only time when government is permitted to step in and interfere with an individual is if it is needed to prevent harm to another. Mill is rejecting paternalistic government. He limits the application of his principle to adults and civil people (not to children or "savages"). But, in general, government should be "hands off". This includes not interfering with self-harming behavior. So, according to Mill, government should not interfere with an adult who is planning to commit suicide (though a teenager contemplating suicide is a different story, as he/she is a "child"). Mill's principle also has an exception if the other people being harmed have given free, voluntary, and undeceived consent to the harm - for example, two adults who agree to engage in sadomasochistic acts. According to Mill, certain spheres of an individual's life should be off limits to government. Individual rights are important, and a government's power should be limited (to prevent harm to others). A paternalistic state should be avoided. Mill also applies his belief in hands off government to freedom of speech. According to Mill, there are four reasons why freedom of speech should not be interfered with: 1) The expressed opinion might be true (it could be that what is accepted - the opposite - is wrong) 2) If not true, aspects of the expressed opinion may be true (even though the entire claim is wrong) 3) If totally wrong, expression of the opinion is still important. We need the disagreement to help us clarify, or think about, our contrary beliefs (this discussion with others having opposite opinions helps clarify our position) 4) If the opinion is not expressed, the meaning of the accepted doctrine might be lost For these reasons, Mill advocates a general freedom of speech, in which government should not interfere. Mill also applies his principle to acts. Mill stresses individuality and the value of diversity, variety, and originality. He believes that society would be harmed if the majority were allowed to silence or stop the minority. So, according to Mill, the limits on government are established with his Harm Principle. Joel Feinberg, a contemporary philosopher, advocates the Offense Principle. Feinberg sets out a counterexample - various offensive situations occurring during your ride on a public bus. Feinberg's example shows that there are some situations in which there is no harm to another, but that are so offensive that the government should be authorized to step in and limit the individual's rights. So, according to Feinberg, the Harm Principle does not go far enough; as his example shows, there are situations requiring the government to interfere with the individual based on the extreme offense that those situations cause (even though there is no actual physical harm).

Laws1

One main area of inquiry in Philosophy of Law deals with the relationship between Law and Morality - why do we have both systems, do we need both systems, what is the relationship between the two? Concerning the relationship between the two, there are two main theories, namely Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory. H.L.A. Hart is a Legal Positivist, and Lon Fuller is a Natural Law Theorist. Hart's Legal Positivism has two theses, a social thesis and a separability thesis. According to the social thesis, law is fundamentally a social fact/social convention - that is, law is a social construct. The separability thesis concerns the relationship between law and morality. According to Hart's separability thesis, there is no necessary connection between law and morality. Although there can be a connection between law and morality, for Hart, such a connection is not necessary. All Legal Positivists believe this social thesis. Their theories differ, however, on the separability thesis - different theories require different amounts of connection between law and morality. But for Hart, the social thesis is that law is a social convention, and the separability thesis is that a legal norm does not necessarily have moral value. There are two kinds of Natural Law theorists, traditional and modern. St. Thomas Aquinas is an example of a traditional Natural Law theorist. According to traditional Natural Law theorists, natural law is independent of people - it is God's law (higher law). Modern Natural Law theory is a weaker theory that basically holds that you cannot understand or describe law without moral evaluation. Lon Fuller is a modern Natural Law theorist. According to Fuller, the test is function rather than content. Hs posits the "internal morality of law". There are eight requriements to be 'law': 1) Laws should be general 2) Laws should be promulgated so citizens know standards to which they are being held 3) Retroactive rule making and application should be minimized 4) Laws should be understandable 5) Laws should not be contradictory 6) Laws should not require conduct beyond the abilities of those affected 7) Laws should remain relatively constant through time 8) There should be a congruence between the laws as announced and their actual administration According to Fuller, this is a "procedural" natural law (rather than "substantive").

Locke and Hobbes

Our society has authority over us. From where does that authority come? Locke and Hobbes both answer that question with Social Contract Theories. Although their answers are, in a way, the same, they set forth very different versions of this theory. Hobbes's Social Contract Theory begins with a state of nature that is very negative. Everyone in this state of nature is simply trying to stay alive - obtaining and doing whatever he/she can to preserve his/her own life. There are limited resources, and all one's time is spent finding - then keeping - those necessary resources. It is a constant state of war - "every man against every man" (p. 439). There is no law and "continual fear and danger of violent death...." (p. 438). Hobbes aptly sums up this state of nature: "[T]he life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (p. 438) There is no right or wrong, just or unjust in the state of nature. Everyone has a right to everything. These awful conditions lead people to desire security. In order to achieve peace, a person has to give up his/her right to everything. There are two ways in which a person can divest himself/herself of his/her rights, by renouncing or by transferring. When one transfers a right, there is an intention to benefit some intended person(s); when one renounces a right, on the other hand, there is no intention to benefit anyone in particular. A mutual divesting of rights is called a contract (so, for example, I give up rights to gain security and peace, and you give up rights to gain security and peace). Suppose, however, that I agree to give up my rights in order to obtain security, and you also agree to give up your rights to obtain security. Once I have agreed to this, it would make it very easy for you (despite your agreement) to take all my food, my shelter, kill me, etc. The only way that our agreement will work, then, is if there is an uninterested, impartial third party who is willing to enforce our contract. Palmer gives a nice example explaining this: "If two people are on a desert island and there isn't an abundance of coconuts to eat, then neither dares turn a back nor sleep lest the other bash him or her with a rock in order to get all the coconuts. However, if both are rational, they will realize that the most likely way of surviving is to agree with each other to forswear violence and share the coconuts. The trouble is, given the selfish nature that Hobbes attributes to all of us, there is no reason at all for either party to keep the agreement if he or she can figure a way to break it with impunity. So there is every reason for them to distrust each other. Despite their "agreement," neither dares yet to sleep a wink. The solution requires that a third party be found. The first two parties give to the third party all the rocks (and perhaps an army), and they give up their right to violence. In exchange, the third party promises to use her absolute power to guarantee that the first two parties honor their agreement with each other." Palmer, pp 183-185. So, according to Hobbes, our agreement involves your giving up rights to this uninterested person and my giving up rights to this same person. This independent third person will ensure that each of us keeps our part of the agreement. In this manner, we come together to form a commonwealth. We give our rights to this third person - the sovereign - who will make sure that the rest of the - the subjects - remain safe, well provided for, etc. In this manner, we move from the state of nature to the civil commonwealth. Hobbes was a psychological egoist - that is, he believed that everyone is governed by self-interest (which is why his state of nature was so horrible). This applies to the sovereign as well. So, even though our social contract removes us from the state of nature - putting us into civil society - the sovereign is still motivated by self-interest. Even though the sovereign will see that we uphold our contractual obligations, he/she will probably abuse his/her power. According to Hobbes, there is nothing we can do about that, and the commonwealth is still a better option than the state of nature that we had been in. Locke is also a social contract theorist - he also believed that people moved from the state of nature to a civil society through a contract - but his version of the theory is a bit different. Locke's state of nature is a state of perfect equality or perfect freedom. This state of nature, according to Locke, is governed by a law of nature, and this requires that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." (p. 446). This law of nature comes from God, and it requires each person not only to preserve himself/herself, but also all mankind. Because of this, Locke's state of nature includes the power to punish a wrongdoer. Anyone may punish someone who has violated the law of nature. But the amount of punishment meted out may only be as much as needed for retribution and restraint. The person who was the actual victim of the violation of the law of nature also has the right of taking reparation from the wrongdoer. So, punishment may be inflicted by anyone in the state of nature, whereas only the victim may take reparation. One can also obtain property in Locke's state of nature. Although everyone has property in his/her own person, he or she can also obtain property in the state of nature by mixing his/her own labor with it. By mixing one's own labor with something - and leaving enough of, and as good as, the same - one can take something from the state of nature and make it one's own property. Suppose, for example, you are in Locke's state of nature and spend the day chopping down a very nice tree (that you need for shelter, firewood, etc.). By chopping down the tree, you have mixed your labor with the tree - as long as there are other trees that are just as good as this tree, you have now converted the tree that you chopped, taking it out of the state of nature and making it your property. According to Locke, people give up the powers they have in the state of nature and form a civil society. They agree to give the authority to make laws to a group and the authority to judge and punish to others. When the members consent, they give up their powers under the law of nature and move from the state of nature to the commonwealth. There are two kinds of consent, express and tacit. Express consent is just what it sounds like - you expressly say "I consent to give up my powers...." With tacit consent, on the other hand, one never says anything expressly - his/her consent is read from his/her actions. And, Locke is clear that it does not take much action to find tacit consent: "[E]very man that has any possessions or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government, does thereby give his tacit consent and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as anyone under it - whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs forever, or a lodging only for a week, or whether it be barely traveling freely on the highway." (p. 452) (italics added). So, according to Locke, it does not take very much for tacit consent to be found. Locke considers one objection, whether anyone has ever really been in the state of nature. His answer is that there will always be some in the state of nature. We may agree to leave the state of nature and join civil society - but, all the rulers in whom we vest our power are in a state of nature with regard to each other. Another objection often raised against social contract theories is when people say "well, I never agreed, or consented, to this power or society." According to Locke, you did give tacit consent. Even if you did not even do something so small such as driving on the roads - and even if, by your parents's choice, you were born here - you did not leave. If you do not consent to the civil society in which you find yourself, you are free to leave it - since you have not left, according to Locke, you have given your tacit consent. According to Locke, there are three ways in which such a government can be dissolved. First, when there is conquest by some foreign force, the agreement ceases (and, everyone is back in the state of nature). Second, the government is dissolved what the legislature is altered or broken, and third, it is dissolved when the legislature or prince acts contrary to their trust (the latter two instances are rebellion). So, although Hobbes and Locke hold similar theories, there are some major differences. Hobbes is a pessimist, while Locke is an optimist. According to Hobbes, you have one right in the state of nature, to save your life, while for Locke, you have the rights to life, health, liberty, and possessions (and, you are required to preserve mankind in addition to preserving yourself). Locke's state of nature has God and the law of nature, while Hobbes's has neither. There is no ownership of property in Hobbes's state of nature, whereas Locke has a procedure by which one can attain property. Locke presupposes a state of abundance in his state of nature, while Hobbes presupposes a state of scarcity. And, Hobbes simply assumes that the sovereign is unchecked and will be corrupt (and, there is nothing you can do about it), while Locke has a provision for bad rulers, namely rebellion.

Platos divided line

Plato demonstrates his theory of knowledge through the metaphor of the Divided Line. As you can see from the diagram in the text, the line is divided into the visible world and the intelligible world. The many are visible and not intelligible, while the form is not visible but intelligible. The visible has one subsection of images and another subsection of originals of the images. The intelligible has one subsection that investigates from hypotheses to conclusion and another subsection that involves first principles. We all start at the bottom of the line, where, using imagining, we see images (for example, reflections in glass or water). As we move up the line, we can then see the visible object that causes the images. These make up the realm of opinion and is as far as most practical people advance. At the bottom of the intelligible world are scientific objects. These are perceived using thought and hypotheses. Only Philosophers, using understanding, can move beyond hypothesis, to the first principles, and reach the Forms themselves. To attain knowledge, according to Plato, is to move up the line and learn the forms themselves.

Socrates history

Plato was a student of Socrates. We know of Socrates's views through Plato. Plato's writings are almost all dialogues, and Socrates is his protaganist. Socrates was disliked in Athens - he was a "gadfly" to Athens. He spent his time talking about Philosophy with the young men from wealthy families. Unlike the Sophists - who charged for teaching rhetoric - Socrates was concerned with searching for the truth, and he did not charge (he was poor). Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth, not believing in the gods of the state, studying the earth and sun (what's over and under), and impiety. The Apology is a record of the trial of Socrates. There are three parts to the Apology: 1) main speech; 2) counter-assessment; and, 3) last words to the jury. Socrates presented his defense against the charges to the 501 members of the jury in the main speech portion. Socrates began with an informal sort of argument, asking the jurors for their understanding in that he had never been to the courts before and did not know the language. He asked them to treat him as if he were a stranger who spoke a different dialect. He then presented five different arguments demonstrating that he did not corrupt the youth. The first argument arose out of his question and answer with Meletos about who makes the youth better. From Meletos's answers, Socrates showed: 1) The jury (all 501) makes the youth better. 2) The audience makes the youth better. 3) The Councillors make the youth better. 4) The Commons make the youth better. _____ tf 5) All of Athens improve the youth except Socrates. Socrates stated that not only is this an absurd conclusion, but it leads to the next argument: 1) Horses are improved by one (the horse trainer), not by many. 2) Other animals are improved by one (the specific trainer), not by many. _____ tf 3) (5) above (the conclusion of the first argument) is wrong [by analogy]. According to Socrates, this showed that Meletos never cared about the youth at all. Socrates's third argument showing that he did not corrupt the youth, the "bad man" argument, also followed from question and answer with Meletos: 1) It is better to live amongst good citizens. 2) Bad men do harm to those who are nearest them. 3) No one wants to be harmed. _____ tf 4) Socrates does not want to be harmed. _____ tf 5) Socrates does not want to be around bad men. _____ tf 6) Socrates does not corrupt the youth. Socrates's fourth argument (the "logic argument") follows: 1) Either Socrates does not corrupt the youth or Socrates corrupts them unknowingly. 2) If he does not corrupt the youth, the charge should be dismissed. 3) If he corrupts the youth unknowingly, Meletos is required to privately instruct Socrates, not bring him to court. 4) Meletos did not privately instruct Socrates (so, the charge should be dismissed). _____ tf 5) The charge of corrupting the youth should be dismissed (either way, this conclusion follows). Socrates's fifth, and last, argument (the "no witness" argument) states: 1) Some youth Socrates allegedly corrupted are grown. 2) If Socrates corrupted them, they can come forward and get revenge now. 3) Or, their families can come forward and get revenge. 4) But, no one came forward (no witnesses). _____ tf 5) Socrates doesn't corrupt the youth. Concerning the charge of not believing in the gods, Socrates again used question and answer with Meletos: 1) Can you believe in human things but not humans? Meletos said "no". 2) Can you believe in horsey things but not horses? "No". 3) Can you believe in things pipers do but not pipers? "No". 4) Can you believe in spiritual things but not spirits? "No". 5) Socrates believes in/teaches spiritual things. _____ tf 6) Socrates believes in spirits. 7) Spirits are gods or children of gods. _____ tf 8) Socrates believes in gods. A guilty verdict was returned, 281-220. During the counter-assessment, Socrates was able to address the jury concerning what sentence he believed should be imposed upon him. The jury returned with a verdict of death. Socrates was then permitted final words to the jury. Among those final words, Socrates pointed out to the jury how senseless the sentence was, as he was 70 years old at the time, and he imparted his prophecy that Athens would forever be known as the city that killed Socrates. In the Crito, Socrates's friend Crito visited him in prison. Crito and other friends of Socrates had made arrangements for Socrates to escape from jail (and, hence, his death sentence). Although everything was set, Crito's problem was that Socrates refused to leave. Crito presented a number of arguments to Socrates, trying to convince him that he should leave Athens, but Socrates refused to escape. Socrates did not respond to each of Crito's arguments; rather, he presented Crito with his own argument, demonstrating why he was unable to accept Crito's arrangements. He relied upon principles he had been teaching, and living by, for years. According to Socrates: 1) Never do wrong at all - not even when wronged (never wrong in return). 2) Never injure at all - not even when injured (never injure in return). 3) Breaking a just agreement wrongs or injures. _____ tf 4) One must keep - and never break - a just agreement made with someone. 5) Socrates had an agreement with the city - this includes abiding by the laws and judgments of the city. 6) City brought him into life, reared and educated him, gave him everything. 7) He had many opportunities to leave if he was unhappy with the city. 8) If, after viewing how the city dealt with injustice, etc., he didn't leave, he agreed to do what the city commands and to abide by the city's judgments. 9) Socrates never left (in 70 years, he rarely left Athens, even to visit). 10) Leaving without the city's permission breaks his agreement with the city - wrongs, injures, and mistreats the city. _____ tf 11) Socrates cannot leave without the city's consent. Thus, Socrates refuses to take advantage of Crito's arrangements to get him out of Athens. The Phaedo is a dialogue that is concerned with death and the soul. According to Socrates, death is the separation of the soul from the body. The soul uses reason, and the senses of the body interfere with its search for the truth. But, after death, the soul can finally find true wisdom and truth. Socrates presents arguments to show that the soul continues to exist after death. One argument relies upon "becomings" and how things arise from their opposites. If, at death, the soul goes "poof" and disappears, all would end up dead. There would no longer be becoming (or, being born), as there would not be souls available. Instead of a cycle, all would end up dead. (Socrates uses an analogy of waking coming from being asleep and sleeping coming from being awake; if the soul disappeared, it would be like everyone sleeping and no one awakening). Another argument that Socrates uses to show that the soul continues to exist after death stems from his idea that learning is simply recollecting. He also shows that the soul exists after death through an argument distinguishing compound or composite things from uncompounded things - the soul is uncompounded and, therefore, does not scatter at death. Socrates deals with potential objections that are raised to his views concerning the immortality of the soul and its continual cycling through life and death. The final portion of the dialogue describes Socrates's preparation for death, his drinking of the hemlock, and his death.

Notes about philosophy

Philosophy involves asking questions and thinking about questions. For the most part, however, there are no answers - just lots of discussion and debate. We are still asking and thinking about questions that Plato had considered over 2500 years ago.Philosophy concerns itself with the domain of ideas. There are no right or wrong answers - and, hence, there may be uncertainty and some frustration - but the process leads to a better understanding of the ideas and to a broadening of the mind.

Platos cave

Plato also uses the metaphor of the Cave to demonstrate his theory of knowledge. As you can see from the diagram in the text, there are prisoners in the cave who are bound in place, only able to stare at the wall in front of them. Unbeknownst to them, behind them is a fire behind a path across which people walk back and forth (some carrying things, some with things on their heads, etc.). All the prisoners can see are the shadows reflected on the wall. One prisoner is released - at first, he cannot see because of the brightness, but then he sees the fire and path and realizes that what they have observed all their lives are merely reflections. He is then dragged outside where, once again he cannot see because of the blinding light. Slowly, he begins to see images (reflections), then the objects causing the images. Finally, he is able to see the sun itself. The sun represents the form, and it has taken a great deal for the prisoner to be able to see it. Plato talks about how the prisoner wants to share all he has learned with his friends. When he goes back into the cave, at first he is blinded again, this time by the darkness of the cave. Once his eyes adjust again to the fire, he returns to the other prisoners. Again, he is temporarily blinded. The other prisoners tease him because he can no longer see the images. And, when he tries to explain to them what is behind them and what exists outside of the cave, they ridicule him for talking such nonsense. The Divided Line and the Cave are two of the metaphors Plato uses to describe his Theory of Knowledge.

How we know plato and socrates

Plato, known as the "father" of western Philosophy, lived in Greece over 2,500 years ago. He was a student of Socrates, and we know Socrates through Plato. But, they did not start at zero; rather, they built their thoughts and ideas on the work of the Presocratics - ancient Greek thinkers who came before Socrates, roughly from the end of the seventh century B.C.E. to the middle of the fourth century B.C.E.

Argument form (process by which one offers reasons to believe in a position, 1-9 are premises, 10 is conclusion) Example

Question: Should Lone Star College System (LSCS) require all its students to buy a meal plan? 1) LSCS's job is to help its students. 2) Requiring all students to buy a meal plan will help LSCS students. 3) LSCS has traditional and nontraditional students. 4) Traditional college students (right from high school) frequently do not eat properly. 5) Nontraditional college students often juggle school with work and/or family and, hence, often do not have the time to eat properly. 6) Requiring all students to buy a meal plan will assure that all students eat at least one quality meal each day. 7) Evidence shows that students who eat at least one quality meal per day perform better than students who do not. 8) Students who perform better get better grades and better jobs. 9) If its students get better grades and better jobs, then LSCS does its job better. _______ tf 10) Yes, LSCS should require all its students to buy a meal plan.

Presocratics and old philosophers beliefs

The change began in Miletus (present day Turkey) with the birth of reason. The people used observation and reason and looked to nature, instead of myths, for explanations. They looked to the cycle of the four basic elements: air, earth, fire, and water. Although these all interrelate, they cannot all come from each other. This led the Milesians to the question "What came first?". Thales (around 580 B.C.E.), known as the father of Philosophy, answered that water came first. When you look at a river versus a desert, it is clear that water is a lifegiver and surrounds everything. This reduction to water is sort of like the later reduction to atoms. According to Palmer, 'reductionism' is "a method of explanation that takes an object that confronts us on the surface as being one kind of thing and shows that the object can be reduced to a more basic kind of thing at a deeper but less obvious level of analysis." Palmer, Looking At Philosophy, pp. 16-17. This was the first that a position was based on argumentable grounds - it was criticizable (quasi-scientific). Anaximander (around 610-546 B.C.E.) criticized Thales. According to Anaximander, water was no better than the other three - they all come into being from their opposites. As something that comes first cannot have an opposite, none of the four elements qualifies. Anaximander believed that what came first was this unlimited, boundless stuff that he called Apeiron. Anaximenes (around 545 B.C.E.) wondered how you could get the world out of Apeiron - so, he returned to the elemental cycle and argued that air came first. Life can be breathed into someone using air, fire is rarified air, water is condensed air, etc. Anaximenes continued Thales reductionism, concluding that everything is air. These three Philosophers - Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes - made up the first school of Philosophy, known as the Milesians. According to Palmer, all three were 1) looking for a simpler explanation; 2) relying on observation; 3) committed to naturalism; and, 4) believed in monism (the view that there is only one kind of "stuff"). Palmer, Looking At Philosophy, p. 24. According to Pythagoras (around 572-500 B.C.E.), all things are numbers. He was a mathematician (anticipating Euclid on geometry), as well as a Numerologist (believing in the mystical significance of numbers). Pythagoras distinguished the arithmetic (unit) from the geometric (point) - number from numeral. These theoretical distinctions demonstrate the shift that was taking place, wherein respect for the strong (strength) was shifting toward respect for the smart (intellect). Xenophanes (around 570 B.C.E.) continued the reductionism and believed that all things are earth. Heraclitus (around 470 B.C.E.), on the other hand, claimed that all things are fire. In addition, Heraclitus said that you "can't step in the same river twice.", distinguishing water from form. If you step in a river and step out, the next time you step into the river, you will be stepping into the same river (form); however, all the water you had stepped into previously is now downstream, so you are stepping into all new water, a different river (water). This distinction demonstrated important conceptual advancement. Parmenides (around 515-440 B.C.E.) argued that there is no "nothing". You can say that something exists - "it is" - but you cannot deny that. To say "it is not" proves that "it is". Unless something exists, you cannot attribute to it nonexistence; if you think of it, it must exist. For example, in the statement "Santa Claus does not exist", the predicate, "does not exist", picks out and says something about the subject of the sentence, Santa Claus. You cannot think of nothing. Parmenides also believed that there is no motion. Zeno of Elea (around 490 B.C.E.) was a student of Parmenides. Through his paradoxes, Zeno tried to support Parmenides's claim that there is no motion. If there were motion, according to Zeno, one would never be able to get to where one is going. With these paradoxes, Zeno introduces the notion of infinity. Here is a video showing one of Zeno's paradoxes, Achilles and the Tortoise: http://lscsproxy.lonestar.edu/login?url=http://digital.films.com.lscsproxy.lonestar.edu/play/QNJFNA (let me know if you have difficulties accessing the video). Empedocles (around 440 B.C.E.) was a pluralist (anti-monism). He believed that there is motion and proposed four roots and two forces to explain movement. Anaxagoras (around 500-428 B.C.E.) argued that what came first was a new, pure substance called "Nous" (mind). He replaced Empedocles's roots with "infinite seeds" and his forces with Nous. Democritus (around 460-370 B.C.E.) was an Atomist - that is, he believed that the world is composed of material bodies composed of groups of atoms (atomon, meaning "indivisible"). According to Democritus, void (or emptiness) is not the same thing as nonexistence. He believed that Parmenides was incorrect and that empty space and motion are real. According to Democritus, Parmenides failed to distinguish "nothing" from "no thing".

Mind-Body

The first topic in Philosophy of Mind that we are studying is the Mind-Body problem. You have physical characteristics - for example, you are a certain height, you have a certain hair color and eye color, etc. You also have mental characteristics - you are smart, you may be funny, etc. How do these physical and mental characteristics fit together? How are the mind and body related? They do seem to causally interact, but how - how does mental stuff cause a reaction in the physical and vice versa? I may want to pet the cat, but how does that desire cause my hand to extend and run over the fur? And, how does the feeling of the fur against my hand bring about relaxing mental thoughts? The two main answers to the Mind-Body problem are monism and dualism. Dualism is the view that there are two different kinds of things, mental (mind) and physical (body). Although all dualists believe that these two different kinds of things exist, there are different dualist theories (depending on how the theory explains the interaction between the mental and the physical). However, all dualist theories are faced with the problem of interaction - that is, the problem of explaining how the mental causes the physical and the physical causes the mental. The other main answer to the Mind-Body problem is monism. As the name suggests, according to monists, there only exists one kind of thing. Mind and body are really only one kind of thing. As we saw earlier, Bishop Berkeley was a monist, as he believed that everything is mental (ideas). Carruthers, a physicalist, believes that everything is physical. There are a number of different monist theories, depending on what the view holds that one thing to be. Although monist theories avoid the problem of interaction, all monist views have to explain why we have two ways of describing that one thing (if everything is physical, why do we have such an elaborate mental vocabulary, and vice versa?). And, different theories have differing answers to that question. Carruthers is a physicalist/materialist - a monist view that the only thing that exists is physical or material. Specifically, Carruthers argues for mind-brain identity. He states that "descriptions of our mental states, on the one hand, and some descriptions of our brain states, on the other, are in fact descriptions of the very same things." Carruthers, p. 210. Scientists have started mapping our brains. So, they know, for example, that a certain physical state (perhaps stimulation of neuron X) causes a certain mental state (perhaps the sensation of smelling lemon). Even though this "map" is far from complete, great progress has been made, and theorists like Carruthers believe that it is only a matter of time before it will be complete. At that point, there will be no need for the mental version. According to Caruthers, then, all that exists is the physical or material.

Ring

The primary question posed by the Ring of Gyges is "Why be moral?". In this example, Glaucon represents the voice of the masses (the common thinking). He believes that it is our nature to be unjust and ego-centered. According to Glaucon, anyone who is given the opportunity would do what Gyges did. He believes that the reason why we follow the guidelines of justice or morality is that we are afraid of being wronged without redress. So, we accept the limitations of justice in order to protect ourselves. Justice is simply a preventative measure - but, if we can get away with doing wrong, we do not need to follow it ourselves. Plato (Socrates), on the other hand, believes that our nature is to be just. It is our love of justice itself, not fear of punishment, that motivates the just. Plato/Socrates disagrees with Glaucon on two questions: 1) Why be moral? and 2) What is human nature? According to Glaucon, the answer to the first question is prudence and fear; Plato, however, believes that it is the nature of being human. Concerning human nature, Glaucon believes it to be self-serving and bad egoistic, while Plato believes it to be good - more specifically, to be fully human is to be just. Glaucon continues, arguing that the unjust person is good at doing wrong while having the reputation of being just - the unjust person wants to be unjust yet appear just. He proposes that we imagine the just person as unjust - otherwise, we would not know if he is truly just or just because of what he receives for appearing so. According to Glaucon, the Ring of Gyges demonstrates that no one is just willingly. There is more profit in injustice. What do you think about the conundrum posed by the Ring of Gyges? If you had such a ring, would you be moral?

Evaluating deductive arguments (Valid and Sound)

Valid: the conclusion follows from (or, is implied by) the premises. Truth and validity are independent - this is very important to remember. In the last example, the conclusion ("Socrates has wings") does follow from the premises, so the argument is valid. It does not matter that the conclusion is false - truth is independent of an analysis of the validity of an argument. Sound: valid argument and if all the premises are true. So, when analyzing an argument, first look to see if the argument is valid. If not, the analysis is over. If it is valid, check to see if the argument is sound (that is, determine if all the premises are true).

Learning Activity 6.6

What is 'consciousness'? We believe that we are conscious but that a tree is not. What about a chimp? A dog? Can we build a machine that has consciousness (simply a silicon, rather than carbon, based conscious being)? When I experience something, the qualia of my experience is subjective; that is, it is only accessible by me. When I look at some grass, I have an experience of seeing green. When you look at the grass, you also have an experience of seeing green. We both agree that the experience we are having is called seeing green. But, how do I know that when you look at the grass, you are having the same experience that I am when I look at the grass? We both have been taught that when we have that kind of visual experience, it is the experience referred to as seeing green. But, although we agree on that, how do I know that your experience is the same as mine? When you look at the grass, you may have the experience that I do when I look at something, say, purple - but, you have been taught that that experience is called seeing green. We look at the same thing, we have been taught the same name for the experience, but we have no way of knowing whether the experiences are indeed the same. We will always agree that we are seeing green when we have that experience, but you might be seeing my experience of purple instead of what I experience when I see green. This demonstrates the subjective character of experience. In "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?", Nagel is trying to show that there is something missing in the physicalist's account. He is not saying that physicalism is wrong - simply that consciousness is a problem for physicalist theories of mind. 'Consciousness', for Nagel, is the "what it is like to be" that being. It is the subjective character of experience. This subjective character of experience is subjective - that is, it is connected with a single point of view (whereas objective are accessible to many). Nagel uses bats as his example because bats, like us, are mammels - but, they have something that we do not, namely sonar echolocation. We can imagine ourselves hanging upside down, having webbed arms, and so forth. In doing so, however, all we are imagining is what it would be like for us to be a bat - not what it is like for the bat to be a bat. Imagining what it might be like for us to have and use sonar echolocation does not give us understanding of what it is like for the bat. We cannot understand the bat's experience using sonar. It is a subjective experience, accessible only from the bat's point of view. Although we may try, intellectually, to understand using sonar echolocation, we do not have access to the bat's experience using echolocation. This subjective point of view is what Nagel believes is consciousness. The problem, for the physicalist, is that this subjective character of experience is irreducible. As we saw with Carruthers, physicalists believe that all mental is reducible to physical. Given enough time, according to the physicalists, we will have a map of the mental reduced onto the physical. But, as Nagel points out, this subjective character of experience is not reducible to the physical. It is tied to a single point of view, and, as such, cannot be be captured objectively (or, reduced). So, physicalism is missing something. Although we may be able to eventually explain all mental in terms of the physical, according to Nagel, we will never be able to explain (or reduce) consciousness. This subjective character of experience - what it is like to be a bat for the bat - is not reducible. My experience of seeing green is a subjective experience. Trying to reduce that to a physical explanation is like trying to explain what the color green looks like to someone who is blind. Or, trying to explain what a lemon smells and tastes like to someone who never has encountered one. Nagel is not saying that physicalism is wrong; he is simply pointing out that this subjective experience is not reducible. If physicalism is to succeed, it has to be able to explain consciousness. Currently, physicalism's reductionism is unable to account for this. "Star Witness," by Colin Allen, raises the question of animal consciousness. The article runs through the various arguments for and against presenting Chiapa to the jury. Be sure that you understand these arguments. Is language required for consciousness? Why is it that when I hear certain sounds from you and presume that you mean what I think those sounds mean, it is acceptable; but, when I hear those sounds from Chiapa and presume that he means what I think those sounds mean, I am anthropomorphizing? If I treat him differently, am I being anthropocentric? Although Chiapa's story is fictionalized, the African Grey Parrot mentioned in the article - Alex, who worked with Dr. Irene Pepperberg - was an amazing creature. I highly recommend the book she wrote about her time with Alex (for lay audiences): Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence--and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process http://hcpl.ent.sirsi.net/client/en_US/http:/search/results/?ln=en_US&q=Alex+Irene+Pepperberg&rw=0 http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Me-Scientist-Discovered-Intelligence--/dp/0061673986/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410149712&sr=1-1&keywords=alex+and+me