Philosophy Exam 3

POSSIBLE RESPONSES ARGUMENTS FROM EVIL Alexander Pope

"Partial evil is universal good" Good cannot exist without evil.

Plantinga: Omnipotence means

"no non-logical limits"

In Perry's dialogue, this theory of personal identity is proposed, which emphasizes the fact that people exist over time. It is supported by Einstein's views about our 'wormy' essence.

"person stages" or four- dimensional identity

Cohen: OK, my theory does not guarantee the possibility of survival after death. But it certainly matches our intuitions:

- 1. I can tell who I am without looking at my own body. -2. I think the properties of a person that most matter are psychological: personality, convictions, beliefs, aspirations, etc.

ARGUMENTS FROM EVIL Hick's Version

1. If God is all-good, then he would want to abolish evil. 2. If God is all-powerful, then he is able to abolish evil. 3. If God wants and is able to abolish evil, then evil cannot exist. 4. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not both all-good and all- powerful.

FREE WILL THEODICY

1. If God is all-good, then he would want to abolish evil. 2. If God is all-powerful, then he is able to abolish evil. 3. If God wants and is able to abolish evil, then evil cannot exist. 4. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not both all-good and all-powerful. *Because there is free will within humans, evil exists; you cannot have good w/o evil*

ARGUMENTS FROM EVIL Mackie's Version

1.God is all-good. 2.God is all-powerful. 3.Good is opposed to evil (a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can). 4.Being all-powerful means there are no limits to what you can do. 5.Evil exists. Therefore, an all-good and all-powerful being does not exist.

aporia

A sense of puzzlement and a lack of resolution. Many Platonic dialogues end this way.

free will theodicy

According to this argument, our ability to make our own decisions requires that there are no fewer than a billion people starving or malnourished today.

Omnipotence

All powerful

Omnibenevolence

All-good

Brain duplicaation

An exact psychological duplicate is produced by scanning the brain and inserting all the psychological states into another brain.

Persistence = Psychological Continuity * Thought experiment objection to Bodily Continuity

Cohen's objection (brain transplant): Julia's brain is transplanted into Mary's body. The survivor of the operation is Julia.

MACKIE'S REPLY

Couldn't an all-powerful being create us in such a way that we always freely choose good? The fact that I don't do X, doesn't mean I wasn't free to do it. "will not" is different from "cannot"

POSSIBLE RESPONSES ARGUMENTS FROM EVIL St. Augustine

Evil is a "privation" of good

In a valid argument the premises logically support the conclusion: • if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Example: All frogs are reptiles. (F) *Andrew is a frog.* (F) Andrew is a reptile. Valid

Weirob's View

I am a human body that is alive and has certain mental capacities. - Persistence = BodilyContinuity

Denying the Antecedent (DA) & Affirming the Consequent (AC)

INVALID

Modus Ponens (MP)

P ➔ Q P ---------- Q

Affirming the Consequent (AC)

P ➔ Q Q --------- P

Denying the Antecedent (DA)

P ➔ Q ~ P ---------- ~ Q

Modus Tollens (MT)

P ➔ Q ~ Q ---------- ~ P

Cohen's revised account of real memory

Real memory + lack of competition is enough for survival. • Weirob: identity becomes dependent on things extrinsic to a person (i.e., the existence or non-existence of other people). - "Either I'm Gretchen, or God created more than one like me, and none of us is." - "God can create the person in Heaven before I die. Eitherthat person is me, or she's my competitor: in either case, I'm no longer Gretchen."

Weirob's objection to Person-Stages and 4-D space-time worm

Some people claim to be Napoleon and remember losing the battle of Waterloo. - Weirob: they merely seem to remember; they don't actually remember. * to tell between someone who merely seems to remember my thoughts and someone who actually remembers them, we need to know whether that person is me. Thus, the condition is thus circular.

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If the MOON is full, then we should HOWL. (T) We shouldn't howl. (T) The moon isn't full.

Sound

persistence conditions

The conditions under which an object continues to exist over time.

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

The following statements are inconsistent (they cannot all be true at the same time) 1. God is omnibenevolent. (all-good) 2. God is omniscient. (all-knowing) 3. God is omnipotent. (all-powerful) 4. Evil exists.

omnibenevolence

The property of being perfectly morally good.

Paradox of omnipotence

The question, "can God create a mountain so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is an example of this problem or puzzle.

theodicy

The technical term for a defense against the problem of evil.

induction (or inductive reasoning/inference)

This form of reasoning involves projecting future events on the basis of past experience (and past regularities).

abduction (abductive reasoning/inference)

This form of reasoning, often called an inference to the best explanation, involves accepting a conclusion because it does the best job of explaining some observed phenomena.

PLANTINGA'S FREE WILL DEFENSE

Transworld Depravity: It's possible that every human being would perform some evil act no matter what world God creates. Therefore, it is possible that God could not have created moral good without also creating moral evil. Implications: Omnipotence should not be taken literally. There are logical limits (i.e., God cannot create a round square. So what?) It is possible that God's properties are consistent with the existence of evil.

qualitative identity

Two objects that have all the same features or qualities are identical in this way.

Modus Ponens (MP) & Modus Tollens (MT)

VALID

Weirob on Real Memory

Weirob: God could create two persons with the same memories, who are connected in the same way to me.

Person-Stages Miller's Revised View

Whole composed of appropriately connected "person-stages," or "stretches of consciousness." Miller (Locke): memory -A later stage contains memories of (the thoughts, feelings, etc.) of an earlier one. *Connection to Physics* -Einstein says you are a 4-dimensional space-time worm

Analogical inference Weirob

You can't prove sameness of soul, even in your own case! • Maybe you get a new, psychologically similar, soul every 5 minutes, etc.

According to Plantinga, this is an example of something an omnipotent being cannot do. (There are many correct answers. You can't use an example I've given in class.)

[an example of something logically impossible, or self-contradictory] - Round Square - God being able to create a large enough rock that he can't carry it. However, if he can't carry it he isn't all powerful and if he can't create the rock then he still isn't all powerful. - Could God create a mountain that he cannot lift?

• Who am I? Weirob

a body

• Who am I? Miller

a soul

Which Informal Fallacy is this an example of? "Smith's views about economics are definitely false - he's so ugly!"

ad hominem

Mackie: There's no such thing as

an Omnipotent being

This fallacy assumes that what's natural is moral and what's unnatural is immoral.

appeal to nature

Which Informal Fallacy is this an example of? "Our drug laws are perfectly justified. After all, they've been in place for over two decades already."

appeal to tradition

Which Informal Fallacy is this an example of? "Banning GMOs is the right move. After all, genetically modified organisms are dangerous and should not be sold anywhere."

begging the question

Which informal fallacy is this an example of? "The Astros are going to win the World Series in 2018. After all, the other 29 teams are going to fall short of winning the championship."

begging the question

Problem for Weirob:

bodily identity seems irrelevant to personal identity. -I can imagine myself waking up in a different body.

Weirob: A similar personality (over time) may only be evidence of a similar,

but non-identical, soul.

Which Informal Fallacy is this an example of? "If you're not with us, you're against us."

false dilemma

Validity

if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If the CANADIANS build a wall, the U.S. will pay for it. (T) The U.S. will pay for it. (T) The Canadians build a wall.

invalid

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If the COFFEE is hot, the DONUTS are sugary. (T) The coffee isn't hot. (T) The donuts aren't surgary.

invalid

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If you're HAPPY and you know it, CLAP your hands. (T) You aren't happy. (T) You don't clap your hands.

invalid

A sound argument

is valid and has all true premises Example of Sound Argument All frogs are amphibians. (T) *Tree frogs are frogs.* (T) Tree frogs are amphibians.

John Locke believed that this aspect of one's psychology is the most fundamental aspect of personal identity.

memory

Cohen's suggestion: Real memory

memory that was caused in the right way by past events. - Miller: a person in Heaven is you if her memories were caused in the appropriate way by past events (through God's intervention).

Miller: The Soul Survives Miller invokes Cartesian dualism

mind (or soul) and body are distinct substances. • The soul is non-physical; it cannot be seen, heard, touched, etc. • According to Miller, when the body dies, the soul survives.

Andrew Chau at age 5 and the professor of this class are identical in this way.

numerically (numerical identity)

Miller argues that one's soul causes

one's psychological characteristics (call this one's 'personality'). He takes sameness of personality to be evidence for sameness of soul.

Leibniz's Law: numerical identity entails

qualitative identity.

Under what conditions do I continue to exist (or survive)? -Also called 'persistence conditions Miller: ____________ Weirob: _________________

same soul same body

Problem for Miller:

soul identity seems irrelevant to personal identity. - and epistemic problems

Which Informal Fallacy is this an example of? "Sanders is clearly wrong on domestic issues; as a socialist he wants to bring an end to all private property ownership!"

straw-man

omniscience

the state of knowing everything.

Straw Man

to Misrepresent an opposing view (simply or weakly) so that it is easy to reject

False Dilemma

to assume only two choices or alternatives exist (aka, the either/or fallacy)

Bandwagon

to assume something is true because many people favor it or believe that it is true

Appeal to tradition

to assume that the usual or traditional view must be the right view

Appeal to Nature

to assume that what is natural is good, and what is unnatural is bad

Begging the Question

to assume the truth of your conclusion; simply to restate the conclusion in other language (instead of supplying evidence or reasons)

False Cause

to assume there is causation, where there may only be correlation (or coincidence)

Ad Hominem

to attack a person rather than their argument

Red Herring

to shift attention to an irrelevant issue as a distraction

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If you like PARADOXES, you'll love LOGIC. (T) You like paradoxes. (F) You'll love logic.

valid but not sound

Sound, valid but not sound, or invalid: If you're afraid of DOCTORS, you should eat more APPLES. (F) You shouldn't eat more apples. (F) You aren't afraid of doctors.

valid but not sound

A good argument will be

valid, sound, and avoid fallacious reasoning

Miller revises his view -Gives up soul-identity -Instead,

we are "person-stages" -Relevance of *memory* to personal identity - You remember being 5 so that was you

Numerical Identity

x and y are numerically identical iff they are one and the same. - But numerical identity is consistent with different properties at different times.

Qualitative Identity

x and y are qualitatively identical iff they have exactly the same properties. • Ex., two boxes of Kleenex

Possible ≠ Probable

• A high probability is stronger than required; logical possibility is a probability > 0.

Weirob gives some conditions for survival. If I will survive my death, then

• I can anticipate my future existence. • After dying, I will remember my life and it will make sense for me to feel pride, regret, etc., about my past. • After dying, there will be someone who (at least) thinks and reasons and is me.

Analogical inference Miller

• I know from direct experience that my body always has the same soul (my soul). • Other people are similar to me in all salient respects. • I can infer that their bodies, like mine, always have the same soul.

Miller believes that a soul is always connected with exactly one body on Earth. How does he know this?

• Inductive Inference: Every time I see A, I see B; therefore, the next time I see A, I can infer that B. • Cupcake example: each one with a swirl has caramel inside. • Does this work with the "same body, same soul" hypothesis?

Philosophical arguments:

• Offer reasons (premises, evidence) in support of a conclusion • Do not merely assert or deny that something is true Include: • Well-supported reasons • Explicit connections between reasons and conclusions • Carefully articulated explanations

Brain duplicaation Weirob: Does that preserve personal identity? - Dilemma (whether we say 'yes' or 'no' there are problems) *YES?*

• Problem: we can make more than one duplicate. • We thus encounter the same problems we faced with life in Heaven.

Brain duplicaation Weirob: Does that preserve personal identity? - Dilemma (whether we say 'yes' or 'no' there are problems) *NO?*

• Suppose we produce A-Gretchen by brain transplant, and B-Gretchen by brain duplication. - 1. Neither can know who she is "without opening her eyes." - 2. Since neither is more like me than the other, it doesn't seem that I (Gretchen) should have a special concern with one I don't have with the other. The only difference is that one has my brain, but this doesn't seem to be what matters (on Miller's view) for personal identity. • If Gretchen's view entails an irrational attachment to one's body, Miller's view entails an irrational attachment to one's brain.

Personal Identity What's at Stake?

• The possibility of surviving the death of one's body. Possibility as 'conceivability'

What satisfies Weirob's requirements for survival? After her death:

• There exists a being that is qualitatively identical to her, or • There exists a being that is numerically identical to her? She wants numerically identical!