FINAL EXAM PHILOS
Which one of the following demonstrates that a cause does not have to be sufficient for its effect?
Flipping the light switch caused the lamp to go on, but flipping the switch would not have caused the lamp to go on if the lamp had not contained a light bulb.
According to Existentialism, a person's awareness and acknowledgement that God does not exist and we, alone, make our world leads to
Forlornness
In James's discussion of chance, he makes an analogy between chances and:
Gifts
Determinism is the thesis that...
Given a complete account of how things are at one time, there is only one possible way they can be at a later time.
Determinism is the doctrine that:
Given the total cause of any event the event could not have failed to occur (i.e., it had to occur).
According to Mill's version of Utilitarianism, "the utilitarian standard" of morality is captured by the __________ Principle.
Greatest Happiness
Aristotle on hapiness
Happiness is according to Aristotle the highest good because it is something final,end of the action and self-sufficient. We choose it for itself, not for the sake of something else.
According to Mill, in order to judge which of two pleasures possesses the greatest value, you must
Have experience of both.
Why does Camus consider Sisyphus to be a "true hero of the absurd"?
He is conscious of life's meaninglessness.
Which of the following does Camus associate with the "act of eluding"?
Hope
According to Aristotle, the difference between humans and other living things is
How we go about pursuing our goals.
The philosophical problem of free will, as described in the course content and videos, is that...
Human experience would suggest that we all have free will, yet there are compelling arguments that we do not.
Which of the following is not one of Camus's three consequences of living the absurd?
Humility
"If you want to be trusted, you should always tell the truth" is an example of a:
Hypothetical Imperative
Aristotle's ethics and forming the right habits.
In Aristotle's words, "we are adapted by nature to receive [virtues] and are made perfect by habit" We acquire the virtue of justness by repeatedly taking just actions, the virtue of temperance by being temperate, and so on.
Where do we find the absurd?
In the relationship between human reason and the world.
Aristotle's ethics and instrumental goods.
Instrumental goods, are goods that are not chosen for their own sake, but rather, for the sake of others. It is these instrumental goods that fall subject to our desires. If every good were desired for the sake of another, one would never be able to give an account for what they are ultimately aiming to achieve.
Mill presents a number of possible objections to Utilitarianism. All of the following are objections he mentions except:
It desensitizes people and makes them cold and unsympathetic.
To say that an explanation is teleological is to say that
It explains something in terms of its purpose or goal.
According to Aristotle, the rational part of our soul has all the following characteristics except:
It has the greatest external needs.
Which aspect of Sisyphus's fate differs from his life?
It is a futile struggle.
According to Aristotle, the life of contemplation is best for all of the following reasons except:
It is the most useful.
John Stuart Mill argues that "happiness" is what we ought to aim for because
It is what everyone, in fact, aims for.
According to Kant, making false promises is wrong for all of the following reasons except
It violates divine law.
According to Aristotle, discovering the mean between two vices is a matter of
Judgement within a specific situation for a specific person.
Kant and categorical imperatives.
Kant defines categorical imperatives as commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances.
According to Mill's version of Utilitarianism, which of the following would be considered a "higher" pleasure (for an adult)?
Learning a foreign language
The definition of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics. In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position that argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe.
Libertarians like Richard Taylor describe us as having free will, at least in certain situations or with certain conditions. What would be the necessary conditions for us to know we are acting freely?
Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, and agents have free will. They therefore deny that causal determinism is true. There are three major categories of libertarians. Event-causal libertarians believe that free actions are indeterministically caused by prior events. Agent-causal libertarians believe that agents indeterministically cause free actions. Non-causal libertarians typically believe that free actions are constituted by basic mental actions, such as a decision or choice. What does it mean to say that one is free? This question is obviously a bridge between metaphysics and ethics, for we normally only ascribe merit and blame to free actions, and we normally only engage in ethical or moral deliberation concerning actions that are in our control. Certainly, to say that a person's actions were free means to say that the person himself was the sole author of the act. That is, the act originates from within the person. But usually more is thought to be involved in free action. One of the most common views is the following: A person p is free if and only if p has a choice of actions at some time and, in retrospect, we can say "p could have done otherwise."
Which of the following did Sisyphus NOT do?
Make love to the goddess Aphrodite
John Stuart Mill and higher quality pleasures.
Mill posited three distinct sources of higher pleasure: (1) acts involving intellectual complexity (2) acts engaging the aesthetic imagination; and (3) acts engaging the moral sentiments. The most straightforwardly applicable of these categories to sport is intellectual complexity.
According to Aristotle, how one is raised is of great importance because
Morality is a matter of habit.
In libertarian views that believe in free will, it is not argued that:
My biology and genetics are unavoidably determining my choices
Scientism and Naturalism in the free will debate.
Naturalism and Free Will: Naturalism in philosophy, as it is in science, is the search for explanations that involve only Nature, ones that in particular do not involve supernatural ideas Scientism: : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
Baron d'Holbach can best be described as a:
Naturalist
According to Kant, a characteristic essential to the concept "law" is
Necessity
Consider the example of touching a hot plate and pulling your hand back without even thinking about it. Would d'Holbach describe this as a free action? Why or why not?
No, he would not describe this as a free action because according to d'Holbach free action is independent of physical cause. Since the pulling of the hand is a reflex action to physical stimuli of a hot plate and the reflex action is controlled by the spinal cord i.e. physical neurons present in the central nervous system, it is not under the category of free will.
According to Aquinas, an infinite regress (an infinite backward series) of efficient causes would mean...
Nothing would ever happen.
Which philosophers used versions of the design argument to prove God exists.
One of its first philosophically rigorous expressions was in Saint Thomas Aquinas' (1225-74) 'Fifth Way. ' However, the most famous articulation of the argument from design came from English philosopher William Paley (1743-1805) in his Natural Theology (1802).
Carefully explain and analyze the ontological argument of Anselm. What criticisms have Gaunilo and others brought to bear against this argument? Is Anselm's argument convincing? If so, why? If not, why not?
Ontological argument is a argument that returns from the possibility of God to the truth of God. It was first obviously planned by St. Anselm; a later popular rendition is given by Rene Descartes. Anselm started with the idea of God as that than which nothing more noteworthy can be considered. To consider such a being as existing just in suspected and not additionally actually includes a logical inconsistency, since a being that needs genuine presence isn't a being than which none more prominent can be imagined. A yet more prominent being would be unified with the further characteristic of presence. Accordingly the amazingly wonderful being should exist; else it would not be phenomenally great. This is among the most talked about and challenged argument throughout the entire existence of thought. One of the soonest recorded issues with Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He welcomed his peruser to imagine an island more excellent than some other island. He proposed that, as per Anselm's evidence, this island should fundamentally exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent. Gaunilo's analysis doesn't expressly show a blemish in Anselm's contention; rather, it contends that in case Anselm's argument is sound, so are numerous different arguments of the same logical structure, which can't be accepted. He offered a further analysis of Anselm's ontological argument, recommending that the thought of God can't be considered, as Anselm had attested. He contended that many theists would acknowledge that God, naturally, can't be completely grasped. Accordingly, if people can't completely imagine God, the ontological argument can't work. Anselm reacted to Gaunilo's analysis by contending that the argument applied uniquely to ideas with necessary presence. He proposed that lone a being with vital presence can satisfy the transmit of "that than which nothing more noteworthy can be considered. Besides, an unforeseen article, like an island, could generally be improved and in this way would never arrive at a condition of flawlessness. Therefore, Anselm excused any argument that didn't identify with a being with essential presence.
According to Kant, "autonomy" refers to
Our ability to make and obey laws for ourselves.
A hard determinist believes that...
Our actions are completely determined and therefore we have no free will
Consider the following premises and determine the conclusion: If our actions are free, then we must be able to act differently from the way we do act. Our beliefs and desires cause our behaviors. If our beliefs and desires cause our behaviors, then we cannot act differently from the ways we do act. If our actions are free, then we can act differently from the ways we do act.
Our actions are not free.
What is Pascal's wager? What sort of argument does Pascal give for believing in God? Is this the "right" sort of reason to believe in God, or are there better reasons to hold such a belief? How might William James or W.K. Clifford respond to his argument? What arguments does James or Clifford make about the evidence needed to hold a belief? From their perspectives, does Pascal provide a rational reason for belief in God? .Develop an argument to defend your position on Pascal's wager, using specific arguments and ideas from James and Clifford to support your position.
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the name for a thought that Blaise Pascal had. He said that it is preposterous to expect to demonstrate or invalidate that God exists. Subsequently, it is smarter to wager that God exists. In the event that God existed, and the individual put stock in God, he would be remunerated (with bliss perpetually); if the individual didn't accept, he would be rebuffed (with what is called endless perdition). On the off chance that God didn't exist it would have no effect. Thus, it is smarter to put stock in God, Pascal said. In reality, Pascal firmly put stock in this great. Pascal's contention is a straightforward one: reason and mind can't choose whether or not God exists or not; subsequently, it's a good idea to pick the choice that would profit us most should we be correct. Likewise, the choices would be as per the following: 1. You may carry on with a strict and good life and be compensated by endless satisfaction. 2. You may carry on with a delight looking forever and be denied endless bliss. 3. You may carry on with a heavenly life however there is in reality no God or interminable life. 4. You may carry on with a joy looking forever yet it has no effect in light of the fact that there is no God. For Pascal, the first of these alternatives is the main one since it addresses the most extreme increase and misfortune. Regardless of whether it should turn out that there is no God, the sheer danger of ruling against such a chance warrants that we should take that choice. A Reason for Believing in God There are two sorts of contention for belief in higher powers. Conventional, epistemic contentions hold that God exists; models incorporate contentions from cosmology, plan, metaphysics, and experience. Present day, down to earth contentions hold that, whether or not God exists, having confidence in God is useful for us, or is the proper thing to do; models incorporate William James' will to accept and Blaise Pascal's bet. Pascal — French scholar, researcher, mathematician and likelihood scholar (1623-1662) — contends that assuming we don't know whether God exists, we should avoid any and all risks as opposed to chance being heartbroken. The contention comes in three adaptations (Hacking 1972), every one of them utilizing choice hypothesis. For the individuals who are new to choice hypothesis, the thought can be represented by thinking about a lottery. Assume there are 100 tickets at $1 each and a big stake of $1000. Is it normal to play? On the off chance that you all out the profit and the costs for every one of the tickets ($1000 - $100), then, at that point partition by the quantity of tickets, you track down that on normal each ticket nets $9. In correlation, not playing includes zero cost and zero result. Since $9 is desirable over $0, it is normal to play. Then again, assume there are 1000 tickets costing $2 each, a fantastic prize of $1000, and an incidental award of $500. Then, at that point the all out profit and costs ($1500 - $2000), separated by the quantity of tickets, yields a total deficit of fifty pennies for the normal ticket. For this situation, except if you have some motivation to accept that a given ticket isn't normal, playing the game is unreasonable. To put the matter all the more by and large: a given activity (say, purchasing a ticket) is related with a bunch of potential results (say, winning the great prize, winning the incidental award, or losing); every result has a specific worth or "utility" (the utility of winning may be the worth of the prize less the expense of the ticket); the "assumption" for every result is equivalent to its utility increased by the likelihood of its occurrence; the assumption for a given activity is the amount of the assumptions for every conceivable related result. The game-plan having the most extreme assumption is the reasonable one to follow. a. The Super-Dominance Argument Pascal starts with an in pairs lattice: either God exists or doesn't, and possibly you accept or don't. Assuming God exists, theists will appreciate unceasing delight (cell), some time skeptics will experience endless punishment (cell b). In the event that God doesn't exist, theists will appreciate limited bliss before they kick the bucket (say 250 units worth), and agnostics will appreciate limited joy as well, however less in light of the fact that they will encounter anxiety as opposed to the solaces of religion. Whether or not God exists, then, at that point, theists have it better than skeptics; consequently faith in God is the most objective conviction to have. b. The Expectations Argument Imagine a scenario in which the agnostic is a glad libertine, or then again if the theist is a hopeless puritan. All things considered the worth of cell (d) is more noteworthy than that of (c), and the predominance contention does not work anymore. Nonetheless, assuming there is a 50-50 possibility that God exists, we can compute the assumptions as follows: the assumption for putting stock in God = (positive vastness x ½) + (a limited worth x ½) = positive boundlessness; and the assumption for not accepting = (negative endlessness x ½) + (a limited worth x ½) = negative limitlessness. Henceforth it is judicious to trust in God. c. The Dominating Expectations Argument It's improbable that the likelihood of God's current is actually one-half, however this doesn't make any difference. Because of the boundless worth in cell (a), on the off chance that God's presence has any limited likelihood, the assumption for trusting in God will be endless. Moreover, this boundlessness will overwhelm the qualities in cells (b), (c), and (d), insofar as (c) isn't endlessly negative and not one or the other (b) nor (d) is limitlessly certain
According to James, arguments about determinism and indeterminism tend to be problematic because they use:
Personal Method of Appeal
According to Kant, to be able to act in accordance with rules a being must possess
Reason
One of Camus' major claims is that the world is not:
Reasonable
Quote and explain both formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative from his essay. Provide an example of an action that you feel would pass the first formulation, but would fail the second. Clearly explain what the action is and how exactly it does so, on both accounts.
"Act only on principles through which once can himself pass through same time and this must be applied as a universal law" [1] This imperative means that given a situation, one should treat and act himself in the same way as some other human being would act or respond. In other words, one should not treat themselves as exception.Morality is clearly linked with this categorical imperative. Example: I would fulfill my commitment to deliver a presentation to the client in a time pressed situation as would my manager if he had to deliver a same presentation to the client for the same product and business objective. Therefore, I would act and deliver the same way without Second "Never treat the other person as a means to an end that contradicts the principle of humanity" [1] This imperative simply means, that one should not misuse another person's circumstances or position to achieve an outcome that brings personal benefit to the first person. Example: One should not produce fake documents or speak lies in a bank loan application, merely to get their loan sanctioned by the bank and use that money to their advantage. If I have to think of an example that passes the first formulation but not the second one, I would say, one should apply for a loan following official bank's procedures and meeting the eligibility fairly to get their loan sanctioned, than to manipulate things to have their loan granted. Therefore, a bank should not be used be used as a means to achieve a successful loan application. Instead, the person should treat bank in a similar way as it would treat himself if put in a similar situation, so no exceptions allowed.
Existentialism and anguish.
"Existential angst", sometimes called existential dread, anxiety, or anguish, is a term common to many existentialist thinkers. It is generally held to be a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility.
According to Aquinas, those things "greatest in truth" are also...
"Greatest in being."
James says that a live hypothesis is
"a real possibility to someone. "
James says that a genuine option is
"forced, live, and momentous."
Sartre famously says, "Existence precedes essence." What does this mean? Explain how he uses the example of a paper cutter to help illustrate his point. What does this then require of human beings? Demonstrate that you have the right answers to these questions by directly quoting from Sartre's essay.
-According to Sartre, "Existence precedes essence" means that a person's character is not created over a pre-designed model or a specific purpose because it is the person himself who decides to act originally. -He uses a paper cutter as an example by saying that if the paper cutter had an essence, then it would mean God had a plan for it. Sartre explains it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards." -The essence of something is its meaning, its intended purpose. A paper cutter is made to cut paper; that is its point. Humans, however, do not have an essence. -We have no greater purpose, no pre-determined plan, no ultimate meaning. We have, in Sartre's words, no human nature, since there is nothing (e.g. God) outside of us which would conceive of it for us. We are simply here, and it is up to us to define ourselves. -We have choice, we have subjectivity, and we choose what we will make ourselves to be; we are entirely responsible for our existence.Thus, existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him.
In his refutation of the teleological argument, Hume argues that
-The analogy between human creations and the world is weak. -We have no other world with which to compare this one. -It supports the conclusion that God has all the limitations of human creators. (All of the above.)
According to Kant, which of the following is an unqualified good?
A good will
According to Kant, the only end that is an end in itself is
A rational being
According to Aristotle, which of the following vices is not a matter of excess or deficiency?
Adultery.
According to compatibilism, three of the claims below are true. Which one is not?
All events and choices we make are up to chance, like the behavior of sub-atomic particles.
Soft determinists or compatibilists make a distinction between actions that have internal and external causes. Give an example of each kind of cause, and discuss at least two philosophers from Unit 4 in your answer.
An action with an internal cause is one that is motivated, desired, or intended by the actor. For instance, if I decide to go for a run, the internal motivation for my behavior is the desire to exercise. An externally motivated action is one that is motivated by something other than the agent, such as another person or a physical force. If I am pushed by another person, for example, the external cause of my action is the person who pushed me. According to determinist philosophers, all acts have exogenous causes. This is because determinism holds that everything occurs as a result of preceding causes, and so there is no such thing as free will. Indeterminist philosophers would argue that certain acts have internal causes, since indeterminism allows for random and unanticipated happenings. Compatibilists argue that determinism and free will are compatible, since they believe that even though everything is determined by antecedent causes, actions may have internal reasons. For instance, if I decide to go for a run in order to get some exercise, the fact that my behavior is controlled by antecedent causes does not negate my freedom of choice. Harry Frankfurt and Daniel Dennett are two compatibilist philosophers.
According to Sartre, "Essence precedes existence" would be true of which of the following?
An alarm clock.
Which of the following is central to Aquinas' series of arguments?
An infinite regress (an infinite backward series) is impossible.
According to Aquinas, God is all of the following except...
An innate idea.
According to Paley, the source of the principle of order is...
An intelligent designer.
Who is Sisyphus?
Ancient storyteller
According to Existentialism, a person's awareness that she is solely and completely responsible for who and what she is leads to
Anguish
Discuss Aquinas's cosmological arguments and his teleological argument for the existence of God. Carefully explain and compare and contrast the five arguments. What criticisms can be brought to bear on these arguments? Which do you think is the strongest and why?
Aquina's cosmological arguments and it's teleological existence - Cosmological contention, Form of argument used in natural theology to demonstrate the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, introduced two renditions of the cosmological contention: the primary reason contention and the contention from contingency. The principal cause contention starts with the way that there is change on the planet, and a change is consistently the impact of some reason or causes. Each cause is itself the impact of a further reason or set of causes; this chain moves in a series that either never closes or is finished by a first cause, which should be of a profoundly unique nature in that it isn't itself caused. The first reason is a significant perspective, however not the sum, of what Christianity implies by God. The contention from possibility follows by another highway a comparable fundamental development of thought from the idea of the world to its definitive ground. Explanation, compare and contrast of the 5 arguments and it's details - 1. Thomas' first way includes the proof of movement. The reality, to Thomas, that each moving thing needs a mover shows that God, the Unmoved Mover, exists. The First Way: God, the Prime Mover In a principal way, God is characterized as the Prime Mover. We will allow Aquinas to represent himself in clarifying his first contention for the presence of God. The first and most show way is the contention from movement. It is sure, and clear to our faculties that on the planet a few things are moving. Presently whatever is moved will be moved by another, to no end can be moved aside from it is in the possibility to that towards which it is moved; though a thing moves while it is in the act. For movement isn't anything else than the decrease of something from probability to fact. In any case, nothing can be diminished from possibility to reality, besides by something in a condition of fact. Hence that which is really hot, as fire, makes wood, which is possibly hot, to be really hot, yet just in various regards. 2. The subsequent way includes the thought of effective aim. For the series of circumstances and end results, that we find on the planet, to bode well it should have a start. God, the First Cause, in this way exists. The Second Way: God, the First Cause. In a subsequent manner, God is characterized as the First Cause, as Aquinas expounds: The subsequent way is from the idea is productive. In the realm of reasonable things, we find there is a request for effective aims. There is no case known (nor is it, in fact, conceivable) in which a thing is discovered to be simply the productive reason; for so it is before itself, which is incomprehensible. Presently in productive causes, it is unimaginable to expect to go on to endlessness, in light of the fact that in all effective motivations continuing all together, the first is the reason for the middle reason, and the moderate is the reason for a definitive reason, regardless of whether the halfway causes be a few or one only. The second way looks sensibly clear and apparently persuading. Lamentably, for the devotee, the contention contains various defects which have permitted its total destruction by scholars David Hume and Immanuel Kant. 3. The third way takes note of that each current thing doesn't owe its reality to itself. Notwithstanding, if everything is unforeseen, there couldn't have been anything as at one time all these could be non-existent. To represent all presence, there should be a Necessary Being, God. The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being In a third manner, God is characterized as the Necessary Being. Aquinas: The third way is taken from probability and need, and runs in this manner. We find in nature things that are feasible to be and not to be, since they are discovered to be created, and to be ruined, and subsequently, it is workable for them regarding life, is there any point to it. In any case, it is outlandish for these consistently to exist, for that which cannot be, eventually isn't. In this manner, in the event that everything cannot be, at one time there was nothing in presence. Presently in case, these were valid, even presently there would be nothing in presence since that which doesn't exist starts to exists just through something previously existing. Accordingly, if at one at once in presence, it is outlandish for anything to have started to exist; subsequently even presently nothing would be in presence - which is ridiculous. 4. The fourth way shows that there exist degrees in things, for instance, more respectable and less honorable, all the more obvious or less evident. The presence of such degrees suggests the presence of an Absolute Being as a datum for everyone of this relative degree. The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being In a fourth manner, God is characterized as the Absolute Being which is utilized as a measuring stick for the estimation, all things considered: The fourth way is taken from the degree to be found in things. Among creatures, there are some more and some less great, valid, respectable, and such. However, pretty much are predicated of various things proportionately as they look like in their changed manners something which is the most extreme, as a thing is supposed to be more blazing proportionately as it all the more almost takes after that which is most sultry; so that there is something which is most genuine, something best, something noblest, and thus, something which is mostly being, for those things that are most prominent in truth is most noteworthy in being ... Presently the most extreme in any class is the reason for all in that family, as fire, which is the limit of warmth, is the reason for every single hot thing, as is said in a similar book. Accordingly, there must likewise be something which is to all creatures the reason for their being, goodness, and each and every other flawlessness; and this we call God. 5. The fifth way argues that the conduct of things on the planet suggests a Grand Designer or planner, God. The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer In a fifth manner, God is characterized as the overseer, all things considered, and measures: The fifth way is taken from the administration of the world. We see that things need information, like regular bodies, represent an end, and this is apparent from their acting consistently, or almost consistently, similarly, to get the best outcome. Subsequently, it is plain that they accomplish their end, not randomly, yet designedly. Presently whatever needs information can't move towards an end, except if it is coordinated by some being enriched with information and knowledge; as the bolt is coordinated by the bowman. Consequently, some savvy being exists by whom all regular things are coordinated to their end; and this being we call God.
Which authors in the readings defended versions of the design argument?
Aquinas and Paley.
Aristotle's ethics of virtue and excess and deficiency.
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction.
Arguments for the existence of God from Anselm, and the idea of the "a priori."
As an "a priori" argument, the Ontological Argument tries to "prove" the existence of God by establishing the necessity of God's existence through an explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being Anselm's ontological argument: an a priori proof of God's existence? A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don't need empirical evidence to know that it's true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.
Which type of existentialist is Sartre?
Atheistic existentialist.
"Man's life is a line that Nature commands" is a statement from:
Baron d'Holbach
Describe Baron d'Holbach's views on determinism. Be sure to identify his position on determinism versus free will.
Baron d'Holbach an 18th-century philosopher believed in materialism which is the basis of determinism according to this belief since all matter is subject to physical laws each action will lead to a specific reaction. Thus there is no choice or freedom of will.
Which of the following best captures the approach set forth in Pascal's Wager?
Better safe than sorry.
Examples of behavior that is coerced by some external force or person.
By external threat we mean an outside force that threatens some or all of those in a relation or structure.
Characterize Plato's story of the Ring of Gyges. What is it meant to illustrate? What are Socrates' arguments for why one should be good, even if no one else witnesses it? Directly quote Socrates' words and interpret and explain them in your answer.
Characterize Plato's story of the Ring of Gyges.: In the story, Gyges used this power of invisibility to commit unjust acts; he seduced the queen and then worked with her to create a plan to kill the king, and finally took over the kingdom. What is it meant to illustrate?: Plato illustrates here that the Ring of Gyges- invisibility and anonymity- is the only barrier between a just and an unjust person. He argues that we would all be unjust if we had a cloak of anonymity. What are Socrates' arguments for why one should be good, even if no one else witnesses it? Directly quote Socrates' words and interpret and explain them in your answer. Socrates argues that "the just (good) life is more pleasurable than the unjust life." The view is not that pleasure is good and that the just life is happier because it has more pleasure. It is that the just life is happier and that it also has more pleasure than the unjust life. So, one should be good, even if no one else witnesses it.
Who is Sisyphus?
Clever mortal who defied the gods.
According to Existentialism, a person's awareness and recognition of the limit of her power leads to
Despair
Mill draws a comparison of his theory with that of
Epicurus
According to Anselm, when the fool says that God does not exist, the fool truly understands what he is saying
False
According to Aristotle, the two parts of the human soul are the rational and non-rational.
False
According to Ruth Benedict, the best cases for illustrating the range of cultural diversity are those where one group from a culture disagrees with another group.
False
According to cultural relativists, we have moral obligations only to members of our own culture.
False
Anselm believed that God was so far beyond human reason that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of him.
False
Blaise Pascal argued that faith could be proven by reason.
False
For the following statement, indicate whether Sartre thinks it is true or false: For an Existentialist, "despair" is the result of realizing that there is nothing we can do which will have any effect.
False
For the following statement, indicate whether Sartre thinks it is true or false: When you make a choice, you choose only for yourself.
False
Gaunilo rejects Anselm's argument because he (Gaunilo) is an atheist.
False
The Euthyphro dilemma arises from ethical egoism.
False
The philosopher David Hume wrote a critique of William Paley's "Watch Argument."
False
The problem of evil concerns the following puzzle: when we stop people from engaging in evil acts, we cause the evildoer to suffer, which adds more evil to the world.
False
According to Aristotle, in a means/end relationship, the means is of greater value.
False.
The problem of evil is how to turn people from their evil ways to doing good.
False.
According to Sartre, the choices we make are not the result of how we feel because
Feelings are an inaccurate guide to what is right
Who epitomizes the absurd life?
The artist.
In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that "No code of ethics is justifiable in the face of..."
The cruel mathematics of our condition
Consider the desire to marry and have children. Is this a free choice or something that we are caused to do or driven to do? Discuss at least two philosophers from Unit 4 in your answer.
The desire to marry and have children is a free choice. It is defiantly not something that we are caused to do, or driven to do. We select our spouses and marry them in modern society everywhere. We have the freedom to marry or not marry and the power of self-determination. This aligns with Peter van Inwagen and Robert Kane views that free will'' involves the ability to do otherwise,
The problem of evil.
The logical problem of evil claims that God's omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness would completely rule out the possibility of evil and that the existence of evil would do the same for the existence of a supreme being.
Kant's ethics and maxims and universal laws.
The maxim of an action is often referred to as the agent's intention. In Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative provides a test on maxims for determining whether the actions they refer to are right, wrong, or permissible. One of Kant's categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which one should "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do it
Which of the following does Camus not use as an example of an absurd man?
The scientist.
According to Kant, human beings are ends-in-themselves because
They are autonomous.
The meaning of "existence precedes essence" for Sartre.
To Sartre, "existence precedes essence" means that a personality is not built over a previously designed model or a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise.
According to Paley, if we do not know ourselves how to make a watch, this leads us...
To have an even greater sense of admiration for the watch-maker.
According to Anselm, there are two ways to understand a thing.
True
According to Aristotle, some vices are not cases of excessive or deficient forms of action.
True
According to Aristotle, the form of life that is primarily concerned with politics is not the most proper because it is dependent upon the respect of others.
True
According to Aristotle, the most proper form of activity for human beings is the one that is most self-sufficient.
True
According to Kant, a given maxim M is ethically permissible to act on if and only if one can rationally act on M while willing M to be a universal law.
True
According to Ruth Benedict, normality is culturally defined.
True
Anselm's argument is an a priori argument.
True
For the following statement, indicate whether Sartre thinks it is true or false: For an Existentialist, "forlornness" is the result of realizing that there is no God.
True
According to Aristotle, how one is raised is of great importance because behaving morally is largely a matter of habit.
True.
According to Aristotle, some virtues lie between excessive and deficient forms of certain actions.
True.
According to Aristotle, the mean of virtue is relative to the individual and the situation.
True.
According to Aristotle, there must be a final, ultimate end at which all other ends and means aim because without such an ultimate end our desire would be empty and futile.
True.
According to Pascal, choosing whether or not to believe in God is not an optional decision.
True.
Anselm assumes existence is a property that makes a being more perfect.
True.
For the following statement, indicate whether Sartre thinks it is true or false: For an Existentialist, "anguish" is the result of having to choose for the whole world.
True.
Pascal assumes that the only options are belief or disbelief in the Christian God, but he does not consider any other conceptions of God or options.
True.
Explain Aristotle's Doctrine of the Golden Mean and how it relates to virtue. To do this well, be sure to define virtue in your response, according to Aristotle's text. Why, according to Aristotle, is the mean of virtue relative to the individual and the situation?
Virtue ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it is balanced on the golden mean between excess and deficiency. This would mean that virtuous people would always engage in promoting the good of the society while vicious people would choose the extremes of the virtue thus would either act in self-interest or harm others. Aristotle suggests that the mean of virtue is relative to person and environment because he emphasizes on the character of people while also making the intention very clear that one should act to the greater value by choosing the right action. Thus, he doesn't limit the autonomy and freedom of people in choosing the right course of action.
Mill argues that "being desired" makes a thing "desirable." As part of his argument he draws an analogy between "desirable" and
Visible
According to Paley, if the watch we find does not work well...
We will still admire the ability of the watch-maker.
According to Paley, if we find the watch has some parts which are unnecessary...
We will still admire the intelligence and ability of the watch-maker.
According to Paley, if we do not know the purpose of some of the watch's parts...
We will still recognize that the watch is the result of intelligent design.
What is Mill's "Greatest Happiness Principle"? How would we use his principle to decide which actions are right or wrong? How does his definition of happiness lead to a criticism that he is a hedonist? Why would hedonism be perceived as an obstacle to ethics?
What is Mill's "Greatest Happiness Principle"? John Stuart Mill was utilitarian. He proposed the utilitarianism theory. According to that theory, an action which brings happiness is good action and an action which brings sadness is bad action. If both actions bringing happiness then an action which gives the greatest happiness to a large number of people will be a good action. This is the greatest happiness principle according to Mill. How would we use his principle to decide which actions are right or wrong? The only criteria to judge an action whether that is good or bad is the result of the action. If the result of the action is happiness that is a good action.If the result of the action is sadness that is bad action. How does his definition of happiness lead to a criticism that he is a hedonist? A person who focuses only on happiness called a hedonist. Hedonists will not consider any other moral, ethical values. While proposing the utilitarianism theory, John Stuart Mill considered only happiness. He denied all other moral and ethical values. That's why his definition of happiness leads to criticism that he is a hedonist. Why would hedonism be perceived as an obstacle to ethics? Because ethics always focus on process, intentions, emotions, etc. It will not give much preference to the result. But hedonism will consider only happiness. It will not consider process, intentions, emotions. That's why hedonism be perceived as an obstacle to ethics.
Arguments for the existence of God comparing the world to a watch.
William Paley's watchmaker analogy is basically a teleological argument. It is a Greek word meaning "end" for telos and a "logos" which means the study of, and in this case, it refers to science. It also has a sense of a moral obligation. His argument played a prominent role in natural theology.
A soft determinist response to the religious argument for predestination makes an analogy between our life choices and:
a Choose Your Own Adventure book
Baron d'Holbach's view is that the will is:
a modification of the physical brain
The way to define determinism.
a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
Which of the following could potentially be an absurd man?
a.)A seducer b)An office clerk c)A beggar
According to James, the desire for a certain kind of truth can
bring about the special truth's existence
According to Kant, an imperative of morality must be...
categorical in its form.
Scientism is:
committed to physicalism
Libertarianism is:
committed to the laws of physics
Clifford says that those who have acquired a belief when they have no right to believe on such evidence as is before them have
done wrong and are blameworthy
According to Mill, the (morally) best course of action is the action that produces the most pleasure (and least pain) for...
everyone affected by the action.
According to Kant, a categorical imperative tells us to do something...
for its own sake, regardless of one's goals/desires.
According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative tells us to do something...
for the sake of satisfying some desire.
Joseph Keim Campbell says that strong compatibilists believe all of the below statements except:
free will is a result of neural processes in the brain
Which of the following positions on the free will debate is the least consistent with the idea that we are morally responsible for our actions?
hard determinism
One who believes that choices and decisions in life are determined by nature, biology or genetics would be called a:
hard determinist
William James would be called a:
indeterminist
Soft determinists or compatibilists will often make a distinction between:
internal and external causes of actions
A theory is teleological if...
it explains things in terms of their consequences.
If I have a genetic predisposition to have cancer, and then I am diagnosed with cancer, a determinist could argue that:
it was a matter of physical structures of the body and their condition; it was not my choice but was rather a causal chain of events that was not under my control.
One of the reasons that libertarians find the idea that we have free will to be convincing is that we often feel:
like we are blameworthy for our actions
Some would argue that advertising:
may erode our free will by encouraging us to make choices that are against our own best interests
An example of coercion is...
one person robbing another person at gunpoint.
Traditional compatibilism, according to Joseph Keim Campbell, holds that:
people perform free acts if they are the source of their acts
Joseph Keim Campbell believes that he has given reason to believe all of the following except:
praiseworthiness depends on whether or not determinism is true or false
According to Kant, morality derives its authority solely from...
reason.
According to James, indeterminism means that we have no reasonable grounds for:
regrets
Philosophers who argue that some of our actions are free, and some may not be free for various reasons, are usually called:
soft determinists or compatibilists
According to Clifford, even if a belief that guides an action is true, the holder of that belief is still guilty of wrongdoing if
the belief is based on the wrong grounds.
Baron d'Holbach says that the soul is nothing more than:
the body considered relative to some of its functions
One of the major problems in the debate over free will is whether or not:
the laws of nature are deterministic, and thus our actions are determined
Gaunilo's point concerning the island is...
the ontological argument could be used to prove the necessary existence of a perfect island
According to d'Holbach, we would be free if:
we could act against the obligations of nature
A key issue in determining if a person's acts are free is:
whether or not the person could have done otherwise
Free will and moral responsibility for our actions.
without free will there is no moral responsibility: if moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he has done or for something he has left undone; to be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve;
Sartre's view of human nature.
Sartre doesn't believe in a human nature or essence that precedes individuals. Rather our existence precedes our essence; we have to create our own essence. Nothing, not god or evolution, created us for any purpose other than the purposes we choose.
According to Mill, all of the following are included in the higher pleasures except:
Sexual pleasures.
Who is Sisyphus and what was his situation.
Sisyphus is a figure in Homer's Iliad and other works of Greek mythology. He is reputed to be the founder of the Isthmian Games and is a trickster who receives eternal punishment for trying to cheat Death.
The difference between hard determinism and soft determinism (compatibilism.)
Soft Determinism (also called Compatibilism and Self-determinism): Though determinism is true, that does not rule out freedom and responsibility. In contrast to hard determinism (which claims that determinism is incompatible with freedom), soft determinism says that we are determined and are nonetheless still free.
According to Aquinas, things which can be or cannot be are ultimately generated by...
Something which cannot not-be.
According to Paley, possessing only partial knowledge of a thing...
Still counts as knowledge.
According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative has at its end a goal that is
Subjective
Camus notes that "living is never easy," relating this statement to the issue of:
Suicide
What is the only "truly serious philosophical problem" according to the first sentence of "The Myth of Sisyphus"?
Suicide
