PHI 2010 Exam 2 Study Guide

What is four-dimensionalism?

A version of the cohabitation view. Doesn't think about objects just at one time, but instead over time/stretched through time. They can have parts at different times. If you divide a timeline into parts, those are its temporal (relating to time) parts. For example, my timeline has a part in the 2000s, 2010s, etc... when it comes to the statue and the lump, Sider says the statue is a part of the lump, specifically the temporal part where the lump gets shaped into a human shape (goliath). That part of the lump's history is the statue. Which is how you have two things in the same place. There is no puzzle abt my arm being here and me being here bc my arm is part of me. The only difference is that the statue is a temporal part not a spatial part.

Which of the following views about race says that race is a natural kind, similar to subspecies (e.g. wolves & dogs) or breeds (e.g. Labs & Dachshunds)? A. Biological realism B. Social constructivism C. Eliminativism D. None of the above

A. Biological realism

Incompatibilism is the view that: A. Determinism rules out free will. B. Indeterminism rules out free will. C. The garden of forking paths rules out free will.

A. Determinism rules out free will.

Which one of these believes that we should withhold judgment on whether there is free will? A. Free Will Agnostic B. Free Will Libertarian C. Hard Determinist

A. Free Will Agnostic

Choose the response to the problem of evil that says: the process of becoming good or virtuous is very valuable, so valuable that it's better than merely starting out as virtuous. So the evils in the world provide an opportunity for people to go through this process. A. the soul-making response. B. the free will response. C. the afterlife response. D. skeptical theism

A. the soul-making response.

What is cohabitation theory?

Any answer to the paradox that accepts that there's two objects. (i.e. when you pick up a marker, you are holding two objects in your hand.) There are at least two things at the same place at the same time, they are cohabitating.

Which one of these believes that if determinism is true, this does preclude free will. But we have free will (so determinism is false) A. Free Will Agnostic B. Free Will Libertarian C. Hard Determinist

B. Free Will Libertarian

Which of the following views about race says that race is a social kind, similar to citizens or married people? A. Biological realism B. Social constructivism C. Eliminativism D. None of the above

B. Social constructivism

What is the just matter theory? A. There are no composite objects (objects with parts). The only objects that exist are particles that have no parts B. The only objects are portions of matter. Objects never replace parts. Objects become scattered but are never destroyed. By the same token objects become attached but are not created. C. Matter only constitutes one sort of object at a time- if something changes sort, then in fact it is destroyed & replaced by a different object D. Time is like space. Objects are extended through time just as they are extended through space.

B. The only objects are portions of matter. Objects never replace parts. Objects become scattered but are never destroyed. By the same token objects become attached but are not created.

One response to the consequence argument for incompatibilism says that even if determinism is true we are still able to do otherwise (that is, we are able to do things we don't in fact do) because the proper understanding of what that means is compatible with determinism. What is one problem with this response discussed in class? A. We cannot be responsible for our actions unless we are responsible for our character. B. The so-called proper understanding of the ability to do otherwise is mistaken. C. Physics shows nothing can do anything it does not in fact do.

B. The so-called proper understanding of the ability to do otherwise is mistaken.

According to the fine-tuning argument for the existence of the multiverse... A. our choices cause other universes to come into existence. B. it's more probable that there are many universes than just one. C. there will be more universes after the current universe ends. D. All of the above.

B. it's more probable that there are many universes than just one.

Which response to the problem of evil says that free will is very valuable, so valuable that it is better for people to have it then not, even if they often use it for evil? A. the soul-making response. B. the free will response. C. the afterlife response. D. skeptical theism

B. the free will response.

Which of the following views about race says that race is nothing, similar to witches? A. Biological realism B. Social constructivism C. Eliminativism D. None of the above

C. Eliminativism

Which one of these believes that if determinism is true, this does preclude free will. We do not have free will. A. Free Will Agnostic B. Free Will Libertarian C. Hard Determinist

C. Hard Determinist

What is one way in which determinism, if true, threatens free will? A. There is no explanation for why we do one thing rather than another. B. Our actions and choices are random, and so not under our control. C. If determinism is true, everything we do has been set ever since the world was created, and so we have no control over our actions.

C. If determinism is true, everything we do has been set ever since the world was created, and so we have no control over our actions.

What is the takeover theory? A. There are no composite objects (objects with parts). The only objects that exist are particles that have no parts B. The only objects are portions of matter. Objects never replace parts. Objects become scattered but are never destroyed. By the same token objects become attached but are not created. C. Matter only constitutes one sort of object at a time- if something changes sort, then in fact it is destroyed & replaced by a different object D. Time is like space. Objects are extended through time just as they are extended through space.

C. Matter only constitutes one sort of object at a time- if something changes sort, then in fact it is destroyed & replaced by a different object

According to Strawson, the existence of free will and moral responsibility... A. are compatible with determinism. B. are compatible with indeterminism. C. are impossible.

C. are impossible.

Which response to the problem of evil says that the afterlife will be very (infinitely) good & will outweigh the evils we suffer in life? A. the soul-making response. B. the free will response. C. the afterlife response. D. skeptical theism

C. the afterlife response.

According to Mackie, the 'adequate' solution to the problem of evil is... A. the soul-making response. B. the free will response. C. to deny that God is omnipotent (having unlimited power) or omnibenevolent (having unlimited goodness). D. the afterlife response.

C. to deny that God is omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

How do the just matter, takeover, mereological nihilism, cohabitation, and four-dimensionalism theories solve the paradox?

Cohabitation- says there is no problem with two objects being at the same place at the same time. Four dimensionalism- points out that we already think there's nothing weird about two objects being in the same place as long as one is part of the other. Takeover- says there is only one object, as the previous one was destroyed and replaced with the current one. Just matter- says there is no new object, just an old object with a new shape. Mereological nihilism- Neither object exists

What is the consequence argument? How do compatibilists respond to it?

Consequence argument: an argument for incompatibilism that says if you're powerless over something you're powerless over that thing's consequences. Compatibilists deny this. They do agree that you can't change the past or the laws of nature. What they don't agree with is that bc of that you're powerless over what you do now. Bc compatibilists understand it as, "if you wanted to, you would."

What are the objections to the afterlife response to the problem of evil? A. What about non-human animals? B. What if some people don't have a good afterlife? C. What purpose does life on earth serve & why not just have an afterlife part? D. All of the above

D. All of the above

What are the objections to the free will response to the problem of evil? A. Doesn't even attempt to deal with the issue of natural evil. B. Doesn't justify the evils that befall those without free will (non-human animals, small children) C. Also not an excuse among people ("we shouldn't stop murderers because that interferes with free will") D. All of the above

D. All of the above

According to the argument from design by analogy... A. natural things have purposes or functions. B. things have purposes because they were designed to have those purposes. C. the universe (or some of its parts) resembles a machine. D. All of the above.

D. All of the above.

What are the objections to the skeptical theism response to the problem of evil? A. Don't we just know that some evils, like our discussion of genocide, could not possibly be justified? B. If we are fundamentally ignorant of what is good & bad, then we cannot make informed decisions in our own lives about what to do. C. Doesn't even attempt to deal with the issue of natural evil. D. Both A and B

D. Both A and B

Choose the response to the problem of evil that says 'God works in mysterious ways.' God knows much more than we do, being omniscient, and so for all we know, there are very good reasons to allow evil in the world. A. the soul-making response. B. the free will response. C. the afterlife response. D. skeptical theism

D. skeptical theism

What are the objections to the soul-making response to the problem of evil? A. Evil doesn't seem to be distributed in a way conducive to soul-making (e.g. the virtuous face less & the vicious more) B. Does not explain evils that befall those who cannot become virtuous (non-human animals, small children) C. Does not obviously explain why there is so much evil D. We would never accept this as an excuse from other people ('I allow evil to befall by children so they can become more virtuous') E. All of the above

E. All of the above

True or false: According to Hume, the design argument tells us in detail what the designer is like.

False

True or false: According to the argument from relativity, there is one correct system of racial classification.

False

True or false: According to the cladistic theory of race, the everyday racial categories we use are the correct ones.

False

True or false: Conservationism says we should stop using racial classification

False

True or false: Determinism means that there is no cause and effect and therefore, that your actions have nothing to do with your choices.

False

True or false: Eliminativism says we should continue using racial classification.

False

True or false: Epicurus claims that the gods are deeply concerned with the lives of mortals and often intervene in them.

False

True or false: If determinism is true of our world, then it means that most of the laws of nature are deterministic, and only some are probabilistic or indeterministic.

False

True or false: If determinism is true, then everything except for human emotions is determined.

False

True or false: In the context of the argument from design, fine-tuning is the idea that organisms appear to be suited to their environments.

False

True or false: Natural kinds are kinds of things that are similar to each other only because of some practice or convention of ours.

False

True or false: One response to the argument from genetics is that racial classifications need not be racist.

False

True or false: One response to the causal argument against eliminativism is that non-existent things can still explain what happens.

False

True or false: The problem of evil claims that God causes evil.

False

What is the metaphor for timelessness?

God is holding a film reel and we're in a movie.

What is the argument that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible?

God is supposed to know everything including the future, and He's infallible (it's impossible for Him to make mistakes). So if God knows ahead of time that something is going to happen, then he knew that long before it was going to happen and it's impossible for him to be wrong. Therefore it's impossible for it to not happen. So there was no alternative to what God had predicted to happen. So no one can avoid doing what God knows they're going to do. They have no other options.

What are Hume's objections to the argument from design?

Hume is talking abt the argument by analogy- Hume's point is that the analogy between gods and the designers we're actually familiar with (humans) is very weak bc gods are supposed to be very dissimilar from humans. Some examples he gives: human designers typically get old and die, gods don't. Some ppl think that one god created the world and that's not typically how it works with human designers. Ppl work together to design computers, etc. designers typically don't just make one thing and then pay attention to it for the rest of time, they make many things and don't see most of them ever again.

Why do compatibilists think the garden of forking paths metaphor is not useful?

If determinism is true, there is only one possible future consistent with the past and the laws of nature and, hence, only one path to choose from. That is, if determinism is true, then we are not free to do otherwise. Which is not what compatibilists believe.

How do compatibilists understand the ability to do otherwise?

If you want to do something, you will and if you don't want to, you won't. Nothing would stop you.

What is the multiverse hypothesis and how is it a challenge to the fine-tuning argument?

In addition to this universe, there's lots of other universes, indeed perhaps an infinite number of universes. So, every possible arrangement of physical features exists concretely in some universe or other. So, then the explanation of why this universe has the physical arrangement it does is that every physical arrangement is in some universe or other, this is just one of them.

What is Strawson's argument that free will and moral responsibility are impossible?

In order for someone to be morally responsible for their actions, they must also be morally responsible for the way they are. But this is impossible, so no one is truly morally responsible for anything.

What is an objection to mereological nihilism?

Isn't is silly to say that we don't exist?

Does the idea of timelessness help with human freedom?

It's not obvious that it helps, bc the real problem is that God is infallible. If it's still impossible for him to make mistakes, then it's still impossible for us to do anything other than what he knows were going to do. It doesn't seem to matter if God knows this before were born or he knows in some timeless fashion.

What is the fine-tuning argument?

It's the newer version of the argument from design- if the universe had even slightly different physical features, then there would never had been any humans because it would have collapsed/things would have been radically different over all. It's an argument to the best explanation. Proponents say the best explanation of why we have the physical features that we have is bc God did it on purpose.

What is the antimony (or paradox) of material constitution?

Lumpl (lump) and Goliath (statue made out of said lump) being 2 different objects. This is at best bizarre, as two different objects existing in the same place at the same time with all the same parts is hard to understand.

What is the casual argument against eliminativism?

Race explains various things, like how others treat us & how we think of ourselves. Nothing unreal explains anything. So race must be real.

What are the responses to the argument from genetics?

Response 1: There are genetic differences, e.g. prevalence of sickle-cell disease among black people. Response 2: Some interesting biological categories aren't genetic; e.g. clades (an organism & its descendants)

What is open theism?

That god does not know the future.

What does it mean for a law of nature to be deterministic?

That there is only one way for events to unfold, regarding whatever that law is about. So, the law of gravity is deterministic in that big things are going to attract little things and there's no other way that can happen. If every law is deterministic, then all events can only unfold in one way, which is determinism.

What is the argument from design? What are the two interpretations of it?

The argument: the world shows signs of being designed, so we can infer the existence of a god or gods that designed it. First interpretation: Machines are produced by intelligent design. The universe resembles a machine. So the universe are produced by intelligent design. Second interpretation: The universe seems to have purpose & is structured to fulfill that purpose. The best explanation of this is that they were so designed.

What is the problem of evil?

The idea that if you think that God both cares about us and is all powerful, you need some explanation of why he would let bad things happen to us.

What is the argument from anti-racism and what is the response to it?

The idea that it is impossible to divorce our system of racial classification from its racist assumptions. That white supremacy is built in. Since racism is bad and white supremacy is false, we should get rid of the system of racial classification. Response: we could revise the system to get rid of racist assumptions.

How is the fine tuning argument superior to the older design argument?

The original analogy is weak because the universe as a whole does not appear designed at all. The fine tuning argument is superior because it says the conditions under which life is possible are extremely improbable. The best explanation for why they obtain is that a designer intentionally created them.

What is mereological nihilism?

The view that there are no objects with parts. The only objects that exist are things without parts so little particles that don't have any smaller parts. So, all the objects that we believe have parts don't exist, like dogs and chairs.

What are Locke's and Frankfurt's examples that illustrate compatibilism?

They both think you can act freely even if you can't do otherwise than what you're doing. Locke's example: being locked in a room you do not want to leave. He thinks it doesn't make a difference to whether or not it's locked bc even if it wasn't, they still wouldn't leave. Frankfurt's example: Jones is deciding who to vote for, Mr. Black wants Jones to vote a certain way, so he's watching him, ready to force him to vote the way he prefers, but he doesn't have to bc Jones decides on his own to vote for the candidate that Mr. Black wants him to. In both examples, the character is acting freely by doing what they want- even if they had no other option.

What is timelessness? What are two problems with it?

Timelessness: the idea that God is not related to time the way we are. He's "outside of time" or "beyond time". The problem: God is supposed to know what we're going to do before we do it. And knowing it before we do it involves the past- it involves time- God doesn't know things in the past present or future bc god is not related to time like we are. So it's not true that god knows what we're going to do before we do it. Problem #2: it's hard for us to understand what being timeless means.

True or false: According to Hume, the design argument by analogy better supports polytheism than monotheism

True

True or false: According to evolution, organisms and their parts don't have purposes or functions.

True

True or false: According to the argument from anti-racism, it is impossible to have a system of racial classification that is not racist.

True

True or false: According to the argument from genetics, there are no genetic differences between races, aside from those regarding morphology (like skin color).

True

True or false: According to the causal argument against elminiativism, race must be real because it explains how people treat each other and themselves.

True

True or false: According to the eliminativist, races do not exist.

True

True or false: Free Will Compatibilists believe that determinism does not exclude the existence of free will.

True

True or false: If determinism is true, no garden of forking paths for us.

True

True or false: Mackie claims that if God wants to create free creatures, then He should create free creatures who always do what is right.

True

True or false: One response to the causal argument against eliminativism is that people's beliefs about race explain things, just as their beliefs about witches explained witch hunts. But we don't need to accept that there are races (or witches) in order to explain anything.

True

How do compatibilists respond to the argument that humans lack free will?

We can accept that if god knows the future then we can't do otherwise. We can still act freely bc what it means to act freely is to do what you want to do/ what you value. It's not like god's knowledge forces ppl to do things. You're not free when what explains what you do what you do is coersion, compulsion, etc. and god's knowledge isn't like any of that.

How is evolution a challenge to the argument from design?

We observed that animals have features like eyes and hearts, and we ask "what's the best explanation for that?" Proponents of the old version of the argument from design say that the best explanation is that god(s) designed them to have all those features. Nowadays, the best explanation for why we have eyes is evolution.

What's the argument from relativity and what are the responses to it?

When you look around the world, different places/times use different racial classification systems. If there were some sort of biological correct way to do racial classification, then lots of these different ways of doing it would be wrong. But according to the argument, that's not true. It's perfectly fine for different places/times to use different systems. None are the correct or incorrect way to do it. So, it's not true that there's one correct system of racial classification. The response: insist there is one correct way to do racial classification and, ideally, produce it. The difficulty with doing that is that the more we've learned about the human genome, the less plausible ways there seem to be to do that. One way is the idea of cladistics, where you see how populations are genealogically related to each other due to the migratory patterns of the human species.

What is the garden of forking paths?

a metaphor for the idea that our possible futures are made by our present decisions, which, in turn, were made by the choices of the past