PHI 205 - Unit 5, The BIGER phi 205 study
Hypothetical imperatives
"If you desire A, then do B." The obligation to B depends upon desire for A. This is not morality.
Ha Satan
"The Accuser" as mentioned to in the book of Job, is sitting in the court of the Lord, and wants to test Job.
The argument, in Anselm's words
"Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived [greatest possible being], exists in understanding alone, [then] the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible [b/c it was already supposed to be the greatest possible being]. Hence, there is [no] doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."
The ontological argument in Anselm's words
"even the fool [atheist] is convinced that something exists in the understanding [the mind], at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived [greatest possible being]. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exists in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater."
Paley's watch analogy
(1) A watch, w, possesses the following attributes: (A) w's parts form an intricate structure with the end-goal (telos) or purpose of indicating the time; (B) if w's parts had different shapes or the relationship between the parts had been structured differently, then w would not perform its function or serve its purpose; (C) the parts of w are just right for their purpose; (D) the mechanics of w are specifiable in terms of general laws or operating principles; (E) w "must have had a maker" or designer (Paley, p. 224); that is, based on attributes A, B, C, and D, "there must have existed, at some time, at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who [...] designed its use" (Paley, p. 224).
Connections between evolution and philosophy: 3 examples
(1) Conceptual clarification: concepts such as CHANCE, SELECTION, and THEORY get abused in evolution discussions. (2) Theory selection (philosophy of science): Given two explanations of fact X, which explanation should be accepted? (3) Ethics: If humans are products of natural processes, what does this imply about moral standards and values? Are they real? Are they subject to change?
Form of argument (Paley design) by analogy
(1) Entities w, x, and y have attributes A, B, and C. [w, x, and y = base cases] (2) Entity z has attribute A and B. [z = target case] (3) Therefore: entity z probably has attribute C. This is NOT a deductive argument, so validity does NOT apply. Arguments by analogy are inductive arguments, which can be strong or weak (they are strong if their conclusions are made probably true by the premises and weak if not). Strength comes in degrees. The strength of arguments by analogy depends on a number of factors.
Which of the following do you believe best characterizes the Ontological Argument?
(1) It is plausible (why?) (2) It is implausible (which premise is questionable?) (3) It seems to be some sort of verbal trick (explain it) (4) It makes an important but false unstated assumption (identify it) (5) It is such a good argument that it in fact proves the existence of any greatest possible entity (e.g., the Lost Island) (6) Something else
Example
(1) Joe, Jack, and Joni are friendly, talented, helpful, and have names that start with 'J'. (2) Jacob is friendly, talented, and his name starts with 'J'. (We don't know if he's helpful.) (3) Therefore: Jacob is probably helpful. What are the base cases in the analogy? What is the target case?
Rawls: "justice as fairness
(1) Liberty: equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others (speech, religion, property, due process, etc.) (2) Social & economic inequalities are allowed but (a) must be "attached to positions and offices open to all" [Rawls' equal opportunity principle] (b) "must be to everyone's advantage" [Rawls' difference principle]: unequal wealth is allowed so long as it benefits the lowest economic class as much as possible without simply distributing money equally
(2) The universe, u, possesses the following attributes:
(A) u's parts - stars, planets, molecules, atoms, etc. - form an overall, intricate structure with a purpose (perhaps this purpose is harmonious persistence); (B) if u's parts had different shapes or the relationship between the parts had been structured differently, then u would not perform its function (e.g., organisms would be maligned or not exist, celestial bodies would collide more often); (C) the parts of u are just right for their job(s) (and the subparts are just right for their jobs, etc.); (D) the mechanics of u are specifiable in terms of general laws or operating principles;
(3) Therefore:
(E) u "must have had [correction: probably had] a maker" or designer; that is, based on attributes A, B, C, and D, "there must have [correction: probably] existed, at some time, at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who [...] designed its use" (Paley, p. 224).
The Ontological Argument
(P1) God is the greatest possible being (GPB) conceivable. (P2) The GPB has all the great-making properties. (P3) Existence is a great-making property. (C) Therefore, God exists. Defense of premises...P1: Atheist and theist agree. P3: Examples might make plausible. P2: To deny this is self-contradictory, for then you would not be conceiving of the GPB: (a) imagine the GPB, but (b) imagine GPB lacks a great-making property, therefore (c) it is NOT GPB!
appeals to popular opinion
(a type of logical fallacy ) people believe X so X must be true
appeal to emotion
(a type of logical fallacy)
circular reasoning
(a type of logical fallacy) occurs when we assume that which we set out to prove or demonstrate
personal attack
(a type of logical fallacy) that attacks the person making the argument
appeals to authority
(a type of logical fallacy) the law says X so X is true
Oscar-.....
(i) If a being is omnipotent & omnibenevolent, it could and would prevent evil (ii) But evil is not prevented (iii) So there is no being that is omnipotent & omnibenevolent
Descartes' argument from doubt
)Whether an object's existence is doubtable is a property of the object. Can doubt the body, cant doubt the mind. Therefore, my mind and body do not share all the same properties, therefore mind does not equal body.
Limits of Identity Theory
- Qualia characters in conscious events but not brain events - Can't explain mind-brain correlations, because it can't explain how brain events have qualitative character.
The Free Will Defense Basic Idea
1) Evil is done by free will agents, so God is not the direct agent of evil 2) Evil is an unpreventable by-product of free-will - even omnipotence can't make free creatures do good - that's a contradiction 3) It is better to have free creatures than not
Skeptical Counter to Free Will Defense
1) Free will only explains moral evil, not natural evil 2) Free will makes humans the direct agent of evil but doesn't explain why God permits evil 3) Evil is still preventable - omnipotence could stop the bad effects
Skeptical Counters to Greater Good Defense
1) Many evils seem unnecessary. A parent shouldn't have to lose their child in order to start volunteering at children shelters 2) Many of the alleged greater goods don't appear worth the price
3 features to develop moral virtue
1) Virtue is developed by doing actions, takes practice to develop good character 2) Virtue is a disposition, requires a psychological disposition to feel and act a way in certain situations 3) Virtue is a mean, between two extremes called vices, that are relative to each person
Response to fine-tuning and intelligence
1) some physicists postulate models w/ "many universes" which increases the odds for life occurring 2) the conclusion about intelligent design does not follow. Improbable events happen by pure chance
book...
1) the world consists of a series of causes 2) the series cannot continue forever - must stop somewhere 3) the series must end and that is w/ a First Cause which is God
Response to intelligent design theory
1) won't apply to many intended cases of design - human eye will continue to function if some cones removed, just won't function as well 2) part of a system can have different/multiple/prior functions
The Parental Analogy Reply
1. Athens made it possible for Socrates' parents to marry and have a family. 2. Athens played a major role in Socrates' upbringing, in the care and education he received. 3. So Socrates' is, in effect, a child of Athens. (from 1, 2) 4. Thus, for Socrates to escape from jail would be like him disobeying his parents. (from 3) 5. It is wrong to disobey one's parents. 6. Hence, it would be wrong for Socrates to disobey Athens. (from 4, 5)
moral weirdness argument
1. DCT provides the best explanation for moral weirdness 2. what provides the best explanation for a particular phenomenon is probably true 3. the DCT is probably true
Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation
1. Don't criticize an argument by denying its conclusion. 2. Don't accept an argument simply because you believe its conclusion. 3. Direct criticisms at individual premises. 4. Make your criticisms of premises substantial. 5. Don't accept competing arguments. 6. Don't object to intermediate conclusions of compound arguments.
Socrates' argument about death
1. Either death means non-existence or death means going to Hades, where other dead people have gone. 2. If death is non-existence, then it is a great advantage. 3. If death means going to Hades, where other dead people have gone, then it is a great advantage. 4. Hence, death is a great advantage (from 1-3).
The Social Contract Reply
1. It is never acceptable to wrong someone, even if they have wronged you. 2. To break an argument one has with someone (or with a group of people) is to wrong them. 3. Socrates has agreed to abide by the rules, procedures, and instructions of the city of Athens. 4. If Socrates escapes from jail, he will be violating this agreement. 5. Thus, if Socrates escapes from jail, he will be wronging Athens. (from 2, 3, 4) 6. So it is not acceptable for Socrates to escape from jail. (from 1, 5)
Three steps of argument analysis
1. Recognize the argument 2. reconstruct the argument (interpret and clarify) 3. evaluate the argument
Oscar's argument for the burden of proof to be on theist
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who claims something contrary to common sense. 2. If there were such a being as God, that being could not be seen, touched, or heard. 3. Common sense tells us whatever cannot be seen, touched, or heard does not exist. 4. The theist claims something contrary to common sense. (from 2, 3) 5. So the burden of proof falls on the theist. (from 1, 4)
Arguments Against Contingency Argument
1. There could be brute facts (contingent facts that aren't explained by other facts). 2. Principle of Sufficient Reason isn't necessary cause there could be brute facts. 3. If there are an infinity of contingent, non-conjunctive facts, then it may be impossible to conjoin them to form a universal fact.
Kant's criticism
1. What are the great-making properties of the GPB? 2. List: Infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite goodness, existence? 3. This assumes existence is a property-is that right? 4. Consider: what are the properties of TIGERS?
Three ways to criticize the argument
1. challenge the conclusion (weaker criticism) 2. challenge one or more of the premises (strongest criticism) 3. challenge the argument's validity.
Four Possibilities for burden of proof
1. the theist alone - default position: atheism 2. the atheist alone - default position: theism 3. both the theist and the atheist - default position: agnostic 4. neither the theist nor the atheist - no default position
CS Lewis & moral objectivity
1. there must be a moral law-giver (God) beyond social opinion 2. there are objective moral laws beyond social opinion 3. there is a moral law-giver (God) beyond social opinion objective moral laws: 1. explain why people argue over morality 2. resolve ethical conflicts between societies
David's first cause argument version 2
1.Anything that begins to exist has a cause. 2.Nature began to exist. 3.So nature has a cause. (from 1, 2) 4.If nature has a cause, then that cause must be uncaused. 5.Hence, there is an uncaused cause of nature. (from 3, 4) 6.An uncaused cause of nature would be God. 7.So God exists. (from 5, 6)
The Ontological Argument
1.By 'God' we mean the most perfect conceivable being. 2.If the most perfect conceivable being did not exist, then we could conceive of a more perfect being. 3.Thus, the most perfect conceivable being must exist. (from 2) 4.So God exists. (from 1, 3)
Naturalism's explanatory gaps
1.Consciousness: It does not seem possible to explain how physical things could have conscious mental states. 2.Morality: Evolutionary theory seems unable to explain the existence of a moral law. "It seems like we should just be pack animals who accept without a second thought the domination and brutality of the alpha male or the queen bee or whatever." (112) 3.Intellect: "Our mental powers seem to exceed anything we have any reason to expect on naturalistic grounds." (114) 4.Language: "It's very obscure how people who have no language at all and know nothing about language could simply invent it." (117)
The Problem of Evil
1.If God were omnipotent (all-powerful), then he could eliminate all suffering. 2.If God were all-loving, then he would want to eliminate all suffering. 3.If God wanted to eliminate all suffering, and he could do so, then all suffering would have been eliminated. 4.It is not the case that all suffering has been eliminated. 5.Hence, it is not the case that there is a God who is both omnipotent and all-loving. (from 1-4)
Sophie's second argument for burden of proof on theist
1.If the burden of proof does not fall on the one who makes a positive existence claim, then it will be rational to believe in things for which we have no evidence, such as unicorns. 2.It is not rational to believe in things such as unicorns. 3.Thus, the burden of proof falls on the one who makes a positive existence claim. (from 1, 2) 4.The theist makes a positive existence claim. 5.So the burden of proof falls on the theist. (from 3, 4)
Pascal's Wager
1.If you believe in God and he exists, then you stand to gain a lot. 2.If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, then you stand lose a little. 3.So, if you believe in God, you have much to gain and little to lose. (from 1, 2) 4.If you don't believe in God and he exists, then you stand to lose a lot. 5.If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, then you stand to gain a little. 6.So, if you don't believe in God, you have much to lose and little to gain. (from 4, 5) 7.One should prefer a high-reward, low-risk option over a low-reward, high-risk option. 8.Thus, you should believe in God. (from 3, 6, 7)
Sophie's first argument for burden of proof on theist
1.It is typically impossible to show that something doesn't exist. 2.If (1), then the burden of proof falls on the one making a positive existence claim. 3.The theist, though not the atheist, makes a positive existence claim. 4.So the burden of proof falls on the theist. (from 1-3)
Hume's Argument
1.Laws of nature have been established by a firm and unalterable experience. 2.If something has been established by a firm and unalterable experience, then the proof for it is as strong as any argument from experience could possibly be. 3.The proof of any law of nature is as strong as any argument from experience could possibly be. [from 1, 2] 4.The proof of any law of nature is a proof against violations of that law. 5.The proof against any violation of a law of nature is as strong as any argument from experience could be. [from 4, 5] 6.Miracles are violations of laws of nature. 7.The proof against any miracle is as strong as any argument from experience could be. [from 5, 6]
David's First Cause Argument
1.Nothing comes from nothing. 2.Whatever comes to be must come from something. (from 1) 3.The universe came to be, i.e., began to exist. 4.So the universe came from something. (from 2, 3) 5.If the universe came from something, then this something is God. 6.Therefore, God exists. (from 4, 5) arguments against: depends on definition of universe
Arguments against the Ontological Argument
1.Perfection seems to be meaningful only relative to certain goals or designs. (28) 2.Existence is not a perfection. (30) 3.By this reasoning, one could prove the existence of perfect anything (e.g., a perfect unicorn). (31)
David's Contingency Argument
1.Some facts are contingent. 2.There is a "universal fact" which is the conjunction of all contingent, non-conjunctive facts. 3.The universal fact is itself a contingent fact. 4.Every contingent fact is explained by some other fact or facts. (Principle of Sufficient Reason) 5.Any fact that is not the universal fact or part of the universal fact must be a necessary fact. 6.Hence, there is a necessary fact. (from 1-5) 7.If there is a necessary fact, then this fact must be that a necessary being exists. 8.This necessary being is God. 9.So, God exists. (from 6-8)
David's argument for burden of proof on atheist
1.The burden of proof falls on the one who claims something contrary to what people generally believe. 2.People generally believe that a god exists. 3.The atheist claims something contrary to what people generally believe. (from 2) 4.Hence, the burden of proof falls on the atheist. (from 1, 3)
The Design Argument
1.Whatever exhibits order presupposes an external orderer. 2.Nature exhibits order. 3.So nature presupposes an external (i.e., supernatural) orderer. (from 1, 2) 4.An orderer must be intelligent. 5.Hence, there is a supernatural intelligence. (from 3, 4)
According to calculations we discussed in class, what's the probability that you are dreaming right now? Select one: a. 10% b. 1.6% c. 20% d. 25% e. 16%
10%
How many statements (not sentences) are in this passage? "Socrates had control over drinking hemlock, and this implies that he had free will over drinking it. Socrates did in fact drink the hemlock." Select one: a. 6 b. 5 c. 4 d. 3 e. 2
3
Kant's criticism (continued)
5. Yes, tigers might exist, but we can list all their properties without listing existence; same goes for unicorns and the tooth fairy. In our understanding, we can complete our conception - list all the properties - of some entity X (tigers, unicorns, God) without including existence. 6. Kant: existence is not a property; rather, it's a condition for an object actually having properties. 7. Anselm treats existence as a property - this is a BAD MOVE, thinks Kant. So, P3 of the Ontological Argument is false.
Parity Principle
: if an external process performs a function that would count as mental if it were in the head, then it is part of the mind for the time it performs this function [due to Clark and Chalmers, discussed in Frankish 2016] If the mind is extended to external objects (e.g., a notepad contains beliefs, a calculator extends your mental processing power), then mind is not necessarily immaterial as Descartes argues
Soul
= first kind of actualization [actuality-1 or potentiality-2], of a natural organic body This actualization is the body's form The soul (form) cannot be separated from the matter, but it can be considered abstractly apart from it
If a passage has no premise indicators, and no conclusion indicators, then (choose the best answer) Select one: a. the passage could still be an argument b. the passage cannot be sound c. the passage is not an argument d. the passage is likely used in support of an argument but is not an argument itself
A
- Inductive research (come to conclusion after observation)
A Posterior Method of Knowledge Seeking/ Research
- Theory - Trying to prove or disprove it - Deductive research
A Priori Method of Knowledge Seeking/ Research
Hasty Generalization
A fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.
Slippery Slope
A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Straw Man
A fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an idea.
Ambiguity
A fallacy that occurs when a word having more than one meaning appears in the argument.
Composition
A fallacy that occurs when we assume that traits inherent in the parts are also present when the parts are combined into a whole.
Bandwagon
A fallacy which assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable.
5. Theodicies
A given theodicy might form a successful response to the logical problem of evil, but does it (can it) form a successful response to the evidential problem of evil? a. Theodicies based on the idea of sin = Free will (freedom is a higher good that permits humans to choose evil and sin) [Augustine] Critical question: Are there some types of evil not caused by human free will (supposing free will is real)? Punishment (evil is punishment for human sins). Critical question: Should children (innocents) be punished for adults' actions? Warning (evil is a warming to change our sinful behavior). Critical question: If warnings filled with suffering are necessary to get people to change their behavior, do they have to involve so much death and destruction?
Representation
A mental unit that has satisfaction conditions: conditions that make it correct or not
Belief-Desire Psychology
A methodology of interpreting people by attributing beliefs and desires to them
Hasty generalization
A mistake in reasoning in which an insufficient number of cases used to arrive at a general conclusion
Parfit's bundle theory of persons
A person is a bundle of mental states—beliefs, perceptions, memories, etc.—which can change over time but are causally connected (your mental states now determine your mental states later) and can branch
Content of an Intentional State
A representation of the world; that snow will melt
The Rock Objection
A rock does not become conscious just because someone has a belief about it. So why do mental events become conscious when there is a higher-order representation of them.
1. The problem of evil is that these four propositions are prima facie logically incompatible:
A. God is all good (wholly good; omnibenevolent; all loving) [A-C are theological claims] B. God is all knowing (omniscient) C. God is all powerful (omnipotent) D. There exists instances of evil (e.g., intense human and animal pain/suffering) [factual claim] A, B and C are essential to a conception of God a personal, perfect being - what William Rowe - (1913-2015) calls narrow theism and targets in his essay. This contrasts with broad theism, acceptance of some sort of divine reality or being (e.g., Spinoza's pantheism).
The Intentional Stance Objections
Advanced Aliens - Swears' causal power Infer from physical data - Once you look for beliefs or functions that's a different stance Our own mind - We do as we understand ourselves as agents with beliefs and desires
John Stuart Mill
Against Swine Objection. Higher and lower pleasures. About quality. Must be measured on different scales, but no conversion factor. utilitarianism too demanding and too impractical.
Token Physicalism
All mental tokens are physical tokens eg: my headache yesterday afternoon was firing in certain neural pathways in my brain
Type (Reductive) Physicalism
All mental types are physical types eg: all instances of pain are firing in certain neural pathways in the brain
Physicalism
All that exists are physical objects or things built up out of physical objects
Social contract theory
An action is right if and only if it honors (explicit or implicit) contractual obligations between persons Hence our moral & political obligations arise solely from our contracting with others Our informed agreement—not god(s), kings, or any external authority—is the basis for our obligations
Principle of Utility
An action, A, is right if and only if A produces the most net happiness compared to all other possible actions. Applies to all beings.
Which of the following statements accurately describes the nature of arguments? Select one: a. If an argument is valid, its conclusion is very likely, but not guaranteed, to be true when its premises are true. b. An argument might have conjointly or indepenently supporting premises. c. The conclusion of a valid argument must always be true. d. An argument consists of a single, true or false statement.
An argument might have conjointly or indepenently supporting premises.
Beeches and Elms
An elm growing in my yard when it's actually a beech. The difference in meaning between his words is determined by the linguistic community, not his own internal states
Empirical issue
An issue that can be resolved, at least in principle, by observation and/or experimentation
Non-empirical issue
An issue that cannot be resolved, even in principle, by observation and/or experimentation (but possibly by reasoning)
Logical Behaviorism
Any expression about a mental state can be completely defined in terms of behavior
Aquinas and the Divine Command Theory
Aquinas believes that the DCT is wrong because it makes right and wrong depend solely on God's will and not his reason
- Logically constant but can be false - A set of propositions related to one another in such a way that one of them is claimed to follow from the other (s)
Arguments
- Truth is found from observations - Was in the academy - Established his own school: Elysium (they took over, fall of the Roman Empire)
Aristotle
Arthritis
Arthritis in the joints but believes it's in his bones. Twin earth its in bones. The difference in their beliefs arises from a difference in the linguistic community they belong to
The Theist v. the Atheist
Assume there is a difference between how you conceive of things, and how things are in the world - a difference between mind and reality. Theist: God is the greatest possible being and exists in reality. Atheist: God is the greatest possible being but does not exist in reality.
Contractarianism
Assume: You are self-interested (egoism) and free No laws to govern social behavior Negotiate with others—agree to laws, so long as others do too What is right (legally, morally) are the laws that everyone would agree to under the above conditions
The entitlement theory
Assumption: You own your body, talents, personality, will, etc.—and what you produce with them. Entitlement theory: Someone acquiring a holding, X, in accord with any of these three principles is entitled to X: (1) Acquisition (2) Transfer (3) Rectification (Nozick)
6. Three versions of atheism
Assumption: the truth of a belief is not required for one to be justified in holding that belief (Rowe's flight to Hawaii example). In evaluating our beliefs, what matters most is their rational justification. a. Unfriendly atheism: "no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists." b. Indifferent atheism: holds "no belief concerning whether any theist is or isn't rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists." c. Friendly atheism: "some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists."
The overall conclusion of Descartes' dreaming argument is that: Select one: a. We don't know anything about the dream world. b. We don't know anything about the external world. c. We are all dreaming right now. d. We live in a virtual reality. e. Both B and D.
B
The move towards a clean energy economy is a social and economic mistake. Why? During the last 150 years fossil fuels have been the bedrock of the American economy." Which fallacy does the passage above commit? (Choose the clearest answer.) Select one: a. Bandwagon b. Fake news c. Slippery slope d. Black-or-White e. Division
Badwagon
Spinoza's pantheism
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) - Dutch philosopher, of Sephardic Portuguese origin. Exemplifies a highly rationalistic way of conceiving of religion and its role in human lives.
Decision theory (aka rational choice theory) continued
Basic idea: identify all possible options for a given problem and determine the expected utility (measure of benefit) of each choice. Agents do not always in fact choose the outcome with highest utility (as psychological experiments show), but we are concerned with what they should do. Pascal's Wager involves choice under conditions of uncertainty, and he applies basic concepts of decision theory to derive a conclusion (we will formalize this).
- There is a hierarchy - When your attracted to a body, your participating in beauty - Appreciating beautiful things, understanding the concept Good thing: should appreciate * appreciate people = understand that it isn't only physical (can be mental, intellectual) * True beauty = not endanger of decay Platonic Level: - Not about physical - About the soul - Soul Mate - Conceptual Love
Beauty of the body, heart and soul
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: It is wrong to use contraceptives, because they interfere with only proper purpose for sex-- reproduction.
Beg the question
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: We should not execute rapists, since death is an unreasonable punishment for rape.
Beg the question
- Negative and positive reinforcements can reward you or not e.g., you reward children, they will start to have positive feedback (reinforcement) - Your social grouping determined you determinism Freedom __________ /_________ Determinism Sport Context: - Coach: Reward and punishment - How will attitude change toward you: success, talk to you rather than tell you what to do, when to do it - Athletes choose whether or not they want to be there (coach has a positive affect when they treat athletes well)
Behaviourism
Content Realism
Beliefs are what they are regardless of whether anyone can interpret them
Ecclesiastes
Book of Hebrew literature that is skeptic of the works of Proverbs.
Consider this statement: "Personal identity does not matter since split-brain cases are possible." Which problem for Locke's memory theory does the above statement most clearly represent? Select one: a. The breakfast problem. b. The brave officer problem. c. The broken transitivity problem. d. The branching problem
Branching
Conceptual vs non-conceptual
C - Expressible in language (noticing that jacket is green) NC - Not expressible in language (noticing the particular shade of green that jacket is)
The Explanatory Problem (CD)
Cartesian minds are not comprised of parts and we can't explain how the mind works by looking at how its parts interact but then how can we study the mind? We can't investigate the Pairing Problem
St. Anselm of Canterbury: historical sketch
Catholic monk, philosopher, and theologian. Influenced several medieval philosophers, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Famous for devising the... satisfaction theory of atonement; ontological argument for the existence of God, developed in his book Proslogium (or Discourse on the Existence of God). Later thinkers, e.g., Descartes, developed similar arguments.
Transparency of Experience
Chair example, focus on the chair then focus on your experience of the chair
Elijah
Challenged the priests of Baal, and mocked them when their god could not cast down fire, and showed them that the living God could.
Evolution v. Design
Concerning the existence of life, evolutionary theory provides an alternative, scientific explanation to the teleological argument (argument from design). Animals and plants appear intentionally designed (by a designer) but according to evolution their design is explained by factors (a), (b), and (c).
4 misunderstood evolutionary concepts: Chance
Confused claim: Evolution is based on chance, but chance cannot produce the COMPLEXITY of organisms. How is this claim confused?
4 misunderstood evolutionary concepts: Evolution is 'only a theory'
Confused claim: evolution is "only a theory" so it is not true and not a serious explanation of the origin of species and life. What are two senses of the term 'theory'? Give examples of highly confirmed theories.
4 misunderstood evolutionary concepts: Humans descended from apes
Confused claim: humans descended from apes (claim often made with derision). How is this claim confused?
4 misunderstood evolutionary concepts: Teleology
Confused claim: language and tool use are "higher" or "better" (teleological interpretation). How does this misunderstand evolution?
High-Order Theory
Consciousness is representing our own mental states
- Focuses on the outcome - End orientated
Consequentialism
What is the best way to diagram the argument consisting of statements (1) through (4) below? (1) Did you know that several states in the U.S. (such as Oregon and Washington) allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS)? (2) Laws allowing PAS represent an increase in the freedom of citizens. (3) PAS laws also represent a weakening of government control. Therefore, (4) these laws are good for society. Select one: a. (2) independently supports (3), and (3) independently supports (4). [Statement (1) is not part of the argument.] b. (2) and (3) conjointly support (4). [Statement (1) is not part of the argument.] c. (3) independently supports (2), and (2) independently supports (4). [Statement (1) is not part of the argument.] d. (2) and (3) independently support (4). [Statement (1) is not part of the argument.]
D
crucial second claim
DCT makes ethics arbitrary
- Seeing the person as becoming - Process in becoming who you are
Dasein
Evolution of organisms
DeWitt: "[...] biological organisms, as with the products above [e.g., cell phone], are in a struggle for existence, and the variations that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in the environment in which it finds itself have a greater chance of being represented in later generations."
- Conclusion does not go beyond the information contained in the premise (general to general or general to specific) - The premise makes the conclusion inevitable
Deductive Reasoning
Sensory Modalities Objection
Different ways to sense an experience suggests that there's more to qualia than just what they represent. Experiences seems also to involve the perceiver acquires or processes the information
Later Prophets
Divided into "major" and "minor" prophets", Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekial were the "major" prophets, and the scroll of the twelve were the minor ones. Written by the prophets themselves.
The three questions were answered because of this - Top of Olympus: there is nothing but snow Why didn't gods climb to the top? - Fearful - Clash of the Titians occurred - Mythic External Locus of Control: - Faith was in the hands of the gods
Divine Interventions
- Mind and Body - Emotions and Body (physical, social, mental, intellectual) - There' more than just the heart - Mind and Body are separate entities
Dualism
Do we see the other for the mean to our end; or our own end to ourselves - Attitude is a tool to win - Doesn't care about injury - Yourself: - Care about your injury - Others goals are important and you help them to achieve them
Ends vs. Mean
1. Weak 2. Intended 3. Adopted 4. Core
England's Model
- Stronger than intended and weak - Adopt in context - Nice people do bad things in organizational context
England's Model Adopted
- You may literally die for - Quit your job for - There are only a few - Describe what you live for - Actually determines your behaviour
England's Model Core
- We think are important - We tend to follow but somethings can trump it
England's Model Intended
- Is it a value? - Do not have a motivating course - We say we value but we really don't - We just say these things - We use them in arguments to stop arguments
England's Model Weak
Does the following raise a metaphysical or epistemological question: Do all beliefs require support?
Epistemological
Does the following raise a metaphysical or epistemological question: What exactly is the difference between knowledge and mere belief?
Epistemological
- Knowledge - Study of how we know what we know
Epistemology
Identify which branch of philosophy the following question belongs to. What justifies a human in believing that extraterrestrial beings exist? Select one: a. Metaphysics. b. Ethics. c. Epistemology. d. Logic.
Epistemology
- To flourish, to actualise - To become the best possible self, thinking with no regret - In order to live Eudaimonia is to live a life of contemplation
Eudaimonia
Principle of Sufficient Reason
Every contingent fact is explained by some other fact or facts.
Basic ingredients for evolution
Evolution is change over time, requiring: (a) variation in traits, (b) inheritability of those traits (c) a struggle for existence (competition) affecting which traits get inherited. This struggle can occur with human-made objects (artificial selection) or natural objects (natural selection).
Descartes' conception of matter
Extended in space and time (spatially and temporally extended), and has mass Matter is divisible and perceptible A complete coordinate system includes 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension
- Who you are - Describes who you are - What has happened to you - You are what you have done
Facticity
Einstein thought that scientists should avoid studying philosophy. (Hint: there is a relevant quote from Einstein in the course syllabus.) Select one: True False
False
True or False: The following argument is valid. If chimpanzees have higher-order reasoning capacity, then chimpanzees are persons. Chimpanzees do not have higher-order reasoning capacity, therefore chimpanzees are not persons. Select one: True False
False
True or False: an argument can be sound but not valid
False
All dogs are green I am a dog Therefore I am green
False premises but valid
T/F: Socrates prioritized care of the body.
False, he believed that care for the soul matters more than the body bc the latter is perishable and insatiable and material things.
T/F: Philosophers seek validity only
False, they are interested in truth, or sound arguments wherein all of the premises are true
- There may be no observable features yet there will be no overlapping resemblance - There is no common denominator
Family Resemblance
The Greater Good Defense Basic Idea
For every evil, there is good such that the evil is necessary for the good and the good outweighs the evil
Natural Model
Fossil record, genetics, evolution, Darwinism Selection
Jeremy Bentham
Founder of Modern Utilitarianism. Agrees with swine objection. Animals should have rights because they suffer. About Quantity
Three views of qualia
Functionalism - Qualia are internal, functional events Epiphenomenalism - Qualia are non-physical internal events with no causal effects on the physical world Representationalism - Qualia are representations of properties of objects
Zombies
Functionally and physically identical to human beings, but have no subjective experience. If zombies are possible then we can't use verbal reports to study experiences
Other responses to "Does God exist?" continued
Further options: Polytheism - there are many gods; Panentheism - god or gods interpenetrate(s) all parts of the world (but God does not equal Nature as in pantheism); Agnosticism (vl) - insufficient evidence to decide on God's existence, so withhold belief for now; Agnosticism (v2) - the concept of God is deemed incoherent, so withhold belief for now; Atheism - god(s) do(es) not exist (e.g., philosophers John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer, Bertrand Russell; scientists Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, others).
Gaunilo's criticism
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (monk, contemporary of Anselm). Counter-argument to Anselm - (P1) Lost Island is the greatest possible island (GPI) conceivable [see Gaunilo, section 6] (P2) The GPI has all the great-making properties (P3) Existence is a great-making property (C) Therefore, the Lost Island exists. Defense - Exact same form of argument as Anselm's argument. If Anselm's argument is sound, so is Gaunilo's argument. But to prove (C), you need to show the Lost Island!
Jehu
General that Elisha directs to overthrow the dynasty of Ahab, and become king of Israel. His rampage is punishment willed upon by Israel and the transgressions of Jezebel and other Baalist.
Which of the following is not a conclusion indicator? Select one: a. Given that b. Hence c. Therefore d. As a result e. Accordingly
Given That
Veil of ignorance
Goal: decide on laws of society and how all goods should be distributed, before being randomly placed in society (thus 'lifting the veil') Method: (a) propose laws (principles of justice) and test them against examples (b) follow the 'maximin' principle: maximize the well-being of the least well-off, i.e., those with the minimum
theistic voluntarism
God freely decides what is right and wrong
fundamental issues of life
God, morality, individuals, societies
Twin Earth
H2O vs XYZ and how content of beliefs about water depend not just on your mental states, but also on the molecular structure of water
Higher-order thought and High-Order Perception
HOT - Higher order representations are conceptual HOP - Representations can sometimes be non-conceptual
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: Since the child got nauseated after eating beans in November, and the child got nauseated after eating beans in December, it can be concluded that the child will get nauseated after eating beans every time.
Hasty generalization
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: The first three appointments made by the Governor were all Protestants, so the governor must be prejudiced against Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.
Hasty generalization
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: The welfare program is totally unnecessary. I know a man who runs a lucrative illegal gambling operation and who drives his lexus downtown every week to collect his welfare check.
Hasty generalization
According to Socrates, _____ directly translates into _____.
He said knowledge translates into action
- Pleasure and pain - Only about the individual - Can be physical (comes and goes) - Can also be intellectual (constant) - Self- orientated
Hedonism
- Concept of Logos (Universal Ideal) * Driving down the road when its hot (See water: senses can fool us) * Sight, Sounds, Touch: Senses - Validity of sense perception questioned - Everything is going to constantly change (Cant rely on your senses: will never be the same) (You can change who you are only if you choose to)
Heraclitean
Paring Problem (CD)
How can we tell which minds are having a causal effects on which bodies if they have no spatial location?
Interaction Problem (CD)
How does a nonphysical mind influence a physical body?
Princess Elisabeths objection
How does something with no mass and not extended in space interact with something that is extended in space?
The Wager
I believe in God, God exists: +infinity (heavenly happiness). I do not believe in God (meant to include agnostic and atheist: non-positive belief), God exists: -infinity (hellish misery). I believe in God, God does not exist: 0 (or, negligible positive or negative). I do not believe in God, God does not exist: 0 (or, negligible positive or negative). Suppose: we rank probability from 0 to 1. Suppose: prob(God exists) = prob(God does not exist) = 0.5. Suppose: U = overall utility of belief (measure of benefit). U(belief in God) = 0.5(+infinity) - 0.5(0) = infinity. U(disbelief in God) = 0.5(-infinity) - 0.5(0) = -infinity. Therefore: you should believe that God exists (i.e., it's in your best interest to believe that God exists).
Knowledge Argument (Cartesian Dualism)
I know my mind exists but not my body therefore they are different. Counter Point - We can't say mind and body are not identical as the statement doesn't apply to what people know/believe about an object
Arguments against the Problem of Evil
I. The Free Will Defense: God might choose to allow suffering in order to bring about the greater good of giving us freedom. II. The Moral Growth Reply: God might choose to allow suffering in order to bring about the greater good of moral growth. III. The Afterlife Reply: God might compensate us in the afterlife for our suffering in this life.
Arguments against The Design Argument
I.(1) does not seem to apply to necessary order. Could the laws and constants of this universe be likewise necessary? II.If multiverse theory is a possibility, then the order our universe exhibits might not presuppose an orderer. III.Could order be passed down from something else with order, in the way that living things pass their DNA on to their offspring? IV.If there's more to nature than just this universe, then (2) seems implausible. V.Isn't this just a "god of the gaps" argument?
Arguments against Pascal's Wager
I.We cannot just choose to believe something because it is to our advantage. II.If we choose to believe because of this argument, our belief may not meet the conditions for getting into heaven. III.There are many different theories about what kind of belief/actions are required to get into heaven. It is not simply a choice between belief and non-belief. IV.Getting into heaven might be a matter of whether one is a good person rather than what one believes.
All humans are mortal. (p1) Mark is mortal. (p2) Therefore, Mark is human. (conclusion)
INVALID
Some dogs are mammals. (p1) Fritz is a dog. (p2) Therefore, Fritz is a mammal. (conclusion)
INVALID
All dogs are mammals. (p1) I am not a dog. (p2) Therefore, I am not a mammal. (conclusion)
INVALID - it doesn't specify that all mammals are dogs
- The actual work of art is not physical - Physical imaginative and unplanned expression Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic value Art ( non- functional) vs. Craft (functional)
Idealist or Expression Theory
Paradoxes of a perfect being (AP, AK, AG)
If God is all-knowing...then God knows what He will do at all future times...this implies that His actions are determined by His own foreknowledge...this implies that He is not free and cannot do otherwise...so God is not all-powerful. If God is all-good...then His intentions are perfectly good and He only brings about good consequences...this implies He does not have evil intentions and cannot bring about evil consequences...so He is powerless to do evil...so God is not all-powerful. We are not aiming to resolve these paradoxes here, only noting that classical theism has conceptual difficulties. One response, however, is negative theology. Negative theology: God is indescribable with our concepts; we cannot assign positive properties to the being of God. Jewish philosopher and astronomer Maimonides advocated negative theology.
Deny the antecedent (bad), Invalid
If P then Q Not P Not Q
Modus Tollens,Valid
If P then Q Not Q Not P
Modus Ponens,Valid
If P then Q P Q
Affirm the Consequent (bad), Invalid
If P then Q Q P
No Choice Principle (NCP)
If P, then Q. Say P was true, and no one ever had a choice about it. Then Q is true, and no one evr had a choice about it
CC Theories Problems
If a belief is correlated with a state of affairs, it is also correlated with anything correlated with that state. Misrepresentation - That's a horse when it's a moose
Strong Supervenience
If an object has a mental property it must also have a physical property corresponding to the mental. eg: a human has a brain and therefore must have a mind
Global Supervenience
If two possible universes are the same in all physical respects, they are the same in all mental ones. A painting's value does not supervene on the physical properties but rather from the history (all physical events) that was put into it.
Classical theism
In the big three Western religions, God is conceived as all-powerful (AP), all-knowing (AK), all-good (AG), etc. This conception is classical theism (e.g., philosophers Leibniz, Plato, Aquinas, Augustine; scientists Boyle, Pascal). But whether such a conception is coherent is a legitimate question that philosophers should ask. For instance, it seems that contradictions can be created from these properties: AP, AK, AG.
- Conclusion goes beyond the information cited in the premise (specific to general) and cannot be guaranteed e.g., An Inductive Leap
Inductive Reasoning
- Art is an artefact - things "worked on" by humans - The work of art has to be sanctioned by someone. - Cultural/Institutional Relativism?
Institutional Theory
- Kant - Want everyone to be honest and to always tell the truth - "Categorical Imperative" - Difficult with others (cant treat others differently)
Intuitive Duty
Israel/Judah
Israel was the Northern Kingdom of the once unified nation, and Judah is the southern part.
The problem of personal identity
It seems that a person can acquire new beliefs, change appearance, etc. yet remain numerically the same person
Paley argues, by analogy, that just as a watch has a watch-maker, the universe has a universe-maker. Is the following statement true or false? The strength of Paley's argument goes up if the conclusion is more specific, but the strength of Paley's argument goes down if the conclusion is more general. Select one: True False
It's opposite: if the conclusion is more specific, the argument is weaker (harder to prove a more specific conclusion), and if the conclusion is more general, the argument is stronger (easier to prove a more general conclusion). The correct answer is 'False'.
moral weirdness
John Mackie's moral queerness for traditional views of morality, the idea of real objective moral facts in the world though they cannot be directly observed
Baal
Jordanian false god
Former Prophets
Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and Kings 1 and 2. Offer a history of Israel from the death of Moses to the Babylonian Exile.
nonconsequentialism
Kant's theory is a form of Deontological nonconsequestialism, an act is right because you can will it universally, not because of its consequences
Hosea
Last prophet of the Northern Kingdom. Marries adulterous woman named Gomer, and continues faithfulness towards her, even in her infidelity. Meant to be symbolic of an unfaithful Israel, and an ever faithful God.
- Psychological Faculty * Conation / Willing - Philosophical Orientation * Religion, Existentialism, Intuition - Trumps everything, few things we value
Level 1: Principle
- Thinking in a scientific way - Psychological Faculty * Cognitive, Reason, Thinking - Philosophical Orientation * Pragmatism, Humanism
Level 2A: Consequences (Rational)
- Where democracy is - Psychological Faculty * Cognition, Reason, Thinking - Philosophical Orientation * Utilitarianism, Democratic, Liberalism
Level 2B: Consensus (Rational)
- You value what you value because you like it - Affect, Emotion, Feeling - Behaviourism, Positivism, Hedonism - How you feel (parents are usually here)
Level 3: Preference (Sub rational)
Locke's prince and cobbler case:
Locke: the prince is in the cobbler's body P = C If P = C, then a person ≠ the body or the soul Personal identity is justified based on memory. Does person at t2 remember person at t1? Episodic memory is autobiographical. Soul does not determine identity.
1. Propositions 2. Arguments 3. Premise and Conclusions 4. Deductive and Inductive Arguments 5. Validity 6. Decision - Making
Logic: How to Reason
Aristotle claim
MATTER [potentiality] + FORM [actuality] = SUBSTANCE In actualizing matter, form gives substance functions, which for Aristotle are goal-oriented capacities This is a teleological view of the world and nature
for deductive argument: if its premises are true the conclusion_____.
MUST be true
Appeal to Nature
Making the argument that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
Meat Can't think (CD)
Meat can't think therefore the mind is not physical. CP - complex systems could possibly do so
- Treat the patient only as the host of pathology (referring people to their injury rather than their name) < they become an object rather than a subject - Nurses look at the quality of life - Physicians don't care about outcome, they only care about fixing you
Medical Model
- Huge reliance on slaves - Catholic churches were allowed (There weren't allowed books unless written by monks, Priests taught) - The more you suffered the better off you became (Reward was in heaven) * Soul is more important than the body (there must be some goodness in the body if god created it)
Medieval Era: St. Thomas Aquinas
Epiphenomenalism
Mental events are effects of physical events, but have no causal power themselves
Multiple Realizability Argument
Mental events can have many different physical substrates (computers, animals, ect.)
Causaul-Role Functionalism
Mental states are defined by the causal interrelations and not just information processing.
Functionalism
Mental states are functional kinds defined by : -The inputs that cause them -The outputs they give rise to
Nonreductive physicalism
Mental tokens are identical to physical tokens, but mental types are not reducible to physical types
Does the following raise a metaphysical or epistemological question: Are our beliefs caused by the genes we possess and physical events outside of ourselves?
Metaphysical
Does the following raise a metaphysical or epistemological question: If our beliefs and desires are caused by physical events outside of ourselves, can (our own) free will actually exist?
Metaphysical
- 60 % of individuals kept doing it because they were told to do it - Children were told to shock the other children if they got the question they were asked wrong. - Children that were traumatized by this: Some children committed suicide because they thought they had harmed another child - Two of the children thought they had killed a child.
Milgram Agentic
- To immiate - Usually nature / human nature - Replicate nature in art work - Values are cognitive and truth orientated - Plato and Socrates didn't like it because you were replicating something (Not real)
Mimetic Theory
Psycho-neural Identity Theory
Mind and brain are correlated because they are the same thing.
Dualsim
Mind is immaterial, brain and body are material. (plato, descartes, leibiz)
- You're all material(Blood, organs and chemical) - Emotions are based upon what you have in your body - Main focus: healthy body, doesn't care about persons life
Monism
Other responses to "Does God exist?"
Monotheistic options beyond classical theism: Pantheism - God = Nature or the cosmos (everything is unified; there is one substance) (Spinoza, maybe Einstein); Deism - God set up laws of nature, then allowed universe and its inhabitants to run without interfering (maybe Newton, Thomas Jefferson)
Natural vs Functional kinds
N- A type of physical thing F - A class of objects defined by their function (chair is meant to be sat on)
Is being 35 years old a necessary or a sufficient condition for being president of the United States? [Note: The U.S. Constitution does in fact state 35 years of age as a condition for the presidency.] Select one: a. Necessary. b. Neither necessary nor sufficient. c. Necessary and sufficient. d. Sufficient.
Necessary
Is the following a philosophical question: Do vampires exist?
No
Is the following a philosophical question: Should same sex marriage be legalized, according to most Americans?
No
Is the following a philosophical question: Why do some people press harder on the remote when they know the battery is low?
No
Is the following argument sound: If Dr. L is president of the US, she gets to ride on Air Force One. Dr. L is president of the US.
No
Is the following argument sound: The novel Tom Sawyer was written by Mark Twain. Mark Twain was numerically identical to Samuel Clemens. Therefore Tom Sawyer was written by Samuel Clemens.
No
Is the following argument valid: If Freud was a physicist, then he was a scientist. Freud was a scientist. Therefore Freud was a physicist.
No
Is the following argument valid: There are 500,000 lottery tickets and only one will win. Almost everyone with a ticket will lose. I have a ticket. Therefore I will lose.
No
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: A pain is not in physical space. A brain process is. So a pain process cannot be a brain process.
No mistake is made.
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: Feminists are wrong in seeking to establish complete social equality between the genders, since one gender should always dominate .
No mistake made
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: Some defendants are innocent. No one who is innocent will volunteer to plead guilty. Therefore, some defendants will not voluntarily plead guilty.
No mistake made
Is there a mistake made in the following argument, if so identify it: The question of whether there is a such thing as matter is of the greatest importance. For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of objects, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people's bodies, and still less of other people's minds
No mistake made
Is the following argument sound: If we are now studying Rousseau in philosophy 205, we must be sampling the division of philosophy known as political philosophy. We are now studying Rousseau in philosophy 205. Therefore we must be sampling the division of philosophy known as political philosophy.
No.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: If human beings survive death, the human soul is immortal.
No. Begs the question.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: Going to the dentist is a traumatic experience for some people.
No. Is just a statement.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: When the existence of beta endorphin, the so-called "happiness hormone," was discovered in 1976, it caused great excitement because it revealed that the human body produces a substance that can quell anxiety and pain.
No. No argument is being made.
- Focuses on the process or ones duty - Rule orientated - Follow the policy, principle, code, law - Deontology
Non- Consequentialism
Descartes' conception of mind
Not extended in space, and has no mass Indivisible, and imperceptible through bodily senses Mind is extended in time, i.e., has temporal extension CLAIMS MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL CAN CASUALLY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. In even doubting the existence of mind, this proves its existence I think, therefore I am
Aristotle
Of over 200 works, 31 survive "All men by nature desire to know." "The animals other than man live by appearances and memories [...] but the human race lives also by art and reasonings." Developed formal logic Everything has a natural function or purpose All living things have a soul Virtue theory of ethics Goal: 'eudaimonia'—i.e. happiness or human flourishing—using reason guided by virtue
Begging The Question (Circular Reasoning)
Often called circular reasoning, __ occurs when the believability of the evidence depends on the believability of the claim.
Amen-em-opet
Old Egyptian wisdom literature that has similar themes to the book of Proverbs written by King Soloman
Property Dualism
One object has both physical and mental properties
Supervenience
One set of properties supervenes on another set if the first set is determined by the second set
materialism
Only matter exist, mind is a material thing (aristotle, Parfit, ect)
Immaterialism
Only minds and ideas exist (berkeley)
- The nature of the self: * Going to help yourself * What human is - Freedom vs. Determinism (biological, social, and spiritual) Your behaviour is based on your outside control - Nature and relation of mind and body * Dualism vs Monism - Dasein vs. Facticity - Ends vs. Means
Ontology: What is human essence?
Black-or-White (False Dilemma)
Oversimplifying a complex issue to make it appear that only two alternatives are possible
Disjunctive Argument
P or Q Not Q P
Blaise Pascal: historical sketch
Pascal (1623-1662), French, Roman Catholic. Interests included mathematics, physics, philosophy, theology. Defended scientific method; contributed to study of fluids, pressure, vacuums. Presents his wager concerning God's existence in Pensees ("Thoughts") (incomplete work, published posthumously)
Assumptions
Pascal claims he makes no metaphysical assumptions about the nature of God. Pascal believes that neither rational argument nor evidence can prove the existence of God. Pascal claims that you must wager on the existence of God - make the bet that is in your best interest. Pascal claims we should believe that God exists. Pascal implicitly assumes a difference between theoretical rationality and practical rationality (our distinction, but it is present in Pascal's reasoning).
Pascal's Wager is designed to prove the existence of God. Select one: True False
Pascal's wager is designed to convince you that you should believe in God, not that God exists. It is a question of practical rationality (is it practical to believe in God's existence?), not theoretical rationality (does the evidence compel you to believe in God's existence?). The correct answer is 'False'.
Blindsight
People have working visual systems, but do not receive visual qualia (no PC) but are aware when changes occur in their visual field (AC).
- It is a what and a way - A way of living
Philosophy
Euthyphro's first attempt to define piety
Piety consists in prosecuting wrongdoings, no matter who they might be Even Zeus prosecuted his father for wrongdoing Socrates counterargument: (1) We shouldn't believe these stories about the gods. (2) It's only an example, not a definition. There are other kinds of pious actions.
Euthyphro's fourth attempt to define piety
Piety is the part of justice concerned with service to the gods. Socrates counterargument: (1) serving the gods means pleasing them, but piety cannot be the same as pleasing the gods; for what is pious pleases the gods because it is pious, not the other way around.
Euthyphro's third attempt to define piety
Piety is the part of justice that is concerned with care of the gods. Socrates counterargument: (1) caring for something means making it better, but our piety does not make the gods better.
- Rich - Wrestler - Truth is to be found from ideas : Mathematics : Do not let your senses derive you Academy: - School - first one - Teach the youth how to write speeches - Go around the country side and would say anything to convince people (Elite kept power)
Plato
book..
Possible Inconsistency The argument is contradictory If a thing exists it must have a cause- God is a thing that exists so God needs a cause so there can't be a first cause that doesn't have a cause
- How do I make a good society citizen (being pragmatic) - Duty- based: Successful
Post- Socratic Era: Roman Philosophy
- Were not concerned about day to day behaviours, ethics - Basic elements of human and earth - Goods were being exchanged but so were ideas
Pre- Socratic Socrates
- What makes up things - Were making ideas (observations) then making up conclusions (INDUCTIVE REASONING)
Pre- Socratics Ionian
- To evaluate an argument, you need to analyze its structure - Identify premise and conclusion * Prem. = evidence / reason * Con. = Proposition inferred from premise * Logical connections / connectors = so and therefore e.g., I think therefore I am
Premise and Conclusion
Interpretation Theory Problems
Principle of charity - Having a mind means having mostly true beliefs, or having a mind means having beliefs like ours There is no guarantee that there is always a singly maximally true and coherent assignment of beliefs.
- People started to write books* * In their own language * Books we can actively read * This got us out of the Medieval Era * Clothing off dead people would write books on them
Printing Press
- Statement that is either true or false
Propositions
- Numbers (can be explained by numbers) - Pythagorean Theorem - Computer programming: 010101010101 * Can measure happiness
Pythagoras
- In extreme observation (observation and interpretation)
Qualitative Method of Knowledge Seeking/ Research
- Measuring things - Analysis
Quantitative Method of Knowledge Seeking / Research
John Rawls
Rawls' "original position" replaces Hobbes' state of nature In the original position, you are behind a "veil of ignorance" about yourself You know what you are but not who you are Judge a distribution by its structure—the identity of people doesn't matter
Jeroboam and Rehoboam
Rehoboam, 4th and final king of the unified Israel, messed up and became only king of Judah after the Northern tribes decided to depart from the kingdom of a united Israel, and made Jeroboam their first King.
Fideism
Reliance on faith rather than reason in matters of religion
Mysticism
Reliance on subjective feeling or experience rather than reason in matters of religion
What is religion?
Religion: a system of beliefs or practices, typically shared by a community, about the divine (god or gods) and human beings' relation to it. Religion forms a major part (or the whole) of the worldview of the strong majority of human beings.
Confucius
Ren is highest virtue (humaneness). Virtue is not solitary. Emphasized tradition, family, and golden rule.
Three non-Lockean theories
Same (Immaterial) Soul Theory A person, P, is the same P at times t1 and t2 if and only if P has the same immaterial soul at t1 and t2 (Descartes, Plato) Same Living Body Theory A person, P, is the same P at times t1 and t2 if and only if P has the same living body at t1 and t2 ('living': continuously functioning) Same Living Brain Theory A person, P, is the same P at times t1 and t2 if and only if P has the same living brain at t1 and t2 (variation: some key part of the brain, or the brainstem)
Paley's watch analogy (chart)
See PDF.
6 models of origins
See chart on PPT.
Assessing the strength of an argument by analogy
See chart on pdf
Person: Technician - Making decisions based on evidence - Looks for outcome (followers)
Self - Actualization Type 2A
Qoheleth
Self proclaimed "Teacher" and author of the book of Ecclesiates.
Person: Poet - Who has vision - May or may not be popular - Convince people to follow them - Seeking out meaning - Followers follow because everyone else follows
Self- Actualization Type 1
Person: Criest - Someone who will do anything to anyone to get what they want - Pleasure and Pain - Can say anything and anyone will follow
Self- Actualization Type 3: Bottom
Person: Politician - Looks toward the crowd to get the vision, then chosen based on vision - Everyone else follows
Self- Actualization Type 2B
Main idea of Fine-Tuning & Intelligence
So many variables had to be fine-tuned together for life to exist, and it is so improbable that the process could have occurred without intelligent design
Evolution v. Design
So we have two broad competing explanations of design in the universe. (1) Natural, inherent principles of order (laws of nature, including those in evolutionary theory) produce the design of the universe and things in it. (2) An intelligent universe-maker (an orderer) designs the universe and things in it.
- Create this ourselves - Process - When a group gets together and makes rules
Social Contract Duty
- By trade black smith - Foot Solider - Chase after politicians and ask them questions - Never wrote a word (we know everything about him from Plato) - Was the wises because he didn't claim to know anything (all he did was ask questions) Locked up: - Put him in prison for corrupting the youth, worshipping false goods - Defended his actions (was put to death) - Could have escaped but didn't want to break the law - Drank Hemlock
Socrates
Said "The unexamined life is not worth living"
Socrates
Who is the first/founder of rationalism?
Socrates
Naturalism
Sophie: "Naturalism is the view that nature is all there is, and nature is the world of things that behave in a regular, uniform way—according to laws, as we say." Objection: faces several explanatory gaps
Kierkegaard, faith without reason
Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) - existentialist Christian philosopher. Emphasis on faith without reason.
Which fallacy does the following passage commit? "Senator Smith suggested that we should pursue a political deal with Iran in order to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Senator Johnson replied that Smith's plan is an invitation to the Iranians to destroy Israel." Select one: a. False cause b. Hasty generalization c. Appeal to nature d. Straw man e. Appeal to majority
Straw Man
Decision theory (aka rational choice theory)
Studies decisions under conditions of uncertainty with a specified number of possibilities (important in economics, for instance). How to make the best or most rational choice? Decision theory concerns practical rationality.
- Greatest goodness for the greatest number - Minority - Easily decided (when it comes to specific examples)
Subjective Teleology
Weak Supervenience
Supervenience does not entail that objects with all the same mental properties have all the same physical ones. eg: Dennett's brain and the computer have different physical properties
Cosmological Argument Big Bang
Supported and explained by Plato, Aristotle, Hume response- The universe itself might be God (i) If a thing begins to exist, it must have a cause (ii) The world is a thing that begins to exist (iii) The world has a cause [(i), (ii), MP] (iv) Either this cause is an unending series or the series ends in a First Cause. (v) An unending series of causes is impossible (vi) The series ends in a First Cause [(iv), (v), DA]. (vii) the First Cause satisfies some of God's descriptions (e.g., it causes the world, it is not caused by anything else) Big Bang ii) Universe began to exist v) Universe had a beginning with the Big Bang.
Swampman
Swampman's thoughts wouldn't have any content and he can't form beliefs.If swampman's thoughts do have content, then content can't be determined by a representation's history
Wisdom Literature
The Kethuvim (Writings) constitute the third and final section of the Tanuk.
Why does Berkeley conclude that there must be an Author of Nature? Select one: a. The master argument. b. A revelation from the Author of Nature. c. An inference to the best explanation. d. Something must oppose the Evil Genius. e. The dreaming argument.
The Master Argument
Question for you
The Ontological Argument cites empirical evidence (sensations, etc.) in trying to prove the existence of God. True or False? The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument. "a priori": known through the mind and understanding alone, without sensations or observations. "a posteriori": known through sensations and observations.
David and Soloman
The Second and Third Kings of Israel. David is theologically credited with writing most of Psalms and Soloman wrote Proverbs. Each King is credited with the growth of Israel.
- Somethings that you witness that inspires you but also others - Event , View, Situation - Fear: But cant stop looking at it - You admire this fear e.g., Looking at the stars
The Sublime Fear and Awe
What is philosophy?
The attempt to answer (a) the deepest, most fundamental questions...(b) through the use of reason (as far as this is possible).
Phenomenal Consciousness
The character of experience, the "what's it's like" of some mental process
Causal correlational theories
The content of a representation is what causes it to occur ("occasions" it) and co-varies with in normal environments
Teological Theories
The content of a representation is whatever its function is to represent - its purpose or its job
Content Externalism
The content of my belief this is water is determined by my mental states, and those supervene on my brain
Asymmetric Dependency Theory
The content of the representation is the state of affairs that causes it and that can explain why other states of affairs can cause that representation.
A religion is, roughly, a system of beliefs or practices, typically shared by a community, about the divine (god or gods) and human beings' relation to it. Select one: True False
The correct answer is 'True'.
What's wrong with the claim that evolution is "only a theory"? Select one: a. Evolution is a theory in a trivial sense. b. Evolution is a very well-confirmed theory. c. Evolutionary theory was proposed by Darwin over 150 years ago. d. Evolutionary theory provides an alternative explanation to the argument from design (teleological argument). e. Evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis.
The correct answer is: Evolution is a very well-confirmed theory.
Identify the approximate percentage of followers of these religions (according to recent polls). Judaism Unaffiliated Buddhism Folk religions Hinduism Islam Christianity
The correct answer is: Judaism → 0.2%, Unaffiliated → 16.3%, Buddhism → 7.1%, Folk religions → 5.9%, Hinduism → 15%, Islam → 23.2%, Christianity → 31.5%
Which of these thinkers argues for pantheism? Select one: a. Rowe b. St. Anselm c. Pascal d. Paley e. Spinoza
The correct answer is: Spinoza
Which of the following arguments both concludes that God exists and is based entirely on rational principles with no reference to empirical experience? Select one: a. The argument that compares God to a watchmaker. b. The argument that assumes that God is 'that than which none greater can be conceived'. c. The argument that says it's in your best interest to believe in God. d. None of the above.
The correct answer is: The argument that assumes that God is 'that than which none greater can be conceived'. St. Anselm's argument, which defines God as that which none greater can be conceived, is known as the ontological argument. It is entirely "a priori" -- based solely on rational principles without reference to empirical experience. The design argument (or teleological argument), for example, references empirical experience, namely our experience of order and apparent design in the world.
What is the deductive problem of evil? Select one: a. The existence of evil in the world is explained by humans being free to choose their actions. b. The existence of evil in the world can be explained because all the pain and suffering will eventually generate an eternal harmony. c. The existence of any evil in the world makes the existence of God unlikely. d. The existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of God.
The correct answer is: The existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of God.
What image best captures the essence of evolution, according to "Big Thinkers on Evolution"? Select one: a. The image of earth from space. b. An image of young Darwin compared to a picture of old Darwin. c. An image of a virus. d. The DNA molecule. e. The image of creatures transitioning from walking on four legs to walking upright on two legs.
The correct answer is: The image of earth from space.
How does Paley respond to the possibility that the watch arose because all its parts exemplify an inherent, natural principle of order, which disposes the parts "into their present form and situation"? Select one: a. It is not possible that an inherent, natural principle of order brought the watch into existence. b. We don't know what a principle of order is other than one assigned by an intelligent designer. c. We've known watch to be made this way. d. It is possible that an inherent, natural principle of order brought the watch into existence, but this is improbable.
The correct answer is: We don't know what a principle of order is other than one assigned by an intelligent designer.
Deuteronomic History
The history of the "Former Prophets"-- Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and Kings 1 and 2-- written by the Deuteronomic Historian. The D.H. was not only concerned to preserve the history of Israel, but also to interpret it theologically.
Expanding Darwin's ideas
The idea of evolution can be extended to the beginning (if there is one) of the universe with the big bang theory: elements, stars, planets, etc. explained by natural evolutionary processes.
Determinism (metaphysical thesis)
The laws of nature + events at an earlier time completely determine the events at a later time
Nonreductive Physicalism (Property Dualism)
The mental properties of a system are distinct from its physical properties. eg: claims about mental properties cannot be translated into claims about physical ones
Cartesian Dualism
The mind is immaterial and connects to the brain and body via a lobe
Conceivability Argument (CD)
The mind's essential nature is to think and not have a physical object in space; body's essential nature is to be a thing in space so they are different. CP- just cause we can conceive of an essential nature doesn't make it an empirical fact.
Euthyphro's second attempt to define piety
The pious is what is loved by the gods. Socrates counterargument: (1) What is dear to some gods is not dear to others. But nothing could be both pious and impious. (2) There is no way to know that all the gods are in agreement about what Euthyphro is doing. (3) The gods love what is pious because it is pious, not the other way around. AKA the "Euthyphro dilemma" Piety is prior to being god-loved, therefore, piety is not the same as being loved by the gods. The gods love what is pious BECAUSE it is pious.
Assumptions (continued)
Theoretical rationality = concerns making decisions (and drawing conclusions) based on argument and evidence: aimed at TRUTH. Practical rationality = concerns making decisions (and drawing conclusions) based on what is in your BEST INTERESTS. Pascal claims we should believe that God exists (in the practical, not theoretical, sense of "should")
book.
There is probably an intelligent God who is the cause of designs in nature
Contents of consciousness
Thoughts, feelings, sensations, memory experiences and dreams as they are experienced
1. What is there? e.g., idealism, realism - drives Scientifics, logics 2. How do we know? e.g., idealistic questions reality 3. What should we do? e.g., Depends, Right or Left
Three Questions
Tehillim
Title of the book of Psalms in Hebrew meaning "songs of praise"
Interpretation Theory
To have a belief that p is just the best possible interpretation of a person's beliefs to include p
Machine Functionalism
To have a mind is to be a physically realized information processor of sufficient complexity.
wasf
Tradition in Arabic weddings were the bride and groom would sing to each other about the beauty of each other's body. Examples of this are found in the Song of Songs
The Design Stance
Treating things as having been designed for particular functions, and predicts that they will perform those functions well
The Physical Stance
Treating things as physical objects obeying physical laws
The Intentional Stance
Treats an object as an agent with beliefs and desires
- Argues that you do both (arrive at the same time)- Time consuming and expensive
Triangulation Method of Knowledge Seeking/ Research
A technique for analyzing arguments is to diagram the relationship between premises and conclusions using numerals to represent the various statements, the + sign and underlining to indicate conjoint premises if necessary, and arrows showing how the premises support the conclusion. Select one: True False
True
True or False: An argument can be valid even though all of its premises and conclusion are false.
True
True or False: An argument is sound only if it is valid, AND the premises are true
True
True or False: Socrates was Prosecuted for corrupting the youth and being disrespectful to the God
True
T/F: Socrates had a huge problem with sophists.
True, he had a huge problem with sophists because instead of teaching truth, they were teaching how to get what you want.
acrostic
Type of poetry meaning that each stanza begins with one of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in succession.
Types vs Tokens
Type- A type of thing (tables) Token- An instance of a type (this table)
Only humans are mortal. (p1) Mark is mortal. (p2) Therefore, Mark is human. (conclusion)
Valid; NOT sound
All humans are mortal. (p1) Mark is human. (p2) Therefore, Mark is mortal. (conclusion)
Valid; Sound
The premise guarantees the conclusion - May or may not be true however, if the premise or conclusion is false
Validity
- First its a concept, it is something we make up out of nothing - Second, it is the concept of desirable * Something we would all generally accept as a good thing - A concept of the desirable with a motivating force. This is an essential part of values - It is not a value if it does not influence your decision
Value
- Created by Hodgkinson Level 3 Preference Level 2B Consensus Level 2A Consequences Level 1 Principle
Value Paradigm
- Values indicate what the organisation / profession perceived as desirable - Values provide us with the grounding for ethical choices
Values: Contemporary View
Inverted Spectrum Argument
We can invert qualia so someone experiences red as green but functionally their experience is identical as what they call green "red", describes it as a warm color. So qualia can't just be functional states.
Nagel's Bat
We can't know what it means to be a bat because conscious experiences can't be reduced to physical processes.
"Given that we want our society to make progress, we should seek both knowledge and wisdom." Assuming this conditional as the first premise of an argument, adding which of the following statements as a second premise would help form a valid argument? Select one: a. We do not want society to make progress. b. We should seek both knowledge and wisdom. c. We should not seek either knowledge or wisdom. d. Either a. or c. would help form a valid argument.
We should not seek either knowledge or wisdom.
1. Academic: difficult to read 2. Practical: problem solving, difficult ways to view- variety of different ways 3. Common: all thinking
What is Philosophy
Parfit's response to branching
What matters in your survival is intact in both Y1, Y2 Parfit: "Everything is still there. The fact that I'm not there is not a real absence." Either Y1 or Y2 suffices for survival Since neither Y1 nor Y2 = Y, personal numerical identity doesn't matter What matters in is having psychological continuity over time (whether it branches or not)
Mary's Room Ability Hypothesis
When Mary sees color for the first time, she doesn't gain new knowledge she uses an ability for the first time
The Principle of Charity
When interpreting meaning, we attempt to follow the logic that makes the most of their beliefs true
Access Consciousness
When representation is available to reasoning, speech processing, and control of thought and action
The Beer Problem
When you first try beer and it tastes gross but later you like it. Does it taste the same (same qualia), but now you like the taste? Or does it taste different now (different qualia)?
- Takes time - Causes us to change - Motivation
Why do we avoid it?
- Comprehension ( to understand) : get to know > Eudemonia (flourish) (self- actualization) - Power ( see problems, we can solve them and that gives us power) (If there is completion there is power) - Meaningfulness
Why should we do it?
Wide and Narrow Content
Wide content is content determined by facts outside the person Narrow Content supervenes only on the person
Is the following a philosophical question: Given discoveries of science and neuroscience, is belief in God irrational?
Yes
Is the following a philosophical question: Is it always wrong to tell a lie?
Yes
Is the following a philosophical question: What is the relationship between the mind and body?
Yes
Is the following a philosophical question: What would the ideal state be like?
Yes
Is the following argument sound: Since London England is north of Paris France and south of Edinburgh Scotland, it follows that Paris France is south of Edinburgh Scotland.
Yes
Is the following argument sound: Some animals have wings. All eagles are animals. Therefore all eagles have wings.
Yes
Is the following argument valid: All rubies are red and all emeralds are green. Hence the blue jewel on the queen's pendant is not an emerald or a ruby.
Yes
Is the following argument valid: Frodo is not safe, because he is pursued by Black Riders, and no one pursued by Black Riders is safe.
Yes
Is the following argument valid: If I go to the movies, I will stay up late and wake up tired. If I wake up tired, I will not be able to go to work the next day. Therefore if I go to the movies, I will not be able to go to work the next day.
Yes
Is the following argument sound: There are no dogs able to speak a human language. Lassie was a dog. Therefore, Lassie could not speak a human language.
Yes.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: It would be a mistake to impose a high tariff on high-quality shoes. A high tariff on high quality shoes keeps the price of shoes higher and absorbs the money that consumers could be spending on other things. It also keeps people employed as shoemakers when they could be making other things that the united states can produce more efficiently than other countries,
Yes. Premise 1: A high tariff on ... spending on other things Premise 2: It keeps people employed ... more efficiently than other countries. Conclusion: It would be a mistake to impose a high tariff on high-quality shoes.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: Definitions cannot, by their very nature, be either "true" or "false", only more useful or less so. For this reason it makes relatively little sense to argue over definitions.
Yes. Premise: Definitions cannot ... only more useful or less so. Conclusion: It makes relatively little sense to argue over definitions.
The fact that men are free implies that they are responsible.
Yes. Premise: Men are free. Conclusion: Men are responsible.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: Statistical studies establish that the incidence of forced rape is lower in places where prostitution is tolerated than in places where it is not. Therefore, prostitution should be legalized.
Yes. Premise: Statistical studies establish... places where it is not. Conclusion: Prostitution should be legalized.
Is the following an argument if so identify premise and conclusion: The functioning of an expanding industrial system depends on an abundance of raw materials. Hence, our industrial system will eventually cease to expand since raw materials are running out.
Yes. Premise: The functioning of an expanding industrial system depends on an abundance of raw materials. Conclusion: Our industrial system will eventually cease to expand since raw materials are running out.
Categorical imperatives:
You have a duty to do B." This is morality, and it's determined by reason, not desire. One supreme moral imperative, "the categorical imperative", binding for all rational beings: only act on maxims if they work when universal, and respect autonomy.
Pascal's Wager
You might as well choose to believe in God because the risk of not believing is greater than the risk of believing (None)
Logical fallacies relevant to evaluating belief in God (& other things)
[You should know these four fallacies, which come up in religious contexts and other contexts too.] Subjectivist fallacy: I believe or want claim p to be true, therefore p is true. (I believe that God exists, therefore God exists); Appeal to emotion: X associates an emotion with claim p in order to convince you that p is true; therefore you believe that p is true (A pastor says that joy and happiness come from belief in God, therefore you believe in God); Appeal to force: X threatens you to get you to accept that p, therefore you believe that p (A parent says they will punish you (or says that God will punish you) unless you believe in God, therefore you believe in God); Appeal to ignorance: the claim that p has not been proven false [true], therefore p is true [false] (Climate scientists cannot prove the earth is warmer now than ten thousand years ago. That's why we should reject the global warming claims).
According to Gould, why is Darwin's theory more important than Copernicus' theory? (Choose the most accurate answer.) Select one: a. The former is about what and who we are; it's about human nature. b. The former is about our home, where we live. c. The former involves more complicated facts. d. The former is about biology, whereas the latter is about astronomy.
a
One problem you'll encounter in using an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is: Select one: a. There are often multiple competing explanations of the data or evidence. b. There are no criteria to determine which explanation is best. c. IBEs are not used in philosophy, only in science. d. None of the above is a problem for IBEs.
a
Suppose Jane argues that because presidential candidate Y has a similar educational background as former president X, Y belongs to the same political party as X, and X was a good president, therefore Y will also be a good president. Which of the following claims would make this argument a stronger analogy? Select one: a. X and Y both voted against going to war in Iraq in 2003. b. X and Y are shown to have some dissimilarities. c. It is shown that whether X and Y have the same educational background is irrelevant. d. The conclusion is changed to be that Y will be one of the top 5 presidents of all time.
a
Suppose Samantha claims that "capital punishment is morally impermissible." According to the moral theory of Cultural Relativism, what makes Samantha's statement true? (Choose the answer that best characterizes Cultural Relativism.) Select one: a. The fact that people in Samantha's culture sincerely believe her claim. b. The fact that capital punishment follows a divine command. c. The fact that capital punishment maximizes happiness. d. The fact that capital punishment respects the humanity of the victim of the criminal who receives capital punishment.
a
Suppose that a psychopathic murderer comes to the door of Jack's house. The psychopath asks Jack if Sasha is hiding in Jack's house. Suppose Sasha is, in fact, hiding in Jack's house. According to the compatibilist view of free will, Jack's action (whether he tells the truth or lies) Select one: a. is physically determined by the laws of nature and the facts of the situation, yet Jack is free because his choice makes a difference about what happens. b. is free because Jack is the agent-cause of the action. c. is physically determined by the laws of nature and the facts of the situation, therefore there is no sense in which Jack has more than one open future. d. must be tested in accordance with the universal law formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
a
What are the three "BR" problems? Select one: a. Problems for Locke's theory of personal identity. b. Problems for Parfit's split-brain thought experiment. c. Problems' for Aristotle's materialist theory of soul. d. Problems for a Turing machine. e. Problems for Descartes' substance dualism.
a
What is the best way to diagram the argument consisting of statements (1) through (3) below? (1) Lacy is a two-time award winner for best actor in a motion picture. So, (2) Lacy is a good actor and (3) she will win another award for best actor. Select one: a. (1) is the only premise, with one arrow going to (2) and one going to (3). b. (2) is the conclusion, with (1) and (3) conjointly supporting (2). c. (2) is the conclusion, with (1) and (3) independently supporting (2). d. (3) is the conclusion, and (1) and (2) conjointly support (3). e. None of the above.
a
What is the difference principle, according to Rawls' theory of justice? Select one: a. The difference principle says that any inequalities in society must be maximally beneficial to the least advantaged. b. The difference principle says that any differences in the moral worth of people must be accounted for the in the rules that govern society. c. The difference principle says that all individuals in society must have the most extensive set of liberties compatible with liberty for others. d. The difference principle says that goods must be distributed differently in different societies, depending on what people in the Original Position determine.
a
Which of the following principles is assumed by Descartes in his dreaming argument? (P stands for any statement.) Select one: a. If it possible that P is not true, then there is reason to doubt that P. b. If P is possible, then one knows that P. c. I can always distinguish between dreaming and non-dreaming (waking) experiences. d. To know that P requires a high probability, but not certainty, that P is the case.
a
Which of the following statements best captures the distinction between agent-causation and event-causation, as discussed by van Inwagen in his essay on free will? Select one: a. Agent-causation involves agents causing events to happen, whereas event-causation involves events causing events to happen. b. Agent-causation and event-causation both involve agents causing events to happen. c. There is no distinction between agent-causation and event-causation. d. Event-causation and agent-causation both involve events causing events to happen.
a
Which of these examples best represents the extended mind thesis? Select one: a. You look up the answer you had recorded in your personal notebook. b. You do a math calculation in your head. c. You meditate to relax your mind. d. Your intuition tells you to choose this answer. e. Your friend tells you the answer to this question.
a
Which of these statements is an example of the principle of the "indiscernibility of identical objects" used in Descartes' argument from doubt? Select one: a. If chair A = chair B, then A and B share all the same properties. b. If chair A = chair B, then A and B occupy the same space. c. Chair A = chair B if and only if A and B are one and same object. d. If chair A and chair B share all the same properties, the A = B.
a
argument
a collection of two or more statements of which one, the conclusion, is presented as following from the others, premises
Infallibility
a culture's moral beliefs cannot be false
False Cause
a fallacy in which a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second
Ad Hominem
a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute
the difference between philosophy and folk ways of thinking
a lack of systematicity and analytical thinking
Formal Fallacy
a logical error that occurs in the form or structure of an argument; it is restricted to deductive arguments
Informal Fallacy
a mistake in reasoning that occurs in ordinary language and is different from an error in the form or structure of arguments
ethical relativism does not equal moral skepticism/eliminativism
a relativist does not deny that there are rights and wrongs, only that they are absolute
statement
a sentence through which something is asserted or claimed (in contrast to questions, interjections, commands, etc).
Socrates saw philosophy as
a way of life
book....
a) There can't be good without evil b) One can't know good without evil
4. Rowe's fawn example (an example of intense, unjustified suffering)
a. "Suppose in some distance forest...". Could the "apparently pointless suffering" of the fawn have been prevented by God (an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being)? Yes. b. This is an unjustified evil (or "pointless" evil), an instance of "intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." (These 'greater goods' would be part of a particular theodicy.) c. Knowing or proving that there are unjustified evils is different from having rational grounds for believing that there are unjustified evils (Rowe: Goldwater, McGovern examples). d. Generalizing the fawn example: "It seems quite unlikely that all the instances of intense suffering occurring daily in our world are intimately related to the occurrences of greater goods or the prevention of evils at least as bad..."
3. Evidential problem of evil (Rowe)
a. "[T]he variety and profusion of evil in our world, although perhaps not logically inconsistent with the existence of a theistic God [as the logical problem of evil contends], provides, nevertheless, rational support [evidence] for atheism." b. Although D is logically compatible with claims A, B, C, the amount and variety of evil provides compelling evidence against one of A, B, or C being true, thus against the existence of God. c. Suppose any theodicy T can logically explain the existence of some minimal amount, M, of evil. Thus, T negates the logical problem of evil. But we actually observe M x 1 billion (or more). So the amount of evil overwhelms the explanatory power of T. d. How to solve the evidential problem of evil: show that a given theodicy can explain the amount and variety of evil present in the world (not simply explain why there is a single existence). The evidential problem sets a higher standard than the logical problem.
2. Logical problem of evil
a. If D is true, at least one of A, B, and C must be false. That is, D is logically incompatible with A-C taken as a set. That is, even one instance of evil is incompatible with God's existence. b. A theodicy is an explanation of why God would allow evil - for example, responding to evil helps humans build character. c. How to solve the logical problem of evil: show that a given theodicy identifies a logically possible reason why God would allow any instance of evil (whether or not it is the true reason).
Number of primary analogues
a. It's a hypothetical claim, so we can easily pretend to find 100 or 100,000 watches, which would seem to strengthen the analogy. However, more watches might cause one to consider them like rocks (very common, not special), which Paley says do NOT cause one to infer design, thus weakening the analogy.
Specificity of the conclusion
a. The argument does not determine the number of designers, so it is stronger. If it specified that there were two designers, it would be a weaker argument than concluding that there is or was a single designer or multiple designers. b. The argument does not determine the moral status of the designer(s), s it is stronger. d. The argument can only conclude that the designer(s) had sufficient power or knowledge to make the universe, not that the designer(s) was (were) all-powerful. e. The fact that statements a-d hold, i.e., that the argument does not make very specific claims, makes the argument stronger. But this comes with a significant price. Because the conclusion is so general, it is not as scientifically or philosophically interesting as it would be if it were more specific. On the other hand, is it specific enough to show that the designer(s) is (are) likely to be anthropomorphic - sophisticated watchmaker(s). Is this acceptable? f. The stronger alternative, simpler explanations of u's existence become (big bang theory, evolutionary theory), based on empirical evidence or rational argument, the weaker the design argument becomes.
Dissimilar features between w and u
a. Unlike the watch, can we claim by empirical observation any function or purpose to the universe or even organisms within it? Things just exist, and organisms just try to survive. b. We don't always see the inter-relatedness of parts of the universe (in the watch, we see a gear moving a hand, but do we see a star moving a planet?). c. All parts of the watch are related mechanically; but not all parts of the universe are so related. Some parts of it are related organically (roots connecting to soil, molecules sending messages), some parts are related over great distances by forces, etc. d. We see the watch as a whole; not so for the universe.
Crito's case for escape
a. refusing to escape would deprive Crito of a dear friend b. refusing to escape would tarnish Crito's reputation c. Crito has plenty of money to fund Socrates' escape and a place for him to go d. It is unjust to give up your life when you could save it e. refusing to escape would be to abandon your sons f. refusing to escape would be to choose the easy path over the good and courageous path.
omnipotence
ability to do anything logically possible
rule utilitarianism
act x is right = act x conforms to a rule that when generally followed maximizes happiness for all affected
religious ethics/divine command theory
act x is right = because it is commanded by God
act utilitarianism
act x is right = doing x maximizes happiness for all affected
consequentialism
acts and rules are judges by their effects the end justifies the means
Quantum nonlocality
after two subatomic particles (P1, P2) interact, they are "entangled" as a single quantum system despite being spatially separated Measurements on one affect the other faster than light
monism vs. pluralism
all happiness is the same
Ayn Rand
altruism is a moral self-sacrifice: straw man: only extreme altruism says you must always serve others and never yourself
Agent-cause:
an agent or person causing a billiard to move
practical ethics
applying moral theory to real problems
logical dilemma
are there reasons for God's commands? if no, makes divine commands arbitrary if yes, makes commands irrelevant because reason is more important
Division
argument in which a speaker assumes that what is true of the whole is also true of the parts that make up the whole
logical fallacies
arguments that appear to be valid, but are not upon closer inspection
psychological egoism
as a matter of human psychology, people always seek their own happiness exceptional cases such as Mother Teresa
If we accept that both ships (reconstructed, renovated) are numerically identical to the Ship of Theseus, what principle must we give up? Select one: a. The transitivity of identity. b. That one object cannot be in two places at the same time. c. That memory determines identity. d. That one object cannot instantaneously move from one location to another.
b
Plato's account of knowledge includes what conditions? Select one: a. facts, beliefs, and perceptions b. justification, truth, and belief c. virtual justification, truth, and belief d. belief and truth e. evidence and truth
b
Suppose a human being lacks episodic memory. This kind of case presents a problem for which thesis below? Select one: a. Parfit's bundle theory. b. Locke's theory of personal identity. c. Searle's 'Chinese Room' case. d. Aristotle's theory of the soul.
b
What is the best way to diagrammatically represent the argument consisting of statements (1) through (3) below? (1) In basketball, if your favorite team has a great point guard (and she stays healthy), your team will qualify for the postseason. But (2) your team didn't qualify for the postseason. That's why (3) your favorite team doesn't have a great point guard. (You may want to draw the diagrams to better see all the different options.) Select one: a. (1) and (3) conjointly supporting (2). b. (1) and (2) conjointly supporting (3). c. (1) and (2) independently supporting (3). d. (1) supporting (3). [(2) is not part of the argument.] e. (1) independently supporting (2), and then (2) independently supporting (3). [Arrow from (1) to (2), then from (2) to (3).] Feedback Your answer is incorrect. The correct answer is: (1) and (2) conjointly supporting (3).
b
What is the deductive problem of evil? Select one: a. The existence of evil in the world can be explained because all the pain and suffering will eventually generate an eternal harmony. b. The existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of God. c. The existence of any evil in the world makes the existence of God unlikely. d. The existence of evil in the world is explained by humans being free to choose their actions. Feedback Your answer is incorrect.
b
Which of the follow statements best represent Aristotle's theory of the soul? Select one: A. The form of the soul is an immaterial substance. B. The soul is the first level of actualization of organic matter. C. Animals and humans, but not plants, have souls. D. Both A and B.
b
Which of the following actions would a utilitarian recommend as morally right? Select one: a. Action 1, which creates 200 units of pleasure and 100 units of pain b. Action 2, which creates 300 units of pleasure and 150 units of pain c. Action 3, which creates 100 units of pleasure and 50 units of pain d. Action 4, which creates 500 units of pleasure and 500 units of pain e. Action 5, which creates 500 units of pleasure and 499 units of pain
b
Which of the following arguments both concludes that God exists and is based entirely on rational principles with no reference to empirical experience? Select one: a. The argument that compares God to a watchmaker. b. The argument that assumes that God is 'that than which none greater can be conceived'. c. The argument that says it's in your best interest to believe in God. d. None of the above.
b
Why is the principle of rectification necessary for Nozick's entitlement theory? Select one: a. Sometimes people voluntarily use their talents and labor to help others. b. Sometimes the self-ownership of individuals is violated. c. Sometimes people voluntarily give away all of their property. d. All of the above.
b
5. Theodicies (continued...)
b. Theodicies not based on the idea of sin = Soul-building (evil is required to build character) [Irenaeus] Critical question: How much evil is necessary to build character? Best possible world (our world is as good as it could possibly be) [Leibniz] Critical question: Could the world be slightly better (no mosquitoes, stronger bones, etc.)? Contrast (evil is necessary to know good and vice versa). Critical question: Why are they co-necessary? If they are, how much evil is necessary to know what is good?
lack of reliability
beliefs adopted by the process that excludes reasons are unreliable
Aristotle's conception of god is Select one: a. creator of the animals. b. the spark of evolution. c. a pure intellect. d. creator of souls. e. also Plato's conception.
c
Suppose that a psychopathic murderer comes to the door of Jack's house. The psychopath asks Jack if Sasha is hiding in Jack's house. Suppose Sasha is, in fact, hiding in Jack's house. According to the compatibilist view of free will, Jack's action (whether he tells the truth or lies) Select one: a. is physically determined by the laws of nature and the facts of the situation, yet Jack is free because his choice makes a difference about what happens. b. is free because Jack is the agent-cause of the action. c. is physically determined by the laws of nature and the facts of the situation, therefore there is no sense in which Jack has more than one open future. d. must be tested in accordance with the universal law formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
c
What is the 'systems objection' to the Chinese room argument? Select one: a. While computers don't understand, robots do understand. b. Although single computers cannot understand, the internet can understand. c. Although Searle does not understand Chinese in the 'Chinese room', the whole system (of which he is a part) does understand. d. It's not individuals that understand language, but entire communities ('systems of people').
c
Which of the following is not a theodicy? Select one: a. Best possible world. b. Free will. c. Pascal's wager. d. Punishment. e. Soul-building. Which of the following is not a theodicy? Select one: a. Best possible world. b. Free will. c. Pascal's wager. d. Punishment. e. Soul-building.
c
Which of these thinkers argues for pantheism? Select one: a. Pascal b. St. Anselm c. Spinoza d. Paley e. Rowe
c
Which of these views would the Buddha be most likely to accept? Select one: a. Locke's memory theory. b. Descartes' mind-body dualism. c. Parfit's bundle theory. d. Turing's views on AI. e. Both A and C
c
Which principle or theory would we have to give up if we argued that both ships (the reconstructed ship, and the renovated ship) are identical to the original Ship of Theseus? Select one: a. The memory theory. b. The indiscernibility of identical objects. c. The single location principle. d. The bundle theory.
c
Why does Kant disagree that consequences determine the rightness of actions? Select one: a. Consequences are almost always painful. b. Kant had a vendetta against consequentialists. c. Sometimes the way that supposedly good consequences are obtained is actually immoral. d. Consequences are always pleasurable
c
Identify all of the premise indicators in the following passage: "Climate change and global warming are real, and are probably caused, at least partially, by human activity. Since these are the facts, and a healthy environment is crucial to the well-being of humanity, we should develop policies and plans of action now to prevent the worst results of climate change. And, given that no individual can do everything necessary to develop these policies and plans, we should require our governments to take the necessary steps. Therefore, the government has an essential role to play in our response to climate change and global warming." Select one: a. "necessary steps," "given that," and "since" b. 'therefore" and "since" c. "given that" and "since" d. "given that," "since," and "therefore" e. "should" and "given that"
c. "given that" and "since"
Socrates's formula for a good life...
caring for the soul + valuing knowledge + questioning
Universal truth:
claim p is true regardless of the beliefs of groups or persons
Relative truth
claim p is true relative to the sincere beliefs of some group or person
is/ought distinction
clubbing fur seals to death causes unnecessary pain causing unnecessary pain is wrong clubbing fur seals to death is wrong
argument
combination of a claim and reasons intended to prove, or support, that claim
the main tools of philosophy
concepts
thus, so, therefore, hence, implies that, consequently, as a result of, accordingly, shows that, suggests that
conclusion indicators
Harman
connection between reason & moral obligation in cultural education (i) If persons in other societies have no reason to obey our moral principles, they have no obligation to obey our principles (ii) Some persons in other societies have no reason to obey our moral principles (iii) Some persons in other societies have no obligation to obey our moral principles
critical examination of fundamental concepts, formulation and evaluation of arguments, thought experiments
core methods of philosophy
How does Paley respond to the possibility that the watch arose because all its parts exemplify an inherent, natural principle of order, which disposes the parts "into their present form and situation"? Select one: a. It is not possible that an inherent, natural principle of order brought the watch into existence. b. It is possible that an inherent, natural principle of order brought the watch into existence, but this is improbable. c. We've known watch to be made this way. d. We don't know what a principle of order is other than one assigned by an intelligent designer.
d
Suppose the following is true: If a boxer, Rocky, has free will over his purchase of performance-enhancing drugs, then he is morally responsible for his purchase of those drugs. Which of the following theories holds that Rocky does in fact have free will regarding his purchase? Select one: A. Libertarianism. B. Compatibilism. C. Hard determinism. D. Both A and B.
d
What is the main basis for Princess Elisabeth's objection to Descartes' theory of substance dualism? Select one: a. How doubts about the body's existence can prove that the mind is distinct from the body. b. How two material substances can interact. c. How one substance can interact with itself. d. How an immaterial substance interacts with a material substance. e. How two immaterial substances can interact.
d
What is the main point of Searle's Chinese room argument? Select one: a. Neither weak AI nor strong AI are false. b. Computers cannot be successful at Turing's imitation game. c. Both weak AI and strong AI are false. d. Strong AI is false. e. Weak AI is false.
d
categorical vs. hypothetical
do x vs if you want y, do x
Suppose that neuroscience discovers the following: all human choices and actions are completely determined by brain events and laws of brain function. Which theories below are consistent with this discovery—that is, which theories below can be true at the same time that the specified neuroscience discovery is true? Select one: a. Hard determinism. b. Libertarianism. c. Compatibilism. d. Indeterminism. e. Both a. and c.
e
The split-brain cases support whose theory of personal identity? Select one: a. Descartes. b. Buddha. c. Parfit. d. Locke. e. Both b. and c.
e
What image best captures the essence of evolution, according to "Big Thinkers on Evolution"? Select one: a. An image of young Darwin compared to a picture of old Darwin. b. The image of creatures transitioning from walking on four legs to walking upright on two legs. c. An image of a virus. d. The DNA molecule. e. The image of earth from space.
e
What is the best way to respond to a slippery slope? Select one: a. Point out the false cause associated with the start of the slippery slope. b. Show how the supposed slippery slope is not actually slippery. c. Beg the question. d. Show how the slippery slope commits a formal fallacy. e. Point out a weakness in the chain of hypothetical events leading from the initial action to the unacceptable concluding action.
e
Which of the following arguments both concludes that God exists and is based entirely on rational principles with no reference to empirical experience? Select one: a. The argument that compares God to a watchmaker. b. The argument that assumes that God is 'that than which none greater can be conceived'. c. The argument that says it's in your best interest to believe in God. d. None of the above.
e
Which of the following statements best describes arguments by analogy? Select one: a. Inductive b. Deductive c. Valid or invalid d. Strong or weak e. Both a. and d.
e
Which of the following statements describe claims that Paley does NOT discuss in assessing the watch analogy? Select one: a. The watch is found to replicate itself. b. The watch might have come to exist because of an inherent principle of order in nature. c. The watch is found to operate via an internal power source. d. The watch is found to be qualitatively identical to another watch. e. Both c. and d.
e
Which of these ideas or projects was Descartes interested in? Select one: a. The foundations of knowledge. b. The passions of the soul. c. The role of thinking in our lives. d. He was interested in A and C. e. He was interested in all of the above.
e
disjunctions
either/or statements
Deontology
emphasizes adherence to strict duties (Greek 'deon'—obligation or duty), regardless of consequences
Consequentialism
emphasizes results or consequences of actions over absolute duties
universalism
everyone affected counts
moral weirdness
ex: at the scene of a crime you see the wound and the blood but not the wrong
synonym for empiricism:
experience
According to Aristotle's virtue theory, the highest function of a human being is seeking pleasure. Select one: True False
false
Aristotle thinks that an animal's soul can potentially exist apart from its material body. Select one: True False
false
Berkeley, in his book On the Principles of Human Knowledge, states that "I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflexion. That the things I see with mine eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny, is that which philosophers call matter or corporeal substance." True or False: In the above passage, Berkeley is saying that material objects really exist. Select one: True False
false
Paley argues, by analogy, that just as a watch has a watch-maker, the universe has a universe-maker. Is the following statement true or false? The strength of Paley's argument goes up if the conclusion is more specific, but the strength of Paley's argument goes down if the conclusion is more general. Select one: True False
false
Pascal's Wager is designed to prove the existence of God. Select one: True False
false
The difference between the evidential and logical problems of evil is this: the logical problem can possibly be solved with a theodicy, whereas the evidential problem cannot possibly be solved with a theodicy. Select one: True False
false
The three principles of justice in the Entitlement Theory are the following: justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and justice as fairness. Select one: True False
false
Socrates was..
first thinker interested in universal definitions, first real philospher
normative ethics
formulating and justifying the principles of morality what is an ethical norm? why?
Compatibilism:
free will and determinism coexist
universability
generalizing a rule or behavior to others
hedonistic vs preference utilitariansim
good or valuable thing is not happeniss or pleasure but what people prefer
Free will
have it everytime options are open in a fork in the road
Socrates saw himself as what?
he saw himself as someone challenging young Athenians to question and think critically/never considered himself a teacher - never accepted money; mostly interacted with young people and encouraged them to question and critically assess everything;
final challenge
how does DCT differ from a parent's "because I said so"?
Kant's basic idea:
if an act is right for you, it is right for anyone similarly situated
inductive argument
if its premises are true, the conclusion is more probable
Nietzche and the Divine Command Theory
if one rejects belief in God, they also have to reject traditional morality
Control principle
if you had chosen otherwise in some situation, you would have done otherwise
Some people have been to Paris Some people have been to Berlin Some people have been both to Paris and Berlin
invalid argument
Intelligent Design Theory
irreducible complexity" requires intelligent design, not evolution basically saying that a system that has several parts that contribute to the basic function and if one is removed the whole thing stops working. Complex systems don't evolve gradually, needs systems with previous functions that were adaptive. So complex systems were made in one swoop by intelligent designer
logic
is the province of philosophy
What is considered the Weakness of the world?
knowing something is wrong but you do it anyway
philia + sophos
love of wisdom
moral objectivity
many religious philosophers argue that theism provides the basis for objective moral laws
Branches of Philosophy
metaphysics, epistemology, axiology
the 4 main branches of philosophy:
metaphysics, epistemology, logic & ethics
Instead of viewing himself as a teacher, Socrates saw his role as the ___.
midwife/intermediary; helping people to use their reasoning
subjective
moral facts are located in the opinions or judgements of the individual or members of society
naturalism
moral facts are natural (not supernatural)
conventionalism
moral facts concern human conventions, decisions, judgements
naturalism
moral value reduces to a natural fact about an individual
cases of necessity
must do a wrong in order to survive (cannibalism) predictability problem
Robert Nozick on distributive justice
no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift." "The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified." : It matters who owns what, and how they obtained it. Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlement over them
Event-cause
one billiard causing another billiard to move
ethical relativism does not equal universal relativism
one doesn't need to believe everything is relative, this relativism is only about morality
navi
one who is called, one who announces
egoism
only the individual's happiness is valued
conclusion
part of the argument that contains the claim for which reasons are given
premise
part of the argument that gives a reason intended to prove, or support, a claim
belief persistance
people persist in their beliefs even when they acknowledge that the evidence has been overturned
An advocate of the Categorical Imperative would most likely disagree with the Utilitarian on which case in the trolley problem? Select one: a. The platform case. b. The switch case. c. Neither of the above. d. Both of the above
platform
hedonism
pleasure or happiness is the moral good
Hedonism
pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends"
since, because, for, given that, the reason is that, assuming that
premise indicators
begging the question(bad)(avoid this fallacy?!)
presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise
Egalitarianism
provides no economic incentive for harder work, because everything and everyone are exactly equal
what does thinking philosophically entail?
rationally informed, critical, analytical thinking about everything
cultural differences
relativism is true because people's moral beliefs differ from one society to the other
libertarians
say that free will requires indeterminism
Which of the following concepts constitutes the theoretical foundation of Nozick's entitlement theory? Select one: a. Virtue. b. Self-ownership. c. Rectification. d. The Categorical Imperative. e. Fairness.
self ownership
Indeterminism (metaphysical thesis)
some events are not determined (though some are)
arguments against moral objectivity
some people argue over subjective matters of taste
God
supernatural intelligence
logical reasoning
supplies good evidence that conforms to rules of logic
role of moral theory
supplies the moral premises from which moral conclusions may follow, eg. causing needless pain is wrong
Elisha
teaching prophet, ministry focus on his actions rather than his teachings. Last prophet to be involved in political decision making. Rest will limit themselves to advisor
valid
technical philosophical term.. about the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. one in which the premises are logically connected to the conclusion so that if all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true and couldn't be false
Sophistry
the art of using fallacious reasoning to deceive, art of persuasion, engaging in arguing/debating in a malicious way (modern day lawyer)
Theodicy
the attempt to justify God's ways to human beings
Metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that inquires into the nature of reality as a whole
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon ____ in our effort to gain knowledge.
the difference is sense experience
hedonism
the effect to be caluclated is pleasure or happiness
subjectivism
the individual's happiness is a subjective fact about the individual
meta-ethics
the meaning of moral terms
soundness
the property of being valid and having true premises
validity
the property of having premises that logically entail the conclusion
cogency
the property of having premises that make the conclusion probable or believable
Occams razor
the simpler view is monism
Theism
the view that there is a god
Atheism
the view that there is not a god
Agnosticism
the view that, for all one knows, there may or may not be a god
is/ought distinction
the way the world IS vs the way the world OUGHT TO BE ex: people are selfish vs. people should not be selfish
bad implications of the DCT
theistic voluntarism implies that God's free choice of moral rules was not determined by reason, but unless there is a constraint on will by reason anything can be commanded
epistemology
theory of knowledge
metaphysics
theory of reality
logic
theory of reasoning and argumentation
ethics
theory of value
implications of relativism
there are no absolute moral principles in the sense that they hold true for all individuals in all societies
arguments against moral weirdness DCT argument
there are simpler explanations for premise 1, utilitarian says that the right thing is what brings about the most happiness for the most people (not what God says is right)
A deductive argument is a kind of argument designed to, or intended to, definitively prove its conclusion. Select one: True False
true
A religion is, roughly, a system of beliefs or practices, typically shared by a community, about the divine (god or gods) and human beings' relation to it. Select one: True False
true
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a psychological disposition involving a mean between two extremes, one of excess and one of deficiency. Select one: True False
true
According to cultural relativism, if a culture C accepts the theory of Utilitarianism, then right action in C consists of maximizing happiness. Select one: True False
true
According to one criticism of Pascal's wager, the "many gods" problem, the wager makes assumptions about how God would treat believers and non-believers. Select one: True False
true
An argument must have at least two statements, although these two statements may be part of one sentence. Select one: True False
true
If we suppose that the parts of the watch had to have some form, and that the watch was just one possible combination of those parts, Paley argues that, still, the fact that the watch is here and has the particular structure and function it has readily indicates that it was designed, even though it is true that the parts could have been combined differently. Select one: True False
true
In arguing that primary and secondary qualities are different, Locke explains that the former kinds of qualities are "real" or "original". Select one: True False
true
It is possible to trigger an out of body experience by stimulating a certain region of the brain. Select one: True False
true
Kant's moral theory maintains that humans have moral duties to not lie, not commit suicide, do charitable actions, and seek self-improvement. Select one: True False
true
Recall that Paley supposes that, if the watch can replicate, this would surely increase our wonder and admiration for its design. This raises the idea that the present watch was made by a previous watch, and that one by a previous watch, and so on. Paley argues that if the present watch (call it W) was made by a previous watch (call it W2), then although W was not made directly by the watchmaker, we should still infer that a watchmaker was employed in the production at some point. Select one: True False
true
The No Choice Principle is used to argue against Compatibilism (i.e., the claim that free will and determinism can co-exist). Select one: True False
true
True or False: The following argument is valid. If it is possible that I am dreaming, then I do not know that the chair I am sitting on exists in the external world. It is possible that I am dreaming. Therefore, I do not know that the chair I am sitting on exists in the external world. Select one: True False
true
Turing's idea of a Universal Machine is that of a machine that can perform any computable function. Select one: True False
true
Two important concepts in Aristotle's metaphysics include 'potentiality' and 'actuality'. Select one: True False
true
All triangles are dogs All dogs have three angles All triangles are three angles
true conclusion but false premises
psychological and logical
two senses of can or can't
philosophy
understanding logical reasons that pertain to the fundamental issues of human life/ attempt to answer (a) the deepest, most fundamental questions...(b) through the use of reason (as far as this is possible).
moral philosophy
understanding the logical arguments that pertain to the fundamental issues of moral life
sound argument
valid argument with all true premises (real world true)
good deductive arguments have
validity and soundness
Consciousness and Qualia
we can think Qualia=What it is like to experience something, the blueness of blue
single location principle
we normally suppose that one object cannot be in two different places at the same time
moral relativism refers to
weakness of the will; knowledge does not always translate into action
Cogent
when inductive arguments are strong and true
criticism of the DCT: circularity
x is good = because x is commanded by a good God
Socrates and circularity
x is good because God commands it God commands it because it is good
individual relativism
x is right for s = x is approved by s
social relativism
x is right for s = x is approved by the society to which s belongs
ethical egoism
x is right for s = x maximizes s's happiness
John Rawls
x is right if you can universalize x from behind a veil of ignorance, neo-Kantian
Oscar's claim about Miracles
•"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." •But the evidence for miracles, even in the best cases, falls short of extraordinary. •It is therefore irrational to believe in miracles. •It would be more plausible to believe that the witnesses are lying, or that they've all been deceived, than that a well-attested law of nature has been violated.
