PHIL 101 MIDTERM

Pierre-Simon Laplace

"A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities: "We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect if its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow. Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes." - Defending determinism

Samual Johnson

"all theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience is for it"

Tertullian

"credo, qua absurdum est" - "I believe because it is absurd"

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE)

"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" Rejecting the Aristotelian idea that virtue is (generally) to be located at the golden mean

Jeremy Bentham

(1748-1832) British theorist and philosopher who proposed utilitarianism, the principle that governments should operate on the basis of utility, or the greatest good for the greatest number. early and influential utilitarian who proposed a way to figure out what the consequences of our actions will be (how we can measure future pain and pleasures): "felicific calculus" "Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either" Basically, to Bentham, it is snobbery to suppose that the pleasures of art, classical music, fine literature are any better than cheap beer, horror movies, NASCAR, etc. Bentham believes quantity is what matters--pleasure cannot be superior in any way other than its amount

Deductive arguments

(a syllogism) The author of the argument intends or claims that the conclusion follows with certainty from the premises If, after close inspection, it turns out that the conclusion does not follow with certainty from the premises, the argument is invalid "valid" = to affirm the premises but deny the conclusion would be a contradiction (concl. and premises must match) A valid deductive argument is hypothetically valid: this means the premises are assumed to be true Even a set of false premises and a conclusion can combine to make a valid deductive argument (just not sound) EX: 1) If Socrates is a man then he is mortal 2) Socrates is a man 3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal

How are philosophy and science related?

- Reasons to understand our world/reality - Answered philosophical questions become "science" - empirical v. non-empirical questions

Definitions of free will

1 - Libertarian Free Will: Your will is free just in case you can choose to perform one action instead of another - "choice" = effective choice; things you can actually make happen (ex: you can't choose to be invisible) 2 - Compatibilist Free Will: your performance of an action is free just in case it is the result of your beliefs, desires, and intentions

Modus Ponens ("method of affirming")

1) If p then q 2) p 3) Therefore q valid because we cannot deny the conclusion after affirming the truth of the two premises To deny the truth of the conclusion while accepting the truth of the premises results in a contradiction

Modus tollens ("Method of denying")

1) If p, then q 2) not q 3) therefore, not p

5 things that make people not very wise

1) we don't ask big questions 2) we are vulnerable to errors of common sense 3) we are mentally confused 4) we have muddled ideas about what makes us happy 5) we panic and lose perspective

Utilitarianism

A moral theory that treats everyone equally, without prejudice to personal standing--basic idea is that moral action is all about producing good in the world; the more good your action produces, the better it is Focused on the outcomes of action Able to provide, in principle, an answer to every moral question or ethical dilemma (flexible and powerful moral theory) Made of two parts: a theory about the structure of morality and a theory about the object of end of morality (what morality is aiming at) Utilitarians hold that the only thing that matters for morality is the consequences of what you do (Consequentialism); doesn't matter what you intended, all that matters is what you actually did Always obligated to do the best that you can (moral forbidden from doing any action other than the one that yields the best consequences); you can choose between two options if they both yield equally good consequences Must consider the consequences for everyone affected by your action, not just now, but indefinitely into the future (that is why it is different than egoism--you count for moral assessment, but you don't count extra) Stance on intent: there is a division between what makes an action right/wrong and blameworthiness/praiseworthiness; if someone tries to shoot you and misses, their action is morally "right," but they are not worthy of praise. Key component: utilitarianism isn't committed to any particular theory of good; there are different versions of the theory depending on what is named as the highest good (summum bonum) (ex: pleasure, satisfaction, etc.) Classical utilitarianism: hedonistic utilitarianism (highest good is pleasure)--therefore: Consequentialism + the highest good is pleasure = hedonistic utilitarianism Fundamental position: our moral duty is to produce as much pleasure in the world as is possible by our actions Measure pains and pleasures; most of the time you do not need to spend much time on this Jeremy Bentham: early and influential utilitarian who proposed a way to figure out what the consequences of our actions will be (how we can measure future pain and pleasures): "felicific calculus" Root notion: we should act in a way to maximize the quantity of pleasure in the world John Stuart Mill tried to develop a way for utilitarianism to accommodate for the idea that some pleasures are of higher quality than others But, pursuit of high-quality pleasures has risks: lose ability to be satisfied by lower-end pleasures as you gain a finer appreciation for the higher-end ones Agent-neutral; everyone has the same duties and moral aims, no matter what their personal interests or interpersonal relationships Intent and motive are completely divorced from what makes an action a right actions Can do the right thing on accident

Character

A tendency to act in a certain sorts of ways No single action demonstrates much, if anything, about one's character Someone w an honest character will often tell the truth, but they may also lie occasionally (uncharacteristic for them) Reflects a kind of steadiness of behavior Comes in degrees--strong (consistent, unwavering) and weak (faithless, erratic)--but strength of character does not define whether someone is honorable or virtuous (someone can have a strong character in terms of being vicious: they are exceptionally cruel, but not virtuous) In order to lead a morally good life, you must cultivate a character that is not only strong but also virtuous ==> "personal integrity"

Personal integrity

A unity of the virtues, made habitual, and leading to action

Objection 4 to virtue ethics: there is no such thing as character

According to experimental psychologists, "character" is just a story that we tell about people after they act in certain ways; it is not nearly as predictable as the general facts of human nature that the experimentalists are uncovering Situational factors are better predictors than personal factors; if you're in a rush, you are less likely to help someone than if you are not in a rush

Objection 2 to Agent Causation: Magic

Agent causation insists upon a sort of causation that is connected to the rest of the physical world in a peculiar way We know the laws of physics exists and the universe is filled with events that cause other events; why are humans any exception from this web of causation? Are we magicians? If our agent-caused decisions are themselves uncaused, then what's the different between agent causation and plain old random action?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Agreed and maintained that the morality of actions does not vary from circumstance to circumstance, but instead there is an absolute moral law which applies to everyone at all times. This behavior that we owe to each other does not vary, and it is this idea that is behind the notion of moral rights Thought utilitarians had things backwards Argued good intention or good will is the only thing that is good without any qualification

Analytic v. continental philosophy

Analytic: what we are talking about; western philosophy--scientific, methodological (what is the mind, does God exist...) continental: touchy subjects such as existence

Law of the excluded middle

Any statement is either true or false; it is not the case that something can be both true and false at the same time

Friedrich Nietzsche

Argued that our belief in free will is the residue of our religious heritage; "men were thought of as 'free' so that they could become guilty: consequently every action had to be thought of as willed, the origin of every action lying in the consciousness" In his view, a religious insistence on moral responsibility led to the invention of free will

Daniel Wegner

Argued that the internal sensation or perception of conscious control over our actions in an illusion Claims that people experience conscious will when they interpret their own thought as the cause of their action. But, the feeling of conscious will has a rather loose and tenuous connection to the actual physical mechanisms that cause action Science has an uphill fight against sincere feelings Feeling free proves nothing at all Mistake we make is that we confuse correlation with causation; we're aware of a conscious thought or intention to perform an action, then we observe the action happening, and so we conclude that our conscious thought caused the action to occur--really, though, it was unconscious mental processes that did all the work: they caused both the conscious intentions and the action. The inferred connection between consciousness and action is the superfluous step

Objection 2 to divine foreknowledge: Aristotle's answer

Aristotle insisted that there are no facts about the future--it is a formless void; there is nothing to know, so God is still omniscient because there are no truths about the future for him to know Problem: we can predict with 100% accuracy sometimes what will happen in the future--thus, there are facts to be known about the future

The Ontological Argument

Attempts to show that God's existence can be demonstrated by pure abstract reasoning alone; the basic idea is that existence is part of the very nature of what is to be God, and to conceive of God at all is to realize that he must exist it is more perfect to exist than to not exist--God is a perfect being, therefore he exists

Inductive Arguments

Backbone of science when the author intends or claims that the conclusion follows with probability from the conclusion The standard is about the probability not the certainty of the conclusion Words like "most" and "probably" not "must" or "is" True premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion; concl is not logically contained in the premises (so, if I say "your shoes look like mine" that is a premise, not a conclusion that you bought your shoes at the same store) EX: 1) Patricia attended a meeting of the philosophy club last night 2) Most of those at the meeting are philosophy majors 3) Therefore, Patricia is probably majoring in philosophy Evaluated as weak or strong, not valid or invalid. Strength depends on the degree of probability asserted in the conclusion and the degree to which to evidence offered for the conclusion is sufficient to support it (ex: it is highly probable that the sound we just heard was caused by my dog knocking over a chair: not supportable if you know I do not own a dog) Several types of inductive arguments: - causal or cause and effect: draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an effect (connection b/w sound heard and activity of dog) - Analogical: begins with a premise that states one or more properties that two things or events have in common (P and Q have props A, B, C in common; P also has prop D; Therefore, Q has prop D) Philosophers do not often dabble in inductive arguments to support their claims and theories--their focus is on concepts, their tool is analysis, and their goal is to achieve certainty, not probability for their conclusions

Felicific calculus

Bentham's proposal to measure future pleasure and pain. Claims pleasure/pain can be measured by: Intensity Duration Certainty or uncertainty Propinquity (proximity) or remoteness Fecundity (does it lead to other pleasures/pains) Purity Extent

Problems with ethical relativism

Cannot criticize other studies for their moral wrongdoing (bc everyone is right) Ethics would be then reduced poll taking Moral progress would be impossible

Objection 2 to compatibilism: too much freedom

Cases in which we are intuitively unfree come out as free action under compatibilism - Ex: A mugger demands your money or your life--you desired to give him the money more than your life, so this is a free action? - This would mean you're just as free in prison as on the outside Response: draw a distinction between those desires that are a part of one's own intrinsic character and those that are the result of manipulation or coercion - Mugger ex--not a free action because you were coerced; the desire was forced on you Problem with the response: doughnut scenarios: - (a) Forced to eat a doughnut at gunpoint or (b) a box of warm doughnuts is wafted under your nose - (a) is obviously a coerced and unfree decision, what about (b)?--it doesn't seem right to say this is unfree, because you chose to eat the doughnut. But under compatibilism, this is an unfree decision because your desires were changed and manipulated

Why there is no free will: The Dilemma Argument

Centers around determinism Prior forces ultimately beyond our control determine what we do - Either determinism isn true or it is false - If determinism is true, then you can never choose to perform one action instead of another - If determinism is false, then some events are random - If you do something randomly then it is not the result of choice - Therefore, if determinism is false, there is no free will - Therefore, if determinism is true, there is no free will

Objection 1 to deontology: generality

Certain acts could be considered moral by one principle of action but immoral by another principle of action. For example: Organ robbing case: - If you want someone's organs, just kill them and help yourself (immoral because it fails the categorial imperative) - If you are a physician, you should save as many lives as possible (moral because it follows the categorial imperative) Inconsistent moral judgements

Objection 1 to compatibilism: too little freedom

Compatibilism means that the plain ordinary facts about the world imply that we're still not free - Ex: you can desire to go to Hawaii right now, but you probably can't. Finances, time, commitments, etc. prevent you from acting on this desire. So you aren't free? - How does a lack of omnipotence not entail a lack of freedom? Response: freedom comes in degrees. We are not just free or not free. We can be partly free/unfree; more free and less free - Notions of political and economic freedom tie in

Epistemology

Concept of knowledge; how we learn and what we can know What is knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is truth? Can we know anything about the external world? When are we justified in believing something?

Objection 5 to utilitarianism: agent-relative institutions

Concerns one of the initially attractive features: its respect for the principle of equal treatment Rescue your child or a stranger who is drowning? Donate money to a random charity or to a friend in need?

Incompatibilism

Either we have free will or determinism is false; the view that free will and determinism are in conflict

Edwin Hubble

Discovered that everything in the universe is moving away from every other thing at a high rate of speed

Fallacy

Error in logic; invalid argument--conclusion can still be true

Benjamin Libet

Explored the neuroscience of free will Experiment: asked test subjects to move their wrist at the time of their own choosing and to note the precise time when they decided to do do. - Discovered that the reported intention to move one's wrist occurred on average 200 milliseconds before the wrist moving act itself and the electroencephalographic measurements of the motor cortex show that the readiness potential ramps up 350 milliseconds before the time of the reported intention - Showed that the readiness potential in the brain increases prior to the subject's awareness of a conscious will to move - Argued that since the mental beginnings of an act happen before the feeling of willing the act, this proved that voluntary actions are initiated unconsciously, and the conscious mind comes on board after the fact. - If conscious decision-making is no more than the brain's window-dressing on the foregone conclusion of the conscious mind, then our "decisions" play no casual role at all. - It would be a mistake, according to him, to even refer to our actions as the result of conscious, free choice

Ad hominem

Fallacy that attacks the individual instead of the argument

Affirming the consequent

Fallacy; error in modus tollens EX: 1) p -> q 2) q 3) therefore p

Appeal to authority

Fallacy; short cut of pointing to authority figures to prove a point instead of giving reasons that support the point in the first place

Judith Jarvis Thompson

Famous violinist example--analogy for abortion in the case of rape wake up surgically attached to a violinist; they have fatal kidney disease and if you detach before 6-12 months, they will die - are you morally allowed to unplug?

The feeling of freedom

Friedrich Nietzsche's view Neuroscience and experimental psychology: our feelings of freedom are more neurological than moral in origin. Our brains interpret experiences to make a whole, unified human life. (stoke victims who suffer from "side neglect" will only do things on one side of their body, completely unaware that there is an entire side missing) Benjamin Libet and other researchers: there is a difference b/w consciously lifting your arm and involuntary movements like those of cerebral palsy or Tourette's

Metaphysics

Fundamental questions of reality What is the world made of? What is the mind? How is the mind related to the body? Do we have free will? What is a person? Is there a God?

Determinism

Given the laws of nature and a set of initial conditions, there is exactly one physically possible future Universe in comparison to a game of pool: balls don't really move randomly, other forces contribute to their movements. Big Bang = the first break Everything that has happened in the universe could only happen that way because the initial conditions coupled with the laws of physics; this determines everything that has happened since--we are subject to these laws and therefore there is no free will, the future is closed. Problem: physics has proven that some things happen for literally no reason (decay of Krypton-85).

Virtue

Good qualities or characteristics Can be specific to certain fields; ex: a good virtue for a lineman would be strength and big size, but a bicyclist's good virtues would be opposite Moral virtues: qualities of personality that are valuable for everyone to have Possessing and acting on the virtues amounts to living a morally worthwhile life opposite of virtue = vice Aristotle: many virtues are the midpoint or "golden mean" between related vices of deficiency or excess (virtue is the "goldilocks" zone) ex: being generous is the virtue between the vices of stinginess and wastefulness

The problem of evil

How it is possible for there to be evil in a world created by an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being? People are constantly tortured, killed, exposed to evils - Since God is omniscient, he knows about human and animal suffering and misery - Since God is omnipotent, he could effortlessly prevent such suffering if he wanted to - If he doesn't put an end to it, he is not omnibenevolent

Why there is no free will: Divine Foreknowledge

If there is an omniscient God, free will seems impossible; if God knows everything that will happen, how can anything else happen but what he knows to be true?

Objection 3 to the Ontological Argument: existence is not a property

Immanuel Kant: complained that the ontological argument uses existence as a property that things might or might not have; existence is not a property, though... things that do not exist do not have qualities or properties at all. - Existence is not perfection because it isn't even a property in the first place

Hypothetical Imperative (Kant)

Instructions that tell you what you should do under certain circumstances (hypothetically, under this set of circumstances, you should...) If, then instructions True of everyone, but does not apply to everyone (ex: don't drink if you are driving--true of even teetotalers, but they don't drink in the first place so it does not affect their behavior)

How is the matter of God unlike other philosophical topics?

It generates more passion and opinion than other topics--religion is a very fragile and enthusiastic subject

Objection 1 to virtue ethics: virtue is compatible with evil

It seems entirely possible to cultivate and endorse the classic moral virtues and still participate in considerable wickedness Ex: the Mafia has a code of honor and behavior, and the codes involve respect, loyalty, and moral values. The Mafia is still a criminal organization that engages in extortion and murder--if a member goes against this code for the better of society, they are acting disloyal and therefore with less virtue. But isn't this better behavior? If having virtues and vices is to be evaluated in terms of the behavioral consequences they lead to, then virtue ethics seems to dissolve into utilitarianism. Could also dissolve into Kantianism: Having virtue is a good thing if it leads to respecting the categorial imperative, but a bad thing if it leads to rights violations.

Objection 1 to the problem of evil: just give up an attribute

Just give up one attribute of God for the argument to work Problem: it is really just a way of conceding to the atheist - giving up an attribute admits defeat--there is no God with all three classical attributes

Objection 3 to deontology: horrible consequences

Kantians believe lying is always wrong because it fails the categorial imperative, but is it really always wrong? What if a murderer asks where your friend is? Kantianism does not allow violations of the categorial imperative in order to prevent other violations of the categorial imperative.

Inconsistencies

Lack of agreement; incompatibility Less than contradictions Maybe ambiguities (vagueness)

Agent-neutrality

Moral obligations do not differ from person to person (ex: utilitarianism)

Cultural ethical relativism

Moral truths vary from culture to culture

Virtue ethics

Morality isn't about outcomes (utilitarianism) or rule following (kantianism), but instead it is about being a certain type of person. Think of being a good person rather than obsessing about good actions. Virtue is within the grasp of everyone, unlike calculus that takes every actual and future person into account or some rigid/abstract moral law Morality is not about rules you must follow, but naturally arises from emotional motivations working in harmony with rational reasons for acting. Do good in the world because you want to. The good life consists in cultivating ALL the virtues Two central components: concept of virtue and concept of character Aristotle

Objection 1 to the ontological argument: the fool's response

Monk Gaunilo raised the first objection: (he thought only a fool would doubt God's existence, but still believed a fool might argue like this:) There is an island (the Lost Island) that is the most perfect island imaginable. - The Lost Island can be proven to exist under the Ontological argument... in fact, anything "perfect" can be. It proves too much Response: the island HAS to be imperfect--it can always be improved upon to become more perfect because if it were TRULY perfect in every way, it would be God. - the only truly perfect thing is God Still, being perfect does not require being God. Many things can be defined as perfect.

Agent-relativity

Moral obligations differ depending on the person (ex: egoism, kantianism)

Objection 3 to the problem of evil: Free will

Most famous response to the problem of evil Suffering is not God's fault, it is ours; we are the ones who have chosen to disobey God and ignore his rules/commandments. We are sinners, and God is not to blame for the stupid and wicked deeds we perform--God made us free to choose how to live our lives, but the consequence of this gift is that there is evil Response 1: Moral v. Natural Evil - Moral: murder, war, rape, torture, theft, etc. - Natural: disease, flood, famine, earthquakes, etc. - natural evils are not human-caused; there is nothing to do with free will Response 2: What's the value of free will? - Is possessing free will worth all the suffering in the world? - What makes it so wonderful? - isn't having no free will + universal happiness better? - Couldn't God create a world where no one is able to perform evil acts? Response 3: the irresponsible owner - Man trains his dog to be a ferocious killer but still lets him off the leash; after he kills someone, the owner claims it is not his fault - Is the owner absolved of responsibility? He knowingly let his dog off the leash--surely he had an idea of what would happen? - God is the owner and he set the wolves loose--thus, he is at fault for moral evils regardless of free will Response 4: why doesn't God intervene? - if God does not intervene when he can, he is morally inferior to mortals

Compatibilism

Most prominent response to dilemma argument: reject premise (3) (if you cam never choose to perform one action instead of another, then you do not have free will) This comes directly from the definition of free will SO reject this definition! This is the strategy of compatibilism. The dilemma argument is sound, yet there is a kind of freedom that we do have; redefine free will--libertarian free will becomes compatibilist free will Agree that you never have a choice in what you do, you're never libertarian free. But there is still a plausible and powerful sense in which you're free: you're free as long as you're doing what you want Compatible with determinism because your desires are pre-determined If you do something randomly, your action isn't the result of your desire. Therefore it's not a free action according to compatibilism Prison robs you of your freedom because you cannot act on all of your desires

Axiology

Nature of value/goodness and valuation What makes an action right or wrong? What makes a work of art beautiful? Are value judgements objective or subjective? Does ethics require God? Are there universal human rights? What's the best form of government? Is civil disobedience ever justified?

Faith

Not a good explanation of belief because it presupposes that God exists and doesn't say WHY you think God exists; no rational basis--more like wishful thinking (can be described as "confidence" or "belief without reason")

The "Big Three" in classical tradition of natural theology

Omniscience: Knows everything Omnipotence: can do anything Omnibenevolence: all good

Objection 2 to the problem of evil: it's all part of God's greater plan

Our suffering is all part of God's grand plan for our happiness and flourishing David Hume: objects that it is nothing but pure, unprovable conjecture to suppose that there really is such a plan - not an actual solution until we have reason to believe there really is a "greater plan" and that this plan could not be accomplished without suffering (or, at least as much suffering as there actually is) - It sounds like an excuse rather than a solution Why would an all-knowing God need to administer any kind of test? Wouldn't he already know in advance who will pass and fail? Is he, then, just some kind of terrorist?

Objection 1 to the cosmological argument: inconsistency

Premise 3: there is some uncaused thing at the beginning Premise 1: Everything is caused by something prior in the causal chain - These two premises contradict each other; either something is uncaused or nothing is! They are assuming a contradiction

Kurt Gödel

Proved that there are mathematical facts that are eternally beyond the power of logic to establish as either true or false; proved that there must be mathematical proportions that could not be derived from any logical system with a finite number of mutually consistent axioms - revolutionized mathematical logic - one way to interpret these findings: since there are unprovable mathematical facts, there are logical limits in one area of human knowledge

John Rawls

Reflective equilibrium: use intuition to craft principles and fine tune them Veil of Ignorance: you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society

Agent causation

Reject premise 5 of the dilemma argument The alternative to determinism isn't randomness but free will Supposes that you are the first cause, the originator of causal chains, insulated from the larger world Any willful agent in our world can spontaneously begin a new chain of causation in the world, one that has no prior history Aristotle: "thus, a staff moves a stone, and is moved by a hand, which is moved by a man" -- "Physics" Our choices are free Defenders: George Berkeley, Thomas Reid, Roderick Chisholm Minority view bc it is difficult to give a compelling and detailed explanation of how this sort of causation is supposed to work

Objection 1 to divine foreknowledge: atheism and agnosticism

Reject there is an omniscient God (atheist style) or refuse to have an opinion either way (agnostic style)

Logic

Rules of valid reasoning and argumentation What is an argument? What kinds of arguments are there? how is a good argument different from a bad one? When are we justified in believing an arguments conclusion?

Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi

Said Socrates was the wisest person in Athens; Socrates didn't think he knew much, at least not everything, so he went around asking philosophical questions Wisdom = knowing that you don't know everything Socrates knew his limits Dunning-Kruger Effect

Contradictions

Showing a claim is logically inconsistent with another (also reductio ad absurdum)

Objection 4 to utilitarianism: Simpson's paradox

Simpson's paradox: when a set can be partitioned into subsets that each have a property opposite to that of the superset (ex: someone can win a tennis match even when they lose most of the games, World Series [team with less total wins can still win the series]) Problem for utilitarianism is that we may we obliged to make every person alive less happy because it will increase the total global amount of happiness (desert island example)

Objection 2 to deontology: agent-neutral institutions

Sometimes agent-neutral moral decisions are more "right" Ex: hiring an assistant, your niece is looking for work--it would be more appropriate to take the stance of agent-neutrality so as to not favor her over everyone else applying (nepotism)

Hypothetical syllogism

Syllogism = form of logical reasoning that uses two or more premises to arrive at a conclusion (there's a common term in all the premises so you can connect the conclusion) contains two premises and a conclusion (differs from modus ponens and modus tollens by being constituted of nothing by hypotheticals [sentences containing an antecedent and a consequent] and it can and often does have more than two premises) 1) If p then q 2) if q then r 3) therefore if p then r Contradiction to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion

Categorial Imperative (Kant)

Tells you what you should do irrespective of idiosyncratic (distinct, individual) facts about yourself Moral law is a categorial imperative Kant gave a couple different formulations of this imperative : (version 1, universalizability): Act only according to those principles of action that you could will to be a universal law of nature - If everyone acted on the same principle, would it be morally right? (ex: littering: no) - Two ways a principle of action can violate the categorial imperative (and therefore be morally wrong): inconsistency (not following through on something like a promise--therefore, when applied universally, a promise has no value) and inconsistent willing (will or want something to be universalized; ex: acting selfishly--you can't consistently want everyone to act selfishly because then nobody will help you in your time of need. Thus, it cannot always be wanted/willed and is immoral) (version 2, treating others): treat other people as ends in themselves and never merely as means to your own ends - Treat other people with respect for their own goals, values, and interests; don't just use people to get what you want - Different than the Golden Rule as the GR assumes everyone has the same aims and preferences; Categorial imperative does not assume everyone has the same preferences - Possible concern: customer/employee interaction (of buying and selling) could be seen as immoral because you are technically "using" each other to get what you want. HOWEVER, the CI says it is wrong to use people "merely" as a means to your own ends--you are technically not merely using each other because there is a transaction of money and product involved Others are obliged to treat you in a certain way--they should treat you with respect for your own dignity and interests Origin of contemporary conception of rights is in the categorial imperative Kantianism does not allow violations of the categorial imperative in order to prevent other violations of the categorial imperative.

Objection 2 to the Ontological Argument: a reverse parody

The Ontological Argument's reasoning can be flipped on its head: nonexistence is better and more perfect than existence? - the greatest handicap is nonexistence, so if God can do everything he is supposed to have to done without existing then he is most impressive

Aristotle's Golden Mean

Theory that the moral virtue is a mean between two extremes. Objections: - No universal list of virtues - compatible with evil - too vague for practical guidance - conflict problem

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.

Objection 3 to the cosmological argument: alternative scientific explanations

The universe does have an origin, and it is not eternal; but, physics gives different reasons to think there is a beginning and what it consists of Big Bang model-convincing evidence for it

Argument for faith

There are limits to human understanding--truths beyond our capacity to know them - but it is peculiar to argue that there are matters beyond our comprehensible reach yet claim to KNOW the truth about these very matters

Objection 3 to utilitarianism: supererogation

There is no such thing as supererogation (actions that are good actions, but greater than what duty requires) ex: a solider diving on top of a bomb to save others Response: utilitarians do not deny this (every action you take SHOULD be of the greatest consequence), but instead people like this should be seen as especially praiseworthy--there are still morally heroic actions (you can be a hero just for doing you duty)

Cosmic microwave background

Thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang

Martin Luther

Thought reason was a fine thing "in comparison with other things of this life, the best and something divine" but that it was useless in theological matters Thought Aristotle knew nothing about "theological man" and that it is in opposition to theology to suppose that reason can aspire to the knowledge of God In response to the notion that Christ could not be eternal because he was born: "In philosophy this is true, but not in theology. The Son is born eternal from eternity; this is something incomprehensible. But this belongs to theology"

Objection 2 to utilitarianism: Invasiveness

Under utilitarianism, morality is too invasive. Every single aspect of life now has moral weight. Issues such as when you take the garbage out is now a moral issue. Morality should be about the big issues, not small ones. Response: Every action has moral properties like every object has mass; feathers have a tiny impact in comparison to a bowling ball, but technically they have mass. It's not invasive, but comprehensive

Objection 6 to Utilitarianism: notion is absolutely wrong

Under utilitarianism, there is no act so heinous or terrible that it is unconscionable Every action has an imaginable scenario where it is your moral duty to perform it (organ-robber case)

Natural theology

Using reason to evaluate claims of the divine

Objection 1 to utilitarianism: practicality

Utilitarianism is not very practical since there is not way that we can perform the requisite calculations. There is no way we can predict all of the outcomes of our actions to the end of time, which is what the theory demands Response: no one said doing the right thing was easy--there is weight in terms of blameworthiness/praiseworthiness so all we can do is the best we can do

What are the three big theories of ethics?

Utilitarianism, Deontology (Kantianism), virtue ethics

Dilemma

Valid argument form that is either constructive or destructive Constructive: 1) either p or q 2) if p then r 3) if q then s 4) therefore either r or s Destructive: 1) either p or q 2) If p then not-r 3) if q then not s 4) therefore, not r or not s

Objection 2 to virtue ethics: clashing virtues

Virtue ethics advises that the good life consists in cultivating ALL the virtues, but some virtues apparently conflict with each other Ex: honesty v. kindness--telling someone they look good when they look sub-par; workaholism is considered "excess" in terms of virtue v. vice, but what fi you're working more to support your struggling family? So... then what is the right thing to do?

Why there is no free will: A Regress of Reasons for Acting

We weigh our options and that is how we choose to do things; our options have weight based on our individual factors. Two possible answers for determining weight: - previous decisions: your reasons for acting are the result of some previous decisions you made - Outside forces: your reasons for acting somehow came from forces and influences outside of your mind (for example: authority, family, society, environment, biological instincts) Problem with previous decisions: leads to an infinite regress; how did you make decisions as a newborn if all your decisions are based on earlier ones? Didn't you have to make one original decision?

Objection 3 to virtue ethics: relativism about virtues

What qualities count as virtues and what counts as a vice? It seems to depend heavily on the culture in which you are raised Ex: the Amish reject modernity while the World Naked Bike Ride promotes nudity to draw attention to their cause Aristotle argued that human beings have a function--there must be a "right" way to function. Reason and rational action are alone the province of humans. Happiness is not the result of rational decision-making but the process of it in accordance with virtue (happiness is a journey, not a destination) - Interesting argument, but still, what is considered a virtue? Virtue ethics is supposed to tell us qualities of a personality that are valuable for EVERYONE to have, it is not supposed to be relative when it comes to "the good life"

The Digger Wasp (Sphex ichneumoneus)

When a wasp is ready to lay eggs, she paralyzes a cricket, drags it into the burrow, lays her eggs alongside it, closes the burrow, and then flies away never to return. If the cricket moves while the wasp is doing an inspection of the burrow, she will move the cricket back to its original spot and re-do the inspection of the inside of the burrow. If the cricked again moves while she is inside inspecting, the process will repeat until the cricket does not move. But we aren't like wasps! We are not that mechanical. Psychological studies have shown humans to do similar things--we act in the same ways over and over again - Maybe we are just not smart enough to see our mechanical behavior; maybe aliens with intelligence of the same ratio as humans:wasps would see us as we see the wasp: mechanical and incapable of free willed actions

(In Utilitarianism) When is the appreciation of high quality pleasures worthwhile?

When the cost of gaining those pleasures is low It may be more worthwhile to be ignorant when the cost is high/expensive

Objection 2 to the cosmological argument: problem of the attributes

Why should we leap to the conclusion that the "uncaused thing" is God? The cosmological argument provides no reasons to think that the first cause has even one of these attributes The cosmological argument provides no reason to suppose that the first cause is conscious or a being of any sort--the first event could be some mindless, random event (like the Big Bang)

Arthur Schopenhauer

Wrote that in the cosmological argument the principle of universal causation is "used like a hired cab, which we dismiss when we have reached our destination": the destination is God; once we've gotten there, everyone out of the cab

Objection 1 to Agent Causation: Mystery

You do things for a reason--there is no act for which there is "no reason" to do it You act because either (a) the reasons for acting are due to causes outside of you or (b) you choose which reasons are important to you and to what degree - in (a), you reasons are exterior and therefore agent causation is wrong - in (b), it is an infinite regress of reasons

Compatibilist free will

Your performance of an action is free just in case it is the result of your beliefs, desires, and intentions

reductio ad absurdum

a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory (counterexamples) reject claim by showing an instance (real or hypothetical) where it is not true

Individual ethical relativism

actions must be judged by what individuals subjectively feel is right or wrong for themselves; morals vary from person to person

Analogies

connects the unfamiliar with the familiar limits: - no analogy is perfect (or else it would just be the same thing) - may need adjusting throughout argument

Gambler's fallacy

fallacy of assuming a history of results will affect future results

Straw man

fallacy of attacking a weak (wrong) version of a position ex: of course welfare programs are wrong. if we give everyone money, food, and houses, why would they ever need to work?

Red herring

fallacy of distracting from the merits of an argument with irrelevant information ex: the NSA doesn't need to reveal its methods because there are a lot of terrorists trying to destroy America

Unfalsifiability

fallacy of employing a claim that cannot be proven true or false ex: obviously you can't believe him. he's possessed by satan

Slippery slope

fallacy of suggesting that a certain step will inescapably lead down a path toward bad effects ex: if we have self-driving cars, then the next thing you know SkyNet will be hunting us down

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

fallacy of using a correlation as evidence of causation Literally: "after that, therefore because of that" ex: I should wear those socks tomorrow since I've never failed a test when I wear my lucky socks

genetic fallacy

fallacy of using a good or bad feature about something's origins as a reason for or against that thing now Ex: don't buy BMW cars because they began as a Nazi airplane company

Appeal to tradition

fallacy; Using a history of doing something as a reason to continue with it

Confirmation bias

fallacy; cherry-picking information to support preconceptions

Denying the antecedent

fallacy; error in modus ponens EX: 1) p -> q 2) not p 3) therefore not q

False dilemma

fallacy; presenting two options as the only ones when other alternatives may exist ex: either you're for America, or you're against our country

Argument from ignorance

fallacy; using a lack of understanding as evidence for something else ex: no one knows how the universe was created; therefore, it must have supernatural or unexplainable origins

Appeal to nature

fallacy; using the "goodness" of nature as a reason ex: genetically modified foods are weird and don't exist in nature; therefore, we shouldn't create or eat it

Syllogism

form of logical reasoning that uses two or more premises to arrive at a conclusion (modus tollens and modus ponens are both syllogisms)

GIGO

garbage in, garbage out; if you put garbage into a machine, you will only get garbage on the other side try to put out quality info in the first place!

Normative ethics

generalized theories, rules, and principles of ethical or moral behavior; makes recommendations about the world

Logical form/Logical argument

group of symbols (p,q,r) used to replace statements

Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question

involves repeating the claim as a way to provide evidence, resulting in no evidence at all Assumes the thing to be proven

Areas of Philosophy

metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, logic

Sound argument v. valid argument

must have true premises and be valid--chain of reasoning works showing just that an argument is valid does not imply that the argument is sound a valid argument can still have false premises; it is valid only bc the two premises, if true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion do not assume that an argument is sound until you have examined and confirmed the truth of the premises sound = valid agreement w all real premises

Assuming the divine inspiration of scripture

not a good argument assumes the very thing to be proven (circular reasoning or "begging the question")--presupposes God's existence

Attributes of God

omnipotent: being all powerful omniscient: being all knowing omnipresent: being morally perfect/perfectly good

Harry Frankfurt

rejects principle of alternative possibilities, revises it: "one is not morally responsible for what one does if one does it only because one could not have done otherwise" Kathy and Dr. Zorg: Kathy wants to poison the boss, but if she doesn't, Zorg will mind control her to do so. - scenario 1: Kathy poisons the boss on her own - scenario 2: Kathy decides not to, and Zorg mind controls her to do it anyway Either way, Kathy kills the boss. There was no other outcome, and Kathy could not have done otherwise. So, Kathy is morally responsible in S1, but what about S2? Kathy had two options: x and y (kill or don't kill), so according to the principle of alternate possibilities, she is still responsible in S2. But technically Kathy has only one option: kill the boss. But she made the decision not to kill her boss? According to the PAS, Kathy is morally responsible in both cases even though she technically had only one option in S2 instead of 2 (x and y) The revised definition by Frankfurt is the solution to this issue. therefore, the existence of a possible alternative action to what one actually did is not a requirement for moral responsibility

Deontology (Kantianism)

the morality of actions does not vary from circumstance to circumstance, but instead there is an absolute moral law which applies to everyone at all times. This behavior that we owe to each other does not vary, and it is this idea that is behind the notion of moral rights Kantianism underwrites the possibility of you possessing moral rights good intention or good will is the only thing that is good without any qualification--good will is the only thing good in itself Does not matter what you have (courage, wealth, power, fame, etc.) but matters what you do with it you have a good will if you try to do what's right, if you try to follow moral law; can only do the right thing if you do it out of a sense of duty (unlike utilitarianism, where you can do the right thing on accident) You have good motives + you follow the moral law = you do the right thing In organ-robbery case: killing Joe Klutz would be seen as using him as a means, therefore Kantianism would give the intuitively correct answer to this moral dilemma. It is an agent-relative theory NOT a flexible moral theory/law Two imperatives: hypothetical and categorial Immanuel Kant Top-down approach

Ockham's Razor

the principle that irrelevant detail should be cut away; positing a God has no explanatory value and should be avoided

Descriptive ethics

the study of people's beliefs about morality; describing the world

John Stuart Mill

tried to develop a way for utilitarianism to accommodate the idea that some pleasures are of higher quality than others Millan view on quality

The cosmological argument

tries to demonstrate there must be a God because of what we observe, namely the existence of the world around us Idea of God as creator--the universe had to come from somewhere/someone (Aristotle gives versions od it in book VIII of his Physics and book XII of the Metaphysics) Popular in the Middle Ages, both in Christianity and Islam Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica): best-known medieval defense of this argument - Everything has a cause (the causal chain) - Infinite regress of causes and effects - "vicious regress" - when we try to solve the problem of causation, the same problem crops up again in the proposed solution--to solve this problem, the argument says there had to be an event #1 (Aristotle's terminology: "prime mover"): God Aquinas and Aristotle defend this argument

Holding religious texts top the same historical standards that we do other old books and documents

usually these historical claims in scripture have strong religious convictions which bias their scholarship Even if we found direct evidence that something from the Bible was true, there is no reason to believe it was divinely inspired or that other things must be true (ex: if we could DNA-test Jesus's blood, that would not prove the claim that he is God's son) Overall, relying on scripture is not a promising way to prove God's existence

Disjunctive syllogism

valid argument that uses a disjunctive (either-or) statement as its first premise, specifying two options 1) Either p or q 2) not-p 3) therefore q

Millan view on quality

we should live our lives becoming knowledgeable about various pleasures, pursuing and promoting them. Pursue high-quality pleasures

The principle of alternate possibilities

you are morally responsible for an action x only if at the time you did x, there was an alternate possible action y that you could have done instead