PHIL 101 Midterm
Explain the trolley problem by explaining 'bystander at the switch', and 'transplant'.
- transplant scenario: 5 people may die because they need an organ transplant. one healthy man could save them all if a surgeon killed the man and used his organs. would it be wrong for the surgeon to do this? should he just let the other 5 die? - bystander at the switch: trolley is on the. track about to hit 5 people, a bystander could flip the switch to turn the trolley to a track where one person is standing. should the bystander turn the trolley or leave it? - most people believe that the bystander is not wrong to flip the swicth, but the surgeon would be wrong to kill the healthy person to save 5.
utilitarianism
- we should act always to promote the greatest amount of overall happiness for the greatest number of people - actions that produce more happiness for the greatest number of people are deemed more ethical - actions that produce less overall happiness for the majority of people are deemed less ethical
principle of sufficient reason
- "in the case of any positive truth, there is some sufficient reason or cause for its existence" - this relates to the existence of god because Taylor urges people to ask ourselves, "what could be the cause of the universe?" - since the universe cannot be its own cause, and the cause of the universe cannot be contingent (infinite regress of causes), God could very well be a cause of the universe.
clifford's example of the shipowner
- a shipowner knows that his ship is unsafe, but he has hope that he can send it out for one more trip since it has been on many trips before. however, the ship sinks and many people die. - the shipowner deserves the blame because it is wrong for epople to believe anything without sufficient evidence
paley's argument from design
- his example: a man comes across a watch in the woods and is only able to assume that someone must have intelligently designed this watch because of how complex and intricate it is (it does not just appear out of nowhere) - therefore, he begs the question, "how would we, beings that are so complex, exist without an intelligent designer?" (aka god)
hardin's concept of the "tragedy of the commons"
- if an acre of farmland was made public, it will because destroyed because it would become overrun - if the acre of farmland was private, it would be taken care of because the private owner would not want their farm to be destroyed - he implies this concept to why a world food bank would never work: too many people would take advantage of it and destroy it altogether
hardin's lifeboat example
- imagine there are lifeboats on the water which represent the wealthy countries - the people drowning in the water represent the third world poor - capacity of the boats is 50 people, and there are 40 citizens on board already - under which circumstances should the drowning people be taken aboard? - if everyone is taken aboard, the boat sinks, and everyone drowns
thomson's solution to the trolley problem
- it is morally permissible to divert a threat from a larger to a smaller number of people as long as it is the same threat AND as long as the means of diverting the threat does not violate anyone's important rights
mill's claim that happiness is the only thing that we pursue as an end and not as a means
- it is our human nature to aim to achieve happiness as a result of all of our actions - therefore, happiness itself is the only thing that we truly pursue as a means
mill's response to the claim that "utilitarianism is a theory fit for swine"
- mill responds by describing two types of pleasure 1. higher pleasure: sources of pleasure that only human beings can enjoy (religion, art, music, etc.) 2. lower pleasure: sources of pleasure that all animals alike can enjoy (food, sleep, etc)
qualities often associated with god
- omniscient (all-knowing) - omnipotent (all-powerful) - omnibenevolent (all good) - omnipresent (all-present)
w.k. clifford's object to pascal's wager
- since there is no evidence that god exists, people who believe in him "just to be safe" harm themselves as well as the people around them. - people should only believe in things if they have sufficient evidence to back it up
why does kant say that only a good will is good in itself?
- some desirable qualities could end up in the wrong hands (generosity, empathy, perseverance) - bad people can use these things to be malicious
pascal's wager
- states that it is impossible to prove or disprove whether god exists or not, because it is too far beyond the limits of human understanding - he believes it is safer to believe in god because eternal suffering is much worse than wasted time, and, obviously, heaven. - therefore, it is only logical to believe in god
thomson's example of the looping track
- the alternate track that the trolley could swicth to goes in a circle, and would ultimately end up on the same track as the five people. - however, on the alternate track, there is a very large man who could stop the trolley if it were to hit him - however, the five people's combined mass could also stop the trolley - people still do not think it would be wrong if the bystander were to flip the switch because it would save five lives - disproves the kantian solution because the large man is being used as a means
thomson's fat man on the bridge
- the trolley is again headed toward five people, but there is no time to turn the track to the alternate route - there is a bridge overtop of the track where two people, one of which is very large and could stop the trolley if pushed in front - most people believe that the smaller person should not push the large person off the bridge
2 possible differences between killing and failing to assist
1. difference of motivation: it is not hard to avoid killing, but it is very hard to save all the lives that you could save 2. identifiability of the victim: it is easy to identify someone who has been killed, but very hard to identify every victim who has died as a result of someone failing to assist
nagel's critique of "religious experiences" as a source of evidence for god's existence
1. experiences cannot be proven 2. people could be unaware of what actually caused their experience 3. this argument simply lacks persuasive power
the ways in which the actual world is not appropriate as an expression of god's intentions according to everitt
1. humans would appear early in the universe 2. humans would appear not long after the other animals 3. earth would be in the center of the universe 4. the universe would not be vastly larger than the planet earth
nagel's critique of the cosmological argument
1. if everything has to have a cause, then why doesn't god? 2. if god does not have a cause, then why does the universe have to? 3. is an infinite regress actually possible? perhaps not 4. does everything need to have a cause?
nagel's "problem of evil"
1. if god existed, then there would be no evil in the world 2. however, there is evil in the world - therefore, god must not exist because if he is all-powerful, and perfectly just, why not stop evil?
3 reasons that god's hiddenness is a disadvantage according to mckim
1. makes it harder for everyone to believe that god exists 2. it makes it harder for people to have a close relationship with god 3. it makes it harder for people to devote themselves to, and worship, god. 4. it contributes to social conflict and disagreement 5. it makes it easier for con artists and frauds to operate
2 Objections to Singer's Argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the absolute poor
1. property rights objection: we have the right to do as we fit for that property, which gives us the right to refuse to assist. 2. leave it to the government: we should just leave it to the government to resolve issues such as these since they are more powerful
2 reasons why it is wrong to have a credulous character
1. self harm: makes you a poor judge of what is true and unable to face uncomfortable truths 2. social harm: you will influence others to have a credulous character too
nagel's critique of the argument from design
1. the real reason that we know that the watch has a maker is that we make the watches, not because it has a function 2. the existence and function of the eye can be explained by evolution and Darwinian biology.
3 positions that are on the question of god's existence
1. theists: people who believe in god 2. atheists: people who do not believe that god exists 3. agnostics: people who neither affirm nor deny the existence of god because of a perceived lack of evidence
3 factors that paley thinks would not undermine the judgement that a watch sitting in the forest must have been made my a watchmaker
1. you'd never seen a watch being made 2. you do not understand how it works 3. no one would say that the watch was caused by random chance
singer's argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the global poor
3 reasons: 1. if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, then we should 2. absolute poverty is bad 3. we can prevent absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of comparable significance
moore's argument that existence is not a predicate
Moore is responding to Anselm's ontological argument (a predicate is an attribute or quality of a thing) - He uses an example of how some tigers growl, but some do not - if you change "growl" to "exist" it no longer makes sense because to say "most tigers exist" does not make sense
gaunilo's example of the lost island
Responding to Anselm's ontological argument -Gaunilo says imagine the greatest conceivable island- it must be real, right? -Gaunilo says that just claiming that something is the "greatest conceivable" thing doesn't prove the thing's existence
what is one basic criticism of utilitarianism (aside from "theory fit for swine"?
TOO DEMANDING - you may never be able to do something that you like and sacrifice relationships because what you want/need is not going to make the most amount of people happy
cosmological argument
an argument for the existence of God that claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e., are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being that exists independently or necessarily.
why does singer say that the problem of global hunger is not a problem of scarcity of resources?
he says that it is instead a problem of poor distribution and waste of available resources
everitt's test that he suggests for gaining evidence that a certain type of being does not exist
if there is a being with nature (N) and intentions (i), then the being will produce change (C) in the world. HOWEVER, the world does not display change (C). therefore, he concludes that there is evidence that the being (god) does not exist.
kant's shopkeeper example
motive of DUTY vs. motive of INCLINATION - both shopkeepers have a great chance of ripping off a child at their store by charging them more than the asking price - shopkeeper 1: chooses not to overcharge the child because he loves to be fair, and therefore only charges the child the correct amount because he wanted to - shopkeeper 2: chooses not to overcharge the childe because he recognizes that it would be wrong to do this to the child, even though he has the urge to overcharge the child. - because shopkeeper #2 resists his urge (acts upon duty), his action is the only one which is morally correct.
rowe's magican vs magico
rowe responds to anselm's theory by assigning a definition to a different concept. - magican: existing magician - magico: non-existing magician - "existing" is built into our definition of what a magician is, but there are some examples of non-existent magicians (harry potter) - proves that just because we have placed a definition of something does not prove it to be true
ontological argument
the argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not.
Describe an action that is morally obligatory according to one ethical theory and morally impermissible according to another.
transplant scenario in utilitarianism vs consequentialism - utilitarianism: it would be morally permissible to kill the one person in order to save the other five because it would generate the most amount of overall happiness - consequentialism: it would be morally impermissible to kill the one person because it is illegal to kill someone and to use their organs without their pre-written consent
2 versions of the categorical imperative
v1. the prinicple that you are acting on must be something that everyone could take part in, and it would not be undesirable v2: never treat a human being as a means; always treat human beings as an ends in themselves
reductio ad absurdum
when someone assumes the contrary of what they'd like to prove and then show that this would imply something impossible
o'neill's account of what it is to treat someone as a mere means
when you involve someone in an interaction that they would not consent to
