Philosophy 1110 Final Exam ECU

What does it mean to say that an argument is valid? What does it mean to say that an argument is invalid? What does it mean to say that an argument is sound? What does it mean to say that an argument is unsound?

A valid argument: An argument that has the following feature: IF all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. A invalid argument: An argument that is not valid; it is possible for the conclusion to be false even if all of the premises are true. Sound argument: When it is valid and has all true premises. Unsound argument: AN argument is unsound if it is either invalid or some of the premises are false.

What is the difference between an open question and a closed question? Which sort of question tends to be the focus of philosophy?

An open question is a question over which there is substance disagreement (even among the experts) open questions can still have answers and someone out there might even know the answer. A closed question is a question over which there is no substantial disagreement. One that you could easily find the answer in the back of a book somewhere. Philosophy focuses almost entirely on open questions.

In what way is epistemology more fundamental than the natural sciences?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. In a way, it is more fundamental than the natural sciences because science provides us with knowledge by (ex:) testing theories and try to determine which theories are best supported by the evidence. By Epistemology asks questions like: What is it in general for any theory or any claim about the world to be well supported b evidence? What, in general, does it take for someone to know something? These questions are not addressed from within science.

Several misconceptions about philosophy were discussed. What were they? Why are they misconceptions?

Misconception #1: Philosophical questions have no right or wrong answer. > Reality: There may be some philosophical questions that have no right or wrong answer but it can't be that all philosophical questions have no right or wrong answer. Some philosophers, such as ethical subjectivists, think that questions about whether certain actions are right or wrong are merely matters of personal feelings. This is only a view about the nature of ethical questions. It's not there are no answers to the big philosophical questions, it's that the answers cannot be looked up in the back of the book. You have to figure it out on your own. Just because there are no easy answers, does not mean there are no answers. Misconception #2: "We cannot know the answer to any philosophical question." > Differs from misconception #1 because it's one thing to say that there is no answer to a given question and another to say that we can't know the answer. We can only know what we can prove by observation IS an answer to a philosophical question. (Epistemology: study of nature and the limits of human knowledge) If you have a view about the limits of knowledge, then you must think you know the answer to at least one philosophical question. Reality: Philosophy deals almost entirely in open rather than closed questions. Misconception #3: Evidence and reason play no role in Philosophy. > False! LOGIC is crucial to philosophy. Reality: Philosophy tends to rely more on reason than observation. The main tool of the philosopher is the argument. If you are not offering an argument, you aren't doing philosophy at all. And to offer an argument is just to display the evidence or reasons you have for making a claim. Misconception #4: Philosophical questions are trivial and unimportant. > Reality: There is nothing more fundamental than philosophy. A question is fundamental when a great deal turns on it.

Be able to identify instances of the following argument forms and to determine whether they are valid or invalid: Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent.

Modus Ponens: Valid argument. If P, then Q. P. Therefore Q. Modus Tollens: Valid argument. If P, then Q. Not Q. Not P. The fallacy of affirming the consequent: Invalid If P then Q Q Therefore, P. The fallacy of denying the antecedent: Invalid If P then Q Not P. Not Q.

How does ontology differ from physics? How does ethics differ from things like psychology and anthropology?

Ontology differs from physics because Physics, concerns itself with physical objects and the laws that govern them. Questions regarding if there are anything in the universe in addition to physical objects such as "Is there a non-physical soul? Is there a God?" cannot be added within physics. Ontology covers questions that are outside or beyond physics. Ethics concerns itself with questions about the nature of right and wrong and splits off into different sub-disciplines. Psychology and anthropology often deal with questions that concern human values. Philosophers are not concerned with describing what people believe and why. Instead, they are concerned with whether what we believe is reasonable, well supported by evidence and true. While a Psychologist will be concerned with how a person's view on (ex. abortion) may change depending on his age or social situation. Ethics care about whether there is any good reason to believe that abortion is wrong or not and whether there can be good reason for that sort of thing. The psychological question of what we do believe and why is very different from philosophical question of what we ought to believe and why we ought to believe it.

What were the different areas of philosophy discussed on the first day of class? What questions belong to each of these areas?

Ontology: The study of being or existence. "Being" means the fundamental nature of reality. > What sorts of stuff are there in the universe? Epistemology > What does it mean to know something? What, if anything, can we know? Skepticism > Theory that we do not know anything at all? What makes something an item of knowledge and not just an opinion? Ethics > What is the nature of right and wrong? Are these determined by objective or personal feelings/opinions?

What is the Argument from Miracles? What is Hume's objection to it?

The argument of miracles: 1. People have witnessed miracles. 2. If people have witnessed miracles, then God exists. 3. Therefore, God exists. Humes Objection: If the only evidence we have for the violation is someone else's testimony, then we should not believe that the violation actually happened. The evidence for the existence of the law of nature itself will always outweigh the testimony. You should conclude that the person is either lying, or them themselves are deceived in some way. If you have a good reason to believe in the existence in a law of nature then you have no reason to believe that is has been violated by a miracle.

What is cultural moral relativism? What is the main problem with it?

The particular person does not determine whats right but rather ones cultural or society does. So if the majority of people in a given society believe that a certain action is wrong, then it is wrong for that society. What is wrong with it? Opinion of the society matters more than the individuals. It makes cultures or societies infallible. If you adopt CMR you cannot criticize the moral beliefs of another society. Although a certain kind of behavior is generally adopted in a society, it can still be wrong. (ex: slavery, Nazi Germany)

What is the Traditional Argument Against Abortion? What does Warren think is wrong with it?

The traditional argument against abortion: 1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings 2. A fetus is an innocent human being 3. Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses. Warrens critique of the traditional argument: -"Human being" has two different meanings. -The moral sense of "human being" =df the sort of being with rights, in particular a right to live; aka a person. -The genetic sense of "human being" =df something with human DNA.

What are the different positions one can take with respect to the question of whether God exists?

Theism: The view that God exists. A theist must: produce a good argument with "God exists" as its conclusion and provide a good response to any objections to that argument. Atheism: The view that God does not exist. The atheist must: produce a good argument with "God does not exist" as its conclusion and provide a good response to any objection to this argument. Agnosticism: The view that is unknown whether God exists. The agnostic must: show that the arguments for theism AND the arguments for atheism fail.

What is the difference between a coincidence miracle and a violation miracle?

Violation miracles: The miracles that are attributed to Jesus, such as walking on water. They involved a violation in some law of nature. Coincidence miracles: A coincidence is simple conjunction of events, each of which has an ordinary physical cause. We need not to appeal to God.

What is Warren's argument in defense of abortion? What objections were raised to this argument? What were her replies to these objections?

Warrens argument in defense of abortion: 1. If fetuses have none of features I-V, then features are not persons. 2. Fetuses have none of feature I-V 3. Therefore, fetuses are not persons. 4. If fetuses are not persons, then abortion is not immortal and should not be illegal. 5. Therefore, abortion is not immortal and should not be illegal. Objections: Potentially: Fetuses have a right to life because they are potential people. Warren: Potential people do not have rights and even if they do, they cannot outweigh the rights of an actual person. The Duty to Reproduce Reductio -Infanticide: Warren's argument also applies to day old-infants -Warren's Reply: Infanticide is not murder but still wrong because Infants are so close to persons -Giving up a newborn is cost-free (compare burden of carrying a fetus to term)

What does it mean to say that something is known a priori? What does it mean to say that something is known empirically or a posteriori?

When something is known as a priori, it means that it is knowledge by reason (rather than by observation). A posteriori is relating to or derived by reasoning from observed facts; derives from evidence.

What is individual moral relativism? What is the main problem with it?

Whether something is right or wrong for a particular reason depends completely on that persons opinion. Right and wrong are relative to the individual. What is right or wrong for you might not be right or wrong for somebody else. What is the main problem? > It makes people morally infallible. We are forced to think that there is a sense in which no one can ever do anything wrong.