Philosophy Midterm Review
In Chapter One of Engaging Philosophy, the author elucidates three reasons for self-consciously and painstakingly engaging with philosophical issues. Please explain those three reasons.
1. opinions aren't knowledge - they aren't backed up by reasons or facts 2. suppleness of the mind - you develop alertness to the complexity and depth of questions 3. practical - develop skills to answer questions deliberately and effectively
What is an argument, as that notion is defined for philosophical purposes? Next, what are the three major grammatical moods of the world's languages, and which of those three moods is most associated with the concept of a proposition? Finally, can two sentences of different languages express the same proposition? Please explain your answer.
A line of reasoning purporting to establish a certain thesis. indicative - saying something is true or false (used in prop) interrogative - asking a question imperative - telling someone something, command yes, but if a sentence is ambiguous it can be interpreted in two different ways
Clarke ('A Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument') distinguishes between dependent and independent beings. Please explain this distinction. Clarke's argument for a GCB is important because it does not assume, as Aquinas does, that there cannot be an infinite causal regression of dependent beings. How does Clarke argue that even if there is an infinite causal regression of dependent beings, there must also be at least one independent being?
Clarke states dependent beings reason for existence is outside of itself. Independent beings reason for existence are within itself. Clarke states there can be an infinite casual regression of dependent beings that would have been caused by a independent being.
Here are four slogans that might be invoked to respond to the atheological argument from evil. Please briefly explain each of these slogans, and explain whether it is offers a plausible response to that atheological argument: (1) "God is giving us a test"; (2) "Evil is just a privation"; (3) "Things balance out"; (4) "No mountains without valleys".
"God is giving us a test": god is testing us to determine whether or not we deserve eternal bliss. But if a GCB is all-knowing they wouldn't need to test us because they would know the final outcome. "Evil is just a Privation": the evil in the world is simply the absence of a good. If a GCB is supposed to be good why would they allow so evil? "Things balance out": There is a balance of good and evil. "No mountains without valleys": There must be highs and lows. Some virtues are impossible to have without evil. If the GCB were to create a world without evil then great virtues would be lost.
Richard Kraut argues ('The Examined Life') that the Greek term 'biōtos' can be translated either as 'worth living' or 'to be lived'. Why might one hold that the latter interpretation permits a more plausible reading of Socrates' dictum about the unexamined life as expressed in the Apology?
"not to be lived" as in one SHOULD live an examined life. This interpretation is more plausible because it simply places a normative suggestion on individuals, not a death sentence. The surgeon's life may be worth living, but he would live a better life if he began examining it. A deranged serial killer of children who examines life lives a better life than a deranged serial killer of children who does not.
Harry Frankfurt ("Freedom of Will and the Concept of a Person") distinguishes between what he terms "wantons" and "persons". Please explain that distinction. Next, might the dictum "Use it or lose it!" apply to the property of being a person as Frankfurt understands that notion? Please explain your answer.
"the essential characteristic of a wanton is that he does not care about his will" Very young children, some adult humans, and non-human animals are wanton MILL UTILITARIANISM: Mind needs to be cultivated or it will deplete. He would agree with Frankfurt if you give up on cultivation, you can lose the capability to do so A human being could start a wanton, achieve personhood for a while, and then descend into wantonness later in life by not cultivating SECOND ORDER VOLITION "use it or lose it" 2 types of addicts in Trainspotting - person v+s wanton It's not complete to say that an unwilling addict has a first order desire to smoke and a second order desire not to smoke. It's more complicated. He's got conflicting first order desires. One to smoke and one not to smoke. Plus he's got a second order volition to the effect that he wants his desire not to smoke to be effective. • In anticipation of free will discussion below: If he smokes (i.e., when he's an unwilling addict) he lacks freedom of the will because his will ended up pointing in the direction of wanting to smoke and he had wanted (2nd order) that not to be the case.
Aquinas ('The Five Ways') holds that a chain of causes cannot stretch back infinitely. If we accept this assumption, is it possible to infer from Aquinas' argument the existence of a GCB? Please explain your answer. (In your answer it may be helpful to keep in mind the example of Kronos devouring his children.) Next, considering Aquinas' claim that a chain of causes cannot stretch back infinitely, how might that claim be challenged?
'The Five Ways' states that because a series of events cannot stretch back in time infinitely there must be a first mover and that this first mover aka GCB. Kronos is not the GCB but he is omnipotent(powerful). There also is no proof stating time cannot stretch back infinitely.
Socrates explains in the Apology that he has little or no knowledge about matters that are most important-the nature of virtue, justice, how to live properly, and so on. He also remarks that the oracle at Delphi once stated to a friend of his that no one is wiser than Socrates. How did Socrates end up explaining this surprising pronouncement in such a way as to show it to have some basis after all? How is that explanation germane to the nature of self-knowledge? Please explain your answer.
-Socrates is wise not because he knows more , but because he is less self-deluded. He is not under the delusion that he knows what he doesn't. Wiser than other Athenians because he is not full of errors. -Socrates can introspect accurately/be honest with himself
What is ambiguity in language? Next, consider the sentence, "Everyone saw her duck." Please explain whether this sentence is ambiguous, and, if it is, describe two disambiguation that may be given of it. Likewise, consider the sentence, "Everyone loves someone." Please explain whether it is ambiguous, and, if it is, describe two disambiguation that may be given of it.
Ambiguity= multiple possible meanings. For example, when reading the statement "Madiha went to the bank", she could have gone to a river bank or money dealing with finances. "Everyone loves someone" could mean everyone loves one person such or everyone has one person that they love. "For teaching me that the oxford comma resolves ambiguity, I'd like to thank my parents, Sinead O'Connor and the Pope" The statement could mean the parents are Sinead O'Connor and the Pope or if the subject is thanking their parents, Sinead O'Connor, and the Pope.
Hume's Principle poses a challenge to Clarke's formulation of the Cosmological Argument. What is that Principle, and how does it pose a challenge to Clarke's argument?
Hume's principle is "once you've explained the properties of each element in a totality, you have explained the features of the totality as well". This poses a challenge to Clarke because you then do not need a GCB.
How does Plato invoke Socrates' discussion with Meno's slave boy to challenge the doctrine of empiricism? What does Socrates infer, from his observations of the slave boy's apparently innate knowledge, about that boy's soul? Might Socrates' inference be challenged with the help of a distinction between what is innate and what is implicit? Please explain your answer.
By eliciting answers to questions, Socrates gets the slave boy to figure out for himself, after an initial perplexity, a geometrical fact. He infers from this that the boy already had this information inside him, if unconsciously or implicitly. Socrates concludes that this information must have been innate ( and is not finding knowledge within oneself recollection).The boy must have had a soul that preexisted his earthly existence. He had all the info inside of him and had to draw the information out of him (challange to empiricism).The slave boysolves the math problem without anyone teaching him something new. Socratesdraws the knowledge out of him by asking questions - the slave boy already had some innate understanding of mathematics, Socrates simply facilitated his learning. This is a challenge to empiricism because the boy did not learn math through experience, but was able to solve a problem that he previously didn't understand using his innate knowledge. Socrates infers that the boy's soul existed before he was born - he is simply drawing on knowledge that he had from a previous life - "And is not finding knowledge within oneself recollection?" Innate - something we are born with, already inherent knowledge.
On what basis might a Libertarian hold that in introspecting on your own deliberation, particularly in situations of moral struggle, you can discern that Universal Determinism is not true? Might findings from neuroscience call into question the Libertarian's assumption that such evidence from introspection is infallible? Please explain your answer.
Campbell: free will trumps UD; 'I can know with introspective certainty that I freely chose some actions" -We only know UD from senses -The best confidence we can have about UD is not as strong as the confidence we can have in introspective certainty Ex. my doctor cannot disprove a pain in my mouth with UD; I can only know the pain through my introspection (perception of senses) Campbell: free will trumps UD; 'I can know with introspective certainty that I freely chose some actions" -We only know UD from senses -The best confidence we can have about UD is not as strong as the confidence we can have in introspective certainty Ex. my doctor cannot disprove a pain in my mouth with UD; I can only know the pain through my introspection (perception of senses)
Please explain the difference between two kinds of "ground" for a belief, namely causal or historical grounds on the one hand, and grounds that justify that belief, on the other. Give examples of each of these two sorts of ground. Next, why does citing a causal or historical ground for a belief not justify it?
Causal/historical grounds= beliefs that are based on the fact you were brought up to believe it. An example of such belief would be sexism. Ground for belief= there is evidence that justifies the belief. An example of such belief would be eating healthier.
David Hume argues that the traditional problem of freedom of will rests on a failure to understand the terms in which that problem is couched. Please explain his reasons for this view. Next, on the basis of your explanation, please show how Hume's position suggests that freedom of will and Universal Determinism are compatible with one another.
Hume: Universal Determinism is Compatible with Free Will -Free will debate depends on the misunderstanding of the terminology that we use to describe it Conditional Analysis of Freedom: free will requires that X could have done otherwise but had X chosen to do otherwise, then X would have Compatibility UD: if someone shot someone, they could not be held responsible since it was predetermined Hume: had that person chosen to do otherwise, he could have not shot someone because UD does not rule out the counter statement "he could have chosen otherwise"
Please explain the difference between a defense and a theodicy as these words are used in the context of the problem of evil. In light of this distinction, explain the salient features of Adams' argument ('Must God Create The Best?', discussed in Engaging Philosophy) that a GCB need not create the best world s/he is capable of creating. (In your answer it may be helpful to recall Adams' example of the person who chooses to breed goldfish rather than puppies, as well as his example of the mother who takes a drug causing a deformity in her unborn fetus, but who loves it unstintingly after it is born.) Finally, can Adams' position plausibly be seen as offering a theodicy, and not merely a defense? Please explain your answer.
Defense= GCB is exists with the existence of some evil. Theodicy= GCB exists with evil present in this world. . Adams argument "Must God Create The Best?"= 1) No creature in it also exists In the best of all possible worlds. 2) No creatures life is so miserable that it would have been better off not existing at all. 3) No creature in this world would have been better off in any other possible world in which it might have existed. Adams states God could have created a world good for its people. An is a man choosing to raise gold fish rather than puppies. As long that the man gives the goldfish a normal life then he is not doing any wrong. However, an example is a woman who is deeply interested in children with disabilities. Is it morally wrong for her too take a pill that will turn her child into a disabled individual? Yes, she is giving the child a life below the standard despite she would love them unconditionally. Adams is offering a defense because he aruges some evil is compatible. Adam's argument can't be a theodicy because it doesn't take into account physical evil.
In Meditations III-IV, Descartes gives what he believes to be a proof of God's existence. He also offers considerations about the problem of evil, and about the nature of our faculty of reason, justifying the thesis that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Please explain that thesis and the justification Descartes gives on its behalf. Is being certain that something is the case enough to count as clearly and distinctly perceiving that it is so? Please explain your answer.
Descartes Meditation III -Descartes is sure he exists and thinks but what is a thinking thing? -Senses are deceitful so knowledge must only be true in the absence senses -Only thing he is certain of is that he thinks -Descartes can think of a limitless being (GCB) so it must exist -Error is evil and God is not capable of evil -Clear and distinct perception: if Descartes does everything in his power to avoid error then he must be right because God would not deceive him
In the first two of his Meditations, Descartes considers the possibility that all of his beliefs are false. First, how do (a) illusions, (b) hallucinations, and (c) dreams sometimes bring about false beliefs in us? Next, even if Descartes can somehow rule out the possibility that he is dreaming, what further, more troublesome, possibility would he have to rule out in order to be confident in even such apparently obvious beliefs as that he has a pair of hands? Next, Descartes argues that even if he cannot rule out this more troublesome possibility, there is another proposition about which he cannot be mistaken. What is this other proposition about which he believes he cannot be mistaken, and how does he show that he cannot be mistaken about it?
Descartes Meditations I & II -Descartes calls all of his knowledge into doubt because a lot of things he thought to be true are not -He finds that most of what he knows comes from his senses -Dreams, hallucinations and illusions are sensory experiences that are deceptive -BUT are all extensions of previous sensory experiences -How do we know that a demon is not controlling your thoughts i.e. deceiving you? -He thinks that maybe the only certain thing is uncertainty -In order to not be deceived by the demon, he continues to doubt everything he knows -He can be certain of the content within his mind -Descartes must think in order to be deceived and in order to think he must exist -Cogito ergo sum "I think therefore I am"
Please explain the Indiscernibility of Identicals. Next, note that Descartes remarks that his essence consists entirely in his being a thinking thing (p. 51). He seems to infer from this that it is in principle possible for his mind to exist without his body, indeed without his brain. Please explain how Descartes concludes from this observation, via what we have called the Body-Detachment Argument, that his mind and body are in fact distinct. In your answer be sure to explain how Descartes' reasoning relies on the notion of clear and distinct perception.
Descartes' Mind and Body Distinction P1. Identicals: if X=Y then X and Y have all their properties in common P2. Descartes can clearly and distinctly perceive his mind to exist without his body P3. He cannot clearly and distinctly perceive his body without his body P4. His mind and body do not have the same properties P5. His mind is not identical to his body
Please explain the following fallacies of theoretical rationality, giving examples in each case: composition; post hoc, ergo propter hoc; ad hominem; authority, begging the question. Note: for your examples, do not use those found in Engaging Philosophy; please come up with your own examples instead.
Division: big sand dune, big grain of sand. Composition: sand grains are small so the heap is small. Post hoc, ergo hoc means such event happened afterwards therefore such event caused it to happen. Ad hominem suggest doubt with the person who makes such claim. Authority is when someone famous makes a claim which in turn makes it "reliable". Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely.
What is the doctrine of empiricism? Next, please explain two areas of knowledge that seem to pose challenges to empiricism, in that it is difficult to see how we could gain knowledge of those areas solely by means of our senses. Also, what is the "self-application problem" facing the empiricist? Finally, does empiricism imply that at birth, each person's mind is a tabula rasa, that is, entirely bereft of knowledge? Please explain your answer.
Doctrine of Empiricism: all knowledge comes only from experience Problems with Empiricism -Claim that all knowledge comes from experience cannot be established on empirical grounds -How do the senses account for mathematical and ethical knowledge? Self-Application Problem: you don't know what tests can be done to prove this Tabula Rasa: blank slate; everything you learn is from experience
Consider the following question: What makes right acts right? How would an ethical egoist answer this question? How would a utilitarian answer this question? (In your discussion, it will be helpful to explain how both theories make use of the idea of maximizing expected utility.) Next, give an example in which ethical egoism and utilitarianism would counsel choosing different actions. Next, from the fact that many people are ethical egoists, does it follow that the theory of ethical egoism is true? Please explain your answer.
For an ethical egoist the right action is anything that best serves their interests. An ethical egoist makes their decisions based on the outcome that has the most personal gain. For a utilitarian the act is right as long that it is the most likely to produce the greatest overall amount of happiness. Ethical egoism is not true because it is highly unbeneficial for the rest of the world.
Please explain the concepts of Universal Determinism, Freedom of Action, and Freedom of Will. In light of this explanation show why it might be thought that if Universal Determinism is true then there are no free actions. Further, explain, with the aid of at least one example, why it is often held that freedom of action is a precondition of moral assessment of action.
Freedom of Will Freedom of Action: freedom to perform a behavior; performing an action in such a way that you could have done otherwise In other words: when I perform act X, it seems that if the act is free, then it must be the case that I could have done otherwise than I did Ex. someone with Tourette's does not have freedom of action Freedom of Will: a matter of having the will that you choose to have *freedom of action and freedom action are distinct entities that are generally used interchangeably in philosophy (similar to Descartes/Ryle issue) Universal Determinism = No Freedom of Action/Will Universal Determinism: every physical event that occurs in the universe has a prior physical sufficient condition *not assuming that every event that occurs is physical, just those that are Laplace's Demon: UD implies that a super physicist that is not malevolent could calculate the entire physical state of the universe at a later moment on the basis of any earlier state, no matter how far back in time *only using physics Ex. All of the future positions of balls on a billiards table can be calculated IF everything can be calculated, then how do we have freedom? Doctrine of Hard Determinism: UD trumps free will; freedom is an illusion -Behavior can be modified but there is no room for moral evaluation -Blame and praise would imply freedom so they do not have much hold
Kant espouses the Formula of the End in Itself, which states, "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." What is the difference between treating a person as a means, and treating that person as a mere means? Please illustrate your answer with an example. In your answer to this question, please explain the relevance of whether a person can consent to being treated in a certain way. Could the Formula of the End in Itself explain why we think that some kinds of suicide are morally wrong? Please explain your answer.
Kant: Ways to Use Someone Means: using someone to benefit yourself without intentions of harming them Ex. borrowing someone's car with the intention to pay them back for gas Mere Means: treating someone only as a device to satisfy your own desire with bad intentions; obtain consent through malicious deception *They can't consent because the outcome is unpredictable, they do not know your intentions Ex. using someone's car with no intention of paying them back for gas Kant and Suicide Committing Suicide: using yourself as a mere means; as a device to satisfy your desire to end your suffering that could have been alleviated with help and time The Formula of the End in Itself and Famine "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." This implies to treat others the way they want to be treated so if you treat yourself to food then you should treat others in the same way- ending famine
Mill considers the objection that his form of utilitarianism it sets too high a standard for humanity. Please explain how Mill responds to this objection. Next, Mill considers the objection to his theory that we rarely have time to calculate and weigh the effects of a prospective action on the general happiness. How does Mill reply to this objection? Also, are there any conditions under which we cannot appeal solely to so-called "intermediate generalizations", a.k.a. rules of thumb in choosing the utilitarian course of action? If so, please explain why this might occur, and, if it does, how we should go about deciding what to do.
Mill's solution How to tell which are more valuable when considering two preferences: -Let people go with their gut feeling *Cannot be biased, has to have experienced both pleasures -We've had our whole lives to calculate -Decisions based on precepts learned through development
Please explain the difference between moral evil and physical evil as we have defined these terms in class. Next, explain why it might be thought that the existence of either form of evil supports an atheological argument. Finally, why might it be held that in order to realize a world in which certain moral virtues (including compassion, forgiveness, courage, and fortitude) are found, there must also be some moral evil as well as some physical evil?
Moral Evil: is evil that is done onto and caused by a knowing being. Physical Evil: Physical evil is evil that is a result off the nature. The existence of evil supports the argument of uncertainty of a GCB because if a GCB exists then why does there exist pain, suffering, and other forms of evil. In order for there to be virtues such as love and compassion there must also be evil, to enjoy the said virtues.
Pascal argues that even if it not theoretically rational to believe in a GCB, it is nevertheless practically rational to do so. After briefly explaining the Act-State-Outcome approach to practical rationality, show how Pascal arrives at this conclusion. Does the success of Pascal's argument depend on how much an individual values the "eternal reward" such as that promised in Heaven? Please explain your answer.
Pascal shows that even if it is not theoretically rational to believe in a GCB it is practically rational. The benefits in believing in a GCB such as eternal bliss outweigh the small amount of time you lose by actually believing in one. And if there is a GCB then you get the benefits and if not all you lost was a little bit of time maybe even just your Sundays. It also depends on how much one values the benefits "eternals rewards" of believing in a GCB. The A/S/O method will be different for each individual.
Pascal argues that even if it not theoretically rational to believe in a GCB, it is nevertheless practically rational to do so. Suppose that he can argue for this conclusion persuasively. It still seems difficult to form a belief at will just because I deem it prudential to do so. How might Pascal suggest that we overcome this difficulty? Also, one might object to Pascal's Wager by suggesting that a GCB would not reward a person who becomes a theist on the basis of apparently crass prudential considerations such as those adduced by the Wager argument. How might Pascal respond to this objection?
Pascal suggests basing off your own beleifs and using incentives, such as eternal bliss. People will become true believers by applying their own beliefs and thus be true believers in practice. An example is raising children to have proper manners by giving those incentives, such as candy. As a result they will grow to have these manners. What matters is that you ultimately have them as an adult. An argument to Pascal's wager is the rewarding those who believe in him/her instead of sending everyone to eternal damnation. Pascal might respond to this objection by stating it is in the individual's best interest to believe in a GCB because of the slight chance of going to a great place rather than not believing in one and receiving eternal damnation but must be genuine.
Please explain the difference between diachronic and synchronic questions of personal identity. What is John Locke's original, unrefined view of diachronic personal identity? In light of this position, explain why Locke holds that a person can survive the loss of her body, and even the loss of her Central Nervous System? Finally, is Locke's position compatible with the possibility of more than one person inhabiting a single body, as appears to be the case with clinical examples of multiple personality disorder? Please explain your answer.
Personal Identity Person Stage (P1,P2,PN): an individual moment of a person's life Diachronic: how things are over a stretch of time Question of identity: P1 is a stage of the same person as P2 if and only if...? *what it is for an entity A at time T to be one and the same thing as entity B at time T+N Synchronic: how things are at a certain time Question of identity: P1 is a person if and only if...? *what it is for a thing to be an entity at any given time Apparent Memory: what you seem to remember Genuine Memory: what you actually remember Locke's Unrefined View on Personal Identity Synchronic Personal Identity: a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, can consider itself as the same thinking thing in different times and places *You must consider yourself a thinking thing to be a person Diachronic Personal Identity: Person in P1 (entity A at time T) is the same person as the person in P2 (entity B at time + N) if and only if the person in P2 remembers at least one thing from P1 Locke and Surviving the Loss of Your Body -You could go to heaven, no longer having a body and remember experiences that you had as a terrestrial being and recognize yourself which proves that you are yourself because of memory links The Prince and the Cobbler: a prince's brain and CNS have been transplanted into the body of a cobbler and vice versa. The later person stage of the prince can remember the experiences had by the earlier person stage of the prince and likewise for the cobbler Psychological continuity theory: self-identity is not found in the body substance as the body may change while the person remains the same Locke and Multiple Inhabitants of One Body Locke: There might be multiple persons inside one human being Inconsistency: if two selves were created from a severed corpus callosum and put into separate bodies then both would have memories regressing back to P1
Please distinguish between 'quotidian' and 'robust' forms of moral relativism. Does quotidian moral relativism imply that there is no objective matter of fact about what is right and what is wrong? Please explain your answer. Next, suppose you find some people's behavior, such as the Fore's cannibalism, or the Fijians' habit of burying their elderly alive, immoral, even though that behavior does not harm you. Is being a robust moral relativist the only way in which you could consistently justify refraining from intervening in their lives? That is, is robust moral relativism the only way in which you could consistently justify a "live and let live" policy? Please explain your answer.
Q is based off of space and time while robust is based off of society and culture. Q implies there are variations of opinion but they only differ geogrpahically. Robust moral relativism is not the only way to justify the "live and let live mentality." because q acknowledges there are diff. opinions through space and time.
Our best evidence from physics suggests that the universe is not entirely deterministic. (For instance, whether a radioactive atom decays at one moment rather than another seems fundamentally a matter of chance.) This seems to show that Universal Determinism is at best an approximation to the truth. Does the failure of Universal Determinism as shown by quantum mechanics neutralize the problem of free will? Please explain your answer.
Quantum Mechanics and Universal Determinism Probability: measure of likeliness that an event will occur Radioactive Decay: a radioactive element is supposed to lose an electron at some point in its existence but when it will lose that electron is based only on probability UD as an Approximation to the Truth -We can only predict the likelihood in which an atom will lose an electron -When an atom decays is not something of physical cause -UD is not true on the subatomic level -Events on the subatomic level can cause catastrophes on a larger level (hurricane) *Quantum Mechanics Does Not Neutralize the Problem of Free Will Taylor: if actions are caused by events that are indeterministic (probability, chance) then they are still not up to me (my freedom of will) Free Will ≠ Probability/Chance -QM does not prove UD to be true or false
Suppose someone is known to have broken a law, and that we agree that the law this person has broken is a legitimate one. Then we may feel that society is justified in punishing this person. Please explain the following three forms of justification for punishment in such a case: retributivism, deterrence (both special and general) and expressivist. Next, which of these justifications of punishment is or are most naturally associated with utilitarianism? Please explain your answer.
R is punishment based on the size of the sin. D is to deter people from offending. E is expressing the correct emotions to wrong doing, such as resentment or guilt. Detterence is associated with utilitarianism.
After explaining the Brave Officer Paradox, show how it is a challenge to Locke's unrefined theory of diachronic personal identity. Could Locke refine this theory of diachronic personal identity in order to accommodate the Brave Officer Paradox? Please explain your answer.
Reid's Denial of Locke's Theory -Psychological continuity might be evidence of personal identity over time but it is not what makes for identity over time -Memories are indications not causes for identity over time -Other evidence exists that he may not remember Brave Officer Paradox A little boy (LB) steals apples and grows up, joins the military and becomes a brave officer (BO) and then grows older to become and old general (OG) -BO (entity B at time T+N) remembers stealing apples as LB (entity A at time T) Locke's Theory: BO=LB -OG (entity C at time T+2N) remembers the battlefield as BO (entity B at time T+N) but does not remember stealing apples as LB (entity A at time T) Locke's Theory: OG=BO but OG≠LB Challenge to Locke's Theory Locke's Theory: LB=BO, BO=OG, but OG≠LB Transitive Property: if A=B, and B=C, then A=C -so if LB=BO and BO+OG then OG should equal LB Locke's Refined Theory on Personal Identity Diachronic Personal Identity: Person in PN (entity in any person phase at any time) is the same person as the person in P1 (entity A at time T) if and only if the person in PN remembers at least one thing from P(N-1) How does
Mill may be read as espousing a version of Rule-utilitarianism rather than Act-utilitarianism. Explain the difference between these two theories. Explain why one might be tempted to espouse Rule-utilitarianism in light of some of the difficulties facing Act-utilitarianism. Next, why might it might be said that Rule-utilitarianism is "unstable", reducing ultimately to Act-utilitarianism?
Rule-utilitarianism says to do that act which would both create the greatest happiness and would be acceptable to follow if it was a general rule to do every time the specific situation came up. Actutilitarianism says to perform that action (no matter how bizarre or immoral) that would produce the greatest amount of overall happiness. It may be immoral to follow act-utilitarianism in a case like that of Rufus and the doctor. If everyone acted as the doctor should have (according to actutilitarianism) in any situation where killing one person would bring more overall happiness, there would be a social uproar. So, rule-utilitarians will try to argue that it would be more practical to consider the "what if everyone did that" question here before choosing an action. A rule-utilitarian probably would not have killed Rufus for his organs. The idea of rule-utilitarianism might be unstable because one rule utilitarian can say that it would be wrong to kill one person. Then, another ruleutilitarian might be able to argue that it would be acceptable to disapprove of killing any person unless it was to bring a whole lot of overall happiness to the system. Then, another savvier ruleutilitarian could come in and argue that it would be okay to kill one person for a decent amount of overall happiness. Then, it would reduce down to saying that killing one person to produce any overall happiness is acceptable for rule-utilitarians (and act-utilitarians as well).
Please explain the Act/State/Outcome system of practical rationality. Next, could it ever be practically irrational, according to this system, to use a decision matrix to calculate the utility of a prospective action? Please explain your answer. Next, what is the Gambler's Fallacy, and why is it fallacious? (Engaging Philosophy, Chapter Two, may be useful in answering this question.)
The Act/State/Outcome= considering different states of the world and decide which conclusion you prefer. It could be irrational to make the matrix because there is not always time to make such matrix. Gamblers fallacy= the probability of an event happening is affected by the events that happened before it.
Please explain the cognitive, affective and experiential components of the mind, using examples where appropriate.
The cognitive part of our minds has to do with belief, knowledge, and information including both info we are now receiving and information we retain through memory. The affective part of our minds has to do with moods and emotions. The experiential aspect of our minds has to do with the way things look, taste, smell, etc. Ex. - "to set this out a bit more vividly, imagine you're gazing at an orange in front of you, as well as, roughly how big it is and how far away it is. These achievements are the province of cognitive component of the mind. The orange might also remind you of the color of the shoes a certain person wore on your first date; with luck it will also bring up fond memories and thus activate the affective part of the mind. Finally as you contemplate the orange you attend to its color, perhaps reach out to feels its texture and the taste of the orange are all example of the experiential part of the mind." (Green, 99)
Socrates claims in the Apology that the unexamined life is not worth living. ("The unexamined life is not worth living, for a man.") Let's assume that he would agree that the point applies to women as well. Next, explain what it might be to examine your life, or your self, in a way that seems relevant to Socrates' remark. Now consider the following example: Maria in Moldova: Mary is an old friend who since graduating from college has been working for a global nonprofit organization helping to keep young women in Moldova (one of Europe's poorest countries) from being lured into prostitution with the promise of lucrative jobs in other countries. Mary spends all day talking to young women about this danger, and because of her devotion to here mission, at the end of the day is too exhausted to do anything but sleep. She has little or no time for self-examination. However, she gets satisfaction out of what she does, and she certainly seems to be helping others. Does the example of Maria in Moldova refute Socrates' claim that the unexamined life is not worth living? Please explain your answer.
The examined life is basically just examining yourself to see if you are content with where you are at and happy with your morals and shit
The coherence of the concept of a GCB might be challenged by appeal to the so-called Paradox of the Stone. Please explain this paradox. Might one respond to this paradox by clarifying the notion of omnipotence? Please explain your answer.
The paradox of the stone= if a GCB can create anything than they can create a stone so heavy that it cannot be lifted. This contradicts what a GCB is because if they are supposed to be all powerful than they should be able to lift the stone they created. But if the GCB can't make an unmovable stone than they aren't a GCB either because they can't create absolutely everything. Redefining omnipotence as being able to create anything that is possible. Book example is square circle, therefore claiming that a GCB doesn't exist on that notion isn't very good.
Please explain what it is for an argument to be valid, as well as what it is for an argument to be sound. Must a valid argument have true premises? Please explain your answer. Can a sound argument have a false conclusion? Please explain your answer.
Validity= theoretically rational. Soundness= valid and has premises that are true. A sound conclusion needs to have true premises to be valid. Then the conclusion cannot be false.
William Paley ('The Argument from Design') tries to justify theism by means of an analogy with a very special, imaginary watch. Please explain the most important features of this analogy. On the basis of this analogy, Paley contends that the only way to account for the complexity and apparent design observable in the organic world is by postulating an intelligent, sentient designer. How might Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection pose a challenge to that contention? Must Darwin's theory be accepted as definitely true in order to pose a challenge to Paley's argument? Please explain your answer.
William Paley's "The argument from design" he compares inanimate objects to humans and our abilities specifically reproduction. A pocket watch that also happens to have the ability to reproduce. An intelligent and complex designer must have created such a thing. Versus Charles Darwin who believes in evolution. The theory of natural section does not need to be true to be able to pose a challenge to Paley's "Argument from design" but it does prove Paley's theory is not the only explanation.
Explain the objection to Bentham's version of utilitarianism that it is a theory "worthy of swine". Next, explain why Mill holds that a proper form of utilitarianism needs to take into account the fact that some pleasures are "higher" than others. What is Mill's test for determining which pleasures are higher than others? What, finally, does Mill mean in suggesting that it is better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied?
Worthy of swine regards to physical pleasure being the highest achieved. Mill argues that there is more beyond physical pleasures, spiritually as well as emotionally. A human solely enjoying in physical pleasures is no better than a pig rolling around in mud. Bentham argues that people experience happiness in different ways.
A sentence that has the grammatical form of an interrogative might nevertheless express a proposition. With reference to tag-questions, rhetorical questions, and questions containing presuppositions, please explain three ways in which this may occur.
a) Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. b) Tag Question: a question converted from a statement by an appended interrogative formula, e.g., it's nice out, isn't it?. c) Rhetorical question: a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer. Examples: Is the pope catholic? Is rain wet? You didn't possibly think I would say yes to that did you? d) Presuppositions: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action. Jane no longer writes fiction
Gilbert Ryle considers what he calls the Official Doctrine concerning the relation of the mind to the body. Explain the main components of this doctrine as conceived by Ryle. How, according to Ryle, was Descartes driven to propound such a doctrine in the face of the new mathematical physics of his day? Next, please formulate two main objections to Descartes' dualism.
the official doctrine: • everyone has both a mind and a body • after the death of the body the mind may continue to exist and function • bodies are extended in space and subject to physical laws • minds are not Ryle can only suggest that the way Descartes has propounded his doctrine was based on a categorical mistake. The mistake that Ryle determines is one of an error in perception what can be described in the working substance of the mind and what the body and its extension constitute in terms of the receptor of the mind's impulses and transfer of these impulses; i.e. physical reaction to pain, sadness, discomfort, grieve etc. Additionally; the need to safeguard developments of a new scientific approach Descartes felt the need to find a locus to "park" free will and moral responsibility. problems for dualism 1. interaction of mental and physical 2. problem of other minds how do you even know other people have minds, we can only observe physical stuff Ryle's explicit target in The Concept of Mind is what he calls the "Official Doctrine", which results, he tells us, at least in part from Descartes' appreciation that Galilean methods of scientific discovery were fit to provide mechanical explanations for every occupant of space, together with Descartes' conviction that the mental could not simply be a more complex variety of the mechanical. This "two-world", Cartesian view has distinctive ontological, epistemological, and semantic commitments that each lead to particular philosophical puzzles.
Explain what it is to commit a category mistake as Ryle construes that notion. Next, give a relatively simple example of a category mistake. Why would Ryle charge Descartes and others who adhere to the Official Doctrine with committing a category mistake? In your answer, please be sure explain Ryle's view that mental characteristics like 'careful driver' and 'good at quadratic equations' refer to multi-track dispositions to intelligent behavior.
• A category mistake is a semantic or ontological error where a thing is included in a category or set to which it does not belong. Mistake about the logical status of an object. You are shown all the federal buildings and officials but want to see the government. • Whereas Descartes believes that the mind is a separate thing; over and above the dispositions someone may have - pertaining modal properties which are there as a constant factor, whether or not there will ever be a need to activate them. Ryle states that all that characterizes a human being can be seen as dispositions that likewise constitute a person's ability to ACT in a certain and specific way under a variety of circumstances. In this way one can display that one is a careful driver (making sure no accidents happen), one is a skillful actor (portraying the characters in a play in a credible fashion) etc. being a witty orator shows a specific ability to connect amusing anecdotes for entertainment. A human being is an assemblage of many dispositional characteristics that make that same human being unique.
