philosophy study questions

20. 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.

Acts right? Egotistic: think only of self (maximizes happiness for ONESELF) Still care about others, example: caring for daughter would maximize happiness for oneself Conclusion of argument runs counter to common sense, do something terribly wrong to make oneself happy? utilitarian : think of everyone (benefit of all) perform act that has highest overall expected utility Democratic feel, my happiness no more important than yours, our happiness can turn to be outweighed by the needs of those suffering Example: having tray of cookies, taking one for self verses giving them all to group of people egoist - the right act is whatever maximizes his own subjective expected utility utilitarian - perform that act, from the acts available that has the high overall expected utility (not just for yourself) while there are many ethical egoists most people would say it is just the basis of common sense, but what is common sense?

34. Please explain the cognitive, affective and experiential components of the mind, using examples where appropriate.

Cognitive- thought, knowledge, memory Affective- emotion, mood- mood distinguishes self from emotion- emotion has reason Experimental- sensations, consciousness 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)

1. 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 are not knowledge, not backed up by facts or reasoning Opinions cannot be backed up by reasons- dogmatic slumber 2-Suppleness of mind Nature of the mind developed through discussions (develops) Everything that can be learned/ way minds shift due to exposure Mind changes, takes sides, able to understand viewpoints 3-Practical: ability to argue on controversial topics Act of arguing, value of being able to convince others to agree with you

27. 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.

All knowledge comes from and only from experience Innate- born with Implicit- draw conclusions from former knowledge Tablus rosa- blank sheet Knowledge: nature, limits, forms, sources towards propositions all knowledge comes only from experience problems: -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 would suggests you know nothing at birth because you haven't had any experiences

3. 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.

Argument- line of reasoning made to establish a certain thesis Three grammatical moods: indicative, interrogative, and imperative Indicative- associated with propositions Proposition- expressed by an indicative sentence in some natural language Two sentences in different languages can express the same proposition because the words could look different but have the same meaning Proposition can still be same thing with different words

43. 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.

Brave officer paradox- little boy steals apple, brave officer has memory of stealing apples, old general can remember bravery on the battlefield but cannot remember stealing apples (so old general is little boy) Challenges Locke: P2 is one and the same person as P1 just in case P2 does or can remember at least one experience had by P1 Refined: Pn is one and the same person as P1 just in case Pn does or can remember at least one experience had by Pn-1, which does or can remember an experience had by Pn-2 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)

28. 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.

Can virtue be taught? Problem solved with prior knowledge Seek unknown? Boy is wrong- area not doubled increases geometrically Be eliciting answers to questions, socrates gets the slave boy to figure out for himself, after an initial perplexity, a geometric fact Infers that the boy already had information inside him, if only unconsciously or implicitly Concludes information is innate (finding knowledge within oneself collection Innate- boy squeezing finger Can know something implicitly without knowing it innately socrates gets the boy to figure out for himself after an initial perplexity a geometric fact. He infers from this the boy already had this information inside him, if only unconsciously or implicity; therefore this information must have been innate. He says his soul existed before he came to a physical being that is why it is innate. Implicit implies if you know a is implicit in b a can be deduced from b

2. 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?

Casual/historical grounds- way people are raised Household, environment, and peers affect beliefs and morals Example: being raised to believe in God because parents do Grounds that justify that belief- theoretical and practical rationalization Having evidence, morals, or one's best interest in question Example: using factual data to support belief Citing causal/historical ground for a belief doesn't justify it because the source doesn't dictate whether or not it's reasonable Does not show justification because of the historical root

35. 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.

Category mistake- confusion about the logical status of a concept Ryles rejoinder- descartes and those who follow him are confused about the very idea of what a mind is Descartes has committed a category mistake in characterizing the mind as a non-physical substance Stupid is as stupid does George- careful driver- gives room, check blind spots (behaviors affecting aspects of driving) disposition is a feature of an object that can only be explained in terms of a proposition of the form, "if x were to happen, then x would happen" 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.

5. Please explain the following fallacies of theoretical rationality, giving examples in each case: composition; post hoc, ergopropter 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.

Composition: when parts of a whole are different from the whole ex- grain of sand small but sand dune is large Post hoc, ergo proper hoc: something happens after therefore assumed to be because of ex- praying for someone to get better, and they do (A occurred, then B occurred, so you can say B occurred subsequent to A, but cannot infer that A caused B) Ad hominen: attacking person at the base of the argument ex- doctor tells people not to smoke but smokes (rebut a position someone holds due to their position on topic) Authority: someone famous believed it so you should too ex- Kim Kardashian (even greatest minds can make mistake) Begging the question: premises already show argument- argument assumes what it sets out to prove ex- saying that animal testing is wrong, mistreatment of animal is animal cruelty, therefore animal testing is animal cruelty

19. 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: some evil (no mountains without valleys) Theodicy: all the evil Adams- perfect world- GCB has shown some perversity in wronging one of the creatures in the world Must be less than perfect if world isn't perfect Certain values require some evil: forgiveness, compassion, mercy, perseverance, courage, fortitude Wrong the puppies? Show perversity- have not done either by choosing goldfish over puppies GCB can display grace in loving a world of creatures that are less perfect than they might have been ( love goldfish knowing their inferiority to puppies) Creating world in which life for most creatures is worth living, even if it is a less perfect world than might have been created God hasn't wronged any creatures hasn't shown any moral perversity Defense is any reasoning that successfully proves the existence of a GCB, and theodicy is any reasoning that successfully shows that the existence of a GCB is compatible with the actual amount of evil in the world. Adam's World: 1. No creature in it also exists in the best of all possible worlds 2. No creature's life is so miserable that it would have been better off not existing 3. No creature in this world would have been better off in any other possible world God might have created a better world, but the fact that God didn't shows neither that anyone has been wronged nor any moral perversity, as long as the lives of the creatures in this world are normal relative to what can be expected of their species. Adams is giving more than a defense because he is arguing that the existence of some unnecessary evil is compatible with the existence and attributes of a GCB. However, it is not quite a theodicy because the actual world may not meets Adam's criteria. Creatures in this world live lives at levels below what seems normal. God would create the best possible world; otherwise, it would show some moral perversity, or that God has wrong some creature in creating that world. However, Anselm argues that actual creature would no complain about being created, and thus were not wronged, and that God hasn't showed moral perversity. In the world he envisions, God is benevolent, which makes it hard to see how God is perverse in creating this flawed world.

11. 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?

Dependent- created by another, reason for existence outside of self Independent- reason for existence inside self All dependent beings, or at least one independent- no dependent beings can explain series Only possible explanation of the very fact that something exists at all is the action of a GCB or a least something very G Doesn't deny infinite causal regression, says that's not all there is (there must be at least one independent being as well) regression of dependent beings. He does not deny an infinite causal regression, just that there is more, an independent being. If there is an ICRDB then there has to be at least one independent being as well. "Reductio ad absurdum": some arguments try to establish a conclusion by showing that some proposition P implies an absurdity, one then infers that P can't be a true argument: 1. Suppose that the universe is nothing but an infinite causal regression of dependent beings 2. This ICRDB has its reason for its existence either inside itself or outside itself 3. It cannot be outside itself by hypothesis 4. If it is inside itself this reason must be a dependent being 5. But no dependent being the series can explain the entire series 6. Hence our supposition 1 must be untrue 7. And so the universe is either a finite causal regression of dependent beings or there is at least one independent being "an infinite succession of merely dependent beings, without an original independent cause, is a series of beings that has no necessity or cause, nor any reason for existence, neither from within itself or from without"

33. 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.

Difficulties with dualism- how could mental and physical things interact if they are different kinds of substance, yet it seems they do- how can i know anything about the minds of others, yet it seems I can 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.

13. 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.

God can make stone but can't move it Omnipotent- "ability to do whatever is possible to do" God wouldn't be omnipotent then (something the GCB cannot do) Doubt of GCB's existence based on empirical ground Unliftable stone would not be possible to be made The Paradox of the stone asks "Can the GCB make a stone so heavy that it is impossible to lift?" Either answer to this question provides a limitation to the GCB's power. Why would he create a stone he couldn't lift and why can't he lift it? One might respond to this paradox by saying that the notion of omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything, unreasonable demand for the GCB. It has to be clear what is possible to do. Omnipotence does not mean unlimited power, but rather very great power.

24. 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.

In favor of people who can always help next crisis Do what best as Difficult to be utilitarian- most values have already been instilled in us here has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species we can use precepts that we learn from our parents and teachers. for example, keep your promises, tell the truth not every person has to be running around trying to help someone else out all the time. we can have a utilitarian society as long everyone does what they are best at and feel comfortable doing as long as it is not positively detrimental 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

47. 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?

Kraut's Reevaluation of Socrates' Claim Biōtos: (Greek) to be lived Kraut: it is not that the unexamined life is not worth living it is that it is 'not to be lived' -Hierarchical view: you could be at a moderate level of fulfillment by engaging in minimal self-examination but you would be missing something (i.e. lack of love) The Unexamined Lives of Euthyphro, Crito, Ion and Glaucon Euthyphro: puts his father on trial because he killed an employee Socrates: Euthyphro thinks he knows what justice, virtue and right action are because he is not engaging in self-examination resulting in an improper decision to prosecute his father Crito: one of Socrates' followers tries to help Socrates escape prison because will be embarrassed of what people would think of him if he did not Socrates: Crito is living an unexamined life because he is more driven by the fear of embarrassment rather than doing what is right Ion: he is a 'rhapsode' (reciter of epic poetry) who recited Homer's Odyssey Socrates: Ion lives an unexamined life because he is an empty vessel that only repeats lines from a poem and has no understanding of what they mean or whether they are plausible Glaucon: 'if I had a ring that would made me invisible, I would wear it to have an advantage over people' (i.e. to steal, break and enter) Socrates: Glaucon was tempted by the prospect of getting power, wealth, ect. in a cheating way because he lived an unexamined life since those things were gained despite the repercussions *These people are living lives that are not worth while or 'to be lived' because they are missing something of value Euthyphro (who is dogmatic about piety & justice) Crito (who is afraid what others might think) Ion (who is a mouthpiece for others) Glaucon (who is tempted by the Ring of Gyges)

38. 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.

Libertarianism: freedom precludes universal determinism Campbell- I can know with introspective certainty that I freely chose some actions Free act- required for moral responsibility Introspect- see self acting freely, engaging in choice know that acting freely in favor of freedom of will 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)

26. 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.

Means: normal treatment (not being used) Mere means: exploiting others Suicide: mere means- failing to reject self 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 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

31. 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.

Meditations III Cosmological argument- has idea of infinite substance He couldn't have created it, preceded from equal amount of infinity- GCB Similar to Clarke's 2nd argument (persuasive theistic argument) Meditations IV Whatever I clearly and distinctly believe must be true Error is kind of evil GCB wouldn't permit justifiable error Careful- best attempt (intractable) No errors- it must be true (error not my fault) God's fault- GCB contradicts "Descartes believes that he can not have come up with the idea of God on his own, so God must have given it to him. Further, he believes that God would not let him be wrong if he has done his absolute best to figure it out on his own. I would say no to trusting perceptions. I can clearly and distinctly perceive many things (including a wet ball gown) and them not be true. There are infinite reasons why our perceptions can be wrong, and many of them have little to due with us. For example the mirage mentioned in the lecture of water on the road (heat waves), it kept bugging me because I know what that is. And it doesn't look like water to me. But that is due to learning on my part. How many thousands of years have humans not know about the distortion effects heat will have on air and how we perceive them visually? So it looks as if there is water to them. This does not make them lacking internally. Can I fault him for being one of the giants on whose shoulders I gratefully stand. No, just as I do not resent the future person who will stand on mine for having a even clearer view. Descartes conclusions are a product of him time. He can't not believe in God. Its dangerous."

29. 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?

Meditations- use reason to establish theism Prove the mind is distinct kind of substance from the body Dreams need raw materials: extension, shape, quantity, size, number, location -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"

17. 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: intentionally causing harm/suffering (by free agent who acts while aware of harmful consequences) Physical evil: production by something other than free agent Why would God create evil God wouldn't create evil, so there is no God, why would he do that Need evil/aggression to have compassion In order to have compassion, forgiveness, courage, etc. there needs to be some evil mountains/valleys there needs to be some give and take in order to see the good values in the morality Moral evil is the act of evil that is intentional. Physical evil is the production of harm or suffering by something other than a free, knowing agent. An atheological argument suggests because god is all powerful he would do everything in his power to prevent all evil because he already knows the outcomes of what people would do if there was evil. It might be held that in order to realize a world in which certain moral virtues are found, there must also be some moral evil as well as some physical evil because if we were never challenged by obstacles that result from evil we could never build things like courage, empathy, compassion and forgiveness. Even though evil is bad it often builds character and makes those who it affects better people (no mountains without valleys argument).

8. Suppose that you read an essay arguing for the conclusion that proposition P is true. Suppose further that you happen already to believe P. You thus agree with this argument's conclusion. Does that commit you to holding as well that the argument is sound? Please explain your answer.

No just because you agree doesn't make the premises true They could still be false even if you believe it Soundness means the argument is valid (no way for premises to be true and conclusion false) and the premises are true You would believe it to be sound but that is your opinion False dilemma (no way to prove that it isn't necessarily sound) This does not commit me to holding as well that the argument is sound, because I can believe in a conclusion that has premises that are irrelevant or false.

41. Might phobias or addictions compromise a person's freedom? Please explain your answer.

Not free to decide to be afraid/addict Feeling comes from within? a person is an alcoholic no matter how badly they might not want to drink it is almost impossible not to, thus they lack freedom of action as they cannot do what they desire to do- not drink

16. 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?

Only matters if you have full convention at end of life Genuine theism at end GCB would reward those with full convention Response to objection- person learns more/becomes devoted (has full convention) pascal says you do not form the belief immediately but you will be able to form it over time, it is just essential that you believe before you die Pascal would suggest that we should overcome this difficulty by cultivating theism over time. Going to church weekly or surrounding yourself with believers as much as possible. Pascal would respond to this objection by saying that after years of practicing theism one would eventually become just as devout a believer as anyone else. Much like how we reward children with incentives for good behavior and they eventually just start doing the right thing because it is moral.

9. 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.

Paley's argument from design- watch had to have creator and/or did not miraculously appear Put there by someone/something (GCB) Darwin- not sentient design no plans/thoughts Theories could be true, doesn't have to be definitely true Only possible explanation of the complexity and apparent designedness in nature is that the natural world was designed by an intelligent, sentient designer Evolution by Natural Selection: may be intelligent designer but NOT sentient (no plans, intentions or thoughts) Offers alternative explanation showing not the only possible explanation Intelligent, sentient designer might not be benevolent or omnipotent or even very smart (so paley's argument isn't sound)

23. 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.

Quotidian: there's a great deal of difference of opinion, across time and across space, as to what is right and wong (different views out there) Robust: the doctrine that there is no "fact of the matter" as to what is right and wrong and moral facts are relative to a point of view Flavors of robust: depends on theorist in question (culture, linguistic community, ethnicity, individuals) Fijians- kill parents, belief preserve well-being after life Quotidian Moral Relativism: An empirical claim, that we find a considerable variety of opinions on questions of right and wrong throughout space and time. Robust Moral Relativism: There is no perspective-independent fact of the matter as to what is right or wrong; rather the only facts about morality that exist are relative to a point of view. Quotidian implies that no one of these opinions is more right than any of the others. One can be an objectivist about morality (hold that what is right or wrong is not relative to one's point of view) without feeling superior, sitting on judgment of others, and violating integrity and autonomy of other cultures. No it is not the only way, you can refrain from robust relativism as long as you have reasons to justify the view and you don't think you're superior to the person you don't agree with. Robust relativism is not the only way that we can respect the ways of life of other cultures. We can't intervene in other people's lives all the time. If someone decides to spank their children, you may think that is morally wrong, but you wouldn't feel obliged to knock on their door and tell them. If someone smokes cigarettes, you know they are not maximizing their own utility, but that doesn't mean that you can slap a cigarette out of their hand. You have to trust people to make their own decisions.

44. How does Thomas Reid criticize Locke's theory of diachronic personal identity? Might Locke employ his refined theory (formulated as a solution to the Brave Officer Paradox) of diachronic personal identity to neutralize Reid's objection? Please explain your answer.

Reid- not remembering events that make him person that did it, remembrance assures that I did it, but I might have done it and not remembered (relation would be same even if not remembered) Socrates waking/sleeping not the same Consciousness- not same person *unfair* to punish twin for what other did problem with transitivity if identity is transitive refined: pn is one and the same person as p1 just in case pn does or can remember at least one experience had by pn-1 which does or can remember an experience had by pn-2.... p1 Reid: we don't remember being born and brave officer

22. 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.

Retribution- owe criminal right to regain value Deterrence- keep people from doing crime (special: stop you from doing wrong, general: set example) *goes with utilitarianism* Expressivist- expression of values Retributivism: A policy or theory of criminal justice that advocates the punishment of criminals in retribution for the harm they have inflicted (Hammurabi's code); they should receive a punishment to the same caliber as the crime. Deterrence -Special: Discourages criminal behavior in the specific individual charged with the crime. -General: The impact of the threat of legal punishment on the public at large Expressivist: Punishment has the purpose of expressing appropriate emotional reactions to wrongdoing, such as indignation, resentment or guilt. Deterrence is most naturally associated with utilitarianism, because the action will maximize happiness of the future, and it sets an example so they don't do it again.

7. 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.

Rhetorical questions already say a proposition- asked to make point Presuppositions: questions pack assertions Tag-questions- "beautiful day, isn't it?' already making point, asking for agreement Each of these already show feeling/argument A proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. However, opinions can be expressed in the form of a question as well. There are three ways: a) Tag Question: a question added to a statement or command (as to gain the assent of or challenge the person addressed). For example: it's nice out, isn't it? b) 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? c) Presuppositions: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action. Example: Jane no longer writes fiction.

25 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- follow rule that is part of system of rules producing greatest utility Act- act most likely produce greatest utility, morally hard to follow Unstable: putting more stipulations on the rule which makes it the same as act act - perform that act, from those available, most likely to produce the greatest overall amount of utility rule - perform that act, from those available that accords with a rule that is itself part of a system of rules the general following of which would produce the greatest overall amount of utility rule utilitarian asks the question "what if everyone did that" when some act utilitarian choices seem immoral because everyone has different opinions on what the believe is okay and how far is acceptable to go to bring overall happiness. there arguments could ultimately lead back to act utilitarianism rule utilitarianism might be seen as an improvement to act utilitarianism because it gives a special place to moral principles having to do with rights and justice while it adheres to the importance of maximizing happiness rule utilitarianism is said to be unstable reducing ultimately to act utilitarianism because once the rules are clarified and refined that it will be distinguishable from act utilitarianism. after each rule is refined it becomes what the act utilitarian does which is perform the act of those available most likely to produce the greatest overall amount of happiness

14. 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.)

Set of actions Number of possible states of world Set of outcomes for those options Practical rationality- assign value ranking to each of those possible outcomes ASO conception of decision making Gambler's fallacy- the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future ( ex: haven't had a storm in a while so due for a big one) The act/state/outcome system of practical rationality is a way of organizing your ideas to make a decision. Acts: determine the acts that are available to you. (going on a beach trip or not). State: the different states that the world is in (good or bad weather). Outcomes: decide how much you value the outcomes of those acts given in different states that the world might be in. A decision matrix could be irrational when making a decision because it does not take others thoughts in mind, the matrix is for your own personal benefit. The Gambler's fallacy is assuming the probability of later events based on what has happened before. For example, "We haven't had a bad storm in a while, we're due for a big one." "Our team has been losing all the time, the team is sure to win soon". Just because there hasn't been a storm in a while doesn't increase the likelihood of one coming. Same goes for baseball, the team losing doesn't increase its likelihood of winning.

46. 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.

Socrates: you will die if you do not self examine so her life still would not be worth living Socrates' claim is too demanding on society "I think Maria is living a worthwhile life because even though she is not engaging in self- examination, she is still helping other people. To her, helping other people is the right thing to do and gives her life meaning." "Yes, she does live a worthwhile life because her ability to be able to examine her life does not define its worth. She is living in a very valuable way and if she doesn't have the chance to self examine, there is no justification as to why that takes away everything else she has been doing." 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, if you don't examine then you might as well be dead based of his first interpretation yes, but the second interpretation suggests that maria is just missing something that could make her life better. if she self-examined she would be living an even greater life rather than an okay one

21. 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?

Some pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others, comparing coffee, tea, etc. Various forms of pleasure differ: utility- the property in any object where it ends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, or happiness Different forms of happiness, like different forms of money Ex: playing a good game of chess vs. chewing a piece of bubble gum Bubble gum not on same level as other things Mills: pleasures have different degrees, artistic, moral, spiritual are more valuable than bodily pleasures More desirable pleasure= if all who have experienced both give a preference, that is the more desirable better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question. takes the utilitarian doctrine to be unfit for humans because it recognizes no higher purpose to life than the mere pursuit of pleasure One might as well satisfy Bentham's theory by taking a drug of some kind that makes you feel physical ecstasy, ex SOMA. Bentham: utility can be achieved through any kind of action John Stuart Mill Theory worthy of swine: a pig can achieve total utility through rolling in mud **There's something missing and shallow -Some pleasures are higher than others Mill's Test People who have experienced two pleasures and are unbiased may decide on which pleasure on their own regard Satisfaction "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of the highest pleasures -Happiness and content are different -The cultivation of ones mind can cause us to lose our capacity to appreciate high things if our minds remain uncultivated

18. 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".

Test: God knows the answers- omniscient being would already know the answers to that test (he would be able to see the future) Evil privation: privation may be defined as the absence of something actual, such as shadows (why would GCB allow so many shadows in world) God not responsible for non-things in world? Wouldn't be responsible for evil Balance out: good/evil balance out need both (the domestic-abuser and his Sunday roses) ultimate harmony doctrine (for every quantity of evil in world there is also the same amount of good) Mountains/valleys: need low/high- most plausible, some moral virtues that can only be realized in a world containing either moral or physical evil - some evil compatible with GCB, of actual amount of evil compatible with GCB, defense is possible- if GCB prevented certain evils, something even greater would be lost, so there has to be evil in some respect 1. God allows us to engage in moral evil or allows us to suffers as a test which will determine our entry into heaven. This denies premise 2 in an atheological argument but also suggests God is not omniscient. God is testing us to determine whether or not we deserve eternal bliss. However, if a GCB is all-knowing they wouldn't need to test us because they would know the final outcome. 2. The evil in the world is simply the absence of a good. This denies premise 3 that God would prevent evil that could be prevented, but this would not be an acceptable answer to many. 3. For each quantity of evil in the world there might be a compensating quantity of good somewhere else. This denies premise 2 (because God is most powerful, he'd prevent evil). This is the most promising response, but some still question it (man beating wife then bringing roses). 4. There cannot be good without evil. This is the most justifying, as it suggests that if a GCB were to prevent certain evils, something greater would be lost.

45. 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.

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, if you don't examine then you might as well be dead The oracle at Delphi Is anyone wiser than Socrates? The Pythian and what chararephon asked he got the answer that no one was wiser than Socrates Let us be careful about what this means No one in the room is taller than George does not mean that George is The tallest one in the room It might be equal with others Socrates was amazed What does the god mean? What is his riddle? So j went to one of those reputed wise... I am likely to be wiser to this small extent : I do not think I know what I do not know What can this teach us about wisdom? Being wise is more than knowing let's of things it's also a matter of having an accurate assessment of oneself a, including ones limitations Ex. a General (seeker) would ask a priest if they should go to war and if the priest answered that 'there would be a great victory' then they would go to war and even if the General lost, the priest was right because the other army was victorious Socrates and The Oracle at Delphi -The Oracle at Delphi said that 'no one was wiser than Socrates' -By saying that no one is wiser means that perhaps someone could be just as wise -Socrates believes he is wiser than others because he does not think he knows what he does not know Wisdom: more than knowing a lot of things; a matter of having an accurate assessment of oneself, including limitations Ex. Socrates was in danger of a death sentence but said that for him to fear death would imply that he had knowledge of what happens when you die

15. 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.

Theism is a wager that GCB exist States: GCB exists or GCB doesn't exist Acts: believe in GCB or don't believe in GCB Outcomes: Eternal reward Wasted piety Free sundays, eternal damnation Free sundays, no punishment All dependent on how you value EACH OUTCOME In best interest to believe Pascal's wager uses a decision matrix to determine whether it would be more beneficial to believe in god, or whether it would be best not to believe. His conclusion was that the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. So according to his matrix, it would make more sense to believe. The outcome does depend on how much an individual values the "eternal reward" because if you do not value it, then it makes no difference whether you have the reward or not, making it easier for you not to believe. --ASO explained in #5. Pascal's Wager: even if there is only a 1% chance that the GCB exists, if you are pious throughout your whole life, the payoff when you get to heaven will be much greater than the payoff if you don't believe in the GCB and he DOESN'T exist. Therefore, it makes sense to hedge your bets and be a theist even if the probability of a GCB existing is miniscule. This argument depends on how much utility a person places on "going to heaven." Perhaps heaven isn't that great after all, or hell isn't that bad. In that case, some people will not maximize their utility even if they DO believe in the GCB and he DOES exist. Many Gods Objection: perhaps a GCB exists but he hates theists and sends them all to damnation. In that case, a person would not maximize their utility by believing in a GCB.

10. 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?

There had to be a starting point of creation One cause came from a designed beginning point/being The chain could stretch back in terms of we don't know where the start and beginning of life/the universe 1st beings was (could be infinite chain) Must be first mover (understood to be God) In a chain of movers, there must be a first mover, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a GCB (but it could be). His claim may be challenged because: must that first mover be a GCB? It could be a super intelligent mad scientist. According to Aquinas, it could be some evil demon (Kronos who ate his children), so not necessarily a GCB. Is it really true that there cannot be an infinite series of causes? The idea of finite causal regression can be questioned by an infinite causal regression. Every event was caused by its preceding event and this goes on infinitely, which means there does not need to be an independent being to start the regression because there is no being. There was always an event that was occurring beforehand. Aquinas assumes that the only way anything could move if it were moved by a first mover, that was special in some way.

12. 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?

There's an explanation for the properties of each element in a collection so there's an explanation for the collection as a hole Challenges Clarke because it says there doesn't need to be one independent being (can be all dependent in a collection) If Hume is correct, then Clarke is placing an unreasonable demand on explanations and if that is the case then is revised version of the cosmological argument does not succeed Clark is trying to find an explanation for an existence of an infinite sequence of dependent beings but determined there must be at least one independent being. Hume's principle: Once you explained the properties (including existence) of each element of a totality, you have explained properties (including existence) of the totality. It poses a challenge to Clarke's argument because each dependent being has an explanation for why they are where they are.

36. 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.

Universal determinism- we are simply under an illusion that we are free, in fact we have no more free will than a robot or a clam Every physical event that occurs in the universe has a prior sufficient physical condition Freedom of action- is a matter of performing an action in such a way that you could have done otherwise Freedom of will- is a matter of having the will that you choose to have universal determinism - every physical event that occurs in the universe has a prior sufficient physical condition if UD is true then everything you do has a preceding action that makes the decision of what you are doing now so you really couldn't have done otherwise if we don't have freedom of action how can we committed of any crime because we did not have a choice on whether or not to commit it

4. 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.

Valid- if there's no way all the premises are true and the conclusion is false Does not have to have true premises False premises- could still have valid argument All ten legged creatures have wings All spiders have ten legs Therefore All spiders have wings Conclusion doesn't have to be rational Sound arguments cannot have a false conclusion Sound- have to have true premises which would make the conclusion true if it were valid False dilemma- premises might be true, but no way to prove they aren't so can say it is sound

40. 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.

Wanton- not person, no second order violations, does not care about will, non-human animals with desires and young children Person- the concept of a type of entity such that both predicates ascribing states of consciousness and predicates ascribing corporeal characteristics are equally applicable to a single individuals of that single type "Persons versus Wantons" The Difference between: First-order desires, second-order desires, second-order volitions Person: has many first-order desires, which produce an action "Someone entirely lacking in second-order volitions isn't a person" Wanton: does not care about his/her "will" (essential characteristic) Includes very young children, some adults, non-human animals A person might act wantonly at times A person could start as a wanton, achieve personhood, then regress to being a wanton once again "Use It or Lose It": this would apply to Frankfurt's notion of a person because to "Use It," denotes the production of an action which correlates to the possession of first-order desires. To "Lose It," shows a person lacking any desires, and acting wantonly instead of demonstrating personhood.

42. 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.

Where P1 and P2 are person stagess- P2 is one and the same person as P1 just in case P2 does or can remember at least one experience had by P1 Diachronic- asks what it is for an entity A at time t to be one and the same thing as entity B at time t' Synchronic- is not primarily concerned with the passage of time, but rather concerns the question what it is, at any given time, for a thing to be an entity of a certain source Mental disorder- seem to call or an account of diachronic identity Survival after death- the very possibility of going to heaven depends on the possibility of my surviving the destruction of my body 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

6. 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 disambiguations 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 disambiguations that may be given of it.

ambiguity - multiple meanings for words or phrases The sentence can mean she ducked down or she had a pet duck Ambiguous because everyone loves a person (different person) or it can mean everyone loves the same person Lexical vs structural ambiguity: multiple meanings for one words vs multiple analyses for phrase

32. 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.

body -detachment argument: clearly/distinctly perceive the possibility of my existing without my body I could therefore exist without my body My mind thus has the property; capable of existing without my body My body does not have this property, ergo My mind and body are distinct Indiscernibility of identicals- if x=y then any property x has y as well and vice versa 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 my mind can exist without any physical thing and is therefore distinct from and physical thing because he believe whatever i clearly and distinctly perceive is true

39. 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.

compatibilism - freedom of action and universal determinism are compatible 3 parts X freely performs action a if and only if x performs action a and x could have done otherwise than perform action a X could have done otherwise than perform action a if and only if: if x were to have chosen to do otherwise than perform action a X freely performs action a if and only if x performs action a and if x were to have chosen to do otherwise, then x would have done otherwise than perform action a . 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"

30. In Meditation II, in light of his reflections concerning a piece of wax, Descartes concludes that in spite of what our senses may suggest to us, it has neither color, nor taste, nor odor. Please explain Descartes' reasoning in support of this conclusion. Finally, please list at least three properties that Descartes believes do accurately characterize physical objects?

primary qualities: shape, size, location, distance, mass these descartes believes accurately characterize physical objects secondary qualities: qualities experienced through the sense such as taste, smell, sound, feel we cannot base the wax off of these things because they can change

37. 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.

when uranium decays is a matter of chance... no we cannot base our lives of the subatomic level. if we do then we are saying are choice are really nothing more than a matter of chance and how does that make us any more free than UD 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