Intro to Philosophy Final - Gilhooly
How does rational decision making seem to count against libertarianism?
-libertarians believe that one's actions are not determined by anything prior to a decision -character, values, feelings, and desires are left out of the picture -when people make rational decisions, they work through every step -they consider the possible outcomes and consequences and how they would make them feel -thus, libertarianism must not be true
What is the difference between consequentialism and deontology?
Consequentialism states the morality of an action is judged solely by its consequences. Deontology is the doctrine that what matters more is the act itself, not the consequence, and it evaluates actions on the basis of defined rules.
Outline and explain any version of the ontological argument.
Definition: God is that than which no greater can be conceived. Premise 1 : God might exist. Premise 2: If something (a) exists only in the mind, and (b) might have existed outside the mind, then that something could have been greater than it is. aka blueprint v. actual house Premise 3: God only exists in the understanding. reductio assumption - assuming what opponent says is true leads to contradiction Premise 4: But if that is true, then God might have been greater than He is. If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, and is that which might have been greater, it is a contradiction. Premise 5: If God exists only in our minds, then, he can be greater and he can't be greater. Conclusion 1: So God doesn't just exist in the understanding, he exists in the real world.
How does Descartes methodology of doubt lead to an indubitable conclusion?
Descartes is a rationalist, which means that he believes the source of knowledge is reason. Descartes' methodology of doubt reasons that one cannot doubt that he thinks, and therefore Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. I think, therefore I am. This leads to an indubitable conclusion, where we are unable to doubt it. We can imagine floating out of body, but we can't imagine not having a mind because to do so we must have a mind (indubitable conclusion)
What is Descartes methodology of doubt and why does he adopt it?
Descartes stated that anything you can doubt counts as not true. He had to doubt everything he knew to be certain of anything. He came to the conclusion everything is doubted except for the fact that he exists. "I think therefore I am". Certainty in knowing is essential. Sought what is not doubtable, also known as indubitable. He adopted this foundation because he believed that if he could prove a God, then he had a basis for thought, if not solipsism was the only thing he could conclude. If there were a God, he would not let us be deceived by clear perceptions *he needs God for this methodology to work.
How is causation the basic feature of the determinist denial of human freedom?
Determinism says you are not free. All events (including your choices and actions) are the necessary results of previous causes. With libertarian freedom, things happen without causes, which does not make sense. Every event is causally determined by prior events. Human thoughts, choices, and actions are events. Therefore, human thoughts, choices, and actions are determined by prior events.
Outline and explain any version of the teleological argument.
Evidence of Design Implies Design The universe exhibits apparent design. We have usually found a purposive, intelligent will to be the cause of design. Therefore, it is probable that the universe was caused by a purposive, intelligent will. Some things are design-like. Things are either designed or unguided. Unguided processes could not have produced such design-like things Therefore these things are designed.
Give a Frankfurt example. What are such examples intended to show?
Frankfurt Case: You don't have to have two options in order to be morally responsible. Example: Anything when you have to do something, but you also want to. Specific Example: If you vote in an election where Candidate Green is running against Candidate Brown and you choose to vote for Candidate Brown not knowing that if you chose to vote for Candidate Green you would have been forced to change your vote to Candidate Brown. It is meant to show that you can be morally responsible for something even when you have no choice.
How is the brain in the vat thought experiment more profound than doubts about sense experience from conflicting sense reports?
If I know that I have hands, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat. I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat. Thus, I do not know that I have hands. Doubling down on the idea you can't trust your senses, because you can't step outside of them. Locked into your own perspective, no one thinks they're being deceived. There is profoundness because it is not comparing two sensory experiences, but the totality of sensory experience.
What is the problem of freedom and foreknowledge?
If you are actually free, God cannot be omniscient. However, God knows what we will do tomorrow, and God is never wrong, then there is no way that we will do something else. So, if God knows what we will do for forever, we can have no freedom, because our lives are predetermined till we die(and beyond).
What are the traditional conditions for knowledge? Give a Gettier case exception.
Knowledge is a justified true belief (must be able to give a reason for it the belief). We know it, it is true, we believe it, and it is justified. Justification does not have a relationship to the truth. Gettier case exception is something you thought you knew, but it turns out you did not know it and it is not knowledge. Justification for the belief has to match the truth. Example: you see your roommate on their bed and know they are in the room. They are actually in the closet and the one on the bed is a hologram. You stumble on the truth by accident, making your justification for the belief not match the truth.
Give an argument against trusting knowledge based on sense experience.
P1. We cannot trust things that deceive us. P2. We know our senses sometimes deceive us. P3. Our senses could always deceive us. C1. Therefore, we cannot trust our senses.
How is free will defined on libertarianism?
Principle of Alternative Possibilities: one could have acted otherwise. You could have the same past with different future outcomes.
Give two arguments for physicalism.
Problem of Interaction Points to the problem of how a physical body and a metaphysical mind (soul) can interact. Implies that if dualists cannot answer this question their position must be false. Another Argument for Materialism The world is made up of physical objects, bodies in motion, and human beings are part of the world. Science supports that the world is made up of only matter. The physical brain is complicated enough to think, feel, and remember without the existence of a soul or an immaterial mind. Therefore, the soul does not exist.
How does our knowledge of qualia undermine the argument for physicalism?
Qualia argument - certain experiences cannot be reduced to a third person proposition For example, there is a disconnect between intricate descriptions of the properties and attributes of color and experiencing color. Not all physical facts are reducible to propositions, in which case mental states (lived experiences) are not merely reducible to brain states (physical descriptions).
What does Sartre mean by saying that "existence precedes essence"?
Sartre says determinism is impossible because "existence precedes essence." In other words, Satre means that who you are flows out of what you choose to do. No one tells us who to be, and there is no constraint on who we choose to be, so we are responsible for our actions. Someone doesn't tell the truth because she's honest, but but she defines herself as honest by telling the truth again and again. We are free, and our actions aren't caused by we have self-determinism.
What is the paradox of omnipotence?
Scripturally, we see there are things God cannot do. Omnipotence does not mean "can do anything". The paradox is something that can do everything should be able to create something it can't do. (A rock so big it cannot lift it). This paradox is designed to show that there is a problem with this attribute, and thus, God.
What is the difference between subjective and conventional ethical relativism?
Subjective ethical relativism: an individual decides for himself what is moral for him and others decide what is moral for them Conventional ethical relativism: culture determines what is/isn't ethical
What is the Chinese room argument? What is it intended to show?
The Chinese room argument by John Searle is that the computer can represent itself as having knowledge. By the fluency of its response to input, you can show that it had syntactic knowledge but not semantic knowledge. A certain level of syntactic fluency causes us to infer that it knows things/understands.
Explain how the difference between agent and event causation helps the compatibilist.
The determinist thinks determinism prevents moral responsibility because they don't distinguish between event causation and agent causation. The compatibilist says that as long as causes are internal, which is agent causation, you are responsible for them and free to make a choice. The compatibilist can also say that every event has a cause, but some of those causes can relate to an agent and therefore offer choice and make the person morally responsible.
What is the mind-body problem?
The philosophical problem concerning the relationship between the body and the mind. It has to do with the interaction between the soul and the body. The soul is immaterial and the body is material, how does the immaterial cause the movement of the material?
What are three 'parts' of a moral event? How do the parts relate to ethical decision making?
The three parts of a moral event are intention, action, and consequence. If consequence makes it moral, then even if intention or action is good, you can be immoral. If intention makes it moral, then it determines how the consequence is perceived.
Give Berkeley's argument for the mental dependency of ideas.
There is no real difference between the first and second qualities. Every idea we have is dependent on the mind. Sensible objects are things we sense. What comes through sense is ideas. Ideas are just in the mind. Therefore, what we sense comes from the mind. To be is to be perceived. There are only two kinds of things: minds and the ideas that they perceive.
How is moral responsibility used to deny hard determinism?
-determinism states that man is not free and that his decisions are necessary results of previous causes -because his behavior is controlled by genetic and environmental factors, he is not free -however, we hold people morally responsible for their actions -so this means that man must be conscious and responsible for his decisions -if someone is choosing what cereal to eat in the morning, he is free to make the decision. His actions may be based upon his personality, but he is still free to pick Cheerios over Raisin Bran -we can't be morally responsible if things are only caused and we aren't free to choose
What are the three uses of philosophy in the Christian life?
1) Investigating our beliefs : Sharpens reasons and clarifies concepts 2) It is a resource, strengthens commitment and gives an account of beliefs 3) Apologetics, giving a defense and asking questions
What are God's principle attributes, philosophically speaking?
1) Omnipotence - God is all powerful 2) Omnibenevolence - God is all good 3) Omniscience - God knows everything 4) Omnipresence - all present + seeing and not limited by space
What are the four approaches to epistemology? What are the thinkers associated with each?
1) Rationalism | source of knowledge is our reason | Descartes, Plato 2) Empiricism | source of knowledge is our sense experience | Locke, Aquinas 3) Constructivism | source of knowledge is interaction of our sense experience with the experiences of our environment / organization of human experience by a priori categories | Kant 4) Nihilism/Relativism | we don't have knowledge / there are no absolute truths so believe what you want to | Nietzsche
What is the evidential problem of evil?
1) There seem to be some 'pointless' evils - evils for which there is not a justifying reason 2) Given that such evils exist, it is unlikely that God exists. Our ability to justify it does not bear anything on whether God can justify it.
Why does Kant think we are unable to know things-in-themselves?
Because, he argues, that we can only have perspective of a thing. We have access to things based on how they appear (phenomena), not necessarily the way they are (noumena). To access the noumena, we would have to step outside of our own perspective, which he claims is impossible. In other words, this suggests, we are incapable of being objective.
Outline and explain any version of the logical problem of evil.
1. God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. 2. If God existed, then he would prevent evil. (2 is false because his actions are not that) if he does not know that evil exists, then he is not omniscient if he knows that evil exists but can't stop it, he is not omnipotent if he knows it exists, can stop it, but doesn't, then he is not omnibenevolent 3. But, evil exists. 4. So, God does not exist.
What are some objections to ethical relativism?
1. If right and wrong are to have consistent meaning, then the terms must be used in the same manner. It is inconsistent and unstable to suggest that different locales can have different values. 2. There are clearly some societies that have better morals than others. For example, modern day Germany as opposed to Nazi Germany. However, this contradicts the belief that culture can define morality because the relativist would have to admit that one culture was "more right" than the other. 3. In culture A, x is wrong. In culture B, x is right. When culture A and B come into contact, x is both right and wrong. That's absurd, and therefore ethical relativism is false.
For Hume, why is causation not a priori fact?
An a priori fact is one that is not based on any experiences; rather, it necessarily exists. There are certain things that we have defined in our minds that differ from the actuality of those things in the real world. According to Hume, causation is not an a priori fact because there's nothing intrinsic about it that makes it exist necessarily. "Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it will happen again." A causal claim cannot have an analytic statement made about it.
Outline and explain any version of the cosmological argument.
Aquinas P1. The world contains things whose existence depends upon some cause. P2. A thing can either be caused or uncaused. P3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. P4. So there must be a first uncaused cause. C1. An uncaused cause is (in part) what we mean by God. C2. Therefore, God exists.
What is the relationship between faith and reason according to Thomas Aquinas?
Aquinas views faith and reason as two ways of knowing. Faith takes priority over reason, especially when something from reason does not line up with the Bible. Faith also builds on reason, which helps us explain, understand, and defend faith. Both are ways of arriving at the truth. 1) reason - covers what we can know by logic and experience. from reason/general revelation, we can know there is a God and there is only one God 2) Faith - covers what we can know through God's special revelation to us, saving knowledge.
Give two arguments for substance dualism.
Argument from Introspection I can know about my mind (metaphysical soul) from introspection. I can not know about my brain (physical body) from introspection. Therefore the brain and mind cannot be the same by Leibniz's Law because they do not have the same qualities. Knowledge Argument Thought Experiment: Mary grows up in a room that is only black and white, never experiencing other colors. She spends her life learning everything there is to physically known about color. Once her physical knowledge on color is exhaustive, she is released from the room and sees a sunset. It seems obvious that Mary learns something new from this experience. This supports that aside from physical knowledge, there exists some kind of metaphysical knowledge and therefore a soul.
How does this list fail to account for the God of the Bible?
It is impossible to "know" the God of the Bible philosophically. God's wrath can be seen as contrary to His omnibenevolence, but he is also just, which is why there is pain and suffering as a result of our sin. We don't know the God of philosophy's name. We wouldn't know of the Trinity. We wouldn't know the Gospel because philosophy doesn't tell us anything about Jesus. If we don't confess the Son, we can't understand the Father.
What are some difficulties in defining 'art'?
It's a radically subjective thing. Expansive definitions that covers "way too much." Narrow definitions that doesn't allow anything novel--limits it. Art or not art based purely on appeal (like | dislike) (preferences).
Explain Locke's representative realism in terms of primary and secondary qualities.
Two parts in the world: the internal and external Internal: the secondary qualities are in the mind + subjective. Colors, sounds, tastes. Individual interpretation and come through our sense experience. External: the primary qualities are out there + objective. Solidarity, motion, shape. Quantitative and measurable.
How does the consequence argument suggest that incompatibilism is true? (and, what is the consequence argument?)
We aren't responsible for what happened before our time, or for natural laws. Because these things govern how we act, we therefore cannot be held responsible for our actions. It shows that our actions cannot be results of previous causes and still be free at the same time. Consequence Argument If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But, it is not up to us what went on before we were born. Neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our own acts) are not up to us. In other words, we are not morally responsible for our actions.
How is 'mind' defined by a functionalist?
[you don't have any minds without brains, there needs to be an underlying structure] The mind is a certain group of functions that can be performed, according to the functionalist. The mind is not a substance but a system of functions that perform tasks and write/carry out brain activity.
What is Socrate's proposed solution to Menox's paradox?
theory of recollection, we are implanted with all knowledge and questions prompt our memory. teachers do this when asking questions in class.
What is Menox's paradox?
you can't know something without asking and you can't ask something without first knowing about it you'll never ask what you already know. no knowledge is fruitless or redundant.
