Philosophy101FINAL

Explain Hardin's metaphor for the life boat

-2/3 of the nations are poor, and each wealthy nation = a lifeboat, the citizens are on the boats, people outside of boats are poor nations who hope to get help or to board boats, boats have limited capacity just like nations do -If there are 50 people on a lifeboat with a 60 person capacity and 100 people in the water 1) Take on all 100 people would result in the boat sinking (not enough resources and can't help everybody 2) Take on 10 because there is the room would result in no spare room and would make it less safe because there is not extra room in case something happens 3) If they don't take on any people it guarantees the survival of the people on the boat -If you feel so guilty about being on the boat then you can swap places with a person outside of their boat

Explain Nagel's critique of the cosmological argument

-Agrees that infinite regress is not possible, but is it true that everything must have a cause? -Ex: Quantum particles don't follow rules of physics and pop in and out of existence, behavior is uncaused and random -If some things don't need a cause why does the universe need a cause? -If everything needs a cause, doesn't God? -Why can't the universe itself be the necessary being? -What if infinite regress is possible? (timeline of universe is like finite amount of points on a geometric line

Explain the theory of Utilitarianism

-Consequentialism: umbrella term for philosophies that look at consequences (ex: hedonism, utilitarianism) -3 kinds of ethical actions 1)Morally permissible: not wrong 2)Morally impermissible: wrong 3)Morally obligatory: must do, wrong not to -Right and wrong is not equal to legal and illegal -Laws don't dictate morality, morality should reflect on the laws made -Not everything that is morally permissible is morally obligatory -Utilitarians say that you should always act to promote the greatest amount of overall happiness for the greatest number of people (not the same as greatest average happiness) -All other choices would be impermissible -Greatest Happiness Principle: Actions are right to the extent that they promote the reverse of happiness -Happiness: pleasure and the absence of pain -Reverse of Happiness: Pain and the absence of pleasure -Happiness is the ONLY thing people pursue as an end and not a mean -Ends justify means: ends=intended outcome and the means=steps and process

Explain an Objection to Pascal's Wager

-Don't know that God punishes non-believers and rewards believers (contradicts himself by saying you can't know anything about God but then goes on to assume something) -Does it only speak to one religion? Condemning yourself by believing in one religion but not another?

Explain Paley's argument from design

-Guy in forest, sees a watch, assumes somebody made it because it is highly complex, has a function, and has a purpose -A thing with a function/purpose can only originate from an intelligent designer -No random process, not created by chance, not evolution or nature, therefore has to be constructed by someone -Human eye is way too detailed for human's to construct and has the purpose of seeing, therefore it has a designer -God = intelligent designer

Explain Hardin's idea of 'the tragedy of the commons'

-He says public resources are always, inevitably going to fail because they are overused and poorly maintained but privately owned resources are not overused and are well maintained -ex: If government opened 1 acre of farmland to the public all of the farmers would use it, not everybody takes care of it because it isn't theirs, private owner wouldn't overload it with animals and would take care of it -Public resources are maintained and people don't have an incentive to keep it up, human nature leads to exploitation of resources for gain, not rational to be consciences few because doing extra labor with no extra access -World food bank: common, will siphon off all available resources and are not maintain -We cannot undo the injustices of the past because we are born into this life and must face it (more in notes about article)

Kant's solution to the Trolley Problem

-Kant says you should never treat a person as a means to an end -The bystander isn't using the death of one person as a means, they just want to save the other people's lives, they don't want that one person to be there and is not essential to the life saving effort of the other 5 people

Explain the test that Kant proposes for seeing whether an action is morally permissible

-Kantian Ethics: Has to do with internal intention when you commit an action -Goodwill is the only unconditionally good thing there is and other things are only good sometimes -Qualities that are good: selflessness, honesty, wealth, power, trustworthiness, etc. (not unconditionally good because it is ONLY good if the person has good intentions) -Duty: when a rational creature acts out of respect for the law -Humans are able to act away from instinct to respect moral duty Test is The Categorical Imperative 1) Act always in such a way that the maxim describing your action could be willed to be a universal law 2) Never treat a human being as a means but always as an ends LOOK BACK AT NOTES FOR THIS SECTION

Provide 3 reasons that God's hiddenness is a disadvantage according to McKim

-Makes it hard for people to believe in God -Makes it hard for people to have a close and personal relationship with God (hard to be vulnerable with an invisible God) -Makes it hard for people to devote themselves to him and worship him -Enables social conflict and disagreement (so much fighting in wars because he is hidden and no being to clarify disputes) -Allows frauds and con artists to operate (exploitation of religion for personal advantage) CONCLUSION?: God doesn't care?

Describe Anselm's Ontological Argument

-Not based on empirical evidence (evidence based off of the 5 senses) -Based on ideas, logic, reason, and is conceptual -God is believed to be: omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all good/loving) -These make him the greatest conceivable being -Must exist in both the mind and reality: If he couldn't exist in both the mind and reality, he would be less great than a being that exists in both the mind and reality, because he is the GCB he has to exist in both the mind and reality (argument ad absurdum) -God can't be thought not to exist because if he could be thought not to exist he wouldn't be as great as a being that couldn't be thought not to exist (atheists aren't thinking of the true God)

Explain Taylor's Cosmological Argument

-Person walking in the forest, finds a sphere, ask why it is there?/how did it get there? -Principle of Sufficient Reason: in the case of any positive truth there is always some reason or cause for it -Two kinds of truths 1) Contingent: things that are true, but that could have turned out differently in different circumstances (ex: grade, war, etc.) 2) Necessary: things that are true and that could not possibly be false (ex: laws of math, amount of sides in a square, etc.) -The universe exists is a contingent truth -According to PSR contingent truths have to have a cause -If everything in the world is contingent then the universe must be contingent -Universe can't cause its own existence -Universe could be caused by a contingent being but what causes the contingent being? (keeps going = infinite regress = impossible) -Need a necessary being -CONCLUSION: God is the necessary being that causes the word to exist

Explain Moore's argument that existence is not a predicate

-Predicate: attribute, quality, feature, property -Says Anselm is treating existence as a predicate for God -Analogy: Tigers growl 1) All tigers growl 2) Most tigers growl 3) Some tigers growl -What happens when we replace growl for exist? --> it doesn't make sense -Doesn't behave logically as a predicate

What is the principle of sufficient reason and how does it relate to a proof in God's existence?

-Principle of Sufficient Reason: in the case of any positive truth there is always some reason or cause for it -Leads to there being contingent and necessary truths that lead to...

Explain Rowe's example about the 'magican' and the 'magico'

-Says Anselm defines God as an existing being 1) Magican (existing magician: Houdini, David Blaine, etc.) 2) Magico (non-existing magician: Harry Potter, Merlin, etc) -In a world with no real magicians, could still have created the word it just wouldn't refer to anything -Creating a meaning/definition for a word doesn't cause that thing to exist

Explain Pascal's Wager

-Says cannot prove or disprove God's existence -If he does exist we can't gain any knowledge about him if he doesn't show himself -Foolish to make argument for his existence -Everyone can agree that God exists or doesn't exist -Forced wager: Have to believe he does or doesn't exist (cannot decide to not choose) -Two ways to win or loose BELIEVE 1) Exists: Eternal happiness, heaven 2) Doesn't Exist: Loose time believing in false doctrines DON'T BELIVE 1)Exists: Eternal suffering, hell 2)Doesn't Exist: Get the time back -Don't know if God exists but believing in God is the safer bet with less comparative risks -Rationally/logically proving you should believe in God

Explain Clifford's example of the ship owner

-Ship owner knows ship is falling apart but wants to believe it can do one more mission even though he has evidence it can't 1) Believes so lets it sail, ends up sinking, experienced captain who wrongly defied the evidence 2) Doesn't sink and it completes his mission, lucky, still just as wrong because he knew it could sink -Shouldn't believe things unless you have evidence -"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything without sufficient evidence" -Suspend judgement until evidence arrives

Explain Mill's response to the claim that "Utilitarianism is a theory fit for swine"

-Theory Fit for Swine: animals live lives for simple pleasures, aren't humans better/smarter? Should we set our sights higher? Is pleasure an unworthy goal? -Response: Lower pleasures (ex: touch, eating/food, sleep, activity) vs higher pleasures (ex: tech, art, music, pursuit of knowledge), only a person who rejects humanity and doesn't enjoy higher pleasures would say it is a theory fit for swine

Explain Thompson's solution to the trolley problem

-Thompson says that it is morally permissible to shift a danger from a greater number of people to a lesser number of people as long as it is the same danger you are shifting and as long as the means used do not violate any important rights (person has a right not to be pushed off a bridge, you don't have the right to touch/hurt other people) Notes -In the trolley problem it is the same danger for both of them and the same thing threatening their death, but it is not okay when you create a new danger/threat for an individual

Explain a basic criticism to Utilitarianism

-Too Demanding: causes too much personal sacrifice, Utilitarians would want you to take one for the team instead of being selfish, constant demand could lead to unhappiness, doesn't include playing favorites (friends and family vs strangers and criminals), Analogy: cancer guy vs mom mudslide scenario -No Action is Absolutely Forbidden in Principle: Says you can steal, lie, kill, etc. if it promotes the greatest happiness, Analogy: TRANSPLANT CASE

Explain Thomson's example of the looping track

-Trolley driver is unconscious, track loops around but there is a switch before the loop, trolley is headed towards 5 people but the path also has 1 fat guy who would stop the trolley by himself, the five people combined would stop it as well, most people would say it is not wrong to flip the switch to the fat guy -Using the fat man as a means, his death is needed -In transplant the 5 people's deaths are also needed

Explain Gaunilo's example of the 'lost island'

-Uses Anselm's style of argument to argue there is a 'lost' and 'perfect' island that could exist -Anyone who agrees with Anselm's argument has to agree with his -Disagrees with style of argument not conclusion that God exists

Explain Nagel's critique of the argument from design

-Watch = eye analogy is bad: there is not a function of the watch that lets us know there was a maker--> we know this because we created it, function of the eye can be explained without assuming there is a designer based off of evolution and darwinian biology -Two arguments for God's existence 1)God must exist otherwise the world would be too unfair -->bad things happen to good people and compensation = God sending them to heaven -->good things happen to bad people and compensation = God sending them to hell -->PROBLEM=LIFE ISN'T FAIR 2) Argument from religious experience: someone feels like God has touched their lives and they use that as proof for God's existence -->PROBLEM= Miracles are bound to happen, don't accept claim of religious experience and natural causes, don't think people are lying they just wrongly interpreted psychological or natural experience, experience cannot be verified so it is not proof (experience could be authentic but other people cannot see)

Discuss Singer's responses to two of the differences between killing and failing to assist

1) A drunk driver has the motivation to go home and a drunk driver is not as bad as a murderer but they have still done something bad and are still irresponsible 2) Not arguing to dedicate ALL of your life to devote to helping, just some and more than now 3) If someone is driving drunk it could lead to people getting hurt, if a madman is driving with malicious intent, a drunk is not as certain they will hit people (outcome), but being drunk will make it more likely (failure to assist is still raising the probability of someone dying or getting hurt) 4) Imagine a person selling a consumable good with a chemical that increases the chance of stomach cancer by 2x, years pass and a customer gets stomach cancer, guy says don't know if it was my fault or fault of something else (other cause), it is still wrong because it increases the risk and neglecting that is irresponsible. If someone is starving failure to assist is still wrong because you are increasing the risk 5) Beneficiaries of systems (like colonialism) that are still rewarding some people today. Utilitarians should help because they want to improve overall happiness whether is is or is not your fault

Explain Nagel's Problem of Evil

1) If God exists there would be no evil in this world 2) There is evil in this world 3) Therefore God doesn't exist -If God was all good he wouldn't like evil -Can't be all powerful if he cannot destroy/stop evil from existing -->PROBLEM1= Has to be evil in the world for there to be good, it is for the best we just can't see the bigger picture -->PROBLEM2= No evil in the world just levels of good ---->PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM1: Good is an illusion, all for the worst ---->PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM2: No good, levels of evil

Explain the test that Everitt suggest for gaining evidence that a certain type of being does not exist

1) If there is a being with a certain type of nature, and intentions, then he will produce a change in the world 2) The world does not display that change 3) Therefore that is evidence that God doesn't exist -Analogy: One person survives from a shipwreck and swims to an island, wonders if another person survived, they would leave behind clues that showed apt behavior (ex: fire, shelter, footprints)

Explain Singer's argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor

1) If we can prevent a bad thing from happening without sacrificing anything of equal value, then we should 2) Absolute poverty is bad 3) We can prevent some absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of equal value 4) THEREFORE we should prevent some absolute poverty -Absolute poverty: not having enough income or wealth to meet the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter -Absolute Affluence: Having more than enough income and wealth to meet the basic human needs -The human condition decreases happiness (?) -Poverty in the United States is nothing compared to poverty in third world countries -People should assist others if it can and it won't make a big difference

Describe three factors that Payley thinks WOULD NOT undermine the judgement that a watch is sitting in the forest must have been made by a watchmaker

1) If you have never seen a watch being made it wouldn't make you doubt that it has a maker 2) If the watch has a flaw or defect 3) If don't understand how a part of the watch works

Explain two possible differences between killing and failing to assist

1) Motivation: Motive to end human life vs motive of self interest 2) It is very easy to avoid killing but very hard to save all the people you can: You don't have to do anything to not kill people but it takes effort and action to save all of the people you can) 3) Difference in certainty of the outcome: If a person wants to kill someone the probability is very high but when you assist you aren't certain you will save people (if the agencies mess up) 4)Identifiability of the victim: Someone goes to kill they kill a specific victim but if you fail to assist you can't link a certain person's death to you not helping (especially if you give $ to a company) 5) Different of fault/blame: Can't say it isn't your fault if you kill someone, but it isn't your fault if they are poor. You are only responsible for your mistakes (if you were never born they would still be poor and your life doesn't make a difference to that fact)

Explain two objections to Singer's argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor

1) Taking care of our own: Family, friends, country no obligation to international poor, not in front of you so you don't care. S: If you would take action for those close to you then you should help anyone, ability to assist has no limits, the whole human race is our own (don't stop at borders) 2) Property Rights: My wealth and income is my property, I have the right to do or not to do whatever you want with your property. S: This attitude is inn conflict with many different religions specifically Christianity, which makes up a lot of the population, too narrow of what one ought to do vs the right thing to do 3)Triage: Policy that is implemented inn a large casualty situation with not enough medical resources they have to create a priority system and divide people into three groups (1: If they are so bad they will die even if they receive help it would be a waste of resources, 2: Minor injuries so people will live even without help, 3: If they get help they will live but if they don't they will die) In triage they focus on the 3s, then 2s, then 1s. This saves as many lives as possible. 1s compare to the worst of the worst poor and they won't be able to be saved even if they try so you would be throwing away resources if they did and not actually impacting poverty. SINGER: Says this is inhumane and a drawback of not helping the poor is that the poverty population increases then becomes unmanageable. But if you help there are other ways for population control (ex: decreasing birth rate in 3rd world countries by helping with sex education, access to contraceptives, and birth control) 4) Leaving it to the Government: Should be the government helping and not individuals. Individuals/programs are unreliable because $ is not constant and people don't always give money for the government to collect. SINGER: You make decisions based on people, taxes are still funding, you should do both

Explain the trolley problem by explaining the original 'trolley problem', the 'bystander at the switch', and the 'transplant'

1) Trolley Driver: A trolley is on a track and cannot stop, if the trolley keeps going it will kill five people, but the driver can switch the trolley so the train goes on another track that only has one person. Would it be wrong for the trolley driver to switch tracks? Majority of people says it would not be wrong to switch it, KILL 5 VS 1 2) Bystander at Switch: The driver of the trolley is incapacitated, but there is a switch on the outside of the track that a bystander could pull, most would say it isn't wrong for them to use the switch, KILL 1 OR LET 5 DIE 3) Transplant: There are five people who each need different organs or they will die, doctor finds one healthy person, the doctor could take that person's organs and give it to the five, most would say it is wrong for the doctor to kill that person, KILL 1 VS LET 5 DIE

Explain two reasons that Clifford gives why it is wrong to maintain a 'credulous character'

1) You'll pass on credulous beliefs, which has a negative social impact 2) Weakens own power of judgement because you won't have the ability to face facts- self harm

How is the actual world not appropriate as an expression of God's intentions according to Everitt?

Apt Behavior for God's Existence: Man would appear early would appear not long after animals do, everything in the universe shouldn't be much larger than the earth (human scale), earth should be in the center of the universe --> Universe is 15 billion years old, man is only 100,00 yrs old, universe is obviously larger than the earth, earth not even the center of the solar system much less the universe

Explain O'Neill's account of what it is to treat someone as a mere means

Consent? Look up/look at notes again

Describe an action that is morally obligatory according to one ethical theory and morally impermissible according to another

Ex: Driving on the road and there is a motorist on the side of the road with a wrecked car, person pulls over and see that the motorist in the driver seat is unresponsive but alive, there is smoke from damaged hood so the person pulls them out in case the car goes up in flames, emergency people pull up and say person paralyzed the motorist by pulling them out -Utilitarian: Says pulling them out is wrong because you caused unhappiness -Kantian: Says it was not wrong because they the good intention to help/save them

McKim's analogy of God's Hiddenness

Island community, isolated, as far as they know the island is all there is, old people says island is part of an empire that is ruled by a great emperor, ships came in and people say it is part of a big empire with an emperor and they have to pledge their allegiance, but emperor is hidden and is everywhere. Villagers make comments about it. 1) Should show himself or make it obvious so we can follow him, doesn't believe in emperor, SKEPTIC 2) If he is hidden it gives people the choice to believe and test the willingness and loyalty, provides hierarchy, BELIEVER 3) Some evidence through messengers and stories of elders, evidence is not visual but testimonial, maybe because he's hidden he isn't interested in who believes, TENTATIVE BELIEVER

Explain the method of argument known as reductio ad absurdum

Style of argument that assumes the contrary of what you want to prove then shows that it leads to an absurd argument/a contradiction

Explain Thompson's discussion of the fat man on the bridge

Trolley is going to hit five people and there is no fork in the road, bridge that is over the track, you and fat guy on bridge, could push the fat guy on the track, most people would say it is not okay to push the guy on the track, KILL 1 VS LET 5 DIE