PH103 SAQs
What is a 'divergence argument'? Give an example.
A divergence argument shows a situation where the identity of a group is separate from that of its individual members. For example the 'board of directors' of a company is a group. If a new member is introduced or an existing member leaves the group, although the composition of the group has changed, its name will not - to all intents and purposes, the new group that has been created will still be considered to be the board of directors of the company. Another example would be the government.
Explain Frankfurt's distinction between first-order desires and the will.
A first-order desire is something that we want to do, so any person may or will have many first-order desires. The will is different because it is the first-order desire that is effective, so the strongest one.
Explain the distinction between a fundamental moral norm and a derivative moral norm.
A fundamental moral norm is one that cannot be broken down any further, any questions on a moral judgement will eventually lead to a fundamental norm. A derivative moral norm is one that stands only on the basis of a fundamental one; so if one is asked why this norm holds, there will be another underlying reason for it.
Explain the distinction between a logical possibility and a logical impossibility.
A logical possibility is anything that does not imply a contradiction. As long as we can imagine a single possible scenario in which what we are considering exists, then it must be logically possible.
Explain Frankfurt's distinction between second-order desires and second-order volitions.
A second-order desire is the desire to have a first-order desire, so to want to want to do something. A second-order volition takes this one step further; it is the desire that the want for something be what moves us to act, so the desire that a first-order desire be translated into our will. For Frankfurt, having second-order volitions is the essential characteristic that defines a person.
What is a theodicy? What is its general structure?
A theodicy is an attempt to come up with an explanation of how the 3-O God can exist alongside evil, so how the two are compatible. The general structure of a theodicy states that even if God can do anything that is logically possible, he couldn't prevent the existence of evil without sacrificing some greater good - since evil cannot exist without good, this is logically impossible. A world with both good and evil is better than a world with good an no evil, the 4 possible worlds are: W1 - G and no E W2 - G and E W3 - No G and no E W4 - No G and E So a theodicy attempts to show that W1 is impossible and that W2 is better than the remaining two.
Explain the distinction between determinism and fatalism.
Fatalism claims that no matter what happens, a certain event will occur; this is inherently different from determinism which tells us that an event is determined by previous events but not that it will occur no matter what. So by determinism, a different series of events would have resulted in a different outcome.
Explain Richard Feldman's Uniqueness Thesis.
Feldman believes that given a unique body of evidence, there can only be one right, justified or reasonable answer. So given a set of propositions which relate to the same body of evidence, only one of the competing propositions can actually be true since the evidence cannot give support for one while also supporting another. Feldman believes that this is inherent in the nature of the evidence.
What do process reliabilists hold about justification?
Process reliabilists, such as A. Goldman, believe that a belief is justified as long as it is the result of a reliable process. This process is to be defined and Goldman offers one potential candidate. So for certain inputs that are subjected to this 'reliable process' the output will be a justified belief.
Outline Anthony Quinton's summativist view of group belief.
Quinton can be considered a psychological summativist; that is, he believes that groups cannot have beliefs. He states that when we do ascribe beliefs to groups, we do os in a 'plainly metaphorical' way and that we do not mean that the group itself holds these beliefs but rather that the beliefs can be ascribed to the individual members of the group.
What is the difference between reductionism and non-reductionism (i.e. anti-reductionism) about testimony?
Reductionism, as endorsed by Hume, states that testimony is no different to other ways of gaining knowledge and can be reduced to them. The acceptance of testimony relies on other familiar sources of knowledge such as perception or memory. Non-reductionism is the opposite view, namely that testimony is a sui generis way of gaining knowledge.
Define and explain the Divine Command Theory's (DCT's) Theory of the Right.
Right and wrong are ultimately determined by God's commands, so an act is morally obligatory if and only if God commands it and morally wrong if and only if God forbids it.
What, according to Frankfurt, is the relation between concern and importance?
A concern is something that we are individually affected by, something that makes us vulnerable and that we are emotionally connected to. It has an aspect of time to it; a concern has to have some element of being long lasting, persistent and constant, to differentiate it from a desire or an impulse. We identify with the objects of our concern and its outcomes affect us too. Importance is related to concern insofar as the things we are concerned with are important to us.
Define and explain the distinction between a criterion of rightness and a decision procedure.
A decision procedure is a method that agents will consciously apply to acts in advance, to help them make choices. A criterion of rightness is a standard by which rightness can be decided. A decision procedure is not a criterion of rightness because it does not explain what properties actions have in virtue of which they are right.
Explain Annis's idea of a 'well-motivated challenge'.
According to Annis, a person can be justified in their belief if they can meet well motivated challenges against it. Annis defines these as those that are made in the spirit of collective inquiry - so the audience that is objecting must be pursuing truth and avoiding error. So to be justified, someone would not have to meet a challenge that deviates from these standards.
What is a good argument, according to Alvin Goldman?
According to Goldman, a good argument is one that seeks the truth and avoids error. Goldman sets out seven rules to follow in this pursuit: 1. A speaker should assert a conclusion only if she believes it. 2. A speaker should assert a premise only if she believes it. 3. A speaker should assert a premise only if she is justified in believing it. 4. A speaker should affirm a conclusion on the basis of a stated premise only if (a) those premises strongly support the conclusion, (b) she believes that they strongly support it, and (c) she is justified in believing that they strongly support it. 5. Kml 6. The more persuasive an argument is, the better it is. 7. The better an argument precludes obvious objections, the better it is. So essentially, the proposer of the argument must believe the premises and the conclusion they are asserting, they must be justified in believing the premises and must believe that these make a strong argument for the conclusion. On top of this, an argument must be as persuasive as possible and avoid objections as best as possible.
What is Agrippa's trilemma? What is it supposed to show?
Agrippa's trilemma supposedly shows that whatever way we go about it, we cannot have any justified beliefs. It shows this by stating that there are 3 possible ways that trying to show that a belief is justified will take us: Infinite regress: we sill justify one belief by stating another and this will go on to infinity Dogmatic stopping point: There will come a point where we have no justification for our belief and hence we cannot be justified in believing it Circular argument: where one of the beliefs that we have justified will become a justification for another and hence form a circular line of reasoning
Camus "cannot conceive that a skeptical metaphysics can be joined to an ethics of renunciation." What does he mean by this and why does he think so?
By 'skepitcal metaphysics', Camus is referring to the process of doubting anything beyond our material reality, such as an afterlife or a God. In this sentence Camus is denying that life loses its meaning when it loses its cosmic purpose. This leads us to the idea that life has a worth beyond that which may be found in Tolstoy's 'infinite'. Camus believes that although we might realise that our life is absurd, we can find a meaning in this.
Explain one objection to the premise-based approach.
By using this approach, a group may actually come to accept a conclusion that all of its members had rejected individually. So, although in some cases it seems to be more successful in terms of finding out the truth, it can also misrepresent a group's true opinion.
Explain the distinction between the theodicist and the anti-theodicist. Can an atheist be a theodicist?
An anti-theodicist is someone who does not believe that God and the existence of evil are compatible. An atheist can be a theodicist since the fact that God and evil are compatible and their coexistence is logically possible is not proof that God exists.
Why doesn't Annis think we need justification for all our beliefs?
Because there are many instances where a person will not be required to meet objections or 'well-motivated challenges' against their beliefs. According to Annis' theory, this means that the person does not require justification for their belief. A person is only required to meet verifically motivated challenges, not idle ones.
Explain Paul Boghossian's argument against epistemic relativism.
Boghossian attacks the idea of an epistemic framework. If relativism is true then all epistemic frameworks must be false since they are made up of false general propositions. None of the beliefs in the framework can be absolutely justified except relative to a belief system. If the epistemic frameworks are false then no beliefs can be justified against them and therefore no beliefs are justified - which amounts to skepticism.
Explain Paul Boghossian's argument in favour of epistemic relativism.
Boghossian states that if there were absolute epistemic facts then we should be able to know what these are, since otherwise they become useless. What is the point in believing that epistemic truths are absolute if we also believe that we can never know what these truths are? Boghossian's second premise is that we cannot arrive at justified belief on what these epistemic facts are, as evidenced by serious disagreements on what they are. We would not be able to justify our argument in favour of an absolute epistemic truth without begging the question. According to Boghossian, these premises act in favour of epistemic non-absolutism - the view that there are no absolute epistemic facts and also if this is true then epistemic relativism must be true.
What is Earl Conee's argument against the Uniqueness Thesis?
Conee responds to Feldman with an argument called 'Reason from rationality'. This states that if a person is rational in believing that it is rational for them to believe a proposition, then they are reasonable in believing the proposition. So if you have come to believe something by a method that you believe to be rational (eg. testimony) then you can be thought to be reasonable in believing this proposition.
What is epistemic contextualism?
Contextualism opposes the view of justification that we have previously seen which is invariantism (includes foundationalism, coherentism, process reliabilism). Contextualism says that justification is dependant on dialectical context. So according to the given circumstances that a person learns a proposition in, they may be justified in believing it or not. So if this context changes, the status of the belief in terms of its justification, changes too. So for example if we wake up in a room that looks like our own, we are justified in believing that it is so; however, if we look out of the window to realise that the landscape is different then we can no longer be justified in believing that we are at home.
Explain the distinction between determinism and indeterminism.
Determinism is the idea that everything that happens in the world was pre-determined from earlier events so nothing could have been otherwise. So given this view, the laws of nature are such that, given the past state of events, there is only one possible, unique future. Indeterminism is the opposite view, so that not every event is determined by previous events.
What is epistemic relativism?
Epistemic relativism states that there are no epistemic truths, the only way there can be epistemic truths is if they are justified relative to an epistemic framework or justificatory system.
What is Fricker's argument against non-reductionism?
Fricker attacks the claim in the argument for non-reductionism that evidence of the testifier's reliability is not generally available. She believes that there are ways of telling whether someone's testimony can be trusted or not. She believes that trusting blindly only gives way to gullibility and that we should assess a speaker for trustworthiness.
Explain Fricker's perceptual theory of testimony.
Fricker believes that in our social interactions, we have critical capacities that operate in the background and help us to determine, without any conscious effort, whether a speaker is trustworthy or not. So we will place different value on testimony acquired from different sources according to our assessment of the speaker's trustworthiness.
What is identity power?
Fricker defines it as when some individual or group of individuals may hold a position of power based upon their perception within the collective social mind. As in the case of social power, it may be exercised actively or passively. An example may be graduates from a certain university who attract a higher position of authority on certain issues based solely on the institution they attended.
Explain Gilbert's argument for strong psychological non-summativism
Gilbert provides this argument by stating a divergence argument against a 'simple summative account' of group belief, which is that a group has a belief if and only if all its members hold that belief. She shows that a group can believe a proposition even though not every one of its members does., such as in the case of a union adopting a certain resolution on the basis of a ballot vote which does not count with full participation. She also shows that a group may not have a belief even though most of its members do. The example used here is that of a jury.
What is the difference between global and local reductionism about testimony?
Global reductionism attempts to establish a universal claim about the reliability of testimony; Fricker is skeptical of this view. Local reductionism refers to particular testimonial exchanges and in this case Fricker argues for a reductionist and internalist form of justification - so testimony is an indirect form of justification as opposed to perception for example, which is direct.
Explain one of Goldman's objections to the view that justification is 'a fundamentally social affair'.
Goldman attempts to find objections to different possible versions of this proposition. However, he ends up only considering one version which is: "Person S is justified in beliving proposition Y if and only if there are arguments S can present to his/her peers that would persuade them of Y." One objection that he proposes to this statement is the vagueness objection - how many peers are necessary for this persuasion account to work? It is put to question whether there is a certain number that acts as a threshold or whether any number larger than or equal to two would work (which seems an unsatisfying answer).
What is gratuitous evil?
Gratuitous evil is that which is not necessary for the fulfilment of some greater good, or which could have been avoided without some greater good being sacrificed. E is gratuitous evil if and only if there is no G such that both (1) it is logically impossible for G to exist without GE existing and (2) a world with G and E is better than a world neither G nor E.
What was Hume's view of testimony?
Hume was a reductionist, he believed that testimony is a valuable and essential way of gaining knowledge and that we are disposed to trust testimony through experience, rather than taking it as an a priori way of gaining knowledge.
Explain the moral reformer problem that moral relativism faces.
If we consider people throughout time that have gone against the moral rules that their societies faced, then from the point of view of moral relativism, these people will always have been necessarily wrong since they belonged to a minority of people holding these beliefs. So moral relativism does not tolerate any kind of reform or progress of the moral norms of a culture.
Explain the distinction between a deductive argument and an inductive argument.
In a deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion as long as they are true. On the other hand, an inductive argument has premises that merely support the conclusion; however close to the truth these premises may be we cannot say with certainty that the conclusion we draw from them will be true.
Give two objections to the logical account of a good argument.
Inductive arguments are those that rely on previous experience to draw conclusions. An argument may not be sound but may still be regarded as a good argument. Circular arguments fit the criteria for a logical argument but they rely on a premise that has already been stated for the conclusion therefore cannot be considered to be good arguments.
What is the 'Myth of the Given'? Why is it said to be a myth?
It is an attempt to reject empiricist foundationalism. It attacks the notion that we can justify our knowledge based on our perception of the reality of the world around us due to this not being a propositional belief. A propositional belief is one that can be either true or false and sense data does not fit this description. So the 'Myth of the Given' says that our perception can be no justification for our beliefs.
What is strong epistemological non-summativism?
It states that a group can have justified beliefs, or knowledge, regardless of whether its individual members hold this particular justified belief. So the epistemic status of a group can be different from that of its constituents.
What is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)?
It states that a person is morally responsible for an act if they could have done otherwise. So a necessary condition of responsibility is this ability to have done otherwise.
What is List and Pettit's Impossibility Theorem?
List and Pettit set out three conditions for democracy and three for rationality and hen show that no aggregation procedure will be able to meet all six. Democracy requires universal domain, anonymity and systematicity, whereas rationality requires consistency, deductive closure and completeness.
Explain the distinction between moral absolutism and moral non-absolutism.
Moral absolutism states that there are certain acts that are wrong no matter what their consequences are, whereas non-absolutism holds the opposite view. So the moral non-absolutist would argue that there are no 'absolutes', such as "you must never lie" - since the act is important in the context of the consequences it entails.
Explain the distinction between moral relativism and moral objectivism.
Moral relativism says that an act performed by a subject is only permissible if and only if, and because, the fundamental moral norms of the subject's culture permit it to perform that act. On the other hand, moral objectivism says that there are universal moral norms that we must abide by regardless of the culture that we belong to, so judgements of any moral act depend on the objective moral facts.
What is natural evil?
Natural evil is that which is not brought about by any human action and could not have been prevented by us. It includes things such as natural disasters.
Can the moral relativist accept the claim that, in a given culture, certain fundamental moral norms have changed for the better?
No, if moral relativism holds then the moral norms of a society or culture cannot change for the better. The only thing that can change is people's compliance to these norms.
Life might be "meaningless" in two different ways. Explain.
One way in which life can be Meaningless is in terms of our cosmic purpose - at a transcendental level. This is distinguished from life being meaningless at the individual and personal level - in this sense life lacks value or worth. This is where Camus and Tolstoy's opinions diverged. Tolstoy failed to find a meaning for life at a personal level and despaired when he could come up with no plausible cosmic purpose, thus turning to faith as a final explanation. On the other hand, Camus accepts that he can find no universal meaning but incorporates this into his final conclusion that 'living is keeping the absurd alive' - so resigns to the idea that life has no cosmic value.
What is the Moral Diversity Thesis?
People in different societies accept different fundamental moral norms. Many people accept moral relativism on the basis of MDT - it is a claim about what people believe to be true as opposed to moral relativism which is about what is true.
What is the 'new evil demon' objection to reliabilism?
Peter is justified in his perceptual beliefs to exactly the same extent as his brain-in-a-vat duplicate. However, Peter's perceptual experience is far more accurate than that of his brain-in-a-vat duplicate and hence justification is not reliability. Basically, it is the problem that arises once we acknowledge that it is possible that someone might have had (apparent) perceptual experiences and memories indistinguishable from out own that were induced by a powerful demon bent on deceiving this hapless subject. On a reliabilist view, since you cannot have a justified belief about some matter unless the means bu which you arrive at that belief is reliable, it seems the reliabilist ought to say that your counterpart's beliefs are not justified.
What is an epistemic peer?
Someone who you share a roughly similar body of knowledge with.
Explain Frankfurt's Jones4 case. What does he think it shows?
Suppose that an evil neurosurgeon wants Jones to kill Smith. So without Jones knowing so, Dr. Black implants a chip in Jones' brain which allows him to control his actions. Dr. Black decides that he will only intervene is Jones shows any sign that he is not going to kill Smith. However, Jones shows no such sign and kills Smith without the intervention of Dr. Black. According to Frankfurt, this example shows that PAP is false. This is because Jones is morally responsible for killing Smith sine he did it because he wanted to, but Jones also could not have done otherwise due to Dr. Black's possible intervention.
Explain the two types of epistemic injustice.
The two types that Fricker discusses are a credibility excess or a deficit. These arise when a speaker is accorded too much or too little trust in what they are saying, respectively. So, for example, a credibility deficit could be present when someone exercises a prejudice against a certain speaker due to their accent or the way they look; these things are in no way related to the speaker's message but will unjustly have an effect on the hearer's receptiveness towards it; in the case of a deficit, the speaker will be less likely to be believed.
What is testimonial justice, and how can it be acquired?
Testimonial justice is when testimonial injustice is not at play. Testimonial injustice occurs when there is a credibility deficit associated with identity prejudice. In reality, it is very unlikely that no identity prejudice is at play when a speaker is communicating a message. We need mechanisms to be able to discern credible testimony and these are likely to result in frequent misestimation of the speaker's ability to be trusted. Testimonial justice would amount to the speaker being attributed the credibility that is deserved, but again this is an entirely subjective matter so it seems that this type of justice is almost impossible to achieve. Another possible interpretation of testimonial justice may be for the hearer to hold a completely neutral attitude with regard to the speaker's message and the only way this could be achieved would be relaying no information whatsoever about the speaker so that no identity prejudice may come into play.
Define and explain the Euthyphro dilemma.
There are two ways in which the DCT can work: Horn 1 - God commands/forbids certain actions because they are right/wrong. Horn 2 - Certain actions are right/wrong because God commands/forbids them. The difference is the provenance of the morality behind the commands. If we accept H1 then we believe that there exists morality independent of God and that He bases his commands on this. If we accept H2 a problem arises, known as the 'anything goes' objection. If God's command is prior to actions being attributed the status of right or wrong, then God could command anything - such as murder, or rape - and it would become right. As a theist there must exists some objection to this. However there is also an argument against H1, since it entails that God isn't omnipotent since ha can't change the standard of right or wrong that must already exist.
What is the difference between internalist and externalist theories of justification?
The internalist theory holds that justification can be found through introspection, so that it is internal to the believer and that it is accessible through reflection. On the other hand, the externalist believes that justification is external to the believer so that it is an objective relation between the individual and external reality and this cannot be accessed through reflection.
Explain the paradox of omnipotence and its solution.
The paradox asks the question of whether God could create a boulder that was too heavy for even Him to lift. The solution to this is to say that the definition of omnipotence is being able to do anything that is logically possible.
Give two objections to the persuasion account of a good argument.
The persuasion account states that an argument is good if it can persuade the listener of its conclusion. One possible objection to this is coercion - where the listener is persuaded by some other means eg. being in a drug induced state. The listener could also be obstinate and therefore not be convinced by the argument regardless of how good it is. This characteristic of the listener should not undermine the quality of the argument but under the persuasion account, an obstinate listener would render an argument bad.
Explain the problem of formulation that moral relativism faces.
The problem stems from how we define a culture. We are all members, or can be, of many different cultures which may have different fundamental moral norms. In this case what determines the moral rules we should follow?
How do rationalist and empiricist versions of foundationalism differ?
The rationalist version, as supported by Descartes, states that knowledge can only be gained via reflection on a priori concepts. So that we can attain all our knowledge by what may be called 'armchair thinking'. On the other hand, empiricist foundationalists state that the foundations for our knowledge don't come from introspection but rather from stimuli of our experience of the world - what we call sense-data. So as opposed to rationalist foundationalists, they find the base for our knowledge in our interaction with the world.
Nagel identifies a conflict between the value our lives seem to have from the subjective perspective and from the objective perspective. What three different ways of resolving this conflict does he consider? Does he think that any succeeds?2. Nagel identifies a conflict between the value our lives seem to have from the subjective perspective and from the objective perspective. What three different ways of resolving this conflict does he consider? Does he think that any succeeds?
The three possoble solutions are: Ignoring the subjective perspective completely and focusing only on the objective. Achieving to disconnect from our everyday worries and be preoccupied with the realm of the transcendent. In this way our ego no longer matters since the individual has been diluted. However, this solution does not succeed since Nagel believes it is equivalent to wasting valuable potential, relinquishing our own identity in an attempt to escape the absurd is too high a price to pay. Denying the objective perspective and assigning the subjective POV objective importance. This is again absurd, there may be objective value in our everyday pursuits but we must view our life as one among all others that are being lived in the world. Acting as if the conflict is insignificant. Nagel argues that this is not the case since we have evolved to be able to appreciate and include the objective POV, therefore ignoring the conflict between the two perspectives would be almost impossible.
Explain the 'traditional refutation' of epistemic relativism.
The traditional refutation uses the argument for epistemic relativism to disband it. If this view is true then it must be justified; but according to the arguments for it, if it is objectively justified then epistemic relativism must be false. The only other option, and the one which is in agreement with the argument in favour of epistemic relativism, is that it must be justified relative to an epistemic framework. This view is uncompelling since it is hard to imagine what kind of justificatory system would have to be in place to be able to justify epistemic relativism against it.
Explain the distinction between compatibilism and incompatibilism.
These two views disagree as to whether free will and determinism can coexist. A compatibilist argues that an act A is free if and only if the agent could have done other than A had her act-determining psychological states been different (e.g. had she wanted or intended to do something other than A). Whereas the incompatibilist would say that an act A is free only if the agent could have done other than A under identical causal conditions (i.e. the conditions where both the antecedent conditions and the laws of natures are the same). So the latter argument entails that determinism and free will are not compatible.
What is Occam's razor?
This can also be called the law of parsimony and states that the best explanation is usually the simplest. When faced with multiple choices as to how to explain something, the best course of action is to stick to the explanation that goes down the simplest route and doesn't necessitate the existence of additional, complicated entities.
What is the difference between the premise-based and conclusion-based approach?
This differentiates whether the decision is reached by looking at the individual judgements for each premise, and reaching a conclusion based on the majority vote for each one, or by looking a the conclusion that each judge (in the judge example) comes to and seeing what the majority says in each case.
What is the 'ideal conditions' account of a good argument?
This is a correction of the persuasion account, which introduces the idea of the ideal audience. Under this account, an argument would be good if it could persuade the ideal interlocutors. These would have the following qualities: knowledgeable reflective open dialectically astute
Does moral relativism entail that we should be tolerant of those in different societies?
This is something that would have to be defined by the norms of each culture, under moral relativism. The belief that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of different cultures no matter what, is a view that directly conflicts with moral relativism.
Explain Richard Feldman's 'modest scepticism'.
This is the conclusion that Feldman draws at the end of his paper, it is the stance he considers most appropriate following the discussion on reasonable disagreements. He says that there are cases when even after having shared our evidence with epistemic peers, we come to a point where we can see there is still a disafreement but we have no reason to believe that the other person is not rational in their beliefs, and the other person can say the same thing about us. This is an apparent reasonable disagreement, but since these cannot exist, as Feldman attempts to show, then the best course of action is to suspend judgement about the matter being discussed. This stance is modest since all it does is to agree to compromise rather than providing a hard conclusion, and it is skeptical since it does not give us an argument for which side of the argument was correct or true but rather tells us that, at this point, neither are.
What is a verbal dispute?
This is when a disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of one of the terms used to define a view or position. In this case there is a question as to whether the free will debate may be a verbal dispute. We have to define what we mean when we say 'free act'. Looking at the common usage of the term we can come up with a compatibilist definition of it - Stace argues that this is the right methodology to determine the meaning of the term.
Explain the 'conspiracy theorist' objection to coherentism.
This objection rests on the example of someone with a strong belief in a conspiracy theory. This belief can be as long and complex as required, however its justification rests on the fact that all the beliefs within the theory rely on each other for their truth, so coherentism holds. Anyone would agree that no matter how intricate the web of beliefs leading to the conspiracy theory and no matter how much they may support each other - ultimately the belief that is obtained is false and therefore coherentism has failed in justifying a belief.
What is the 'bootstrapping', or 'easy knowledge' objection to reliabilism?
This objection stems from circular reasoning. An individual looks at his/her watch to check the time and since the watch is reliable can be justified in believing that his time related beliefs are true and accurate. He/she later reasons that their watch is reliable on the basis that their time related beliefs are true. In other words, the reasoning of justification is circular and so challenges reliabilism. Every time, bootstrapping will tell you that the underlying process is reliable. So bootstrapping is itself unreliable.
Define and explain the Extensional Equivalence Thesis.
This thesis is widely accepted by most theists and states that all an only obligatory acts are commanded by God and that all and only wrong acts are forbidden by God. This means that if an act is right/wrong then this must be because God commanded it.
What is odd about Tolstoy's assumption that if he is unhappy and unlikely ever to be happy again he might as well kill himself?
Tolstoy assumes hedonic egoism. namely that the only intrinsic good/value is pleasure for himself. This is odd as he leaves out the other people in his life; his friends and family who he talks about and his intellectual projects - he no longer enjoys these things and diregards their importance. Tolstoy values his individual happiness over any external effect he may have on anyone or anything else.
Why, according to Tolstoy, is "rational knowledge" unable to provide an answer to his question about the meaning of life?
Tolstoy says that when he tries to find the meaning of life through science or rational thinking, he finds that all it can do is explain itself and that it lacks a connection to the 'infinite' - which, according to him, is the only thing that can give the finite a meaning. The answer that it does give him is that we are 'globules of something' which clearly is no satisfactory answer to his question. However, faith does provide him with an answer, it provides the connection to the infinite that rational knowledge and pursuits cannot.
What gives rise to the Absurd, according to Nagel?
Trying to reconcile the objective and subjective perspectives in our own life. From the subjective POV we see our birth as necessary, our life as important and our death as catastrophic whereas from the objective POV our birth is accidental, our lives pointless and our death insignificant. However, these two perspectives must coexist in one person.
Wolf says that meaningful activity "occurs where subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness." What does she mean?
Wolf also uses the phrase of being 'actively engaged in projects of worth' to define a meaningful life. What both of these statements refer to is that, for meaning to arise, a person must be involved and concerned with a certain 'project' at an emotional level but this 'project' must have some objective value completely independent to the personal opinion that it has subjective one. So for our lives to have meaning, we have to engage with activities that have importance outside of that which we may assign to them but our engagement must also be important to us.
