Philosophy Final Exam

Compatibilism says that an action being done "freely" is "compatible" with it's being determined by prior causes. With which of the following would a compatibilist most likely agree?

"Free" doesn't mean "uncaused." It means something like "uncoerced." If an action had literally no prior cause, it would be random and chaotic. But a free action isn't just random and chaotic. For an action to be done freely, the person has to have done it because they wanted to. But that would mean it did have a cause (namely, the person's desires). So freedom actually requires causation. A compatibilist would most likely agree with ALL of the above.

Peter van Inwagen's Objection to Compatibilism:

"If Determinism is true, then our actions are 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, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us."

Rachels explains that, according to Immanuel Kant, morality is based on our rational capacities in the sense that right actions should:

"abide by" rationality "promote" rationality "respect" rationality All of the above

The Argument From Physical Causes (a "fix" to the Determinist Argument)

1) All of our actions are due to events in our brains which we can't control. (Premise) 2) If all of our actions are due to events we can't control, then we never act freely. (Premise) 3) Therefore, we never act freely. (From 1+2)

The Determinist Argument

1) Everything we do is determined by forces over which we have no control. (Premise) 2) If our actions are always determined by forces over which we have no control, then we never act freely. (Premise) 3) Therefore, we never act freely. (From 1+2)

The Argument That We Cannot Predict Our Own Actions

1) If human actions were due to physical events beyond our control, then those actions would be predictable in principle, like the outputs of a computer. (Premise) 2) But a prediction about human action can be foiled if the person knows about the prediction and chooses to act differently. (Premise) 3) Therefore, not all human actions are predictable in principle. (From 2) 4) And so, not all human actions are due to physical events beyond our control. (From 1+3)

The Argument From Accountability

1) We cannot help but admire or blame people for what they do, nor can we avoid feeling pride or shame for what we do. (Premise) 2) These responses-admiration, blame, pride, and shame-presuppose that people have free will. (Premise) 3) Therefore, we must believe that people have free will. (From 1+2) 4) Since we must believe it, it is true: People have free will. (From 3) (Problem: (4) clearly doesn't follow from (3).)

The Cultural Differences Argument

1. Different cultures have different moral codes. (Premise) 2. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. Where ethics is concerned, the standards of the different societies are all that exist. (From 1?) Problem: Invalid. 2 doesn't follow from 1, since people can disagree about objective facts

The Culture-Neutral Standards Argument

1. For our criticisms of other cultures to be justified, they must appeal to standards that are not simply derived from our own culture. (Premise) 2. But there are no such culture-neutral moral standards. All standards are relative to some society or other. (Premise) 3. Therefore, our criticisms of other cultures are unjustified. (From 1+2) Problem: Premise 2 seems false. Some standards (like avoiding harm) apply to all cultures.

Two Problems that arise from the "Problem of the Perspective.

1. How can you (personally) be happy? 2. Is there (objectively) anything worth living for, anything that gives value to life

The Argument From Lack of Proof

1. If there were objective truth in ethics, then it should be possible to prove that at least some ethical opinions are true. (Premise) 2. But it is not possible to prove that any ethical opinions are true. (Premise) 3. Therefore, there is no objective truth in ethics. (From 1+2) Problem: Premise 2 seems false. We can prove some ethical claims. Again, people just tend to focus on the claims that don't seem to be provable, or where disagreement persists.

The Argument From Disagreement

1. In Ethics, unlike in science, there is widespread and persistent disagreement. (Premise) 2. The best explanation of this fact is that there is no objective truth in ethics. (Premise) 3. Therefore, we may conclude, at least tentatively, that there is no objective truth in ethics. (From 1+2) Problem: Premise 1 seems false. People simply focus on the agreements in science and the disagreements in ethics. But there is widespread and persistent disagreement in science, and there is a vast amount of agreement in ethics.

Rachels thinks none of these succeed, however. He argues that:

1. It isn't clear why someone else's plan for our lives would give them meaning. 2. Most of us are already loved by somebody. 3. There is a difference between the question whether something valuable and the question how long it will last. Lasting longer doesn't necessarily make something more valuable, and things can be valuable even if they don't last. Rachels proposes instead that what gives value to life is pursuing your own values. Finally, Rachels distinguishes between "Life" in general, and particular lives. He suggests that even if life itself (in general) is meaningless, your particular life could still have meaning.

Each of these has problems

1. The Euthyphro Dilemma (see below) is a problem for Divine Command Theory. 2. I have to have an independent reason to want to do my duty or just do it "for its own sake." 3. The free rider problem (see below) can't be completely solved. 4. I have to have an independent reason / desire to help others.

The Argument From Metaphysics

1. There are objective truths in science because there is an objective reality - the physical world - that science describes. (Premise) 2. But there is no moral reality comparable to the reality of the physical world. There is nothing "there" for ethics to describe. (Premise) 3. Therefore, there is no objective moral truths. (From 1+2) Problem: Invalid. Equivocates between two different senses of "objective." a) objective = about objects in the world that make claims true / false (like science). b) objective = based on reliable methods of reasoning that determine truth / falsehood (like math). Ethics is not objective in sense (a), but it is objective in sense (b).

Other Arguments For the Importance of Free Will (and Rachels' responses) Without Free Will...

1. We would be just like robots • Rachels: We have emotions and thoughts, and act for reasons. Robots don't. 2. We would adopt an attitude of Fatalism. We would never strive to change things • Rachels: The future still depends on what we do, and our actions will affect the future regardless of whether they are free, determined, or what. 3. We couldn't deliberate about actions • Rachels: Deliberation is mostly just thinking about the outcomes of different possible actions and which ones you prefer. That's compatible with determinism. 4. It would be impossible to evaluating people as morally good or bad • Rachels: People's behavior can still be kind, cruel, harmful, beneficial, etc., regardless of whether it's free, determined, or what. 5. People would not have moral responsibility for their actions • Rachels: We can hold people responsible for their actions whenever (1) they did the action, (2) it was bad (harmful) and (3) they have no excuse. The idea of having an excuse neither requires nor conflicts with free will or determinism.

Three Reasons the Argument From Lack of Proof Seems Plausible (But Isn't)

1. When we think about ethics, we don't usually think about the simple matters. 2. There are often good reasons on both sides of a moral issue, and that often leads people to give up on reaching a definite conclusion. 3. People confuse proving a point with persuading a person to believe it.

there is a distinction between:

1. actual, physical objects in the world outside of our minds, and 2. mental images, sounds and other experiences, which have variously been called: a. qualia b. sense-data, or simply c. "ideas" (this is a technical sense of "idea," common in the early modern period).

The Free Rider Problem

A "free rider" is someone who benefits from everybody else following some cooperative rule, while they themselves don't follow it. SCTheory answers Glaucon's challenge by assuming there are no free riders. But we can just reformulate Glaucon's challenge as: "Why shouldn't I be a free rider?"

Happiness

A central issue in philosophy since antiquity, but also studied empirically in recent years. Studies show money has some correlation with happiness, but not to a great degree. (For example, studies show that winning the lottery does not generally make people significantly, permanently happier. They tend to go back to their "base" level of happiness after a few weeks. The main correlates to happiness seem to be: 1. A sense of personal control (an "internal locus of control"). 2. Good relationships, especially with family and friends. 3. Mere, simple human contact. 4. Meaningful work.

Immanuel Kant's Ethics (Deontology) Problem:

According to Deontology, we should be moral simply because it's our duty. Problem: It's not clear that this really answers Glaucon's Challenge. Essentially, Glaucon wants to know, "what's in it for me?" He doesn't deny that we have moral duties. He just asks, why should I actually do my duty, if doing my duty is sometimes not beneficial for me?

What is the difference between Direct Realism and Indirect Realism?In terms of (for example), perceiving a tree, how would these two views explain what is happening?

According to Direct Realism, what we perceive is the tree itself. According to Indirect Realism, what we perceive is a patchwork of colors (and we infer the existence of the tree from that).

Divine Command Theory

According to Divine Command Theory, what is right is what God commands and what is wrong is with God forbids

According to "the Determinist Argument," everything that happens must happen, given the Laws of Physics and the past history of the universe -- including human behavior. So, if that's incompatible with Free Will, then we just don't have free will. Which of the following is a problem for this argument?

According to Quantum Mechanics, the Laws of Physics do not actually determine a single possible outcome from a given set of causes, but only a set of probabilities for various possible outcomes.

Utilitarianism Problem

According to Utilitarianism, actions are morally good insofar as they maximize happiness / pleasure and minimize unhappiness / pain. They are morally bad insofar as they do the opposite. Hence: 1. We should be guided by the consequences of our actions - we should do whatever has the best outcome. 2. In determining which consequences are best, we should care only about benefits and harms. 3. Each person's happiness matters equally. This tells us how Utilitarians think about what actions are good versus bad. But we still face the question why should we moral? The kind of Utilitarianism Rachels discusses would answer: We should be moral because we have a feeling of benevolence towards others. Problem: This presupposes I have a pre-existing or independent desire to help others. That may in fact be the case. But some people (like sociopaths) don't have any desire (or don't have a very strong desire) to help others - especially if doing so would not benefit them. Why try to help others if you don't want to?

Social Contract Theory Problem

According to the Social Contract Theory, morality may be understood as the set of rules that would lead to the best consequences for the greatest number of people.

To say that a system is deterministic means which of the following?

Everything that happens in it stems from prior causes.

Classical Psychology (Behaviorism)

Explains actions as a result of rewards or punishments (not as a result of "free will.")

True or False: Rachels thinks that a belief in free will is not necessary to retain our commonsense picture of moral agency.

False

In the Euthyphro, Socrates makes what objection to the Divine Command Theory?

If the gods have no good reasons for their instructions, then their commands would be arbitrary. If the gods do have good reasons for their instructions, then there must be a standard of rightness independent of their commands, which the gods themselves adhere to in deciding what to require of us. Both A and B

The Euthyphro Dilemma

In the dialogue, Euthyphro, Socrates asks: "Is something pious because the gods love it? Or do the gods love it because it's pious?"

In other words, if we take the example of seeing a tree...

Indirect Realism would say: ◦ What we literally see is not the tree, but a patchwork of colors, lines, etc. ◦ We infer the existence of a tree that causes these sense experiences. Direct Realism would say: ◦ What we literally see is just the tree itself - the actual, physical object. ◦ We do not need to posit the existence of anything else (like "patchworks of color" or "sense experiences") to explain our perception of the tree. Idealism would say: ◦ What we literally see is a patchwork of colors, lines, etc. But that is what the tree is - it is just a collection of sense experiences.

Thrasymachus' Challenge:

Is morality just a matter of social convention? Or could there be objective facts about ethics?

Rachels discusses an argument for ethical relativism that says, since different cultures have different moral codes, there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. What mistake does Rachels think this argument makes?

It is invalid. It does not follow from disagreement that there is no truth.

Rachels discusses an argument for ethical relativism that says, in order for there to be objective truths, there have to be "objects" for those truths to be about (as there is with the physical objects described by science), and since there is no moral reality comparable to the reality of the physical world, there cannot be any objective moral truths. What mistake does Rachels think this argument makes?

It is invalid. There is no moral reality comparable to the reality of the physical world. But it does not follow from this that ethics has no objective basis. An inquiry can be objective because there is an independent reality that it describes (as in science), or it can be objective because there are reliable methods of reasoning that determine truth and falsity in its domain (as in mathematics).

Rachels discusses an argument for ethical relativism that says the best explanation for the widespread and persistent disagreement in ethics is that there is no objective truth in ethics. What mistake does Rachels think this argument makes?

It relies on a false premise. Ethics is more like science than people think. There is actually a tremendous amount of agreement in ethics, especially about simple matters. There is disagreement about more difficult questions. But there is disagreement about difficult questions in science as well.

Rachels discusses an argument for ethical relativism that says, since there are no culture-neutral moral standards, our criticisms of other cultures are unjustified. What mistake does Rachels think this argument makes?

It relies on a false premise. In fact there is a culture-neutral standard of right and wrong.

Rachels discusses an argument for ethical relativism that says, since it is impossible to prove that any ethical opinions are true, there is no objective truth in ethics. What mistake does Rachels think this argument makes?

It relies on a false premise. Some ethical claims can be proven. Ethical proofs may be different, in some ways, from scientific proofs. But that does not mean that ethical proofs are deficient.

The Argument From Experience

It seems we are directly aware of being free, because we are aware of choosing to do actions for certain reasons.

Religion:

Many people argue that life can be given meaning within a religious worldview, like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Rachels discusses three ways that religion could give meaning to life: 1. Our lives could be meaningful, because God has a plan for us. 2. Our lives could be meaningful, because we are the objects of God's love. 3. Our lives could be meaningful, because human life is permanent -- death is overcome.

Final Problem: "Ought Implies Can."

Most philosophers accept the principle that "Ought implies can." It seems wrong to criticize people when they couldn't possibly have done otherwise. But if Determinism is true, then people could never have done otherwise. So, it would never be appropriate to criticize any actions, if Determinism was true.

Two Case Studies

Mukhtar Mai - sentenced to be publicly raped (though she had done nothing wrong), because her brother was allegedly romantically involved with a woman of a higher social class. Amina Lawal - sentenced to be stoned to death for having sex outside of wedlock, as soon as her illegitimate child was old enough not to breast feed. Identified the father of her child, but he denied it, so no charges were brought against him.

Many people argue that life can be given meaning within a religious worldview, like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Which of the following proposed ways that religion could give meaning to life does Rachels discuss in this chapter?

Our lives could be meaningful, because God has a plan for us. Our lives could be meaningful, because we are the objects of God's love. Our lives could be meaningful, because human life is permanent -- death is overcome. All of the above

Objection to the Argument From Experience:

Penfield and Delgado's experiments show that a person can have the experience of doing something (allegedly) for a reason, when in reality it was only the result of brain stimulation.

The idea of a supremely intelligent observer who knows the exact location and velocity of every particle in the universe and all the laws of physics being able to predict with certainty every future state of the universe was suggested by what French mathematician?

Pierre-Simon Laplace

Rachels mentions some empirical studies that have been done about happiness. In what way do these studies suggest that money is correlated with happiness?

Richer countries tend to have happier citizens than poorer countries. As countries become richer over time, their citizens become happier. At any given moment, the richer people in a society tend to be happier than the poorer people. All of the above

Penfield and Delgado's experiments

Seem to show that our actions could just be caused by neural events in our brains. Also seems to show that the feeling of an action being voluntary could just be the result of neural events in our brains. (This includes even our citing reasons why we did what we did.)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) considered whether it could be proven that we are not being systematically deceived in some way. His solution can be summarized how?

Since God exists and is perfectly good, God would not allow us to be systematically deceived.

Three Famous Studies in Social Psychology

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment Darley and Batson's Good Samaritan study All seem to show our decisions and actions are highly affected by external circumstances - particularly the social context in which our decisions take place - rather than our own internal character.

Laplace's Demon

Suppose Newton's Laws of Physics (which are deterministic) are correct. • Suppose an incredibly intelligent demon knew the current location and velocity of every physical particle in the universe (and knew Newton's Laws). • The demon (a "Laplacean Demon") could calculate the future position and velocity of every particle in the universe for any future moment of time - including all the physical motions of your body - so, all of your actions.

In Chapter 10, Rachels considers the suggestion that you might be a brain in a vat, and that your life is only an illusion. Although this may seem absurd, it's difficult to see how one could prove it wrong. Which of the following does Rachels discuss as an illustration of a scenario in which all or most of what you believe would be an illusion, and in which it would be impossible or nearly impossible to prove otherwise?

The (1999) movie, The Matrix, in which people are connected to a giant computer and believe they are living in an ordinary world, but are not. Rene Descartes' (1596-1650) thought experiment in which a powerful evil spirit can manipulate your experiences and beliefs. The (2010) film, Inception, in which characters are constantly trying to figure our whether they're in a dream. All of the above

The Objection From Quantum Physics

The Determinist Argument received a lot of support from Newtonian physics, which is deterministic. However, physicists now agree that Newtonian Physics is not accurate. On the other hand, Quantum Physics (which most scientists agree is accurate) says that the universe is in fact indeterministic, so it seems to show Premise (1) is false.

Which of the following studies in social psychology suggest that any person might behave wickedly if they were put into the wrong circumstances?

The Stanford Prison Experiment (conducted by Philip Zimbardo) Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment The Good Samaritan study (conducted by Darley and Batson) All of the above

Death

The fact everyone eventually dies may seem to make life meaningless - i.e., not objectively valuable. But a lot here hinges on what you think happens after you die. Two Broad Possibilities: 1. There is nothing after death. 2. There is something after death. If there is an afterlife, that may defeat the argument that life is meaningless because of death. But what if there isn't any afterlife? What if there is simply nothingness? Epicurus believed we should not fear death, because after death nothing can harm us, and we will have no pain and no regret. That may be true. But there will also be no pleasure, happiness or joy. So, while Epicurus' point is true as far as it goes, it's not clear it succeeds in showing death isn't bad or shouldn't be feared.

casual determinism

The future is determined due to the Laws of Nature. (Given the current state of the world, the Laws of Nature determine a single set of future states of the world (including our actions).)

logical determinism

The future is determined simply due to the laws of Logic. (Every proposition is either true or false. So, propositions about the future (including our actions) are (already) true or false.)

True or False: Clarence Darrow argued that people are never responsible for their actions because their actions are caused by forces beyond their control.

True

True or False: In Plato's Republic, Glaucon tells a story about a man named Gyges, who found a ring that makes him invisible.

True

True or False: Peter van Inwagen argues that if Determinism were true, then our actions would be 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, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, if Determinism were true, our actions would not be up to us.

True

True or False: Rachels thinks ethical judgements need not be arbitrary, because arguments for them can ultimately terminate in considerations about people being better or worse off.

True

Genes and Behavior

Twin Studies seem to show that our behavior has a very large genetic component. • Removing parts of the brain can cause violence in both mice and humans. • Lithium and beta-blockers can curb violence. • Turning off the gene responsible for producing nitric oxide can cause mice to become vicious. So, it seems there is some kind of connection between genes, neurology (including brain chemistry) and behavior. But of course we are not in control of our genes, or (directly) in control of our brain chemistry. So, this seems to tell against free will too.

The Problem of the Perspective.

Two "points of view" from which we can view out lives (and anything): a personal point of view (our own perspective) an impersonal point of view (the "point of view of the universe") From our personal point of view, many things seem incredible important. From the "point of view of the universe" these all seem unimportant.

Common Sense as a Challenge to Free Will

We give explanations for people's actions in aggregate. Why think these explanations are accurate, but then think the actions of the individuals that constitute the aggregates are not determined? We also give (apparently causal) explanations of the actions of individuals. In any case, we tend to think the actions of individuals have explanations. But "free will" is not an explanation. This seems to show that the actions of individuals have causes.

With which of the following would a Utilitarian most likely agree?

We should be guided by the consequences of our actions -- we should do whatever has the best outcome. In determining which consequences are best, we should care only about benefits and harms. Each person's happiness matters equally. All of the above

Divine Command Theory:

We should be moral, because God commands it.

Social Contract Theory:

We should be moral, because a moral social arrangement benefits us.

Immanuel Kant's Ethics (Deontology):

We should be moral, because it's our duty.

Utilitarianism:

We should be moral, because we have a feeling of benevolence towards others.

Many people take death to be awful, and something to be avoided, even feared. What was Epicurus' belief about death?

We should not fear death. When we are dead, we do not exist, and if we do not exist, nothing can harm us. We will have no pain and no regrets.

Rachels says that the problem of the meaning of life arises form a class between what two "points of view"?

a personal point of view, and an impersonal point of view

According to Idealism, what you literally see when you look at a tree, for example, is not actually the tree, but a patchwork of colors called what?

an "idea" "sense-data" "qualia" All (any) of the above

Because her brother was accused of being romantically involved with a woman of a higher social class, Mukhtar Mai (who had done nothing wrong) was sentenced to:

being publicly raped

determinism

the proposition that: Given a state of affairs at some time T, for every moment of time after T, there is only a single state of affairs that can possibly obtain at that time. (The future is "fixed.")

According to the Social Contract Theory, morality may be understood as:

the rules that a self-interested person would obey, provided that others obey them as well

Compatibilism - Denies Premise (2) of the Argument From Physical Causes

• Defines a free action not as "uncaused" but as caused by the agent's desires and beliefs. • In other words - if the agent had wanted to do otherwise, then they would have. • A compatibilist would say that if a person's actions had no cause at all, they would have no explanation at all, and no order, but would merely be random and chaotic. • But to say an action is "free" is not to say that it is random and chaotic; free actions must be orderly and thoughtful. • Hence, Free Will actually REQUIRES (the right kind of) causation. • (But this means our actions are free when they are caused by our desires and beliefs - even if those desires and beliefs themselves are caused by something outside of us.)

George Berkeley was an Idealist. Berkeley tied his Idealism into his theological beliefs.

• He admitted that ideas are mind-dependent. • And, while he didn't admit that physical objects were mind independent, he did admit that it would be absurd to think that physical objects just disappear when nobody is around to perceive them. • His response was to argue that what we need is to posit the existence of one mind that is constantly perceiving everything - namely, God. • God's omniscience would thus ensure the permanence of physical objects.

An objection against Descartes, would be that:

• If God exists and is perfectly good, God would never allow us to make any mistakes of any kind! • But we do sometimes make mistakes. • Hence, God does not exist.

Descartes also argued we could be certain of the existence of God, and that God is perfectly good, based on a version of the Ontological Argument. Finally, Descartes offered a theological defense of the general reliability of sense perception

• If God exists and is perfectly good, God would not create us with a faculty (like sense perception) that would systematically deceive us. • The Ontological Argument shows that God exists and is perfectly good. • So, our senses would not systematically deceive us.

The dilemma is this:

• If the gods have no good reasons for their instructions, then their commands would be arbitrary. • If the gods do have good reasons for their instructions, then there must be a standard of rightness independent of their commands, which the gods themselves adhere to in deciding what to require of us.

If we translate all of that into terms of morality, and into a monotheistic God, the dilemma is:

• If things are right / wrong only because God commands / forbids them, then it seems God just arbitrarily chose certain things to make right and wrong. • If God commands / forbids certain things because they are ("already") right / wrong, then there is some standard of right / wrong already there, independent of, and in some sense "higher than," God.

Human Interests as the Basis of Moral Reasoning

• Scientific reasoning is ultimately based on premises about our experience and observations. • Mathematical reasoning is ultimately based on axioms that seem self-evidently true. • What could ethical reasoning ultimately be based on? Rachels answers: premises about what harms or benefits the people affected by a certain practice. • If one asks why it matter whether a practice harms or benefits the people in a society, Rachels answers that a society which acts according to rules that harm its own members will not last very long or do as well as a society that adopts rules which benefit its members. (Like natural selection, but for whole societies, rather than just individuals.

Glaucon's Challenge: Why be moral?

• Story of Gyges' Ring - turns its wearer invisible. No consequences for doing injustice. • If you had Gyges' ring, would it make sense to be moral? • Glaucon (playing "devil's advocate") claims that anyone who had Gyges' ring (and could turn invisible) would eventually use their power to take unfair advantages, and in fact it would be irrational not to do so. • He challenges Socrates to show why it wouldn't be irrational to be immoral when one could get away with it. In other words, if we took away the consequences what reason would we have to be moral?

Indirect Realism: Pros:

• The distinction between mental things (sense-data / ideas / qualia) and physical objects that exist outside of and independent of the mind seems intuitive to many of us. • It seems (at least initially) to give a satisfying account of both knowledge and error. ◦ We get knowledge through sense perception when our experiences (sense-data / ideas / qualia) are caused by physical objects and in some sense resemble those physical objects. ◦ We fall into error on the basis of sense perception when we have an experience (like a dream or hallucination) which is not caused by physical objects (but by, for example, just being in REM sleep). ◦ We also fall into error on the basis of sense perception when we have an experience that is caused by a physical object (like an injection of drugs or being hit on the head with a hammer) but where the experience does not resemble the object. (As when the things I see on an LSD trip do not in any way look like a bit of LSD or what I see or hear after being hit on the head with a hammer do not look or sound like a hammer).

Idealism: Pros:

◦ Idealism arguably defeats the skeptical arguments that threaten Indirect Realism. ◦ Suppose Bob perceives an apple. So, the skeptic will admit Bob has a sense-experience of an apple. But on Idealism, the apple just is a collection of sense-experiences. So, it follows automatically that the apple exists (and that it "resembles" Bob's experience - in fact, Bob's experiences are just part of the apple, or "aspects of" the apple.)

Indirect Realism Cons:

◦ It seems easy for various skeptical arguments to defeat it. For example: ▪ Descartes' "Dream Problem." ▪ Descartes' "Evil Demon" Problem ▪ The Matrix and the "brain-in-a-vat" scenario. ◦ If Indirect Realism is true, it is difficult to see how we could have evidence that any of these sorts of skeptical scenarios are not true, because we would have the exact same experiences whether they were true or not. ◦ But if we can't know that these skeptical scenarios aren't true, it's hard to see how we could know almost anything at all.

Direct Realism: Pros:

◦ Like Idealism, it rules out skeptical arguments, because we don't see "ideas" or "sensedata," but the actual, physical objects. So, the fact that we are perceiving something automatically means it is really there.

Direct Realism Cons

◦ The biggest problem with Direct Realism is that it seems to work too well in explaining how we have knowledge through perception. If Direct Realism was true, it would be hard to see how it could even be possible to make any perceptual error. ▪ With Indirect Realism, we can explain perceptual errors by saying that in certain cases our sense-data are caused by something other than physical objects or are caused by physical objects in such a way that they don't resemble those physical objects. ▪ Once we eliminate sense-data and just directly perceive the objects themselves - how could we ever have sense experiences that are in any sense not accurate?

3. Direct Realism

◦ The immediate or direct objects of our perception are physical objects. ◦ There are no such things as sense-data / ideas / qualia. ◦ (Or in any case, there is no need to posit their existence just to account for perception.)

2. Idealism

◦ The immediate or direct objects of our perception are sense-data / ideas / qualia. ◦ Also, the immediate or direct objects of our perception are physical objects. ◦ Hence, physical objects are (collections of) sense-data / ideas / qualia. ◦ (The name "idealism" comes from its saying that physical objects are ideas.) ◦ (The name "realism" comes from the fact that realism says physical objects are "things" outside the mind. The Latin "res" means "thing.")

1. Indirect Realism

◦ The immediate or direct objects of our perception are sense-data / ideas / qualia. ◦ We infer the existence of physical objects that cause these sense-data / ideas / qualia. ◦ We infer that the physical objects resemble the sense-data / ideas / qualia they cause.

Idealism Cons

◦ The main problem with Idealism is just that, intuitively, it seems so crazy to say that physical objects are just collections of "ideas" or experiences. (Of course, this is just to beg the question against the Idealist.) ◦ A slightly less question-begging way (maybe?) to put the point would be to argue that: ▪ 1. Ideas are mind-dependent ▪ whereas intuitively it seems ▪ 2. Physical objects are mind independent. ▪ 3. Therefore, physical objects cannot just be ideas. ◦ (Of course, this still basically begs the question against Idealism, since Idealists would just deny premise 2.)