PHIL 101 Exam 2 (Tracy Lupher JMU)

Gottfried Leibniz

Believed the world is the best of all possible worlds...meaning there is a God

Samuel Clarke

Believed that, given the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning, God is the reason this particular world we live in exists

Sober

causation is a relationship that between events which occur in space and time...but God is outside of space and time

Naturalistic Explanation

Scientific explanation explaining features of the world by describing the processes in nature that produced them

Super-Naturalistic Explanation

Explaining the features of the world by describing the supernatural processes (things that occur outside of nature) that produced them

The two Types of Scientific Ignorance

There are things science cannot explain now, but maybe later

and

There are things science cannot explain in principle

Scientific Explanation

A rough idea; an explanation answering a why question

Spatiotemporal Event

an event that happened at a particular place and time (To explain event E you need a __________ event outside of E)

Causal Explanation

E2 caused by E means E occured first - Both events have to be in space and time

Global Why Questions

Ask why the totality of the universe's history is the way it is

The Two possible Universes

Universe with no material objects (nothing was is or will be)

Actual universe

Why is there something rather than nothing?

THE BIG QUESTION

Principle of Sufficient Reason

Everything in nature has an explanation

General Argument

1) There are things Science will never be able to explain

2) Either those things have no explanations or the existence of God explains them

3) Everything has an explanation

-------------------------------------------

So, God exists

God of the Gaps argument

There is a gap in our understanding

---------------------------------------------

Therefore the cause of that gap must be supernatural

Logical Problem of Evil

The existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering (deductive)

Evidential Problem of Evil

If omnipotent, omniscient, and all benevolent God exists...then why is there suffering and evil?

Not omnipotent

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able to? Then He's ______________________ (Epicurus)

Then whence cometh evil?

Is God both able and willing to prevent evil? (Epicurus)

Why call him God?

Is God neither able nor willing to prevent evil? (Epicurus)

Epicurus

The man who came up with the Able and Willing arguments surrounding God and prevention of evil

1st Argument from Evil

1) If God exists, He's PKG (All powerful, all knowing, all good)

2) If PKG being existed there would be no evil

3) There is evil (denying consequent)

Hence, no God

Reject premise 1 or 3

Points to attack when arguing against the 1st Argument from Evil (God is NOT all PKG and Moral Categories are Illusory)

Natural and Human

The Two Types of Evil

Natural Evil

Floods, pompeii, and other such disasters

Human Evil

Holocaust, piking of babies, Medieval Italian torture dungeons, Phil 101 exams etc.

Theodicy

Reconciling the paradox of an all-PKG God in a world with evil and suffering (rejection of premise 2 in 1st Argument from Evil)

Soul Building

Evil that makes you stronger and more self-reliant etc.

2nd Argument from Evil

1) If God, he is all PKG

2) If PKG being then the amount of evil in the world would not exceed the soul building minimum

3) The amount of evil exceeds that amount

No God

Free Will

Response to 2nd Arg. From Evil: ______ ______ allows for more evil than required for soul building

Basic idea of free will

because Free will is such a great good it's better for God to make the world with free will in it than without it - even if it is sometimes used badly

3rd Argument from Evil

1) If God exists he is PKG

2) If he exists there would be no more evil than the minimum amount for soul building & as a consequence of human freedom

3) More than that exists

No God.

Evidential Argument from Evil (type of form)

This type of argument from Evil invokes the surprise principle using E

E

A proposition that describes kinds and quantities of evil that exist

Evidential Argument from Evil (actual form)

1) If all PKG being exists, expect E to be untrue

2) If all PKG being doesn't exist, expect E to be true

3) E is true (Surprise Principle)

E is (strong) evidence against an all-PKG being

Epistemology

The study of knowledge

Know-How Knowledge

Knowing how to play the guitar

Object Knowledge

"I know John" - knowledge about that specific thing

Propositional Knowledge

I know that 2+2 = 4

Necessary condition and Sufficient condition

Conditions for a good definition

If X, then Y

Sufficient condition and Necessary condition argument formula

X if and only if Y

Combining If X, then Y and If Y, then X gets you....(X is a Sufficient AND Necessary condition for Y)

An action is moral if and only if it is legal

Example of Conditional argument in class

Conditional Argument from Propositional Knowledge

1) If S knows that p, then S must believe that p

2)If S knows that p, then p must be true

Belief and true

the two necessary conditions for knowledge

Plato

The main guy when it comes to Justification

Justification

Knowledge also involves __________

Can be non-inferential: Proposition understood directly, not inferred from other propositions

Belief formed on the basis of evidence

JTB Theory

Knowledge is a Justified, True, Belief

JTB Theory Argument Form

For any individual S and any proposition p, S knows that p if and only if...

1) S believes that p

2) p is true

- S is justified in believing that p

Counterexample

A generalization showing that a generalization is false

Edmund Gettier

Man who stated that there are counterexamples to the JTB Theory

"The Man who will get the promotion has 10 coins in his pocket"

Bertrand Russel

Man who stated the Broken Clock example: You may have a true justified belief that a broken clock is telling you the right time if it is that one time of day when the clock is right...

Sober (knowledge)

Man who stated the "This lottery ticket will not win" example of JTB counterexamples

Inductive

The type of Justification in the counterexamples to JTB theory is....

Justified, True belief

a ______ _____ _____ is not sufficient for knowledge (sober)

Knowledge requires infallible justification

Claim about knowledge

Do any of our beliefs satisfy this?

Argument for Skepticism

1) If S knows that p, then it isn't possible S is mistaken

2) It IS possible S is mistaken

S doesn't KNOW that p

Skepticism

Is this a self refuting mindset?

Rene Descartes

French philosopher, mathematician, scientist

Le Monde (The World) 1633

Principia Philosophiae

Euclid

Wrote the most successful mathematics textbook: Used as basic geometry test for over 2,000 years

Made geometrical statements not as empirical generalizations, but provable propositions

Foundationalism

Building a secure foundation for our beliefs. This type of knowledge argument was created by Descartes

Foundational Beliefs

Axioms

These are self evident and count as knowledge

Superstructure Beliefs

These count as knowledge because they rest on Foundational beliefs

Refute Skepticism

Descartes' goal

Beliefs from Experience

beliefs that depend on their justification from sense experience (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell)

A posteriori propositions

Empiricist

Propositions known by experience

Adelson Shadow

The shadow on the checkerboard is the same color as the color in the light

A priori propositions

Rationalist

Beliefs justified on reason alone e.g. mathematics

Descartes' Evil Demon

Evil genius can control us and cause us to believe seemingly obvious propositions that are actually false (2+2)

Indubitable beliefs

Beliefs made true by the act of believing OR doubting it

I think, I exist

examples of indubitable beliefs

Cogito Ergo Sum

Descartes:

I think, therefore I am

Introspection

Method of looking inward

Thesis of Incorrigibility of the Mental

Descartes: Each of us has infallible access to our beliefs and desires

God exists and is not a deceiver

Descartes' way of bridging the gap between Foundational and Superstructure beliefs

Subjective Realm

I think, I exist, first person reports of beliefs and desires

Objective Realm

beliefs about the outside world

Descartes' Proof of God

1) My Idea of God is a perfect being

2) There must be at least as much perfection in the cause as in the effect

Hence, the cause of my idea is a perfect being, God himself

Causality Principles

Every event has a cause

Cause must be at least as perfect as the effect

Objective and Formal

Two types of perfection (Descartes)

Objective perfection

How well does a representation replicate the actual object?

Formal Perfection

All mental content made up of "same stuff" so all mental content has same amount of formal perfection

Sober's objection to 2nd Premise

You can give another explanation for the cause of an idea of a perfect being:

Already know and have representations of limited intelligence of power

Also have concept of "not"

All knowing and all powerful are just the opposite of what we already know

Clear and Distinct beliefs

A type of belief that, according to Descartes, MUST be true

Present and apparent to the attentive mind

Precise and different from other objects; only contains in itself what is clear

Cartesian Circle Claim

claim that Descartes' proof that God exists and is not a deceiver is circular

Meta Ethics

Studies general questions about the nature of morality and the meaning of moral concepts

How to select moral principles, is there really a diff. between right and wrong, are there ethical truths, what makes them true?

Questions all the assumptions that inform Normative Ethics

Normative Ethics

The study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions

What are the basic principles (norms) of right and wrong?

Applied Ethics

The application of moral norms to specific cases

Learn something important about the moral characteristics of specific situations and about the adequacy of moral norms to address those specific situations

Considers questions such as "physician assisted suicide" "abortion" "consumption of animals" etc.

Ethical Subjectivism

There are no ethical truths

Conventionalism

Someone's say-so makes ethical truths true (God, Society, Individual)

Realism

Facts are independent of anyone's say-so.

Features of Conventionalism

There is nothing inherent in an action that makes it right or wrong

Something extrinsic to the action makes it morally right or wrong

Trivial Semantic Conventionalism

The rules of language are made by someone

Substantive Semantic Conventionalism

Propositions are made true by someone

Euthyphro

The man who was an example of piety

Socrates' Question (in Euthyphro)

Is an action pious because it is loved by the gods or is it loved by the gods because it is pious?

Divine command theory

God says do X so X is obligatory

Ethical Realism

X is obligatory (So God says do X)

Ethical Relativism

What is right or wrong depends on the society in which you live

Normative Ethical Relativism

How you should act (intrinsic moral value)