Philosophy tools and problems

Deductive arguments

one argues for the truth of a conclusion by deducing a statement from a number of others (statements which are true and dont need to be proved are axioms), new statements are inferred by means of a number of established rules of inference (rules of thought, ex if either A or B but not A then B). a adedutive arguememt can be defined as an arguement whos conclusion is guaranteed to be true by the truth of the first statements/premises. the best known deductive arguements are called syllogisms, if it is correct it is therefore deductively valid. when an arguement is both valid ans has true premises it is sound

Non-deductive arguments (inductive)

the conclusion goes beyond the premises, premises provide probable, but not guaranteed, support for the conclusion, meaning the conclusion could be false even if premises are true

Common deductive forms

Modus Ponen

Modus Tollens

Hypothetical Syllogism (explains the connection between cause and effect)

Disjunctive Syllogism

Dilemma

Modus Ponen

if p then q

p

therefore, q

Modus Tollens

if p then q

not q

therefore, not p

Hypothetical Syllogism

if p then q

if q then r

therefore, if p then r

Disjunctive Syllogism

p or q

not p

therefore, q

Dilemma

p or q

if p then r

if q then s

therefore, r or s

Reductio ad absurdum

establish their conclusion by showing that assuming the opposite leads to absurdity

To prove: p

Assume the opposite: not p

Argue that from the assumption we`d have to conclude: q

Show that q is false

Conclude: p must be true after all

Informal fallacies

errors in reasoning based on content or context, not structure

of ambiguity - because of unclarity that occurs during the course of an argument

of presumption - occur when an argument relies on a hidden, false, or unjustified assumption

of relevance - errors in reasoning where premises are irrelevant to conclusion

Fallacies of ambiguity

Equivocation - An ambiguity caused by a shift between 2 legitimate meanings of a term

Amphiboly - An ambiguity caused by faulty sentence structure

Accent - A statement that is ambiguos because (1) its intended tone of voice is uncertian (2) its stress is unclear (3) it is quoted out of context

Fallacies of presumption

False analogy - reaching a conclusion by likening or comparing two significantly incomparable cases (typically the two cases used will be similar but not in the respect that would warrant the conclusion in question)

False cause - inferring a casual link between two events when no such casual connection has been established (sequence alone is no proof of consequence)

Slippery slope - Assuming, unjustifiably, that a proposed step will set off an undesirable and uncontrollable chain of events

Fallacies of relevance

Appeal to ignorance - emphasizing not the evidence for a thesis but the lack of evidence against it

Appeal to fear - seeking to persuade through fear

Mob appeal - using emotion-laden terminology to sway people

Conceptual framework

a guiding structure of core ideas, concepts, beliefs, and theories that organizes understanding of a topic, acting as a map to define key elements and their relationships

Types of knowledge

Empirical knowledge - based on experience (water boils at 100)

A Priori knowledge - independent of any particular experience (2+2=4)

criticizing arguments

To show an argument is invalid is by using counter examples, if it is inconsistent the conclusions will contradict.

reductio ad absurdum - a position is rejected because it results in a paradox

ad hominem - aimed at the person not the argument (fallacies)

Paradox - a self-contradictory statement or situation that, despite seemingly valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an absurd or logically unacceptable conclusion, often revealing deeper truths or challenging assumptions about logic, language, or reality

tautology - a statement or phrase that needlessly repeats the same idea, using different words (like "new innovation" or "ATM machine")

The essential self

Philosophers call the real self the set of characteristics that define a person

Descartes argument for the individual self

This is the first thing we can know for certain that we have indutable existence due to the thinking self

Hume’s skepticism

is called solipsism which says that we can know nothing exists but our own mind. when turning his negative thesis into a positive thesis we encounter Buddishm, as seeing through the illusion of the individual self becomes enlightenment

John Locke

argued that the self wasn’t all of the conciseness but only part of the memory

Jean-Paul Sartre

many different philosophers define the self as different, some might think the self is a result of our actions therefore there is no fixed self and it is an open question

he believes our existence is transcendence meaning our self is defined out what we do not our facts. the striving as always feeling ones self is incomplete is the authentic self. the denial of self responsibility for him is called bad faith

Mind body problem

identification of self in consciousness, as opposed to identification of the self with the body raises a difficult scientific question as to how our body and mind interact, therefore Descartes believes the body and mind don`t separate

5 solutions to mind body problem

1. mind and body interact as physical events cause mental effects

2. mind and body don`t interact, mental and physical events occur simultaneously in a pre-established harmony

3. there are no mental events (materialist solution) only brain processes

4. there are no physical events (the idealist solution) and only ideas in the mind

5. mental and physical events are the same

Behaviourism

it all comes down to the patterns of learning we've acquired through associations

tackles the mind-body problem by dissolving it, arguing mental states aren't hidden inner experiences but rather observable behavioral dispositions—tendencies to act in specific ways, like wincing when in pain

Dualism

believe mental and physical events are separate

3 types of solutions to mind body problems

Behaviorism - the existence of mental events isn`t denied but they are relocated, into the tangible body of a living organism

Identity theory - says mental and brain events are the same thing due to connection of brain processes

Functionalism - mental activity consists of certain functions of the brain which might as well be duplicated in non-brain material

The egocentric predicament

The problem of not knowing whether there is existence of any mind other than my own

Argument from analogy to infer the existence of other minds (John Stuart Mill)

• Observation 1 (Introspection): I know that in my own case, my internal mental states (pain, happiness, thought) are consistently connected with certain external bodily behaviors and physical expressions (grimacing, smiling, speaking).

• Observation 2 (External World): I observe other individuals who have bodies similar to my own and exhibit similar behaviors and expressions.

• Conclusion (Analogy): By analogy, I infer that these other individuals likely have internal mental states similar to mine, which cause their outward behavior

Limitations of analogy (disanalogy)

• Problem of Induction: The analogy is based on a single case (one's own experience), which is a weak basis for a universal conclusion about all others.

• Possibility of Disanalogy: It is possible to imagine a being with a human form and behavior but no inner mind

• Privacy of Experience: The core issue of private experience remains; we can never verify our inference by directly experiencing another's mind

2 analogies which reduce our freedom

Determinism - all events are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. meaning free will is an illusion (Interdeterminism - suggests that choices and events aren't solely dictated by prior causes)

Principle of universal casualty - every event must have its explanatory cause, therefore human action also has a cause and we can question how much of a choice we actually have

2 types of freedom

intrinsic freedom (natural free will) - an inner sense of liberation found in aligning actions with personal values, goals, and authenticity, rather than relying on external circumstances for freedom

extrinsic freedom (the freedom for which we must fight) - dreadful as we would have to make decisions which effect our entire lives

Jean paul sartre and freedom

argues that we all try to escape from freedom. Sartre argues that people often try to avoid the anxiety that comes with total responsibility. He calls this “bad faith”

Negtaive and positive freedom

Freedom cannot simply be thought of as freedom from but as freedom to do or have something, otherwise known as negative and positive freedom

Positive freedom means having the capacity, power, or ability to actually act on one’s will. You are free to the extent that others do not stop you.

Negative freedom is the absence of external obstacles, barriers, or coercion, meaning you are free to act as you wish without interference from others

Absolute freedom is the philosophical concept of being entirely unrestricted by any external or internal constraints, laws, or limitations

Freedom depending on the person

We can say freedom depends on self-identity (social freedom, rational freedom, emotional freedom - Emotional freedom is the ability not to be dominated by fear, guilt, shame, resentment, or trauma.)

Capricious freedom refers to a concept of freedom characterized by sudden, unpredictable, and whimsical changes in behavior or decisions

Determinism syllogism argument

Every event has its explanatory event

Every human choice or action is an event

Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory cause

and by a second syllogism:

Every human choice or action has its explanatory cause

To have explanatory causes is not to be free

Therefore, no human choice or action is free

The role of consciousness

Consciousness is the space in which reasons are weighed, emotions are interpreted, and actions are owned. Determinism may explain how decisions arise, but consciousness explains why they matter.

Illusion of Control: The subjective experience of making a free choice clashes with determinism, where "you" don't truly decide; it's just particles moving.

Compatibilism (Soft determinism)

Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible

    we must believe in freedom as we can never know all the earlier events that brought about a decision

    we can distinguish between causes and actions which make it free or unfree. an act would be free if it wasnt performed from external compulsion or out of ignorance

Jean-Paul Sartre and freedom

humans are "thrown" into existence without a predetermined purpose (essence), forcing us to create our own meaning and identity through radical freedom and choice, a heavy responsibility that brings anguish but also defines our humanity. condemned to be free

Moral philosophy

the search for the best way to live and the right principles for our actions

Immanuel Kant and good will

Immanuel Kant believes in good will, to act on moral principles that are wholly justifiable by practical reason by which the result is duty. he refused to believe our actions are determined by factors outside our control and he believes it doesn`t make sense for people to be held accountable for what they cannot control. therefore, the only thing that is good without qualifications is good will, our good intentions

Hedonism

the view that says the good life involves getting as much pleasure out of life as possible.

Aristotle and the good life

argued that pleasure is not an activity in of itself but accompanies satisfying activities. therefore the key to a good life is in the notion of satisfying activities, but even if it is a component of a good life it mustn’t be the good life itself

Ascetism

a lifestyle of severe self-discipline and abstinence from worldly pleasures, focusing on rigorous self-denial (like fasting, poverty, celibacy) for spiritual purification, higher consciousness, or moral purpose

Egoism versus altruism

Altruism - selfless concern for the well-being of others, involving voluntary actions to help someone at a potential cost or risk to oneself, without expecting reward or personal gain, driven by empathy and compassion

egoism(an ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality.

psychological egoism - all facts and basically selfish

ethical egoism - you ought to act selfishly

psychological altruism - some of our actions are naturally altruistic

ethical egoism - you ought to act for the good of others

3 arguments against the claim that all actions are selfish

1. many of our actions are motivated by desires that themselves are aimed at the good of others. we might get the urge to help others out of compassion

2. many of our desires have to do with obtaining the approval of other people, therefore we act on their behalf

3. there is a sense of right and wrong

moral theories into 3 categories

duty-defined moralities, consequential theories and virtue ethics

Duty defined morality

give us a list of our duties, Immanuel Kant calls them categorical imperatives (commandment without qualification) meaning they offer no reason or conditions. They just tell us what we must do, it is the authority of the principle itself

categorical imperatives

1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Before acting, ask: What if everyone did this?
   If the action couldn’t logically or morally work as a universal rule, it’s wrong

2. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.” - Manipulating someone for personal gain is immoral because it treats them as a means, not an end.

3. “So act that your will could regard itself as at the same time making universal law through its maxims.” - Moral agents should see themselves as authors of moral law, freely choosing rules that everyone could follow.

Consequentialist theories

ethical frameworks that judge the morality of an action solely by its outcomes or results

Utilitarianism Bentham and Mill, which is a goal oriented moral theory as it places all emphasis on moral rule. the main difference is that Bentham focuses on quantity whilst mill focuses on quality

Aristotle and the ethics of virtue

he thought what is good and right in human life is actions which aim at happiness, but he insisted happiness that life is of the virtues action (the well-being of the entire community), his list of virtues are aimed at strengthening the community: courage, friendliness, truthfulness, justice

Morality- Relative or absolute

Absolute morality posits universal, unchanging moral laws (e.g., "killing is always wrong")

relative morality argues that right and wrong are subjective, varying by culture, context, or individual belief

culture relativism

different people have different values, leaving the question open as to which is correct

ethical relativism

whatever a culture holds right is therefore right. This renders meaningless moral judgement made by other cultures

moral imperialism

the practice of one culture, nation, or group imposing its own moral standards, values, or beliefs onto another

pluralistic society

meaning different groups have different cultures and values, therefore we must be tolerant

Nietzsche and the attack on morality

his famous quote “God is dead” means people don`t really believe in God anymore and his ability to enforce morality is gone

for him morality is a trick to gain power as he examines most rules prohibit others, which benefit the people that cannot protect themselves. they protect the weak from getting taken advantage of by the strong

he questions how we can be moral without ruining creativity and asks why should we be moral

plutocracy

In a society where money is power, the rule will be by the rich

meritocracy

In a society which depends on certain specialized skills the rule will depend on merit

theocracy

When religion rules

aristocracy

Being born into the role or by virtue

authority

legitamite power is justified power

Should the legitimacy of the government be on what the government does for the people or rather how the government is formed by the people, in our eyes a legitimate government is one that has been properly elected

free markets

don`t always manage to solve social issues, such as health care as its demand is unlike others, ill people dont have time to shop around and its more likely to effect people who cant afford it

There is a lack of justice as the rich et richer and the poor get poorer

Alienated labour

human potential under capitalism, where work becomes unfulfilling, forced, and serves only to generate profit for others rather than self-expression, leading to a division between the worker and the world they build

2 types of justice

retributive justice: making sure wrong doers get theirs

distributive justice: the fair arrangements of the goods, benefits and responsibilities of a society

4 types of equality

1. every person has the same abilities and advantages (implausable)

2. every person has the same status before the law

3. every person deserves to be given the same goods (unworkable and contrary to our notion of merit)

4. every person should have the same opportunities for achievement (a necessary ideal but difficult to achieve)

4 concerns of justice

1. people should get what they need

2. people should give what they can

3. people should be allowed to keep what they have (entitlement)

4. people should get what they deserve (merit)

Two principles of justice by John Rawls

1. each person engaged in an institution has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all (Everyone should have the same basic rights and freedoms. These freedoms must be equal and compatible—your freedom cannot reduce someone else’s)

2. inequalities are defined by the institutional structure are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to except they will work out to everyone’s advantage (Inequalities are not automatically unjust, there must be fair equality of opportunity and inequalities are acceptable if they benefit the least advantaged members of society)

Social contract

an implicit agreement where individuals consent to surrender some freedoms to a governing authority in exchange for protection, order, and the promotion of the common good, defining rights and duties between people and the state

General will

the collective will of the people, always aiming for the common good, distinct from the mere sum of individual selfish desires

Thomas Hobbes believes in “the state of nature”

Before people got together and formed society, where people were selfish and because of the scarce resources people would kill one another as there was no law or government that changed behavior. Locke believed we got together to additionally protect our property

The notion of rights

refers to fundamental entitlements or claims, rooted in law, ethics, or morality, that define what people are owed

Different kinds of rights

Contractual - are legal entitlements a party gains from a binding agreement

legal - are entitlements and protections granted and enforced by a legal system, such as freedom of speech

civil - are legal guarantees of equal treatment and opportunity, protecting individuals from discrimination by the government or private entities based on characteristics

human - universal, inherent standards of dignity, fairness, and freedom that belong to every person from birth

Libertarianism

is a political philosophy prioritizing individual liberty, autonomy, and minimal government intervention, emphasizing self-ownership, property rights, free markets, and voluntary association, generally opposing state coercion in personal and economic life, supporting civil liberties like free speech, drug decriminalization, and free trade, while acknowledging a limited government role for protecting rights against force, theft, and fraud

Liberalism

centered on individual liberty, rights, and equality, advocating for limited government, rule of law, free markets, and civil freedoms like speech

liberism vs liberarianism

• Libertarianism: Freedom = freedom from interference (negative liberty).
  The state should be minimal.

• Liberalism (modern / social liberalism): Freedom = ability to actually live well (negative + positive liberty).
  The state should actively help people achieve this

Communitarianism

emphasizing that individual identity and morality are shaped by community, prioritizing collective well-being and shared responsibility over radical individualism, and promoting strong social bonds, family, and civil associations as vital for a good society