PHI2010 Final Exam Study Guide UCF Derek Green

What is Philosophy? (the Greek translation)

"Love of Wisdom"

What is Philosophy? (Purpose and Goal)

Philosophy seeks to answer the most pressing questions of life. The goal of philosophy is to arrive at these answers with the support of good reasons.

Kant's Big Three (Questions)

1) What can I know? (Epistemology and Metaphysics)

2) What ought I do? (Ethics, includes Metaethics and Applied Ethics)

3) What can I hope for? (Philosophy of Religion)

Euthyphro (the Socratic Dialogue)

-Euthyphro is a Socratic Dialogue written by Plato.

-Plato uses Socrates as a mouth piece in a long discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates about the nature of piety (belief in religion).

-Overall Lesson: Give adequate reasons for claims.

-Central Dilemma: the nature of piety.

-"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

The Euthyphro Dilemma

-"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Option 1: The pious is loved by the gods because it is pious.

-Issues: This makes the pious independently good. What if the gods love something that's not pious? Would they be wrong?

This option is a circular argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Option 2: It is pious because it is loved by the gods.

-Issues: This would make morality arbitrary, since it would be based on the whims of the gods. If the attitudes of the gods change, would piety then change?

Meno (the Socratic Dialogue)

-Meno is a Socratic Dialogue written by Plato.

-Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece to discuss virtue with Meno, which eventually leads to a conversation about knowledge.

-Question: What does it mean to know something?

-"Is it enough to be of right opinion on a topic for it to count as knowledge?"

Socrates answers no. Right opinion is right by chance. True knowledge is permanent. Analogy of images of Daedalus.

—Socrates then defines knowledge as "justified true belief."

Socrates' Conception of Knowledge:

A justified true belief.

Justified True Belief:

-The JTB conception of knowledge is as follows: A belief that is both justified and true is knowledge.

Someone KNOWS 'p' if and only if:

-'p' is true.

-they believe in 'p'.

-they are justified in their belief of 'p'.

-JTB is necessary for true knowledge and is enough for true knowledge.

Gettier

-Edmund Gettier: The 1960's philosopher that argues that having JTB is not enough for true knowledge, as you can have a JTB and still not know something.

Gettier Case

A 'Gettier Case' is when a speaker has a JTB that 'p' but still fails to truly know 'p'.

-Example 1: Elaine has a justified true belief that there's a red car in her garage.

There is, because carjackers broke in, stole Elaine's red Dodge Challenger, and left their banged up unregistered red Datsun in its place.

-Example 2: Carl has the justified true belief that his biological mother's name starts with 'L'.

Carl believes his biological mother is Liza, it's actually Liza's younger sister, Linda. Linda gave birth to Carl at 16. When this happened, Liza was 28, married, infertile, and had a deep desire for a child. So Liza and her husband adopted Carl, who hasn't discovered his true origins.

Although both correct in assumption, what they justly believe of 'p' is actually not entirely 'p'.

Solutions to Gettier Cases

Defenses for Justified True Belief in a Gettier Case (when a speaker has a JTB that 'p' but still fails to truly know 'p'):

-Although a belief can be both justified and true, the premise leading to the conclusion can be false: Therefore, it was never a JTB to begin with.

Knowledge cannot be inferred from false premises.

-If a belief is only true purely by chance, justification has nothing to do with the belief being truth (in the case of the belief being true knowledge).

Fallibilism: justification doesn't guarantee truth.

Metaphysics

General Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of the universe and it's categories.

-Examples: Essences, properties, spaces, times, etc.

Special Metaphysics: Specific topics that attempt to answer questions in areas like philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion.

-Examples: Is God real? Do we have souls? Are we free?

Zeno's Paradox

Zeno was a skeptic about motion, he believed that nothing in the world actually moves.

Argument:

-Space is infinitely divisible. For every amount of space, there is half of it.

-You would have to go through all the 'halfways' and get to your destination for it to be motion.

-Mathematically, motion doesn't make sense.

-Therefore: nothing moves.

Example:

-If a hare is traveling at 20ft/s and a tortoise is traveling at 2ft/s with a 100ft head start, the hare will never pass the tortoise.

-Zeno says no.

-Whenever the hare reaches a certain point, the tortoise will have already passed that point.

In this case, it takes Achilles 20 seconds to reach point B. By the time 20 seconds has elapsed, the tortoise has already moved forward from point B and so on.

Eddington and The Two Tables

The first table Eddington describes represents an ordinary table and the way we perceive it in everyday life.

-It's solid, it's brown, you can put things on it, etc.

The second table represents the same table we were just talking about, but from the way physics perceives it.

-It is mostly empty space

According to Leibniz's Law, the two tables cannot be the same thing.

This would make it seem like science isn't describing the same world we live in.

But if this is true, the purpose we use it for in the world wouldn't really work.

Point of Eddington's Two Tables (Reality vs. Scientific view of life)

If we only look at things from the scientific viewpoint, the world suddenly becomes meaningless.

Example: Words.

-Can we reconcile the two tables?

Maybe? In the future?

Physics doesn't use the same categories that we use to describe the world as we sense it.

This means we can't translate physics findings into terms that would describe the world as we sense it.

Leibniz's Law

If A and B differ in any properties, then A and B are not the same thing.

Philosophy of Mind

Main question: What is a mind?

This can be divided into two important questions:

1) What is the mind made of?

-It is a substance that is distinct from the physical world, or it is part of the physical world?

-Substance is defined as an individual thing that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence.

2) What does the mind do?

-It thinks.

Monism

Belief that the world is comprised of one basic thing, or substance.

-Example 1: Idealists believe that the world is just a mind or feature of the mind (no physical world).

-Example 2: Materialists believe that the world is purely physical, or material.

Dualism

Belief that there are two things composing the world, substance and matter (immaterial and physical).

-Example: for Descartes the immaterial was the mind and the material aspect was the physical world, or matter.

Cartesian Dualism

Descartes's view that all of reality could ultimately be reduced to mind and matter.

Defenses:

-Primary Attributes Argument

-Argument from Real Distinction

Primary Attributes Argument

A 'Primary Attribute' is essential feature of a thing; the essence of something.

-Example 1: The essence of mind is that it's a thinking thing that has no size or shape.

-Example 2: The essence of body is that it's an entity that occupies space.

Bodies or space is infinitely divisible while the mind is not.

Bodies are spatial but minds are not.

-Recall Leibniz Law: Body and mind are fundamentally distinct because they differ in primary attributes or essences.

Argument from Real Distinction

If x can exist without y, then they are distinct.

For Cartesian Dualism:

- Plug in x=mind and y=body.

-God is able and could make the mind and the body distinct, so there's a real possibility that a mind can exist without a body and vice versa.

-But both of them exist, so Descartes proves his dualism.

Both of the arguments rely on clear and distinct perceptions.

-Example: a mathematical formula that proves itself.

Problem with Cartesian Dualism

Descartes believes that mind and body are two distinct things.

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia raised a famous objection:

-How does an immaterial thing like the mind interact with a material thing like the body?

Descartes answer: the pineal gland (joke).

We don't know.

Rebuttals to Cartesian Dualism

1. Gilbert Ryle's Response (Behaviorism)

2. David Armstrong's Response (Functionalism)

Gilbert Ryle (Category Mistakes)

Descartes' definition of "mind" contains a category mistake.

Category Mistake: When an object belonging to one category is misplaced in another.

-Example. 1: seeing the many colleges inside a university and asking which part is the university.

-Example 2: listing brittleness as one of the physical components of a glass

Category Mistake

When an object belonging to one category is misplaced in another.

-Example. 1: seeing the many colleges inside a university and asking which part is

the university.

-Example 2: listing brittleness as one of the physical components of a glass

Category Mistakes in Cartesian Dualism

Cartesian dualism has a category mistake.

It says that mental states (sadness, anger, etc.) are contained in a mind that is distinct from the body.

This is a mistake. These mental states are actually just dispositions.

Disposition: something an object or person is likely or apt to do

given certain circumstances.

Disposition

Something an object or person is likely or apt to do given certain circumstances.

-Example: A glass breaking upon hitting a hard surface.

Beliefs are just dispositions.

-A belief in God would mean that a person would be disposed to worshipping at church, praying regularly, etc.

Behaviorism (Ryle)

Mental states are how we are apt to act.

Objections: Are mental states JUST dispositions to behave a certain way? What about pain, or experiencing colors?

Armstrong

Proposed the Arguments for Functionalism.

Physicalism

(The belief that) the real world is nothing more than the physical world. The mind is material.

-Everything in the universe has physical explanations.

-The mind must be physical too.

Functionalism

A school of psychology that focused on how our mental and behavioral processes function - how they enable us to adapt, survive, and flourish.

Argument for Functionalism:

-Mental states are brain states that cause the dispositions Ryle talked about.

-These states are the functions of the brain. Therefore FUNCTIONALISM.

-Any being with these functions have minds.

Frank Jackson

Qualia: Individual instances of subjective conscious experience.

Proposed the 'Mary' thought experiment.

'Mary' Thought Experiment

Did Mary learn something new upon seeing red for the first time?

Did she expect red to appear the way it did based on her scientific knowledge?

Epiphenomenalism

Mental states are caused by physical events, but the

mental has no effect on the physical world.

Access Consciousness

To be aware of things.

Phenomenal Consciousness

Feeling attached to that awareness generated from access consciousness.

The feelings themselves.

Can we survive death?

Will I continue to exist after I die?

-Is it at least conceivable?

What about you is, or holds your identity?

Your body?

-Example: Kleenex or flowers

Your mind?

-Example: God could be waiting for you with another body in heaven

Bodily Identity Theory (Weirob)

Weirob proposed that:

My identity is my physical body.

You are born, then you die. That's it.

Once my bodies dies, who I am will die with my body.

-Example: Kleenex, Flowers.

Soul Identity Theory (Miller)

Miller proposed that:

Your identity lies in your mind/soul.

The soul cannot be seen, touched, or smelled.

When you die, your body decays when you die but your soul remains

eternally alive.

-Example: God could have someone in heaven waiting for you.

UNLESS: God destroyed your soul.

Conditions for Survival

Backwards looking:

-I can remember what I have done in the past

-Memories have to be genuine and properly acquired, not by some

imposter in heaven

Forward looking:

-AnticipatIon

-Example: You will be taking your quiz tomorrow and you don't doubt that the person taking your quiz will be you.

Weirob: My identity is what gives me these abilities (my relations and notions of myself).

Miller and Weirob (Dialogue)

Do you recognize who I am by my body or my soul?

Weirob: You know who I am because you see me. How could you recognize me by my soul if you cannot see or perceive souls? How could you know that the same soul is attached to me?

Miller: I recognize you are the same body attached to the same soul. Everybody is attached to one and the same soul.

Weirob: (gives example) If you had never bitten into the candy before you could not judge that it had caramel filling.

Miller: I recognize you because you act in a particular way. Psychological states are what ties mind and body together.

(gives example) I expected you to be argumentative and philosophical.

Weirob: Psychological states don't grant sameness of soul. They are constantly changing...

-River example: you recognize the Blue River by its characteristics, which are constantly changing.

My psychological states are different from moment to moment,

so my soul could be changing from moment to moment...

Miller: Belief, memory, character are part of the mind. Height, weight, and appearances are aspects of body. Also, I can generalize sameness of body is sameness of soul.

Weirob: Reiterates again that sameness of body doesn't have to mean sameness of soul since souls cannot be seen. It's arbitrary to believe that your identity is in your soul.

Miller: When you wake up you know you are you before you can look at yourself or even become aware of your body. We can make judgements of who we are without any reference to body. Identity is not in your body.

Weirob: Okay let's say this is true, where am "I" then?

Miller: Gives river example: you see stretches of river, not the whole river. At different times, we perceive different parts of ourselves, not our whole selves but those different parts amount to identity. They are connected and related in a particular way that makes you, you.

Identity is not in body nor in mind, it's not a substance.

Miller's River Example (Identity)

You see stretches of river, not the whole river.

At different times, we perceive different parts of ourselves, not our whole selves but those different parts amount to identity.

They are connected and related in a particular way that makes you, you.

Identity is not in body nor in mind, it's not a substance.

Miller's Real Theory (Identity)

When you wake up you know you are you before you can look at yourself or even become aware of your body.

-We can make judgements of who we are without any reference to body.

-Identity is not in your body.

Locke's Identity Theory

My present self remembers my my past self and even if I don't fully remember those events make up who I am today.

Argument:

-My stretches of consciousness and memory up to now are me- my identity is built by these.

-They are related and connected in the right kind of way (chain).

-If I have amnesia, I will lose my identity.

-A person is a forensic notion.

-A thing we can attribute praise and blame to for their actions.

Problems with Locke's Identity Theory

Problems:

-You can remember things incorrectly. How do these influence your identity?

-You can make up memories.

-You can lose your memories.

Parfit on Personal Identity

Laid out the fundamentals for questions answered by fusion and fission, which are survival, personal responsibility, and memory. Personal identity must have aspects of concreteness.

Targets two main beliefs:

1)Questions of personal identity must have an answer.

-All or nothing questions. There is no answer to the question "Is this machine the same as the one I built before?" Either I will exist in the future, or I will not.

2)There are matters that are important to us, like survival, memory, and personal responsibility, which cannot be explained unless the question of personal identity is answered.

-To determine whether I will survive or am responsible for some future

action, I must answer know if I am the same person through time.

Fission (Concept)

Overall, we have to reconsider the way we think about personhood.

Here's how we can begin:

-Transfer my brain into a brainless body- the person is still me.

-A person can survive with half a brain.

-Take it a step further.

-Transfer two parts of my brain into two separate bodies, then those bodies will still be me and have memories of my life.

Other example: Mars and Earth.

Fission (Options of Survival)

Three options:

1) I do not survive:

-People can survive with damaged or half brains.

-If my brain is successfully transplanted, I survive

2) I survive as one of those two people in those two bodies:

-Which one is me?

-This is arbitrary. There is no way of knowing which one is me and I can't just select one.

3) I survive as both:

-This has to be the correct option, but one person cannot be identical

to another, especially not two.

Third Case Defense (Fission: Options of Survival)

The third case targets the belief that there must be an answer to personal identity.

-If the question is about identity, then the original cannot be the two

people.

-If we drop the language of identity, the two remaining people can survive.

-There isn't necessarily an answer to personal identity because there is no way to answer what part of the original person's identity is in which of the bodies.

-They share a past self without being the same self as each other.

THEREFORE:

Survival can't mean survival of personal identity because if the two people survive (their brains survive, they are alive) the original identity doesn't.

Psychological Continuity (Fission and Survival)

What matters is the continuation of one's memories, character, and

connectedness.

-We are never the same thing and we are always undergoing change but our beliefs, desires, etc. are all connected in a continuous ever growing chain of discovering events.

Parts of me survive through these psychological connections.

-Example: a machine, you add more data

Hold people accountable for what each one remembers. What if the original clone before the fission committed a crime?

So, if my mind was permanently divided and one part of "me" lived in France and the other in California and one day they met, they wouldn't recognize each

other.

Fusion

Survival is a matter of degree.

Examples of fusion:

One person merges with another.

They both have different characteristics, beliefs, and desires.

Compatibility

-Example: pasta and pasta sauce

Incompatibility

-Example: one person likes chocolate and the other one doesn't = netural feelings towards chocolate. Balanced.

-The fused person survives to a lesser degree than they existed before.

-When you fuse, if you think your identity will be preserved you will care about what the outcome person is like.

-If you don't think it will preserve, then it won't matter.

Reiterating Memory, Survival, and Personal Responsibility (Context of Fusion and Fission)

Memory: Someone exactly like me could be created and have all my memories yet not be me.

-Example: Transport to mars

Survival: Fusion

-Survival and identity are not the same.

Personal Responsibility: Fission

-They are both responsible as long as there is a relation to the crime.

Free Will v. Determinism

'Free will' is possible:

Compaitbilism - Physical determinism is true. Although we can think for ourselves and make our own decisions, some things are out of our control. We are responsible for some of our actions.

Libertarianism - Everything is in your control, we are responsible for all actions.

'Free will' is impossible:

Hard Determinism - We aren't responsible for any of our actions and the world is entirely up to fate.

Hard Incompatibilism - Although the world isn't up to fate, we aren't in control of our own actions, as moral responsibility and outside factors can ultimately alter our decision making.

All of this leads up to the question of 'what makes someone responsible for something?'.

Peter van Inwagen

Libertarian Free Will:

-Universe's laws do not force us to make decisions.

-We are responsible for our actions.

Incompatiblist:

-If determinism is true, all our actions are influenced by laws of nature. Since we aren't responsible for these laws nor what occurred in the past, we could not be free.

Frankfurt Case

Challenge to Incompatiblism:

Example: Larry has a chip inserted, forcing him to vote for Party A every time he wanted to vote for

Party B.

-Option 1. If Larry desires to vote for Party B, chip will force him to choose A.

-Option 2. If he was going to vote for Party A anyway, chip does not influence him.

Either way, he couldn't have chosen otherwise. HOWEVER, we would say he is responsible in Scenario 2, but not Scenario 1.

Therefore, responsibility doesn't REALLY require freedom to do otherwise. Responsibility requires intent.

David Hume (on Causation)

We assume: laws of nature directly cause the effects we see.

We think that if A causes B, B is dependent on A & couldn't possibly cause itself.

Hume is an empiricist, though (knowledge comes only via sense experience). Thus, our idea

of causation came only via sense experience. [Ex. fire and smoke.]

However, all experience tells us is that these two events are in "constant conjunction." Can't have one without the other.

Because of this constant conjunction of causes and effects:

Thus, there's no necessitation that would take away our responsibility.

-No reason to believe that human actions are being forced to occur, so we are free.

-We're free when our reasons cause our acting. [Ex. Tasty meal or painful

metal].

Hume believes intent matters, and because we are always aware of this constant conjunction, we factor that into our intent.

Empiricist

Knowledge comes only via sense experience.

Ethics (Philosophy)

Most practical branch of philosophy to everyday life.

Kant's question of: 'How ought we to live?'

Variety of ethical theories:

1) Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Singer)

2) Deontology (Kant)

Utilitarianism (Ethics)

Jeremy Bentham was the founder of the concept of Utilitarianism.

Utility itself means the best possible good for the greatest number of people; maximizing net utility.

If an action causes the most good for the greatest number, it is the morally right action to take.

Mill had problems with this theory, as he believed there was a hierarchy of pleasures (human>animal).

Jeremy Bentham (Utilitarianism)

Proposed the idea of Utilitarianism, which is maximizing net utility.

John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism)

Seconded Bentham, however believed in a Hierarchy of pleasures: those of the swine being less important than those of human beings.

Trolley Problem (Utilitarianism)

Imagine you're driving a train.

-At a certain point, tracks split.

-On one side, five people tied down onto the tracks, and on other side, only one person.

Onto which side do you turn?

Utilitarian answer:

-It is moral to run over the one to save the five, because you maximize most pleasure

possible and minimize the pain.

Peter Singer (Utilitarianism Overload)

Singer took Utilitarianism to the next level.

He believed that in a situation where someone could donate to help solve an issue like hunger and it wouldn't hurt their wellbeing, they are morally OBLIGATED to make that donation.

Furthermore, we are morally OBLIGATED to donate a large amount of our wealth in general.

We ought to give until "diminishing marginal utility."

-Keep giving until that last dollar would cause harm of similar moral weight than good.

Deontology (Ethics)

An ethical system proposed by Kant that bases the morality of an action in an agent's intention.

This goes back to Hume on intention:

-If an action is consequentially good, but is done with bad intentions, it's not moral.

Deon - the ancient Greek word for duty.

Sense of duty.

Kantianism

Kant wanted to distinguish an objective moral law (categorical imperative).

Steps:

1)Separate the rational and empirical parts of moral philosophy.

2)Empirical wants and needs are subjective and cannot be universalized, so morals cannot be

based in them (not everybody has had all of the same experiences to base knowledge on moral decisions off of).

3)Thus, morality is based in reason.

Key components:

1) Human dignity

a. Our ability to reason grants us this.

b. We are all equal.

2) Freedom

a. Freedom is necessary for morality.

b. "You are forced to be free".

He then broke up will into:

1) Heteronomous will:

-Determined by desires, needs, lusts, etc.

2) Free will:

-Determined only by the laws it gives to itself.

-I.e. by its own reason.

Sense of duty.

Kant (on Human Will)

1) Heteronomous will:

-Determined by desires, needs, lusts, etc.

2) Free will:

-Determined only by the laws it gives to itself.

-I.e. by its own reason.

Whenever we act freely, there is a reason for our action.

-That reason is called a maxim.

To act rationally means that our maxim does not contradict itself.

Maxim (Kant)

A subjective rule of an action.

-Reveals our intentions.

When a person is in a certain situation they ought to act in 'this' way.

To act rationally means that our maxim does not contradict itself.

Categorical Imperative (Kant)

Kant's Moral Law: One ought only to act such that the principle of one's act could become a universal law of human action in a world in which one would hope to live.

This is governed by 3 formulas:

1)Formula of Universality: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

a. If your maxim results in a logical contradiction on a universal scale then it is not moral.

2) Formula of Humanity: Act so that you use others as an end and never merely as means.

3) Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: Act as if your maxim is a law in a kingdom

of ends.

Formula of Universality (Kant)

Formula of Categorical Imperative:

-Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

-Golden Rule.

-Maxim again cannot contradict moral intent.

Formula of Humanity (Kant)

Formula of Categorical Imperative:

-Act so that you use others as an end and never merely

as means.

Don't treat others as merely means.

Formula of the Kingdom of Ends (Kant)

Formula of Categorical Imperative:

-Hereby arises a systematic union of rational beings through common objective laws, i.e., a kingdom that may be called a kingdom of ends (certainly only an ideal), inasmuch as these laws have in view the very relation of such beings to one another as ends and means.

-Act as if your maxim is a law in a kingdom of ends, best for all.

The Liberal View of Sexuality

Liberal view of sexuality:

-Sex is permissible between consenting adults.

Traditional view of sexuality:

-Sex is permissible between a married heterosexual couple.

-Sex is permissible when the intention is to procreate.

Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle's Virtue Ethics)

Almost like guidelines to strive to follow in interest of a good life.

As opposed to straight up definitions for the best possible actions in different scenarios such as in Utilitarianism and Deontology:

Nicomachean ethics are less of rules, and more of a way of life.

If someone is in need of help:

-A consequentialist will say helping that person will maximize well-being (utility).

-A deontologist will say you may have a duty to help that person.

-A virtue ethicist will say that you should probably help that person because it is charitable.

"Every human activity aims at some end that we consider good."

The individual has to take on a moral perception to be able to be virtuous, they don't follow a set of rules that makes them virtuous.

Consists of:

-The Golden Mean.

-The Phronimos.

-Striving for Eudimonia.

-Ethical virtue and Habit.

The Golden Mean (Nichomachean Ethics)

Goldilocks "just right", to be excessive or deficient is to not be excellent.

Cowardly>Courageous>Rash

Important terminology:

-Arete: excellence

-Phronesis: practical wisdom

-The Phronimos: the one with practical wisdom

-Eudemonia: Flourishing

Phronimos (Nicomachean Ethics)

Not someone who can tell you how to always act in order to be excellent, but they are someone with capacity for rational wisdom and the ability to assess what is the virtuous thing to do in a given situation. Therefore, according to Aristotle you should strive to be like the one with practical wisdom, or the Phronimos.

Eudimonia (Nicomachean Ethics)

Means flourishing.

-Compare to what we might think of happiness, doing well.

-Flourishing is the point of human action.

-The flourishing human is to have phronesis.

Everything we do is ultimately to obtain eudemonia.

Ethical Virtue an Ethical Habit (Nicomachean Ethics)

Arete (excellence of any kind) may also mean moral virtue.

Ethic: Ethika: can mean habit or custom

The plural would be character

Ethical Virtue: excellence of character through habit.

"Every human activity aims at some end that we consider good."

Moral Saints (Susan Wolf)

Someone who's every action is as morally good as possible, their moral goodness is almost systemic.

Does not give much regard to a specific circumstance.

This would be the Jesus in Christianity, or the paradigm example of the follower of any faith.

Compares:

-Loving Saint.

-Rational Saint.

Overall point:

A perfectly moral being cannot be perfectly wonderful, as they are not compatible in moral sainthood for a necessary for quality of life.

The Loving Saint (Susan Wolf)

Utilitarianism/Consequentialism ideaology; aways acts for the benefit of others out of concern for their well-being.

Can only really love; creates the most utility.

The Rational Saint (Susan Wold)

Deontology/Kantianism ideology; Always acts for the benefit of others out of a sense of duty.

Can really only do what they have a duty to do in regard to the categorical imperative.

Principles of Justice (Rawls)

In consideration to the: The Veil of Ignorance.

The First Principle:

-"Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others."

-Basic liberties are similar to what we see in our bill of rights, like freedom of speech

-Not like rights that just sort of became, like right to property.

ex: Right to freedom of speech vs. right to exchange good:

-Someone's right to freedom of speech doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to freedom of speech. Right to exchange goods is different. Goods are scarce, not everyone has the same opportunity to receive the same benefit of that right.

The Second Principle:

Social and economic inequalities should be arranged that:

1) They are at the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society

2)Offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

ex:

-Scenario 1: Group A has one apple, Group B has twelve.

-Scenario 2: Group A has four apples, Group B has nine.

Under the Veil of Ignorance the legislator would pick scenario 2, due to the fact that if who represents happens to be in group A he would want the scenario that maximizes the benefit of the disadvantaged.

The Veil of Ignorance

Rawls' calls it "The Original Position".

Thought experiment:

-You don't know who you are representing or anything about them but you have to make decisions about the society they live in.

It follows you would choose would be best for everyone as a whole, what would be the most fair.

Leviathen (Hobbes)

Proposed by Hobbes the creator of social contract theory: The idea that we should give up our right to defend ourselves to the Leviathan (the state).

-The Leviathan can protect us a lot more than we can protect ourselves.

-The States only duty is to protect us.

-We should only revolt against the state if it is trying to kill us.

Built upon the idea of justice and giving each their fair due.

Justice determined by agreements between the state and its constituents.

This protects us against the state of nature, which is utterly chaotic.

John Locke (Political Philosophy)

Believed in a system closer to U.S. Constitution.

Did not feel the state of nature was as bad as Hobbes believed it to be

Citizens do retain rights when they accept the authority of the government, and it may even be in their better interest to go without government if the government isn't reasonably protecting life, liberty, and property.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed citizens retained the right to revolution when accepting the authority of a government.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Political Philosophy)

Believed in innate goodness of mankind.

Believed there to be basic human rights founded upon universal natural law.

Believed that rulers and citizens have rights and obligations to each other which should be bound in the social contract .

Creation of state leads to creation of a general will.

-The obligation of the state to carry out the wishes of this general will.

State of Nature (Political Philosophy)

When a population is ungoverned.

Hobbes thought it was chaotic.

Locke thought it could be beneficial of the state was corrupt.

Rousseau thought that the nature of mankind was good intention.

The Republic Book I

A socratic dialogue between Socrates, Polemarchus, and others that discusses: 'What is justice?'

-What does it mean to be a just person?

-Why should we be just? (A question about morality.)

Cephalus and Socrates (Republic Book I)

Socrates asks Cephalus what it's like to be of old age and wealthy.

Cephalus responds that wealth helps one to be just.

-It helps one to avoid lying, stealing, cheating, etc.

Talk of old age develops into the first definition of justice discussed.

-Tell the truth and pay your debts.

Socrates objects with mad man and weapon example.

-Example: owe someone money and when you repay that money, it will be used to murder somebody.

Objection to Kant's rules of lying work here.

Polemarchus's Definition of Justice (Republic Book I)

'Justice is supporting, or doing well by your friends and harming your enemies.'

Socrates objects by asking Polemarchus to consider friendship, pointing that sometimes we think our enemies are our friends.

-We could be unknowingly supporting our enemies.

-We could be friends with unjust people and our enemies may not always be unjust people.

Polemarchus then adjusts his definition by saying that: 'the just man must harm those which he knows are bad people.'

Socrates objects once more:

When humans are harmed by others, this damages their virtue and justice following abilities.

-Example: if you willingly injure a horse's leg, the horse can no longer fulfill its purpose of running.

To be able to harm others you have to know how to be unjust thus making you an unjust person.

Thrasymachus the Sophist (Republic Book I)

Tells Socrates to pay me for my thoughts on justice.

'Justice is whatever gives advantage to the strongest.'

Socrates points that many crafts have a purpose to benefit others in a positive way without benefiting the craft giver greatly.

-Example: a doctor learns medicine to heal others.

-Example: a ruler makes rules to advantage its citizens.

Thrasymachus objects that those who are unwilling to be unjust are always miserable.

-This is truly how it works in society.

-The most unjust are the happiest because of their power.

-Their power depends on their unjust acts to others.

'The justice you speak of only advantages the weaker, who are unwilling to be unjust because of fear.'

Socrates: Even thieves have some moral understanding or else they'd steal from each other.

The Ring of Gyges & The Kallipolis (Republic Book I)

Would a person be just if they didn't fear bad reputation?

-If one could acquire an invisibility ring to act unjustly without public condemnation, he/she would.

Essentially humans would act terribly if there were no social contracts prohibiting them from doing so.

-All humans are unjust.

Socrates replies that just person wouldn't accept the ring in the first place and because of this she/he is better off without the ring.

Kallipolis is the just state in which justice is exemplified.

-What would justice look like in a perfect state?

Mackie, 'The Subjectivity of Values'

There are no objective values; They are not part of the fabric of the world.

-It's not like saying 2+2=4, which is true no matter what.

Moral values reflect a subject's own feelings and attitudes.

-Moral values are our individual projections onto the world and our ability to act on these projections.

-Moral values are partially determined by our way of life in a particular society.

Moral Skepticism vs. Objectivity

No denying that there's a difference between cruel and kind actions; The value of these moral actions is what's in question.

-Not outright rejection but a reconsideration of its place in the world.

Moral Realists examples:

Moral Objectivity:

Moral values are embedded in the foundations of reality and we can find this through reason.

-Kant-categorical imperative is a law.

-Aristotle- there can be knowledge about what is good.

-Mill- maximizing utility.

Error Theory- moral judgments are not objective.

Error Theory (Moral Skepticism v. Objectivity)

Theory that states that moral judgments are not objective.

Argument from Queerness

Mackie's argument that moral properties, understood as non-natural properties, are (metaphysically and epistemologically) puzzling and improbable, which is a reason to believe they do not exist.

Objectivication (Morality)

We read our feelings into the objects but then conclude that the objects are defined in a particular way without influence from our feelings.

Our minds infect the world with our perceptions.

-Example: looking at a flower and feeling calm

-Our attitude towards the flower is what makes us feel calm, the flower doesn't possess a faculty of calmness (similar with moral actions).

Our attitudes are influenced by an outside source but not necessarily an objective authority.

-Laws remain without the law giver.

-We need people to act in a particular way to regulate society.

The Subjection of Women (Mill and Wollstonecraft)

Wollstonecraft wrote it but Mill published it under his name as it wouldn't have been accepted otherwise due to traditional gender roles.

-Men- breadwinners, stronger, etc.

-Women- homemakers, fragile, etc.

Gender vs. Sex:

-Sex: biological category.

-Gender: social category.

Women are equal to men and men are equal to women.

Neither is more powerful or weaker than the other.

Because of this we are inhibiting the used of this equal power from the advancement of society (ie. Intellectual development).

There is no proof that men are better than women.

Anslem's Ontological Argument (Proof of God)

Think of the best possible thing you can imagine and God is even better than that.

We cannot conceive anything greater than God.

Something can exist only in our minds and both in our minds and reality.

Anything that is good that exists in the mind would be better if they existed in reality. Ex. Unicorns.

The only thing that could be possibly greater than the greatest being existing in our minds is if it existed in reality too, aka. God.

God has to exist both in imagination and reality.

Argument Form:

-God is the greatest thing we can think of.

-Things can exist only in our imagination, or they can also exist in reality.

-Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist only in the mind.

-If God existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn't be the greatest thing that we can think of, because God, in reality, would be better.

-Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Guanilo's Criticism (Anslem's Ontological Argument)

You can't just define things into existence.

Same premises as Anselm but with the perfect mythical island.

Anslem responds that his argument only works for necessary beings, which is God.

-He is already asserting that God exists, so he is trying to prove that God exists by saying God exists.