God, Morality and Mind Exam 2

Define “Necessary Evil” Compatibilism

If god exists, then bad things do not happen, unless allowing them to happen is required in order to secure a greater good

Define Leibniz’s thesis

Each bad thing is necessary to secure some greater good

Define Strong Compatibilism

God’s existence is compatible with the occurrence of all the bad things that there actually are

Define Weak Compatibilism

God’s existence is compatible in principle with the occurrence of some bad things

Define pointless suffering

Bad things that do not have compensating good effects

Define expected payoff

The expected payoff of any course of action C is the sum for all outcomes, O of the probability of O x the payoff for C if O occurs

Define utility

unit of pleasure

Define expected utility

The expected utility of any course of action C is the sum for all actions O, of the probability of O x the utility of C if O occurs

define pascal’s thesis

The expected utility of believing in god is greater than the expected utility of not believing in god

define the utility principle

Among the actions available to you, you should do the one (if there is one) which has the greatest expected utility

define practical identity

Features that shape your possibilities for action

define qualitative identity

A respect in which a thing x and a thing y are said to be “the same” - X and Y have the same properties, qualities, features, etc

define numerical identity

A respect in which a thing x and y are said to be “the same” - X and Y are one individual

Define the problem of personal identity

What makes it the case that we persist through all of the radical changes we undergo over the courses of our lives

define prudence

Skill in the management of affairs in one’s own interest

define the psychological criterion of identity

In the standard setup: A=B if and only if A and B are psychologically connected in the right way

define the biological criterion of identity

In the standard setup: A=B if and only if A and B are biologically connected in the right way 

define being biologically connected in the right way

if A and B are biologically characteristic of a single organism making its way through the world

define being psychologically connected in the right way

If A and B are psychologically characteristic of a single psychology making its way through the world

define Locke’s criterion

If A and B are persons existing at different times: A=B if and only if A remembers something B thought or did or B remembers something A thought or did

Explain why a theist needs to defend Strong Compatibilism.

Theists believe that god exists. Strong Compatibilism is the belief that God’s existence is compatible with the occurrence of all the bad things that there actually are. Because bad things exist, for someone to still believe in a god, they would need to defend strong compatibilism to show that both of these things can be true

Describe a situation in which Weak Compatibilism is true, but Strong Compatibilism is false. Explain why, in this situation, Weak Compatibilism is true, but Strong Compatibilism is false.

Suppose god's existence is compatible with the last time you sprained a limb, but is incompatible with the way Ichneumon wasps reproduce. The sprained limb may have been a necessary evil, whereas this wasp’s reproduction is not. Here, weak compatibilism is true; some evils are compatible with God, but not all, which is what strong compatibilism requires.

Describe a situation in which someone clearly has a conclusive reason to believe some claim, but lacks sufficient evidence to justify that belief. Explain the person’s reason to believe the claim.

When looking at a clock, I see that the time reads 2pm, so I believe it is 2pm. This reasoning is conclusive, but unbeknownst to me, the clock is actually broken. Therefore, while I believe I have sufficient evidence to support what time it is, my belief is not sufficiently justified.

Suppose you are participating in a study on economic decision-making. The researcher throws a (fair) ten-sided die. Without looking at or showing the result of the throw, she offers you a choice between: i. a sure $1, and ii. a gamble that pays $8 if the die lands on 4, and nothing otherwise. According to the payoff principle, should you take the sure $1 or the gamble? Explain your answer.

The payoff principle states that among the actions available to you, you should do the one with the highest expected payoff. To calculate the expected payoff, you take the sum of all outcomes O, of the probability of O x the payoff for C if O occurs. With this, the expected payoff of the sure $1 is $1, whereas the expected payoff of the gamble is $0.8. Therefore, according to the payoff principle, you should take the guaranteed dollar.

Describe a case in which the expected payoff of a course of action C exceeds the expected payoff of some other course of action D, but in which the expected utility of C is less than the expected utility of D. Explain why the expected utility of C is less than the expected utility of D.

My roommate offers me $1 to kick my shins repeatedly (action C). Course of action D is that I do not receive any money, but she, in result, does not kick my shins. The expected payoff of action C is higher than that of D because I am profiting. However, I desire my shins not to be kicked more than I desire the dollar, which means the expected utility of C is less than the expected utility of D.

Explain why Pascal thinks that believing in God is possible, even for someone who is presently a committed atheist.

Atheism is a disease, to which there is a cure. The recommended treatment is to act religious. It is available, safe, and effective and because the expected utility of believing in god is much greater than the expected utility of not, you should believe in god.

Explain why Pascal thinks that even a committed atheist should admit that there is at least a tiny chance that God exists.

God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven by human reason. Therefore, any rational individual should assign at least a small, non-zero probability to the chance that he exists. Additionally, we are incentivized to believe because the expected utility is incredibly high.

Explain why Pascal thinks that going to paradise would get you at least one billion utils.

Eternal happiness is a boundless gain compared to a finite, earthly life. Mathematically, an infinite reward outweighs any finite loss.

Explain why Pascal thinks that a life of “license” would get you at most 100 utils.

Earthly pleasures are finite, passing, and ultimately insignificant when weighed against the infinite, eternal rewards of heaven.

Describe a case in which a person P 1 and a person P 2 are not biologically connected “in the right way” for personal identity, according to a biological criterion of identity. Explain why P 1 and P 2 are not biologically connected “in the right way.”

To be biologically connected in the right way, P1 and P2 must be biologically characteristic of a single organism making its way through the world. If a person were to be somehow recreated, say by teletransportation, that individual would not be biologically connected in the right way. This is because the individual is no longer a single biological organism, even if psychological connections are shared.

Describe a case in which a person P 1 and a person P 2 are not psychologically connected “in the right way” for personal identity, according to a psychological criterion of identity. Explain why P 1 and P 2 are not psychologically connected “in the right way.”

An individual with multiple personality disorder would not be psychologically connected in the right way. To be psychologically connected in the right way requires P1 and P2 to be psychologically characteristic of a single psychology making its way through the world. While this person is one biological individual, they have more than one psychology which prevents them from being connected in the right way.

State Leibniz’s argument for “Necessary Evil” Compatibilism

If god exists, then bad things do not happen, unless allowing them to happen is necessary to secure some greater good.

explain how Leibniz’s argument for Necessary Evil Compatibilism entails that, if God exists, there is no pointless suffering

God is not lacking in knowledge, power, or goodness. He chose to create this world out of all of the possible worlds he could’ve created. Therefore, this is the best possible world. In the best possible world, no suffering exists unless it is a necessary evil.

state the best reason for thinking there has (actually) been pointless suffering

Natural disasters can be entirely fatal, and are not always directly the result of human activity. If God is all good, why would he allow this to happen?

explain how Leibniz might respond to the argument of pointless suffering

Human perspective is not capable of seeing how this fits into the overall harmony of the best possible world. All seemingly pointless evil is necessary to produce a greater good or prevent a greater evil.

State the objection to Leibniz’s version of Theism, that the distribution of evil is incompatible with the existence of God.

Some people bear the costs of evil, while others reap the benefits. This seems unfair and inconsistent with love.

Describe the single best response Leibniz might offer to the objection that the distribution of evil is incompatible with the existence of god

The distribution of evil is consistent with an all-good god if evil is necessary. An all good, all knowing, all powerful god would mean that this is the best possible world. Therefore, any change to reduce evil would result in a worse overall universe.

Explain why the response Leibniz might offer to the objection that the distribution of evil is incompatible with the existence of god succeeds (if it does) or fails (if it does).

To me, this response fails. Marginalized communities are disadvantaged from birth. This impacts countless factors of their lives. They are disproportionately impacted by disaster, given less monetary opportunity, etc. On top of this, they are treated poorly by privileged oppressors. It does not seem compatible with “the best possible world” that for harmony to exist, selfish, rich people are able to thrive while others are not even given a fair shot.

State Pascal’s wager

Among the actions available to you, you should do the one which has the highest expected utility. The expected utility of believing in God exceeds the expected utility of not believing in God. Therefore, you should believe in God.

Explain the objection that believing in God is unavailable to a committed atheist

Even if Pascal is correct, a committed atheist is unable to believe, so they are not able to take the bet.

State Pascal’s response to the objection that believing in God is unavailable to a committed atheist

Atheism is a disease, and you should seek treatment. Act religiously. This is available, safe, and effective. Others have done it, and gone into remission.

explain why Pascal’s response to the objection that believing in God is unavailable to a committed atheist succeeds (if it does) or fails (if it does)

This response fails greatly in my opinion. I have attended church services my entire life with the full intention of believing, but I was never able to reach that point. Additionally, it seems wrong to argue that finding religion is a safe opportunity for everyone. Historically, there have been many instances of religious leaders who abuse their power to take advantage of others; for example, a pastor who sexually abuses children. Not only is this unsafe, but instances like this may push people so far from religion that it is unrealistic for remission to ever occur.

State Pascal’s argument for affirming Pascal’s Thesis, the claim that the expected utility of believing in God exceeds the expected utility of not believing in God. (Hint: this will involve an expected utility calculation.)

There are two possible outcomes. God exists, and rewards believers, or God does not exist. The expected utility of believing is approximately 1,050 utils because if God exists, believers are rewarded with an infinite heaven valued at approximately 1 billion utils. Non believers can achieve a maximum of 100 utils because they lack the opportunity of heaven.

Explain the “Many Gods” objection to the argument for affirming Pascal’s thesis

Pascal only assumes two outcomes with no evidence for that assumption. If Pascal has mischaracterized the betting situation, his thesis is false.