november mock

what does descartes mean by ‘clear and distinct ideas’? (3 marks)

• clear - self-evident or immediately accessible to the mind

• distinct - separated or distinguishable from other ideas

• known a priori through intuition - can be used to deduce other ideas

explain why there might be a problem with the role played by god in berkeley’s idealism. (5 marks)

• berkeley’s idealism - immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent ideas

• these ideas cannot be caused by me (as some of my ideas are involuntary)

• cannot be caused by other ideas (as ideas have no causal power)

• due to the complexity and regularity of my ideas they must come from a mind far greater than my own - god

• however if my ideas are continually maintained in the mind of god, it follows that god is also subject to sensations i experience such as pain

• god is defined as a perfect being

• but if god experiences pain then he must be imperfect

• therefore the role of god proposed by berkeley leads to a contradiction

explain the view that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge. (5 marks)

• necessary condition - must be satisfied for something to be the case/to be part of a concept

• e.g. being unmarried is a necessary condition for being a bachelor - being a married bachelor would be a logical contradiction

• belief is traditionally considered a condition for knowledge under the tripartite (JTB)

• however we can imagine a situation in which a person can have knowledge without belief

• e.g. imagine you have learnt about a particular topic but have forgotten doing so

• in a quiz you are able to answer many questions on this topic correctly even though you feel you are simply guessing the answers

• in this case we would be inclined to say that you did know the answer in some sense, even though you did not really believe it to be true at the time

outline philosophical scepticism and explain how reliabilism responds to it. (12 marks) [1]

• philosophical scepticism - view that all propositions can be doubted

• often involves considering a possible situation which we cannot definitively prove to be false

• e.g. descartes’ suggestion that he may be constantly deceived by an evil demon into holding false beliefs

• this means that our usual methods of justifying our beliefs as knowledge are inadequate

• in its more extreme forms philosophical scepticism may result in the claim that we have no knowledge, and no knowledge is even possible

• e.g. i cannot know that mind-independent objects exist, or that minds other than my own exist

outline philosophical scepticism and explain how reliabilism responds to it. (12 marks) [2]

• reliabilism amends the JTB account by replacing the ‘justified’ condition with ‘reliably formed’

• S knows p iff:
  p is true
  S believes p
  S’s belief p was formed by a reliable cognitive process

• we can determine what is an adequately reliable process by its tendency to produce true beliefs e.g. memory and perception

• however these processes are not infallible and can be reasonably doubted

outline philosophical scepticism and explain how reliabilism responds to it. (12 marks) [3]

• philosophical scepticism aims to show that we cannot adequately justify our beliefs for them to constitute knowledge

• e.g. i cannot know that i am not being deceived by an evil demon because i cannot adequately justify its truth

• however by replacing the J condition with 'reliably formed’, reliabilism can avoid this issue

• e.g. i can maintain my belief in the existence of the external world because this believe is caused by a reliable process (perception) so can constitute knowledge

• if i were being deceived by an evil demon my belief would not be reliably formed so it would not be knowledge

• but i do not need to know/prove there is no evil demon to know that the external world exists as my belief in it is already reliably formed

outline ayer’s verification principle. (3 marks)

• a proposition only has meaning if it is either:

  • analytically true/false (in virtue of the meaning of the words e.g. “a triangle has three sides”)

  • empirically verifiable (through sense experience e.g. doing an experiment to prove that water boils at 100c)

• any proposition that does not fit these criteria is entirely meaningless

explain kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative. (5 marks)

• “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

• maxim that passes this test is morally permissible - must not lead to a logical contradiction in conception

• e.g. “it is okay to steal” - could take whatever you wanted from anyone - they could take it back from you - the concept of ownership becomes meaningless as everyone has equal rights to take things from others

• however if the concepts of ownership and private property do not exist, then it is impossible to steal at all

• if a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim - it is always wrong

• contradiction in will - can we rationally will “not to help others in need”? - there is no logical contradiction in a world where no one helps anyone else

• but we cannot rationally will this, as sometimes we have goals/ends that cannot be achieved without the help of others (means)

• this results in an imperfect duty - we should follow the maxim as much as we can but it is not always necessary

explain moore’s ‘open question argument’ (5 marks)

• non-naturalism - form of moral realism - there are mind-independent moral facts - BUT these are not natural properties

• terms are either definable or indefinable - we can determine which by asking questions

• closed question - can only be answered with “yes” or “no” e.g. “is a bachelor an unmarried man?” - answer determined by meaning of concepts in the question - the term is definable

• open question - cannot be decided in this way - the term is indefinable

• if naturalism was correct then “is pleasure good?” would be a closed question - it would make no sense to ask as it would be the same as asking “is pleasure pleasure?” or “is good good?”

• however “is pleasure good?” is an open question - therefore “pleasure” does not have the same meaning as “good”

• we can replace “pleasure” with any concept X and the outcome would be the same - no other concept has the same meaning as “good”

• therefore “moral goodness” cannot be defined or reduced to any other property

explain bentham’s utilitarianism and explain how nozick’s experience machine challenges this view. (12 marks) [1]

• consequentialist - morality determined by consequences of action

• hedonistic - should act to maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the greatest number of people (utility principle)

• quantitative - concerned with amount of pleasure caused by an action

• act utilitarian - pleasure caused by each individual act can be calculated using utility calculus (intensity, duration, extent etc.) - e.g. better to sacrifice one person to save five (greater extent)

explain bentham’s utilitarianism and explain how nozick’s experience machine challenges this view. (12 marks) [2]

• bentham’s ethical hedonism (we ought to maximise pleasure) is based on a view of psychological hedonism (we desire and act to maximise pleasure as a matter of fact)

• nozick challenges psychological hedonism to undermine bentham’s ethical hedonism

• imagine a machine that could give you any experience you desire and allow you to feel the pleasure of those experiences for the rest of your life

• you will not remember entering the machine so this will not ruin your pleasures

• if psychological hedonism is true then we would have no reason not to enter the experience machine - it would allow us the greatest possible quantity of pleasure

• however many people would choose not to enter the machine

• there is something intuitively valuable about our experiences/pleasure being “real” and not simply produced by a machine

• we want to be connected to reality and to experience reality with other people

• therefore bentham’s psychological hedonism is incorrect, undermining his ethical hedonist utilitarianism