Intro to Philosophy - Final

Roderick Chisholm’s Problem

the metaphysical problem of free will

Determinism

(chisholm) every event is caused by prior events so we could not have acted differently

Indeterminism

(chisholm) actions become random or capricious, so you are not responsible for them

Chisholm’s solution to the metaphysical problem of free will

agent causation - a free action is caused directly by the agent, not by the past

Chisholm’s Claims

1. responsibility requires alternative possibilities

2. determinism makes responsibility impossible

3. the compatabilist conditional analysis fails

4. indeterminism fails

5. agent causation

6. objections and replies

7. kantian v hobbist picture

8. inclien without necessitating analysis

9. aganet as prime mover unmoved

Agent Causation

(Chisholm) “could have done otherwise” - if he had chosen otherwise, he would have acted otherwise. Chisholm thought this misses because the agent might not be able to choose otherwise

Transeunt Causation

(Chisholm) One event directly cuases another event

Immanent Causation

(Chisholm) one person (agent) directly causes an event

Objection and Replies to Chisholm

Objection 1: we don’t do anythign to our brains

Reply: Melden’s distinction between doing A and makign A happen; we make things happen without doing them

Objection 2 (Prime Mover) : what’s the differen between “a just happens” and “the agent cause a”?

Reply: the difference is precisely that the agent caused it

Kantian Picture

(chisholm) beliefs and desires plus stimuli results in a logically determined action

Hobbist Picture

(chisholm) desires incline without necessitating (our desires lead us towards a certain action but do not compel us to do that action); motives don’t force action

Incline without necessitating analysis

chisholm explains how desires influence bu do not determine actions (uses Anselm as basis)

Prime Mover unmoved

(chisholm) if repsonsibility exists, each of us is a prime mover unmoved" we are the ultimate and uncaused cause of our decisions and are the ones who make them, regardless of the influences around us

Deniel Dennett’s Aim

dissolve misleading pictures of unfreedom;reinterpret free will in terms of reasons-responsiveness, guidance control, and general capacity to actdifferently in different circumstances

Dennett Chapter 1 Key Insight

the real threat is bypassing rational control (acting without your normal, conscious capacity for reasoned deliberation, reflection, and self-correction ex: manipulation, non-rational causes, internal malfunction) ; not determinism

Dennet Chapter 6

• challenges the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)

  • alternatives have to be available for free will to exist

• shows responsibility without alternatives

• replace could have done otherwise with general ability and guidance control

General Ability

(Dennett) capacity to respond to reasons across nearby possible circumstances

Guidance Control

(Dennett) actions flow through your reasoning systems (complex, multilayered systems that collectively govern an agent’s intelligent and predictable behavior)

Bugbear

(dennett) A bugbear is something fearsome or annoying that causes persistent anxiety (the fear of hard determinism)

The overblown fear that a deterministic world robs us of the only kind of free will that matters

Bypass v. Influence

bypass: the fear that an action is determined by prior causes, the agent’s deliberation, reasons, and self-control systems play no causal role

influence: the compatibilist view that the agent’s rational deliberation, reflection, and self-control are part of the chain of determined causes that influence the final action

Dennett's Critique of Principles of Alternate Possibilities

a person is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise

General Can

The “can” that we care about is general practical ability that is entirely compatible with determinism

• an evolved capacity for self-control that distinguishes human agents

Peter Van Inwagen’s Aim in Metaphysics

argue for incompatibilism (free will and determinism are incompatible) via the consequence argument (we have no power over the past or the laws of nature, so our actions are simply a consequence of the past and laws of nature)

Determinism

(van Inwagen) The past plus the laws of nature lead to one single future

Consequence Argument

(Van Inwagen)

1. if determinism is true, your acts follow from past and law

2. you cannot change the past

3. you cannot change the laws

4. if you cannot change A, and B necessrily follows from A, then you cannot change B

therefore, if determinism is true, you cannot do otherwise

Descartes’ Second Meditation Aim

find something indubitable

Cogito

(Descartes) “I am, I exist” is cannot be doubted whenever thinking occurs— even under evil deceiver (philosophical device used to push the limits of what can be doubted, challenging even things that seem certain, like the existence of the physical world, basic geometry, and mathematics)

Nature of the Self

(descartes) self = thinking thing (being with doubts, and sensory perception, which does not require a body)

John Locke- Essay II Aim

define personal identity over time; distinguish from identity of matter or soul; ground identity in consciousness

Descartes’ Sixth Meditation Aim

prove mind-body distinction and explain their union

Real Distinction

(Descartes 6th)

1. I can conceive mind without body

2. Whatever is clearly conceived is possible (garaunteed by God)

3. Mind can exist without body so they are distinct

Ryle- “Descartes’ Myth” Aim

cartesian dualism(the idea that the mind and body are two fundamentally distinct kinds of substances) is the same as category mistake (logical error where thinsg belonging to one logical types are presented as if they belong to another)

Ghost in the machine

(Ryle) There are two substances: extended body (the physical, material substance that takes up space: the machine) and non-extended mind (the non-physical immaterial substance that does not take up space: the ghost)

Category Mistakes

(Ryle) mental states are dispositions, not objects (there is not a single building that is a university

Dispositional Analysis

(Ryle) Intelligence, belief, etc. = behavioral abilities, not hidden internal things

Regress Problem

(Ryle) if actions require inner acts( the idea that mental activities are hidden, riavte and distinct events that occur inside a non-physical mind), you can get infinite regress (continuously willing ourselves to do things infinetely)

Imitation game

(Turing) machine passes if distinguishable from human in text conversation

Searle’s Aim

reject strong AI (the idea that AI is literally a mind)

Strong vs. Weak AI

(searle) strong AI claims programs literally understand while weak AI simply synthesizes information

Chinese Room

(Searle) following syntax is not the same as understanding since it misses the semantics of the language

Features of Justice

(Mill)

1. rights

2. desert

3. impartialitiy

4. stringency

5. resentment

Bernard Williams “Against Utilitarianism”

integrity objection (no moral theory can reasonably require an agent to give up their sense of self in order to pursue the overall general welfare (you shouldnt be responsible for killing the 1 to save the 19 since you’re still killing the one)

utilitarianism alienates people from their projects

remote effects responses fail (lead to utilitarian incoherence, which is discounting the very feelings they try to count, and moral alienation, which is failing to respect the agent’s distinct moralidentity); agent’s perspective cannot be reduced to utilities

Morality from reason a priori

moral law must be derived solely from pure reason and logic, and be completely independent from all experience

Imperatives Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperative

Hypothetic Imperative: a conditional command that dictates an action only if you already had a particular goal, desire, or interest

Categorical Imperitive: an unconditional moral command that applies to every rational being, regardess of their personal desires, goals, or the consequences of the action (something you must do)

Categorical Imperatives

formula of universal law act only as maxims you can will as universal laws

O’Neill- Kant Rationality as Practical Reason

categorical imperative (unconditional moral law that all rational agents must follow regardless of their personal desires or the consequences of their actions) is a procedure, not a rulebook, since is focuses on a form of reasoning and treating people as ends

Joel Feinberg- Pyschological Egoism

refutes arguments that all actions are selfish

key problems: triviality, unfalsifiability, confusion of desire with pleasure

Susan Wolf- Moral Saints

moral sainthood is not an attractive or appropriate personal ideal

loving vs rational saint models are both problematic

digital computers as universal machines

(Turing) they can simulate a computable process (any task that is possible to solve with a systematic, finite set of instructions)

consciousness objection to turing

a machine, even if it coulf perfectly imitate human behavior it cannot truly be thinking because it lacks genuine consciousness, fellings, and subjective experience

learning machines

(Turing) anticipate machine learning make them better at programming child-level learning

Systems Argument and Searle’s response

the man inside the room is only a subcomponent but the entire system understands chinese, searle says the man could memorize all the systems in his head but that doesnt create understanding

Robot Argument and Searle’s Response

understanding requires causal interaction with the world not just manipulation, Searle says even with a body the man inside the robot would still be manipulating meaningless symbols and not have a true understanding

Brain simulator Argument and Searle’s Response

instead of abstract rules, the actual nuerobiological activity of the chinese speaker makes it human, searle reponds with the simulation problem: a perfect simulation of a brain is still just a simulation, not an actual brain

John Locke’s Defense

• Three identity questions

1. same mass of matter

2. same living thing

3. same person (same consciousness)

• “Person” is a forensic notion tied to responsibility

  • a person is not a soul or immaterial substance

• Memory Criterion

• Reid’s Brave Officer

• Butler’s circularity objection

• Duplication/fission problems

Memory Criterion

(John Locke) a person at time 2 is the same person at time 1 if time 2 person remembers time 1’s actions

Reid’s Brave Officer

(Locke) memory doesn’t preserve identity across forgotten experiences since it violates transitivity (The General both is and is not the same person as the Boy who was flogged, which Reid argues proves that Locke's reliance on direct memory for personal identity is flawed.)

Butler’s circularity objection

(Locke) memory presupposes identity; it cannot constitute it

Duplication/fission problems

(Locke) memory continuinty could produce multiple “yous” which is impossible which shows memory alone cannot ground identity

Greatest Happiness Principle

(Mill) right actions promote happiness

Higher v. Lower Pleasures

(Mill) competent judges prefer higher pleasures (intellectual, moral, aesthetic)

Mill Misconceptions

utilitarianism isn’t egoistic, so it is universal; doesn’t require constant calculation distinguishes action from agent evaluation

Virtue becomes part of happiness

(Mill) internalization of virtue as inherently pleasurable

Suicide

(Kant) contradicts maxims when they are universalized

shortening your life out of self-love - if it were a universal law, the principle of self-love would be used to destroy life

False Promise

(Kant) contradicts maxims when they are universalized

(when i’m in need of something, i ask to borrow it from someone else, knowing I won’t pay them back)

if it were universal, the law of promising itself would be impossible since no one would believe anyone’s promise ever

Talent

(Kant) contradicts maxims when they are universalized

a world where everyone neglects their talents exist but as a rational being, we are dutied to use our given talents for all sorts of purposes

Helping Others

(Kant) contradicts maxims when they are universalized

I will never contribute to the well-being of other,s but instead will only take care of myself

a system where no one helps each other could exist, but as a rational agent, people know they need help from each other, and in some cases must be that help to others

Dennet Chapter 1 False Images

Illusions of unfreedom

invisible jailer

(Dennett) the fear that our actions are secretly being controlled by others; constraints bypassing deliberation (restrictions making conscious thoughts and reasoning irrelevant)

nefarious neuroscientist/puppeteer

(Dennett) real threat because it bypasses reasoning

sphexishness

(Dennett) rigid insect behavior v human flexibility; we are not just biological robots carrying out our scripts because we have guidance control and adaptability

dread secret

(Dennett) fear that deliberation does nothing; actually shaped future choices

Mill Utilitarianism Chapter 5

1. features of justice

2. geneology

3. rights

4. Conflicting Intuitions

5. key move

Geneology

(Mill) resentment and sympathy lead to moralized justice

Rights

(Mill) important interest society protects via punishment

Conflicting Intuitions

(Mill) justice contains incompatible principles; needs higher standard

Key Move

(Mill) justice is a subset of utility (most vital social utlities)