PHIL 103 Midterm Class 1-5

What does Socrates believe

Life is only worth living if you live up to your true potential

what makes a philosphical argument

a set of premises and cnclusion. The conclusion needs to have a thesis statement that advances the premises that is presented. If one of the presemises starts w “if” the next premises must use that as the start with a statement that confirms that if statement.

logical argument

there can’t be a true/ false argument, but there is a true/false premise and conclusion. For an argument to be logical, the conclusion needs to follow the premise AND the argument needs to be valid and the premise needs to be true

what makes an argument valid

an argument is valid IF the whole logical STRUCTURE (the conclusion makes sense based on the premises (even if the premises aren’t true)

an argument is logically valid

when the premisesare ALL TRUE AND it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. (the premises imply the conclusion)

what makes an argument logically sound

BOTH the logical structure follow and the premise and conclusion true.

Why was Socrates charged

he was charged for corrupting the youths about his unorthodox beliefs about God, who would mock him for entertainment. Socrates was trying to find wise people (Melatos), but he couldn’t. Socrate could at least acknowledge that he was not the most wise (making him better than others)

socrates says he shouldn’t leave /stay the jail bc

it is just. If he were to leave, it would be wrong

Why did Critos want Socrates to escape jail

1) socrates’ death is a loss to his friends and ppl will lose a mentor, 2) everyone in athens are going to think his friends suck because they just let him die, 3) the law is punishing an innocent person

oracle at delphi and what did it say about socrates

“no one was wiser.” Socaretes didn’t think he was that wise, and he questioned the ppl who would consider themselves wise, while their arguments fell apart with the Oracle

what is socrates’ response to crito

it doesn’t matter what other ppl think or your reputation, its the truth that matters. Instead, the goal should just be to live a righteous life.

what is crito’s response to socrates

his response is even if their opinions don’t matter/ your reputation doesn’t matter, they are still harming you

Socrates’ repsonse back to crito

people can harm you physically, but only you can harm yourself internally (like your soul). The people who kill him are harming themselves because they are performing an injustice.

What is the main Argument against escaping

P1: One should never do anything that is ethically wrong (bad, dsigraceful)

P2: For Socrates to attempt to escape his death penalty would be ethically wrong

C: Therefore, Socrates should not attempt to escape and evade his death penalty

Argument from Consequences

B1. It is ethically wrong knowing to bring significant harm to the laws and state, even for self- preservation

B2: In attempting to escape and evade a penalty imposed by the state, Socrates would be knowingly brining significant harm to the laws and state

C: Therefore, it would be ethically wrong for Socrates to escape and evade the penalty imposed by the state

Argument from Agreement

C1: The act of voluntarily remaining in the state as an adult citizen constitutes an implicit legitimate and serious agreement to obey the laws of the state

C2: It is always ethically wrong to break legitimate and serious agreements

C3: Therefore, IT WOULD ALWAYS BE ETHICALLY WRONG FOR ANY LONG-TIME ADULT CITIZEN TO FAIL TO OBEY THE AWS OF THE STATE

C4: Socrates is a long-time citizen of Athens (who remained in Athens voluntarily), and his attempting to escape would violate its law

C: Therefore, it would be ethically wrong for Socrates to attempt to escape

What is wrong with the C3 argument

if the law was ethically unjust. Would be still have to obey that law. If so, C3 upi could potentially do something ethically wrong (this leans on the first argument’s premise which is that one should not do something ethically wrong

How would we revise the argument from agreement

• D1: The act of voluntarily remaining in the state as an adult constitutes an implicit and legitimate agreement to obey just laws or orders, which includes accepting the outcome of fair and legal judicial procedures (i.e. legal in relation to just laws) and submitting to any prescribed punishment (even if the verdict is mistaken).

• D2: it is always wrong to break legitaimate and serious agreements

• D3: (Therefore), it would always be wrong for any long-time adult citizen to fail to obey just laws or orders or to fail to submit to the outcome of fair and legal judical procedures (under just laws)

• D4: Socrates is a long-time citizen of Athens, and his trial was conducted fairly, according to just laws, which he would be violating by attempting to escape.

• D5: (Therefore), it would be wrong for Socrates to attempt to escape

What is the purely self-interested rational thing for each of you to do? Do you see the problem leads to?

The most rational thing for both of you to do is to betray the other person. This shows an example of Glaucon’s social context that people are naturally greedy. Proves that there is a lesson that fear + ambition = mutual misery

Rings of Gyges

The story brings up that if people could act without the consequence of being seen, if they would still perform it because if you were to put the ring on it would make you invisible

instrumental value good

valued only for their results (ex: money as a tool)

things that have both intrinsic value and non instrumental value

valued for results AND in themselves (education that helps w getting a job but also to learn, friends for connection and joy and to help in times of need)

things with only non-instrumental value

valued only in themselves, and not the results they bring (happiness for your own sake and to be happy)

Plato Republic’s question

why should someone actually be just, instead of just pretending to be just to get the rewards?

What does Thrasymachus argue

it is actually bad for a person to be just, the more just, the worse off they are

what does the maximus tyrant represent?

it represents the failure of moral stuff like total power and no justice.

what does the “indwelling tyrant” symbolize

our own control appetitites and passions

What does freedom require

you need to be a free agent in life, becoming zen (usually spiritual), simply do a reflective awarness and minfulness

What does Pluto say are required for a free and good life.

To know the good, you need to use reason to act freely and grasp the world around. A truly free life and a truly good life means that you are living well and will coincide

What does Plato argue about the Tyrant

The tyrant is not truly free because they are enslaved to their own desires than being a free agent. Another example of not being free is addiction and culture to fit in (like wedding rings)

what does Glaucon argue for vs what does Socrate argue for

Glaucon thinks justice is about the social contract and how people only follow the rules because they’re afraid of going against societal norms (so the social benefits of being seen as just); however, Socrate is arguing that justice is about the soul and what people do for it (what is inside and what you think is truly just)

Tripartite model:

three parts: reason, spirt, appetite

Plato’s tripartite soul based on the model

the human stands for reason, monster stands for desires/ appetite, thulh’s spirt stands for ambition of honor but can be at capacity for cruety if not guided correctly

reason

 source of judgement, seeks truth, ideally governs spirt and appetite

Spirt

origin of anger, can be cultivated by reason, but can also be directed to pursue our appetites

Appetites

center of base desires and needs (lust, hunger, greed)

what happens to your soul when you perform unjust actions

it becomes disordered and deranged because it is weakened by the appetites that should be disciplined by reason with the help of the spirited part as reason’s helper

what is injustice

the quality of soul doing unjust things (disordered, sick condition of the soul); breaking the rules of the social contract

what does plato say about injustice

its about your own soul. Tyrant has everything, but he ruined everything by ruining his soul which is worse than having everything he might think is important like all the money in the world

what is justice

 “harmonic symphony residing in the soul”: it is the health and well-being of the soul—the most important, most God-like part of us. By doing just things (like refraining from your desires), you are nurturing the human within

Divine Command Theory

are morally wrong things wrong because God commands us not to do them, or does God command us not to do them because God, knowing everything, sees that they’re already wrong for some reason? 

God’s commands

do not lie, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery

moral truths

lying is wrong, murder is wrong. adultery is wrong

Natural Theory

opposite of Divine Command Theory which means that moral truths are principles for why God commands us to do things

Mortimer’s simple version of DCT

God mad us so he has claims to ur obedience. Because we are his creations. We do and he desires, but the question becomes are we obligated to obey x and command automatically binds us to law y

Evil demon objection to DCT (if god is evil)

if our creator was evil, would be obligated to obey his commands?

Non-command basis

can’t just add more commands to explain why we have to obey his commands

process of going from why we are obligated to obey by the divine theory

divine command (not to lie or steal) → obligation not to lie or steal

Modified Divine Command Theory

adds the following condition- The creator god must also be sufficiently GOOD and GOOD TO US (goodness merits our gratitude and obedience, and that’s why we’re obligated to obey the god’s commands in general (not bc he created us, but because we are morally obligated to obey because there is divine goodness))

process for modified divine theory

God’s Goodness to us -> divine command (not lie or steal) -> obligation (not to lie or to steal)

what is the problem with modified divine command theory

bc of our parents’ goodnes to us -> respect and grateful for our parents -> we are obligated to follow them? and another problem is what is the root cause/ what areGod’s reasons for giving commands?

Dilemma for DCT- either 1) god’s commands are arbitrary and given for no good reason, or (2) he has good reasons for giving us those commands.

In first case, the god would not seem very rational. And why would arbitrary commands, given for no good reason, generate moral obligation? In the second case, the very things that are the god’s good reasons for giving us the command would themselves already be good reasons for us to behave that way, already explaining why we should so behave (e.g., refrain from lying)! The appeal to divine commands is superfluous.

Theistic Alternative to DCT

Moral truths don’t come from arbitrary commands from God, but are instead built into the nature of reality. It’s hard to know which divine commands are real or true, since religions disagree and we can’t rely only on faith or tradition — that leads to confusion