Philosophy Final Part 1

Hard Determinism

Hard Determinism

Hard determinism is the philosophical position that all events, including human actions and decisions, are determined by prior causes and that free will is an illusion. Hard determinists argue that since every action is caused by preceding factors, individuals cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Laplace’s demon/computer

Laplace’s Demon is a thought experiment proposed by Pierre-Simon Laplace. It describes an entity that, if it knows the exact position and momentum of every atom in the universe and all the laws of physics, can predict all future events and retrodict all past events. It represents a deterministic universe where everything is calculable in principle, given sufficient knowledge.

Determinism vs. Fatalism

Determinism: The idea that every event is caused by prior conditions, governed by natural laws. Determinism allows for events to be influenced by human actions and choices, which are themselves determined.

• Fatalism: The belief that events are fixed and will happen regardless of human actions or choices. Unlike determinism, fatalism implies inevitability without regard to cause and effect.

psycho vs. stroke victim

This likely refers to contrasting the moral and psychological perspectives on free will and responsibility:

• A “psycho” (psychopath) may act harmfully due to internal psychological factors but still be seen as having some agency.

• A stroke victim may lose control over actions due to brain injury, highlighting how physical causes can impair free will, often used to question the boundary between voluntary and involuntary actions.

indeterminism

Indeterminism is the view that not all events are determined by prior causes. It allows for the possibility of randomness or spontaneity in the universe. In the context of free will, indeterminism suggests that human actions may not be entirely predictable or determined by preceding events.

being free vs being random

Being free: Involves intentional, rational decision-making and control over one’s actions. It is often associated with the capacity for moral responsibility.

• Being random: Refers to actions or events occurring without purpose, reason, or predictable cause. Being free is more than randomness; it requires coherent choice.

compatibilism

Compatibilism is the view that free will and determinism are compatible. It argues that even in a deterministic universe, humans can act freely and be morally responsible if their actions align with their desires and intentions, without external coercion.

Manipulative Brain Washer

A thought experiment used in debates about free will and moral responsibility. It describes a person whose thoughts or actions are manipulated or controlled by another, such as through brainwashing or coercive psychological techniques. The concept is meant to illustrate situations where autonomy and free will are undermined, raising questions about moral responsibility.

Ordinary upbringing rebuttal

This argument counters claims that individuals lack free will because their actions are shaped by external influences, such as upbringing or environment. The rebuttal asserts that even though upbringing influences behavior, it does not eliminate free will entirely, as people can reflect on and revise their beliefs and actions.

locker room example

A thought experiment used to discuss freedom of action. It describes a person in a room who believes they are free to leave, but the door is actually locked. If the person never tries to leave, they may think they are free, but their freedom is illusory. It highlights the difference between having the desire to act and the actual ability to act.

Being free vs being lucky

This distinction addresses the nature of freedom and moral responsibility:

• Being free: Acting intentionally and rationally, based on one’s own choices.

• Being lucky: Achieving a desired outcome by chance, without control over the factors that led to it. This raises questions about whether freedom depends on luck or true autonomy.

Cultural differences argument

An argument for moral relativism, claiming that because different cultures have different moral codes, there are no universal moral truths. For example, practices considered moral in one culture may be viewed as immoral in another, suggesting that morality is relative to cultural norms.

Relativisms Self-Refutation

A critique of moral relativism. If relativism claims that “all truths are relative,” this statement itself cannot be universally true, or it contradicts its own premise. Therefore, relativism undermines itself by requiring an absolute claim (that truth is relative).

No moral progress consequence

A criticism of moral relativism. If morality is relative to culture or personal preference, then the concept of moral progress (e.g., abolishing slavery, advancing human rights) becomes meaningless. Moral relativism suggests that no moral framework is objectively better than another, making improvement impossible.

Moral Objectivism

The view that there are objective moral truths that are independent of individual beliefs or cultural practices. Moral objectivists argue that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of societal norms or personal opinions.

Legal Vs. Moral

This distinction separates what is legal (permitted or enforced by law) from what is moral (aligned with ethical principles). An action can be legal but immoral (e.g., discriminatory laws) or moral but illegal (e.g., civil disobedience for justice). This distinction emphasizes that legality does not always reflect moral correctness.

Necessary conditions for society

Philosophers propose that certain conditions must be met for a society to function, such as:

• Cooperation among individuals.

• Rules or norms governing behavior.

• A system for resolving disputes and enforcing order.

These conditions are considered essential for maintaining stability and enabling collective living.

Divine Command theory

A metaethical theory that asserts that morality is determined by God’s commands. Actions are morally right if God commands them and wrong if He forbids them. Critics question whether morality is arbitrary (based on God’s will) or independent of God (the Euthyphro dilemma).

Plato’s question about God

Plato’s question, often called the Euthyphro dilemma, comes from his dialogue Euthyphro. It asks:

“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

This poses a challenge to Divine Command Theory:

• If something is good because God commands it, morality seems arbitrary.

• If God commands it because it is good, morality exists independently of God.

Arbitrariness of Morality objection

This objection to Divine Command Theory argues that if morality is determined solely by God’s will, then moral principles are arbitrary. For example, if God had commanded theft or murder to be good, they would be moral. This undermines the idea of a consistent, rational moral framework.

unexpected utility in moral consequentialism

In moral consequentialism, expected utility refers to the idea that the moral worth of an action depends on the likely consequences it will produce. It involves calculating the probability and value of potential outcomes to determine the most morally preferable action.

Act Utilitarianism

A form of utilitarianism that evaluates the morality of each individual action based on whether it produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure (utility) for the greatest number of people. Each action is judged on a case-by-case basis.

Hedons & Dolors

• Hedons: Units of pleasure used in utilitarian calculations to measure the positive impact of an action.

• Dolors: Units of pain used to measure the negative impact of an action.

The goal in utilitarianism is to maximize hedons and minimize dolors.

Quality Dimension of Pleasure

In John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, the quality of pleasure matters, not just the quantity. Mill distinguishes between:

• Higher pleasures: Intellectual or moral pleasures (e.g., art, knowledge, virtue).

• Lower pleasures: Physical or sensory pleasures (e.g., eating, drinking).

Mill argues that higher pleasures are more valuable because they engage our higher faculties.

Matrix Criticism

This refers to objections to hedonism or utilitarianism, inspired by scenarios like the movie The Matrix. The criticism asks whether a life of simulated pleasure (e.g., being plugged into the Matrix) is genuinely good or desirable. It challenges the idea that pleasure alone determines a good life by highlighting the importance of truth and reality.

“Doctrine of Swine” objection

A criticism of utilitarianism that claims it reduces humans to the level of animals by focusing solely on pleasure and pain. Critics argue this view fails to account for higher human aspirations like virtue, creativity, and intellectual achievement. John Stuart Mill responded by emphasizing the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

“Harm to innocent” objection

A critique of utilitarianism that points out situations where maximizing overall happiness might justify harming innocent people. For example, punishing an innocent person to prevent widespread panic could maximize utility, but it conflicts with common moral intuitions about justice and fairness.