Philosophy Review

Midterm Review

Hume: Plato & Socrates

• Socrates his methods & Characteristics

  • Questioned everything

  • Virtue is the most important characteristic

  • Was committed to truth

• The type of definitions Socrates seeks—including the definitions they came up with in the Euthyphro

  • He defines piety, which is the justice to holiness

  • Piety is what is dear to the Gods

  • Piety is what all God’s love

• what Socrates says about harm and virtue

• A virtuous person cannot be harmed because harm is only caused when people act unjustly themselves

Stoicism:

• the relation between harm and judgment

  • The harm comes from our mind, and if we don’t think we are hurt then we won’t feel hurt

  • External Truths are neutral. They only gain meaning based on our interpretation.

  • We control our responses

    • We can control how we react so if we have a bad reaction, and bad things happen because of our reactions that is a just, earned consequence.

  • the nature of objects and the nature of actions

    • Objects (external things) are neither good nor bad but how they are used can be bad.

    • Ex. Wealth, health, popularity

    • These things may be sought after but that doesn’t mean they are necessary.

  • Actions (our choices and decisions) are the only things that have moral value.

    • Virtue (like wisdom, courage, justice, etc.) is the only true good

............................................................................................................................

Ethical Theory/Moral Philosophy

Ethical Relativism essay by Pojman

• Thesis of Ethical Relativism

  • Morality is not universal, but changes based on cultures or individuals

  • What is right and wrong is determined by an individual, not by the masses

• Conventionalism & Subjectivism

  • Conventionalism: societal conventions. What a culture

  • Deciding what is morally right and wrong cannot be questioned by another society.

  • Subjectivism: Morality is determined by a person’s personal beliefs. Moral truth varies depending on the person

• problems with ethical relativism (according to Pojman)

  • Just because cultures disagree doesn’t mean there is no right answer

  • We can’t say societies improve if morality is subjective (ex. Slavery, Apartheid, segregation, women’s rights)

  • If all morals are accepted, that means we need to accept all morally wrong practices to respect everyone’s morals.

  • Allows contradictory beliefs to exist

• Pojman’s point about the relation between tolerance and ethical relativism

  • Ethical relativists argue that their way builds tolerance for all kinds of morals, but Pojman argues that this just creates another value on morals, and says if another culture were to support the idea of intolerance then they have every right to do so

  • (ex. Mobs in Nauvoo were morally right to want to run early members of the church from their homes)

• Objectivism

  • The idea is that there are moral truths that are universal and cannot be argued against.

• difference between “absolutism” and “objectivism”

  • Absolutism: The idea that morals are rigid and cannot be acted against (lying is bad)

  • Objectivism: Situationally morals can be changed and acted against for the greater good (lying is okay to save a life)
    

Psychological Egoism

• What is psychological egoism?

  • Psychological Egoism is that we all act upon selfish desires naturally. True altruism is not a thing

• The main points from the “Argument from Strongest Desires” & Shafer-Landau’s response

  • Humans naturally act on their strongest desires

  • Shafer-Landau says that simply because we have desires does not mean they are bad

• the point concerning the Abraham Lincoln example and guilt

  • Abraham Lincoln proved that humans do act out of guilt when making good altruistic actions

• the debate between Batson and Cialdini

  • Batson: True Altruism does exist

  • Cialdini: All actions are ultimately selfish and with the intent of gain.

• the difference between selfishness and moral self-interest

  • Selfishness is blatantly harming others to help yourself

  • Moral Self-Interest is prioritizing yourself but within reason.

Ethical Egoism

• what ethical egoism claims, and doesn’t claim

  • Claims:

    • People should act on their moral instincts as it is the right thing to do.

  • Doesn’t Claim:

    • That people always act selfishly

    • That we should never help other people, as doing good deeds is still a good thing

• the main argument against ethical egoism

  • Ethical egoism treats one’s own beliefs as being more important than others’ beliefs without any solid justification.

Golden Rule Essay (Gensler)

• Gensler’s revised interpretation of the GR: treat others only as you would consent to be treated in the same situation.

  • This forces consistency and morality for others to think of the emotions of the other individual

• the problems with the LR (literal version)

  • Ignores Context (if you love hugging but others don’t want to be hugged)

  • Fails in moral dilemmas (Doesn’t address solutions where opinions clash) (criminal compared to a judge)

  • Doesn’t focus on moral principles (Only personal desires)

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics:

• the main point of virtue ethics

  • considers growing good traits instead of simply

• examples of virtues and vices and the mean

  • Courage (mean and virtue)
    Recklessness (vice)
    Cowardice (vice)

  • Wisdom (Mean and virtue)
    Arrogance (vice)
    Idiocy (vice)

Kant’s Moral Theory:

• what Kant means by acting from duty

  • Doing the right thing because morally you should, not because you necessarily want to.

• the difference between acting according to and from duty

  • Acting according to duty: serving a mission because it is expected of you by parents and other authority figures

  • Acting from duty: Heavenly Father wants all his children to return to him. Therefore, I have to help in any way that I can.

• Categorical Imperative: Formula of Universal Law (FUL) version: be able to give a precise statement: Act only on those maxims that one can will to become universal laws.

  • I will lie to get money

  • If everyone were to lie to get money, then no one would be able to get loans

  • Lying would become meaningless because everyone does it.

• Be able to explain (and recognize examples of) contradictions-in-concept and contradictions-in-will.

  •     

• Categorical Imperative: Formula of Humanity as an End (FHE) version. Treat everyone always as an end and never merely as a means.

  •  

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism

• the basic idea of consequentialism/utilitarianism: maximizing the overall good

• the 2 main objections to Utilitarianism: are the personal rights/justice objection & the over-demanding objection

• 4 factors that help define consequences: scope, duration, intensity, probability

Non-Consequentialism vs. Consequentialism (Kagan Essay):

• Transplant

  • Killing someone who has organ donor matches for people who are going to die

• Trolley Problem: Switch, Footbridge (fat man)

  • Either kill 5 people or one person

• The “deontological asymmetry”

Intuitionism (Audi essay):

• 8 prima facie duties (not including liberty or respect)

• 2 main characteristics of prima facie duties (self-evident, non-absolute)

Psychological Egoism

• the basic claim of psychological egoism

• the main points from the “Argument from Strongest Desires” & the problems with the argument, according to Landau's chapter

• the point concerning the Abraham Lincoln example and guilt, as well as how that support for the “argument from guilt” might not work

Ethical Egoism

• what ethical egoism claims (and does not claim)

• Shaffer-Landau’s response to the so-called “best argument for ethical egoism”

Professor Gates’ essay on “Ethical Egoism, and the Gospel”

• be able to explain the “normative objection” against interpreting the gospel as ethical egoism

• be able to explain the “motivational objection” against interpreting the gospel as ethical egoism

.................................................................................................................................

Epistemology:

Basic Logic:

• Deduction & Induction

• Validity and Soundness

• Modus Tollens & Modus Ponens

Descartes:

• the cogito argument and how it overcomes his doubts

• know how his argument for God relates to his belief in the external world

Locke’s notion of truth

• conformity to (1) the minds of others, (2) real existence, (3) the real essence of things

• 3 degrees of certainty

Hume:

• The 3 Principles of the association of ideas (resemblance, contiguity, cause and effect).

• relations of ideas/matters of fact

• his point about induction (and the truth of matters of fact–i.e., empirical truth)

110 Final Exam Review

Comprehensive Material (might show up on the Final)

• Basic Logic (Validity, Soundness, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens) 

  • Arguments are things that establish a claim (or a conclusion). However, a premise is something that further proves said conclusion.

    • An argument is valid when the premises logically lead to the conclusion (If the premise is true, the conclusion would have to be true):

      • ex: All girls menstruate (periods)
        Sally is menstruating

        Sally is a girl.

        • Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)
          If P, then Q
          P
          Q

    • An argument is sound when it is valid AND all premises are true:

      • ex: All girls menstruat (true)

        Sally is menstruating (true)
        Sally must be a girl

        • Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
          If P, then Q
          not P
          not Q

• The basics of Stoicism 

  • Famous Stoics included Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius (meditations)

  • Key points of stoicism:

    • control what you can, accept what you can’t

    • Live according to nature and reason

    • Virtue is the only true good

    • Indifferents: Preferred vs. Dispreferred

      • Preferred Indifferents: things like health, money, friends—nice to have but not necessary for a good life.

      • Dispreferred Indifferents: illness, poverty, death—things we’d rather avoid, but they don’t ruin our virtue.

• Basics of psychological and ethical egoism 

  • Psychological Egoism: We always act in our self-interest (descriptive claim).

  • Ethical Egoism: We should act in our self-interest (normative claim).

• Basics of Kant’s moral theory (FUL/FHE) 

  • Formula of Universal Law (FUL): Act only on maxims you could will to be universal laws.

  • Formula of Humanity as End (FHE): Treat others as ends, never merely as means.

• Gensler’s revised interpretation of the Golden Rule 

  • Revised Golden Rule: "Treat others only as you would be willing to be treated in the same situation." It avoids hypocrisy by considering the consistency of judgment across similar cases.

• Ross’s intuitionism (prima facie duties) 

  • Moral knowledge comes through intuition.

  • Prima Facie Duties:

    • Fidelity,

    • reparation,

    • gratitude,

    • justice,

    • beneficence,

    • self-improvement,

    • non-maleficence.

      • We weigh these depending on context.

• The basics of utilitarian-consequentialism and its critiques 

  • Right action = greatest happiness for the greatest number.

  • Critiques: Ignores justice, rights, intentions, and personal integrity.

Husserl: 

• Intentionality–3 types: Signitive, Perceptual, Pictorial 

  • Intentionality: Consciousness is always about something.

    • Signitive: abstract (e.g., thoughts about math)

    • Perceptual: direct experiences

    • Pictorial: representations/images

• Empty and filled intentions 

  • Empty Intentions: unfulfilled ideas/thoughts.

  • Filled Intentions: actual experience of the object.

• What he says about Identity 

  • Identity: Achieved when various perspectives are synthesized into one coherent object.

• Registering and reporting facts 

Hume on Rationality:

• Apart from beliefs, desires are neither rational nor irrational 

  • Desires themselves are not rational or irrational—only beliefs can be assessed this way.

Gert on Rationality: 

• An action is irrational if someone believes (1) it will cause, or significantly increase the probability of, the agent suffering (avoidable) death, pain, disability, loss of freedom, or loss of pleasure, and (2) there is no objectively adequate reason for the action” (30).

  • An action is irrational if:

    1. It likely causes death, pain, disability, and loss of freedom/pleasure.

    2. There’s no adequate reason for it.

Agency and Free Will Debate:      

Taylor Essay 

• Know the meaning of Determinism, Soft determinism/Compatibilism.

  • Determinism: All actions caused by prior events.

  • Compatibilism (Soft Determinism): Free will is compatible with determinism.

  • Taylor’s Critique: If every act is caused, we’re not truly free—only doing what we’re caused to do.

• Taylor’s basic critique of soft-determinist claims about free will 

Susan Wolf: 

• Why the Deep-self view is needed 

  • Actions are free if they stem from desires we endorse.

• Plain Deep-self view vs. Sane Deep-self view 

  • Adds the requirement of sanity (realistic values and reasoning).

• How the plain deep-self view can’t distinguish JoJo from others. 

  • Plain view fails because JoJo (raised by an evil dictator) endorses bad values but isn’t morally responsible.

• M’Naughten Rule 

  • Legal test for insanity—no understanding of right/wrong.

• Her point about control, & metaphysical responsibility vs. moral responsibility (384).

  • You may be metaphysically free, but not morally responsible if you lack control.

Joshua May on Neuroscience and Free Will    

• His main point about Free Will and unconscious influences (54) 

  • Unconscious processes affect choices but don’t eliminate freedom.

• His definition of compatibilism (41) 

  • Free will = ability to act in line with one’s reasons and desires, even if caused.

• The 3 ideas that make up his loose definition of Free will (38-9) 

  • Ability to choose among options.

  • Ownership of actions.

  • Responsiveness to reasons.

• His critique of the Libet experiment—readiness potentials & external validity 

  • Readiness potentials ≠ decisions. Low external validity.

• May’s conclusion about the connection between experiments and the claims of epiphenomenalism. 

  • Neuroscience shows influences, not full determinism or lack of freedom.

• What neuroscience does and does not show about Free Will. 

  • Neuroscience shows influences, not full determinism or lack of freedom.

Self-Deception (Warner’s Account) 

• Self-betrayal and self-deception

  • self-betrayal

    • Self-betrayal is acting against one's values or needs

  • self-deception

    • Self-deception involves allowing oneself to believe something false

• I-It and I-You distinction.

  • I-It = objectifying others; I-You = seeing others as people.

• What he means by a collusion and how to get out of one. 

  • Mutual blame cycle—both think the other is at fault. Exit: self-honesty and empathy.

• His point about truly having an emotion vs. having a true emotion 

  • You can feel something genuinely, but that doesn’t mean the emotion is justified.

Haidt's essay on Emotional Reasoning: 

• trigger warnings and microaggressions

  • Can make people more fragile.

• How CBT (Cognitive behavioral therapy) can help solve the free speech problem on college campuses. 

  • Change thought patterns to increase resilience.

• Stoic quote about judgment & harm/offense (Epictetus)

  • It’s not things themselves that disturb us, but our judgments about them.

Philosophy of Mind

Peck's essay on consciousness:

• The hard problem of consciousness—phenomenal consciousness 

  • Why/how we have subjective experiences.

• Functional materialism

  • Brain states explain consciousness.

• Emergence theory—water vs. the mind; what is an “emergent” property? Why is the mind not an emergent property, according to Peck?    

  • Higher-level properties (e.g., wetness from water).

    • Peck says the mind ≠ emergent because consciousness resists reduction. 

Searle and the AI debate: 

• Searle’s critique of Strong AI 

  • Computers can’t understand or think.

• The point of the Chinese room argument:

  • Simulating understanding (like following symbol rules) ≠ , actual understanding.

Philosophy of Religion: 

Swinburne on the Problem of Evil: 

• know the main idea of each of the 4 objections as well as his responses to each (P1-P4): the free will response, the necessity of responsibility, the extent of responsibility, and natural evils     

  • Swinburne – Problem of Evil

    • P1: Free Will Defense – Real freedom requires real risk of evil.

    • P2: Responsibility – Learning from pain builds moral maturity.

    • P3: Extent of Responsibility – Greater responsibility = greater personal development.

    • P4: Natural Evils – Necessary for soul-making (virtue through struggle).

Paulsen: “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil” 

• How the revelations of Joseph Smith solve that logical problem of evil (the two assumptions concerning absolute creation, God’s omnipotence) 

  • God created everything ex nihilo.

  • God has total, unilateral control.

• The argument from 2 Nephi 2 (Lehi’s Theodicy) concerning joy, moral righteousness, freedom, opposition, and evil 

  • Joy requires opposition.

  • Freedom is necessary for righteousness.

  • Evil is necessary for moral growth.

• What 3 things are co-eternal with God? What difference does it make to the problem of evil?     

  • Intelligence, matter, agency.

    • God doesn’t create evil; it arises from eternal free beings.

Peck essay on Randomness, Contingency, and Faith 

• This main thesis

  • Science can’t fully explain existence; randomness ≠ meaninglessness.

• The 2 assumptions of scientific materialism—and his response to them (p. 39) 

  • All is material.

  • All follows deterministic laws.

    • Reality includes contingency and transcendence.

• Kierkegaard’s point about objectivity, science, and approximation. 

  • Truth and meaning found subjectively, not through endless approximation.

• The non-scientific nature of the “ultimate origin” claim concerning randomness and contingency 

  • Science can’t explain the "why" of existence.

• Subjectivity, universal truths, and faith     

  • Fills the gap left by reason, embracing subjectivity and universal truths.

C.S. Lewis's essay on the Obstinacy of Belief 

• The supposed difference between the scientific view of evidence and the Christian believer’s view of evidence 

  • Scientific vs. Religious Evidence: Believers maintain faith even without constant verification.

• His point about the difference between the Logic of Assent vs. the Logic of Personal Relations 

  • Logic of Assent vs. Personal Relations: Faith resembles trust in relationships, not scientific proof.

• The relation between trust and the possibility of doubt

  • Trust & Doubt: Faith is possible because trust includes room for doubt—it’s not blind.