Past paper 1 (E&M)

  1. What is the difference between a necessary truth and a contingent truth

    A necessary truth is a claim that is logically true and therefore must be true in all possible worlds. In contrast, a contingent truth is true, but may not be true in all possible worlds. For instance, while 2+2=4 (which is a necessary truth) is true and must be true in all possible worlds, the Eiffel Tower being in france does not have to be true in all possible worlds, such as that the Eiffel Tower may be in Spain instead in an alternative history.

  2. Explain the reliabilist definition of knowledge.

The reliabilist account of knowledge suggests that Justification is not a necessary condition for propositional knowledge, as justification implies the goodness of the true belief which therefore suggests propositional knowledge as subjective rather than objective. Therefore, reliabilism rejects the tripartite account of knowledge and proposes a new condition instead of Justification, such as that the conditions are as follows:

S knows that P iff:

  1. P is true;

  2. S believes that P; and

  3. S’ belief in P is caused by a reliable cognitive process;

Explain hedonistic utilitarianism and explain the criticism that it ignores the moral integrity of the individual.

Hedonistic utilitarianism is a moral theory claims that for an act to be morally right, it must produce the greatest happiness as an outcome, such as that it is made up of the following claims:

  1. Hedonistic utilitarianism is based on act consequentialism, such as that the moral right or wrong of an act would be dependent on its consequences.

  2. Hedonistic utilitarianism is based on hedonism, such as that pleasure is the sole intrinsic good and therefore morally right.

  3. Hedonistic utilitarianism is based on equality, such as that all beings must be considered within hedonistic utilitarianism, such as that the happiness of all beings are valued equally, and no one’s happiness is valued over the other.

Therefore, an act is morally right, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, if its outcome produces the greatest amount of happiness.

The moral integrity of the individual, on the other hand, is what an individual considers morally correct as it aligns with the individual’s moral principles. For example, one of an individual’s moral principles may be that they believe killing is bad. The moral integrity of the individual means that the individual would adhere to the moral principle that killing is bad, and thus they would be discouraged from killing. Some may argue that it is important to respect the moral integrity of an individual, as it is an act that all individuals owe to one another, such as a system of justice (fairness) is upheld. Furthermore, respecting the moral integrity of the individual respects the individual’s autonomy, such as respecting the fact that the individual can make a conscious decision to perform an act, which, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, can either be morally right or wrong according to outcome it produces.

However, the hedonistic utilitarianism conflicts with the moral integrity of the individual in an event where the happiness of the majority would mean disregarding an individual’s moral integrity. One criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism is therefore that it does not respect the individual’s moral integrity as long the outcome produces the greatest number of the happiness (tyranny of the majority), which may be seen as unfair as it disregards the individual’s (minority’s) rights to moral integrity. Another criticism is that, by disregarding the individual’s moral integrity when they conflict with the majority’s happiness, hedonistic utilitarianism does not respect the individual’s autonomy as according to act consequentialism, it is the consequences of the action in which morality is concerned and not the act itself. Hedonistic utilitarianism therefore does not respect the individual’s moral integrity in autonomously choosing to do what is morally right, nor will it respect the individual’s moral integrity in not wanting to do what is morally incorrect according to the individual’s moral principles if it means the majority will be happy.