PHIL 201 Notes

FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM 

Know the meaning of the following terms: 

• Determinism: the theory that our actions are determined by our environment, not ourselves. 

• Causal Determinism: everything has a cause, and there is a chain of these causes going back to the beginning. 

• Theological determinism: The belief that God’s omniscience is incompatible with human free will. 

• Libertarianism: the belief that humans have free will, and that this is incompatible from determinism. 

• Indeterministic libertarianism: The theory that events are not caused, and that there is no chain of events. 

• Agency theory: personal agents are the direct cause of their actions. 

• Compatibilism: human freedom and determinism are logically consistent. 

• Soft determinism: compatibilism... 

Know the following arguments: 

• The causality argument: everything has a cause, and there is a chain of these causes going back to the beginning. 

1. The divine sovereignty argument: if God is sovereign, then everything is controlled by God.  

• The foreknowledge argument: if God knows the future, then we have no choice to do but what He already knows. 

• The intuition argument: the fact that we struggle at some points to make a decision shows that we have the freedom of choice 

• The moral argument: if people don’t have a freedom of choice, then we are not morally accountable of our actions. 

• The theodical argument: if determinism is true and God exist, then God is the cause of all evil in the world. 

• The reduction to causal determinism argument: The things that cause your inner beliefs and values are the things external to you 

ETHICS 

Preliminary Issues 

• How was “ethics” defined?: the study of theories or systems of moral values. 

• What is metaethics?: what is the difference between right and wrong. 

• What is applied ethics?: how to apply those principles to your life. 

• How do these differ from each other?: ethics is the study, metaethics is the hypothetical, applied ethics is put to use 

Ethical Relativism/Subjectivism 

• Know the definitions given in class.:  

• Ethical cultural relativism: the view that morality varies from culture to culture, there are no moral absolutes. The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism. 

• Ethical subjectivism: (or non-objectivism) the view that ethical principles are not objectively true but instead are subjective matters of preference. The opposite of ethical subjectivism is ethical objectivism.  

• Ethical emotivism: the view that moral statements are merely expressions of one’s feelings rather than statements of facts.  

• The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism. 

• Ethical relativism is the belief that ethics are not objective, that they are subjective to a multitude of factors 

• Know the arguments for ethical relativism that were presented in class.:  

• Ethical absolutism leads to intolerance.  

• The diversity thesis: the absence of universal agreement indicates inexistence of absolutes. 

•  

• Know the arguments against ethical relativism that were presented in class.:  

• Tolerance: itself is a moral absolute, so if tolerance is the ground of relativism, relativism is self-referentially incoherent. 

• The problem of specificity: if morality is relative, how could we decide what segment too society morality is relative to? 

• A reductio ad absurdum: if relativism is true, then moral progress is impossible. 

• Another reductio: if relativism is true, then all moral reformers are immoral. 

• A third reductio: if relativism is true, we could never say that the practices of other cultures are immoral.  

• Some universal: there seems to be some ethical judgements that are universal. How can we account for this if morality is a cultural construct. 

Metaethics: Consequentialist Theories 

• Know the definition of consequentialism that was given in class.: ethical theories that evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their consequences. 

• Know the two types of consequentialism that were discussed in class and the definitions of each that were given.: 

• Ethical egoism: the view that the criterion by which an action should be judged as right and wrong is its ability to produce happiness (or pleasure or satisfaction of needs) for the individual contemplating the action. (Epicurus and Ayn Rand) 

• Utilitarianism: the view that the criterion by which an action should be judged as right or wrong is the ability of the action to produce the greatest good (happiness or pleasure or satisfaction of needs) for the most people. (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) 

• Know the famous representatives of each of these views that were mentioned in class.:  

• Know the strengths and weaknesses of each of these views that were discussed in class.: difficult to predict immediate and long-range consequences of actions. Seems to imply that evil means can be used to achieve good ends. Doesn’t help us choose between actions having equal consequences. Implies that actions are not moral or immoral in themselves. 

Metaethics: Non-Consequentialist Theories 

• Know the difference between a consequentialist and a non-consequentialist metaethical theory, as was presented in class.: ethical theories that evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their conformity of nonconformity to some standard. 

• Non-consequentialist- ethical theories that evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their conformity or nonconformity to some standard 

• Consequentialist- ethical theories that evaluate the ethical status of actions based upon their consequences 

• Know the three non-consequentialist theories that were discussed in class, including their definitions, proponents who were mentioned, and major points.:  

• Duty ethics: Emmanual Kant’s categorical imperative: “It is one’s duty to act according to maxims that one could consistently will to become universal laws.” (it’s our duty to act ethical) 

• Virtue ethics: Aristotle’s Golden Mean: A virtuous person cultivates a balanced character that avoids extremes.  

• Natural Law Ethics: Thomas Aquinas: The fundamental principles of ethical conduct are rationally discernable in human nature and the natural world.  

• Know the weaknesses of these theories that were presented in class.: They tend to overlook the consequences of actions. They do not provide an explanation of the metaphysics of morality. They are subjective in interpretation and application.   

Christian Metaethics: 

The Metaphysics of Metaethics 

• Know the four theories on the source of morality.:  

• Social contract theory: morality is an implicit agreement between the members of a society that facilitates the functions of that society. (from Thomas Hobbs, eventually taken up by lock)- attempt to explain where our ideas about right and wrong come from 

• Ethical realism: the view that moral goodness comes from a set of timeless rules that are set apart from society and God. 

• Divine command theory: something is right because God commands it and something is wrong because God opposes it. 

• Divine nature theory: the theory that says what is good in ethics is a reflection of the inherent nature of God Himself. 

• Know the weakness or weaknesses of each of the first three theories that were mentioned in class. 

• Social contract- different contracts present in each country 

• Ethical realism- says something is above God making Him not the GCB 

• Divine command theory- makes morality arbitrary 

• Know which of these theories was presented as superior and why.: Divine nature theory. 

The Epistemology of Metaethics 

• Know the three different ways that the Bible can be used to resolve ethical dilemmas.:  

• Look for direct statements that address the issue. 

• Look for general principles from which we can deduce conclusions that address the issue. 

• Look for similar situations in the Bible from which we can reason to a conclusion using analogous induction. 

• Know how the philosophical metaethical theories we discussed fit into this Christian metaethics.: Direct statements 

• Principles 

1. Duty ethics and the golden rule 

2. Consequentialism and “fruit” 

3. Virtue ethics, character and WWJD 

• Analogous situations 

• Natural law 

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION 

Philosophy of Religion: the rational analysis of the concepts, doctrines, and problematic issues found within religious belief systems 

Theistic Apologetics 

• What is “apologetics”?: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine 

• Be able to summarize the following and list their proponents who were mentioned in class: 

• The Ontological Argument: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” (St. Anselm of Canterbury) 

• The Cosmological Argument: There must be a beginning to the universe due to the first law of thermodynamics, but there couldn’t also be an infinite amount of history before the present day. (Thomas Aquinas) 

• The Teleological Argument: The design theory argument. (William Paley) 

• The Moral Argument: universal morals point to a moral law giver, in other words, God. (Kant, C.S. Lewis) 

• The Prudential Argument: It is more logically beneficial to believe in a God. (Blaise Pascal (Pascal’s Wager)) 

• The Argument from Religious Experience: religious experience occurs in every part of the world. How can we best account for the universal appearance of this phenomenon? (John Hick) 

• The Resurrection of Christ: Bible/Habermas 

Atheistic Apologetics 

• Know the various arguments for atheism that were presented in class. 

• The Problem of Evil 

• Know what the problem is as it was presented in class.:  

• If God is omniscient, He would know about every evil event that occurs. 

• If God is omnipotent, He would be able to prevent evil. 

• If God is omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent evil. 

• But God hasn’t prevented evil. 

• Either lacks one or more of these qualities, or He doesn’t exist at all. 

• Christians are Hypocrites 

• Theoretical Simplicity 

• How can a God exist eternally if matter does the same... matter has always been 

• Belief in God is not Scientific 

• Science does not seem to be able to prove there’s a God, it can support the idea of it however 

• Ateleology 

• Argues from the lack of design from the world around us while teleology argues that there is a design to the world around us 

• The Epistemological Argument 

• This argument isn’t arguing God doesn’t exist, it’s arguing that we can’t have any knowledge about God (Resurrection debate with Habermas) 

• Know the definition of theodicy that was given in class.: is the response to the challenge of evil. Theodicy offers reason why it may be consistent for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God to allow evil to exist. 

• Be able to summarize the following and list their proponents who were mentioned in class: 

• The “Greater Good” argument: Allowing evil can sometimes bring about a greater good. God allows specific instances of evil because He knows (although we cannot) that a greater good will result from them. 

• The “Irenaean” Theodicy: First pronounced by Irenaeus; more recent by John Hick. God does not create evil, but He allows evil to develop in order to try, strengthen, and purify us.  

• The “Free Will Defense”: Advocated by Augustine; more recently by Alvin Plantinga. In order for free will to exist, those possessing it must possess the ability to choose evil as well as good. God gave to humanity free will, but God did not cause our evil choices. Humans, not God, are responsible for the evil they choose to do. 

• The “Best Possible World” Argument: Advocated by Leibniz. God could have created a world without evil, but it would be a world devoid of intercession, compassion, heroism, and mercy. God created a world in which both evil and triumph over evil are possible because this kind of world is better than the alternative. 

PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 

• Know the definition of philosophical anthropology: anthropology is the theoretical study of human nature. 

• Know the difference between numerical and qualitative identity:  numerical: something is identical because it is the same thing. Qualitative: something is similar because it shares certain aspects or quality (personality based). 

• Know the eight theories of personal identity that were presented in class and which ones fit best with theism and naturalism.:  

• Qualitatively bodily identity 

• 2 bodies are the same person if they are qualitatively identical 

• Qualitative mental identity 

• 2 beings are the same person if they have the same thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and memories (same mental qualities) 

• Numerical bodily identity 

• 2 beings are the same person if they are numerically identical (only one body) 

• Numerical mental identity 

• 2 beings are the same person if they have numerically identical thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and memories 

• Bodily Continuity  

• 2 beings are the same person if they share the same body day after day 

• Mental continuity 

• 2 beings are the same person if they share the same thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and memories at different times 

• Spiritual continuity 

• We are spirits, souls, or minds that inhabit bodies but aren’t identical to them... 2 beings in the same person only if they have spiritual continuity 

• Personal narrative  

• 2 beings are the same person if their personal histories are numerically identical 

• Know the 13 theories of human uniqueness that were presented in class and which ones fit best with theism and naturalism.:  

• Upright posture. 

• Opposable thumbs. 

• Use of tools. 

• Use of language. 

• Intelligence. 

• Morality. 

• Free will. 

• Emotion.  

• Creativity. 

• The soul. 

• Humans are not unique. Naturalism 

• Human uniqueness is a matter of degree than of kind. 

• Human uniqueness comes from our position as stewards of God’s creation. Creation 

• Know the meaning of the Greek word “telos”: Meaning of life. 

• Know the difference between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”: Extrinsic: purpose is conferred on life by something else. Intrinsic: purpose would be inherent in life itself. 

• Know the three answers to the question “Why are we here?” that were discussed in class (Aristotle, Westminster, and Revelation):  

• Purpose: the reason for which something exists. 

• Naturalism: only historical reason. 

• Theism: both historical and teleological reasons. 

• Know the arguments for life after death that were presented in class:  

• The argument from ultimate justice. 

• The argument from reincarnation. 

• The argument from communication with the dead. 

• The argument from near-death experience.  

• Know the basic biblical truths about death that were presented in class:  

• It is virtually inevitable. 

• It is not the end of existence. 

• It may involve punishment, but it also may involve reward. 

• It can be something to look forward to.