Phil Sem2

  1. Soundness:

    • An argument is sound if the argument is valid and all the statements,
    • including the conclusion are true.
  2. Induction:
    • Is moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and
    • theories. The problem with induction is that it makes generalizations about a
    • subject. For example the idea that all the ravens are true because up to today
    • all the ravens observed are black is in principle wrong.
  3. Relativism:
    A system that states that there are no objective truths
  4. Empiricism:
    • A theory of knowledge
    • that asserts that knowledge comes only of primarily via sensory experience.
  5. Rationalism:
    • The belief that the world
    • we live in can be understood by the use of reason.
  6. Idealism:
    • Is the idea that only
    • minds and ideas exist.
  7. Skepticism:
    • A skeptics is one who
    • doesn’t think we have or even can have knowledge of a particular sort.
  8. Substance Dualism:
    • There exist two distinct substances (i.e. immaterial mind and material
    • body)
  9. Folk Psychology:
    • Traditional approach to explaining mind and behavior by way of concepts
    • such as beliefs thoughts, pain etc.
  10. Identity Theory
    • Type
    • Identity theories hold that at least some types of mental states are literally
    • identical with some types of brain states.
  11. Functionalism:

    • Mental
    • States are defined in terms of their relations to Sensory input, other mental
    • states, and behavioral output.
  12. Eliminativism
    • There are no mental states—there
    • are only brain states.
  13. Qualia:
    • are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like,
    • experientially
  14. Epiphenomenalism:
    • Mental states have no casual sates,
    • but physical states can cause mental states.
  15. Physicalism
    All facts are physical facts.
  16. Intentionality
    • That feature of some mental states
    • by which they are directed toward objects or states of affairs in the world.
  17. Traditional definition of God
    • omnipotence,
    • omniscience, Omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. Meaning, the Judeo-Christian
    • God is all-powerful, all knowing, all loving, and ever-present.

  18. A priori vs. a posteriori:

    • A priori is a type of knowledge that is
    • derived without experience or observation. They are true regardless of
    • experiment or observation. For example: 2 + 2 = 4. A posteriori is a type of
    • knowledge, which is derived through experience or observation.

  19. Brute Facts
    • Facts that do not requirean explanation. a brute fact is one whose truth does not depend on some
    • more fundamental fact or facts

  20. Brute Facts:
    Facts that do not require an explanation. a brute fact is one whose truth does not depend on some more fundamental fact or facts.
  21. Ockham’s Razor:

    • other
    • things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex
    • one." It tries to explain the reasons why sometimes the increase in
    • population is not necessary.

  22. Objections against the
    Ontological argument:

    • 1) Anselm:
    • 1 Suppose god existed only in the understanding.
    • 2.It could have existed in reality as well.
    • 3. If it existed in reality it would have been greater.
    • 4. Therefore, aGCB could have been greater.
    • 5. 4 is absurd
    • 6. Therefore, a GCB exists not only in the understanding, but in reality as well.
  23. Guanilo's Objections against the Ontological argument:

    • If the argument succeds, then we can prove the existence of things, which we know, don’t exist (e.g. the perfect
    • island)
    • 3) Kant: Existence is not a property. Existence is a
    • precondition for having
    • properties. Kant says that premise 3 is false . Existence is about
    • correspondence between an idea and the world.
    • 4) GCG & possibility: In order for the
    • GCB to be possible i.e. for 2 to be true, one must show that there is a limit
    • to how great a being can be.

  24. Cosmological Arugument***

    First Pass (Aquinas’s 2nd way)

    1. Everything has a cause

    2. Nothing can cause itself.

    3. Causal chains cannot go back infinitely into the past.

    4. There must be a first cause.
  25. One Problem with Aquina's first pass of the ontological argumetnt?
  26. it is a basic presupposition that we all make. Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.
  27. ***Cosmological Arugument***

    Second Pass ( Clarke)
    1. Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

    2. Every being is either dependent or self existent.

    3. Not every being can be dependent

    • There exists a self
    • existent being

    it is a basic presupposition that we all make. Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.
  28. Principle of Sufficient Reason:
  29. There must be an explanation for the existence of every being and every fact.
  30. Dependent Being
    • A being which is explained by
    • something other than itself.

  31. Self-existent Being:

  32. A self that is accounted for by its
    own nature.

  33. 3 Objections for the cosmological argument:
    • 1) Why cant there be an infinite chain of dependent
    • beings…-violates the PSR.
    • 2) Why believe PSR is true?
    • 3) Either is true that everything has a cause or it isn’t. Then God has a cause. Then why not
    • allow that the universe is doesn’t require a cause.
  34. Replies for to the cosmological argument
  35. A: it is institutively true.
    • Problem:
    • it is not unanimous
    • B: It is a basic presupposition that we all make.
    • Problem:
    • Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.
  36. ***Argument from Design***

    Argument form analogy:

    • Inferring that 2 objects are similar in some
    • respect on the basis of the fact that they are similar in other respects.
  37. Hume’s three objections for the Argument for Design
    1) The argument rests on a weak analogy.

    • The greater the dissimilarity between the objects in question, the weaker the
    • analogy.

    • 2) We can observe the creation of watches
    • though we cannot observe the creation of the universe.

    • 3) Evolution provides an alternative
    • explanation for the complex order of the universe.

    • 4) The argument seems to imply that God was
    • also created by intelligent design.

  38. Fine-Tuning Argument

    • 1) There are several basic physical
    • constants that had to be just as they are in order for life to be possible.

    • 2) The possibility of all of these constants
    • being just as they are is incredibly low.

    3) Therefore it requires an explanation.

    4) God made it so is a good explanation.

    • 5) In fact, God made it so it is the best
    • explanation we have.

    • 6) Therefore, we have good reason to believe
    • in the existence of God.

  39. Objections for the Fine Tunning Argument:
    1) other possible kinds of life.

    2) Why not think That god is also fine tuned

    • 3) Every possible combination of values for
    • the constants is equally impossible, so why does “our’ way require an
    • explanation?

    • 4) Multiverse hypothesis: Points out the
    • existence of many distinct universes each with its own physical constants. They
    • would produce the unlikehood of our universe tuning out as id did.

    5) Chance
  40. Natural Evil:
  41. Results of operations of
    nature…. ie Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes,
  42. Moral Evil:
  43. Rape, murder, torture, and
    all that stuff.
  44. Inconsistent Tetrad:
    • 1) Good is omnipotent, 2)
    • God is omniscient, 3) God is omnibenevolent, 4) Evil Exists.
  45. Rowe’s Argument against the existence of God.
    • 1) If God exists, there would be not
    • pointless suffering.

    • 2) There exists at least one instance of
    • pointless suffering.

    3) Therefore, God does not exist.
  46. Pointless suffering
    • Suffering that God could have completely
    • prevented, or suffering completely without a greater good?
  47. Theodicies and Replies for the Problems of evil:
    1) Evil is necessary for higher order Goods.

    • Evil is necessary for the development of “higher order virtues”( Eg. compassions,
    • courage, selflessness. )

    • Fundamental Value judgment: “ready-made goodness is much less valuable than goodness
    • achieved through free responses to real challenges, difficulties, and evils.

    • 2) Evil is necessary for the appreciation of
    • God. Like a punishment kind of
    • thing.

    • 3) Replies:
    • 1) why so much evil? 2)Why is the evil distributed so unevenly?

    • Free Will: Moral evil is the result of
    • human action.

  48. cultural relativism(CR):

  49. There are no objective moral truths. Morality is
    determined by culture.

  50. Cultural
    Differences argument:
    • 1) Different Cultures have different
    • Standards

    • 2) Therefore, there are no objective moral
    • standards
    • Problem: it is invalid or unsound
  51. 3 Consequences of CR if CR is true:
    • 1) We cannot morally condemn the moral
    • practices of other cultures.

    • 2) We can never correctly judge the moral
    • standards of our own culture.

    3) There is no moral progress

  52. Utilitarianism

  53. is an ethical theoryholding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall"happiness".
  54. Consequentialism:

    • The moral worth of an act
    • is determined by its consequences. “The ends justify the means”.
  55. John Stuart Mill
    1) Good — Pleasure/ privation of pain.

    2) Bad —Pain/ privation of pleasure.

  56. Principle of utility

    • Actions are right as long
    • as they promote happiness/ pleasure, wrong as they promote the reverse of
    • happiness.
  57. Objection against utilitarinaism:
  58. Pleasure is an unworthy goal for humans.
  59. Qualitative view for Utilitarinaism:
  60. Some pleasures are qualitative superior to others
  61. Examples of Higher quality pleasures:
  62. intellect imagination, aesthetics sentiments, moral
    • sentiments, and emotions. These
    • pleasures are 1) Distinctively human. 2) More difficult to attain. 3) require
    • The cultivation of our “higher Faculties”
  63. Lower quality pleasures
    • Those pleasures we share with animals
    • (eg. Food, drink, sex)
  64. Principle of impartiality
  65. No individual’s happiness is worth more than
    anyone else’s happiness.
  66. Greatest happiness principle
    • We ought choose those acts
    • which will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number

  67. Objection:

    Some acts are simply warong regardless of the consequences.
  68. Deontology:

    • It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation"
    • or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your
    • duty"
  69. The Good Will

    • the only thing that is good
    • without qualification.

  70. An Act merely
    conforms to duty if:
    • 1) It is an act which duty commands; the
    • right actions because it is the right thing.

    • 2) It is done for any reason other than the
    • fact that duty commands it.

    3) It has no moral worth
  71. An Act is done form duty if:
    1) It is an act which duty commands;

    2) It is done because duty commands it.

    3) It has moral worth

  72. Maxim:

    • subjective principle of action
    • General
    • form: In situation S, I will do A, for reason R
  73. Imperatives (commands)
    • Hypothetical— if you want x, then do y.
    • the force of the command (i.e. ‘do y’)
    • depends upon the truth of the antecedent ( i.e., ‘if’-clause)
  74. Imperatives (commands)
    • Do X!!(No exceptions)r—t applies to youi in
    • virtue of being a rational being

    • ·
    • “Commands of morality”
    of the categorical imperative:
    • Act only on maxims that you can at the same time
    • will to become a universal law
    • *Treating oneself as a special case is the essence of imm
  76. 2) SECOND FORMULATION of the categorical imperaive:
    • Act always so hat you treat
    • humanity, whether in yourself or in others, as an end and never merely as a
    • mean to an end.
  77. Korsgaard Explanation:
    • "you treat someone as a mere means whenever you
    • treat him in a way to which he could not possibly consent”.
  78. Perfect duties
  79. Permit no exceptions

  80. Imperfect Duties

  81. Permit exceptions
Card Set
Phil Sem2
Second part of intro to phil.