philosopy final

  1. validity
    An argument is valid if it is the case that the truth of the premisesguarantees the truth of the conclusion.
  2. soundness
    An argument is sound if the argument is valid and all the statements, including the conclusion are true.
  3. Induction
    • Is moving from specific observations to broader generalizations andtheories. 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.
  4. Relativism
    A system that states that there are no objective truths.
  5. Empericism
    A theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only of primarily via sensory experience.
  6. Rationalism
    The belief that the worldwe live in can be understood by the use of reason.
  7. Idealism
  8. Is the idea that only minds and ideas exist
  9. Skepticism
    • A skeptics is one who doesn’t think we have or even can have knowledge
    • of a particular sort.
  10. Substance Dualism
    There exist two distinct substances (i.e. immaterial mind and material body)
  11. Folk psychololgy
    • Traditional approach to explaining mind and behavior by way of concepts
    • such as beliefs thoughts, pain etc.
  12. Identity Thoery
    TypeIdentity theories hold that at least some types of mental states are literallyidentical with some types of brain states.
  13. Functionalism
    Mental States are defined in terms of their relations to Sensory input, other mental states, and behavioral output.
  14. Eliminativism
    There are no mental states—there are only brain states.
  15. qualia
    are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like,experientially.
  16. Epiphenomenalism
    Mental states have no casual sates, but physical states can cause mental states.
  17. Physicalism
    All facts are physical facts.
  18. Intentionality
    That feature of some mental states by which they are directed toward objects or states of affairs in the world.
  19. traditional Definition of God.
    • omnipotence, omniscience, Omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. Meaning, the Judeo-Christian
    • God is all-powerful, all knowing, all loving, and ever-present.
  20. A Priori
    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.
  21. A postreriori
    • A posteriori is a type of
    • knowledge, which is derived through experience or observation.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Anselm's Cosmological argument:
    • 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, a GCB could have been greater.
    • 5. 4 is absurd
    • 6. Therefore, a GCB exists not only in the understanding, but in reality as well.
  25. Kant's Objections to the Ontological Argument
    Kant: Existence is not a property. Existence is a precondition for havingproperties. Kant says that premise 3 is false . Existence is aboutcorrespondence between an idea and the world.
  26. Guanilo's objection to the Ontological Argument
    Guanil0’s Objection: If the argument succeds, then we can prove the existence of things, which we know, don’t exist (e.g. the perfect island)
  27. GCB & Possibility
    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.
  28. Aquinas' First pass for the Cosmmological Arguement
    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.
  29. Probolem with Aquina's first pass for the cosmological Argument
    it is a basic presupposition that we all make. Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.
  30. Clarke's 'Second pass' for the Ontological Argument
    1. Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

    2. Every being is either dependent or self existent.

    3. Not every being can be dependent

    4. There exists a self existent being
  31. Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)
    There must be an explanation for the existence of every being and every fact.
  32. Dependent Being
    A being which is explained by something other than itself.
  33. Self-existent being
    A self that is accounted for by its own nature.
  34. 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.
  35. Reply to the idea of an infinite series of dependent beings.
    • A: it is institutively true.
    • Problem:
    • it is not unanimus B: It is
    • a basic presupposition that we all make.
    • Problem:
    • Nature is not bound to satisfy our presuppositions.
  36. Defense of PSR ( two points)
    Reply to those two points.
    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.
  37. Argument from Analogy to Desingn Arguemnt
  38. Inferring that 2 objects are similar in some respect on the basis of the fact that they are similar in other respects
  39. Complex Order
    • Complex Order Adaptation of means to ends… It has a purpuse and it is well suited for accomplishing that
    • purpose.
  40. Hume's 3 objections to the Design Argument
    1) The argument rests on a weak analogy.

    • Thegreater 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.
  41. Fine-tunnign Argumetn
    • 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.
  42. 2 objections t=agains 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
  43. Natural Evil
    results of operations ofnature…. ie Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes,
  44. Moral Evil
    • Rape, murder, torture,
    • and all that stuff.
  45. Inconsistent Tetrad
    1) Good is omnipotent, 2) God is omniscient, 3) God is omnibenevolent, 4) Evil Exists.
  46. Rowe's Argumet agains the existence of God
    • 1) If God exists, there would be notpointless suffering.
    • 2) There exists at least one instance ofpointless suffering.
    • 3) Therefore, God does not exist.
  47. Pointless suffering
    Suffering that God could have completely prevented, or suffering completely without a greater good?
  48. Teodecies and replies.
    • 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?

    • 4)
    • Free Will: Moral evil is the result of human
    • action.
  49. Cultural Relativism:
    • There are no objective
    • moral truths. Morality is determined by culture
  50. Cultural Differnces arguement
    • 1) Different Cultures have different
    • Standards
    • 2) Therefore, there are no objective moral
    • standards
  51. Problem with the cultural differneces Arguement
    it is invalid or unsound.
  52. 3 three Counterintuitive consequences if cultural relativisms 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.
  53. Utilitarinamism:
  54. is an ethical theoryholding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness".
  55. Consequentialism
  56. John Stuart Mill's deffinition of God and Bad
    • 1) Good — Pleasure/ privation of pain.
    • 2) Bad —Pain/ privation of pleasure.
  57. Principle of Utility
    Actions are right as long as they promote happiness/ pleasure, wrong as they promote the reverse of happiness.
  58. Objection that gave rise to the qualitative view?
    Objection: Pleasure is an unworthy goal for humans.

    • Qualitativeview: Some pleasures are qualitative superior to
    • others.
  59. Qualitative view of Happiness
    Some pleasures are qualitative superior to others.
  60. 'Higher quailtiy' pleasures
    intellect imagination, aesthetics sentiments, moral sentiments, and emotions.
  61. Features of higher quality pleasures
    1) Distinctively human. 2) More difficult to attain. 3) require The cultivation of our “higher Faculties”
  62. Examples of higher level qualities
  63. Higher Quality Pleasures
  64. 3 qualities fo higher level pleasures
    • These pleasures are 1) Distinctively human. 2)
    • More difficult to attain. 3) require The cultivation of our “higher Faculties”
  65. Principle of implartiality
    • 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. One objection agains utilitarianims views
    • Some acts are simply wrong 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 is done forom duty if?
    An Act isdone form duty if:

    • 1) It is an act which duty commands;
    • 2) It is done because duty commands it.
    • 3) It has moral worth
  71. An act merely conforms to duty if ?
    • An Act merelyconforms 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
  72. Maxim
    • subjective principle of action
    • General
    • form: In situation S, I will do A, for reason R
  73. Imperatives
    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)

    • Categorical—
    • Do X!!(No exceptions)r—t applies to youi in virtue of being a rational being

    • ·
    • “Commands of morality”
  74. Hypotetical imperative
  75. Categorical Imperative
    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)

    • Categorical—
    • Do X!!(No exceptions)r—t applies to youi in virtue of being a rational being

    “Commands of morality”
  76. 1st formulation (Universalizability)
    • FIRST FORMULATION: 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 immorality
  77. The essence of inmorality
    Treating oneself as a special case is the essence of immorality
  78. 2nd formulation (Humanity)
    • 2) SECOND FORMULATION: 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.
  79. Krosgaard's Explanation
    • “you treat someone as a
    • mere means whenever you treat him in a way to which he could not possibly
    • consent”.
  80. Perfect Duties
    Permit no exceptions
  81. Imperfect Duties
    Permit exceptions
Card Set
philosopy final
study this material for final