believes 12.
13.
Avoid
Berkeley materialism leads to skepticism because materialism implies that our senses
mislead us as to the natures of these material things.
Berkeleys physical objects= ordinary things like chairs, cars, boats. Matter is a philosophers
myth, a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on
thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds)
existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous
phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
When we talk about a physical object (e.g. a chair) we are talking about something that is (say)
brown, hard and cold. These are properties that only ideas (= conscious experiences)
have. So in talking about physical objects we are talking about collections of ideas.
Against Locke- Only ideas can resemble ideas. Locke states that There is no such thing as just
plain dog in the world; there is only Rex, Rover, Spike, Fido, and so on. So, Locke asked, how
do we get our ideas like "dog", "cat" and "flower"? His answer is that we arrive at these general
ideas by abstracting away from the particular ideas. For instance, to return to our example of
dogs: from my contact with Rex, Rover, Fido, and Spike I receive the ideas "Rex", "Rover",
"Fido", and "Spike". Now I can take these ideas of particular dogs and focus on what is similar in
all of them: the tail, the shape, the bark, the fur, etc. I then abstract away these similar features
from all of the particularizing differences and arrive at an abstract general idea of dog. I can do
the same thing for "cat", "man", "hat", and anything else.
14.
Problem of unperceived objects- to be is to be perceived. What happens when I leave my room
and am not perceiving the objects in my room, do they cease to exist since nobody is perceiving
them?
Berkeley responsesWe dont really think there are unperceived objects, since as soon as we think about such an
object, we have an idea of it.
A new argument for the existence of God.
1. It has already been argued that physical objects are made up of ideas.
2. We are confident that physical objects exist when no human (or animal) mind is perceiving them.
3. So we should be equally confident that some other mind is perceiving them:
Gods mind!
If berkeleys view is right then this is a good argument
15. I dont think he will ask this
16.
An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. An
argument can be valid even though the premises are false.
1. Everyone who eats pizza is a guitarist
2. Rob eats pizza
3. Therefore Rob is a guitarist
An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.
1. All living people have hearts
2. John is a person
3. Therefore, John has a heart.
If the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true by use of the logical words is, all,
some, and, or, not, if --- then
If a person accepts the premises of a valid deductive argument but did not accept the conclusion,
they would not understand the meaning of logical words.
P-Paris is in France and London is in England
C-Paris is in France
If someone did not accept this, they would not know the meaning of the word and.
Valid forms of argument
P- If Pthen Q.
P-P
C-Q
Any consistent and grammatically correct substitutions for P and Q would lead to a valid
deductive argument.
P- All As are Bs
P-X is an A
C-X is a B
Any consistent substitution that is grammatically correct for A, X, and B would lead to a valid
deductive argument.
The fundamental idea of computer science: To recognize valid arguments, it is not necessary to
understand the premises or the conclusions. All that is required is a capacity to recognize formal
argument patterns. And that is something that can be done by a machine. (Talk about if then
statements etc)
17.
In enumerative induction, we argue from premises about some members of a group to a
generalization about the entire group or future occurrences for the group.
To the next case- There have been 50 foul balls this baseball game and none of them have hit me.
The next foul ball will not hit me.
To a generalization- Millions of people like The Beatles.
Everybody likes The Beatles.
Inference to the Best Explanation- a method of scientific reasoning that favors the hypothesis
that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence; hypotheses that qualify as best typically
provide coherent and causally adequate explanations of the evidence or phenomenon in question.
Scientific example- Darwin and the birds
Deduce lots of predictions from the theory. If they all turn out to be correct, then infer that the
theory is correct.
Everyday example- The grass is wet, it must have rained last night.
A valid deductive argument is an argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive
evidence for the truth of its conclusion. Inductive arguments establish the truth of the conclusion
as probable or probably true. So, informally at least, an inductive argument claims its conclusion
follows with some degree of probability.
18.
Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be
uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties, and both of these are inadequate. The two
sorts are: (1) demonstrative reasoning, and (2) probable reasoning. With regard to (1), Hume
argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable"
that nature might stop being regular. Turning to (2), Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature
will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past, as this is using the very sort of
reasoning (induction) that is under question: it would be circular reasoning because the
conclusion is one of the premises. Thus no form of justification will rationally warrant our
inductive inferences.
The appeal to probability around Humes argument states that the conclusions of inductive
arguments are not guaranteed to be true but are probable to be true. Probability could mean two
things, either relative frequency in the past (i.e. strikes/total pitches thrown by Josh Beckett) or
relative frequency in the long run future. The first one tells us something about the past that is
certain, but does not provide any evidence for future events. The second makes a claim about the
future but how can it be known? It cannot be assumed that the future will continue to be like the
past.
19.
20.
21.
Memory Theory examples
Waking up with your eyes closed and without seeing your body you know who you are.
Body Swapping Prince and Cobbler
Advantages of memory theory- body continuity isnt essential and gets rid of the mystery of the
soul.
Person stage- a brief stretch of conscious awareness
A person is composed of person stages and the relation between two person-stages or stretches of
consciousness that makes them stages of a single person is just that the latter one contains
memories of the earlier one.
Problems with the theory- Amnesia, remembering insignificant events from 10 years ago. If you
dont remember it, it wasnt you.
Response- All that is really required for personal identity is a connected chain of temporally
local memory. Chain of person stages and one of them will remember what happened on those
days.
Bishop Butler
22.
23.
Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and
action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, therefore making every
present and future event fixed and previously determined to occur. Problems of this: No free will
and people are not accountable for their actions because their actions were previously planned
out.
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas.
Finish Compatibilism
24.
Metaphysical Libertarianism- acknowledges that free will is incompatible with
William James
Scientific Argument
Random isnt better than free will
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Normative ethics investigate how people ought to act in certain situations. Meta-ethics seek to
understand the nature of ethical statements and judgments. Meta-ethics ask questions like what is
goodness where normative ethics ask questions like is abortion wrong. Normative ethics are
different than meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of
actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language.
Morals constantly differ from person to person and objectivity of morals would mean that there
is a standard code of morals where if someone said that is wrong or that is morally right, those
statements would either be absolutely true or absolutely false. Objective information is
absolutely true or false. For example, 2+2 equals 4 is a true statement and will always be true.
2+3 equals 4 is a false statement and will always be true. However, certain true or false
statements are not objective because they depend on who makes a claim, when the claim is
made, and where the claim is made. For example, if I say I am the oldest person in the room it is
true or false but depends on the other people in the room. If I am in a room of senior citizens, it is
false but if I am in a room of preschoolers, the statement is true. Whenever a sentence or
statement is conditional, it is not objective. Other nonobjective sentences are commands, such as
pass the ketchup or get in the car
The appeal- Since people always talk is if their moral views are correct and other peoples views
are incorrect, it would end dispute and clearly define who is right and who is wrong in their
views.
The puzzles
1) If there is objective morality, there must be facts that make morals true. What are the
facts that support true morals?
2) How can we know which moral claims are true?
30.
The Divine Command Theory uses God as the ruler of morality. If God finds an action to be
morally right, that action is morally right. If God finds an action to be morally wrong, that action
is morally wrong.
Advantages1. Answers the questions as to what facts support morals and how we can know which
moral claims are true. Gods commands and desires are what makes moral claims true
and we can supposedly find out what God sees as morally right and morally wrong.
2. It makes moral claims objective because moral views can be based against the word of
God, which is taken to be factual.
3. Offers motivation to be moral-> heaven
Disadvantages
1. What do moral claims mean for atheists? They do not believe in God so what happens
with them?
2. The uncertainty of Gods existence. No reason to believe God exists so this is not
reliable, many theists even believe more in the certainty of moral claims than in the
certainty of Gods existence.
3. Plato
a. Platos crucial distinction: Does God disapprove of actions because they are
wrong? Or are they wrong because God disapproves of them?
i. An analogy:
The brilliant mathematician: Does she think the theorem is true because it is? Or
is it true because she thinks it is?
b. If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then there is nothing intrinsically right
in what God commands or intrinsically wrong in what He prohibits. These
actions would not be right or wrong if He had not prohibited them.
i. So Gods commands are morally arbitrary.
c. Thus it is conceivable that God might have decided to command other things and
prohibit other things. If He had, then murder, stealing, rape and cruelty might
have been morally right, while honesty, courage and helping the unfortunate
might have been morally wrong.
i. But it seems absurd to say that God might have commanded us to steal, murder
& rape. He could not have commanded us to do these things because (i) they
are wrong, (ii) being omniscient, He knows are they wrong, and (iii) being
morally good, He would not command us to do what is morally wrong.
ii. If this is right, then it is not Gods commands that makes things right or
wrong though these commands may be an important source of our
knowledge of what is right & wrong. (Compare with the mathematician.)
31. Simple subjectivism is a theory that links ethics to peoples feelings or reactions towards
certain phenomena. X is morally wrong means I disapprove of X and X is morally right means I
approve of X. Though the statements are either true or false, simple subjectivism, as it states in
its name, is not objective because the feelings and reactions of humans differ from person to
person. Also, the same statement could be made by two people and be true for one and false for
the other based off of that persons feelings and reactions.
Arguments against itSimple subjectivism would make all people morally infallible. Simple subjectivism only states
simple subjectivism seems to entail that I am infallible with respect to moral judgments. The
reason for this is simple -- if a statement like "X is right" just means "I approve of X" or "X
makes me feel good", and I cannot be wrong about how I feel, then I cannot be wrong about my
moral judgments (since they are just descriptions of states of feeling). No subjectivist could ever
be wrong.
If simple subjectivism is true, then moral disagreements are simple illusions and do not exist.
Picture two people Rob and Dan reacting to the same situation. Rob says that action is morally
wrong and Dan says that action is morally right. Simple subjectivism states that Rob and Dan are
expressing their feelings towards that action. Since these are simply feelings, it is impossible to
disagree how other people feel towards certain things. Rob may feel differently than Dan but he
can accept that Dan feels differently than him and vice versa.
The two types of Cultural relativism, agent relativism and speaker relativism. In agent relativism,
it is morally wrong(right) for Dan to do X means X is morally prohibited(permitted) by the moral
code prevailing in Dans culture. In speaker relativism, it is morally wrong(right) to do X means
X is prohibited(permitted) in the moral code prevailing in my culture.
Agent relativism would be objective because it is possible to examine the rules of a persons
culture and base moral decisions off of the supposed standardized moral code. Speaker relativism
would be subjective since the same statement may be true if made by a person in one culture and
false if made by a person in another culture.
D. Objections to speaker relativism
1. Moral disagreements across cultures are an illusion.
2. Moral criticism of the moral code of ones own culture is incoherent.
E. Objections to agent relativism
1. It makes no sense to criticize the moral codes of other cultures, nor does it makes sense to say
that an action which accords with the moral rules of the agents culture is wrong.
a. Thus it makes no sense to criticize the actions of the slave traders, Nazis or Al
Qaeda terrorists.
32.
Emotivism is a theory that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but
emotional attitudes. There is a difference between asserting feelings or emotions and expressing
emotions. For example, asserting a feeling or emotion would be stating I am happy, while
expressing happiness would be with a smile or laugh. In emotivism, the emotions of the
arguments often tend to attempt to convince listeners to join their side. Abortion YAYplease
share this attitude.
Advantages- establishes a link between emotions and ethics without some of the flaws of Simple
Subjectivism. Emotivism utilizes actual moral views, instead of assertions of feeling towards
view and through the appeal to listeners emotions, tries to persuade other people to join their
side by attempting to link emotions. If Dan is in favor of capital punishment and Rob is against
it, Rob might explain there have been many cases where innocent people have died hoping that
Dan has a strong emotional feeling against the death of innocent people in hopes to change to his
view.
Disadvantages- Morals are not objective because it does not make any sense to say moral views
based off emotions are wrong. We cannot argue how people emotionally react to certain
situations. The Emotivist account of moral argument and moral deliberation does not distinguish
between moral arguments that
1* (a) invoke false factual claims / (b) invoke true factual claims
2* (a) appeal to personal interest / (b) do not appeal to personal interest
3* (a) rely on abnormal psychological states / (b) do not rely on abnormal psychological states
But we tend to think that moral attitudes formed under the (b) conditions are better justified than
those formed under the (a) conditions.
QAT
Moral claims are not claims about our actual attitudes; they are claims about the feelings,
attitudes & preferences we would have if circumstances were ideal for making a moral judgment.
These ideal circumstances include: being impartial, fully informed on all relevant information,
and psychologically normal. X is morally wrong means if I were ideally situated, I would have a
negative attitude toward X.
Advantages1. Does a good job at accounting for moral argument and deliberation
a. In trying to decide what we think (or trying to persuade others to agree with us) we
look for considerations which indicate what attitude we (or they) would have if we (or
they) were impartial, fully informed, etc.
2. Since moral claims are true or false, the QAT
a. Makes it clear how other peoples moral views can be mistaken.
b. Makes it clear how our own moral views can be mistaken.
Question/Problem with it- If the QAT is correct, are moral claims objective?
1. They are true or false
2. But could two people continue to disagree even if they both were
a. Impartial
b. Fully informed about the relevant facts
c. Psychologically normal?
3. The answer is far from clear.
4. If it is yes, then if the QAT is correct, moral claims are not objective.
33.
Something valued intrinsically is valued for its own sake, where something valued
instrumentally is valued because it leads to something else that is intrinsically valued. For
example, money is valued instrumentally because it allows you to purchase something you value
but money as itself is not valued.
Utilitarians acknowledge that many things are instrumentally valued but believe that the only
thing that is intrinsically valued is pleasure and happiness. Utilitarians believe that we should
only act in ways that maximize happiness in the long run. Utilitarians do not focus on immediate
happiness but on future happiness(immediate pain that ensures future happiness is okay).
Utilitarians understand that this decision making is hard. In deciding what will make someone
happy, everyones happiness that get affected by an action should be weighed in and each person
has equal weight. My own happiness is as important as another persons happiness and the
Presidents happiness is as important as the cashier at the grocery store. Some utilitarians, such
as Bentham, believe that any creature that is capable of feeling pleasure and happiness should be
factored into the equation, such as animals.
Utilitarianism was considered radical because many of the moral claims it supported were
against the views of the majority of people. Some Utilitarian views support the modern views
that society has. For example, Utilitarianism is not in support of slavery because there are no
realistic benefits of slavery that can even come close to outweighing the pain and torture the
slaves feel. Utilitarianism is not in support of racial discrimination because they believe that all
people should be valued equally in the decision of happiness and the benefits of racism, if there
are any, do not outweigh the harms of it. Utilitarianism has some radical views though. The
gladiator games and Roman Circuses in Rome are considered morally right by Utilitarians
because even though the games cause death to a few people and animals, the happiness and
pleasure received from the entertainment of the games to the spectators outweighs the pain
suffered by the few. Utilitarians also support unjust punishment in certain instances to prevent
future crime and unhappiness to other people. For example, utilitarians would support unjustly
punish a person to stop a riot because if the riot continued, it would cause extreme harm and pain
to those in the general area of the riot. But they would not support unjust punishment in all
situations and there is no set standard to decide which instances it would be okay so it differs
from case to case.
Rule Utilitarians Act in accordance with the rule which, if universally accepted, would maximize
the total amount of happiness, focusing more on behavior than specific actions.
Stops some of the crazy stuff of Act Utilitarianism
Involuntary organ donation, Roman Circuses & unjust punishment: If we adopted rules allowing
these, the fear and defensive behavior these rules would cause would lead to great amounts of
unhappiness
b. A universally accepted rule specifying that everyone should take care of his or her own
familys needs first, before giving to others, would (??) maximize happiness
34.
Act only according to that maxim by which you can a the same time will that it should become
a universal law.
What it meansa. There is a maxim associated with each action we do or contemplate doing
b. The maxim is the rule we follow if we perform the action (or would be following if we
were to perform the action)
c. Ask whether you would be willing to have everyone follow that rule on every occasion
where the rule applies
i. If so, then in Kants jargon, you would be willing to have that action become a
universal law
d. If the answer to the question asked in (c) is YES, then the action is morally permissible
e. If the answer is NO, then the action is not morally permissible
Lying examplea. Suppose you are in a situation where it would be to your advantage to tell a lie
b. The maxim is: It is morally permissible to lie.
c. This maxim cant be willed to be universal law
i. If everyone followed the maxim, then lying would become impossible
ii. For lying to be successful, people must generally believe that others tell the truth
iii. And if everyone followed the maxim, then people would stop believing this
Critique of Kant
1. Kant assumed that for each action there is only one maxim
a. If the action is a lie, then the maxim is: It is permissible to lie.
b. But often an action can be associated with many different maxims
c. Example: The Case of the Inquiring Murderer
i. Lying might be associated with all of the following maxims
(a) It is morally permissible to lie
(b) It is morally permissible to lie when there is a high probability that it will
save a life
(c) It is morally permissible to lie when there is a moderate probability that it will
save a life
(d) It is morally permissible to lie when it will avoid substantial suffering
ii. Maxims (b), (c) and (d) all pass the Categorical Imperative test
d. So in this case, the Categorical Imperative test seems to lead to inconsistent
advice
2. If this problem is a general one applicable to most or all cases in which we want
to know whether an action is morally permissible then the Categorical Imperative
test is useless.
Consequential ethics states that morally good actions have positive outcomes and morally wrong
actions have negative consequences. Deontological theories hold that we have a duty to perform
or refrain from certain types of actions and that this duty derives from the nature of the act itself,
rather than from the consequences produced by the action. Consequently, a deontologist might
argue that we should stick to our duty regardless of the consequences.