Philosophy - Argument Chain of Reasoning Designed

Final Exam prep sheet Understand the following terms: Argument, valid, sound ● Argument: chain of reasoning designed to prove something, includes premises and a conclusion ○ An argument might be valid but unsound ○ An argument can not be sound if it is invalid ● Valid: refers to the structure of the argument, premises must force/lead to the conclusion ○ If all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true ● Sound: an argument is valid and it has all true premises What is moral skepticism ● The belief that there is no such thing as objective moral truth Explain cultural differences argument and the provability argument (understand them and how they are unsound) ● Cultural differences argument ○ Argument that uses the different beliefs of cultures to conclude that moral topics are not morally right or morally wrong they are just opinions that can vary culture to culture ○ Invalid because the premises are opinion and the conclusion is objective moral truth ● Provability argument ○ States that if there is objective truth then we can prove some moral opinions are true and others false ■ False. Just because something can’t be proven doesn’t mean there aren’t truths/facts about it (distant stars) ○ Also states that moral opinions cannot be proven as true or false ■ Moral opinions are many times proven to be true and false (two people believe different heights for the room they are in, but the room can be measured and would be able to prove the people true or false) ○ Concludes that there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics ■ false bc the premises are false ○ Valid, but unsound bc both premises are false What is cultural relativism The moral code of a society determines what is right in that society Explain the principle of tolerance ● Societies and individuals ought not interfere with or impose their values on members of other societies ● Since different people and cultures have different belief systems it is not right to force yours on them, everyone is entitled to their own ideas without having to spread it. Explain the divine command theory ● God commands what is morally right and what is morally wrong Understand the Euthyphro Dilemma argument ● Dilemma: a forced choice between two options that you can’t accept ● Shows morality and religion can’t be connected in the way the divine theorist thinks it is ● Morality cannot be commanded ● Is conduct right because god commands it or does god command it because it is right ○ Conduct is right because the gods command it ■ Makes god’s commands arbitrary: prior to command there is no morality so god has no reason to command one thing to be morally right ■ Arbitrary: no reason or basis for choice ■ Provides the wrong reasons for moral principles ■ Mysterious, how does god create a moral law? ○ god commands it because it is right ■ Accepting this option is to admit there is a standard of morality independent of god’s will ■ Rejects the divine command theory What is natural law theory ● The world is rational order with values and purposes built into it ● The laws of nature not only describe how things are but also specify how things ought to be ● The laws of nature are dictates of reason which any rational being can grasp What are problems with the natural law theory ● Conflicts with modern science, ○ what happens just happens due to cause and effect, ○ there is no special reason or purpose (hurricane, natural disaster) ● Confuses “Ought” claims with “is” claims, ○ just because people do something doesn’t mean they should do it ● Claim “what is natural is morally right” is open to obvious counterexamples ○ What is natural is not always right (violence can be a natural reaction) ○ what is unnatural is not always wrong (homosexual) ○ Something abnormal can be good and right (mother teresa) According to Aristotle what is the good for man? ● man is only creature that is rational ● using rational thought is the highest good someone can have ● most happy when performing function well and right ● three types of goods ○ external goods: goods that are out of our control ○ goods of the soul: highest good (virtue) ○ bodily goods: simple pleasures How does aristotle explain virtues by looking at their excess and deficiency ● Virtue: a trait of character manifested in habitual action that is good for anyone to have ● Virtue is a mean between two extremes that combines both sides depending on circumstance etc. ● There is a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess and a virtue falls in the middle ○ Coward -----> courage -----> foolhardy ○ Liar -----> honesty -----> blunt What are advantages of a virtue theory ● Proper moral motivation ○ Virtue theory gives the proper motivation for making/acting morally ○ Kantian would act morally bc it is their moral obligation ○ Utilitarian would calculate what makes the most people happy in the situation ● Doubts about the ideal of impartiality ○ We want to treat friends and family differently than strangers ○ So, some virtues are partial and some are impartial ■ Loyalty applies to people you have relationships with ■ Kindness applies to all people you interact with What is the main problem with aristotle's virtue theory ● This theory is incomplete ○ It cannot explain everything it should ■ Doesn’t explain why something is a virtue and would need a larger moral theory to back it up ○ No full interpretation of the virtues ■ Cannot explain what it means to be “a virtue” ■ What does it mean to be kind? ○ No answers for moral conflict ■ Cannot give an answer of what to do when two theories conflict What is the social contract theory of morals? ● states that morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior that rational people will accept on the condition that others accept them as well What are the advantages and problems for a social contract theory of morals? ● advantages ○ what are the moral rules? ■ explain what the moral rules are; these are the rules that facilitate harmonious social living explains which rules are not moral rules (prostitution, sodomy, sexual promiscuity, are not moral rules bc it doesn’t harm me) ○ why should we follow these rules? ■ because we benefit from living in a place where these rules are accepted. It is rational for us to follow these rules, it is in our benefit ○ when can we break the rules? ■ explains when we can break the rules; when they are broken towards us ○ how much can morality demand of us? ■ explain how much morality demands from us ■ rational people will not agree to rules so demanding that others will not follow them disadvantages ○ Attack 1. based on a historical fiction ■ response: there is no actual contract, the rules are implicit, by joining together we are all agreeing to follow these rules ■ attack: I did not choose to join the social contract the way i choose to join a pick up basketball game ■ response: it is rational for you to follow these rules because the rules benefit you ○ Attack 2. ■ according to the social contract theory, morality is the product of mutual benefit: i agree to the rules bc the rules benefit me ● we can treat groups that cannot benefit us however we want ○ nonhuman animals: there are no moral duties to groups that are incapable of keeping an agreement ○ future generations: can’t buy into the contract so they can’t benefit us ○ oppressed populations: we can treat them differently than how we treat each other ■ this objection hits at the core of the social contract theory. the theory is rooted in self-interest, it is unable to recognize moral duties we have to individuals who cannot benefit us ■ ● Explain psychological egoism and Ethical egoism ● psychological egoism: everyone always acts selfishly ○ factual theory: if something is wrong the theory needs to be adjusted ● ethical egoism: everyone always ought to act selfishly ○ normative theory: if something is wrong the world needs to be adjusted Be able to understand all arguments for EE and PE ● psychological egoism ○ argument 1 FOR ■ -1. we always do what we most want to do -2. if everyone does what they most what to do then they are acting selfishly -3. therefore, everyone always acts selfishly ● valid, but unsound. ○ if we broaden the term ‘want’ to include obligations, then we can save the first premise premise 2 is false. ■ bc no distinction between levels of selfishness (trump and mother teresa) argument 2 FOR: Reinterpretation of motives ■ -1. everyone always does what they most wants to do -2. if everyone does what they most want to do, she gets satisfaction -3. if doing something brings someone satisfaction then satisfaction is your goal -4. if satisfaction is your goal, then you are acting selfishly -5. therefore, everyone always acts selfishly ● valid, but unsound ○ premise 3 is necessarily false. ■ satisfaction can only be obtained when you get something you desired. it is impossible for satisfaction to be your only goal ■ change argument 2: -3(a). if doing something brings someone satisfaction, then satisfaction is one of your goals -4(a). if satisfaction is one of your goals, then you are acting selfishly ● premise 3(a) is false ○ just bc an action brings you satisfaction doesn’t mean satisfaction was one of your goals (saving a life) ● premise 4(a) is false ○ just because satisfaction is one of your goals doesn’t mean the entire act is selfish verdict on psychological egoism ■ rejected bc does not seem possible that all human actions are motivated by self interest ○ ○ ○ ● Ethical egoism ○ argument 1 FOR: Altruism is self defeating ■ -1. we ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interest -2. the best way to promote everyone’s interest is for each of us to pursue our own interests exclusively -3. therefore, each of us should pursue our own interests exclusively ● Valid, Unsound ○ premise 2 is false. ■ there are many situations where this is false (natural disasters, feeding the hungry, prisoners dilemma) ○ premise 1 conflicts with ethical egoism ■ instead of being an argument for ethical egoism, this is an argument for behaving like an egoist for non-egoist reasons ○ argument 2 FOR: Separateness of Persons ■ factual claim: we will all live our own lives. we will all have our own experiences and only have indirect contact with the experiences and interests of others ■ normative claim: it is rational to care only about the lives you will live ■ -1. each of us will live her own life and no one else’s -2. it is rational to care only about the lives you will live -3. therefore, it is rational to care only about your own life ● valid, unsound ○ premise 2 is false ■ we care about others; family, friends, etc ■ maybe ethical egoist can save premise 2 by saying they care about others insofar as others benefit them ■ it is rational to care about others even if they will never benefit you ■ rand believes there are two options; ● care only about others or care only about yourself ● not a fair depiction bc i can grant special concern for my interests, but i cannot accept exclusive concern for my interests ○ argument AGAINST: ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary ■ -1. any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary, unless there is some difference between the members that justifies treating them differently ■ -2. Ethical egoism would have each person assign greater importance to his own interest than to the interests of others. but there is no general difference between oneself and others, to which each person can appeal that justifies this difference in treatment ■ -3. therefore, ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary ● ○ valid, unsound ○ premise 2 is false ■ there is from each person's own point of view, a difference between her own interests and those of others. they are her own. ethical egoism fails. ■ we cannot exclusively care about our own self interest. ■ i can have special concern for my own interest, but that does not mean i should only care about my own interest What is the state of Nature according to Hobbes? How are men equal and what are the causes of quarrel? ● state of nature is a state of war ○ physical: men are equal in body. strongest man could be stopped with a little cunning or planning ○ mental: in relevant aspects men are equal of mind ● Causes for Quarrel: ○ competition: attaining goods, there is a finite amount of desirable goods; places to live, food, water, etc. if someone has possession of one, others will want it ○ Fear: men will fear each other, some men enjoy fighting (irrational behavior) but if true, then more reason to fear others ○ Glory: people care about others opinions, will attack when they feel disrespected What is game theory and specifically the prisoner’s dilemma ● game theory: a game where the outcome for each person depends not only on what you do but also on what others do ● prisoners dilemma: ○ specific type of game theory ○ situation where it is clear what is rational for each person to do and while each person acts rationally they will each be worse off than they all would have been had they acted irrationally What is Utilitarianism? ● Utilitarianism: ○ the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness (over unhappiness). ○ focuses on happiness and consequences. it is ok to break other rules if doing so creates more happiness ○ three principles: ■ consequentialism: actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences ■ hedonism: in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness/unhappiness caused ■ equality principle: each person’s happiness counts the same What is Mill’s Happiness proof and arguments? ● -1. each person desires his or her own happiness -2. if something is desired by someone , then it is desirable (for him/her) -3. therefore, each person’s happiness is desirable (for him/her) -4. therefore, the general happiness is desirable (for everyone) ○ valid, looks sound, but many problems ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ attack 1 ● premise 2 is false ○ desirable means worth being desired and just bc something is desired does not not prove it to be desirable response 1 ● Mill still says the premise is true ● he is referring to a factual claim that if one person desires something it is desirable attack 2 ● there is no way to get from conclusion 3 to conclusion 4 ● offered a proof of ethical egoism, not utilitarianism response 2 ● mill says to remove the brackets from the argument ● modify it: if each person’s happiness is desirable then the general happiness is desirable attack 3 ● mill has only shown that happiness is desirable, not that it is the only thing that is desirable ● we desire other things than just happiness response 3 ● mill responds by saying all the things we desire are a part of happiness or a way to happiness further attack ● when you get something you desire it makes you happy ● happiness is still not the only thing that is desirable attack 4 ● At best mill has proved hedonism and the equality principle ● does not prove consequentialism, which is the core of utilitarianism What is Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures? ● higher pleasure: some pleasures that are distinctively human, intellectual, and mental ● lower pleasures: pleasures that are more animal, bodily, sensation Understand the objections to Utilitarianism and how the Utilitarian can reply ● Consequentialism: if anything other than consequences matter then consequentialism must be false ○ attacks ■ justice: utilitarian would put an innocent person in jail to end a riot bc it causes happiness for the town people, but this runs counter to our ideals on justice ■ rights: If a peeping tom doesn’t get caught utilitarian would think it is okay bc it doesn’t cause unhappiness. this is against our ideal of a right to privacy ■ backwards-looking reasons: utilitarians think it is okay to break a promise if it would make you happier in the present, can’t account for things like promises ○ response 1 ■ usually throwing innocent people in jail won’t create the most happiness and peeping toms are caught , so in these cases utilitarianism and moral common sense won’t conflict ○ further attack ■ If there is at least one situation in which the attacks happen, then utilitarianism fails ○ Response 2 ■ utilitarian accepts that act utilitarianism might conflict with moral common sense so change it to rule utilitarianism ● rule utilitarian comes up with set of rules ● but if breaking the rule causes more happiness then utilitarian would break it ● rule utilitarianism falls back onto act utilitarianism ○ Response 3 ■ utilitarian believes that when utilitarianism and moral common sense conflict, moral common sense is wrong ● all values have a utilitarian bases, we value things bc they cause happiness ● our reactions cannot be trusted ● focus on all the consequences ○ either one person goes to jail or several killed in the riot ● hedonism: if something other than happiness/unhappiness matters hedonism must be false ○ attack ■ friendship: if a friend talks about another behind their back and no unhappiness is caused because they never find out the hedonist would say the action is okay. It appears wrong because other things like loyalty matter in friendships ○ response ■ friendship is based on utilitarianism. if no one finds out and no harm is caused then our initial reaction that it is wrong can not be trusted ● equality principle: each person’s happiness counts the same ○ attack ■ utilitarianism is too demanding. It is always demanding us to give to others ○ response ■ Moral common theory of the day is wrong What are the differences between hypothetical and categorical imperatives ● hypothetical imperative: ○ tells you to do something as a means to get something else you want ○ actions you take to get something you desire, they apply to you only if you want that further thing ● categorical imperative: ○ tells you to do something regardless of what else you want, applies to all rational beings What is Kant’s universal law test? (4 concepts) ● first formulation of categorical imperative ● to see if a prospective action is morally permissible: ○ identify the maxim (reason you are doing action) ○ universalize the maxim ○ ○ try willing the universalized maxim if you can will the universalized maxim without it contradicting itself, the action is ok, if not action is wrong Understand the 4 examples Kant gives that fail the test ● loan example ○ someone asks to borrow money from a friend with no intention of paying them back ○ kant says says can’t become a universal law bc if this was universalized it would be impossible for everyone to act in this way ● charity ○ a man can help others but decides not to ○ if this were universalized he would not receive help when he needs it ○ if the man does not need help later in life: ■ all Kant needs is for the man to will that he gets help even if he never needs it ■ even someone that does not accept help from others just needs to will for it once ● suicide ○ due to love of myself i will take my own life when living threatens more evil ○ Kant says this contradicts self-love bc it is saying to take your own life and to keep living at all costs ○ it does not seem like self-love is really saying to keep living at all costs ○ even if they do contradict, there could be other reasons besides self-love to take your own life ○ Kant doesn’t need universalization principle to generate contradiction ● talents ○ instead of developing talents a man would prefer simple pleasers ○ Kant says that rational beings always will that talents be developed and this example contradicts that ○ Don’t know where Kant gets the idea that rational beings always will talents to be developed ○ Kant doesn’t need universalization principle to generate contradiction ● 4 examples because 4 categories of duty ○ duty to self ○ duty to others ○ stricter duties ○ broader duties What is the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative? ● act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only (don’t use people to get something you want) ○ people occupy a special place in the world , they have intrinsic moral worth, that gives them value above all ○ people have desires, things that satisfy those desires can be valuable, things are only valuable as they promote human ends ○ people have intrinsic worth, they are rational agents. moral goodness can only come from goodwill , you should act from a sense of duty to your goodwill How does capital punishment treat someone with dignity? ● punishment fits the crime ● criminal chooses their action freely and they are totally responsible for their action ● if someone kills another person, they willed that action into the world and should be faced with the same fate ● treat them how they treated the world (universalization) When is it permissible to lie, according to Kant? ● Never, it does not pass the universal law test and it fails the second categorical imperative because you are using someone as a means to get what you want Essay Questions Each essay must be answered thoroughly; with a clear thesis, introduction and conclusion. What is psychological egoism? What is ethical egoism and what is the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism? Provide two arguments for psychological egoism. What are the best replies to these arguments? Should we believe in psychological egoism? ● intro: about PE and EE ● thesis: We should not believe in psychological egoism ● first argument and reply ● second argument and reply Psychological egoism is based on the idea that everyone always acts selfishly, while ethical egoism believes people ought to act selfishly. The difference between these are that psychological egoism is a factual claim and ethical egoism is a normative claim. Meaning, for psychological egoism, if someone is not acting selfishly then the theory needs to be adjusted, but for ethical egoism if someone is not acting selfishly that person needs to change. Through two arguments for psychological egoism and replies to them, it is obvious that this theory should not be believed. Focusing on psychological egoism, everyone always acts selfishly, two arguments for this theory are present. The first argument states that everyone does what they most want to do, and if everyone does what they most what to do then they are acting selfishly. Therefore, everyone always acts selfishly. This is a valid argument, but it is unsound. The first premise can be saved if the term ‘want’ is broadened to include obligations as well. The problem occurs with second premise, which is false. Premise two states that any action people want to do is selfish. This makes the claim that people only desire to do things that are selfish, and that does not seem true. For example, Mother Teresa desires to help others and according to this premise she is acting selfishly. Helping others is not a selfish act and this example shows the problem with premise two. It is unable to distinguish between different desires and levels of selfishness by saying that all desires are selfish. Since premise two is false, the first argument for psychological egoism is unsound. The second argument for psychological egoism is called a reinterpretation of motives. It states that everyone always does what they most want to do and if everyone does what they most want to do, then they gain satisfaction. It continues to say that if doing something brings someone satisfaction, then satisfaction is their goal and if satisfaction is their goal they are acting selfishly. Therefore, everyone is acting selfishly. This argument is valid, but it is unsound due to premise three. Premise three states that, if doing something brings you satisfaction, then satisfaction is your goal. This is necessarily false because satisfaction can only be obtained when you get something else you desire. To try and save the argument, premise three and premise four can be changed to say that if doing something brings you satisfaction then satisfaction is one of your goals, and if satisfaction is one of your goals then you are acting selfishly. This updated premise is still false, however, because there are situations in what someone most wants to do unexpectedly brings them satisfaction even though they did not perform the action to gain satisfaction. For example, if someone sees another person is in trouble and chooses to save their life, they would be performing an action they desire, to save someone, and would inadvertently be gaining satisfaction. In this case, satisfaction was not one of the person’s goals, but they still gained it. Even though satisfaction was gained, does not make the action of saving someone’s life selfish. This example shows that the updated premise three and four are false. Just because an action brings you satisfaction does not mean satisfaction was your goal or that the action was selfish. After examining two arguments for psychological egoism, it is apparent that this theory should be rejected. Both arguments were unsound due to the fact that they has untrue premises. The arguments failed to take into account that there are situations which occur that are not based on self interest. Since, desires and actions exist that are not selfish, the idea that everyone always acts selfishly is false and psychological egoism can not be practiced. Explain Kant’s “universal law” formulation of the categorical imperative. Kant gives four examples of possible actions and argues that the maxims of these actions are not universalizable. Explain and critique Kant’s arguments about three of these examples. ● intro: what is universal law formulation ● thesis: he is not correct ● explain each example ● explain how kant thinks they fail ● defend if kant has a good argument or not ● conclusion: restate thesis Kant’s universal law formulation is the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It states to only act according to a maxim that can also be willed into a universal law and to act as though the maxim of your actions were willed by you to be a universal law. This means, that if an action you want to do causes problems when it is applied to everyone, then you should not perform the action. Also, if you perform an action you have to take responsibility for its consequences as if you wanted to make it a universal law. Kant gives four examples of possible actions and argues that the maxims for these actions are not universalizable. After analyzing three of his examples, it is clear Kant’s arguments are strong for the majority of them. The first of Kant’s examples is the loan example. In this example a person is going to ask a friend to lend them money with the intention of not paying them back. If this action were universalized then everyone, at all times, would be asking for a loan and not paying it back. Kant says that if this were true then no one would even have the money to lend and no one would agree to lend money. Therefore, It is impossible for everyone to perform this action at once and Kant is correct in saying that its maxim is not universalizable. The second example concerns the act of charity. In this scenario, a man is able to perform an act of charity for others, but chooses not to. Kant believes that if this mixum were to be universalized, the man would not receive charity himself when he needs it. A question could be asked about a man who does not perform charity, but does not need help later in life. This is a good point, but all Kant needs to maintain that this example is not universalizable, is for that man to will that he gets help just once. Even people who do not accept help from others still will help from time to time. Kant makes a strong argument with this scenario and is justified in saying that if not performing charity was universalized it would cause problems and negative consequences. Lastly, example three is about Talents. In this example, a person does not develop their talents, but instead indulges in simple pleasures. According to Kant, rational beings will that their skills be developed and if a man does the opposite it creates contradiction. Kant’s statement, that rational beings will their skills to be developed, does not appear to have any factual basis. Humans have far too many skills to count and not all of them are important to be developed nor are helpful to the specific person. Hence, this example does not appear to cause a contradiction and Kant is not correct in his reasoning that it does. Kant provides four examples that he believes show their actions have maxims that are not universalizable. After looking at the loan, charity, and talents example it is clear that Kant makes some very strong points. The loan and charity example make sense and both situations prove Kant to be right in classifying them as not able to be universalized. The talent example, though, highlights a problem with Kant’s reasoning and does not seem to contradict in the way he believes.