phil 164 E1 Flashcards

is when the conclusion follows the premises. if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true

if x then y

x

y

invalid: if x then y

y

x

is valid and the premises must be true

A is a necessary condition for B=B only if A ex: food is a necessary condition for human life, if only if, essence, anything you really need to do to get it

A is a sufficient condition for B=B if A ex: -20F is sufficient for water freezing, if and only if, essence, anything to get what meets the standard

theory of nature mortality, a form of argument cultural difference argument but not sound, argues from the facts about differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about mortality status

different cultures have different moral views, right and wrongs are invented, people disagree on what is right and wrong, people would be talking past each other, nazi vs non-nazi, no such thing as cross-cultural disagreement, contradictions, making it "for me" or "for you"
ex. non-nazi

is implausible 1) moral infallibility- society cannot be wrong, ex honor dillings, ex nazis in 1930 germany, no moral progress: MLK civil rights movement- 1st started unpopular and is against popular opposition, woman's suffrage, disagreement: nazi vs non nazi: people will be talking past each other, no such thing as cross-cultural disagreement, apparent benefits are illusory: you should not be tolerant, ill-defined: no plausible way to fix it, when are you "in" a society/culture? what is a culture? what does approval mean? ex) wisconsin v yoder 1972

factive sentence: can be true/ false, nonfactive sentence: can't be true/false, cheering/booing: you should do X means yay X, you would not do X means boo! doing x. you should be x means yay being kind and you should not lie means boo! lying commands: you should do x means do x, you shouldn't do x=means do not do x, you shouldn't lie to me=do not lie, ex: flirting regina should not have been flirting with my bf"= don't flirt, sui generis (unique) expressions

features: 1) does not posit moral features- don't make mortality real? 2) moral judgment aren't true or false 3) moral judgment are not false (wrong)

agreement/disagreement: ex: transgender people should be able to serve I agree, 2) frege-geach problem (moral reasoning) ex: you should not kill people, i am a person, you should not kill me: is valid, you should not kill people, i am a person, you should wear blue socks: unrelated invalid valid: if the premises are true, conclusion has to be true. boo!, ouch!, where's the library?

1st is valid, you should not kill me = boo doing killing and do not do x

2nd is unrelated and invalid

premises aren't claims, they are just expressing emotion so you can't make an argument that results in a conclusion (can't distinguish good argument from bad)

All PMCs are false (positive moral claims) ex: you should not kill people, you should donate to charity. (error theory)=atheism god moral nihilism: mortality, false ex: god is not friendly, god is friendly

some, not all PMCs are (objectively) true, reasons: PMC: it is ok to enslave someone based on the color of their skin (darker skin- lower moral status) reasons: skin color determines moral status, plausibility/ arbitrary, consistency, reasons, = diagnostic test, arbitary: why is it skin color, consistency: getting a tan reduces moral status is mortality objectively true? yes and sometimes interpretation

p1) observation principle you should only believe in things that appear in the best scientific explanations of your observations, p2) moral facts do not appear in the best explanation of our observation (note: moral facts not beliefs about moral facts) c) you should not believe in the existence of moral facts (moral nihilism true) valid yes sound:?

is premise one really true? (math facts)
premise 1 is self-defeating (claim is telling us what we should believe and ethics tells us what we should believe but it says not to believe things telling us what we should believe)
generalized argument, logic/ math, fallible view of science, problem with op: condemns itself, ethics: study of what you should or shouldn't do, epistemology: study of what you should or should not believe, valid yes sound no, the op does not believe in epistemic facts but the op is epistemic fact

p1) if open open-minded minded, rational well informed people disagree about some claim then that claim is not objectively true. p2) open minded, rational well informed people disagree about moral claims c) moral claims are not objectively true. valid yes sound idk, p2: are all cases between open minded, rational, well informed people? how do we understand this? p1: ex: sugar ex:multiverse p2: some pmcs are clearly accepted by all

give reasons for your moral judgements
consistency - check reasons for consistency (with each other and with other beliefs)
plausibility - check these reasons for plausibility (especially arbitrariness)

value: happiness is the only thing with intrinsic value (intrinsically good), intrinsic good: good in and of itself, extrinsic good: good as a means to something else ex: money, you should do as much good as possible, you should do x if x maximizes happiness, choose what leads to the most happiness,

help you: -5 units, friend: +10 units, 5 units, TV: you +5 and friend: -10 units/ -5 units help friend because maximizes happiness which is their happiness whereas -5 would be lost if you watched Tv, right to help, increases their happiness more than it decreases yours

philosophy of the swine: people will behave irresponsibly or degradingly (shouldn't invest in yourself bc you want happiness right now
response: look at overall happiness over all time instead of just right now and there are higher (music, art) and lower (alc, food) pleasures

ex. old lady is killed walking across the street bc you didnt help but she donates her money to charity but charity is corrupt....
spend all of our time dleibrating, deliberating is an action
look to evidence to guide educated guess

1) impartiality: doesn't discriminate race, gender, class, or species 2) gets many of our ordinary moral judgments right: ex: Hitler vs lying to your friend, ex:$5 to a homeless person 3) gets difficult right too ex) best friend and suicide and grandpa and assisted suicide

robert nozsick, you are in this machine forever: you do not know what is inside, you're just having the experience of doing things, it's awesome

utilitarian: go in pov: +1,000,000 you're morally required to go in, not going in +10,000

response 1: are you sure that utility is maximized? don't you need some happiness and pain? what about everyone else? people in the matrix are false? what about the actual good that you are going to do?

response #2: now are you sure we shouldn't go in?

ex: saturday night 1) donate oxfam you -5 other +100 2 movie you +5 other -100 response #1 are you sure utility is maximized? ex) drowning vs peter singer ex malaria notes p1 we are morally required amount of money against malaria foundation to save a drowning person's life, even if it means sacrificing your own if so) then we are morally required to donate the same c) we are morally required to donate AMF

ex: mob ex: doc/ organ shortage response 1 is it clear that happiness is maximized? yes response 2: are you sure that the actions are wrong? ex: trolley problem

ex: littering, what if everyone did that ex: voting

when willing on end will the means to that end or give up the end, rationality, will an end commit yourself to the goal

guiding principle that encodes our motivation ex) washing your car i will [x=action] when [y=some situation] in order [z=goal/lend] ex i will [x= washing you car] when [y=car is dirty] in order to [z=clean it]

moral action act only on that maxim which you can be at the same time will that it become a universal law of nature, goals: happiness, bodily autonomy, not being in a lot of pain, food

1) formulate your maxim, 2) universalize your maxim, everyone will [x=wash their car] when [y= its dirty] in order to [z=clean it] 3) imagine this universalized maxim is a law of nature (everyone in situation y is compelled to do action x]

can you achieve z? can you still meet your ends/ goals?

i will x= torture someone when y= I'm in a war in order z= to get information. everyone will torture someone when y=they are in a war in order to get information. yes you can still achieve z and no you can not achieve your other goals

ex: driving home from work i will x=take the back roads when i am y= coming home in order to z=save time. everyone will take the back roads when they are driving home in order to save time. imagine everyone in y is compelled to do x. can you still achieve z? no

ex) cheating partner 1) i will x=lie to my partner when y=I've been caught cheating in order to z=decrease them 2) everyone... 3) imagine everyone in y does x 4) can you still achieve z? can you still achieve your other goals? yes ex: eichmann i will x=put jewish people in concentration camps when y=i am a nazi in order to z=to remove jewish people from germany everyone will 3) imagine everyone in y does x tests

they and you confess 5 years. them silent you confess 1 year 10 years, you silent and them confess 10 years 1 year them silent and you silent 2 years, don't care about partner, only yourself
end up getting medium sentence because both end up in better situation by confessing

ignorant: race, gender, class, know you're rational and you have certain basic needs: food, shelter, bodily autonomy freedom of speech, being from autonomy

fairness, act in accordance with rules that would be agreed to by agents who are rational, self-interested, and behind the veil of ignorance

bad to torture because you could be the one getting tortured

experience machine: basic needs need to be met so can't go in machine and happiness isn't only priority
justice/fairness: puts you in position of being anyone in a scenario
collective action problems: think of actions as if everyone did it, so could be viewed as wrong on collective scale
demandingness: reject instances of this premise, need funding for things but not everyone needs to contribute equally, donating rawsilan basic needs, trivial actions: can, not compelled test 1: test 2: no, sly universalizer: veil of ignorance, fairness

difference principle: no inequalities, unless it is to the benefit of the worst of it

what is "rational" and why? (risk adverse vs. risk inclined)
what are our basic needs? (ex. laws against hate speech)
leaves out nonrational beings (babies, non-human animals, etc)