philosophy test 2 study guide
deductive reasoning
induction/abduction
deductive validity
IF the premises WERE true, they would guarantee the truth of the conclusion
INVALID IF POSSIBLE FOR CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE IF PREMISES ARE TRUE
testing for invalidity
circular arguments
God's qualities
God is all PKG
Aquina's argument from contingency
diff btw necessary and contingent entities
necessary
contingent
difference btw necessary and contingent propositions
necessary
contingent
a priori vs. a posteriori propositions
ontological argument (a priori premises)
her notes:
definition of God entails God's existence
necessary existence is a perfection God has based on him being all-PKG
- God exists by definition
BUT defition by itself does not entail that the concept is true
- ex: empty names: unicorn, can define the concept, but whether any exist depends on empirical confirmations (saying its definition includes existence does NOT make the unicorn exist)
- this basically says that if God exists, he must have these qualities, but this cannot fully prove God exists
what kind of argument is the ontological argument?
IS A PRIORI - WANNA PROVE GODS EXISTENCE BY REASONING OF DEFINITION
pascal's wager
objections to pascal's wager
problem of evil
Logical positivism + testability theory of meaning
testability theory of meaning
logical positivism - uses testability theory of meaning
Karl popper's demarcation criterion
JTB theory of knowledge
plato says JTB necessary for knowledge
S can know P IFF these necessary/sufficient conditions are met
gettier problems
problems that show JTB is NOT sufficient for knowledge (person can have JTB without having knowledge)
ex: clock, person believes it is 9:55 AM and has all 3 cases met, BUT the subject does not KNOW it is 9:55 AM. If they looked at the clock just before/after 9:55, they would have formed a false belief because the clock is stuck. It just so happens that they observed the clock when it happened to reflect the real time, but since the clock is stuck and they could have seen a false time, they do not have true KNOWLEDGE that it is actually 9:55 AM.
shows plato's JTB is NOT sufficient for knowledge
subject has highly reliable, but not infallible evidence for proposition believed
david hume's problem of induction and the PUN
arguments for skepticism and knowledge about justified belief
descarte's method of doubt
foundationalism - descartes argument against skepticism
cogito ergo sum
mind body problem
2 possible solutions
leibniz's law
cartesian dualism
extra:
Frank jackson's knowledge argument for qualia
what does jackson want to show? how does jackson try to show his point?
wants to show that physicalism (identity theory) cannot provide an account for qualia, and thus it cannot work
using Fred/mary
according to jackson, physicalism cannot ___
provide an account for qualia
fred example from jackson
fred example for mary
qualia
a posteriori necessities
identity relation
a posteriori necessary truths examples
what are these a posteriori necessary truths used for?
identity theory
principle of parsimony - reject dualism bc parsimony is simpler (1 ontological category instead of 2)
de re necessity
kripke argues a posteriori necessary truths are de re
de dicto necessity
used to be assumed that all necessities were de dicto at level of language until kripke challenged
ex: de re vs. de dicto necessities
de re
de dicto
what de re /dicto has to do w/ identity theory
wanna show mind = brain
as de re necessity at metaphysical level (not jsut language), bc would be a necessary truth IF they are identical
tom nagal "what its like to be a bat"
SUMMARY
MORE DETAIL:
subjective realism
says reality exceeds language
nagal's realism abt subjective domain implies belief in existence of facts beyond the reach pf human concepts
possible for us to believe there are facts which humans will never comprehent bc humans do not have the requisite concepts
hard problem of consciousness
chalmbers
intractable - not solvable
easy problems
hard problem
mcGinn on mind/body problem
had 2 perspectives
free will: determinism vs. indeterminism
what are all 3?
free will - capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among alternatives
determinism - for every causal chain, there is 1 outcome
indeterminism - universe indeterministic means causal facts at 1 time leave open what will happen next (chance)
what does the shift from determinism to indeterminsm do? difference btw having either?
metaethics
normative ethics
subjectivism
ethical relativists
ethical realism
is/ought disctinction + fallacy
NORMATIVE theories: virtue ethics
virtue ethics - focus on inherent character of person rather than specific actions
eudaimonia
what you reach when act in accordance with virtues
NORMATIVE theories: kantian moral theory
moral requirements based on standard of rationality (categorical imperative)
act in morality = act w/ reasoning
immorality - irrational bc violates categorical imperative (logical contradiction)
moral acts must pass categorical imperative
categorical imperative test
NORMATIVE theories: natural rights theory
NORMATIVE theories: utilitarianism
people as ends in themselves
thompson violinist thought experiment (objectives)
diffs/objections - undermine/weaken the argument
similarities
primary/negative and secondary/positive rights
secondary positive rights
negative rights
patrick lee's argument
marie anne warren on personhood
euthanasia
peter singer - animal equality
singer devoted to this question of moral standing of nonhuman animals
speciesism
systemic discrimination against the members of some species by members of another species
violate animals rights for our interest/favor our own species over interest of other species
cohen in defense of specisism
capital punishment
background
possible answers:
retributivism
consequentialism
nathanson (abolitionist)
against DP
primoratz (retributivism)
pornography: mackinnon vs. strossen
main ethical question: is producing, publishing, or using it morally permissible? should any of these activities be legally prohibited?