Philosophy 101 Final

Metaphysical Freedom (HD)

Freedom at least requires the ability to do otherwise

Hard Determinism

Freedom requires the ability to do otherwise >we lack the ability to do otherwise>therefore, we are not free.
Psycho VS Stroke victim example: both cases it is a function of their brain. you can hold either accountable.
Laplace's demon/computer example:su

Compatibilism (Soft Determinism)

simply doing what you want.
Freedom and determinism are compatible. We are both free and determined.
Freedom = Moral Freedom (the ability to do what you want).
LOCKED DOOR EXAMPLE: the bar door is locked, both aren't free but one is lucky because he wants

Compatibilism VS Hard Determinism

Both HD and SD say everything is determined. SD says freedom is determined and is the ability to do what you want. HD say that you can't have the ability to have total freedom

Indeterminism

spontaneous events at quantum levels (quantum ID), not deterministic laws, doesn't work=random events in brain that cause neurons to fire.. provide me with free will? NO! Freedom requires control and rational choices.

Manipulative Brainwasher EXAMPLE

Suppose that there is a manipulative neuroscientist that gives you the desire to cheat on an exam. If you were to then cheat on the exam, you might be acting according to your desire but you would not be free since you had no control over what you desire.

Cultural Differnces Arguement

Moral Relativism
1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
>Appeal To Famous Cases
>Eskimos and Infanticide
2. Therefore, There Are No Objective, Universal, Culturally Independent Facts Or Considerations Which Determine The Truth Or Falsehood Of Di

necessary conditions for society

All cultures share in common certain moral rules that are necessary conditions for societies (e.g., indiscriminate killing is wrong, some forms of dishonesty are wrong). Moreover, some cultural differences are merely biases as opposed to moral rules (e.g.

no moral progress consequence

cultural differences argument,
there can be no moral/cultural progress because there are no culturally independent factors to weigh against/consider.

Relativism's self-refutation

claims contradict relativism, "always wrong"=universal moral code...breaking this

legal VS moral

ethics, legal-not always based on moral. ex: traffic drives on right side. lying, adultery, immoral laws. Whats moral can't always be defined as legal.

devine command theory

Divine Command Theory is an attempt to ground morality through theological considerations.
Definitions:
An act is right if and only if God permits it.
An act is wrong if and only if God forbids it.

Platos Question on God's own Goodness

Divine Command Theory
Plato: is an act right (wrong) because God allows (forbids) it, or does God allow (forbid) it because it is right (wrong)?...
(1) God is good = God commands what is morally good. (2) Morally good = what God commands. (3) Therefore, G

expected utility

Ulitarianism
an act that is right and what makes it right brings the highest expected utility

moral consequentialism

Ulitarianism
duties and motives

Rule Ulitarianism

diff question, what kinds of rules should one live in accordance with. over time if you act in accordance, should provide the highest utility. ex:"try to help people" brought diseases, but thats okay.

Act Ulitarianism

attempt to determine a certain act if it is right or wrong and what makes it... highest expected utility.

hedons & dolars

this is an attempt to make Mill's doctrine more sophisticated.
Hedons are units of happiness.
Dolars are units of unhappiness.
Utility = Hedons - Dolars

Doctrine of Swine" objection

Doctrine of Swine" objection: If Util. Is Correct, Then Only Relevant Moral Consideration Is Amount Of Pleasure
False That The Only Relevant Moral Consideration Is Amount Of Pleasure
Therefore, Util. Is False.
response:quality dimension of pleasure...thr

Trivial Acts

If utilitarianism is true, then there are no trivial acts (acts which have no moral value). Every action is either moral or immoral.
Ex. Should you eat bacon or sausage for breakfast? According to utilitarianism, you have a moral obligation to eat whichev

Harm to innocent" objection

If utilitarianism is true, then it is sometimes moral to harm the innocent just in case doing so maximizes overall utility.
Possible Reply--The "Rawlsian" Alternative and the Moral Point of View--This incorporates a notion of justice in addition to utilit

Singer's Argument

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention are very bad things.
If we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable (any) moral value, then we are morally required to do so.
"Comparable

Supererogatory acts

beyond duty, morality didn't require. above and beyond acts. (Singers strategy of morality)
If utilitarianism is true, there are no supererogatory acts (acts which exceed our moral obligations). If an act is moral, it is a moral obligation.
Envelope Ex: Y

The "Shallow Pond" Case

Suppose you are dressed up for a night on the town. You are walking past a shallow pond on your way to your car and you notice that a child is drowning. It would be easy enough for you to walk out into the pond to rescue the drowning child, but you do not

global village

Singer's village: all neighbors because of technology and transportation. The world is smaller. Capable of helping people far and close. Can provide assistance everywhere.

proximity factor

Distance is/is not a morally relevant factor in making decisions in regards to helping someone;

extreme socialism objection

Even if Singer's argument were socialism, not all socialism is bad; his argument is promoting prevention of very bad things from happening, not making everyone equal.

epistemology

the philosophical theory of knowledge; a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge; , Branch of philosophy associated with the study of knowledge, how it's acquired, the sources of it, the different

dreaming argument

Claims that dreams are just extended perceptual illusions and that since we have similar experiences in dreams we can never tell what is real vs not real. There is no way to get outside our heads to see what is real, how do we know our senses are accurate

deceiving demon argument

A hypothetical being that could fool us "every time we count the sides of a triangle," or try "to add two and two together." The next level of skepticism and has the most room for doubting beliefs.
- Context and Relevance: Comes from Descartes' mediations

cogito ergo sum

translates to 'I think therefore I am.' Rene Descartes said/wrote this in his development of a system of acquiring knowledge. In his Discourse on Method he begins by clearing the ground and doubting everything. He even doubted his own existence. Then he d

foundationalism

epistemological view that all knowledge ultimately rests upon a firm base of self evident truth/truths; , The view that knowledge ought to be based on a foundation of "basic beliefs" which are absolutely secure and self-justified or self-evident; having n

Cartesian circle

decartes- uses god to prove Gods existance, vice versa; The idea that what is perceived is clearly true on the basis that God, an infinitely perfect being and not a deceiver, does not allow mistaken perceptions; , Descartes's reasoning is circular = deduc

objective vs formal reality

objective= existence in the mind.
formal= existence independent of the mind

Euclid VS Newton

Euclid -- Compiled a geometry text. He is regarded as the best mathematician in Alexandria. His best known book - ELEMENTS (contained lots of geometry proofs) His work is still the basis for courses in geometry.
Newton -- This physicist developed the law

ego-centric predicament

problem that we can never get outside of our own minds, or mental experience, to know how the world is, in reality. This is related to "solipsism."; , The difficulty with trying to penetrate the screen of perception to see what the world is really like.

naive representationalism

gap between you and objects outside of head -skepticism; , The view that our inner representations fully resemble that with which they represent.

resemblance assumption

The naive view that inner representations fully resemble what they represent.

empiricism

(philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience; , the view that knowledge originates in experience and that science should, therefore, rely on observation and experimentation

rationalism

(philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience; , a system of thought expounded by Rene Descartes based on the belief that reason is the chief source of knowledge

innate knowledge

knowledge and ideas we were born with; theory of the rationalists that we are born with a store of ideas that we draw upon in order to help make sense of the world

inner ideas

internal conflict; , Inherited dispositions that we are born with.

primary qualities

characteristics such as size and shape that exist in an object whether or not we perceive them;

secondary qualities

characteristics such as color and odor that exist in our perception of the object.

variance arguments

Arguments that show that certain features of our experiences of objects cannot be actual features of the object [(orange juice/toothpaste),(lighting changes/color appearance),(oven and freezer/lukewarm water)]

solipsism

the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist; , The belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible; reality is totally inside the human mind

idealism

(philosophy) the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality; , The practice of seeing or representing things in ideal form rather than as they usually exist in real life.

esse est percipi

'to be is to be perceived' ---- George Berkeley's motto for his idealist philosophical position that nothing exists independently of its perception by a mind except minds themselves; a thing can only exist if it can be perceived.
How about God? do things

adasdasdasd

...

asdasdasd

askda;lksdja

asdasd

asdasdasd

m;h

h;kjl