Sample questions for Philosophy 100

Compsed by Luke Konkol, lightly edited by Profcessor Glass.

According to the Packet: (If you believe the packet does not give a clear answer to a question, reword the question so that the packet does. This is for your benefit.) EXAM 1 SOME LOGIC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

TRUE/FALSE

Each numbered claim in an argument is an assertion. An assertion that is being affirmed is taken to be true. Being above the line indicates a conclusion. Being above the line indicates a premise. A conditional claim says that “A” and “B” are related by the “if, then” relation. A conditional claim says that “A” and “B” are related by the “is, ought” relation. In the "If A then B" relation, “A” is called the “antecedent.” In the "If A then B" relation, “A” is called the “consequent.” In the "If A then B" relation, “B” is called the “consequent.” In the "If A then B" relation, “B” is called the “antecedent.” The "If, then" relation is represented with the ◊ symbol. The "if, then" relation is represented by the > symbol. An argument is valid if it is impossible for it to have all premises true and a false conclusion. The conclusion of a valid argument must be true provided its premises are either both true or both false. The claim that p is false is represented ~p. ~ represents denial of what follows it. If p is true, then ~p is false. If ~q is true, then q is true. In any Modus Ponens argument, a variable denied in one place is denied in the other. MP argument forms affirm or deny the consequent. MT argument forms affirm or deny the consequent. In all Modus Tollens arguments each variable is denied in more than one place. Universal Instantiation says if it is true of all of them, then it is true of the one you pick. Universal Instantiation says if it is true of a bunch you pick, then it is true of all of them. Theories yield singular conditional claims used in arguments to justify singular categorical claims. In a VALID argument, if at least one premise is false, then it is possible that the conclusion is true and possible that the conclusion is false. In, "If this act helps Ed, then it is right" "It is right" is the antecedent. In, "If the sky is blue, then water is wet" "The sky is blue" is the antecedent. In, "If trolls exist, then bridges exist," "bridges exist" is the consequent. In, "If Bob bites bubblegum, then Betty bit Bob" "Bob bites bubblegum" is the consequent. 1. ~p > q That is a valid argument. 2. ~p 3. ~q

32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

1. p > q That is a valid argument. 2. ~q 3. ~p Affirming the consequent is a valid Modus Ponens so far. Affirming the consequent is a valid Modus Tollens so far. Denying the consequent is a valid Modus Ponens so far. Denying the consequent is a valid Modus Tollens so far. Affirming the antecedent is a valid Modus Ponens so far. Affirming the antecedent is a valid Modus Tollens so far. Denying the antecedent is a valid Modus Ponens so far. Denying the antecedent is a valid Modus Tollens so far. In logic, F and T are used to represent False and True. Claims from theories, with factual claims and logic, are parts of some arguments for claims. "This act helps Ed" is a singular claim. "If it is a rock, it gathers moss" is a categorical claim. "This turkey is in my way" is a universal claim. In “Ed wins if Ed sits” “Ed sits” is the antecedent. The consequent of a conditional statement always comes second. The antecedent is always the first part of a conditional claim. The antecedent follows the "If" in a conditional claim. The consequent is the "then" part of a conditional claim.

MORE LOGIC 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

60 61 62 63

Universal Instantiation says if it's true of all of them, it's true of the one you pick. If an argument is claimed to be valid, it is deductive. If an argument is claimed to be valid, it is inductive. A deductive argument necessitates the truth of its conclusion if it is sound. "Sound" means the argument has valid form and all its premises are true. "Sound" means the argument has valid form and at least one premise is true. If it is claimed that the premises, when true, justify that the conclusion is true but do not guarantee its truth, the argument is deductive. Inductive arguments can be valid. An inductive argument is good if all premises are true and it is stronger than any argument that the conclusion is false. Inductive conclusions assert less than their evidence. Explanations and theories cannot be about kinds of things not mentioned in premises. If an argument cites premises and rules of logic, it is a proof. Arguments about kinds of things not mentioned in the premises are "abductive" rather than statistical.

64 65 66 67 68

Explanations and theories about kinds of things not mentioned in the premises are statistical. Inductive conclusions are not subject to counterexamples. A counterexample can be used to weaken an inductive argument. “An apple exists--so a tree exists,” is an example of an abductive argument. • is used to symbolize "and."

58 59

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

A comma is used to symbolize "and." In an argument or truth table "•" symbolizes "and." A ~ symbolizes not. A * symbolizes not. A • symbolizes not. The relation P and NOT Q is a contradiction. A logically contingent claim is neither a logical impossibility nor a logical necessity. An example of a logical necessity is P is P. An example of a logical necessity is P and Q. A claim symbolized by only one letter is taken to be true. A claim symbolized by only one letter is about a logical possibility.

ONTOLOGICAL 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

St. Anselm’s argument for the existence of God starts after four claims. Greatest conceivable being means “a necessarily all loving, all powerful, all knowing being; one which must exist eternally.” Anselm claims: if the greatest conceivable being exists only in the understanding, it must not be conceivable. Anselm explains why he takes his four initial claims to be true. Anselm explains why he makes his four initial claims. Anselm’s argument is sound—even if his four initial claims are false. Anselm claims that “a being greater than the greatest conceivable being is conceivable” is an acceptable premise since it is not a contradiction. The Ontological argument is inductive. The Ontological argument uses a Modus Ponens form. Gaunilo supported Anselm’s argument. Gaunilo believed the greatest conceivable island exists. Descartes said you could not conceive of the greatest conceivable being. Leibniz proved the greatest conceivable being is not logically possible. Definitions describe unlimited things says Leibniz. Kant claimed that existence is a property. Kant claims that existence is a perfection. Kant claims that existence makes something greater. Descartes’ version of the Ontological argument does not presuppose that existence is perfection. K has no counterexamples. Being findable guarantees existing. “Greatest conceivable being” refers to “that than which none greater can be conceived.” Anselm holds a fool understand the words “greatest conceivable being.” Actual existence does not make something greater according to Anselm. Anselm claims: If the greatest conceivable being exists only in the understanding, it can be conceived to also exist, which is greater. If the fool does not understand Anselm’s words, the fool will not be convinced.

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Anselm claims that “a being greater than the greatest conceivable being is described by conceivable” is a contradiction. The Ontological argument is deductive. The Ontological argument uses a Modus Tollens form. Gaunilo provided an objection to Anselm. Gaunilo claimed that Anselm’s argument proves the greatest conceivable island exists by substituting “island” for “being” in the argument. Anselm can respond to Gaunilo saying he was wrong about the form of the original argument. Descartes claims there is a difference between conceiving and imagining something. To conceive of something is to know truths about it. Descartes held you could not imagine the greatest conceivable being. It is a standard requirement that being logically possible is necessary for being conceivable. Definitions limit says Leibniz. Leibniz claimed no property of the greatest conceivable being has a definition. A square circle is properly described by a contradiction. Kant claimed existence is not a predicate. Kant says conceiving of a thing existing might be conceiving of a thing you can find. The definition of a “perfect hand” in poker does not require that the hand exist. Kant holds that, whatever properties a conceived thing has, even if it has factual existence by definition, still it might not have factual existence. Anselm can reply that K requires rejecting deduction. Inductive evidence for K requires keeping deduction and admitting K has a counterexample. If existence is not a predicate, it is a modality. If it is false that the GCB exists in the understanding only, then possibly it does not exist at all. Refuting the ontological argument requires a showing that a premise is false. All material objects can be found.

ISMS 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot or does not know whether or not gods exist. Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exist(s). Atheism is a distaste for religion. Corporeal means without a body. A creator is that which causes only the existence of all that exists except itself. The belief that God set to universe in motion and let it go according to some plan is Deism. Eternal means going on forever. If it is immutable, it cannot change. The theory that only one god exists is monotheism. “Omnibenevolent” means all good. “Omnipotent” means all powerful. “Omniscient” means all knowing. A personal God means He knows you on an individual basis. Personal gods have knowledge and will and may or may not have a body. Polytheism is the theory that multiple gods exist.

143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

What is not in space and time is supernatural. Theists believe in a god or gods. A belief that no gods exist is agnosticism. Coporeal means all feeling. A creator god must have a body. Being eternal and being supernatural are closely linked. Theism is a belief that God controls all aspects of life. Monotheism is a belief that one god is more powerful than the other gods. “Omnibenevolent” means that God answers prayers. “Omnipotent” means all knowing. “Omniscient” means god controls or manages natural laws. “Immutable” means it cannot be moved from one place to another in space. Monotheism includes multiple godlike beings. Alien beings from a far-away planet would be supernatural. Greek mythology is monotheistic. Greek mythology is polytheistic. If God exists, he probably lives on a cloud and wears a beard and white robes. A bearded, white-robed god is incorporeal.

EXAM 3 TRUE/FALSE APOLOGY, CRITO, AND PHAEDO 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336

Socrates is charged with murder. Socrates is charged with breaking and entering. Socrates is charged with corrupting the youth. Socrates is charged with rejecting the gods of the state. Socrates is charged with having his own gods. Socrates most fears the rumors about him. Socrates cries to appeal to the jury. Socrates says nobody knows what death is, so nobody can know if death is a harm. Meletus is bringing the charges against Socrates. Meletus is Socrates's lawyer. The jury loves Socrates and fears prosecuting him. Socrates made poets angry. The oracle at Delphi said Socrates was the wisest man. The Oracle at Delphi might have meant that Socrates isn't wise, but neither is anybody else. The Oracle at Delphi predicted the death of Socrates. Socrates tried to do his duty. Socrates claimed to know more than other men. Socrates claimed, "Do what your betters tell you." Socrates said only the Oracle at Delphi was wise. Socrates claimed Meletus was free from sin. Socrates was a young man when he was taken to trial.

337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352

The Apology presents Socrates's defense at his trial. The Oracle at Delphi said Socrates was the most wise. The Oracle at Delphi said no one is wiser than Socrates. Socrates made a lot of people angry. Socrates held that professionals are always right. Socrates shows Meletus knows how to improve the youth. Socrates was not a teacher because he was not paid, he said. Socrates was accused of theft. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth. Plato was at the trial of Socrates. Plato only knew Socrates as an historian. Socrates cried in the courtroom. Socrates asked the jurors to decide using justice instead of emotion. Crito is most important to Crito. Socrates had a voice that warned. Crito offers to send Socrates to another place.

353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380

Crito does not use Socrates's friendship with him as an excuse for Socrates's escape. Crito claims that if Socrates does not leave, people will believe Crito is cheap. Socrates decides to stay so he doesn't look like a coward. Crito believes leaving looks cowardly. Crito is afraid that nobody will believe that Socrates refused to leave. Crito says that Socrates would be a coward for staying because it looks as though he does not want to raise his sons. Socrates says he will follow where the best argument leads. Socrates believes a part of us is improved by justice and harmed by injustice. At first what Crito thinks is most important does not list being a good person. Socrates makes an argument for staying that includes "social contract theory." Socrates disregards the laws of the state. Socrates believes that breaking an agreement is unjust. If Socrates leaves, nobody will think less of him. Socrates believes he will be a patriot for staying. The Phaedo describes how Socrates fakes his own death. Socrates takes a bath before execution. Socrates's liked the jailor. Socrates drank hemlock poison. Socrates asks if he should make a libation to the gods. The body is not a limitation to the soul, according to Socrates. Socrates says he owes a rooster to Asclepus. Socrates cries as he dies. Socrates believed he had something to gain by living longer. Socrates was a young man. The realm of the most real exists inside the cave. The realm of the most real exists in sunlight (in the allegory of the cave). The cave prisoners assume the shadows are real. The cave prisoner must have pain in the senses before gaining knowledge.

DESCARTES, COGITO 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392

Descartes wants certainty. Descartes gives an argument that certain beliefs are true beliefs. Descartes examines his beliefs one at a time. Descartes represents a shift from epistemology to metaphysics. Descartes is running out of time to be sure about things. The Cartesian method of doubt requires a great deal of doubting. The Cartesian method of doubt requires one to withhold acceptance if there is some reason to doubt. Descartes says one should withhold acceptance if there's any doubt. Square buildings seem round at a distance. The sensation of minute and distant things are evidence for Cartesian Doubt. There's an easy way to tell a dream from reality. Sensation of near items is a reliable principle.

393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409

The evil deceiver hypothesis suggests that no belief is beyond doubt. Cogito Ergo Sum means "I think, therefore I am." A thought exists so, a thinker exists is, an abductive argument. The evil deceiver turns out to be a good counter example to cogito ergo sum. The evil deceiver exists is less likely than cogito ergo sum is true, holds Descartes. Certainty implies that a statement is not wrong. Being wrong is rare. Descartes tries to decide what the thinker with thoughts actually is. We cannot know something by definition because we do not have an understanding of infinite capacity Descartes claims. Descartes holds a thing is only its qualities. The wax example suggests that sensory information is misleading. We know that the hard wax and the melted wax are the same wax by "intuition of the mind." "Change" indicates that the solid and melted wax are not the same wax, Descartes claims. The mind and body are different "substances" because they have different "essences." Descartes: we can conceive of mind and body independently. Descartes: there are non-sensory thoughts. "2+2=4" is a sensory thought.

LOCKE, BERKELEY 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426

Locke: two kinds of experience are imagination and cognition. Locke: two kinds of experience are sensation and reflection. Locke: substances are properties. Locke: Substances have properties but are not themselves properties. Locke: modes are properties or ways substances can be. Locke: things are made of qualities and "something I know not what." Locke: Ideas of primary qualities resemble primary qualities in the object. Locke: Ideas of secondary qualities resemble secondary qualities in the object. Locke: It's a mystery why a secondary quality causes one idea or another. Locke: powers of things to cause effects in others are secondary qualities. Locke: powers of things to cause effects in others are tirtiary qualities. Berkeley: the objects of knowledge are ideas. Berkeley: a mind is a thing that is not perceived. Berkeley: Newton's views of matter are correct. Berkeley: the variation of sensation argument works as well for primary qualities as secondary qualities. Berkeley: matter is an adequate explanation of ideas. Berkeley: "That exists unperceived" sometimes means "someone else perceives that."

EXAM 2 GOD OR ~GOD 161 162 163

No criticism applies to all five of St Thomas's five ways. St Thomas's 1st 3 arguments bring up an infinity St. Thomas’s arguments which rely on infinity must somehow show an infinity has a first.

164 165

The argument for the greatest of a kind causes all others of that kind is inductive. The claim that the greatest being of a kind is the cause for all of that kind lacks counter examples. St. Thomas’s fifth argument is a version of "intelligent design" or claims a structure or purpose in the world supports the claim that God exists. An argument by analogy claims that if some things are similar in some way, they are similar in another. Arguments by analogy are inductive. Arguments by analogy are deductive. One strategy for criticism of argument by analogy is to convert the analogy to an argument by inductive generalization. Philo (in Hume) represents skepticism. Demea (in Hume) represents mysticism. Demea (in Hume) represents the view that the existence of God can be proved. Cleanthes (in Hume) represents the view that God's existence can be proved. Analogies are made stronger by more similarities. There is no advantage (in analogies) to having more things with a given set of similarities. The world is more like an animal than a machine says Philo. The world is more like an animal than a seed or plant says Philo. The world is more like a seed or plant than an animal says Philo. The world is more like a crystal, snowflake, or waterfall than a machine, animal, plant or seed says Philo. The world is not like a crystal says Philo. Cleanthes's argument is an argument against God when it is strict says Philo. Machine making includes trial and error says Philo. William Paley's argument does not include evil. William Paley provided an argument from analogy comparing the world to a watch. William Paley provided an argument from analogy comparing the world to a rock feature. We might assume things with design have designers because we know that at least some things are designed by people. Taylor holds revealed truths are like the revealed truths of rock arrangements. Taylor claims that if a thing reveals a truth not about itself and not figured out, it can be taken that the thing was designed to do so. We take our faculties to give us truths about things other than our faculties. Our senses can only give us information about our senses says Taylor. A criticism of Taylor is that we don't get information about the color of a wall by inspecting our eyes. If our minds, eyes, etc. don't actually give us any information. Taylor has a false premise.

166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193

194

Taylor holds that we take our senses to give us information.

195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Pascal’s wager gets weaker if many Gods exist. Pascal's wager concludes that God exists. Pascal's wager uses a possibility as evidence. Pascal's wager concludes that God does not exist. The fact that you are justified in betting on something is proof that it is that way. Russell criticized Pascal saying that God might value reasons. Hume claimed that miracles are a logical necessity. Hume claimed that miracles cannot exist because God does not exist. Hume claimed miracles are not known to exist since not all natural laws are known. Hume claims miracles are violations of natural law. Hume holds it is always more likely that there's a scientific explanation than a miracle. William James proves that God exists. James concluded that you are justified in believing as you want about the topic. Sometimes believing an unjustified belief is justified.

209

William James compares deciding about God to deciding which direction to go stranded on the ocean. William James compares deciding about God to playing poker. Pragmatic justification has four requirements. If it can be settled rationally, pragmatic justification is used. Conditions for pragmatic justification involve a living option. A choice calling for pragmatic justification will include important consequences. Anthony Flew said that whether or not God exists can be decided by rational thought. Anthony Flew held that questions about God's existence cannot be decided by rational inquiry. Flew argued that religious claims are neither true nor false. Flew claimed that religious utterances are expressions of feeling (like "ouch.") Flew claimed that religious claims are about emotions. John Hick provided a counter example to one of Flew's claims. Bad evidence is still evidence. There is only one kind of argument against the existence of God. There are five main types of argument against God's existence. One argument against God's ex. is that religious people are crazy. One argument against God's ex. is that scientific explanations do not include God. One method for arguing against God's ex. is to claim that God would be properly described by (a) contradiction(s). The argument from evil is the most common argument against God's existence.

210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

Question 228 One argument from evil is this: G= God is good, P= God is powerful, W= God is willing, A= God is able, E= Evil exists. 1. (G•P)>(W•A), 2. (W•A)>~E, 3. E / 4. ~(G•P) [3, 2, 1, MT] 229 230

The conclusion of the argument from evil that God is not all good and all powerful is deduced from customary beliefs about God. No claim in the argument from gradation has counter examples.

_____

231 232 233 234 235

Paley's argument is deductive. Flew holds that if an utterance is an assertion, it is true or false. If nothing counts against an utterance, Flew holds it is not true or false. A criticism of Cleanthes' argument is that it supports that people, rather than God, created the world. No analogies can be changed to an argument by inductive generalization.

GOD OR ~GOD II 236 237

Leibniz says the argument from evil works only if unnecessary evil exists. Leibniz says that in order for things to be different from a perfect God, they must have evil.

238 239 240

The best possible world must contain some evil says Leibniz. In the best possible world, evil is impossible says Leibniz. The free will defense says people wouldn't have free will if God prevented them from doing evil. A person could be morally praiseworthy without free will. The free will defense explains earthquakes and floods. The education defense says that natural evil is a test of faith or an educational tool. One explanation for evil is that God allows the free will of the devil. The devil is required for evil. One criticism of the free will defense says good people jail bad people, so a good god would jail a bad devil. Natural laws are the only explanation for evil. The natural law defense is a way of saying evil is a small price to pay for the benefits of nature. The natural law defense says we could plan ahead and improve ourselves without evil in the world. One criticism of the natural law defense is that natural laws are possible that make less evil.

241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263

God can make inconspicuous miracles without misleading. If miracles existed, they would be chance events. Hume's favorite example of unnecessary evil was pain. Hume's favorite example of evil was death. Hume says, instead of pain, God could have given us "lack of pleasure." The point of pain may be to cause you not to do what makes the pain. One argument that God and evil are compatible is that God makes good things that are bad in massive quantities, such as warmth to drought. St Augustine describes evil as a "privation" or a "lack." St Thomas held that for every possible world there are infinities of better ones possible. If evil is only a privation, blindness is not a something but a lack of sight says Augustine. St Augustine holds: If blindness is only a lack of sight, it is nothing. If blindness is nothing, it cannot be evil. Nothing requires a lack. St Augustine argues that if we saw the world the way God sees it, we would see that evil isn't as bad as we think it is.

264 265

It might be immoral for God to withhold information about what evil really is. It's likely that God knows something about evil that we don't know.

PRE-SOC, SOC, AND EUTH Question 266 Match each pre-socratic with his concept. _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____

Thales Parmenides Anaximenes Pythagoras Anaximander Heraclitus

1. Everything is made of gods and water. 2. Everything is made of the number one, infinite and indefinite. 3. If the gods love it, it must be holy. 4. The ultimate explainer is nothing in particular. Properties are made by movement. 5. A mystery is not explained by another mystery. 6. Definitions limit, so God can still exist undefined. 7. The universe is built, at its base, of strings which vibrate to create the fundamental particles we can identify. 8. The only thing is Being--changeless and without difference. 9. Most fundamentally, there are water, air, earth, and fire atoms which combine to form all other materials. 10. Everything is change (or logos). Change changes, but not into anything else. For any one thing there are an infinity more.

267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

Platonic Ideas participate things. Platonic ideas participate in the Good. According to platonic ideas, the idea Red participates in Color-hood. Thales believed that all things were change. Thales: water is more like everything than anything else. Thales was a Platonist. Thales explained things as being made of water and containing aperion. Aperion is a mystery. According to Anaximander, the ultimate explainer was nothing in particular. Anaximander: the ultimate explainer can be seen and felt. Anaximander: a mystery cannot explain another mystery. Anaximenes: A mystery is not explained by another mystery. Anaximenes: Everything is made of air. Anaximenes: since there is more water than any other element, other elements must be made of water. Anaximenes: Aperion (a mystery) is the ultimate explainer. Pythagoras: water and gods. Pythagoras: everything is built of things in sets of 1, 10, or 100. Pythagoras: everything comes from the number 1. Pythagoras: Everything is made of air. Heraclitus: everything is change.

287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

Heraclitus: Logos ("word") and change are ultimate explainers. Heraclitus: Being is changeless and without difference. Heraclitus: Change changes, but doesn't change into anything in else. Heraclitus: the most important opposites are being and not being. Heraclitus: for any thing there are more things. Heraclitus: a thing is only itself--this does not depend on anything else. Parmenides: there is only one thing--Being. Parmenides: the world is changeless and without difference. Parmenides: the cosmos and ourselves are constantly changing. One version of Nominalism says a thing is what you call it. Conceptualism says a property is a concept. The Euthyphro concludes with, "Holiness is doing what I'm doing." Euthyphro begins with, "Holiness is doing what I'm doing." Euthyphro is a politician. Euthyphro is at court because he is accused of murder. Euthyphro is at court to accuse his neighbor of steeling. Euthyphro believes his father is guilty of murder. Euth. claims that holiness is "what is loved by the gods." Euthyphro gives examples instead of definitions. Euthyphro gives a clear defnintion of holiness by the end. Socrates is easily convinced. The relationship between being holy and gods loving something is like being seen and seeing.

309 310 311 312 313 314 315

Euthyphro agrees that holiness is a kind of rightness. Holiness is what a slave does for his master, says Euthyphro. Holiness is doing what the gods would like in word and deed, says Euthyphro. Holiness is business arrangement, says Euthyphro. Euthyphro claims that holiness is the science of dealing with the gods. Euthyphro says that asking and giving on the part of people is unholy. Plato would argue that science only creates formulas and experiments to predict how things might behave.

EXAM 4 TRUE/FALSE 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463

If the objects of knowledge are ideas, nothing guarantees that any other kind of thing exists. We seem to consider things rather than ideas. The meanings of words are not what words are about. What a word is about may not exist but the word still has meaning. The relation of sensory qualities to things is not their relation to a mind. We consider, think about, pay attention to and reject ideas. If conceiving is imagining as Lockians seem to believe, then Berkeley has made his point. Laws are about regularities. The Uniformity of Nature Principle asserts a required premise rather than proving it. Hume believes the Uniformity of Nature Principle is true. There is no guarantee that the future resembles the past. Normative ethical theories are metaphysical theories about what makes moral claims true. Teleological theories are consequentialist theories. Ethical egoism is a teleological theory. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory. In a Deontological theory, something other than effects matter. Ethical egoism claims that acts are right depending on their relation to the self/agent. Psychological egoism says that if an act is un-selfish, it cannot be done (by psychology). Ethical egoism says selfish acts are morally permitted. The ability to get pleasure relies on something which causes pleasure. Ethical egoism has counter examples. Ethical altruism has counter examples. When a theory, properly used by two people, implies a contradiction, it is false. Moral people tend to want what they deserve. Utilitarianism says if an act causes more good than any other act, then it is a duty. Act utilitarianism says that good effects, not rules, make an act right. Act utilitarians claim rules do not make an act a duty but are only the best indicator of being a duty. To discover that an act in utilitarianism causes the most good, a theory of value must be used. Utilitarianism must cope with under-determination by induction. According to utilitarianism, if a wrong act causes the most good, it is a duty. Utilitarians can claim that experiences with acts that are wrong according to a rule but having features usually causing better effects justify that those acts are exceptions. Rule utilitarians claim that what makes an act right is a rule justified by effects rather than the effects of the act. What summary rules are about can be recognized without knowing the rules. Summary rules are supposed to be useful. Summary rules are inductive generalizations. John Rawls offered a distinction between “summary rules” and “constitutive rules.” Absolutists believe that there are claims that not only do not but also cannot have counterexamples.

464 465 466 467 468 469 470

471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495

Divine command theory says that if God wills it, it is right. The usual evidence offered for ethical relativism is that there is disagreement about what is moral. Smart says that effects lose importance with their distance in time from their origins. Constitutive rules are inductive generalizations. Some of what constitutive rules are about cannot exist without the rules. Evidence that utilitarian constitutive rules cause more good comes from thought experiments. Justification of rules by thought experiment avoids the problem of underdetermination by induction and other problems that face act utilitarians. A normative ethical theory of obligation is “deontological” if features of an act other than its effects can make an act right. Ethical nihilism is the theory that nothing is morally right or wrong or good or bad. The basic objection to the golden rule is that if you would have done unto you what should not be done unto you, the golden rule says you should do it to others. Kant claims an act is morally good if it is done because it is done from regard for moral principle. Using the categorical imperative properly would require knowing all the truths there are. Kant claims an act conforming to a moral principle but not done because of the principle is morally good. A character trait is a tendency to act a particular way under particular conditions. A virtue is an intrinsically good character trait. If an act is caused by a virtue, it is virtuous. Cultural relativism explains conflicting ethical values, but does not explain which ethical theory is best. One criticism of Divine Command Theory is that one must use an ethical theory other than the divine command theory to discover what God wills. The Categorical Imperative says: act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kant claims that everyone can conceive of himself as a member of a kingdom of ends in which everyone is purely rational. A common version of virtue theory is that if you try to do what is right, you will usually do what is right. If it is not obvious that an act is caused by a virtue, you have to use another theory of obligation to discover what to do. Trying to do what is right requires discovering what is right. Virtue theory of moral education causes people to follow the theory without having to know they are doing virtuous acts. A history of doing the right thing does not indicate a virtuous person. Kant says to treat each person as an end, never as a means. Counterexamples due to conflicting rules face all multiple rule theories. Constitutive moral rules and claims are absolutist rules and claims. The golden rule requires that if the judge would want to be let off unjustly, then the judge ought to unjustly let off lawbreakers. The usual argument for ethical relativism uses cultural relativism as support. Everyone is both king and subject in Kant’s Kingdom of Ends. In deontological theories, “formalist” means effects are always irrelevant.

496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504

513

Only some people are entitled to reconsider the correctness of constitutive rules. Formal moral rules identify which non-moral properties make an act have a moral property. Kant says to treat each person as a means, never as an end. The Ten Commandments are a complete list of what one should and should not do. Ethical nihilism is the theory that there can be no good regardless of moral choices. Virtue theory tells us how to identify whether or not an act is causes by a virtue. Virtue theory relies on the “ought” implies “can” principle. Good intentions indicate virtues best. There are observable differences between being the effect of a rule rather than being the effect of something else. Kant claims an act conforming to a moral principle but not done because of the principle, the act is morally good. Having a “right” to do something and knowing the “right” thing to do are two instances of the same “rightness.” The Uniformity of Nature Principle proves that the future will resemble the past. Psychological egoism supports ethical egoism because: if it can be done, it ought to be done. Psychological altruism is the theory that if an act is unselfish, then it psychologically cannot be done It is easy to establish whether selfishness or unselfishness is acting subconsciously. The fact that an act is selfish, by itself, either justifies that one has a right to do it or that the act is wrong. Divine command theory says that only God can know what is right, and we have been told to guess. The golden rule is not attractive to people who want to be harmed.

514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534

We perceive ideas. Virtue theory relies on effects to determine the rightness of an act. Constitutive rules are designed to be useful. The rules of baseball are an example of summary rules. Berkeley claims an idea can resemble many things. A necessary connection links cause and effect says Hume. Hume holds causal laws are provided by God. Deontological theories rely on God. The Ten Commandments do not have counter examples. Utilitarians can easily resolve rule conflicts. In teleological theories, actions make an act right. Ethical relativism has no counterexamples. If cultural relativism is true, ethical relativism is true. A person can be virtuous without being rational. If you have pleasure, the desire for pleasure is your only desire. It is clear what properties make an act selfish. Support for psychological egoism is ethical egoism. “Formalist” means the theory is expressed as a logical argument. Ethical egoism means only the acts of an individual matter. We can make and break natural laws as we can make and break legal laws. Free will exists if something necessitates that you will what you will.

505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512

535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545

The variability of sensation arguments apply to primary qualities only. A good normative theory does not need to explain why what is moral is moral. Utilitarianism says if an act is useful to more people than not, then it is right. The problem of unknown effects is not a problem for utilitarianism. What summary rules are about cannot exist without the rules. Only certain people can reformulate summary rules. A moral rule or rules alone can be successfully used to justify an act. In deontological theories, “non-formalist” means effects are always irrelevant. The Ten Commandments tell us what to do when they conflict. Kant believes duty is a physical force like gravity. A maxim can be followed if it is a contradiction.