Transcript Introduction to Philosophy

The
Love of
Wisdom
Steven B. Cowan
James S. Spiegel
Introduction
to Philosophy
What is Philosophy?
Philo + Sophia = Love of Wisdom
(love) (wisdom)
“Philosophy is about gaining insights into
the Big Questions which culminate in a life
well-lived.”
What is Philosophy?
The Big Questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the meaning of life?
What are human beings?
Where did we come from?
Are we responsible for how we live?
What happens after we die?
Is there a God? If so, what is God like?
What is real and what is mere appearance?
Can we know the answers to such questions?
Can we know anything at all?
Philosophical Method
• The Socratic Method
– Dialectic
– Socratic Ignorance
– The pursuit of virtue
• Defining Terms
• Using Arguments
• Identifying Presuppositions
Introduction
to Philosophy
Unit 1:
The Study of
Knowledge
A Little Bit of Logic
The Three Laws of Thought
– Law of Non-Contradiction
– Law of Excluded Middle
– Law of Identity
Arguments
– Deductive
– Inductive
Validity = a property of deductive arguments in which, if
the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Soundness = a property of deductive arguments that are
valid and have true premises.
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms
Categorical Syllogisms
I. All M are P
All S are M
III. All M are P
 All S are P
Some S are M
 Some S are P
II. No M are P
All S are M
 No S are P
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms
IV. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
If P then Q
VI. Modus Tollens
If Q then R
If P then Q
 If P then R
not-Q
V. Modus Ponens
 not-P
If P then Q
P
Q
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms
VII. Disjunctive Syllogism
Either P or Q
not-P
Q
VIII. Constructive Dilemma
If P then Q
If R then S
Either P or R
 Q or S
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms
IX. Reductio ad Absurdum
Assume P (the claim to be proven false)
...
Q
Contradiction!!!
not-Q
 not-P

A Little Bit of Logic
Some Formal Fallacies
The Undistributed Middle
All P is M
All S is M
 All S is P
Denying the Antecedent
If P then Q
not-P
 not-Q
Affirming the Consequent
If P then Q
Q
P
Affirming a Disjunct
Either P or Q
P
 not-Q
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Informal Fallacies
False Dilemma
Division
Begging the Question
False Cause
Argument from Ignorance
Hasty Generalization
Equivocation
Biased Generalization
Straw Man
Attacking the Person
Appeal to Popularity
Composition
The Question of Truth
Is Anything True?
Relativism – the view that there are no objective truths.
• Subjectivism – what counts as true is a matter of
individual preference
• Conventionalism – what counts as true is a matter of
cultural preference
Objectivism – the view that truth is a real feature of the
world that is independent of personal or cultural
preference
The Question of Truth
Is Anything True?
“There are no absolute truths.”
“All truth-claims are socially conditioned.”
It is logically impossible that truth is
relative!
The Question of Truth
What is Truth?
Correspondence Theory of Truth
A proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the way things
actually are.
The Coherence Theory of Truth
A proposition is true if and only if it coheres with the set of beliefs
that a person holds.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
A proposition is true if and only if it is useful to the believer in
achieving desirable results.
Can We Know?
The Skeptical Challenge
Skeptical hypothesis = any logically possible scenario that
we apparently cannot rule out and would, if true, call most or
all of our ordinary commonsense beliefs into question
1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some belief p of mine, then
I do not know p.
2. There is a skeptical hypothesis for p.
3. Therefore, I do not know p.
Can We Know?
The Rationalist Response
Rationalism = the view that all knowledge comes through
human reason
Descartes’ Argument for Material Things
1. I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being (i.e., God).
2. Only an absolutely perfect being could be the cause of my idea
of it.
3. Therefore, God exists.
4. God, by definition, is not a deceiver.
5. God is the cause of all my cognitive faculties.
6. Since God is not a deceiver, He would not give me cognitive
faculties that are unreliable.
7. My senses give me ideas of (alleged) material objects.
8. Therefore, material objects exist.
Can We Know?
The Empiricist Response
Empiricism = the view that all knowledge arises from sense
experience
• Distinction between Sensation & Reflection
• The Representational Theory of Perception
Hume’s Skeptical Critique
• We can only know our sensory impressions.
• We cannot know causal connections.
• We have no metaphysical knowledge.
Can We Know?
Do We Need Certainty?
1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some belief p of
mine, then I do not know p.
Degrees of Certainty
3 – Beyond all doubt
2 – Beyond a reasonable doubt
1 – More probable than not
0 – Equally probable and improbable
What is Knowledge?
Different Kinds of Knowledge
• Procedural Knowledge
• Experiential/Acquaintance Knowledge
• Propositional Knowledge
“I know that bachelors are unmarried.”
“I know that the Earth is spherical.”
“I know that Cowan is really cool.”
What is Knowledge?
The JTB Account
S knows p if and only if:
(1) S believes p,
(2) p is true, and
(3) S is justified in believing p.
The Gettier Problem: It appears that there are
counterexamples to the JTB account that show
that justified true belief is not sufficient for
knowledge.
What is Knowledge?
Solutions to the Gettier Problem
•
•
Strengthening the justification condition
Adding a fourth condition



The “No-False-Belief” condition
The Defeasibility condition
Replacing the justification condition (reliabilism)
For S to know p there must be no true proposition
q which, if S were to come to justifiably believe q,
he would no longer be justified in believing p.
What is Knowledge?
Internalism vs. Externalism
Internalism = the view that in order for a belief to be
justified, a person must have cognitive access to the
justifying grounds for his belief
Externalism = the view that in order for a belief to be
justified, it is not necessary that a person have
cognitive access to the justifying grounds for his
belief but only that his belief be produced in an
appropriate way
What is Knowledge?
Virtue Epistemology
“Intellectual Virtue” = an intellectual habit that
predisposes a person to acquire beliefs in such a
way that their beliefs are more likely than not to
be true
S knows p only if p is acquired through
an act of intellectual virtue.
What is the Structure of
Justification?
Foundationalism
A belief p is justified for a person S if and only if: (1) p is
a properly basic belief for S or (2) p is ultimately based
on a properly basic belief for S.
• Classical Foundationalism
A belief B is properly basic for a person S if and only if
B is: (1) self-evident to S, (2) incorrigible for S, or
(3) evident to the sense of S.
• Modest Foundationalism
A belief B is properly basic for a person S if it is
(1) evidently true to S and (2) S is unaware of any
undefeated defeaters of B.
What is the Structure of
Justification?
The Regress Argument for Foundationalism
Suppose one says that p is justified by q, and q by r,
etc. Then, either:
1. The regress comes to an end with a justifying
belief x that is itself unjustified,
2. The regress continues infinitely,
3. The regress is circular, or
4. The regress comes to an end with a justifying
belief x that is itself justified immediately apart
from other beliefs.
Problem: The myth of the given
What is the Structure of
Justification?
Coherentism
A belief p is justified for S if and only if it fits within
a coherent system of beliefs of S.
Problems:
• The isolation problem
• The alternative coherent systems problem
• The regress problem
What is the Structure of
Justification?
Contextualism
A belief is justified relative to a specific context;
beliefs that are justified in one context might not be
justified in other contexts.
The Relevant Alternatives View
A belief p is justified for S in a specific context
if S can rule out all the relevant alternatives
in that context.
What is the Structure of
Justification?
Problems for Contextualism
• If a person is not justified in a broader context, why
would he be justified in the narrower context?
Wouldn’t justification in the latter presuppose
justification in the former?
• Contextualism seems committed to the view that an
epistemic regress comes to an end with justifying
beliefs that are unjustified.
• Contextualism assumes that knowledge requires
absolute certainty.
What is Science?
• The definition problem
• The presuppositions of science
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The laws of thought
The general reliability of sense perception
The law of causality
The uniformity of nature
Values
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Scientific Realism
The view that scientific theories properly aim to
provide a true account of the physical world.
• Inductivism
– The process of confirmation
– The problem of induction
• Falsificationism
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Scientific Non-realism
Truth is not the real aim of science.
1. Instrumentalism – The aim of scientific theories
is not to describe the world but to solve problems.
Theories are preferred because of their usefulness.
Problem: Why are some theories more useful than
others?
The Nature of Scientific Theory
2. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science
• Scientific observation is theory-laden.
• The history of science proceeds through
paradigm shifts.
Paradigm = a theoretical model and set of
problem-solving techniques which guide
scientific inquiry
• Rival paradigms are incommensurable.
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Objections
to
Kuhn’s
View
1. Kuhn’s view can’t explain the progress of
science.
2. Kuhn’s view can’t explain why some
scientific theories are rejected after crucial
tests.
3. Kuhn’s view undermines itself.
The Nature of Scientific Theory
3. Feyerabend’s View of Science
• Science as mythology
• The tyranny of science and the social ideal of
methodological neutrality
Problem: Feyerabend’s view can’t explain the
progress or practical achievements of
science.
The Laws of Nature
Perspectives
on the
of Nature:
1.The regularity
viewLaws
(Hume) – The laws of nature
are mere descriptions of physical regularities.
2.The instrumentalist view (Dewey) – The laws
of nature are useful fictions.
3.The necessitarian view (Chalmers) – Regularities
in nature are due to (logical or causal) necessity.
4.The theistic view (Swinburne) – The laws of
nature are an aspect of divine providence.
Science and Theology
Two Kinds of Naturalism:
• Metaphysical naturalism
• Methodological naturalism
Theistic Science
• Problems with methodological naturalism
• Intelligent design theory
Introduction
to Philosophy
Unit 2:
The Study of
Being
Obstacles to Metaphysics
Kantian Epistemology
• His “Copernican Revolution”
• Distinction between noumena and phenomena
Noumena = the unknowable “real” world beyond
the mind
Phenomena = the knowable world of appearances
organized by the mind.
Problems
• Noumena/Phenomena distinction is self-defeating.
• Leads to radical relativism and antirealism.
Obstacles to Metaphysics
• Logical Positivism
• Elevates science as a privileged way of knowing
and seeks to eradicate speculative metaphysics
• Verification Principle: A proposition is
meaningful if and only if it is empirically
verifiable in principle.
Problem: Verification principle is self-defeating
What is the Nature of the
World?
• What is the underlying “stuff” of reality?
• The problem of the one and the many
Three Major Views
• Dualism
• Materialism
• Idealism
What is the Nature of the
World?
Dualism
Reasons For:
• Solves the problem of the one and the many
• The difficulty of a materialist view of the mind
• Evidence for God’s Existence
• Supports life after death
• Biblical evidence (Gen. 1:1; Matt. 10:28; 2 Cor.
5:8, etc)
What is the Nature of the
World?
Dualism
Reasons Against:
• The interaction problem
• Ockham’s Razor
What is the Nature of the
World?
Materialism
• Hard determinism
• Atomism
Reasons For:
• Ockham’s Razor
 Problem of the one and the many
 Mind-body problem
 The origin of the universe
• The Progress of Science
What is the Nature of the
World?
Materialism
Reasons Against:
• Inconsistent with Christian belief
• Ockham’s Razor???
 Evidence for God
 Mind-body correlation does not imply
materialism
 Undermines responsibility and life after death
 Requires nominalism
• Progress of science requires scientific realism
What is the Nature of the
World?
Materialism
Plantinga’s Argument Against:
1. If materialism is true, then our cognitive faculties aim at
survival not truth (because materialism assumes Darwinism).
2. If our cognitive faculties aim at survival not truth, then we
have good reason to doubt that our beliefs are true (because
false beliefs can ensure survival as well as true ones).
3. If we have good reason to doubt that our beliefs are true, then
the materialist has good reason to doubt that materialism is
true.
4. Therefore, if materialism is true, then the materialist has good
reason to doubt that materialism is true.
What is the Nature of the
World?
Idealism
Reasons For:
• Ockham’s Razor
• Avoids the interaction problem and problems with a
material view of the mind
• Consistent with Christian theism, moral responsibility, and
life after death
• Does not require nominalism
• “Matter” is unnecessary and leads to skepticism
• “Matter” is absurd
• The Master Argument for the inconceivability of
matter
What is the Nature of the
World?
Idealism
Reasons Against:
• The Direct Realist response?
• It’s possible to defend the coherence of matter
• The Master Argument is invalid
• Common sense?
Are There Universals?
Platonism (Realism)
The view that universals are real
What is a universal?
• Abstract entities
• Multiply instantiable
• Eternal and necessary
Kinds of Universals
• Properties
• Relations
• Propositions
Are There Universals?
Platonism (Realism)
Reasons For:
• A straight-forward explanation of resemblance
• A ready account of predication
Are There Universals?
Nominalism
The view that there are no universals; only particulars exist
Extreme Nominalism
• Denies the existence of properties, relations, and
propositions altogether
• Reduces predication to assertions of set
membership
• Reduces resemblance to shared set membership
Problems
• Reduction to set membership fails to preserve
meaning
• The Companionship Problem
Are There Universals?
Nominalism
Moderate Nominalism (Trope Theory)
• Admits the existence of properties, but sees
them as abstract particulars
• Reduces predication to membership of tropes
in sets of tropes
• Reduces resemblance to similarity of tropes,
making resemblance a brute fact
Problems
• Making resemblance a brute fact is implausible
• Making resemblance a brute fact suggest that
judgments concerning resemblance could be
conventional
Are There Universals?
Nominalism
Nominalism and Ethics
• All version of nominalism reject the existence of
universal essences such as dogness, humanness,
etc.
• But this means that there is no objective definition
of concepts like “humanity” (i.e., what counts as
“human” is merely conventional)
• But this means that human rights and who has
them is conventional.
• But this means that morality is conventional.
Are There Universals?
Conceptualism
Views “universals” as mental concepts
Problems:
• Implies that if there were no mental concepts,
there would be no properties
• Cannot explain resemblance
But these problems can be avoided on theism!
But then it seems that conceptualism becomes a form of
Platonism!
What is a Particular Thing?
The Bundle Theory
Particulars are bundles of properties.
The Substratum View
Particulars are bare substrata that bear properties.
The Substance View
Natural-kind particulars are irreducibly basic.
Do We Have Souls?
Mind-Body (Substance) Dualism
The view that the mind and body are two distinct substances
Arguments For:
• Argument from Subjectivity
• Argument from Qualia
• Argument from Intentionality
Arguments Against:
• The Problem of Causal Overdetermination
• The Interaction Problem
Possible Response: Occasionalism?
Do We Have Souls?
Physicalism
The view that the mind is fully explainable in terms of natural
processes
Five Versions:
1.Philosophical Behaviorism
2.Strict Identity Theory
3.Eliminative Materialism
4.Functionalism
5.Property Dualism
What is Personal Identity?
The Memory View
A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person
at a later time just in case he has memories of that earlier
time.
Problems:
1.Transitivity Problems
2.The Circularity Problem
What is Personal Identity?
The Physical View
Personal identity depends on maintaining relevant physical
characteristics.
• The Body Criterion – A person at a certain time is the
•
•
numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is
the same body at both times.
The Brain Criterion – A person at a certain time is the
numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is
the same brain at both times.
The Causal Continuity Criterion – A body (or brain)
is the same body (or brain) from one time to a later time just in
case the parts that compose the body at the later time are
causally continuous with those parts that composed the body
at the earlier time.
What is Personal Identity?
The Soul View
A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person
at a later time just in case he is (or has) the same soul at both
times.
Problems:
1.The Fission Problem
2.An Arbitrariness Problem
Do We Have Free Will?
Incompatibilism – The view that freedom and
determinism are not logically consistent
The Consequence Argument
1. If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences
of the laws of nature and events in the remote past.
2. It is not in our power to change the laws of nature.
3. It is not in our power to change events in the remote past.
4. If our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and
events in the remote past, and it is not in our power to
change these things, then we cannot do otherwise than what
we do.
5. If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then we are not
free.
6. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are not free.
Do We Have Free Will?
Incompatibilism
• Hard Determinism – determinism is true; human
freedom and responsibility are illusions.
• Libertarianism – determinism is false; human
beings have the power of contrary choice.
Problems:
• Makes it impossible to hold people accountable for
their actions.
• Contrary to Scripture.
Do We Have Free Will?
Incompatibilism
• Libertarianism – determinism is false; human
beings have the power of contrary choice.
Reasons for:
• Consequence Argument
• Introspection Argument
• Scripture?
Do We Have Free Will?
The Libertarian’s Dilemma
1. If a person’s actions are determined, then her actions
are not under her control (because she lacks the
ability to do otherwise).
2. If a person’s actions are undetermined, then her
actions are not under her control (because they
happen by chance).
3. Therefore, whether a person’s actions are determined
or undetermined, they are not under her control.
Do We Have Free Will?
Compatibilism
“Free will” = the ability to do what one wants to do.
Response to the Consequence Argument:
• The conditional analysis of “ability to do
otherwise.”
• Challenge to the assumption that freedom and
responsibility require the ability to do otherwise.
– Frankfurt-type Counterexamples
Is There Life After Death?
• The Argument from Substance Dualism
• The Argument from Theism and Ultimate Justice
• The Evidence of Near-death Experiences
Is There Life After Death?
What about Reincarnation?
Evidence For: Apparent memories of past lives.
Problems:
• Alternative explanations for apparent memories
• Concerns over personal identity
• Concerns about justice
Does God Exist?
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
1. I have an idea of the greatest conceivable being
(GCB).
2. That which exists in reality (and not only in my mind)
is greater than that which exists only in my mind.
3. If the GCB exists only in my mind, then the GCB
would not be the GCB (because I can conceive of it
existing in reality, not only in my mind).
 The GCB exists in reality.
Does God Exist?
• Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
1.There is an order of causes in the world.
2.Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3.Hence, everything that is caused is caused by
something else.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
 There must be a first, uncaused cause.
Does God Exist?
• Paley’s Teleological Argument
1.A watch has many complex working parts and is
intelligently designed.
2.The universe has many complex working parts.
 The universe is probably intelligently designed.
Does God Exist?
• The Fine-tuning Argument
1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either
necessity, chance, or intelligent design.
2.The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to
necessity or chance.
 The fine-tuning of the universe is due to
intelligent design.
Does God Exist?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
b) The universe began to exist.
1. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually
infinite number of events would have occurred
prior to the present moment.
2. It is impossible that an actually infinite number
of events occur prior to the present moment.
 Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Does God Exist?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
c) The cause of the universe was God.
Eternal
Changeless/Immutable
Immaterial
Uncaused
Enormously Powerful
Personal
Good
Do We Need Arguments
for God?
• Evidentialism – the view that it is wrong or irrational
to hold a belief without sufficient evidence.
− Implication: Belief in God is wrong or irrational unless
based on good arguments.
− Problem: Based in discredited classical foundationalism.
• Reformed Epistemology – the view that belief in God
can be properly basic.
Objections:
1. Reformed Epistemology would allow any belief to be properly
basic (The Great Pumpkin Objection).
2. Reformed Epistemology makes belief in God immune to
criticism.
What Is God Like?
Views on Divine Omnipotence:
Aquinas: Omnipotence is the power to do anything that
is logically possible.
Ockham: Omnipotence is the power to do anything at
all, even to defy the law of noncontradiction.
Problems with Ockham’s View:
• Even to pose the possibility of violating the law of
noncontradiction is nonsensical.
• It assumes the laws of logic are distinct from God.
What Is God Like?
Views on God’s Relationship to Time:
1. Atemporalism – the view that God transcends time;
God is not essentially temporal
Arguments for:
– Scientific evidence for the relativity of time
– Biblical evidence that time had a beginning (1 Cor. 2:7;
2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2)
What Is God Like?
Views on God’s Relationship to Time:
2. Sempiternalism – the view that God is essentially
temporal; God is bound by time
Arguments for:
– Only temporal beings can be truly personal.
– God relates to human beings in time (Jer. 18:7-8; Exod.
32:14; Jonah 3:10, etc.).
What Is God Like?
Views on God’s Relationship to Time:
3. Omnitemporalism – God is timeless without the
universe and temporal with the universe (Craig)
– Arguments for both atemporalism and sempiternalism
count in favor of omnitemporalism.
– Problem: This view seems to imply that God changes
(from an atemporal to a temporal being) upon creation of
the world.
What Is God Like?
The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge:
If God foreknows all future human actions, then how
can we be free?
If God knows today that Jones will mow his lawn
tomorrow, can Jones be free with respect to mowing his
lawn tomorrow?
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions to the problem of divine
foreknowledge:
1. Compatibilist solution – Human freedom is
compatible with determinism.
Problem: This approach is dependent on the
definition of freedom as the ability to do what one
wants.
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions:
2. Open theist solution – God does not know all
future events; free human choices cannot be
foreknown.
Problem: This does not square with the biblical
evidence for exhaustive divine foreknowledge of
human actions (e.g. Isa. 46:9-10; Ps. 139, etc.).
What Is God Like?
Proposed
solutions:
3. Ockhamist solution – God’s beliefs about future
events are caused by those events.
Problem: The causation relation does not change
the fact that God’s infallible knowledge of a future
human action guarantees that it will occur.
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions:
4. Molinist solution – God possesses “middle
knowledge”; he knows all counterfactuals of human
freedom and thus indirectly knows all future human
choices.
Problem: The grounding objection
What Is God Like?
Views
on
Divine
Emotion:
1. Divine impassibilism – God does not experience
emotion.
Arguments for: Appeals to divine perfection,
divine immutability, and scripture (Mal. 3:6, James
1:17, etc.)
Problem: Seems to undermine divine personhood
What Is God Like?
Views
on
Divine
Emotion:
2. Divine passibilism – God experiences emotion in
a temporal way.
Arguments for: Appeals to divine personhood,
divine omniscience, and Scripture (Exod. 4:14;
Prov. 11:2, etc.)
Problem: Seems to contradict divine immutability
What Is God Like?
Views on Divine Emotion:
3. Divine omnipathism – God eternally experiences
all emotion.
Arguments for: Appeals to reasons for both
passibilism and impassibilism
Problem: Creates difficulty in accounting for divine
happiness.
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Logical Problem of Evil
(1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent.
(2) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil.
(3) An omniscient being has the knowledge to prevent evil.
(4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent evil.
(5) Therefore, of God exists, there is no evil.
(6) Evil exists.
(7) Therefore, God does not exist.
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Logical Problem of Evil
(4)
An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent
evil.
(4’)
An omnibenevolent being has a prima facie reason to
prevent evil.
(4’’) An omnibenevolent being has a morally sufficient
reason to permit evil, and thus an ultima facie reason
to not prevent evil.
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil
If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.
(1) There are pointless evils.
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil
(1) There are pointless evils.
• The Noseeum Inference:
(1) I do not see an x.
(2) Therefore, there likely is no x.
• Rowe’s Noseeum Inference Concerning God’s
Reasons for Evil:
(1) I do not see a reason why God would allow
instance of evil x.
(2) Therefore, there likely is no reason why God
would allow instance of evil x.
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil
The Noseeum Rationality Principle:
A noseeum inference is reasonable when it would be
reasonable to believe that we would see the item in
question if it existed.
--Per Daniel Howard-Snyder
Turning Rowe’s Argument on its Head:
(1) If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.
(2) God exists.
(3) Therefore, there are no pointless evil.
Introduction
to Philosophy
Unit 3:
The Study
of Value
How Should We Live?
Two Kinds of Ethical Inquiry
• Metaethics – examines the meaning of ethical
concepts and seeks to discover whether or not they
refer to objective truths.
• Normative Ethics – seeks to ascertain our
ethical duties in light of metaethical commitments.
An Ethical Theory is a coherent set of beliefs about
the foundation, nature, and goals of morality designed
to enable us to make reliable moral judgments.
How Should We Live?
Ethical Relativism
The view that there are no universally true moral values
1. Cultural Relativism – the view that moral values are the
products of the customs, tastes, and standards of a culture, and
thus are not objectively true
The Plurality Argument:
•
•
Moral values differ from culture to culture.
Therefore, there is no objective moral standard.
Problematic Implications:
•
•
•
We could never criticize another culture.
Moral progress would be impossible.
All moral reformers would be corrupt.
How Should We Live?
Ethical Relativism
2. Moral Subjectivism – the view that moral values are
relative to each person’s subjective preferences.
Hume’s Argument for Subjectivism
•
•
•
All truths are either relations of ideas or matters of fact.
Moral judgments are neither relations of idea nor matters
of fact.
Therefore, moral judgments are not objectively true.
Problematic Implications:
•
•
•
No one would ever be mistaken in his moral judgments.
People don’t really disagree about moral issues.
No behavior can be objectively praised or condemned.
How Should We Live?
Other Forms of Moral Skepticism:
Emotivism – the view that moral statements are mere
expressions of emotion
Nihilism – the denial of all meaning and value in
human life
How Should We Live?
Ethical Objectivism – the view that there are
universally true moral values
1. Ethical Egoism – the view that people ought to
always pursue their own self-interest (Rand)
Problems:
• Problem of clashing self-interest
• Problem of justice
• Epistemological problems
How Should We Live?
2. Classical Utilitarianism (Bentham & Mill)
• Principle of utility – always act so as to promote
the greatest pleasure for all involved
• Pleasure-pain calculus – assess utility using
Bentham’s seven criteria (intensity, duration, certainty,
propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent)
• Qualitative hedonism – distinguish between
higher and lower pleasures
How Should We Live?
2. Classical Utilitarianism
Problems:
•
•
•
•
Problem of justice
Problem of rights
Difficulty in anticipating consequences
Unreasonable demands
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics
• A deontological approach
• Emphasizes proper motive in action
The “good will” = the will that acts for the sake
of duty alone = acting out of respect for the
moral law.
• Involves categorical not hypothetical imperatives
The Categorical Imperative (1st Form):
Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it become a universal law.
The Categorical Imperative (2nd Form):
Act so as to treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in
that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics
Problems:
•
•
•
•
•
Overemphasis on moral autonomy?
Ignores legitimate concern for consequences?
Vagueness in formulating maxims
Why care about rationality in ethics?
Is acting for the sake of duty alone an appropriate
motive?
How Should We Live?
4. Rule Utilitarianism
• Seeks to avoid problems of classical utilitarianism
and Kant’s pure deontology.
• Rather than maximizing happiness with regard to
individual acts, we should follow those rules that,
when followed, tend to produce the most happiness
for the most people.
Problems:
• It collapses into act utilitarianism
• How do we decide which rules will produce the most
happiness?
• How do we resolve conflicts between rules?
How Should We Live?
5. Virtue Ethics
• Focuses on character traits in moral evaluation
rather than on principles and actions.
• Being moral is about being a certain kind of person
more than abiding by principles
• A good act is the act that a virtuous person would
do.
• Strengths: sanctions morally appropriate forms of
partiality and provides personal motivation for
acting rightly.
Problem:
It cannot provide specific moral guidance or
resolve moral dilemmas.
How Should We Live?
Natural Law Ethics
• A non-naturalist theory
• A teleological theory in which moral laws are
discerned through rational reflection on God’s
design for human beings.
Some Principles:
• Good is to be pursued and evil avoided.
• Sanctity of Life
• Principle of Double Effect
Some Problems:
• It may not provide clear direction on many moral issues.
• It fails to provide a strong concept of duty.
• It presupposes the existence of essences.
How Should We Live?
Divine Command Theory
The view that right and wrong are determined by God’s
will (X is right = X coheres with God’s commands).
Benefits:
• Provides a basis for moral obligation
• Provides moral motivation
Problem: The Euthyphro Dilemma – morality is arbitrary
Response: False Dilemma
Modified Divine Command Theory: Right and
wrong are grounded in God’s immutably good nature, and His
commands are one way we know what’s right and wrong.
The Golden Rule
• What does its application presuppose?
• How must it be qualified?
How Should We Live?
Toward a Complete Ethical Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Moral objectivism
The moral relevance of consequences
The principle of universalizability
Sanctity of human life
Importance of moral character
Natural law as a source of moral principles
Divine commands as a source of moral principles
The Golden Rule
Why be moral?
Because of the recognition of the authority of an omnipotent,
holy God and his promise of rewards and punishments
What is a Just Society?
Three Important Concepts
1. Justice
• Remedial
• Commercial
• Distributive
2. Rights
• Negative or Positive
• Moral or Legal
3. Law
• Natural Law Theory
• Legal Positivism
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State
1. Anarchy
• Anarcho-socialism
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Absolute anarchy
Problems:
• The problem of motivation
• The problem of human nature
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State
2. Monarchy
• Absolute monarchy
• Limited monarchy
Problems:
• The problem of finding a worthy leader
• The problem power’s corrupting influence
• The problem of succession
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State
3. Social Contract Theory
• Social Contract Absolutism
• Modern Liberalism
Problems:
• The problem of placing too much power in the
hands of amateurs
• The problem of the tyranny of the majority
What is a Just Society?
Views on Distributive Justice
1. Libertarianism – The view that government should be
small and that its primary responsibility is the protection of
individual liberties; strongly rejects the redistribution of
wealth by government
Problems:
• An imbalanced emphasis on the value of personal
autonomy
• An arbitrary restriction to considerations of resource
transfers over resource holdings.
• Results in extreme disparities between the wealthy and
the poor.
What is a Just Society?
Distributive Justice
2. Socialism – The view that private property should be
prohibited and that all resources should be held in common
by members of the society
Problems:
•
•
An unrealistic optimism about human nature.
Prone to degenerate into totalitarianism.
What is a Just Society?
Distributive Justice
3. Welfare Liberalism – The view that attempts a middle
ground between libertarianism and socialism, seeking to
uphold personal liberties while limiting socio-economic
inequalities.
John Rawls Theory of Justice: Proposes that the
most just society would be one founded on principles chosen
behind a “veil of ignorance”
1. The Principle of Equal Liberty
2. The Principle of Difference
What is a Just Society?
Problems with Rawls’ Theory of Justice:
1. Vagueness in applying the theory.
2. Presupposes that people behind the veil of
ignorance would desire to minimize risk
rather that maximize gain.
3. Assumes that fairness in selecting
principles guarantees the fairness of the
principles.
What is a Just Society?
Some Theological Reflections
On Distributive Justice
• The importance of caring for the poor
• Personal responsibility in meeting one’s own needs
• Communitarianism?
On Religion in the Public Square
• Argument from Pluralism
• Argument from Secularism
• The Pragmatic Argument
On Civil Disobedience
• When the state commands what God forbids or forbids
what God commands
• No precedent or permission for violent opposition
What is Art?
Definitions of Art
•
•
•
•
•
Any human-made object
Whatever is presented as art
The product of the artistic process
Whatever brings aesthetic pleasure
The paradigm case approach
Definition criteria vs. Identification criteria
What is Art?
The Function of Art
• Mimesis—art as imitation (Aristotle)
• Expressionism—art as expression of emotion
(Collingwood)
• Formalism—art as significant form (Bell)
• Marxisim—art as ideology and political
power
• Christian aesthetics—imago Dei and world
projection (Wolterstorff)
Are There Standards
for Art?
Two Perspectives on Aesthetic Truth:
• Aesthetic subjectivism – the view that
aesthetic judgments merely reflect personal
preferences about art
• Aesthetic objectivism – the view that beauty
and other aesthetic qualities are objective facts
about art objects.
Are There Standards
for Art?
Objective standards for judging art and
artistry:
• Genre specific vs. non-genre-specific
standards
• Aesthetic virtues—diligence, veracity,
boldness, etc.
Art and Ethics
Three Perspectives on Art and Ethics
1. Aestheticism – The view that art and the artist are
insusceptible to moral judgment. Art and ethics
never conflict, because the creative artist is above
morality. (Wilde, Dewey)
2. Moralism – The view that moral-spiritual value is
the sole criterion for assessing art. The only relevant
judgments of art are ethical in nature. (Tolstoy)
3. Ethicism – The moral qualities of an artwork
contribute to or detract from the overall quality of an
artwork. (Gaut)
A Christian View of
Aesthetic Value
Why should the Christian care about
aesthetics?
• The Genesis creation account (“it is good”)
• Bezalel and Oholiab (Exod. 35)
• God’s nature—the beauty of God, “glory” as
an aesthetic quality, etc.(Augustine, Aquinas,
Edwards)
Some Practical Guidelines
1. Depiction of evil vs. endorsement of evil
2. Necessary depiction vs. gratuitous depiction
of evil
3. Depiction in service of a noble theme vs.
depiction in service of a trivial theme
4. Provision of insight into truth vs. obscuring of
truth
5. Final justice and personal redemption vs.
moral lawlessness and personal hopelessness
6. Objective content of the artwork vs.
subjective response of the audience