LoveofWisdom-LectureAids

8/13/2019 LoveofWisdom-LectureAids

1/125

The

Love ofWisdom

Steven B CowanJames S Spiegel


2/125

Introductionto Philosophy


3/125

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.


4/125

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 happensafter 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?

What is Philosophy?


5/125

The Socratic Method

Dialectic

Socratic Ignorance

The pursuit of virtue

Defining Terms

Using Arguments

Identifying Presuppositions

Philosophical Method


6/125

Unit 1:The Study ofKnowledge



7/125

The Three Laws of ThoughtLaw of Non-Contradiction

Law of Excluded Middle

Law of Identity

ArgumentsDeductive

Inductive

Validity= a property of deductive arguments in which, ifthe premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Soundness= a property of deductive arguments that arevalid and have true premises.

A Little Bit of Logic


8/125

Categorical Syllogisms

I. All M are P

All S are MAll S are P

II. No M are P

All S are M

No S are P

III. All M are P

Some S are M

Some S are P


Some Valid Argument Forms


9/125

IV. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism

If P then Q

If Q then R

If P then R

V. Modus PonensIf P then Q

P

Q

VI. Modus Tollens

If P then Q

not-Q

not-P




10/125

VII. Disjunctive Syllogism

Either P or Q

not-PQ

VIII. Constructive Dilemma

If P then QIf R then S

Either P or R

Q or S




11/125

IX. Reductio ad Absurdum

Assume P (the claim to be proven false)

. . .

Q

not-Qnot-P

Contradiction!!!




12/125

Some Formal Fallacies

The Undistributed Middle

All P is MAll S is M

All S is P

Affirming the ConsequentIf P then Q

Q

P

Denying the Antecedent

If P then Qnot-P

not-Q

Affirming a DisjunctEither P or Q

P

not-Q



13/125

Some Informal FallaciesFalse Dilemma

Begging the Question

Argument from Ignorance

Equivocation

Straw Man

Attacking the Person

Appeal to Popularity

Composition


Division

False Cause

Hasty Generalization

Biased Generalization


14/125

Is Anything True?

Relativismthe view that there are no objective truths.

Subjectivismwhat counts as true is a matter ofindividual preference

Conventionalismwhat counts as true is a matter of

cultural preference

Objectivismthe view that truth is a real feature of theworld that is independent of personal or cultural

preference

The Question of Truth


15/125

There are no absolute truths.

All truth-claims are socially conditioned.

I t is logical ly impossible that truth is

relative!


Is Anything True?


16/125

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.



17/125

The Skeptical Challenge

Skeptical hypothesis=any logically possible scenario thatwe 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 beliefpof mine, then

I do not knowp.2. There is a skeptical hypothesis forp.

3. Therefore, I do not knowp.

Can We Know?


18/125

The Rationalist ResponseRationalism=the view that all knowledge comes through

human reason

Descartes Argument for Material Things1. 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?


19/125

The Empiricist Response

Empiricism=the view that all knowledge arises from senseexperience

Distinction between Sensation & Reflection

The Representational Theory of Perception

Humes Skeptical Critique We can only know our sensory impressions.

We cannot know causal connections.

We have no metaphysical knowledge.

Can We Know?


20/125

Do We Need Certainty?

1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some beliefpof

mine, then I do not knowp.

Degrees of Certainty

3Beyond all doubt

2Beyond a reasonable doubt

1More probable than not

0Equally probable and improbable

Can We Know?


21/125

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?


22/125

The JTB AccountS 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 arecounterexamples to the JTB account that show

that justified true belief is not sufficient for

knowledge.

What is Knowledge?


23/125

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 justi f iably believe q,

he would no longer be justi f ied in believing p.

What is Knowledge?


24/125

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 havecognitive access to the justifying grounds for his

belief but only that his belief be produced in an

appropriate way

What is Knowledge?


25/125

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 intel lectual vir tue.

What is Knowledge?

Wh t i th St t f


26/125

A belief p is justified for a person S if and only if: (1) p isa properly basic belief for S or (2) p is ultimately basedon a properly basic belief for S.

Classical FoundationalismA belief B is properly basic for a person S if and only ifB 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 ofJustification?

Foundationalism

What is the Structure of


27/125

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 justifyingbelief 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 justifyingbelief x that is itself justified immediately apart

from other beliefs.

Problem: The myth of the given


The Regress Argument for Foundationalism



28/125

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


Coherentism



29/125

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.


Contextualism



30/125

If a person is not justified in a broader context, why

would he be justified in the narrower context?

Wouldnt justification in the latter presupposejustification 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.


Problems for Contextualism

i S i ?


31/125

The definition problem

The presuppositions of science

1. The laws of thought

2. The general reliability of sense perception

3. The law of causality

4. The uniformity of nature

5. Values

What is Science?


32/125

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 Realism


33/125

Truth is not the real aim of science.

1. InstrumentalismThe aim of scientific theoriesis not to describe the world but to solve problems.Theories are preferred because of their usefulness.

Problem: Whyare some theories more useful thanothers?


Scientific Non-realism


34/125

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.


2. Kuhns Philosophy of Science


35/125

1. Kuhns view cant explain the progress of

science.

2. Kuhns view cant explain why some

scientific theories are rejected after crucial

tests.

3. Kuhns view undermines itself.


Objections to Kuhns View


36/125

Science as mythology

The tyranny of science and the social ideal of

methodological neutrality

Problem: Feyerabends view cant explain the

progress or practical achievements ofscience.


3. Feyerabends View of Science

Th L f N t


37/125

1.The regularity view(Hume)The laws of natureare mere descriptions of physical regularities.

2.The instrumentalist view(Dewey)The lawsof nature are useful fictions.

3.The necessitarian view(Chalmers)Regularitiesin nature are due to (logical or causal) necessity.

4.The theistic view(Swinburne)The laws ofnature are an aspect of divine providence.

The Laws of Nature

Perspectives on the Laws of Nature:

S i d Th l


38/125

Two Kinds of Naturalism:

Metaphysical naturalism

Methodological naturalism

Theistic Science

Problems with methodological naturalism

Intelligent design theory

Science and Theology


39/125


Unit 2:The Study ofBeing

Ob t l t M t h i


40/125

His Copernican Revolution

Distinction between noumena and phenomena

Noumena = the unknowable real world beyondthe mind

Phenomena= the knowable world of appearancesorganized by the mind.

Problems

Noumena/Phenomena distinction is self-defeating.

Leads to radical relativism and antirealism.

Obstacles to Metaphysics

Kantian Epistemology

Ob t l t M t h i


41/125

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:Verif ication principle is self -defeating

Obstacles to Metaphysics

What is the Nature of the


42/125

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 theWorld?



43/125

Reasons For:

Solves the problem of the one and the many

The difficulty of a materialist view of the mind

Evidence for Gods Existence

Supports life after death

Biblical evidence (Gen. 1:1; Matt. 10:28; 2 Cor.

5:8, etc)


Dualism



44/125

Reasons Against:

The interaction problem

Ockhams Razor


Dualism



45/125

Hard determinism

Atomism

Reasons For:

Ockhams Razor

Problem of the one and the many

Mind-body problem

The origin of the universe

The Progress of Science


Materialism



46/125

Reasons Against:

Inconsistent with Christian belief

Ockhams 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


Materialism



47/125

Plantingas 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, thenthe 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.


Materialism



48/125

Reasons For:

Ockhams 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


Idealism



49/125

Reasons Against:

The Direct Realist response?

Its possible to defend the coherence of matter

The Master Argument is invalid

Common sense?


Idealism


50/125

Are There Universals?


51/125

Reasons For:

A straight-forward explanation of resemblance

A ready account of predication


Platonism (Realism)



52/125

The view that there are no universals; only particulars existExtreme Nominalism

Denies the existence of properties, relations, andpropositions altogether

Reduces predication to assertions of set

membership

Reduces resemblance to shared set membershipProblems Reduction to set membership fails to preserve

meaning

The Companionship Problem


Nominalism



53/125

Moderate Nominalism (Trope Theory) Admits the existence of properties, but sees

them as abstract particulars

Reduces predication to membership of tropesin 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


Nominalism



54/125

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.


Nominalism



55/125

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!


Conceptualism

What is a Particular Thing?


56/125

The Bundle TheoryParticulars are bundles of properties.

The Substratum ViewParticulars are bare substrata that bear properties.

The Substance ViewNatural-kind particulars are irreducibly basic.

What is a Particular Thing?

Do We Have Souls?


57/125

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:Occasional ism?

Do We Have Souls?

Mind-Body (Substance) Dualism

Do We Have Souls?


58/125

The view that the mind is fully explainable in terms of naturalprocesses

F ive Versions:

1.Philosophical Behaviorism

2.Strict Identity Theory

3.Eliminative Materialism

4.Functionalism

5.Property Dualism

Do We Have Souls?

Physicalism

What is Personal Identity?


59/125

A person at a certain time is the numerically identical personat a later time just in case he has memories of that earlier

time.

Problems:

1.Transitivity Problems

2.The Circularity Problem


The Memory View



60/125

Personal identity depends on maintaining relevant physicalcharacteristics.

The Body Criter ionA person at a certain time is thenumerically identical person at a later time just in case he isthe same body at both times.

The Brain Cri ter ionA person at a certain time is thenumerically identical person at a later time just in case he is

the same brain at both times. The Causal Continuity Criter ionA body (or brain)

is the same body (or brain) from one time to a later time just incase the parts that compose the body at the later time arecausally continuous with those parts that composed the body

at the earlier time.


The Physical View



61/125

A person at a certain time is the numerically identical personat 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


The Soul View

Do We Have Free Will?


62/125

IncompatibilismThe view that freedom anddeterminism are not logically consistent

The Consequence Argument1. 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 tochange these things, then we cannot do otherwise than whatwe do.

5. If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then we are notfree.

6. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are not free.




63/125

Hard Determinismdeterminism is true; humanfreedom and responsibility are illusions.

Libertarianismdeterminism is false; humanbeings have the power of contrary choice.

Problems:

Makes it impossible to hold people accountable for

their actions.

Contrary to Scripture.


Incompatibilism



64/125

Libertarianismdeterminism is false; humanbeings have the power of contrary choice.

Reasons for: Consequence Argument

Introspection Argument Scripture?


Incompatibilism



65/125

The Libertarians Dilemma

1. If a persons actions are determined, then her actions

are not under her control (because she lacks the

ability to do otherwise).

2. If a persons actions are undetermined, then her

actions are not under her control (because they

happen by chance).

3. Therefore, whether a persons actions are determined

or undetermined, they are not under her control.




66/125

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 andresponsibility require the ability to do otherwise.

Frankfurt-type Counterexamples


Compatibilism

Is There Life After Death?


67/125

The Argument from Substance Dualism

The Argument from Theism and Ultimate Justice

The Evidence of Near-death Experiences




68/125

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?


69/125

Anselms 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?

Does God Exist?


70/125

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?

Does God Exist?


71/125

Paleys 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?

Does God Exist?


72/125

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 tonecessity or chance.

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to

intelligent design.

Does God Exist?

Does God Exist?


73/125

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?

Does God Exist?


74/125

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

c) The cause of the universe was God.

EternalChangeless/Immutable

Immaterial

Uncaused

Enormously Powerful

Personal

Good

Does God Exist?

o e ee rgumentsf G d?


75/125

Evidentialismthe view that it is wrong or irrationalto hold a belief without sufficient evidence.

Implication: Belief in God is wrong or irrational unlessbased on good arguments.

Problem: Based in discredited classical foundationalism.

Reformed Epistemologythe view that belief in Godcan 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 tocriticism.

gfor God?

What Is God Like?


76/125

Views on Divine Omnipotence:

Aquinas: Omnipotence is the power to do anything that

is logically possible.

Ockham: Omnipotence is the power to do anything atall, even to defy the law of noncontradiction.

Problems with Ockhams 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?


77/125

Views on Gods Relationship to Time:

1. Atemporalismthe 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?


78/125


2. Sempiternalismthe 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?


79/125


3. OmnitemporalismGod 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?


80/125

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?


81/125

1. Compatibilist solutionHuman freedom iscompatible with determinism.

Problem: This approach is dependent on the

definition of freedom as the ability to do what onewants.

Proposed solutions to the problem of divineforeknowledge:

What Is God Like?


82/125

2. Open theist solutionGod does not know allfuture events; free human choices cannot be

foreknown.

Problem: This does not square with the biblical

evidence for exhaustive divine foreknowledge ofhuman actions (e.g. Isa. 46:9-10; Ps. 139, etc.).

Proposed solutions:

What Is God Like?


83/125

3. Ockhamist solutionGods beliefs about futureevents are causedby those events.

Problem: The causation relation does not changethe fact that Gods infallible knowledge of a future

human action guarantees that it will occur.

Proposed solutions:


84/125

What Is God Like?


85/125

1. Divine impassibilismGod does not experienceemotion.

Arguments for: Appeals to divine perfection,divine immutability, and scripture (Mal. 3:6, James

1:17, etc.)

Problem: Seems to undermine divine personhood

Views on Divine Emotion:

What Is God Like?


86/125

2. Divine passibilismGod experiences emotion ina 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?


87/125

3. Divine omnipathismGod 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?


88/125

(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.

The Logical Problem of Evil



89/125

(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 sufficientreason to permit evil, and thus an ultima facie reason

to not prevent evil.

The Logical Problem of Evil



90/125

If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.

(1) There are pointless evils.

(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

The Evidential Problem of Evil



91/125

(1) There are pointless evils.

The Noseeum Inference:

(1) I do not see anx.(2) Therefore, there likely is nox.

Rowes Noseeum Inference Concerning Gods

Reasons for Evil:

(1) I do not see a reason why God would allow

instance of evilx.

(2) Therefore, there likely is no reason why God

would allow instance of evilx.

The Evidential Problem of Evil


92/125


93/125

Unit 3:The Studyof Value


How Should We Live?


94/125

Metaethicsexamines the meaning of ethicalconcepts and seeks to discover whether or not they

refer to objective truths. Normative Ethicsseeks to ascertain our

ethical duties in light of metaethical commitments.

An Ethical Theoryis a coherent set of beliefs aboutthe foundation, nature, and goals of morality designedto enable us to make reliable moral judgments.

Two Kinds of Ethical Inquiry

How Should We Live?


95/125

The view that there are no universally true moral values

1.Cultural Relativismthe view that moral values are theproducts of the customs, tastes, and standards of a culture, andthus are not objectively true

Ethical Relativism

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?


96/125

Ethical Relativism2.Moral Subjectivismthe view that moral values are

relative to each persons subjective preferences.

Humes 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 dont really disagree about moral issues.

No behavior can be objectively praised or condemned.

How Should We Live?


97/125

Emotivismthe view that moral statements are mere

expressions of emotion

Nihilismthe denial of all meaning and value in

human life

Other Forms of Moral Skepticism:

How Should We Live?


98/125

1. Ethical Egoismthe view that people oughtto

always pursue their own self-interest (Rand)

Problems:

Problem of clashing self-interest Problem of justice

Epistemological problems

Ethical Objectivismthe view that there areuniversally true moral values

How Should We Live?


99/125

Principle of utilityalways act so as to promotethe greatest pleasure for all involved

Pleasure-pain calculusassess utility usingBenthams seven criteria (intensity, duration, certainty,

propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent)

Qualitative hedonismdistinguish betweenhigher and lower pleasures

2. Classical Utilitarianism(Bentham & Mill)

How Should We Live?


100/125

Problems:

Problem of justice

Problem of rights

Difficulty in anticipating consequences

Unreasonable demands

2. Classical Utilitarianism

How Should We Live?


101/125

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 themoral law.

Involves categorical not hypothetical imperatives

The Categorical Imperative (1stForm):

Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time willthat it become a universal law.

The Categorical Imperative (2ndForm):Act so as to treat humanity, whether in ones own person or inthat of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

3. Kantian Ethics

How Should We Live?


102/125

3. Kantian Ethics

How Should We Live?


103/125

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 appropriatemotive?

3. Kantian Ethics

How Should We Live?


104/125

Seeks to avoid problems of classical utilitarianismand Kants 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 mosthappiness?

How do we resolve conflicts between rules?

4. Rule Utilitarianism

How Should We Live?


105/125

Focuses on character traits in moral evaluationrather 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 foracting rightly.

Problem: It cannot provide specific moral guidance orresolve moral dilemmas.

5. Virtue Ethics


106/125

How Should We Live?


107/125

The view that right and wrong are determined by Godswill (X is right = X coheres with Gods commands).

Benefits:

Provides a basis for moral obligation Provides moral motivation

Problem:TheEuthyphroDilemmamorality is arbitraryResponse: False Dilemma

Modified Divine Command Theory:Right andwrong are grounded in Gods immutably good nature, and Hiscommands are one way we knowwhats right and wrong.

The Golden Rule What does its application presuppose?

How must it be qualified?

Divine Command Theory

How Should We Live?


108/125

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

Toward a Complete Ethical Theory

What is a Just Society?


109/125

1. Justice

Remedial

Commercial Distributive

2. Rights

Negative or Positive

Moral or Legal3. Law

Natural Law Theory

Legal Positivism

Three Important Concepts



110/125

1.Anarchy

Anarcho-socialism

Anarcho-capitalism

Absolute anarchy

Problems: The problem of motivation

The problem of human nature

Theories of the State



111/125

2. Monarchy

Absolute monarchy Limited monarchy

Problems:

The problem of finding a worthy leader

The problem powers corrupting influence

The problem of succession




112/125

3. Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Absolutism

Modern Liberalism

Problems:

The problem of placing too much power in thehands of amateurs

The problem of the tyranny of the majority




113/125

1. LibertarianismThe view that government should besmall 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 personalautonomy

An arbitrary restriction to considerations of resourcetransfers over resource holdings.

Results in extreme disparities between the wealthy andthe poor.

Views on Distributive Justice



114/125

Distributive Justice2. SocialismThe 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.



115/125

Distributive Justice

3. Welfare LiberalismThe view that attempts a middleground between libertarianism and socialism, seeking to

uphold personal liberties while limiting socio-economicinequalities.

John Rawls Theory of Justice: Proposes that the

most just society would be one founded on principles chosenbehind a veil of ignorance

1. The Principle of Equal Liberty

2. The Principle of Difference



116/125

1. Vagueness in applying the theory.

2. Presupposes that people behind the veil ofignorance would desire to minimize risk

rather that maximize gain.

3. Assumes that fairness in selectingprinciples guarantees the fairness of the

principles.

Problems with Rawls Theory of Justice:


117/125

What is Art?


118/125

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

Definitions of Art

What is Art?


119/125

Mimesisart as imitation (Aristotle)

Expressionismart as expression of emotion

(Collingwood)

Formalismart as significant form (Bell)

Marxisimart as ideology and political

power

Christian aestheticsimago Dei and world

projection (Wolterstorff)

The Function of Art

Are There Standardsfor Art?


120/125

Aesthetic subjectivismthe view that

aesthetic judgments merely reflect personalpreferences about art

Aesthetic objectivismthe view that beauty

and other aesthetic qualities are objective factsabout art objects.

Two Perspectives on Aesthetic Truth:


121/125

Art and Ethics


122/125

1. AestheticismThe view that art and the artist areinsusceptible to moral judgment. Art and ethicsnever conflict, because the creative artist is abovemorality. (Wilde, Dewey)

2. MoralismThe view that moral-spiritual value isthe sole criterion for assessing art. The only relevant

judgments of art are ethical in nature. (Tolstoy)3. EthicismThe moral qualities of an artwork

contribute to or detract from the overall quality of anartwork. (Gaut)

Three Perspectives on Art and Ethics

A Christian View ofAesthetic Value


123/125

The Genesis creation account (it is good)

Bezalel and Oholiab (Exod. 35)

Gods naturethe beauty of God, glory as

an aesthetic quality, etc.(Augustine, Aquinas,Edwards)

Why should the Christian care aboutaesthetics?


124/125


125/125

LoveofWisdom-LectureAids

Documents