Study Guide 2 Midterm
Study Guide 2 Midterm PHIL 1050 01
Popular in Intro to Phil: Self and Reality
Popular in Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 5 page Study Guide was uploaded by Nozima Notetaker on Wednesday October 12, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHIL 1050 01 at Saint Louis University taught by Michael Mazza in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see Intro to Phil: Self and Reality in Philosophy at Saint Louis University.
Reviews for Study Guide 2 Midterm
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/12/16
I. Logic Deductive arguments: Modus ponens: If p then q. P. Therefore Q. Modus Tollens: If p then q. Not q, therefore, not p. Hypothetical syllogism: If p then q. If q then r. If p then r. Absurdum: If p then q. q is absurd. Therefore, not p. Disjunctive syllogism: p or q. not q. therefore, p. Dilemma: p or q. If p then r. If q then s. r or s. Fallacies: Ad hominem: Attacking the person rather than an argument. Ad misericordiam: appeal to pity. Ad populum: appeal to the emotions of the crowd or to the a crowd as an authority. Affirming the consequent: If p then q. q. therefore, p. Denying the antecedent: If p then q. not p. therefore, not q. Begging the question: argument assumes what it is trying to prove. Equivocation: sliding from meaning of a term into another in the middle of the argument. Straw man: constructing a caricature of the opponent. (saying something false about the opponent). Red Herring: introducing an irrelevant to divert attention from the main subject. Post hoc: assuming causation too readily. *Valid argument follows 6 rules of logic. * Sound argument follows 6 rules of logic and its premises are true. II. Moral Relativism vs Moral Objectivism Moral relativism: the view that there are no universally valid moral principles and morality is either relative to person or culture. Moral Objectivism: the view that there are universally valid moral principles and morality is independent of person or culture. 2 types of moral relativism: - Subjectivism: the view that morality depends only on the person. - Conventionalism: the view that morality depends on the culture. Louis Pojman arguments against Subjectivism and Conventionalism: Against Subjectivism: -If subjectivism is true, then Ted Bundy did not do anything wrong. But is absurd to think so. Therefore, subjectivism is false. - If Subjectivism is true, then it would render morality meaningless. Morality is meaningful. Therefore, subjectivism is false. Against Conventionalism: -If conventionalism is true, then there is no way to judge Hitler and Nazis. It is absurd to think so. Therefore, conventionalism is false. -If conventionalism is true, then reformers are wrong such as MLK, Jesus, and Gandhi. But it is absurd to think so. Therefore, conventionalism is false. -if conventionalism is true, then principle of tolerance is culturally relative. Principle of tolerance is universally valid. Therefore, conventionalism is false. - if conventionalism is true, then there are cultural boundaries. However, culture boundaries are arbitrary. Therefore, conventionalism is false. J.L.Mackie arguments against Moral Objectivism: - Argument from relativity: If objectivism is true, then there would not be a diversity around the world. There is diversity around the world. Therefore, objectivism is false. - argument from queerness: If objectivism is true, then moral values are beyond the scope of science. Such mysterious entities do not exist. Therefore, objectivism is false. Pojman response to Mackie’s arguments: - response to argument from relativity: there is a distinction between moral principles and their applications. Generalization of diversity to morality not good. - Response to argument from queerness: there are sources beyond the scope of science, such as logic or beauty. III. Moral Theories: Moral Primary Central Idea Quotations/ Theory thinker summaries Utilitarianis John Mill Happiness (pleasure) of “Better to be human m Stuart as much people as dissatisfied than a pig possible. satisfied” Higher pleasure: “Better be Socrates intellectual. dissatisfied, than a Lower pleasure: brute, fool satisfied.” food etc. Focus on consequences Deontology Kant Focus on actions rather Categorical than consequences. Imperatives: 1. act in such a Good will. way that you action can be Focus on whether the universalized actions are right in 2. Never treat themselves. people as mere means to and, but only as ends in themselves Contractuali Hobbes Social contract “Promise without a sm Right/ wrong depends sword is but words…” on social Psychological egoism: establishments. no morality outside of social contract. Virtue Ethics Aristotle People have purpose. “ We are repeatedly do. Excellence, then, Purpose of human is not an act, but a beings is happiness. habit” Happiness is an activity Character more of the soul according to important than “to do its virtues. list” Virtues are means “Being is more between extremes important than doing” Strength and weakness of Moral theories: Moral theory Strength Weakness Utilitarianism Common sense: Counterexamples: happiness-> good Torturing a child to save thousand lives. Flexibility: no abstract “lying is Organ harvesting ex. wrong” Deontology Good will- good Makes moral feature of human principles too rigid. beings What are abstract Gets rid of moral principles and counterexamples where do they come from Utilitarianism. from? You are in control of Assess only acts from moral status “good will” Contractualism Societal laws well Morality based on being laws, if not follow consequences. What Intuition that people if can escape act in self- interest consequences? Consider statements: “Rape is wrong”, “Torturing child is wrong”. Virtue Ethics Gets rid of problems It is hard to define with other theories. which actions are right and which Focus on the person actions are wrong. rather than actions and consequences. Conflict in virtues: “Be kind” vs “Be honest”. Argument from Aristotle: Everything in nature has purpose. Human beings are parts of nature. Therefore, human beings, have purpose. IV. Dualism vs Physicalism Methaphysical Proponent Definition Theory Dualism Rene Descartes Human bodies have souls and material body is different from non-material body. Materialism Jaegwon Kim Person are identical to their bodies and human bodies do not have souls Arguments for Dualism: 1. argument from language: If I am identical to my body, then machines (human body) can genuinely use language. Machines cannot genuinely use language. Therefore, I am not identical to my body. 2. Argument from survival over time: If I am identical to my body, then I am completely replaced over the course of seven years. But, I am not replaced over seven years. Therefore, I am not identical to my body. Argument for Physicalism: 1. Interaction Problem: How can immaterial being be connected to the material part? There must be a mechanism how those connect. But there is no such mechanism. a. if souls exist, they are non-spatial. b. Non- spatial things cannot be pair with spatial ones. c. Souls, if they exist, cannot be paired with spatial bodies. 2. Causal pairing problem: souls do not occupy space, according to dualism. Then why is someone’s soul belongs to one rather than another person?
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'