Final Exam Study Guide
Final Exam Study Guide PHIL 150A1
Popular in Philosophical Perspectives on the Individual
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 5 page Study Guide was uploaded by Haley Ruhe on Wednesday May 6, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PHIL 150A1 at University of Arizona taught by Shaun Nichols in Spring2015. Since its upload, it has received 343 views. For similar materials see Philosophical Perspectives on the Individual in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Arizona.
Reviews for Final Exam Study Guide
I'm pretty sure these materials are like the Rosetta Stone of note taking. Thanks Haley!!!
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: 05/06/15
The Problem of Personal Identity 03292015 Theo es Bundle theory person collection of psychological events 0 Bundle perceptions thoughts feelings etc 0 Bundle can change no strict identity you are not EXACTLY the same person but still the same person Possibility of duplicates there can be multiple bundles identical to bundle B but only one ME 0 POLIFIRATION PROBLEM Arguments Reid s objection to the bundle theory 0 Theory not able to secure strict identity because bundle always changing so you39re never the same person 0 The self is indivisible and all or nothing 0 Bundle theory claims a person IS their bundle when really a person s bundle BELONGS to them 0 Soul theory accommodates this belief Total Recall arguments for psychological account of personal identity 0 What matters is psychology not substance 0 Argument 1 Survival 0 The operation took Hauser out of existence 0 Changing Hauser s brain didn t kill the brain 0 Changing Hauser s brain didn t kill the soul 0 Conclusion Hauser is neither his brain nor his soul 0 Argument 2 responsibility 0 Hauser deserves to be punished for his crimes 0 Quaid does not deserve to be punished for Hauser s crimes 0 Conclusion Quaid is not Hauser Violates transitivity Parfit s splitbrain argument against the soul theory 0 The self is not indivisible and can be maintained if it s divided 0 Brain split so that each side thinks different things amp don t know what the other is thinking 0 Are they now 2 different people 0 Proves soul theory wrong 0 Soul theory the self is an indivisible subject of experiences If the uni ed subject is destroyed the self is destroyed o joe s uni ed subject of experience destroyed creating 2 separate subjects but the self wasn t Theo es Free will person s ability to make own decision Morally responsible for free actions Determinism every event is an inevitable consequence of prior conditions amp natural law Distractions o Fatalism no matter what precedes an event the event has to happen DETERMINISM V FATALISM n Fatalism says prior events have no effect on what will happen while determinism says events directly result from prior events 0 Absolute freedom I am free to do whatever I please 0 Casual determinism everything happens for a reason amp is necessary 0 2 ways to think about it if there is a chain reaction where everything effects everything then everything is essential If we were to go back in time everything would still happen the same 0 3 positions Libertarianism we have free will so determinism is false Hard determinism because determinism is true we don t have free will n Assume determinism is true Compatibilism we can have free will even if determinism is true a 2 stages 0 negative idea that free will requires indeterminism determinism doesn39t exist are wrong 0 positive provide account of our idea of free will that doesn39t con ict with determinism Arguments D Holbach s argument against free will Argued for psychological determinism instead which states that all psychological activity is determined by prior psychologicalphysical events Believes determinism leaves no room for free will 0 We believe in free will because we fail to see the forces that causally determine our choices Hume s arguments that free will must be compatible with determinism o Argument everyone accepts free will amp determinism so they are compatible 0 Normally people think if determinism is true then we aren t responsible for our decisions but Hume argues that determinism is necessary in order to hold someone accountable for decisions 0 desire that causes free will predetermined free will comes from what we do as a result of our desires That s how we re held responsible being free able to do whatever you wish unless you re in chains Campbell s argument that I really don t think the explanation is necessary 0 Free Will is incompatible with determinism We have free will 0 According to Campbell people make decisions that are neither determined nor random 0 True The quotbasic argumentquot by Galen Strawson o What I decide right now is a result of my current state 0 We do not cause our current state but was caused by a previous event Because of this cycle free will doesn t exist amp we can t be held responsible Theo es Moral rationalism morality comes from reason 0 Everyone should have similar moral judgments not based on culture Moral sentimentalism morality originates in emotions ie sentiments Provides doubt that moral claims can be objectively true The math analogy o The way we make judgments is logical similar to the way we solve math problems The aesthetics analogy Your emotions effect what you nd beautiful Metaethics what is the nature of morality Normative ethics What is the right thing to do 0 Trying to nd set principles to live by 0 2 approaches 0 Consequentialism moral worth of an action is entirely based on its consequences common sense morality Types n Utilitarianism popular type maximize total happinesswelfare 0 Which option saves the most lives 0 Deontology look at whether or not it violates a moral rules moral duties rather than consequences Certain actions are wrong even if they produce better consequences Focuses on intentions Ex trolley cases Ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of brain focusing on emotion Arguments Arguments against deontology based on psychological evidence Deontological judgments come from primitive emotions which are no longer good for us 0 Ex our body craves fat amp sugars which were scarce back in the day amp now they re not Clarke s consensus argument 0 There are some things rationally goodbad by everyone s standards undeniable 0 Ex it s wrong to kill a human Hutcheson s quotreasons come to an endquot argument 0 Argument against rationalism o Eventually we reach quotthe bottomquot of an argument where we run out of reasons why something is morally wrong Beyond that it s purely based on emotions rather than reason Argument against rationalism based on psychological evidence 0 Ex psychopaths o Psychopath s moral judgment completely irrational Therefore moral judgments cannot be derived solely from rational capacities Evidence on psychopaths for role of emotion in capacity for moral judgment 0 quotreasons come to an endquot argument is their bottom higher 0 jUST KNOW ABOUT EMOTIONS
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'