Phil 1 - Week Three Notes
Phil 1 - Week Three Notes
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 7 page Reader was uploaded by Debbie Chen on Sunday April 20, 2014. The Reader belongs to a course at University of California Santa Barbara taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 84 views.
Reviews for Phil 1 - Week Three Notes
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: 04/20/14
Philosophy 1 Introduction to Philosophy Week Three Lecture Notes Reader Notes and Study Guide Lecture Notes The Problem of Evil 0 The Second Premise o 1 If God exists then he s omniscient omnipotent and wholly good 0 2 Since God is omnipotent he has the power to eliminate all evil 0 3 Since God is omniscient he knows about all the evil 0 4 Since God is perfectly god he would eliminate all the evil he knows about and has the power to eliminate o 5 From 24 If God exists he has the disposition power and knowledge necessary to eliminate all evil 0 6 Therefore if God existed evil would not exist 0 Free will 0 You don t need evil for good You just need notgoodness 0 An Objection to the logical problem 0 The argument just sketched relies on the claim that Gods goodness entails that he would seek to eliminate all evil Is this true 0 Rowe points out that the theist has very good reasons to reject this claim 0 Suppose you have a severe infection in your leg I A doctor determines that the only way to save your life is to amputate the leg and she does so I This causes you suffering both in the recovery and in your everyday life following the surgery I Does the doctor causing your suffering is evil I No She causes you the suffering of losing a limb in order to avoid he greater evil of your death 0 The Theist s Response to the Logical Problem I An omnibenevolent God could allow evil if allowing that evil prevented a greater evil or allowed a greater good 0 Recall that we were trying to show that belief in God is inconsistent with the existence of evil 0 But now all the theist has to show is that it is possible that God could secure greater goods or prevent greater evils b allowing some evil into the world 0 Suppose that struggling hard for some accomplishment makes achieving it much more satisfying I The reward of overcoming the struggles is greater than the suffering I By allowing us to struggle towards some end God could be granting us a good that could not be secured in any other way 0 The logical problem of evil fails because it simply isn t true that God s existence is incompatible with the existence of any evil whatsoever o Rowe s Question I Is it rational to believe in God given the evil that we can observe I Different types of evil 0 The Evidential Problem of Evil 0 1 There exist instances of suffering which an omnipotent omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse 0 2 An omniscient wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any suffering it could unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an equally bad or worse evil 0 3 Therefore there does not exist an omnipotent omniscient wholly good being 0 The Evidential Problem 0 Let s call an evil that does not prevent some greater evil or allow some greater good an unjustified evil 0 Restated argument I 1 Unjustified evil exists I 2 God being wholly good omnipotent and omniscient would prevent any unjustified evils from existing I 3 Therefore God does not exist 0 This version of the argument is not committed to the claim that God is incompatible with the existence of any evil whatsoever 0 The claim is instead that there are particular instances of suffering in the world that God could not allow given his perfect goodness 0 Example Fawn Argument look at reader notes before for summary 0 The Fawn in the Woods 0 Things like this happen 0 The fawn s suffering does not seem to prevent some greater evil or secure some greater good 0 An omnipotent being could have easily prevent the fawn form suffering either by whisking it out of the fire or at least allow it to die earlier 0 The Problem of Little Evils o The theist is committed to claiming that no suffering is unjustified I Suppose I stubbed my toe as I wandered sleepily to my bathroom this morning I That pain accomplished nothing but to make me angry I God could have just moved that shoe out of the way or guided my foot around it 0 Example of Suffering 0 Human litany of evils o The Fawn in the Woods Rowe o The problem if little evils o The theist must claim that ALL evils are justified by either preventing some greater evil or allowing some greater good How 0 Free Will 0 A world in which I have free will is vastly better for me than any world in which I don t have free will O 0 Having free will entails having the ability to choose to do evil Therefore God allows the existence of evil because the positive free will outweigh the negatives suffering 0 Free Will Problems 0 1 For this response to work it must be the case that the good of possessing free will outweighs the suffering one might have because of this freedom We can suffer a lot 2 Couldn t God brought it about that we are simply unable to severely harm one another We don t think that we lack free will because we cannot harm people using only our minds Why should it be an imposition on our free will if we could not harm other people at all 3 Even if we grant the argument s conclusion it is only capable of explaining evil of human origin There is lots of this but there is also suffering that decisions of humans are not the cause of Hurricanes diseases old age tomadoes etc 0 Natural Law 0 OOOO Events in the world must take place in a regular and predictable way in order for effective actions to be possible Events will exhibit regular patterns only if they are constrained by natural laws If events are governed by natural laws then necessarily those laws will give rise to disasters that will harm individuals Therefore a benevolent God could allow suffering insofar as it resulted from the necessary natural laws How about this strategy I Use the existence of free will to explain evil caused by humans I Use the need for natural laws to explain naturally cause evils Does all of these things have to come into play for us to have free will Natural disasters earthquakes oods hurricanes tsunamis drought famine Pernicious organisms poisonous spiders snakes crocodiles hippos etc It is not at all clear why the existence of regularities entails any of these things I The natural laws could have been different in such a way that one or all of these things did not arise I The starting conditions of the universe could have been different so that one or all of these things did not arise I There could have been divine tinkering miracles to insure that one or all of those things did not come into play 0 Final stand 0 The theist can acknowledge that she does not have any good explanation for the evil of the world But God is a being so far beyond our understanding that his reasons could never be known by us But this argument is also valid I God exists I If God exists then no unjustified evil would exist I Therefore no unjustified evils exist Which claim is more plausible I Unjustified evils exist I God exists There is a video to watch on the webpage relevant to our discussion NOT REQUIRED Puppies Pigs and People 0 Asking the Right question 0 1 How can eating anything be immoral I Simply eating an animal can t be ethically problematic 0 Death by natural causes I We find the prospect of eating human meat repulsive but is it intrinsically immoral 0 Donner Party 0 Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 0 Ritualistic Cannibalism I What seems to matter is how you get the meat you are eating 0 2 Is raising and killing animals for food immoral I If it wanders into your backyard and dies that s ne I But can you raise it and kill it I Animals could be raised in a humane fashion and killed in a painless manner I Do animals have a right to life 0 Even if they don t they may have other rights 0 Norcross Question I Is it permissible for us to eat meat given how it is actually produced 0 Refer to Fred s analogy below 0 Norcross claims that Fred is clearly immoral and that most would agree to this 0 The treatment of Fred s puppies is precisely analogous to how animals are treated in factory farms all over the country 0 Are we like Fred for eating factory produced meat 0 Norcross will argue that there might seem to be differences but there really isn t 0 Norcross s Argument 0 1 If it is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure then it is wrong to support factory farming o 2 It is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure o 3 Therefore it is wrong to support factory farming 0 Buying and eating meat from companies that engage in such practices is supporting those practices 0 If no one bought such meat the companies would not exist 0 If sufficient numbers of people refrained from eating eat the companies would nto continue to engage in such practices 0 Moral Relevance Difference a difference between two cases such that one case hasa different moral status than another 0 Differences o 1 Indirect cause of suffering I Just change the case to one in which Fred hides someone else to do it for him I Doesn t change the morality o 2 Ignorance I Fred knows what was going on but many meat eaters do not know how bad things are in factory farms I But this doesn t apply to you I If I stop eating meat there will still be factory farms 0 3 Impact I One person stopping won t make a difference but 100000 will I If you give up eating meat you are contributing to a general trend I Any large community based undertaking has this feature I Each individual person contributes a very little to the whole I If I stop eating meat I am no longer supporting these companies 0 4 Culpability I It is hard to see what the morally relevant difference between puppies and farm animals is supposed to be 0 Is torturing puppies wrong 0 We have not found morally relevant behavior 0 Texan s Challenge 0 If it is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure then it is wrong to support factory farming o It is not wrong to support factory farming 0 Therefore it is not wrong to torture puppies 0 The Rationality Gambit 0 Claim Humans have a superior ethical status than animals and are rational o Rational I The ability to reason I Introspective capabilities I The ability to re ect on one s moral status I The ability to see other s morally o It is clear that humans have these capacities but animals do not 0 The strategy is to deny that animals have a lower moral standing than humans because of this difference Reader Notes Norcross Alastair Puppies Pigs and People Eating Meat and Marginal Cases 0 Fred s Basement Story of a man that abused puppies to taste chocolate People are horrified by this animal abuse But what about abused livestock People can live without meat 0 MoralEthics 0 Fred s Behavior Compared with Our Behavior 0 Differences OOO I Fred did the torturing himself but that shouldn t matter We would have thought of Fred just as badly I Awareness We know that animals are treated badly I Effect of an individual Fred can stop the cruelty by not eating chocolate but we can t stop agribusiness by not eating meat 0 But if we ordered dessert that used this cruelty we would still be horrified when we found out and probably stop from ordering it even if it s a leading industry 0 If a number of us refrained from eating meat then the number of chickens bred would decline But even if the chance is small it would still make a difference I Intention The animal s suffering is needed while livestock s suffering is just a byproduct 0 Doctrine of Double Effect the bad effect be foreseen and not intended and outweighs a good effect I Animal type Puppies vs cows Puppies may have a higher degree of rationality than farm animals 0 The author thinks that there are no moral differences between puppies and livestock 0 The TeXan s Challenge 0 Modus ponens O O I 1 If it s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure it s wrong to support factory farming I 2 It is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure I 3 Therefore it s wrong to support factory farming Modus tollens I If it s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure then it s wrong to support factory farming I 2 It s not wrong to support favorite farming I 3 Therefore it s not wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure Therefore the choice not to kill puppies is a mental preference not a moral choice 0 Humans verses Animals Ethical Status The Rationality Gambit O 0 Are humans worth more than animals Arguments I We have moral statuses I Human genetic code matters I We are reasoning animals 0 The Challenge of Marginal Cases 0 0 Some people don t have moralsreasoning Some animals may also have moral statuses perhaps even more they don t kill each other or such Cohen people originally had moral statuses animals never had one there is a difference Alan White animals do not have rights because they cannot speak 0 David Schmidtz animals can make decisions too like chimps They have cognitive capabilities 0 Men vs women is like human to chimpanzees 0 Can you judge based on an evolutionary chain status 0 Agent and Patient the Specialist s Central Confusion 0 Why does rationality matter in the sense of morality o Is it because we have a choice while animals go by instinct o Selfinterest vs whether it is right or not We are selfish and use the right or wrong as an excuse 0 Conclusion Fred s behavior is morally impermissible Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of Abortion 0 Is a fetus a human from the moment of conception 0 If we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception 0 Every person has a right to life 0 The fetus has a right to life 0 The fetus right to life is stronger than the mother s control of her body 0 You have to be stuck with a person for 9 months until they recover from their illness 0 Even though you have a right to your body their right to life is stronger o Kidnapped rape 0 Is there a difference 0 Directly killing someone and ignoring someone for them to die 0 People do not have a right to do ANYTHING to save their lives 0 What s the difference between refraining from saving the violinist and refraining from killing him with a knife 0 Does the unborn person have a right to the mother s body Does the violinist have a right to your body 0 Do we need to do things for other people when its out of our way 0 Conclusion sometimes permissible depending on why the abortion is requested
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'