Philosophy 160 | Week 2 Lecture Notes
Philosophy 160 | Week 2 Lecture Notes Philosophy 160
Popular in Philosophy 160
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jesse Sachs on Friday January 30, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to Philosophy 160 at University of Massachusetts taught by Christopher Meacham in Spring2015. Since its upload, it has received 153 views. For similar materials see Philosophy 160 in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Massachusetts.
Reviews for Philosophy 160 | Week 2 Lecture 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: 01/30/15
Philosophy Notes Week Two of Clz Hey guys glad you purchased these notes If you find absolutely anything wrong with the quality in such a way that takes away from your studying contact me IMMEDIATELY at iksachsumassedu and I will fix these issues for you free of charge I release notes every single Friday and put out a study guide before each exam Study smarter not harder We began this week in ethics with a logical approach towards forming ethical arguments The basis of all logic can be put like this 0 If A is true then B o A IS true and therefore B In other words one thing logically leads to another This is how we make logical arguments in ethics But what kinds of logical arguments 2 Types of Logical Arguments 1 Valid Argument 2 Sound Argument Valid Argument IF the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true Note the word quotifquot You see it does not matter if the premises of the argument are ACTUALLY true see quotSound Argument below it just matters IF it is true This is a really hard concept to wrap your mind around but I m going to reiterate in my TA s words paraphrased Example from TA 0 If 2 2 5 then Mitt Romney is president 0 This is actually a VALID argument the actual truth of the premises DOES NOT matter whatsoever What matters is quotifquot 2 2 5 not whether 2 2 is ACTUALLY 5 Get my drift 0 quotThe key word in the definition of valid is IF my TA Sound Argument In a sound argument what matters is that the premises are ACTUALLY true In a valid argument what matters is IF the premises are true A sound argument i Valid ii Has TRUE premises Examples of Possible Arguments Example 1 p1 I want a beer p2 There s a beer in the fridge C I should go to the fridge to get a beer This is NOT valid and NOT sound Although the premises are true the conclusion is not true There are other premises that have not been taken into account which are not true Here s some objections ob1 I am trying to limit my alcohol consumption ob2 The beer belongs to my friend ob3 The beer has expired Etc If an argument is not valid it can not possibly be sound Example 2 p1 We don t have infallible truth that the teory of evolution is correct p2 If we don t have infallible proof that the theory of evolution is correct we should spend equal time teaching alternatives c We should spend as much time teaching alternatives to evolution as evolution Valid YES the conclusion is not false Sound NO although the conclusion is true the premises are false Its annoying but yes in this class we must simply imagine ways in which the conclusion could be false When resolving valid and sound arguments just ask yourself quotIf the premises are true could it be possible that the conclusion is false Cultural Relativism Argument You ought to XYZ IFF if and only if you re in a society that approves of XYZ Cultural Differences Argument i Eskimos think infanticide is okay ii Americans don t think infanticide is okay C Whether infanticide is okay or not depends on what society you re in Objection 1 Uncomfortable Consequences o Societies are morally absolutely trustworthy o Nazis o MLK o This means that moral minorities are ALWAYS wrong Next Objection Illdefined o What does quotin a society even mean Born in a society What if you re in a society that s in another society 0 So the meaning of quotsocietyquot changes what you should or shouldn t do 0 What constitutes a quotsocietyquot 0 What counts as approval what society APPROVES of In our next class we began to delve deeper into logical statements in relation to moral claims There are two basic schools of moral thought Factivism Moral claims are two or false NonFactivism Moral claims aren t true or false NonFactive uses of language 1 Commands quotClean your room 2 CheeringBooing quotGo UMass or quotBoo UConn 3 Questions not necessary to know the last one but s 1 and 2 are important NonFactive means quotNOT A CLAIM ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE He is cool factive Factive it states a fact quotBlaahhquot nonfactive Emotivism Take 1 CheeringBooing 0 quotYou should wash the dishes means quotYay Wash the dishes 0 quotYou shouldn t eat junk food means quotBoo Eating junk food What this theory really states is that moral claims are a form of cheering or booing However it has flaws See this example A priest said quotYou should stop saying bad things about your roommates and say 5 hail Mary s In this example with the priest his statement about what you quotshouldquot do is neither cheering nor booing So what is it This theory then needs some work Emotivism Take 2 Commands o Moral statements are commands 0 quotYou should wash the dishes quotWash the dishes 0 quotYou shouldn t eat junk food quotDon t eat junk food 0 quotYou should tell her the truth quotTell her the truth The priest s confession response was neither cheering nor booing on the contrary it was a command quotStop saying bad things about your roommates and say 5 hail mary s But this doesn t work all of the time either See this quotShiela should NOT have been flirting with my boyfriend but this is not a command How can you give Shiela a command behind her back She s not even there You can t command someone who s not there Yet theory 1 works pretty well but not theory 2 Emotivism Take 3 final version o This version merges the first two versions cheering or booing andor commands o Emotivism means quotyou are expressing your emotions General Worries for NonFactivism 1 Moral Disagreement a Person A Women SHOULD be allowed to serve in the military b Person B What do you think c Person C I think its true 2 Moral reasoning a Talking somebody out of killing you i quotYou shouldn t kill people ii quotYou shouldn t kill me if you shouldn t kill people iii Conclusion quotYou shouldn t kill me Valid Seemingly yes But a nonfactivist would say that neither the premise nor the conclusion can even BE true its not a quotYayquot or quotDo this 3 Moral Conditions a Conditionspremises that have moral claims i quotIf you re a good Christian you should stand by it ii Nonfactivism is a hard road and has kind of died out SUBJECTIVISM Stoner Subjectivism Stoner Subjectivism quotMaaan nothing is really REAL Its all state of mind bro Don t get hung up on the word true There s nothing mystical about it quotTruequot means quotIt s the case Stoner subjectivism is incoherent if nothing is true stoner subjectivism is false Nobody REALLY believe that nothing is true or false
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'