GREAT ISSUES OF PHILOSOPHY
James Fieser
Long Outline
11/1/2007
THE MEANING OF LIFE
Introduction
Monty Python example
Different questions surrounding life’s meaning:
Does life have a purpose?
What kind of life is worth living?
How can I overcome despair?
How can I achieve happiness?
Why do I exist?
Why should I exist?
Do my life activities have any lasting value?
All versions presume that something’s wrong with life as we currently experience it, and seek a solution to the problem
A. Life’s Chronic Ailments
Gilgamesh and Death
Gilgamesh story: seeks for immortality, discovers a life-giving plant, loses it and goes home discouraged
Two morals of the story
We will all die
We do strange things to become immortal (e.g., Chinese immortality techniques of chemical cures and holding one’s breath; modern cures of nutritional supplements, restoring decaying cells, digitizing consciousness)
Heidegger’s view of death
Death is not an event that happens to me, but is an integral part of who I am right now, and during each moment of my life in the future; denying this forces us to live in a substandard world of make-believe
Criticisms of Heidegger
Strong instincts to survive may force us to see ourselves as immortal
We can’t psychologically conceive of the future without injecting ourselves into it as spectators
Sisyphus and Futility
Sisyphus story: deceitful king who’s punishment in Hades is to push a rock up a hill each day
Examples of futility in life: assembly line jobs, monotonous routines
Camus’s view of Sisyphus
Sisyphus represents the absurdity of life: the sum total of a person’s life efforts may seem pointless
Camus’s solution: the value of life rests in our effort, not in what we achieve
Criticism of Camus
Through sheer will power we can’t overcome feelings of futility
Example of Gorillas who needed varied stimulus to avoid being depressed
Modern industrial life may just not be suited to ward off a sense of futility
Job and Suffering
Job story: morally upright man suffers for no apparent reason
Unprovoked and unresolved suffering
Unprovoked: Job suffers through no fault of his own
Unresolved: there was no compensation for his losses
Solution in the book of Job: experiencing divine power humbles Job to accept his situation
Criticism of that solution: not psychologically satisfying for those who don’t experience God’s power directly
B. Ancient Greek Solutions
Epicureanism and Pleasure
Example of Jack the Epicurean English professor: indulges in food, art, music, travel and romance
Epicurus’s view of pleasure
Mental vs. physical pleasures: mental are superior
Luxuries: should be avoided
Short term vs. long term pleasures: long term ones are preferred
Criticism of Epicureanism
Uniqueness of various pleasures wears off
Enjoying pleasures rests on too many factors beyond one’s control
Epicurus’s final view of happiness: be moderate with one’s pleasures and strive for self-sufficiency
Stoicism and Accepting Fate
Example of prisoner of war: what it takes to be happy in inhumane accomodations
Stoic solution: accept the life that is fated for us, and never reach beyond that
Epictetus’s “banquet” analogy: don’t anticipate food as it is passed around, and even reject it when it arrives
Criticism of Stoic solution
Disappointments are counterbalanced by joys I will experience when another serving dish is full
Skepticism and Doubt
Example of Skeptics Society and Roswell aliens: importance of doubting claims that don’t live up to critical thinking
Pyrrho’s view of skeptical tranquility: we experience peace of mind that we experience when we suspend belief
Applies to strange common beliefs as well as strange beliefs
Two criticisms of skeptic solution
Commonsense beliefs may be impossible to doubt in practice
Even if we suspend beliefs, we experience painful emotions independently of our belief convictions
Cynicism and Defying Convention
Example of Lollapalooza: youth culture rebelling against sterile social expectations
Cynicism’s solution
Show contempt for traditional social structures (power, wealth and social status); open ourselves up to a more direct connection to nature
Diogenes view of Cynicism: lived as an impoverished beggar
Three criticisms of Cynic solution
Benefits of the extreme Cynical lifestyle may not outweigh self-imposed misery
Cynical criticism today becomes the convention of tomorrow
Cynicism is an overly negative approach to life
C. Western Religious Solutions
Having Children
Example of Abraham: childless man embraces God and is rewarded with children and many descendants
Natural rewards of having children
We have a compelling desire to have children and are fulfilled when doing so
Two criticisms of the having children solution
Having children invites miseries: exhaustion, worries, clashes with children, loss of marital intimacy
We don’t really gain immortality through our children since they too will die, and successive generations will be strangers
Life after Death
Two conceptions of life after death
Three dimensional form that resembles my current shape
Purely spiritual and non-three-dimensional
Solution to death, futility, and suffering
Death: I continue to live in another realm
Futility: this life is just preparation for the world to come, which gives my present life a purpose
Suffering: I will not suffer in an afterlife, and injustices in this life will be remedied in the afterlife
Two criticisms of life after death solution
Doubts about the existence of an afterlife may weaken its consoling effect
Doubts about the correct path to an afterlife may give us anxiety
Furthering God’s Kingdom
Augustine’s two cities
Earthly city: driven by self-love and contempt for God
Heavenly city: a way of life that glorifies God and advances the kingdom of God
Mormon example: serve as missionaries for two years and spread the message of God
Three features of furthering God’s Kingdom solution
Group-efforts among a community of believers, rather than simply isolated campaigns of individual people
Devotion to a firm and sacred set of beliefs about God’s role in human affairs
Participating in this higher mission involves self-sacrifice
Secular versions of furthering God’s kingdom: devotion to social and political causes
Criticism of furthering God’s Kingdom solution: the believer loses individuality and is forced to conform to the group’s doctrines and leaders
D. Eastern Religious Solutions
Daoism and the Way of Nature
Tale of the cook: cook cuts meat by slicing through its soft parts
Daoist approach to life: we should live in accord with the flow of nature, and not aggressively go against it
Abandon needless rules of law, morality, and etiquette and follow the simple natural inclinations
Avoid expanding our knowledge through study, which will obstruct our natural wisdom
Daoist solution to life’s problems: death is part of the natural cycle of things from growth to decay
Criticism of Daoist solution: life is not that passive
We actively acquire the knowledge that we need to survive
Buddhism and Extinguishing Desire
Four Noble Truths
Life is suffering
The cause of suffering is desire
The solution to suffering is to extinguish desire (nirvana)
The eightfold path is the means of eliminating desire
The proper cultivation of our understanding, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration
Nirvana: to extinguish
Losing one’s individual identity and self-consciousness as a distinct being
By eliminating identity, identity, we eliminate all the suffering that we create through our desires
Criticisms of Buddhist solution
Complete extinguishing of identity requires death, which is a strange goal of life
Nirvana in this life is difficult to describe and obtain
Dalai Lama’s view of nirvana
Lead a good life and nirvana will follow
Too much talk about nirvana will not lead to the correct nirvana
Hinduism and the Four Goals of Life
Four goals of life
Pleasure: food, art, music, dance, sex (for younger married people)
Material success: wealth, power (for younger married people)
Moral harmony: regulates pleasure and success; social responsibility to others (for more mature people)
Religious enlightenment (for people who have no more family responsibilities)
Problem with most discussions of life’s meaning
Simple and overly simplistic solutions to a very complex problem
No single goal will give us meaning at every stage of our lives
A la carte menu solution: pick different solutions for different life circumstances
F. Conclusion
Meaning of life involves various philosophical questions
About knowledge, God, mind, ethics and society
Philosophy involves criticisms and argumentation
Truth is sometimes found more in the give-and-take surrounding those theories rather than in the philosophical theories themselves
Different ways of addressing philosophical issues: empirical inquiry, introspection, logical analysis
GOD
Introduction
Example of “Elvis Underground, the Church”
A. The Nature of God
Introduction
Example of Elvis creed
Personalness and Goodness
The Theistic God: conception of God in Western religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity
Attribute of personalness
God is conscious and rational, and has the capacity to communicate with other conscious creatures
Problem of anthropomorphism: the notion of a personal God is too human
Attribute of perfect goodness (omnibenevolence)
Compassion: God is compassionately interested in relieving the world of suffering and enabling people to obtain happiness in this life or perhaps in the next
Justness: God has a clear vision of moral justice which he himself follows and commands people to obey
God’s gender
Pro-male: God exhibits the male features (economic and military power, builder of machines and structures)
Pro-female: God exhibits female features (creative process of growth and nurturing)
Middle position: God is gender neutral, and our language wrongly imposes gender on him
Power and Separateness
Other attributes that involve conceptual puzzles
all-powerful (or omnipotent); all-knowing (or omniscient); all-present (omnipresent); timeless (omnitemporal); separate from the world
Attribute of all-powerfulness (omnipotence)
First views of all-powerfulness: God can do all things, including the logically impossible
Problem issues: Can he destroy himself? Can he create a being more powerful than he is? Can he exist and not exist at the same time?
Dilemma of the rock: can God create a rock so large that he can’t move it?
Second views of all-powerfulness: God can do anything that is logically possible
No possible being (including God) can do logically impossible tasks
Solves the problem of the rock
Attribute of separateness
Separateness: God is separate from the world (Western view)
Pantheism: God is identical to nature as a whole (Eastern view)
The attribute of separateness conflicts with pantheism; thus, the idea of the theistic God is at odds with Eastern conceptions of God
B. Arguments for God’s Existence
Introduction
Argument from guitar mastery
The Cosmological Argument
Early version: it is impossible for the causal chain of events in the world to trace back through time forever
Leibniz’s cosmological argument
(1) The world contains an infinite series of dependent objects.
(2) The explanation of the series is either within the series itself or a necessary being outside that series.
(3) The explanation of the series cannot reside in the series itself, since the very fact of the series’ existence would still need an explanation.
(4) Therefore, the explanation of the series consists of a necessary being outside the series.
Hume’s criticism
The existence of the entire series of dependent beings is fully explained by the existence of each thing in the series
The Design Argument from Analogy
The analogy
watch : watchmaker :: parts of the natural world : intelligent natural designer
The argument
1. Machines such as watches are the products of intelligent design.
2. Parts of the natural world resemble a machine.
3. Therefore, it is highly probable that parts of the natural world are the product of intelligent design.
Requirement for premise 1:
Must show that every time we see a watch, we are justified in concluding that it is the product of a watchmaker
Paley: this conclusion is justifiable in almost any conceivable situation
Requirement for premise 2
Must show that the natural world sufficiently resembles the craftsmanship of watches
Criticism (Hume): the world resembles a vegetable more than it does a machine
Criticism: Evolution provides an alternative and naturalistic explanation of the origin of apparent design in the natural world
There the natural world and machines are dissimilar since hands can be explained by natural evolutionary processes and watches can’t
Final problem (Hume)
Even if the design argument shows the existence of an intelligent designer, can’t show the existence of a single, all powerful, or all good being
The Design Argument from Probability
Argument from probability:
1. The existence of life-sustaining conditions is probable under theism, but very improbable under the atheism.
2. When considering two competing hypotheses, we should accept the one that offers the most highly-probable outcome.
3. Therefore, we should accept the theistic hypothesis as an explanation of the world’s life-sustaining conditions.
Criticism
In view of the size of the universe, life-sustaining conditions “very improbable” under the atheistic hypothesis
Emotional appeal of the probability argument
It’s frightening to think that life on earth might not have existed if the fine-tuning of things had been off just a little
This, though, doesn’t mean that a divine designer was behind it
C. Criticisms of Religious Belief
Belief in Miracles
Example Kenyan minister miraculously healing infertile women
Hume’s three assumptions about miracles
“Miracle” is defined a violation of a law of nature (not simply unusual events that occur at just the right moment)
He focuses on the credibility of reports of miracles, not what we witness ourselves
He focuses on whether it is reasonable for us to believe reports of miracles, not whether the miraculous event actually took place.
Hume’s argument against miracles
It is never reasonable to believe in reports of miracles since those reports will always be outweighed by stronger evidence for consistent laws of nature
First criticism regarding scientific discoveries
If we dismiss miracle reports because they are contrary to laws of nature, then we must also dismiss new discoveries when they too are contrary to established laws
Hume’s response: miracles will always be incompatible with updated laws of nature; new discoveries will be compatible with updated laws of nature
Second criticism regarding “reasonable belief”
Belief in miracles is reasonable under a supernatural world-view
Belief in miracles is unreasonable under a natural world-view
The question hinges on one’s world view
Psychological Theories of Religion
Lucretius: fear
Belief in God results from fear of frightening things that we can’t explain
Marx: religion is the opium of the people
Exploited workers accept religion as a means of comfort
Nietzsche: God is dead
As science has progressed in Western civilization, the natural world-view has eclipsed the supernatural one and everything it stands for
Freud: projection of a father figure
When young, our powerful fathers gave us comfort; when older we project the concept of a powerful father figure onto the heavens
Point in common
Religious belief is caused entirely by psychological and social forces, and a non-religious view of the world is ultimately preferable
Believer’s criticism
Maybe God uses these psychological factors as mechanisms to bring about belief
D. The Problem of Evil
Introduction
Natural evil: the suffering that takes place through the blind forces of nature
Moral evil: the suffering that takes place because of the willful acts of human beings.
The Argument
Formal version
1. An all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, God would prevent evil.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, God, as defined above, does not exist.
Clear paths to resolving the tension: deny one of God’s attributes or the existence of evil
Possible Solutions.
Good comes out of evil
Some evil-dependent goods require tragedy (e.g., hurricanes make people charitable)
Criticism: we don’t need the present degree of tragedy to bring about evil-dependent goods
Emphasize God’s justness over his compassion
Maybe God is more interested in justice than in making our lives happy
Criticism: people take comfort in the idea of a compassionate God
Suffering is part of the developmental process of nature (Hick)
We will suffer until our evolutionary process is complete
Criticism: future people get a free ride at our expense now
The Free Will Defense
Evil is the result of free human choice
God could not create a world with free creatures and guarantee that they would always choose to be good
We are co-creators of the world with God, and evil is our fault, not his
First limitation: an option only for those who believe in free will
Second limitation: some theists don’t like the idea of God handing over power to humans
Third limitation: only explains moral evil, not natural evil
E. Faith and Reason
Introduction
Agnosticism: neither belief nor disbelief in God’s existence
“Faith alone” position: religious belief should be based on faith, not reason
Extreme view (Tertullian): religious belief is irrational
Moderate view: religious belief is non-rational
Blaise Pascal: Wagering on Belief in God
The wager: belief in God is a better gamble
By believing in God’s existence, I stand a chance of gaining infinite happiness in the afterlife, and losing little or nothing in any event.
By disbelieving in God’s existence, I will gain or lose little or nothing.
Next steps in the belief process
After the wager, I must put myself in a psychological position that is receptive to belief in God through faith (be moral, go to church)
James’s criticism
Rival religions could propose a similar wager for their favorite deity
As long as reason is neutral on the question, we are not in a position to prefer one religion’s wager over another
William James: The Right to Believe in God
Three features of a “genuine option”
Live (not dead)
Forced (not avoidable)
Momentous (not trivial)
When religious belief is justified
When reason is neutral concerning belief in God, and belief in God is a genuine option, then we may rightfully believe on the basis of our emotions
Criticism by scientifically-minded person
If the evidence is inconclusive, we should be withhold belief and be religious agnostics
James’s response:
Two goals that all inquirers: (1) pursue truth, and (2) avoid error
The scientist places greater weight on (2)
In non-scientific matters, our goal should be (1)
Alvin Plantinga: Rationally-Foundational Belief in God
Believing God exists vs. knowing God exists
James’s right to believe: we have the freedom to believe in God, but can’t say that we know God exists
Know God exists: usually based on proofs
Plantinga’s view: the concept of God’s existence is a rational intuition, and not a product of rational proof.
Foundationalism
Foundational beliefs: instinct-like beliefs that are not deduced from others (e.g., notions of points and lines in geometry)
Rationally foundational beliefs: foundational beliefs that flow from reason)
Examples: “the objects that we perceive really do exist,” and “the people I see really do have conscious minds.”
“God exists” is a rationally-foundational belief
That is, we know that God exists because this instinct-like belief flows from reason in the absence of any proof
Criticism: it’s not clear that humans have any rationally-foundational beliefs
Lists of rationally foundational beliefs were arbitrary and grounded more in prejudice than in reason
Beliefs seem to be part of an interconnected web, not the result of deduction from foundational beliefs
F. Religious Pluralism
Introduction
Religions differ regarding both doctrinal claims and paths to salvation
Doctrinal claims: religious rituals, God’s specific attributes, God’s direct involvement in human affairs, and divinely inspired texts
Paths to salvation: religious experiences, rites of passage, commitment to moral codes, or belief in specific religious precepts
Four Options
Naturalism: belief in God is groundless and religious belief arises through social and psychological factors
Held by Hume, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud
Exclusivism: there is one true religion either doctrinally or as an effective path to salvation
Held by conservative traditions within various world religions
Inclusivism: one religion contains the final truth, both doctrinally and as a path to salvation, but others come close to it
Held by liberal traditions within various world religions
Pluralism: religious traditions experience God differently, but all are equally effective paths to salvation
Held by the Baha’i Faith
The problem of Conflicting Doctrines
Doctrines of different religions are logically incompatible with each other, so they can’t all be equally valid
Pluralist’s first response: pluralism is about effective paths to salvation, not necessarily about conflicting doctrines
Pluralist’s second response (Hick’s): conflicting doctrines are really just different and limited perspectives of the true God
Story of blind men and elephant
The Problem of God’s Inaccessibility
Pluralism assumes that God is inaccessible (religious traditions differ because they struggles to discover an inaccessible God)
If God is completely inaccessible, then any interpretation of him is acceptable and the notion of God becomes meaningless.
Pluralist responses: two ways to investigate God
Try to peer into the spirit realm (doomed to failure)
Look at world religions to see if they reflect anything of God (might tell us something)
Religion’s two main ingredients (James)
An uneasiness that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand
A solution that saves us from this wrongness.
MIND
Introduction
Cryonics example
A. What is a Mind?
Knowledge about the Mind
Introspection: concentrating on your own thought processes and discovering how they operate
Behavior: how we act tells us much about what we're thinking or feeling
Popular psychological theories
Consciousness and the Mind's Tasks
Consciousness and unconsciousness
Involves unitary awareness of things
Awareness of environment and oneself
Time shapes consciousness
Unconsciousness: mental process that we're not aware of
Three tasks of the mind
The ability to represent the world through beliefs, desires, perceptions, feelings, and emotions
Ability to reason
Ability to initiate action
Occurrent and dispositional states
Occurrent: short term; perceptions, feelings like joy, surprise, frustration
Dispositional: long term; beliefs, desires, hopes
Three Features of Mental Experiences
Privateness: you can never experience my mental experiences in the direct and immediate way that I can
Non-localizability: cannot be located in space
Example of a brain the size of a mountain
Intentionality: they are about something, or directed at something
Problem of Other Minds
The problem: I know from my own private mental experience that I am conscious, but I cannot experience other mind in the same way
Applies to people, animals, robots
Solution from analogy:
1. When I stub my toe, I consciously experience pain.
2. Joe has physical and behavioral features that are similar to mine.
3. Therefore, when Joe stubs his toe, he consciously experiences pain.
Limitations: the fewer features a being has in common with me, the more strained the argument from analogy becomes
B. Personal identity
Introduction
Sirhan Sirhan example
The Body Criterion
Definition: a person's identity is determined by physical features of the body
Examples: finger prints, voice patterns, retinal scans, and DNA
Involves the physical structure, not the material substance
Counterexample 1: identical twins have the same bodily structure
Counterexample 2: brain swap experiment
The Mind Criterion
Definition: regardless of what happens to my body, my real identity is infused into my mind
Obstacle 1: finding the specific mental qualities that carry my identity
Memory: memories can be erased
Dispositions: dispositions can all change
Obstacle 2: can't perceive any unified conception of myself
Hume: all we can detect is a series of separate experiences
Different criteria for different needs: some rely on the bodily criterion, others on the mind criterion
Life after Death
Reincarnation: one’s present life is followed by a series of new lives in new physical bodies
Criticism: fails both the body and mind criteria
Ethereal body: upon the death of my physical body, a new perfect body is created from me that is made of a heavenly substance, and I continue living in that form
Criticism: the ethereal body is just a clone of me, not the real me
Disembodied spirit: When I die, my mind is released from my physical body and continues to live in a non-physical realm
Rests on the issue of the mind-body problem
C. Varieties of Spirit-Body Dualism
Introduction
Definition of mind-body problem: investigation into how the human mind and human body are related to each other
Definition of spirit-body dualism: human beings are composed of a conscious spiritual mind and a non-conscious physical body
Definition of mind-body materialism: only physical stuff – or "matter" – exists; there is no spirit-realm or spirit stuff
Dualism's Assets and Liabilities
Example of near death experience
Argument from non-localizability: (1) Minds are non-localizable; (2) Bodies are localizable; (3) Therefore, minds cannot be bodies.
Main problem with dualism: explaining how the distinct realms of body and spirit relate to each other
Sensory perception: how sensory information gets from our physical brains to our spirit minds
Bodily movement: how willful commands in our spirit minds trigger reactions in our brains
Interactive dualism
Interactive dualism: our physical brains and spirit minds interact with each other
Pineal gland theory (Descartes)
Description of theory: pineal gland mediates signals between my physical brain and spirit mind
Problem 1: pineal gland doesn't really do this, and we can't find a part of the brain where all sensory-motor data converges
Problem 2: doesn't explain how the pineal gland bridges the barrier between the physical and spirit realms
God shuttles information back and forth (Malebranche)
Description of theory: God mediates between the sensory-motor activity in my brain and the mental responses in my spirit
Problem 1: non-miraculous solutions need to be explored first
Gradualism (Conway)
Description of theory: body and spirit fall into the same category of stuff and differ only in degree not in kind.
Possible account: the electric charges in our brains stimulate an aura of heavy spirit that surrounds our heads
Problem 1: it's a purely speculative theory with no evidence of heavy spirits
Parallelism
Parallelism defined: bodies and spirits operate in their own realms, and have no causal connection or interaction with each other
Leibniz's theory
Problem 1: conjecture with no scientific evidence
Problem 2: there's no need to have both universes; the physical one can be eliminated and the spirit one can continue
D. Varieties of Mind-Body Materialism
Behaviorism
ATM machine example
Definition of behaviorism: mental states are reducible to behavioral dispositions
Ghost in the machine
Descartes' assumption: only I have access to my private thoughts that are concealed from others within my mind
Criticism (Ryle): my mind is not really private; you can access it by observing my behavioral dispositions
Criticism 1: some of my mental experiences seem to be private (e.g., experience of pain)
Identity Theory
Definition of identity theory: mental states and brain activities are identical, though viewed from two perspectives
Two parts of identity theory
Consciousness resides in the human brain
Mental phenomena can be viewed from two perspectives (private experience and brain activity)
Problem 1: the descriptions that we give of mental experiences and brain activities are incompatible and thus can't refer to the same thing (e.g., mental experience is private, brain activity is public)
Problem 2: it restricts mental experiences to biological organisms with brains
Eliminative Materialism
Definition of eliminative materialism: descriptions of mental states should be eliminated and replaced with descriptions of brain activity
Pre-scientific theories: alchemy, belief in ghosts; these were all replaced
Two parts of eliminative materialism
Commonsense notions of mental experiences are like obsolete scientific theories (probably true)
We will eventually adopt the language of neuroscience in place of commonsense descriptions (probably false: would require too much memorization of technical terms)
Functionalism
Star Trek example
Definition of functionalism: mental experiences are only "functional states," that is, patterns of physical activity that occur in creatures like human beings
Hardware-software distinction: the organism is the hardware, the pattern of physical activity (e.g., brain activity) is the software
Hierarchical model of mental functions: pattern of mental operation resembles the hierarchical structure of a large corporation
Criticism 1: leaves out the possibility of non-physical mental beings, such as disembodied spirits having mental experiences
E. Artificial Intelligence
Introduction
Elektro example
The Road to Artificial Intelligence
Two types of artificial
Weak: suitably programmed machines can simulate human mental states
Strong: suitably programmed machines are capable of human-like mental states
Turing test: I interview both a computer and a human being to determine which is human; if the computer fools me fifty percent of the time, I can conclude that it has human-like thinking abilities
Criticism: focuses too much on the computer's skills, without considering what is going on inside the machine
Two kinds of computing processes
Serial: information is processed one datum after another (not the kind used in human thinking)
Parallel: large amounts of information are processed simultaneously (the kind used in human thinking)
Searle: The Chinese Room
Description of example: a man in a room translates Chinese using a rulebook, without ever understanding Chinese
Point of example: on the outside the computers may appear to think like humans do, but are only mechanically following rulebooks for manipulating symbols
Criticism 1: only exposing flaws with the Turing Test for artificial intelligence, not exposing problems with the possibility of strong artificial intelligence itself
Artificial Intelligence and Morality
Star Trek example
Question of moral personhood: can machines with AI be have moral rights
Different criteria of moral personhood: being conscious, being human, having self-awareness
If computers are self-aware, then they would have moral rights
Question of moral responsibility regarding the creation of malevolent robots
Issue 1: do we have a moral responsibility to future generations of humans (yes)
Issue 2: do superior robots pose a threat to future generations of humans (unclear)
Conclusion: program them so they don't harm humans
FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM
Introduction
Acxiom example
A. Main Concepts
Genuine Free Will: for at least some actions, a person has the ability to have done otherwise.
Determinism: a person never has the ability to have done otherwise.
Free will is not the same issue as political freedom (we have the right to be free from constraints that others might place on us)
Determinism is not the same issue as fatalism (some event will happen regardless of what we do to stop it)
Types of "choices": include bodily movements, mental beliefs and feelings
B. The Case for Determinism
The Materialist Argument for Determinism
Basic point underlying determinism: the physical world operates according to rigid and predictable laws
Laplace: if I knew all the forces that animate nature, knew the exact position of everything in it that exists, and had unlimited calculating ability, I would be able to accurately predict everything that will happen in the future
Argument for determinism from materialism
(1) Human choices are exclusively a function of brain activity;
(2) Brain activity is constrained by rigid natural laws;
(3) Therefore, human choices are constrained by rigid natural laws.
Dualist Criticism of Determinism
Dualist position: accepts the rule of physical laws in the physical world, but embraces free will as an element of human spirits
Criticism 1: spirits might be determined
Criticism 2: dualism is not a serious option for scientists
The Predictability Argument for Determinism
Argument for determinism from predictability: predictability of human choices shows that they are determined by rigid natural laws.
Criticism: people are not 100% predictable
Determinist response: the better we get at predicting people’s behavior, the more reasonable it seems that people’s behavior is determined
C. The Case for Free Will
Feeling of freedom: I have a feeling of freedom whenever I perform any action
Hypnotism counterexample: a hypnotist programs me to perform an action, but it feels like a free choice to me
Recent psychological experiment counterexample: conscious feeling occurs after the brain already initiates the action
Moral responsibility
Argument from moral responsibility:
(1) If I am morally responsible for my actions, then I must have free control over those actions.
(2) In many situations I am morally responsible for my actions.
(3) Therefore, I must have free control over those actions.
Determinist's response: punishment is the real issue here, and that is justified even if determinism is true (prevention, rehabilitation, vengeance)
Human dignity: free will is central to human dignity
Argument human dignity:
(1) If I act with human dignity, then I must have genuinely free control over those actions.
(2) In many situations I act with human dignity.
(3) Therefore, I must have genuinely free control over those actions.
Determinist's response: we can have a concept of human dignity that is independent of free will
Indeterminacy
The principle: electrons are by nature indeterminable; we can only calculate the probability of where one might be
Problem 1: the physical world is governed by rigid natural laws at higher levels of chemical molecules and biological cells, which is where choice takes place in the brain
Problem 2: indeterminacy of electrons is a random thing, but free choice cannot be random
D. The Freedom of Action Alternative
Definition of free action: at least some human actions are caused by factors inside of us
Free vs. unfree actions
First explanation: assume that most of our actions are free since they originate from within us
Unfree actions involve serious impairment, like handing over one's wallet to a mugger
Frankfurt's explanation
First-Order Desire: a basic desire for a thing (desire for a milkshake)
Second-Order Desire: a desire to have a desire (desire to not desire a milkshake)
Free choices are those in which first and second order desires coincide; unfree ones are those in which they don't
Human vs. animal choices: only humans have second-order desires, so only ours are capable of being free
E. Free Will and God
Determinism and Divine Goodness
The argument
1. Evil human actions are determined by a necessary causal chain of mental and physical events.
2. This chain ultimately traces back to God who is the creator.
3. Therefore, God is responsible for evil human actions.
Free will solution: deny premise 1
Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge
The argument
1. If God foreknows what I will choose at midnight tonight, then at midnight I must choose that action.
2. If at midnight I must choose that action, then at midnight I cannot freely do otherwise.
3. Therefore, if God foreknows what I will choose at midnight tonight, then at midnight I cannot freely do otherwise.
Solution:
Weak timelessness: endless temporal existence
Strong timelessness: God is outside of time, and the very concept of time does not apply to him
God knows my future free choices because of his privileged position outside of time, not because he can look into the future
ETHICS
Introduction
California bank robbers
Moral Relativism
Plato: Objective Moral Forms
Three features of moral objectivism
Morality is objective: ultimate moral standards exists in a higher (spiritual) realm
Moral standards are eternal: they don’t change through out time; they are eternal
Moral standards are universal: they apply to everyone
Three features of moral relativism
Morality is a purely human invention
Moral standards change throughout time and from country to country
Moral standards do not apply universally to all people
Plato’s theory of the forms
Universe is two-tiered: higher spiritual level of the forms, lower physical level
Ideal moral standards (and mathematics) are unchanging absolute truths that exist in the higher level
Skepticism: Cultural Variation
Sextus Empiricus, moral diversity is everywhere on virtually every issue
Examples of moral diversity: burial practices, sexual morality
Argument from cultural variation
(1) If morality is objective, then we would not see widespread cultural variation in moral matters.
(2) There is in fact wide spread cultural variation in moral matters.
(3) Therefore, morality is not objective.
Objectivist response to premise 1: humans are flawed and often fail to grasp and follow objective moral standards
Objectivist response to premise 2: cultural variation in morality is not that widespread
Some issues of variation are non-moral, such as funeral practices
Societies around the world have some core values, such as prohibitions against murder
The Moderate Compromise
Compromise 1: general principles of morality are objective, and precise applications are relative
Compromise 2: although moral values are not grounded in a spiritual reality, many are firmly fixed in human instinct
Selfishness
Introduction
Example of postman
Definition of psychological egoism: human conduct is selfishly motivated, and we cannot perform actions from any other motive
Definition of psychological altruism: human beings are at least occasionally capable of acting selflessly
Ought implies can: we are morally obligated to do only those things that we are capable of doing
If psychological egoism is true, then we can’t be obligated to follow altruistic moral principles
Hobbes: The Case for Egoism
Pity: we imagine ourselves in a position of distress when we see someone suffer
Charity: we take special delight in exercising our power over other people
Argument from simplicity
(1) If we can adequately explain some phenomenon with one principle rather than two, then we should reject the second principle.
(2) So-called altruistic behavior can be adequately explained through psychological egoism.
(3) Therefore we should reject the principle of psychological altruism.
Butler: The Case for Altruism
Different self-oriented motives: there is no single motive of selfishness (or self-love); at best there are several self-oriented desires
Instinctive benevolence: there is a distinct motive of instinctive benevolence that can’t be explained by self-oriented motives
Egoism and the Struggle for Survival
Evolution and selfishness: egoism is an important factor in human survival; instinctive altruism would have died out
Kin selection: the apparent altruism that we show to our children is really an effort to perpetuate our genes
Soft-core altruism (Wilson): the apparent altruism that we show strangers is part of a complex network of alliances that we forge with others which enables us to survive
Reason and Emotion
Introduction
PETA: “Holocaust on your Plate”
Moral Reasoning: Detecting Truth and Motivating Behavior
Two principles of moral reasoning
Moral reasoning discovers moral truths
Moral reasoning motivates us to abide by moral standards
Hume: We Can’t Derive Ought from Is
Criticism of principle 1: there are no moral facts to discover
Hume’s argument
1. If reason discovered moral truths, then we would be able to identify a uniquely immoral factual quality in an action such as murder.
2. We cannot identify any such factual quality, but will only find our emotional reaction.
3. Therefore, reason does not discover moral truths, and, instead, all moral assessments are emotional reactions.
Criticism of principle 2: reason cannot motivate human behavior; only emotions can do that
Cannot derive ought from is: I can’t conclude that I have a moral obligation on the basis of rational facts that I’m presented with
Ayer: Moral Utterances Express Feelings
Two kinds of utterances
Factual reports: true or false statements about the world (e.g., I’m a fan of that team)
Nonfactual expressions: non-factual expressions that only vent our feelings (e.g., Go team, go!)
Emotivism
Moral utterances are not factual reports but are instead disguised nonfactual expressions
e.g., “Donating to charity is a good thing” is really a nonfactual expression like “Hooray for Charity!”
Virtues
Introduction
Examples of moral character from Proverbs and Confucius
Definition of virtue and vice
Virtue: character traits that are good
Vice: character traits that are bad
Aristotle: The Virtuous Mean
Animalistic and rational elements of people
Animalistic: we’re driven by natural urges, such as fear and hunger
Rational: unlike animals, we can regulate our urges
Virtues are good mental habits that regulate our urges
Mean between extremes: virtues that stand at a mean between vices of deficiency and vices of excess
Examples:
In response to angry urges, the virtue of good temper is at a mean between spiritlessness (vice of deficiency) and ill-temper (vice of excess)
In response to urges of fear, the virtue of courage is at a mean between cowardice (vice of deficiency) and rashness (vice of excess)
Virtues and Gender
Psychological distinction between men and women
Men: categorizing things and inventing rules.
Women: are more sensitive to the uniqueness of particular situations
Virtue theory and feminist ethics (three points)
Virtue theory is less male-oriented since it downplays rules
Development of virtuous habits is an educational task, which is a specialty of female thinking
Virtue theory allows us to introduce new ideals into our value system which are more overtly female in character
Gilligan’s view of the virtue of care: women take care of men, and men devalue the that care
Virtues and Rules
Argument from misused virtues: misused virtues can become vices (e.g., good thieves have the virtues of intelligence and courage); moral rules prevent us from misusing virtues
Argument from hidden mental habits: the focus of moral judgments is really about whether our actions conform to rules, and not whether we possess moral virtues hidden in our minds
Two conclusions about virtue and rules
Virtues and moral rules are both integral parts of traditional approaches to morality
Aristotle’s list of virtues needs updating; e.g., add the virtue of care
Duties
Pufendorf: Duties to God, Oneself and Others
Instinctive duties: God has implanted a natural sense of morality within us all
Duties to God: know God and obey God
Duties to oneself: develop one’s talents (regarding people’s minds) and don’t harm or kill yourself (regarding people’s bodies)
Duties to others: don’t kill, steal, life
Special duties to families, communities, governments
Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Hypothetical vs. categorical imperative:
Hypothetical imperative (non-moral rules of prudence): If you want X, then you ought to do A
Categorical imperative (distinctively moral rule): you ought to do A
One of Kant’s four versions of the Categorical Imperative: treat people as an end and never as a means to an end
Treat people as beings that are intrinsically valuable, and never treat people as mere things with only instrumental value
Duties to Animals and the Environment
Direct vs. indirect duties
Direct duty: a moral obligation towards someone who himself has a claim against us
Indirect duty: a moral obligation towards someone because of a claim that a third person has against us
Kant and indirect duties to animals: if we treat animals cruelly, we run the risk of becoming insensitive towards humans
Direct duties to animals
Pain: we have direct duties to animals (higher or lower) to avoid having them suffer
Self-awareness: we have a direct duty to higher animals that are self-aware
An animal is aware of itself moving through time and has something like hopes and dreams for the future
Indirect duties to the environment
Focuses on human welfare and regards the environment as important only as it affects human welfare
Direct duties to the environment
We have direct moral duties to plant species themselves for their own sake, irrespective of their impact on human interests
Utilitarianism
Introduction
Problem with duty theory: duties are grounded in prejudice, not in rational instinct
Utilitarianism defined: we measure right and wrong by considering the pleasing and painful consequences of our behavior upon ourselves and others
Bentham: The Utilitarian Calculus
(1) Intensity: how extreme the pleasures and pains are.
(2) Duration: how long the pleasures and pains last.
(3) Certainty: whether the pleasurable and painful consequences are certain or only probable.
(4) Remoteness: whether the pleasures and pains are immediate or in the distant future.
(5) Fruitfulness: whether similar pleasures and pains will follow.
(6) Purity: whether the pleasure is mixed with pain.
(7) Extent: whether other people experience pleasure or pain.
Mill: Higher Pleasures and Rules
Criticism of Bentham’s view of quantified pleasures
Higher mental pleasures are qualitatively better than lower physical pleasures and so cannot be numerically quantified in a utilitarian calculus
Act vs. rule utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism (Bentham): tally the consequences of each action we perform
Rule-utilitarianism (Mill): tally the consequences that result from following rules (not specific actions)
Solving moral dilemmas
When dilemmas arise between moral rules, we should resolve the conflict as an act utilitarian would: determine which course of action would produce the most pleasure and least pain
Reactions from Duty Theorists
Criticism 1 of utilitarianism: it is beyond our capacity to calculate all the consequences of every action or rule
Criticism 2 of utilitarianism: utilitarianism might endorse horrible actions such as slavery if the end justifies the means
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
Example of Interim Government of the Republic of Texas
Goal of political philosophy: what kinds of political systems will make us most happy in the present state of affairs
A. The Social Contract
Introduction
Example of Interim Government of the Republic of Texas
Definition of Social Contract Theory: preserve our individual lives, we mutually agree to set aside our hostilities and live in peace under governmental protection
Hobbes’s Theory
Two factors of the state of nature
Life’s necessities are scarce, which creates competition
We are naturally selfish and thus not inclined to make sacrifices for others in need
First law of nature: we should seek peace as a means of self-preservation
Second law of nature: we should mutually divest ourselves of hostile rights
Third law of nature: we should indeed keep the agreements that we make
Need for government: strong policing powers and the authority to penalize contract breakers
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Example of me and Joe (four options)
If I confess and Joe does not, then I will get only a 1 year sentence, but Joe will get a 10 year sentence.
If Joe confesses and I do not, then Joe will only get a 1 year sentence, but I will get a 10 year sentence.
If neither of us confesses, then we will each get a 2 year sentence.
If both of us confess, then we will each get a 5 year sentence.
Application to social contract theory
In the state of nature, we can’t read the minds of potential rivals and thus will be inclined to preemptively attack them
Social Contracts and Bigotry
Social contract is an exclusive club whose membership is not necessarily open to everyone, e.g., animals and bigots
Potential domination of bigots: weaker groups may be forced to join in a second-class status, or risk continued war
B. Rights
Introduction
Hooters example
Two kinds of freedom/liberty rights
Rights to be free from harm
Rights to be freedom to act
Two origins of rights
Legal rights: created by governments
Natural rights: not created by governments
Three features of natural rights
Natural: we are born with them
Universal: all humans world wide possess them
Equal: every person regardless of race or gender has them to the same degree
Natural Rights and Revolution
Locke’s state of nature
We have God-given natural rights in the state of nature
Fundamental rights are those to life, health, liberty and possessions
Forfeiture: we forfeit our rights when we violate the rights of others
Governments: we give the ruler power and authority over us, in exchange for which the ruler protects our natural rights
Justification for revolution: if our government fails in its task, then we can remove it and create another
Are Natural Rights Grounded in Fact?
Bentham’s criticism of natural rights
All rights are the result of laws that are created by legislators
Legal rights are grounded in legal laws created by human legislators
Natural rights are supposedly grounded in natural laws created by God
Problem: we cannot access natural law or God
Recommendation: reject natural rights, stick to legal rights
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Abandons notion of natural rights and relies instead on universal agreement among member nations
Do We Need Rights?
Sufficiency of duties
Correlativity of rights and duties: the rights of one person implies the duties of another
Having both rights and duties is redundant; the notion of duties is more fundamental, thus we can do away with rights
The added element of rights
Claims about my rights seem more imposing than claims about your duties
C. Political Liberalism and Property
Introduction
Political liberalism defined: governments exist mainly to protect individual rights
Locke’s view of property: we acquire property by mixing it with our labor; we can keep it or sell it as we see fit
Distributive justice defined: determining the just way of distributing wealth and poverty in a society
Nozick and Libertarianism
Libertarianism defined: governmental power should be limited to a few basic policing functions
Governments shouldn’t pay for welfare programs
Argument for minimalist state:
The existence of dominant protection agencies is reasonable and expected; anything much beyond that is not justifiable
Two principles of entitlement theory
We must initially acquire property by just means
We must voluntarily transfer that property to another person by just means
Taxation for welfare is unjustified – like forced labor
Libertarian solution to poverty (three prongs)
A truly free enterprise economy will create jobs
Voluntary unemployment insurance
Voluntary donations to charities
Practical problem with libertarianism
It makes sense for the government to also protect us from economic disaster, especially when it isn’t our fault
Libertarian notions of property ownership are not fair (see welfare liberalism)
Rawls and Welfare Liberalism
Welfare liberalism defined: to address unfair distributions in wealth, the government may tax us to help the needy.
Natural lottery: wealth is arbitrary distributed in society based on who one’s parents are
Original position: a group of rational, yet self-interested people who gather together to work out the rules of a peaceful society
Veil of ignorance: discuss the rules while assuming ignorance regarding our actual social status is in society
Two principles of justice
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
Rawls and welfare (principle 2a): reasonable people will want a lot of economic protection and be willing to place a hefty limit the wealthy.
Criticism: rational gamblers
People might gamble on a scheme that will allow me the greatest financial reward, even at risk of impoverishment
Response: people tend to hedge their bets (e.g., insurance) and might do so in the veil of ignorance
D. Individual and Community
Introduction
Antz movie example
Individualist political theories: personal liberty is of primary importance, and governments exist to protect us from harms inflicted by others in the community
Community-oriented theories: humans are first and foremost part of a community, and the governments we create should reflect that fact
Plato’s Republic
Communal lifestyle of the Guardian class
No property, communal housing, free love, censored music and literature
Community as a giant human being
To protect us from outside attack, all parts of a government must work together like all the parts of a giant human being
Three groups of people
Trades-people: provide for people’s basic needs of society (farmers, carpenters, clothiers, merchants)
Guardians who protect society from outside attackers
Rulers decide the best course for society (selected from the best guardians)
Noble lie
Trick people into thinking that they are naturally assigned their places in the social hierarchy, and thus should be content in their current status
Trades-people made with iron and brass; guardians with silver, rulers with gold
Orwell’s 1984
Community-oriented societies risk staying together only through governmental lies, intimidation, and brainwashing
Marx and Communism
Historical materialism
Everything is composed of matter and all events mechanically unfold according to rigid laws; human history emerges predictably through economic forces
Class struggle
Throughout history societies have evolved through conflict between social classes
Masters-slaves; nobles-serfs (eventually creates middleclass); capitalists-workers (eventually creates communism)
Alienated labor
We create our identities through labor and, by giving away our labor to the industrialist for cheap wages, workers lose their identities
Communist revolution
Workers will launch a communist revolution to end their oppressive conditions, the aim of which is to abolish private property
Criticism of communism
Personal greed is an important element of social progress
Marx: our more evolved human nature (species-being) and prompts us to see ourselves as part of a collective whole
E. Governmental Coercion
Introduction
Three examples: low-riding pants, lawyer jokes, offensive bumper sticker
Coercive nature of governments: to keep the peace, governments must set boundaries and punish offenders
Four Justifications
Harm principle: governments may restrict our conduct when it harms other people
Injury must be serious, not trivial
Offense principle: governments may keep us from offending others
Must be unavoidable and involve outrage; cannot be mere nuisances
Legal paternalism: governments should prevent people from harming themselves (e.g., dangerous sports)
Legal moralism: governments may restrict conduct that is especially sinful or immoral (e.g., religious blasphemy, some sex acts)
Mill’s Principle of Liberty and Harm
Mill’s principle of liberty
Individual liberty should only be restricted when our actions harm others, but not when they simply harm ourselves
Rejection of principles of offense, paternalism and moralism
Happy society argument for liberty: a wide sphere of personal liberty is essential for a happy society
Social contract argument for liberty:
To attain peace, all that we really need to do is mutually agree to avoid harming each other
The principles of offense, paternalism and moralism are not needed to maintain peace
Defense of legal paternalism
Society might be happier and my life will be safer if the government paternalistically protects us from our most stupid and harmful acts against ourselves
F. War
Introduction
War of Texan Freedom example
Just War Theory
Initially waging war (jus ad bellum)
Just cause: e.g., resisting serious aggression
Right intention: e.g., returning to the state of peace prior to an outside invasion
Wrong intentions: nationalism, acquire land, plunder the resources of another country, vengeance, vent racial hatred
Proper authority: the war must be publicly announced by the legitimate authority and made known to the enemy
Reasonable success: it is wrong to sacrifice human lives and squander economic resources if the outcome of a war is unlikely
Conducting war (jus in bello)
Discrimination: both sides of the conflict must identify legitimate targets
Can’t target civilians in residential neighborhoods
Proportionality: should only use the amount of force that is required to achieve their goal
Weapons of mass destruction typically go beyond the goal
Pacifism
Types of pacifism
Absolute pacifism: all wars, with no exception, are wrong
Conditional pacifism:
Religious justifications for pacifism
War is contrary to religious teachings
Limitations: only for believers who adopt a specifically pacifistic understanding of their faith
Secular justifications
Cost/benefit analysis: benefits of war never outweigh their costs – particularly in modern warfare
Problem: with quick and limited wars, sometimes the benefits outweigh the costs
Killing innocent people: war violates our foundational duty to avoid killing innocent people
Free rider criticism: pacifist themselves enjoy the benefits of a protected society without participating in its defense
Pacifist response: pacifists are forced to live in a society controlled by warmongers who continually reject more peaceful solutions
KNOWLEDGE
Introduction
Heaven's Gate example
Epistemology: the philosophical study of the concept of knowledge
Two kinds of knowledge
Procedural knowledge: regarding skills that we have to perform specific chores
Propositional knowledge: regarding some fact or state of affairs in the world
A. Skepticism
Introduction
Philosophical skepticism: there are grounds for doubting claims that we typically take for granted
Radical Skepticism
Local and radical skepticism
Local skepticism: focuses on a particular claim, such as the belief that God exists
Radical skepticism: that all of our beliefs are subject to doubt
Pyrrhonian skepticism: we can prefer one interpretation of facts above another, and thus should suspend belief
Human Skepticism: the human reasoning process is inherently contradictory
Cartesian Skepticism: our entire understanding of the world may just be an illusion, and this possibility casts doubt on any knowledge claim
e.g., evil demon, brain in a vat, matrix
Criticisms of Radical Skepticism
I know one truth: I exist
Skeptic's response: wrongly assumes that the "I" is unified (relies too much on memory)
Can't live as skeptics in our normal lives
Skeptic's response: natural beliefs override our skeptical doubts, but the doubts are still legitimate
Radical skepticism is self-refuting (i.e., “We know with certainty that we cannot know any belief with certainty”)
Skeptic's response: through expels the skeptic's thesis itself (a higher level of skepticism)
Radical skepticism has an unrealistically high standard of knowledge
Skeptic's response: this doesn't refute radical skepticism, but surrenders to it
B. Sources of Knowledge
Introduction
Definitions of experiential and non-experiential knowledge
Experiential Knowledge (a posteriori)
Perception: five senses
Limitations: sensory illusions
Introspection: directly experiencing our own mental states
Limitations: can misdescribe experiences
Memory:
Limitations: memory is not always reliable
Testimony: reports from other people
Limitations: high likelihood of error
Extrasensory perception: telepathically, clairvoyance
Limitations: no evidence to support ESP
Religious experience: knowledge through faith and prophetic knowledge
Limitations: faith entails lacking evidence; prophecies can’t be tested
Non-Experiential (a priori) Knowledge
Examples: math, logic, “All bachelors are unmarried men”
Necessity: can never be false (experiential knowledge is contingent)
Analyticity: denying it is self-contradictory (experiential knowledge is synthetic)
Rationalism and Empiricism
Rationalism
Innate ideas
Deductive reasoning (e.g., geometry, logic)
Empiricism
No innate ideas
Inductive reasoning (e.g., generalizations from experience)
Kant
Kant's solution: innate organizing structures in our minds that automatically systematize our raw experiences
C. The Definition of Knowledge
Introduction
JTB definition of knowledge: knowledge is justified true belief
Justified True Belief
Truth
Possible counter-instance: scientists in the middle ages claimed to know that the earth was flat
Response: knowledge claim was premature
Belief
Possible counter-instance: "I know I'm growing old, but I don't believe it!"
Response: we really mean we can’t imagine ourselves growing old
Justification
Possible counter-instance: "I know that my employees are stealing from me, but I can't prove it"
Response: this is really about strongly belief
The Gettier Problem
Point of Gettier's argument: some instances of justified true belief do not count as genuine knowledge
Red ball example: red ball is illuminated by a red light; we have JTB, but this really doesn’t count as knowledge since it’s a lucky guess (even a white ball would appear red under the effects of the light)
No defeater solution: add a fourth criterion of knowledge: There is no additional fact that would make my belief unjustified (for example, a fact about a red light).
Truth, Justification and Relativism
Theories of Truth
Correspondence theory: a statement is true if it corresponds to fact or reality
Criticism: don’t have access to reality
Coherence theory: a statement is true if it coheres with a larger set of beliefs
Our statements mesh with a larger web of beliefs that support them
Criticism: relativistic since webs of belief change
Deflationary theory: the concept of truth is unnecessary; to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself
Adding “is true” may be rhetorically helpful, but it adds no substance
Theories of Justification
Foundationalism: justified beliefs are arranged like bricks in a wall, with the lower ones supporting the upper ones
Ground-level basic beliefs are self-evident, or self-justifying
Justification transfers up from my foundational basic beliefs to those non-basic beliefs that rest upon them
e.g., “My car is white” (non-basic belief) rests on “I recognize the car in front of me as my car” (basic belief), “I remember what white things look like”, “The car in front of me looks white” (basic belief)
Criticism: it is not clear that there really are any self-evident basic beliefs
Coherentism: justification is structured like a web where the strength of any given area depends on the strength of the surrounding areas
No bottom-level foundation to these beliefs
e.g., belief systems that justify the beliefs that “Bill killed Charlie,” that “God exists,” or that “abortion is immoral,”
Criticism: not everyone’s belief system is the same
Reliabilism: justified beliefs are those that are the result of a reliable process (e.g., a reliable memory process or a reliable perception process)
Clock metaphor: we trust reliable clocks without inspecting the internal gears; we trust reliable mental process without inspecting how beliefs are connected
Foundationalism and Coherentism rely too much on introspection
What’s so Bad about Relativism?
Acceptable types of relativism
Etiquette relativism: correct standards of protocol and good manners depend on one’s culture
Aesthetic relativism: artistic judgments depend on the conceptual framework of the viewer
Perceptual relativism: sensory perceptions depend on the perceiver
Controversial types of relativism
Truth relativism: truth depends upon one’s conceptual framework (denies correspondence theory)
Justification relativism: what counts as evidence for our beliefs depends upon one’s conceptual framework (denies foundationalism and accepts coherentism)
Nietzsche: there are many perspectives from which the world can be interpreted when we make judgments
Some justification relativists deny the universal nature of so-called laws of logic
Criticism: truth and justification relativism is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept
e.g., (Beattie) “it is just a matter of custom that chickens lay eggs,” “it’s possible for 2+2=6.”
Response (Nietzsche): there are competing perspectives of the world, and the winner is the one whose conceptual framework succeeds the best
Scientific Knowledge
Introduction
Theory of intelligent falling
Confirming Theories
Three scientific concepts
Scientific hypothesis, which is any proposed explanation of a natural event
Scientific theory, which is a well confirmed hypothesis
Scientific law which is a theory that has a great amount of evidence in its support
Types of confirmation
Simplicity: when evaluating two rival theories, the simplest theory is the one most likely to be true; e.g., Copernicus vs. Ptolemy
Unification: good scientific theories should be able to explain a wide range of phenomena; the more information explained by a theory, the better (e.g., universal gravity)
Successful prediction: good scientific theories should be able to predict new phenomena (e.g., using universal gravity to predict Neptune from movements in Uranus)
Falsifiability: it must be theoretically possible for a scientific claim to be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment
Eliminates pseudo-scientific theories (Heaven’s Gate believers, fortune tellers)
Scientists take a risk that what they propose might be disproved by the facts
Scientific Revolutions
Scientific revolution: radical new scientific theories that replace previous assumptions about the world and set science on a dramatically new course (e.g., Copernican revolution)
Paradigm shifts (Kuhn): scientific revolutions are the result of changing paradigms
Paradigm: the web of scientific beliefs held in common by members of the scientific community
Implication: our present theories are not built upon the secure foundation of past theories
Criticism: not all scientific revolutions overthrow previous theories, and most seek to encompass much of the theory and data of previous scientific investigations