Introduction to Philosophy

1
The Love of Wisdom
Steven B. Cowan James S. Spiegel
2
Introduction to Philosophy
3
What is Philosophy?

• Philo Sophia Love of Wisdom
• (love) (wisdom)
• Philosophy is about gaining insights into the
  Big Questions which culminate in a life
  well-lived.

4
What is Philosophy?

• The Big Questions
• What is the meaning of life?
• What are human beings?
• Where did we come from?
• Are we responsible for how we live?
• What happens after we die?
• Is there a God? If so, what is God like?
• What is real and what is mere appearance?
• Can we know the answers to such questions?
• Can we know anything at all?

5
Philosophical Method

• The Socratic Method
• Dialectic
• Socratic Ignorance
• The pursuit of virtue
• Defining Terms
• Using Arguments
• Identifying Presuppositions

6
Introduction to Philosophy

• Unit 1
• The Study of Knowledge

7
A Little Bit of Logic

• The Three Laws of Thought
• Law of Non-Contradiction
• Law of Excluded Middle
• Law of Identity
• Arguments
• Deductive
• Inductive
• Validity a property of deductive arguments in
  which, if the premises are true, the conclusion
  must be true.
• Soundness a property of deductive arguments
  that are valid and have true premises.

8
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms

• Categorical Syllogisms
• All M are P
• All S are M
• ? All S are P
• No M are P
• All S are M
• ? No S are P

III. All M are P Some S are M ? Some S are P
9
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms

• IV. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
• If P then Q
• If Q then R
• ? If P then R
• V. Modus Ponens
• If P then Q
• P
• ? Q

VI. Modus Tollens If P then Q not-Q ? not-P
10
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms

• VII. Disjunctive Syllogism
• Either P or Q
• not-P
• ? Q
• VIII. Constructive Dilemma
• If P then Q
• If R then S
• Either P or R
• ? Q or S

11
A Little Bit of Logic
Some Valid Argument Forms

• IX. Reductio ad Absurdum
• Assume P (the claim to be proven false)
• . . .
• Q
• not-Q
• ? not-P

?
Contradiction!!!
12
A Little Bit of Logic

• Some Formal Fallacies

The Undistributed Middle All P is M All S is
M ? All S is P Affirming the Consequent If P
then Q Q ? P
Denying the Antecedent If P then Q not-P ?
not-Q Affirming a Disjunct Either P or Q P ?
not-Q
13
A Little Bit of Logic

• Some Informal Fallacies

Division False Cause Hasty Generalization Biased
Generalization
False Dilemma Begging the Question Argument from
Ignorance Equivocation Straw Man Attacking the
Person Appeal to Popularity Composition
14
The Question of Truth

• Is Anything True?

• Relativism the view that there are no objective
  truths.
• Subjectivism what counts as true is a matter
  of individual preference
• Conventionalism what counts as true is a
  matter of cultural preference
• Objectivism the view that truth is a real
  feature of the world that is independent of
  personal or cultural preference

15
The Question of Truth
Is Anything True?
There are no absolute truths. All truth-claims
are socially conditioned. It is logically
impossible that truth is relative!
16
The Question of Truth

• What is Truth?

Correspondence Theory of Truth A proposition is
true if and only if it corresponds to the way
things actually are. The Coherence Theory of
Truth A proposition is true if and only if it
coheres with the set of beliefs that a person
holds. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth A
proposition is true if and only if it is useful
to the believer in achieving desirable results.
17
Can We Know?

• The Skeptical Challenge

• Skeptical hypothesis any logically possible
  scenario that we apparently cannot rule out and
  would, if true, call most or all of our ordinary
  commonsense beliefs into question
• If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some
  belief p of mine, then I do not know p.
• There is a skeptical hypothesis for p.
• 3. Therefore, I do not know p.

18
Can We Know?

• The Rationalist Response

• Rationalism the view that all knowledge comes
  through human reason
• Descartes Argument for Material Things
• I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being
  (i.e., God).
• Only an absolutely perfect being could be the
  cause of my idea of it.
• Therefore, God exists.
• God, by definition, is not a deceiver.
• God is the cause of all my cognitive faculties.
• Since God is not a deceiver, He would not give me
  cognitive faculties that are unreliable.
• My senses give me ideas of (alleged) material
  objects.
• Therefore, material objects exist.

19
Can We Know?

• The Empiricist Response

• Empiricism the view that all knowledge arises
  from sense experience
• Distinction between Sensation Reflection
• The Representational Theory of Perception
• Humes Skeptical Critique
• We can only know our sensory impressions.
• We cannot know causal connections.
• We have no metaphysical knowledge.

20
Can We Know?

• Do We Need Certainty?
• 1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some
  belief p of mine, then I do not know p.
• Degrees of Certainty
• 3 Beyond all doubt
• 2 Beyond a reasonable doubt
• 1 More probable than not
• 0 Equally probable and improbable

21
What is Knowledge?

• Different Kinds of Knowledge
• Procedural Knowledge
• Experiential/Acquaintance Knowledge
• Propositional Knowledge
• I know that bachelors are unmarried.
• I know that the Earth is spherical.
• I know that Cowan is really cool.

22
What is Knowledge?

• The JTB Account
• S knows p if and only if
• S believes p,
• p is true, and
• S is justified in believing p.
• The Gettier Problem It appears that there are
  counterexamples to the JTB account that show that
  justified true belief is not sufficient for
  knowledge.

23
What is Knowledge?

• Solutions to the Gettier Problem
• Strengthening the justification condition
• Adding a fourth condition
• The No-False-Belief condition
• The Defeasibility condition
• Replacing the justification condition
  (reliabilism)

For S to know p there must be no true proposition
q which, if S were to come to justifiably believe
q, he would no longer be justified in believing p.
24
What is Knowledge?

• Internalism vs. Externalism
• Internalism the view that in order for a belief
  to be justified, a person must have cognitive
  access to the justifying grounds for his belief
• Externalism the view that in order for a belief
  to be justified, it is not necessary that a
  person have cognitive access to the justifying
  grounds for his belief but only that his belief
  be produced in an appropriate way

25
What is Knowledge?

• Virtue Epistemology
• Intellectual Virtue an intellectual habit
  that predisposes a person to acquire beliefs in
  such a way that their beliefs are more likely
  than not to be true
• S knows p only if p is acquired through
• an act of intellectual virtue.

26
What is the Structure of Justification?
Foundationalism

• A belief p is justified for a person S if and
  only if (1) p is a properly basic belief for S
  or (2) p is ultimately based on a properly basic
  belief for S.
• Classical Foundationalism
• A belief B is properly basic for a person S if
  and only if B is (1) self-evident to S, (2)
  incorrigible for S, or (3) evident to the sense
  of S.
• Modest Foundationalism
• A belief B is properly basic for a person S if it
  is (1) evidently true to S and (2) S is unaware
  of any undefeated defeaters of B.

27
What is the Structure of Justification?
The Regress Argument for Foundationalism
Suppose one says that p is justified by q, and q
by r, etc. Then, either 1. The regress comes
to an end with a justifying belief x that is
itself unjustified, 2. The regress continues
infinitely, 3. The regress is circular, or 4.
The regress comes to an end with a
justifying belief x that is itself justified
immediately apart from other beliefs. Problem
The myth of the given
28
What is the Structure of Justification?
Coherentism

• A belief p is justified for S if and only if it
  fits within a coherent system of beliefs of S.
• Problems
• The isolation problem
• The alternative coherent systems problem
• The regress problem

29
What is the Structure of Justification?
Contextualism
A belief is justified relative to a specific
context beliefs that are justified in one
context might not be justified in other
contexts. The Relevant Alternatives View A
belief p is justified for S in a specific context
if S can rule out all the relevant alternatives
in that context.
30
What is the Structure of Justification?
Problems for Contextualism

• If a person is not justified in a broader
  context, why would he be justified in the
  narrower context? Wouldnt justification in the
  latter presuppose justification in the former?
• Contextualism seems committed to the view that an
  epistemic regress comes to an end with justifying
  beliefs that are unjustified.
• Contextualism assumes that knowledge requires
  absolute certainty.

31
What is Science?

• The definition problem
• The presuppositions of science
• The laws of thought
• The general reliability of sense perception
• The law of causality
• The uniformity of nature
• Values

32
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Scientific Realism

• The view that scientific theories properly aim
  to provide a true account of the physical world.
• Inductivism
• The process of confirmation
• The problem of induction
• Falsificationism

33
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Scientific Non-realism

• Truth is not the real aim of science.
• 1. Instrumentalism The aim of scientific
  theories is not to describe the world but to
  solve problems. Theories are preferred because
  of their usefulness.
• Problem Why are some theories more useful than
  others?

34
The Nature of Scientific Theory
2. Kuhns Philosophy of Science

• Scientific observation is theory-laden.
• The history of science proceeds through paradigm
  shifts.
• Paradigm a theoretical model and set of
  problem-solving techniques which guide scientific
  inquiry
• Rival paradigms are incommensurable.

35
The Nature of Scientific Theory
Objections to Kuhns View

1. Kuhns view cant explain the progress of
   science.
2. Kuhns view cant explain why some scientific
   theories are rejected after crucial tests.
3. Kuhns view undermines itself.

36
The Nature of Scientific Theory
3. Feyerabends View of Science

• Science as mythology
• The tyranny of science and the social ideal of
  methodological neutrality
• Problem Feyerabends view cant explain
  the progress or practical achievements of
  science.

37
The Laws of Nature
Perspectives on the Laws of Nature

1. The regularity view (Hume) The laws of nature
   are mere descriptions of physical regularities.
2. The instrumentalist view (Dewey) The laws of
   nature are useful fictions.
3. The necessitarian view (Chalmers) Regularities
   in nature are due to (logical or causal)
   necessity.
4. The theistic view (Swinburne) The laws of
   nature are an aspect of divine providence.

38
Science and Theology

• Two Kinds of Naturalism
• Metaphysical naturalism
• Methodological naturalism
• Theistic Science
• Problems with methodological naturalism
• Intelligent design theory

39
Introduction to Philosophy
Unit 2 The Study of Being
40
Obstacles to Metaphysics
Kantian Epistemology

• His Copernican Revolution
• Distinction between noumena and phenomena
• Noumena the unknowable real world beyond
  the mind
• Phenomena the knowable world of appearances
  organized by the mind.
• Problems
• Noumena/Phenomena distinction is self-defeating.
• Leads to radical relativism and antirealism.

41
Obstacles to Metaphysics

• Logical Positivism
• Elevates science as a privileged way of knowing
  and seeks to eradicate speculative metaphysics
• Verification Principle A proposition is
  meaningful if and only if it is empirically
  verifiable in principle.
• Problem Verification principle is self-defeating

42
What is the Nature of the World?

• What is the underlying stuff of reality?
• The problem of the one and the many
• Three Major Views
• Dualism
• Materialism
• Idealism

43
What is the Nature of the World?
Dualism

• Reasons For
• Solves the problem of the one and the many
• The difficulty of a materialist view of the mind
• Evidence for Gods Existence
• Supports life after death
• Biblical evidence (Gen. 11 Matt. 1028 2 Cor.
  58, etc)

44
What is the Nature of the World?
Dualism

• Reasons Against
• The interaction problem
• Ockhams Razor

45
What is the Nature of the World?
Materialism

• Hard determinism
• Atomism
• Reasons For
• Ockhams Razor
• Problem of the one and the many
• Mind-body problem
• The origin of the universe
• The Progress of Science

46
What is the Nature of the World?
Materialism

• Reasons Against
• Inconsistent with Christian belief
• Ockhams Razor???
• Evidence for God
• Mind-body correlation does not imply materialism
• Undermines responsibility and life after death
• Requires nominalism
• Progress of science requires scientific realism

47
What is the Nature of the World?
Materialism

• Plantingas Argument Against
• If materialism is true, then our cognitive
  faculties aim at survival not truth (because
  materialism assumes Darwinism).
• If our cognitive faculties aim at survival not
  truth, then we have good reason to doubt that our
  beliefs are true (because false beliefs can
  ensure survival as well as true ones).
• If we have good reason to doubt that our beliefs
  are true, then the materialist has good reason to
  doubt that materialism is true.
• 4. Therefore, if materialism is true, then the
  materialist has good reason to doubt that
  materialism is true.

48
What is the Nature of the World?
Idealism

• Reasons For
• Ockhams Razor
• Avoids the interaction problem and problems with
  a material view of the mind
• Consistent with Christian theism, moral
  responsibility, and life after death
• Does not require nominalism
• Matter is unnecessary and leads to skepticism
• Matter is absurd
• The Master Argument for the inconceivability of
  matter

49
What is the Nature of the World?
Idealism

• Reasons Against
• The Direct Realist response?
• Its possible to defend the coherence of matter
• The Master Argument is invalid
• Common sense?

50
Are There Universals?
Platonism (Realism)

• The view that universals are real
• What is a universal?
• Abstract entities
• Multiply instantiable
• Eternal and necessary
• Kinds of Universals
• Properties
• Relations
• Propositions

51
Are There Universals?
Platonism (Realism)

• Reasons For
• A straight-forward explanation of resemblance
• A ready account of predication

52
Are There Universals?
Nominalism

• The view that there are no universals only
  particulars exist
• Extreme Nominalism
• Denies the existence of properties, relations,
  and propositions altogether
• Reduces predication to assertions of set
  membership
• Reduces resemblance to shared set membership
• Problems
• Reduction to set membership fails to preserve
  meaning
• The Companionship Problem

53
Are There Universals?
Nominalism

• Moderate Nominalism (Trope Theory)
• Admits the existence of properties, but sees them
  as abstract particulars
• Reduces predication to membership of tropes in
  sets of tropes
• Reduces resemblance to similarity of tropes,
  making resemblance a brute fact
• Problems
• Making resemblance a brute fact is implausible
• Making resemblance a brute fact suggest that
  judgments concerning resemblance could be
  conventional

54
Are There Universals?
Nominalism

• Nominalism and Ethics
• All version of nominalism reject the existence of
  universal essences such as dogness, humanness,
  etc.
• But this means that there is no objective
  definition of concepts like humanity (i.e.,
  what counts as human is merely conventional)
• But this means that human rights and who has them
  is conventional.
• But this means that morality is conventional.

55
Are There Universals?
Conceptualism

• Views universals as mental concepts
• Problems
• Implies that if there were no mental concepts,
  there would be no properties
• Cannot explain resemblance
• But these problems can be avoided on theism!
• But then it seems that conceptualism becomes a
  form of Platonism!

56
What is a Particular Thing?

• The Bundle Theory
• Particulars are bundles of properties.
• The Substratum View
• Particulars are bare substrata that bear
  properties.
• The Substance View
• Natural-kind particulars are irreducibly basic.

57
Do We Have Souls?
Mind-Body (Substance) Dualism

• The view that the mind and body are two distinct
  substances
• Arguments For
• Argument from Subjectivity
• Argument from Qualia
• Argument from Intentionality
• Arguments Against
• The Problem of Causal Overdetermination
• The Interaction Problem
• Possible Response Occasionalism?

58
Do We Have Souls?
Physicalism

• The view that the mind is fully explainable in
  terms of natural processes
• Five Versions
• Philosophical Behaviorism
• Strict Identity Theory
• Eliminative Materialism
• Functionalism
• Property Dualism

59
What is Personal Identity?
The Memory View

• A person at a certain time is the numerically
  identical person at a later time just in case he
  has memories of that earlier time.
• Problems
• Transitivity Problems
• The Circularity Problem

60
What is Personal Identity?
The Physical View

• Personal identity depends on maintaining
  relevant physical characteristics.
• The Body Criterion A person at a certain time
  is the numerically identical person at a later
  time just in case he is the same body at both
  times.
• The Brain Criterion A person at a certain time
  is the numerically identical person at a later
  time just in case he is the same brain at both
  times.
• The Causal Continuity Criterion A body (or
  brain) is the same body (or brain) from one time
  to a later time just in case the parts that
  compose the body at the later time are causally
  continuous with those parts that composed the
  body at the earlier time.

61
What is Personal Identity?
The Soul View

• A person at a certain time is the numerically
  identical person at a later time just in case he
  is (or has) the same soul at both times.
• Problems
• The Fission Problem
• An Arbitrariness Problem

62
Do We Have Free Will?

• Incompatibilism The view that freedom and
  determinism are not logically consistent
• The Consequence Argument
• If determinism is true, then our actions are the
  consequences of the laws of nature and events in
  the remote past.
• It is not in our power to change the laws of
  nature.
• It is not in our power to change events in the
  remote past.
• If our actions are the consequences of the laws
  of nature and events in the remote past, and it
  is not in our power to change these things, then
  we cannot do otherwise than what we do.
• If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then
  we are not free.
• Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are
  not free.

63
Do We Have Free Will?
Incompatibilism

• Hard Determinism determinism is true human
  freedom and responsibility are illusions.
• Libertarianism determinism is false human
  beings have the power of contrary choice.
• Problems
• Makes it impossible to hold people accountable
  for their actions.
• Contrary to Scripture.

64
Do We Have Free Will?
Incompatibilism

• Libertarianism determinism is false human
  beings have the power of contrary choice.
• Reasons for
• Consequence Argument
• Introspection Argument
• Scripture?

65
Do We Have Free Will?

• The Libertarians Dilemma
• 1. If a persons actions are determined, then her
  actions are not under her control (because she
  lacks the ability to do otherwise).
• 2. If a persons actions are undetermined, then
  her actions are not under her control (because
  they happen by chance).
• 3. Therefore, whether a persons actions are
  determined or undetermined, they are not under
  her control.

66
Do We Have Free Will?
Compatibilism

• Free will the ability to do what one wants
  to do.
• Response to the Consequence Argument
• The conditional analysis of ability to do
  otherwise.
• Challenge to the assumption that freedom and
  responsibility require the ability to do
  otherwise.
• Frankfurt-type Counterexamples

67
Is There Life After Death?

• The Argument from Substance Dualism
• The Argument from Theism and Ultimate Justice
• The Evidence of Near-death Experiences

68
Is There Life After Death?

• What about Reincarnation?
• Evidence For Apparent memories of past
  lives.
• Problems
• Alternative explanations for apparent memories
• Concerns over personal identity
• Concerns about justice

69
Does God Exist?

• Anselms Ontological Argument
• I have an idea of the greatest conceivable being
  (GCB).
• That which exists in reality (and not only in my
  mind) is greater than that which exists only in
  my mind.
• If the GCB exists only in my mind, then the GCB
  would not be the GCB (because I can conceive of
  it existing in reality, not only in my mind).
• ? The GCB exists in reality.

70
Does God Exist?

• Aquinas Cosmological Argument
• There is an order of causes in the world.
• Nothing can be the cause of itself.
• Hence, everything that is caused is caused by
  something else.
• There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
• ? There must be a first, uncaused cause.

71
Does God Exist?

• Paleys Teleological Argument
• A watch has many complex working parts and is
  intelligently designed.
• The universe has many complex working parts.
• ? The universe is probably intelligently designed.

72
Does God Exist?

• The Fine-tuning Argument
• The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either
  necessity, chance, or intelligent design.
• The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to
  necessity or chance.
• ? The fine-tuning of the universe is due to
  intelligent design.

73
Does God Exist?

• The Kalam Cosmological Argument
• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• b) The universe began to exist.
• 1. If the universe had no beginning, then an
  actually infinite number of events would have
  occurred prior to the present moment.
• 2. It is impossible that an actually infinite
  number of events occur prior to the present
  moment.
• ? Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

74
Does God Exist?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument c) The cause of
the universe was God.
Eternal Changeless/Immutable Immaterial
Uncaused Enormously Powerful Personal Good
75
Do We Need Arguments for God?

• Evidentialism the view that it is wrong or
  irrational to hold a belief without sufficient
  evidence.
• Implication Belief in God is wrong or irrational
  unless based on good arguments.
• Problem Based in discredited classical
  foundationalism.
• Reformed Epistemology the view that belief in
  God can be properly basic.
• Objections
• Reformed Epistemology would allow any belief to
  be properly basic (The Great Pumpkin Objection).
• Reformed Epistemology makes belief in God immune
  to criticism.

76
What Is God Like?

• Views on Divine Omnipotence
• Aquinas Omnipotence is the power to do anything
  that is logically possible.
• Ockham Omnipotence is the power to do anything
  at all, even to defy the law of
  noncontradiction.
• Problems with Ockhams View
• Even to pose the possibility of violating the law
  of noncontradiction is nonsensical.
• It assumes the laws of logic are distinct from
  God.

77
What Is God Like?

• Views on Gods Relationship to Time
• Atemporalism the view that God transcends time
  God is not essentially temporal
• Arguments for
• Scientific evidence for the relativity of time
• Biblical evidence that time had a beginning (1
  Cor. 27 2 Tim. 19, Titus 12)

78
What Is God Like?

• Views on Gods Relationship to Time
• 2. Sempiternalism the view that God is
  essentially temporal God is bound by time
• Arguments for
• Only temporal beings can be truly personal.
• God relates to human beings in time (Jer. 187-8
  Exod. 3214 Jonah 310, etc.).

79
What Is God Like?

• Views on Gods Relationship to Time
• 3. Omnitemporalism God is timeless without the
  universe and temporal with the universe (Craig)
• Arguments for both atemporalism and
  sempiternalism count in favor of omnitemporalism.
• Problem This view seems to imply that God
  changes (from an atemporal to a temporal being)
  upon creation of the world.

80
What Is God Like?

• The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge
• If God foreknows all future human actions, then
  how can we be free?
• If God knows today that Jones will mow his lawn
  tomorrow, can Jones be free with respect to
  mowing his lawn tomorrow?

81
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions to the problem of divine
foreknowledge

• 1. Compatibilist solution Human freedom is
  compatible with determinism.
• Problem This approach is dependent on the
  definition of freedom as the ability to do what
  one wants.

82
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions

• 2. Open theist solution God does not know all
  future events free human choices cannot be
  foreknown.
• Problem This does not square with the biblical
  evidence for exhaustive divine foreknowledge of
  human actions (e.g. Isa. 469-10 Ps. 139, etc.).

83
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions

• 3. Ockhamist solution Gods beliefs about
  future events are caused by those events.
• Problem The causation relation does not change
  the fact that Gods infallible knowledge of a
  future human action guarantees that it will
  occur.

84
What Is God Like?
Proposed solutions

• 4. Molinist solution God possesses middle
  knowledge he knows all counterfactuals of human
  freedom and thus indirectly knows all future
  human choices.
• Problem The grounding objection

85
What Is God Like?
Views on Divine Emotion

• 1. Divine impassibilism God does not experience
  emotion.
• Arguments for Appeals to divine perfection,
  divine immutability, and scripture (Mal. 36,
  James 117, etc.)
• Problem Seems to undermine divine personhood

86
What Is God Like?
Views on Divine Emotion

• 2. Divine passibilism God experiences emotion
  in a temporal way.
• Arguments for Appeals to divine personhood,
  divine omniscience, and Scripture (Exod. 414
  Prov. 112, etc.)
• Problem Seems to contradict divine immutability

87
What Is God Like?
Views on Divine Emotion

• 3. Divine omnipathism God eternally experiences
  all emotion.
• Arguments for Appeals to reasons for both
  passibilism and impassibilism
• Problem Creates difficulty in accounting for
  divine happiness.

88
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Logical Problem of Evil

• If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient,
  and omnibenevolent.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent
  evil.
• An omniscient being has the knowledge to prevent
  evil.
• An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent
  evil.
• Therefore, of God exists, there is no evil.
• Evil exists.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

89
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Logical Problem of Evil
(4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire
to prevent evil.
(4) An omnibenevolent being has a prima facie
reason to prevent evil. (4) An omnibenevolent
being has a morally sufficient reason to permit
evil, and thus an ultima facie reason to not
prevent evil.
90
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil

• If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.
• There are pointless evils.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

91
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil

• There are pointless evils.

• The Noseeum Inference
• (1) I do not see an x.
• (2) Therefore, there likely is no x.
• Rowes Noseeum Inference Concerning Gods
  Reasons for Evil
• (1) I do not see a reason why God would allow
  instance of evil x.
• (2) Therefore, there likely is no reason why
  God would allow instance of evil x.

92
How Can God Allow Evil?
The Evidential Problem of Evil
The Noseeum Rationality Principle A noseeum
inference is reasonable when it would be
reasonable to believe that we would see the item
in question if it existed. --Per Daniel
Howard-Snyder
Turning Rowes Argument on its Head (1) If God
exists, there would be no pointless evils. (2)
God exists. (3) Therefore, there are no pointless
evil.
93
Introduction to Philosophy
Unit 3 The Study of Value
94
How Should We Live?
Two Kinds of Ethical Inquiry

• Metaethics examines the meaning of ethical
  concepts and seeks to discover whether or not
  they refer to objective truths.
• Normative Ethics seeks to ascertain our ethical
  duties in light of metaethical commitments.
• An Ethical Theory is a coherent set of beliefs
  about the foundation, nature, and goals of
  morality designed to enable us to make reliable
  moral judgments.

95
How Should We Live?
Ethical Relativism
The view that there are no universally true moral
values 1. Cultural Relativism the view that
moral values are the products of the customs,
tastes, and standards of a culture, and thus are
not objectively true

• The Plurality Argument
• Moral values differ from culture to culture.
• Therefore, there is no objective moral standard.
• Problematic Implications
• We could never criticize another culture.
• Moral progress would be impossible.
• All moral reformers would be corrupt.

96
How Should We Live?
Ethical Relativism
2. Moral Subjectivism the view that moral
values are relative to each persons subjective
preferences.

• Humes Argument for Subjectivism
• All truths are either relations of ideas or
  matters of fact.
• Moral judgments are neither relations of idea nor
  matters of fact.
• Therefore, moral judgments are not objectively
  true.
• Problematic Implications
• No one would ever be mistaken in his moral
  judgments.
• People dont really disagree about moral issues.
• No behavior can be objectively praised or
  condemned.

97
How Should We Live?
Other Forms of Moral Skepticism
Emotivism the view that moral statements are
mere expressions of emotion Nihilism the
denial of all meaning and value in human life
98
How Should We Live?
Ethical Objectivism the view that there are
universally true moral values

• 1. Ethical Egoism the view that people ought
  to always pursue their own self-interest (Rand)
• Problems
• Problem of clashing self-interest
• Problem of justice
• Epistemological problems

99
How Should We Live?
2. Classical Utilitarianism (Bentham Mill)

• Principle of utility always act so as to
  promote the greatest pleasure for all involved
• Pleasure-pain calculus assess utility using
  Benthams seven criteria (intensity, duration,
  certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity,
  extent)
• Qualitative hedonism distinguish between higher
  and lower pleasures

100
How Should We Live?
2. Classical Utilitarianism

• Problems
• Problem of justice
• Problem of rights
• Difficulty in anticipating consequences
• Unreasonable demands

101
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics

• A deontological approach
• Emphasizes proper motive in action
• The good will the will that acts for the sake
  of duty alone acting out of respect for the
  moral law.
• Involves categorical not hypothetical imperatives
• The Categorical Imperative (1st Form) Act only
  on that maxim whereby you can at the same time
  will that it become a universal law.
• The Categorical Imperative (2nd Form) Act so as
  to treat humanity, whether in ones own person or
  in that of another, always as an end and never as
  a means only.

102
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics
103
How Should We Live?
3. Kantian Ethics

• Problems
• Overemphasis on moral autonomy?
• Ignores legitimate concern for consequences?
• Vagueness in formulating maxims
• Why care about rationality in ethics?
• Is acting for the sake of duty alone an
  appropriate motive?

104
How Should We Live?
4. Rule Utilitarianism

• Seeks to avoid problems of classical
  utilitarianism and Kants pure deontology.
• Rather than maximizing happiness with regard to
  individual acts, we should follow those rules
  that, when followed, tend to produce the most
  happiness for the most people.
• Problems
• It collapses into act utilitarianism
• How do we decide which rules will produce the
  most happiness?
• How do we resolve conflicts between rules?

105
How Should We Live?
5. Virtue Ethics

• Focuses on character traits in moral evaluation
  rather than on principles and actions.
• Being moral is about being a certain kind of
  person more than abiding by principles
• A good act is the act that a virtuous person
  would do.
• Strengths sanctions morally appropriate forms
  of partiality and provides personal motivation
  for acting rightly.
• Problem It cannot provide specific moral
  guidance or resolve moral dilemmas.

106
How Should We Live?
Natural Law Ethics

• A non-naturalist theory
• A teleological theory in which moral laws are
  discerned through rational reflection on Gods
  design for human beings.
• Some Principles
• Good is to be pursued and evil avoided.
• Sanctity of Life
• Principle of Double Effect
• Some Problems
• It may not provide clear direction on many moral
  issues.
• It fails to provide a strong concept of duty.
• It presupposes the existence of essences.

107
How Should We Live?
Divine Command Theory

• The view that right and wrong are determined by
  Gods will (X is right X coheres with Gods
  commands).
• Benefits
• Provides a basis for moral obligation
• Provides moral motivation
• Problem The Euthyphro Dilemma morality is
  arbitrary
• Response False Dilemma
• Modified Divine Command Theory Right and wrong
  are grounded in Gods immutably good nature, and
  His commands are one way we know whats right and
  wrong.
• The Golden Rule
• What does its application presuppose?
• How must it be qualified?

108
How Should We Live?
Toward a Complete Ethical Theory

• Moral objectivism
• The moral relevance of consequences
• The principle of universalizability
• Sanctity of human life
• Importance of moral character
• Natural law as a source of moral principles
• Divine commands as a source of moral principles
• The Golden Rule
• Why be moral?
• Because of the recognition of the authority of
  an omnipotent, holy God and his promise of
  rewards and punishments

109
What is a Just Society?
Three Important Concepts

• Justice
• Remedial
• Commercial
• Distributive
• Rights
• Negative or Positive
• Moral or Legal
• Law
• Natural Law Theory
• Legal Positivism

110
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State

• 1. Anarchy
• Anarcho-socialism
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Absolute anarchy
• Problems
• The problem of motivation
• The problem of human nature

111
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State

• 2. Monarchy
• Absolute monarchy
• Limited monarchy
• Problems
• The problem of finding a worthy leader
• The problem powers corrupting influence
• The problem of succession

112
What is a Just Society?
Theories of the State

• 3. Social Contract Theory
• Social Contract Absolutism
• Modern Liberalism
• Problems
• The problem of placing too much power in the
  hands of amateurs
• The problem of the tyranny of the majority

113
What is a Just Society?
Views on Distributive Justice

• Libertarianism The view that government should
  be small and that its primary responsibility is
  the protection of individual liberties strongly
  rejects the redistribution of wealth by
  government
• Problems
• An imbalanced emphasis on the value of personal
  autonomy
• An arbitrary restriction to considerations of
  resource transfers over resource holdings.
• Results in extreme disparities between the
  wealthy and the poor.

114
What is a Just Society?
Distributive Justice

• Socialism The view that private property should
  be prohibited and that all resources should be
  held in common by members of the society
• Problems
• An unrealistic optimism about human nature.
• Prone to degenerate into totalitarianism.

115
What is a Just Society?
Distributive Justice

• Welfare Liberalism The view that attempts a
  middle ground between libertarianism and
  socialism, seeking to uphold personal liberties
  while limiting socio-economic inequalities.
• John Rawls Theory of Justice Proposes that the
  most just society would be one founded on
  principles chosen behind a veil of ignorance
• The Principle of Equal Liberty
• The Principle of Difference

116
What is a Just Society?
Problems with Rawls Theory of Justice

• Vagueness in applying the theory.
• Presupposes that people behind the veil of
  ignorance would desire to minimize risk rather
  that maximize gain.
• Assumes that fairness in selecting principles
  guarantees the fairness of the principles.

117
What is a Just Society?
Some Theological Reflections

• On Distributive Justice
• The importance of caring for the poor
• Personal responsibility in meeting ones own
  needs
• Communitarianism?
• On Religion in the Public Square
• Argument from Pluralism
• Argument from Secularism
• The Pragmatic Argument
• On Civil Disobedience
• When the state commands what God forbids or
  forbids what God commands
• No precedent or permission for violent opposition

118
What is Art?
Definitions of Art

• Any human-made object
• Whatever is presented as art
• The product of the artistic process
• Whatever brings aesthetic pleasure
• The paradigm case approach
• Definition criteria vs. Identification criteria

119
What is Art?
The Function of Art

• Mimesisart as imitation (Aristotle)
• Expressionismart as expression of emotion
  (Collingwood)
• Formalismart as significant form (Bell)
• Marxisimart as ideology and political power
• Christian aestheticsimago Dei and world
  projection (Wolterstorff)

120
Are There Standards for Art?
Two Perspectives on Aesthetic Truth

• Aesthetic subjectivism the view that aesthetic
  judgments merely reflect personal preferences
  about art
• Aesthetic objectivism the view that beauty and
  other aesthetic qualities are objective facts
  about art objects.

121
Are There Standards for Art?
Objective standards for judging art and artistry

• Genre specific vs. non-genre-specific standards
• Aesthetic virtuesdiligence, veracity, boldness,
  etc.

122
Art and Ethics
Three Perspectives on Art and Ethics

1. Aestheticism The view that art and the artist
   are insusceptible to moral judgment. Art and
   ethics never conflict, because the creative
   artist is above morality. (Wilde, Dewey)
2. Moralism The view that moral-spiritual value is
   the sole criterion for assessing art. The only
   relevant judgments of art are ethical in nature.
   (Tolstoy)
3. Ethicism The moral qualities of an artwork
   contribute to or detract from the overall quality
   of an artwork. (Gaut)

123
A Christian View of Aesthetic Value
Why should the Christian care about aesthetics?

• The Genesis creation account (it is good)
• Bezalel and Oholiab (Exod. 35)
• Gods naturethe beauty of God, glory as an
  aesthetic quality, etc.(Augustine, Aquinas,
  Edwards)

124
Some Practical Guidelines

1. Depiction of evil vs. endorsement of evil
2. Necessary depiction vs. gratuitous depiction of
   evil
3. Depiction in service of a noble theme vs.
   depiction in service of a trivial theme
4. Provision of insight into truth vs. obscuring of
   truth
5. Final justice and personal redemption vs. moral
   lawlessness and personal hopelessness
6. Objective content of the artwork vs. subjective
   response of the audience

125
(No Transcript)