office hours: MWF[11:50-12:50] T/TH{10:40-11:40]
- all required texts on canvas
- on exams, regular sized paper cheat-sheet
- writing - 40%
- mid-term - 20%
- final - 20%
- participation(attendance, quizzes, forum posts, class interaction, office hour attendance) - 20%
- talk in class(answer/ask a question)
- talk to dr peterson in his office
- quizzes will be in the first 5 minutes of class
- IF YOU ARE LATE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE UP THE QUIZ
- posts and responses to posts on the forums will be eligble to earn points
- argument clinics happen every friday
- when you miss a point, visit office hours, speak up in class, or post on non-argument clinic forums
- 5 unexcused absences without penalty
- on the 6th absence, you PARTICIPATION GRADE(20%) will become a 0 for the semester
- ai is completely unallowed, including products like Grammarly
- ask dr peterson what constitutes a substantive office hour visit
- ask dr peterson how we are to go about getting an absence excused
- ask him what epistemic injustice means
- if you cannot make office hours, send him an email with available times
- what is "philosophy" about?
- biology: the study of life; theory of evolution, makeup of organisms
- history: past human events; wars, civilization, revolutions, etc.
- philosophy: there is topic that is exclusive to the field of philosophy
- what do you do?
- biology: experiments, measurments, compilation of data, field work
- history: reading primary sources, analysis, cross-referencing
- philosophy: thinking ---> argument
- argument: a set of declarative sentences(can be either true of false) one of which(conclusion) is supposed to follow from the others(premises)
- every argument has only exactly one conclusion, but arguments can be nested within one another
- standard logical form: number your premises and conclusion; put your conclusion at the bottom and separate it by a line from the premises
- theorem: an argument with no premises(??????)[what]
- only declarative sentences can be true or false, not arguments
- deductive validity: an argument is valid just in case(if and only if), if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true or it is impossible for the
premise to be true and the conclusion false.
- counterexamples are used to demonstrate that an argument is invalid
- modus ponens = if a is true, then b is true; a is true; therefore b is true
- modus tollens = if a, then b, b is false; therefore a is false
- these arguments are always valid
- deductive soundness: a valid argument where all the premises are true
- inductive strength: an argument is strong just in case(if and only if) the conclusion is probably true or its unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
- cogency: an argument is cogent if it is inductively strong and the premises are true
- an arugment can be more strong or less strong, but not more valid or less valid
- a counterexamaple does not have to be realistic, just merely possible
- arugment analysis steps:
1. what is the conclusion?
2. is it valid?
3.if yes, is it sound? if no, is it strong?
4. if it is strong, is it cogent?
- THE PRINCIPAL OF CHARITY
- interpret other's arguments in a way that is most reasonable
- argument 3: conclusion = a, invalid, weak
- argument 4: conclusion = c, valid, unsound
- argument 5: conclusion = c, valid. unsound
- argument 6: conclusion = b, invalid, strong
- argument 7: conclusion: = b, invalid, strong
quizzes will be on mondays and wednesdays
- philosophy essays are not personal
- the goal of philosophical writing is to provide a persuasive argument
- first person pronouns are allowed in writing but be wary of how you speak of yourself
2 virtues of philosophical writing:
- truth
- clarity
- assume your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean
- define your terms
- remind the reader of your earlier points
- draw out your conclusions and premises
- never assume that your reader is charitable
thesis statement: 1 clearly marked sentence in your introduction that provides the conclusion/central claim(inlcude framework) that includes support
- "in this paper, i will argue that...C...b/c S..."
example time
give an arguemnt that all college classes should/should not be pass/fail
in this paper i will argue that all college classes should not be pass/fail because pass/fail grading doesn't account for difference in human achievement.
all college students need to learn how to argue, and philosophy classes do the best job of teaching students how to argue,
so all students should be required to take a philosophy class
thesis: This paper will argue that the given argument is unsound because the premises do not necessitate the conclusion, as other classes can teach argumentation well, so students can be required to take other classes.
thesis 2: This paper will argue that the given argument is unsound because the premise that all college students need to learn how to argue is false.
- level 2 = 1 paragraph essay
1. background(2ish sent.): tell your reader what they need to know how to make sense of your thesis statement
2. thesis statement(1 sent.)
3. argument/reasons(2ish sent.)
4. objection(1 sent.): an objection to your argument, not the original argument, nor your conclusion
5. response(1 sent.)
- level 3 = 300-400 word essay
no thesis statement
the goal is to explain as clearly as possible someone else's arguments
1. works cited section and in-text citations
2. creative examples
- level 4 = 800-1,000 word essay
1. background
2. thesis
3. argument/reasons
4. examples
5. objections
6. response
7. conclusion
8. works cited page
Plato's Apology:
- written by plato about his teacher socrates
accusers: meletus, anytus
explicit charges: corrupting the youth, impiety
implicit charges: arrogant, persuasive, annoyance
ceraphon goes to delphi and asks the oracle who is wisest, to which the oracle responds socrates
socrates is simply on a mission to find a man who is wiser than him
every man he investigates thinks he has knowledge in areas in which he does not
socratic wisdom: knowing whar(or that) you do not know; knowing the limits of your knowledge
Socrates's formal charges:
- impiety
- corrupting the youth
design arguments
- what do we mean by "God"?
3 Os
- omnipotent(all-powerful)
- omniscient(all-knowing)
- omnibenevolent(morally perfect)
narrow theism: a belief that a 3O god exists
narrow agnosticism: does not believe or disbelieve in a 3O god
narrow atheism: a belief that a 3O god does not exist
paley's watchmaker argument
what makes the watchmaker's watch special?
- complex parts that work together?
- does a thing that only an intelligent being would care about?
- rarity?
- fragility and function?
1. everything "like a watch" must have a designer
2. nature is "like a watch"
3. nature has a designer
inconsistent triad: 3 claims that cannot all be true
- claim 1: God is omnipotent
- claim 2: God is omnibenevolent
- claim 3: evil exists
a narrow atheist would reject 1/2
for the sake of this class, evil is pain and suffering
responses
- free will
- prevents worse suffering
- evil gets us something good
- soul-making, virtue
- human improvement
- evil is necessary for life
- allows for growth
- allows for justice
- job defense
cheat sheet: 8.5 x 11, front & back, hand-written notes
section 1: definitions
section 2: "essay" questions(multi-part questions answered in paragraph form)
ethics: what should i do?
- use moral intuition
- use moral principles
neither stands on its own; relective equilibrium
greatest happiness principle: do whatever leads to the greatest overall happiness for all affected
consequentialism: only the consequences of our actions matter morally
hedonism: pleasure is the primary good, pain is the primary evil
egalitarianism: everyone matters equally, morally speaking
utilitarianism = consequentialism + hedonism + egalitarianism
intrinsic value: something valuable in and of itself
instrumental value: something valuable because of what it can do for you
i was sick and missed class today
utilitarian decision procedure
- 1. determine available options
- 2. list affected parties
- 3. determine pleasures and pains associated with each option for each affected party
- 4. compare the pleasures and pains associated with each option to each other to determine the option that leads to the greatest overall happiness
- 5. do that action
pleasures and pain can differ in:
quantity: bentham's felicific calculus(extent, intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity[how soon?], fecundity[followed by others?], purity)
quality: experience; experts
i skipped, its homecoming
i skipped again, its homecoming
kantian decision procudure:
1. list available options
2. generate reasonable maxims that favor each option
3. test each maxim using the ulfci(universal law formulation of the categorical imperative)
4. test each maxim using the hfci(humanity formulation of the categorical imperative)
5. we may permissibly follow any maxim that passes both tests
universal law formulation of the categorical imperative: follow only those maxims that don't lead to a contradiction if everyone follows them
willing a contradiction(logical contradiction)
contradiction of the wills(psychological contradiction)
humanity formulation of the categorical imperative(hfci): follow only those maxims that treat others as ends in themselves, never as a mere means
person: a rational, reasoning individual deserving of respect
realm of ends formulation of the categorical imperative: we must be autonomous and follow laws we make for ourselves
objections to kantianism:
- lying being always wrong
- so many maxims!
naturalistic fallacy: deriving an "ought" from an "is"; that people ought to act the way they do act
moral subjectivism: the view that right and wrong are determined by individual preference
moral relativism: the view that right and wrong are determined by culture or society
moral error theory: the view that "right" and "wrong" are meaningless; it is a mistake to try to define them
- moral constructivism: the view that "right" and "wrong" depend on how an ideal agent would act in a given situation
- moral realism: the view that "right" and "wrong" depend on something other than real or ideal human behavior or beliefs
- psychological egoism: the view that everyone pursues their own self interests exclusively
- ethical egoism: the view that everyone should pursue their own self interests exclusively
argument 1:
1. we know our own wants and needs better than others
2. sometimes when we try to help others without knowing what they need, we harm or insult them instead
3. we should pursue our own self interests exclusively
argument 2(ayn rand):
1. we can either be ethical egoists or complete altruists
2. complete altruism should be rejected because it doesn't respect the value of the individual
3. we should be ethical egoists
false dichotomy: pretending there are only two options when in reality there are more
argument 3:
1. ethical egoism can accomade most moral intuitions
2.????
argument 1:
1. according to ethical egoism, bob should kill alice
2. according to ethical egoism, alice should not let bob kill her
3. both of these pieces of advice cannot be followed at the same time
4. (from 3) ethical egoism cannot resolve the conflict between bob and alice
5. ethical theories that can't resolve conflicts are no good
6. ethical egoism is no good
argument 2:
1. according to ethical egoism, bob should kill alice
2. according to ethical egoism, alice should not let bob kill her
3. both of these pieces of advice cannot be followed at the same time
4. it is always wrong to prevent someone from doing what they should do
5.according to ethical egoism bob should not kill alice
6. bob can't both kill and not kill alice
7. ethical egoism is no good
principle of equal treatment: we are only allowed to treat people differently if we can point to a morally relevant difference between or among them
argument 3:
1. people draw distinctions between stuff that matters morally and stuff that doesnt(moral standing)
2. we should follow the principle of equal treatment
3. ethical egoism violates the principle of equal treatment, as there is no morally relevant difference between us and everyone else
4. we should not be ethical egoists
objection: i know for sure that i exist but i do not know for sure that others exist
divine command theory:
"x is right" = God commands x
"x is wrong" = God forbids x
this assumes a 3O God exists
atheistic moral realism: any moral realist theory that does not reference God
willaim lane craig argument:
1. if God doesn't exist, then objective morality doesn't exist
2. but objective morality does exist
3. God exists
support for premise 1 #1:
1. if amr is true then saying "justice exists" is meaningless
2. justice exists
support for premise 1 #2:
1. every moral duty is owed to someone
2. if dct is true, we owe our duties to God
3. if amr is true we don't have anyone to owe our duties to
4. amr is false
what gets you a close connection between your belief in what is right and what is actually right?
the euthyphro problem/dilemme(2 options, both bad):
1. if dct is true, then either [things are right because God commands them] or [God commands them because they are right]
option 2:
if God commands things b/c they are right, dct should be rejected(circularity, challenge to omnipotence, amr)
option 1:
if things are right b/c God commands them, then dct should be rejected(arbitrary)
conclusion: dct should be rejected
epistemology: the branch of philosophy concerning knowledge and belief
claims everyone should believe:
all people are equal
suffering exists
claims everyone should not believe:
it is okay to discriminate against people based on skin color
clifford's principle: believe only what sufficient evidence supports
permissive principle: believe what you want to believe
clifford's argument:
(shipowner example)1. if we dont follow clifford's principle, we will make mortal errors
2. we shouldn't make mortal errors
3. we should follow clifford's principle
objection 1:
shows problem w/ actions, not belief ---> no action w/o belief
humean theory of action: belief + desire = action
objection 2:
what happens if the ship makes it? ---> beliefs are connected to 1. beliefs of others 2. your future beliefs 3. other beliefs of yours
i skipped today i was sick and tired and tired of being sick
philosophy of race:
what is race?(metaphysics of race)
what is racism?
testimonial injustice
mills' quace: assigned at birth, arbitrary, doesn't matter, purely descriptive
race: assigned at birth, descriptive and evaluative
thin(purely descriptive) vs thick(evaluative and descriptive) concepts
raical objectivist theories:
racial realism(morphology, culture, ancestry): one's race is determined by factors outside of human belief, actual or idealized(often biological)
racial constructivism: one's race is determined by idealized community standards from a sufficiently powerful community
racial anti-objectivism
racial subjectivism: one's race is based entirely on personal belief or choice of identity
racial relativism: one's race is determined by whatever community they are in
racial error theory: race is a meaningless term and should be abandoned
natural kind: the categorization of an object reflective of the actual world and not human interests
if race is a natural kind term, which country is right?
racial error theory + (deflationary pluralism): there is no master concept of race and attempts to create one are unrpoductive; we replace race with socioancestry
socioancestry: ancestry + social standing that is related to ancestry
features that may matter for one's race:
morphology
ancestry
self-awareness of ancestry
public awarenesss of ancestry
experiences
culture
self-identification
conceptual inflation - the idea that the force of a condemnatory term like 'racist' loses power when overused
ideology: a widely held set of loosely associated beliefs and implicit judgments that misrepresent significant social realities and that function to bring about or perpetuate unjust social relations
shelby's view: ideology are what are fundamentally racist; racism is based on consequences
shelby makes a distinction between whether something actually is racist and whether or not we should call it racist