The Love of Wisdom

Steven B. Cowan James S. Spiegel

Introduction to Philosophy

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.

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?

Philosophical Method
The Socratic Method
Dialectic Socratic Ignorance The pursuit of virtue

Defining Terms Using Arguments Identifying Presuppositions

Introduction to Philosophy
Unit 1: The Study of Knowledge

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.

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms
Categorical Syllogisms I. All M are P All S are M III. All M are P All S are P Some S are M Some S are P II. No M are P All S are M No S are P

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms
IV. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism If P then Q VI. Modus Tollens If Q then R If P then Q If P then R not-Q V. Modus Ponens not-P If P then Q P Q

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

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms
IX. Reductio ad Absurdum Assume P (the claim to be proven false) ... Q Contradiction!!! not-Q not-P

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

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Informal Fallacies
False Dilemma
Begging the Question Argument from Ignorance Equivocation Straw Man Division False Cause

Hasty Generalization
Biased Generalization

Attacking the Person

Appeal to Popularity Composition

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

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!

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.

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

1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some belief p of mine, then I do not know p. 2. There is a skeptical hypothesis for p. 3. Therefore, I do not know p.

Can We Know?
The Rationalist Response
Rationalism = the view that all knowledge comes through
human reason

Descartes Argument for Material Things

1. I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being (i.e., God). 2. Only an absolutely perfect being could be the cause of my idea of it. 3. Therefore, God exists. 4. God, by definition, is not a deceiver. 5. God is the cause of all my cognitive faculties. 6. Since God is not a deceiver, He would not give me cognitive faculties that are unreliable. 7. My senses give me ideas of (alleged) material objects. 8. Therefore, material objects exist.

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.

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

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.

What is Knowledge?
The JTB Account
S knows p if and only if: (1) S believes p, (2) p is true, and (3) 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

What is Science?
The definition problem The presuppositions of science
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The laws of thought The general reliability of sense perception The law of causality The uniformity of nature Values

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Science and Theology

Two Kinds of Naturalism:
Metaphysical naturalism Methodological naturalism

Theistic Science
Problems with methodological naturalism Intelligent design theory

Introduction to Philosophy
Unit 2: The Study of Being

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.

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

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

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. 1:1; Matt. 10:28; 2 Cor. 5:8, etc)

What is the Nature of the World?

Dualism
Reasons Against:
The interaction problem Ockhams Razor

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

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

What is the Nature of the World?

Materialism
Plantingas Argument Against:
1. If materialism is true, then our cognitive faculties aim at survival not truth (because materialism assumes Darwinism).

2. 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).
3. 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.

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

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?

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

Are There Universals?

Platonism (Realism)
Reasons For:
A straight-forward explanation of resemblance

A ready account of predication

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

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

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.

Are There Universals?

Conceptualism
Problems:
Implies that if there were no mental concepts, there would be no properties Cannot explain resemblance Views universals as mental concepts

But these problems can be avoided on theism! But then it seems that conceptualism becomes a form of Platonism!

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.

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?

Do We Have Souls?
Physicalism
The view that the mind is fully explainable in terms of natural processes

Five Versions:
1.Philosophical Behaviorism 2.Strict Identity Theory

3.Eliminative Materialism
4.Functionalism 5.Property Dualism

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:
1.Transitivity Problems 2.The Circularity Problem

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.

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:
1.The Fission Problem 2.An Arbitrariness Problem

Do We Have Free Will?

Incompatibilism The view that freedom and
determinism are not logically consistent

The Consequence Argument

1. If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. 2. It is not in our power to change the laws of nature. 3. It is not in our power to change events in the remote past. 4. 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. 5. If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then we are not free. 6. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are not free.

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.

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?

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.

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

Is There Life After Death?

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

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

Does God Exist?

Anselms Ontological Argument
1. I have an idea of the greatest conceivable being (GCB).

2. That which exists in reality (and not only in my mind) is greater than that which exists only in my mind.
3. 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.

Does God Exist?

Aquinas Cosmological Argument
1.There is an order of causes in the world. 2.Nothing can be the cause of itself.

3.Hence, everything that is caused is caused by something else.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

There must be a first, uncaused cause.

Does God Exist?

Paleys Teleological Argument
1.A watch has many complex working parts and is intelligently designed.
2.The universe has many complex working parts.

The universe is probably intelligently designed.

Does God Exist?

The Fine-tuning Argument
1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either necessity, chance, or intelligent design. 2.The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity or chance. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to intelligent design.

Does God Exist?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
a) 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.

Does God Exist?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
c) The cause of the universe was God.
Eternal Changeless/Immutable Immaterial Uncaused Enormously Powerful Personal Good

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: 1. Reformed Epistemology would allow any belief to be properly basic (The Great Pumpkin Objection). 2. Reformed Epistemology makes belief in God immune to criticism.

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.

What Is God Like?

Views on Gods Relationship to Time:
1. 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. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2)

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. 18:7-8; Exod. 32:14; Jonah 3:10, etc.).

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.

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?

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.

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. 46:9-10; Ps. 139, etc.).

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.

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

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. 3:6, James 1:17, etc.)

Problem: Seems to undermine divine personhood

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. 4:14; Prov. 11:2, etc.)

Problem: Seems to contradict divine immutability

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.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Logical Problem of Evil
(1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

(2) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil.

(3) An omniscient being has the knowledge to prevent evil. (4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent evil. (5) Therefore, of God exists, there is no evil. (6) Evil exists. (7) Therefore, God does not exist.

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.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil
If God exists, there would be no pointless evils. (1) There are pointless evils.

(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil
(1) 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.

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.

Introduction to Philosophy
Unit 3: The Study of Value

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.

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.
We could never criticize another culture. Moral progress would be impossible. All moral reformers would be corrupt.

Problematic Implications:

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. 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.

Problematic Implications:

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

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

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

How Should We Live?

2. Classical Utilitarianism Problems:
Problem of justice Problem of rights Difficulty in anticipating consequences Unreasonable demands

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.

How Should We Live?

3. Kantian Ethics

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

Some Problems:

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?

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
Because of the recognition of the authority of an omnipotent, holy God and his promise of rewards and punishments

Why be moral?

What is a Just Society?

Three Important Concepts
1. Justice
Remedial Commercial Distributive

2. Rights
Negative or Positive Moral or Legal

3. Law
Natural Law Theory Legal Positivism

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

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

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

What is a Just Society?

Views on Distributive Justice
1. 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.

What is a Just Society?

Distributive Justice
2. 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.

What is a Just Society?

Distributive Justice
3. 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 1. The Principle of Equal Liberty 2. The Principle of Difference

What is a Just Society?

Problems with Rawls Theory of Justice:
1. Vagueness in applying the theory. 2. Presupposes that people behind the veil of ignorance would desire to minimize risk rather that maximize gain.

3. Assumes that fairness in selecting principles guarantees the fairness of the principles.

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? Argument from Pluralism Argument from Secularism The Pragmatic Argument

On Religion in the Public Square

On Civil Disobedience

When the state commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands No precedent or permission for violent opposition

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

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)

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.

Are There Standards for Art?

Objective standards for judging art and artistry:
Genre specific vs. non-genre-specific standards Aesthetic virtuesdiligence, veracity, boldness, etc.

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)

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)

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