Chapter 4 Personal Identity
1. Qualitative Identity, numerical identity.
Animalism
b) Siamese Twins
2. Memory Theory
a) Reid’s Tale of the Brave Officer
b) Direct and indirect memories
c) Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory
3. Psychological Continuity Theory
4. The Reduplication Problem
a) William’s Reincarnation of Guy Fawkes
b) Williams’ Reduplication Argument
c) Parfit Teletransporter
5. Revised Body Theory
6. Split Brains: Brain Theory
a) Parfit’s Division
7. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility
8. Slef as "process."
Chapter 5 Ethics
1. Subjective Absolutism; Counterarguments
2. Subjective Relativism; Counterarguments
3. Emotivism; Blanshard’s Rabbit
4. Cultural relativism; Counterarguments
5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments
6. Are there universal moral principles?
7. Consequentialist Theory; Formalist Theory
8. Intrinsic and Instrumental Values
8. Ethical egoism
9. Act Utilitarianisma) Mc Closkey’s informantb) Brandt’s Heir
10. Rule Utilitarianism; Organ Transplants
11. Kant’s Categorical Imperative
12. Universalizability, reversibility
13. Perfect and imperfect dutiesa) Hare’s Nazi fanaticb) Ross’ Good Samaritan19. Second Formulation
14. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties; actual duties. You most know hierarchy and each one of these duties
15. Pluralistic formalism
Chapter 6
6.1
Cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments:
1. Theism, agnosticism, atheism, deism, fideism
2. Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments with C/A
3. Watch-watchmaker analogical argument with C/A
4. Best Explanation Argument with C/A and Intelligent Design
5. Argument from Religious Experience with C/A
6. Anselm’s Ontological Argument with C/A
7. Descartes variation of Anselm’s argument with C/A
8. Pascal’s Wager
6.2
Theodicies:
1. Ontological Defense with C/A
2. Knowledge Defense with C/A
3. Free-Will Defense with C/A
4. Ideal-Humanity Defense with C/A
5. Character building defense with C/A
6.3
1. Kierkegaard’s leap of faith with C/A
2. Importance of evidentialism
3. World without God: Existentialism
Friday, December 1, 2006
Section 6.3
Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith: According to Kierkegaard, God needs not be proved because -at best- HE would become probable. The best solution is to believe by faith. The more absurd the predicament, the more intense the faith. What’s important with faith is not "what" one believes but "how" one believes. Kierkegaard defines it as "subjective truth." Counterargument: 1- What if one is wrong? 2- How about the result of blind faith in fundamentalism or fanaticism?
Evidentialism: It holds that not only we need evidence to support our beliefs, but that we have a responsibility to have adequate evidence to avoid unnecessary wrongs to innocent people (Torquemada and the Inquisition is a good example: He had faith in what he was doing, yet, he didn’t have evidence).
Existentialism: In a world without a God, humans are free and responsible for what they do. We constantly create ourselves in the act of making choices. Life is absurd: There is no single explanation for the way things are.
Evidentialism: It holds that not only we need evidence to support our beliefs, but that we have a responsibility to have adequate evidence to avoid unnecessary wrongs to innocent people (Torquemada and the Inquisition is a good example: He had faith in what he was doing, yet, he didn’t have evidence).
Existentialism: In a world without a God, humans are free and responsible for what they do. We constantly create ourselves in the act of making choices. Life is absurd: There is no single explanation for the way things are.
Theodicies 6.2
The Ontological Defense: Goodness cannot exist without evil. So a world without evil is impossible. Counterargument: 1- Goodness isn’t a type of evil. Goodness and evil and like “red” and “not-red.” With contradictory concepts it’s possible to have one without the other. 2- Lack of evil doesn’t preclude goodness. If it did, there would be no goodness in heaven.
Knowledge Defense: Knowledge of evil is important (even to understand goodness) and it cannot exist unless there’s evil in the world. Counterargument: Suppose this is true, then how can one explain the excess of evil? Unnecessary evil is not justified by the knowledge defense. Evil must be necessary for something other than our education.
Free will defense: Evil is necessary for free will. We choose and sometimes we choose evil over good. Counterargument: 1- There’s still much more evil in the world that is necessary. Why is evil chosen so often? The theist needs to answer this question. 2- Heaven offers another example. Angels are free and yet they don’t choose evil. Why not?
Ideal Humanity Defense: Evil improves the human race. Counterargument: This is an argument of the living, not the dead.
Character (or soul) building defense: Evil is not wrong for our own sake. Counterargument: If this is true, then fighting evil becomes wrong (you shouldn’t alleviate a person’s suffering because it’s good for her character).
Knowledge Defense: Knowledge of evil is important (even to understand goodness) and it cannot exist unless there’s evil in the world. Counterargument: Suppose this is true, then how can one explain the excess of evil? Unnecessary evil is not justified by the knowledge defense. Evil must be necessary for something other than our education.
Free will defense: Evil is necessary for free will. We choose and sometimes we choose evil over good. Counterargument: 1- There’s still much more evil in the world that is necessary. Why is evil chosen so often? The theist needs to answer this question. 2- Heaven offers another example. Angels are free and yet they don’t choose evil. Why not?
Ideal Humanity Defense: Evil improves the human race. Counterargument: This is an argument of the living, not the dead.
Character (or soul) building defense: Evil is not wrong for our own sake. Counterargument: If this is true, then fighting evil becomes wrong (you shouldn’t alleviate a person’s suffering because it’s good for her character).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)