topics for our final exam

click here for more information,

final exam (miniterm, fall 2020)

this exam is based on the following lectures:

lecture on Kantian ethics,

lecture on Aristotle's virtue morality,

_____________________________________

1. Why is breaking a promise wrong according to Kant? In your explanation bring the Kant's categorical imperative's reversibility and universalizability angles.

2. What is the meaning of RESPECT according to Kant? Explain.

3. In Aristotle's virtue morality what is relationship between virtue and eudaimonia? Explain.

4.  John is a "C" average student, but he has decided he wants to become an "A" student in order to apply for MDC's well-reputed Honors College. Suppose you are a well-respected college advisor. John now asks for your advice. How would you counsel John to go about becoming an A student (based on Aristotle's idea of right habits?). Justify your answer.

chapter 5 utilitarianism

click here for chapter 5 (lecture),
click here for chapter 5 (homework),

phi 2604, test #2, topics for review (chapter 4 & 5)

click here for more information,

homework, chapter 4

click here for more information,

Epicurus, the father of common sense

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341 – c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. 

Epicurus observes that for humans pleasure is associated with good, beautiful, and right; while pain is associated with bad, ugly, and wrong. Why? He concludes that there's a natural connection between the two. 

The self is exceptional. Only by helping oneself, one can help others, only by preserving self one can preserve others.

Epicurus believes the greatest good is to seek pleasure in the form of a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (this he calls ataraxia) and the absence of bodily pain (aponia). 

We achieve this balance through a combination of understanding the nature of REALITY and the governing our desires. What is the nature of REALITY? 

REALITY JUST IS and we must adapt to it.   

WHAT ABOUT PLEASURE? 

For Epicurus there are two kinds of pleasures: 1. Pleasures of the body and 2. Pleasures of the mind. The pleasures of the body are important but they are ephemeral. The pleasures of the mind are the best because they LAST.

The highest pleasure (TRANQUILITY and FREEDOM FROM FEAR) is obtained with the right knowledge, the cultivation of friendships, and living a virtuous life. 

Epicurus defends moderation in life. 

Moderation means proper measure, which is different for different people (some people have resistance to alcohol, others for sugar, others for acidity, and so on). We learn to know our weak points and work around them. 

Anything in excess IS wrong.

Topics for exam #1, fall 19, chapter 1 & 2

click here for more information,

you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E 

if any of you need me to take a test to ACCESS, please send me an email to remind me.  

phi 2604 exam #2, fall 2020

send this assignment to atriff@mdc.edu by friday, november 6, 9pm.
remember: name, exam #2, class sequence in the email subject.
(for explanations a minimum 30 word is required). 

On Egoism 

1. State Ethical Egoism's position.
2. What does it mean to say: "best interests"? Provide an example of you own life where you balance your interest vs. your best interest.
3. Can the egoist actually do good to people? Explain. 
 

On Utilitarianism  

4. What is traditional utilitarianism? What's the problem of happiness in utilitarianism?
5. Explain how a RULE UTILITARIAN would respond to a TRADITIONAL UTILITARIAN in the case of Brandt Utilitarian Heir counterexample?

on Divine Command Theory

6. What is a religion? Explain.
7. Why are religion symbols viable?
8. What is the role of the shaman in early human societies?
9. What's the Divine Command Theory? 
10. What is faith? Why are faith and reason so different? Explain. 
11. Why is MLK's religious message of faith so important? Explain.

homework 1 fall 2020 (miniterm)

submit this homework in WORD, or PDF (no Google docs, please). send it to my email: atriff@mdc.edu deadline for this assignment is Saturday, Nov. 7,  9pm. please, send your homework in this manner: in the subject of the email I need: NAME, #21350, HOMEWORK #1. (you'll be asked to resend the homework if it doesn't comply with the above criterion). 

_________________________

(all explain questions require a minimum of 30 words).

1. based on this lecture on philosophical discussions, pick your favorite point and explain why.

2. based on this lecture on values, pick one value you find important. Why so?

3. based on this lecture, identify the following fallacies:

Thomas Elder attack on social welfare should not be taken seriously. He is said to have been a degenerate. 

You will get pregnant if you have sex. Sally had sex once, and now she is pregnant. 

Your honor, the defendant must be guilty because no one can prove his innocence. 

Rare taste: you either have taste or you don't. 

Men are all alike: selfish creatures who spend every weekend glued to a television tube.

I am sure that you will agree that we should all work together to increase the profit of this company. Anyone not agreeing with this policy will be fired immediately. 

Everyone believes that Lander University is improving its academic programs yearly; therefore, I conclude that Lander will be a much higher rated school several years from now. 

Theodore H. Teabody, the great historian, says that H. Copi's book is the best logic book in the world. I believe him since the word of such a great man shouldn't be disputed.

4. questions 1-4 pertain to this post,

1. is there moral knowledge from the evolutionary stand point? explain.

2. explain how does killing becomes the moral fact "killing is wrong"?  

3. is "killing is wrong" a hard or a soft fact? explain. 

 

 

homework #1 (miniterm 2020)

submit this homework in WORD, or PDF (no Google docs, please). send it to my email: atriff@mdc.edu deadline for this assignment is Thursday Nov. 5, 9pm. please, send your homework in this manner: in the subject of the email I need: NAME, #21350, HOMEWORK #1. (you'll be asked to resend the homework if it doesn't comply with the above criterion). 

_________________________

(all explain questions require a minimum of 30 words).

1. based on this lecture on philosophical discussions, pick your favorite point and explain why.

2. based on this lecture on values, pick one value you find important. Why so?

3. based on this lecture, identify the following fallacies:

Thomas Elder attack on social welfare should not be taken seriously. He is said to have been a degenerate. 

You will get pregnant if you have sex. Sally had sex once, and now she is pregnant. 

Your honor, the defendant must be guilty because no one can prove his innocence. 

Rare taste: you either have taste or you don't. 

Men are all alike: selfish creatures who spend every weekend glued to a television tube.

I am sure that you will agree that we should all work together to increase the profit of this company. Anyone not agreeing with this policy will be fired immediately. 

Everyone believes that Lander University is improving its academic programs yearly; therefore, I conclude that Lander will be a much higher rated school several years from now. 

Theodore H. Teabody, the great historian, says that H. Copi's book is the best logic book in the world. I believe him since the word of such a great man shouldn't be disputed.

4. questions 1-4 pertain to this post,

1. is there moral knowledge from the evolutionary stand point? explain.

2. explain how does killing becomes the moral fact "killing is wrong"?  

3. is "killing is wrong" a hard or a soft fact? explain. 

 

triff's office hours

click here for more information,

Text Book (PDF)

midterm exam, open book, summer 2021

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SENDING THE TEST 

When sending your assignment, please cut and paste my questions along with your answers in the body of the email! 

For questions with Explain, I need at least 40 words as an answer.

_________________

ETHICS PART

1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain your answer from the evolutionary/historic point of view.

2. What does it mean to say that moral facts are "intersubjective"?

3. Is "holding a door to an old woman" a moral norm? Whether yes or no, explain your answer.

4. Tom comes from culture A professes cultural relativism and believes slavery is wrong, Theresa comes from culture B, professes cultural relativism and believes slavery is right. Is there a way for Tom to convince Theresa she is wrong?

5. The following question is based on this lecture.

Is the egoist capable of being benevolent to people? Whatever your answer EXPLAIN WHY  

CRITICAL THINKING PART

Necessary and sufficient conditions: 

1. If A is necessary condition for B, is B a sufficient condition for A? YES, NO

2. Suppose Alice loves John and John loves Alice. Is their mutual love a sufficient condition for the success of their relationship? YES, NO. 

3. A job requirement says "Qualified candidate must speak Spanish". If so, speaking Spanish is a _____ condition for getting the job. 

4. Identify the following fallacies: 

a) God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been shown to be unsound. 

b) Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer. 

c) We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty. 

5. If Bogota is north of Mexico and Mexico is north of Los Angeles, then Bogota is north is Los Angeles. Is this deductive argument valid? sound?  

6. Consider this argument:

Daffy Duck is a duck.

All ducks are mammals.

Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Is the argument valid? sound? 

7. Of this inductive argument. Tell if they are strong or weak. 

The last fifty lottery tickets that Francis purchased have been losers. Therefore, the next one he buys is virtually certain to be a winner. 

8. Cause and effect. Mr. Ferguson is invited to Mr. Smith's party where is served seafood for dinner. When Mr. Ferguson goes back home he feels stomach pain and later has an attack of diarrhea. 

What conditions must be satisfied in order for us to say: "Smith's seafood caused Mr. Ferguson's stomach sickness".

homework (fall 2021)

questions 1-4 pertain to this post,

1. is there moral knowledge from the evolutionary stand point? explain.

2. explain how does the fact of killing becomes the moral fact "killing is wrong"?  

3. is "killing is wrong" a soft fact? explain.

4. what is the difference between consensus and best consensus.

5. provide one proposition of your own that represents a hard fact and one that represent a soft fact (remember a proposition is presented as a regular sentence within quotes). 

6. from our textbook online answer questions 4, 7, (Chapter 1, p. 22)

(all explain questions require at least 40 words)

inductive arguments, exercise, fall 2020

are these inductive arguments strong or weak? S: strong, W: weak.

1. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 

2. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does.

3. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 

4. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

5. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 

6. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.

fallacies, exercise, fall 2020

Below, identify the following fallacies (based on this post) 

1. Thomas Elder attack on social welfare should not be taken seriously. He is said to have been a degenerate. 

2. You will get pregnant if you have sex. Sally had sex once, and now she is pregnant. 

3. Your honor, the defendant must be guilty because no one can prove his innocence. 

4. Rare taste: you either have taste or you don't. 

5. Men are all alike: selfish creatures who spend every weekend glued to a television tube.

6. I am sure that you will agree that we should all work together to increase the profit of this company. Anyone not agreeing with this policy will be fired immediately. 

7. Everyone believes that Lander University is improving its academic programs yearly; therefore, I conclude that Lander will be a much higher rated school several years from now. 

8. Theodore H. Teabody, the great historian, says that H. Copi's book is the best logic book in the world. I believe him since the word of such a great man shouldn't be disputed. 

inductive arguments plus inference to the best explanation

 click here for this video,

Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data. 

Example: In ordinary life, a person might make the inference that a fuse has blown to explain why several kitchen appliances stopped working all at once.

triff office hours (fall 2021)

 

homework 1,

explaining questions need at least 40 words each.  

please, don't answer definitions by copy and paste: it will disqualify your homework. you must rephrase the definitions.

send your assignments to: atriff@mdc.edu

based on this post,

1. think of a word expressing a value you use very often. imagine for a second that you would not be able to use it and what would be amiss? express this in 40 words.   

based on this post, 

2. what is critical thinking?

3. what is it based on?

4. explain point 4. all the way down the post (underlined in blue). 

based on this post,

5. Suppose that in a fit of anger Al wraps his hands around Bo's throat as if to throttle him. As a result Bo suffers a heart attack (think of cause and effect and nothing else). To answer this question keep in mind what we studied about cause and effect.

Is Al responsible for Bo's death, if the cause of Bo's death is a heart attack? Explain (keep in mind that for Al to be responsible he must have intended to kill Bo).

phi 2604 final exam, open book, summer a, 2020

Please, ATTACH THESE QUESTIONS TO YOUR EXAM. Send the exam in the same manner you sent the previous exams, 4888, NAME, FINAL EXAM.
 SEND YOUR FINAL PAPER & YOUR FINAL EXAM IN THE SAME EMAIL! (it reduces the amounts of emails in my mailbox!)
Deadline for sending both final paper and final exam is Thursday, July 9, 2pm. 
________________________

FINAL EXAM

Based on Aristotle's idea of virtue morality, how can you become a virtuous person?

Explain your answer with about 75 words. Bring the following concepts: virtue, acting/feeling, habit and Aristotle's Golden Mean table (provide one example of the list in the table and mention the balance between excess and defect).

chapter 3 religion (divine commandment)

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

An action is right if God commands it. God has infinite wisdom and goodness and knows what's good for humans. 

The anthropological argument for moral norms accepts that the divine command theory makes perfect sense as a didactic tool to instill compliance in ancient groups. Early humans learned moral norms through fear and reward. The fear was the punishment, the reward was the recognition of moral fortitude. 

Augustine's heteronomous moral system: (heteronomy means that refers to action that is influenced by a force outside the individual). The divine command theory is the pursuit of the supreme good, which delivers human happiness. Being moral is the result of our love for God. For Augustine we do what's good not for good's sake, but for God's sake. 

Note: Augustine, without knowing it, is justifying the moral argument of selection This is undoubtedly the way moral norms happened throughout social selection. It's much more effective to justify the good with God's command than with the good itself.  Moral norms had to be instilled and compelled by social habit.   

Don Scotus's natural law: Scotus argues that natural law contains only what is evidently true. God could not, would not, make what's moral not moral. This means that the commands of natural law do not depend on God's will. Scotus is saying that God first creates the moral order and then everything else follows, even God's own commands.

Thomas Aquinas's natural law: This is a development towards self-agency. Aquinas natural law agrees with Scotus'. Something is moral if it helps the purpose of human existence, and so human nature can determine what is moral. 

criteria for (personal narrative style) final paper

FORM

1- Times New Roman p.12, two and a half pages, double space (or a min. 500 words)
2. indented paragraphs,
3. heading: name, class title, Final Paper, paper title: centered, bold,
______________________

Lisa Clair
Phi 2604, #class sequence number, Spring 2021
Final Paper

TITLE HERE

 

________________________

CONTENT

4. make this assignment a personal narrative ABOUT YOU based on any of the topics studied in class,
5. tell the reader why this theory you defend APPLIES TO YOU, WHAT HAVE YOU DISCOVERED, HOW MAY THIS CHANGE YOU
6. to defend your point, you should bring specific life examples (whether it's family or a friend or culture),
7. though you're talking about a topic studied in class, I want you to have fun and speak with your voice.

phi 2604 exam #2 (open book) summer a 2020

Remember to write down the questions along with your answers. Send this exam in the same manner you sent the previous one.

1. In your own words explain Kant's Categorical Imperative (in your explanation bring forth both Kant's universality and reversibility points).

2. Bring an example from your life when you felt you were treated merely as a means to an end by somebody. What did you learn? (minimum 50 words)

3. The idea of RESPECT is fundamental in Kantian ethics. Explain is SELF-RESPECT connected to respecting others. Again, bring an example from your personal experience  (minimum 50 words)

topics for the final exam (summer 2019)

kant's categorical imperative,

kant's second formulation,

w. d. ross' pluralistic formalism,

notes on rights,

W.D. Ross' Pluralistic Formalism

click here for more information,

some ideas about self-respect

click here for more information,

Prostitution, choice, Kant and the second formulation

click here for more information,

notes to kant's second formulation

click here for more information,

notes to kant's first formulation

click here for more information,

homework, chapter 6 (ethics of duty)

click here for more information,

homework 1 summer a 2020

1- as a philosopher, briefly explain how you would argue your point.
2- as per values, which secondary value do you find more important? as per religious and spiritual values, do you find a lack of some of these values today? why do you think?

is business good or evil?

click here for more information,

persons, groups, ethics, bezos & monopoly

click here for more information,

homework, utilitarianism, chapter 5

click here for more information,

as per our conversation (the sequel of divorce for the next generation)

click here for more information,

1. theft shoots from 13 in intact married family to 22% with step-family and 18% with single-parent family. children of divorced parents are likely to commit more crimes.
2. school problems, increase from 20% intact married family to 40% in step-family homes and 52% in single-parent family homes. children from divorced families are more likely to be expelled or suspended.
3. fights spikes from 28% intact married family to 42% with step-family, 39% single-parent family. children of divorced parents are more violent.
4. alcohol consumption increases from 25% intact married family to 39% in step-family settings.
5. drug habits spike 10 intact married family to 18% in step-family households.
6. there's more suicide among children of divorced parents.

on the other hand, there's a different causation: 1. the decrease in married couples drives up the percentage of unmarried parents; 2. majority of single parents are likely to be female and black, 

click here for more information, 

triff's office hours (Summer A)

Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays 7:50am-10:15am
 Room: 3604-28

homework chapter 2

click here for more information,

definitions for chapter 2 (ethical and cultural relativism with counterarguments)

click here for more information,

fallacies

click here for a nice video addressing 10 logical fallacies,

phi 2604 topics for our final exam

click here for my notes on (human) rights,

my notes on (animal) rights, 

click here for final paper submission guidelines, 

MLK's theology of social change

I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.-- MartinLuther King

This post closes our discussion on the philosophy of religion.  

Martin Luther King's religious and social journey demonstrates that faith is a viable source for human transformation. 

KING'S MESSAGE IS THAT RELIGION IS A LIBERATING FORCE. 

WHY?

1. religion provides an archetype of solidarity (the cohesive "glue" of society)  
2. religion is a symbol for change & meaning (the future has to be better than the present), 
3. religion represents our humanity, a VIP club whose admission has nothing to do with physical appearances (whether white, black, yellow, red) but as King put it: the content of our character.  

King's influences: 

King is influenced by many themes. Here I point to four:

1. The Black Church movement from early 20th century. Particularly the theology of George D. Kelsey, who taught King two courses in 1948. From Kelsey, King adopted the pulpit as a place both for drama, in the old-fashioned Baptist sense, and the articulation of philosophies that address specific problems of society.

2. The American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who preached that man's capacity for justice is what makes democracy possible. 

3. H. David Thoreau's transcendentalism. The belief that there's inherent goodness of people and nature and that people are at their best when they become self-reliant and independent. 

4. Mahatma Gandhi, whom King called "the guiding light of our nonviolent civil & social change." King adopted civil disobedience from Gandhi's own movement in India (built around the idea of ahimsa). Ahimsa (non harming) is one the five precepts of Buddhism. 

King's religious and moral quotes

On willing the good:

The will is a beast of burden. If God mounts it, it wishes and goes as God wills; if Satan mounts it, it wishes and goes as Satan wills.

Analysis: King implies an Aristotelian view of morality, i.e., human nature is neutral to good or evil. One carries the responsibility to mold and avail oneself of the will to act morally.

The realism of MLK:

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.

Analysis: Once again, the idea of how you evaluate the present. King takes the opposite course of voluntarism (we change things) with the Hindu idea of karma. Every action has a consequence, which will come to fruition in either this life (or a future life); thus, morally good acts have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will produce negative results. However, good -although it may seem the opposite- always wins. 

I dare to interpret his quote as this: Our making is made as we're already made. 

On education:

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.

Analysis: Critical thinking needs an important component: character, i. e., how one comports oneself.

Of God's presence:

God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.

Analysis: King points to the multifarious nature of God's commanding presence. We better understand reality by looking at everything containing God's presence.

On independence of thought:

Rarely do we find people who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think for themselves.

Analysis: King is right with Socrates. What is "hard solid thinking"? The ideal of the skeptic: autonomy & independence of thought. Hard thinking is critical thinking. 

On the fashion of virtue signaling (the symptom of showing others that we care): 

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Analysis: A gem of a quote by King to describe the hypocritical attitude of pretending with good intentions without proper understanding. Which is comparable (& more frustrating) than absolute misunderstanding from the ill intentioned. Real understanding is a responsibility many people unconsciously avoid. 

On forgiveness:

We must develop the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power of love.

There is good and evil in the best of us.

Analysis: Deep quotes in tune with our overall discussion. WE ARE ALL FALLIBLE.

On truth:

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

Analysis: A deep first sentence. "Unarmed truth" hints at Hindu nonviolence, but King adds the idea of  Christian love. In the end even if right was defeated (and King adds "temporarily"), it can never compared with evil apparently "triumphant." 

This is a great lesson for young people that become discouraged of REALITY over a temporary defeat. WE MUST DEVELOP ENDURANCE.  

 

On love:

I've decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.  

Let no man to push you so low as to hate him. 

Analysis:  Hate is toxic and it eats away our capacity to love. For our own good, we ought to delete hate of ourselves. The second quote is profound: Hate is deceiving, even addictive. King suggests that we're responsible for our own hate! Either as when hate feels "legitimate" as a narcissistic & vicious form of justice, or as dangerous self-pity.

On faith:

 I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.

Everything good in the world that is done is done by faith. 

Analysis: 1. Kings suggests that faith is inexhaustible because its source is inexhaustible. 2. This is what we've discussed before as meaning. The projection of humanity in the future. It's better to be hopeful than not. 

animals & rights

click here for more information,

theodicies (good vs. evil)

Theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the existence and nature of God with evidence of evil in the world by providing valid explanations for its occurrence. addresses the problem of evil in the world. it means vindication of god. 

what's evil?

evil is bound to human suffering. a world without humans in it is not evil. and this bring us back to the problem of free will. animals are not free --> they can't be evil.

there are two kinds of evil, moral evil and natural evil. they both cause suffering, but natural evil is not brought about by free will.

it's just pure cause/effect. so, our problem is MORAL EVIL.

we need a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.

necessary evil: is the evil that prevents further evil or brigs forth goodness. how about making someone suffer because they deserve it (as in the state killing a serial killer, or a person killing in self-defense? how about punishing a child for their misdeeds?

unnecessary evil: is evil for its own sake. more of this later.

theodicies must address the problem of evil while attempting to make the existence of an omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of moral evil in the world.

Here comes an argument from evilfrom skeptics:

1. If God exists, then a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good exists.
2. A being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good would not create a world in which there is (avoidable) evil.
3. But there is (avoidable) evil in the world.
Therefore: God does not exist.

OR these three attacking God's attributes:

A. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world. 

Counter: It's actually possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. If God were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and yet for there to be evil and suffering? Theists believe the answer is YES.

B. If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it. 

Counter: Not if doing so undercuts human free-will. What good is there in having humans behave like robots?

C. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

Counter: Unless God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

Iranean Theodicy: Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that God's creation is still in progress. Creation is a theater stage that requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God. Humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil. For humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice. 

Augustine theodicy: Augustine tries to respond to the evidential problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world.  

1. Evil exists as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity's abuse of free will.
2. God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence.
3. Evil doesn't have existence in its own right, but is the privation of good –a corruption of God's good creation.

Counterargument to the concept of evil: Inga Clendinnen argues that the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification. To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible.

Answer to Clendinnen: Explaining something as repulsive as sexual abuse of an infant, for example, cannot be explain merely by psychological or social concepts which explain, for instance, the abuse the abuser was submitted to. How do you begin to address the insurmountable suffering the abused has been subjected to without using moral evil as a starting point? Applying the concept of evil to sexually abusing a child is not dismissive, it's in fact quite descriptive. 

midterm exam makeup, spring 2020, online class

1. Is "incest is wrong" a moral fact? Explain your answer.
2. based on triff's lecture on moral norms, what is a "moral fact"?
3. Is there a difference between moral and non-moral standards' Provide one example of a non-moral standard.
4. what makes a defensible moral judgment? based on that answer, defend why adultery is wrong.
5.  mention two universal moral principles.
6. can the ethical egoist give his life for a person he doesn't know? Explain.
7. Explain the difference between traditional utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in the case of "Brandt's utilitarian heir."
8. which form of utilitarianism, traditional or rule you think is better. Explain your answer.

homework on rights (part 2)

click here for more information,

phi 2604 final exam is wednesday, may 1, 5:40pm

Phi 2604 Midterm Exam makeup

1. Is there moral knowledge? Justify your answer (look at Triff’s lecture on moral norms)
2. What’s the difference between moral and non-moral standards. Mention an example of each.
3. Can you convince a cultural relativist that he’s wrong? Explain your answer.
4. Can an ethical egoist be benevolent? (benevolent is a person that does good to others) explain your answer.
5. Is Utilitarianism a better theory than Ethical Egoism when it comes to politics? Explain your answer.
6. Between Traditional Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism, which theory seems more reliable? Explain your answer in light of “Brand’t Utilitarian Heir” mind experiment.
7. What is the difference between moral values and peripheral values?
8. What’s a moral judgment?
9. What’s the difference between moral and legal norms?

(a minimum 40 word per question is required). 
send the answers to me via email, with this in the subject: 

Doe, John, Phi 2010 (day) (time), Midterm Exam, Salzburg.

Final paper, model

homework, chapter 7

click here for more information,

triff's "dominican" okra stew with plantain dumplings

still life with magazine and italian amaro, photo by RI

moi learned this Dominican recipe in NY, during my years as cook at Apollo95 @ 95 & broadway.

ingredients:
1 to 1-1/2 pound of meat cubes for stew (the pieces should be about an inch diameter), okra, onion, garlic powder, salt, pepper, fresh rosemary, fresh lemon peel, 2 cloves, ground cinnamon (a pinch), coarsely chopped (ad lib), chopped green pepper (ad lib), coarsely chopped onions, 1 little can of cento, or flora peeled tomatoes, dollop of white wine, chicken stock ad. lib. (if you don't make stock like I do, buy a box of good brand of unsalted chicken stock)

marinating the meat:
cut stew all the meat into 1 inch cubes,
salt/pepper it,
garlic powder,
finely chopped rosemary,
lemon peel (thinly chopped),
put the meat in a bowl with all the above ingredients & let it sit for an hour.

preparation: wash and cut the heads of the pods (u do this to let the liquid permeate the pod, mmm) and slice them into 1/2 inch rounds. pour a good dollop of olive oil into a heavy pot or dutch oven, set to medium high. sauté the okra for 7 minutes and get them out the pot into a bowl. add more oil, bring on the heat to medium high again. add the meat, turning them until they are browned on all sides, about 5 minutes. lower heat to medium, add the onions and peppers and sauté until soft and translucent. put back the okra, pour some white wine (nothing old & musty, please) in the mix, add the peeled tomatoes (with your hands, squeeze the tomatoes into the mix along with the tomato juice. now you're set. bring to a steady simmer.

plantains dumplings: cut the plantains in pieces (leave the peel on!). put plantains in a heavy saucepan with enough water to cover. bring to a rolling boil. lower to heat to medium and simmer covered until the plantains are tender and peeking out of the peel, about 10 minutes. when cool enough to handle but still warm, peel, place in a large bowl and mash together with the
triffian secret (thinly chop rosemary, sage, fresh ginger & orange peel plus a dash of cinnamon)
scoop out one tablespoon of mashed plantain and shape into 1-inch balls.

add the dumplings into the stew and allow them to sink a bit into the mix without breaking them!

voilá! 😅

chapter 3 (part 2)

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

An action is right if God commands it. God has infinite wisdom and goodness and knows what's good for humans.

FAITH VS REASON

the basic problem of faith and reason in religion comes from the tension between the spiritual realm and the physical realm. the spiritual realm involves supernatural facts, ecstasy, divine revelation, sacred pronouncements, which are immune from rational critique and evaluation. see that the spiritual realm consistently appears in all cultures. 

Fideism: faith is a belief that doesn't need physical proof.  

St. Paul's definition: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
given this definition, the fideist doesn't need physical evidence for their beliefs.

there are three approaches to the faith/reason problem: 

1. conflict model: faith and reason are incompatible because they claim different things. they should be kept separate.
2. incompatibilist model: faith and reason are distinct. reason aims at empirical truth faith deals with spiritual truths. so, there's no rivalry.
3. compatibilist model: faith and reason have a connection. compatibilism entertains a rational explanation for the existence of god, such as st. anselm's ontological argument, or thomas aquinas's prime mover, etc.

COUNTERS TO RELIGION

Marx's opiate of the people argument. Like opium, religion—in Marx’s eyes—dulls the senses, lulls people into a false sense of security, and undermines their motivation to bring about effective social change to remedy conditions of injustice.

Nietzsche's "slave morality":  According to Nietzsche, Christianity is founded on ressentiment, the desire of the weak to gain control over the strong without themselves developing strengths. It is an example of what Nietzsche called the ‘‘herd morality’’ or ‘‘slave morality.’’ Humility, according to Nietzsche, is a sign of weakness, of lack of power, and of a failure to believe in oneself.

going over your blackboard numbers

here is the breakdown of points for this miniterm,

yesterday, some of you seemed confused -and frustrated- about averages as they show in blackboard. 

this is what i said: don't pay attention to that average!

here's my criteria

exams: 40% of the final grade. 

grades here are letters A,B,C, D (D for "failing," F for "no show"). 

this is a qualitative (not quantitative) average. "A" for example is a ratio between 90-100, not a precise numeral. 

homeworks: 30% of final grade. 

i have set homeworks to show percentage. yet, here's what you need to know. 60% for example is the max. number of homeworks i've set for this miniterm. if you have 60% you have actually the max. number of points in that category, which is 30 points.

attendance: 20 % of final grade. 

if you have 100% attendance that is equivalent to 20 points of the final grade. if you have 80% that is 16 points. 

final paper: that's 10 points. 

so, go back now to your grade center and look at your grades. suppose John Doe has 100% attendance, a B in the exam and 6 homeworks. that means: 20 + B (about 85 points) + 30. 

that means you got 17 points of the final grade. 

we're ready for the total: 20+17+30= 67 points (you still have 30 points up for final exam and final paper). 

you see?  🧐

criteria for our narrative-style final paper

click here for more information,

topics for exam #3 (on chapter 3 and 6)

click here for notes on chapter 3,

click here for notes on chapter 6,

you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E, pencil, no pen.

homework, chapter 9

click here for more information,

homework #6, chapter 9

1. what is the difference between "What I ought to do?" and "What kind of person should I be"?
2. temperate people do what's right because they want to do so. The book's author offers the example of his wife's eating habits. Provide an example from your own life?
4. what's eudaimonia?
5. what is Aristotle's idea of VIRTUE?
6. how does virtue and eudamonia combine in the idea of human flourishing? think of the idea of "uniqueness".
7. the textbook brings two ideas of flourishing. discuss them.
8. Mention one vice of defect and one vice of defect you really repudiate. Explain why.  

faith vs. reason

click here for more information,

cultural relativism, deep values, peripheral values, defensible moral judgments,

Moral realism: morality is real, it's rooted in reality. It's a product of homo sapiens interaction with their environment. Example. Killing an animal for sustenance is not the same as killing it for fun. The difference between the two is proportionality. The first brought us animal farming, and the second is a sadistic practice condemned in ancient traditions. Animals were our early totems. An animal's life is worthy (homos are animals too).

This brings up the idea of moral standards. 

1. Moral vs. non-moral standards standards: Human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare. 

2. Morality and etiquette (etiquette are codes of polite behavior in different societies). If a person doesn't shower he's somewhat unpolite, but we don't call him immoral.

Etiquette is quite important. And part of a culture's sacred rites. Each culture's etiquette must be respected. The ancient saying goes: "When in Rome, do as Romans do." This is known in Confucian philosophy as LI. 

3. Morality and Law (not everything that is legal is moral, example: slavery was legal and is not moral).

SO WE WANT MORALITY TO BE ALWAYS ABOVE LEGALITY.

4. Are there moral standards? YES. Click here for more of my lecture on moral knowledge,

Moral relativism points two main arguments: Morals are relative to...

History: Moral standards of the past are relative to time/space. For example, Rome was a slavery/bound society. In America during the 18th century, slavery was legal. 

HERE IS THE ARGUMENT: As a moral realist, how do I approach the issue when I know that slavery is wrong in 2023? There is no contradiction in a moral action being right in 2023 and not so in 1723. Why not? It's not contradictory. Remember the definition "something cannot be both right and wrong at the same time". But this is not the same time.

Another way at it is this: Slavery would still be wrong in 1723, only they couldn't see it. WHY NOT? They miss the 300 years of development of ideas we enjoy in 2023. That's called Weltanschauung (or worldview). The same argument can be made with respect to our future in 2323 (300 years into the future). There will be issues in 2323 that cannot be seen today in 2023. Are we wrong? PROBABLY. That doesn't mean that we are wrong about what we don't know.......... YET. 

5. Cultural relativism: what makes an action right for the members of a culture is that it's approved by the culture. 

Counterarguments to subjective and cultural relativism: 1- both theories are self-contradictory, an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. 

Difference between fundamental moral values SHARED BY MOST CULTURES (such as killing your own, stealing from the group, adultery, respecting the elders, incest, etc), and ETIQUETTE values (fashion, marrying customs, eating, rituals, etc).

7. Defensible Moral Judgments: Moral judgments = Moral norms + facts (what this means is that we want our moral judgments to be defensible. We want to be able to give reasons for why we believe what we believe. 

8. Are there universal moral principles? YES. And one can point to two important principles. Principle of justice: Treat people fairly. Principle of mercy: Avoid unnecessary suffering.osted by atRifF at

cause and effect for exam 1

1. A causes B (direct causation). if A is necessary and sufficient for B, meaning A precedes B and A guarantees B. Ex: The pool stick striking the billiard ball causing it to jump. 
2. A & B & C cause D (contributory causes): if A & B & C, are contributory, they are co-occurrent causes. therefore, for the specific effect, a contributory cause is neither necessary nor sufficient for the effect (because it is by definition accompanied by other causes). 
3. correlation is not sufficient for causation.

Ex: If Pluto's barking causes Dick to wake up, 
 
Pluto's barking is a necessary cause of Dick's waking up if the barking precedes the waking, but it doesn't imply the latter will occur, i.e., Dick may not wake up (it's not guaranteed).      

Pluto's barking is a sufficient cause of Dick's waking up if the the barking guarantees the waking, although a another cause may also contribute to Dick's waking (noise coming from the bathroom where Dick's wife was taking a shower). here the presence of the waking doesn't guarantee the prior occurrence of the barking.

Deductive and inductive arguments

click this link for more information,

questionnaire on fallacies

Below, identify the following fallacies (based on this post)

1. Thomas Elder attack on social welfare should not be taken seriously. He is said to have been a degenerate.

2. You will get pregnant if you have sex. Sally had sex once, and now she is pregnant. 

3. Your honor, the defendant must be guilty because no one can prove his innocence. 

4. Rare taste: you either have taste or you don't. 

5. Men are all alike: selfish creatures who spend every weekend glued to a television tube. 

6. I am sure that you will agree that we should all work together to increase the profit of this company. Anyone not agreeing with this policy will be fired immediately.  

7. Everyone believes that Lander University is improving its academic programs yearly; therefore, I conclude that Lander will be a much higher rated school several years from now. 

8. Theodore Teabody, the great historian, says that H. Beard's book is the best logic book in the world. I believe him since the word of such a great man shouldn't be disputed. 

questions about values

1. as per values, which secondary value do you find more important?
2. as per religious and spiritual values, do you find a lack of some of these values today? why do you think?
3- what does it mean to say that correlation doesn't imply causation?

questions about cause and effect?

1. are you surprised that most causes are not direct? could you give an example of your own of a cause you thought it was direct and it is not?
2. what difference do you think it would made (for human responsibility) if some of the causes you took to be "direct" are really "indirect" or "contributory"? 
3. has this discussion of cause-and-effect made you reevaluate "received" ideas of causation in the media, or from yourself? can you offer an example?

Homework #2 (deduction and induction)

Are these deductive or inductive?

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is 30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°. 
2. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 
3. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does.
4. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 
5. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

are these valid or invalid? 

1. If it rained, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must have rained. 
2. If Richard Roe is willing to testify then he's innocent. He's not willing to testify therefore he's not innocent. 
3. If Bogotá is north of New Orleans and New Orleans is north of Mexico City, then Bogota is north of Mexico City. 

are these strong or weak? 

4. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 
5. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.
6. Every day you've ever lived has been a day before tomorrow, so, every day you will ever live will be a day before tomorrow. 

Triff's office hours

M,W,F, 8-9:50am
T,R, 8-11am
T, 3:30-5:30pm (let me know via email you're coming for this slot)
W, 4-5:30pm (let me know via email if you're coming for this slot)

axiology & the importance of values

imagine a world without values? without right, wrong, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, pleasant, nice, hateful, etc?

the branch of philosophy that studies value is axiology (from the Greek axios meaning "worth").

aesthetic values: depending the capacity to elicit pleasure (positive value) or displeasure (negative value) when appreciated or experienced aesthetically. examples: beauty, ugliness, elegance, taste, harmony, token: beauty,

economic values: (we are homo economicus): the measure here is efficiency, affordability & productivity (productivity = output volume/ labor input), then, practicality, token: price,

social/cultural values: the measure is how humans live in groups and which traits are seen as worth having, such as honor, honesty, valor, sympathy, benevolence, gratitude; token: sociability,

political values: these are traits that balance power with justice, such as influence, leadership, competitiveness; token: fairness,

religious values: these are values that are associated with purposefulness, worship and rituals, such as faithfulness, altruism, unity, token: holiness, 

spiritual values: values that are meant to strengthen the inner self, such as freedom, achievement, , simplicity, health, vigor; token: blessedness,

how to argue your point (in philosophy)

1. Discussion is a civilized enterprise between two (or more). One talks one listens.
2. Be always prepared.
3. DO NOT talk on top of your interlocutor. Wait until they finish their point. expect the same, if they interrupt you politely say: "Excuse me, I'm not finished."
4. DO NOT EVER raise your voice (it shows you're emotionally invested making your argument weak).
5. DO NOT hurry, avoid speaking fast. you need to be in command of your thoughts. take your time to answer back; be deliberate and in control.
6. If there's room for agreement, say: "I agree," or "That's a good point." it makes your interlocutor feel comfortable, which is always good for you.  
7. Be generous (even if you're winning). how? give a point if you can, for ex. "You're right about that."
8. Be affable throughout the exchange. smile if there's a chance (there always is). affability shows you're ease which shows open mindedness, a great trait of character.
9. The discussion doesn't have to be won. not in one meeting. you can say "we should continue this at some other time."