TOPICS FOR QUIZ PHI 2604

Chapter 1

Moral vs. non-moral standards
Morality and etiquette
Morality and Law
Where do moral standards come from?
Religion and Morality (differences between the two)
Ethical relativism, Cultural Relativism
Critiques: (a) Moral dissent, (b) artificial vs. deep values in the culture, (c) Logical contradictions
Defensible Moral Judgments: Requirements for Moral Judgments

Chapter 2

Consequentialist and non-Consequentialist Theories
Egoism; Misconceptions about Egoism
Psychological Egoism
Problems with Egoism (3 arguments)
Utilitarianism; (Six points about Utilitarianism)
Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism (3 arguments)
Kantian Ethics: Good Will, The Categorical Imperative; Universal Acceptability and Second Formulation (humanity as an end)
Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics (3 arguments)
W.D. Ross’s Prima Facie Principles (you must know all and in the said hierarchy)
Moral Rights; Distinction between Moral, Legal and Human Rights
Positive and Negative Rights


Chapter 3

Justice (as a complex of Rights, Freedoms and Equality)
Rivals Principles of Distribution
The Utilitarian View (Worker Participation, Greater Equality of Income)
The Libertarian View: Nozick’s Theory (include Libertarian definition of Liberty, Markets and Property Rights)
Rawls’ Theory of Justice (Original Position, Veil of Ignorance)
Triff’s Comparative Chart of 20th century Political/Economic Theories

Matrix of Topics for PHI 2010 Final Exam

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

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.

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).

PHI 2010: Section 6.1

Find a succint breakdown of some of the most important arguments and counterarguments from 6.1 under Theism.

Ontological Argument by St. Aquinas: The universe must have a “first cause,” which must spring from an eternal Being. That eternal Being is God. Counterargument: 1- Quantum physics proves that not every event has a cause. 2- The universe just “happens.” 3- The Big Bang Theory

Analogical Design Argument: A watch is to a watchmaker as the universe is to God. Counterargument: 1- John Stuart Mill sees the creation of the universe as evidence against the omnipotence of God. If God needs the universe to accomplish HIS goals, then HE is not omnipotent. 2- The universe "as organism" rather than a machine (where living things come into being through reproduction rather than conscious design.

Best Explanation Argument: The best explanation for the existence of such complex universe is that it was created by a supernatural Being. Counterargument: Evolution and natural selection

Intelligent Design: Evolution is false because there are structures that are so complex that they cannot have evolved through natural selection. Michael Behe’s idea of "irreducible complexity" claims just that. Irreducible complexity refers to a system composed of well-matched parts, interacting to bring forth a basic function (ex. a mouse trap). Counterargument: Most biologists believe that there are instances of systems that contradict Behe’s argument, ex. air bladders (or primitive lungs) made it possible for some fish to acquire new sources of food, but they were not necessary to the survival of the fish. Then as fish acquired legs and arms, lungs became essential.

Argument from Miracles: The universe must have been performed by a miracle worker. Counterargument: Why should God bend its own rules?

Argument from Religious Experience: A subjective experience that’s so powerful and unique that the only possible explanation is that it was produced by a supernatural being.
Counterargument: 1- Hallucinogenics have been used by ancient civilizations as worship experiences to tap into altered states. 2- This kind of experience is internal and vague and not enough to warranty an external source.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument: If one can conceive of a God (the greatest possible Being), then that God must exist in reality (a Being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in our minds). Counterargument: “Superman.”

Descartes’ Ontological Argument: God is all perfection and since existence is perfection, then God exists. Counterargument: From Kant: Existence is not a defining property of anything.

Pascal’s Wager: We’re better believing in God rathern than not, just in case he exists.

Update on progress report

The progress report option for my classes ended over the weekend. I could only send them to two of my groups. However, the idea was to alert those students who were in a D-D situation (a "D" in the quiz and a "D" in the midterm). Unless you received an email from me you don't need to think of dropping the class now. On the other hand, if you are in a C-D or D-C situation, your average is sort of "D plus" or a "C minus" -depending whether the "D" happened in the midterm (which counts for 35% of the total grade). If you are in that situation you really need to aim for a "B" in the final exam to end up with a better average.

PHI 2604 PROGRESS REPORT

I'll be sending a progress report to all PHI 2604 classes (based on the midterm results). Please, get back to me if I ask you to do so.

PHI 2010: Link to "Doing Philosophy"

This is the link for our textbook, "Doing Philosophy." Click on the different chapters and then review the section you are looking for. Each section has flash cards, true-or-false and multiple-choice questions. Test yourself and good luck.

You most bring a scantron sheet to the quiz. Buy only the green or teale rectangular scantron, which is for sale at the bookstore. Don't buy the red ones.

PHI 2010 TOPICS FOR MIDTERM EXAM

CH1
Necessary and sufficient conditions
1.2
Argument, premise, conclusion
Deductive arguments: validity, etc.
Inductive arguments: strong, cogent, etc.
Analogical Induction
Hypothetical Induction
Criteria of Adequacy
Fallacies:
Begging the Question; False Dilemma; Appeal to the Person; Appeal to Authority; Appeal to Ignorance; Appeal to Fear
1.3
Thought Experiment
Counterexample

CH 7
Knowledge by acquaintance; performative knowledge; propositional knowledge; a priori, a posteriori;
Theories of Truth: Correspondence, Pragmatic Theory, Coherence
Cartesian certainty
Reasonable Doubt
7.3
Internal Theory of Knowledge: Knowledge by Justification C/E "Gettier's Job Seekers" and/or "Triff’s Dr. Appointment”
Causal Theory of Knowledge. C/E “Goldman's Fake Barns”
Defeasibility Theory. C/E “The Demented Mrs. Grabbit”
Reliability Theory
Explanationist Theory

CH 2
2.2
Empiricism
Logical Behaviorism; C/E “Perfect Pretender”
Qualia
Identity Theory; C/E “Nagel’s Bat”
2.3
Functionalism; C/E Putnam’s “Inverted Spectrum”
Turing test for computer intelligence
Intentionality
2.5
Property Dualism
Emergent Property
Downward Causation

CH 3
Casual determinism
3.1
Hard determinism; C/E common sense, use of subjunctive, the idea of responsibility and accountability
Causal Indeterminism
Indeterminism p.184
C/E Taylor’s unpredictable arm
3.2
Soft determinism
Traditional Compatibilism
C/E Locke’s trapped conversationalist; Taylor’s ingenious physiologist; Taylor’s drug addiction
Harry Frankfurt’s Hierarchical compatibilism (first, second order desires and second order volitions)
E Frankfurt’s unwilling and wanton addict; happy addict
C/E Slote’s Hypnotized Patient and Willing Bank Teller
3.3
Libertarianism
Agent causation and event causation

PHI 2604 Chapter 5: HOMEWORK

1- What is a limited liability company?
2- Provide an account on the evolution of corporations?
3- Define the three senses of “responsibility” as defined on p. 208.
4- Can corporations make moral decisions? Explain.
5- Is the vanishing sense of individual responsibility inside corporations enough to absolve or excuse unethical corporate decisions? Why not?
6- Define the narrow view of profit maximization
7- Define the broader view of corporate social responsibility.
8- Explain the following arguments:a) Invisible Hand Argumentb) Materialization-of-Society Argumentc) Inept Custodian Argument.
9- Can corporate ethical policies be institutionalized? How?
10- In which way corporate culture plays a part in achieving a more ethical corporate environment?

PHI 2010: Link for "Doing Philosophy" textbook.

This is the link for "Doing Philosophy" Website. Click on Chapters (1, 7) and then review the section you are looking for. Each section has flash cards, true or false, and multiple choice questions. Test yourself and good luck.

You most bring a scantron to the quiz. Buy only the green, rectangular scantron, which is for sale (15 cents) at the bookstore. Don't buy the red scantron.

PHI 2010 TOPICS FOR QUIZ

Chapter 1

1- Necessary and sufficient conditions
2- Socratic method
3- Scientific Method
4- Logical impossibility, causal impossibility and law of non-contradiction
5- Argument, premise, conclusion p.21
6- Deductive arguments: valid/invalid, sound, unsound
7- Inductive arguments: strong/weak, cogent
8- Enumerative Induction, Analogical Induction and IBE (Hypothetical Induction)
9- Criteria of adequacy (you should know each element)
10- Fallacies: (What you should know is what each one is about) Begging the Question, False Dilemma, Appeal to Person, Appeal to the masses, Appeal to Ignorance, Hasty Generalization
11- Thought experiment, counterexample, test implication
12- The difference between conceivability and possibility

Chapter 7

1- Knowledge by acquaintance, performative knowledge, propositional knowledge
2- Theories of truth: Correspondence, Pragmatic Theory and Coherence Theory of Truth. Provide examples of each of these and their differences.
3- Standard account of knowledge / Gettier’s job seekers or Triff’s dental appointment
4- Defeasibility Theory /Lehrer’s demented Mrs. Grabit.
5- Causal Theory /Goldman’s fake barns
6- Reliability Theory /Lehrer’s Human Thermometer.
7- Explanationist Theory of Knowledge

PHI 2010 Honors (Champagne)

This morning I mentioned Champagne in relation to our analysis of the criteria of adequacy in induction. Champagne, stands as the epitome of sophistication in wine production. It’s a state of mind (think of Marilyn Monroe’s addiction to the beverage -as well as kings). Champagne’s celebratory status is unique; handed a glass of champagne, we simply abandon ourselves to its implied pleasure. Some details: 1- Made from three grapes, Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier and Chardonnay, 2- The champagne we drink today is very different from the one produced by Dom Perignon back in the 18th Century. Back then, Perignon tried to fight the wine’s bubbly and tart character with extra sugar. It was probably cloudy, gritty and coarse. Only later, they realized that this very character was unique to this region. 3- How many bubbles are there in a champagne bottle? 4- What does Brut, Extra Brut, Dry, Demi-Sec and Doux stand for?

PHI 2604 Chapter 2 Homework

Chapter 2 Homework

Part one:
1.What's the difference between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist (or deontological)theories?
2. Define "Egoism." Provide examples.
a) What are some of the misconceptions about Egoism?
3. Identify the term "Psychological Egoism"? In which way is P.E. different from Ethical Egoism described in 2. above?
4. Enumerate the problems presented by Egoism.
5. Explain "Utilitarianism." Provide examples.
6. Go over the six points addressing utilitarianism as they appear on pp. 61, 62.
7. Go over some of the critiques of Utilitarianism.
8. In what sense is business practice "utilitarian" according to Adam Smith (while fostering self-interest?).

Part two:
1. What's the meaning of "good will" according to Kant?
2. Define Kant's catergorical imperative.
3. Explain the difference between a categorical and a hypothetical prescription.
4.What does Kant mean by "universal acceptability"?
5. State Kant's second formulation. Why is a person an "end" rather than a "means to an end"?
6. Go over some of the critical inquires of Kant's theory.
7. What is a prima facie duty?
8. Following W.D. Ross, establish a hierarchy of prima facie duties.
9. What is a right?
10. Establish the difference between positive and negative rights.
11. Can human rights be justified?

PHI 2010 Honors

A little about the Russian math genius Grigory Perlman (I may have brought up his name in class) and his discovery of the so called Poincare's Conjecture here. If you're interested about laid back intense check this out.

PHI 2010 (Syllabus)

Phi 2010 Syllabus


Alfredo Triff Ph.D.
Room 3604-40 (Building #3)
Tel. 305.237.7554
E-mail: atriff@mdc.edu
Office Hours: Posted
Text: Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments by Theodore Schick and LewisVaughn (3rd edition)

Goals

* To become familiar with contemporary trends in philosophy.

* To explore key subjects within philosophy, such as epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, ontology and aesthetics.

* To stimulate a philosophical spirit of open debate, conversation, as well as the ethics of dialogue.

* To further our critical thinking skills in order to deal with the challenges posed by the professional and academic world.


Evaluation

1. Grades A, B and C stand for outstanding, good and average respectively. D is below average. F means not enough work to justify credit for the course.

2. We have three multiple-choice tests: a quiz, (15%) a midterm (35%) and a final exam (35%). They count for 85% of the final grade. Class participation and effort are important. This breakdown only reflects a qualitative approximation since it may reflects the curving of grades.

3. Attendance is expected. Two non-excused absences are permitted. Each absence thereafter will lower the participation grade by half a letter. Missing exams must be justified by a doctor’s note or the equivalent. Please, feel free to contact me if you have a serious problem with or in the class.


Policies


1. Cheating? A serious academic transgression, which will be penalized according to college policy.

3. I expect a minimum of class demeanor. Courtesy and respect...

4. If I assigned a report, it should be WP/typed and stapled.

Some suggestions

1. I conduct my classes from the textbook and perhaps some additional readings that I'll post in our webpage. Philosophy is deep. It requires awareness, detachment, cool. For some people the problem will be settled with a quick “yes” or “no.” We don't do that: too quick, to easy, flabby. Be tough.

2. Do the homeworks. It will keep you up with the material. talk philosophy to your friends (it looks cool). Sure, there are winners, but we don’t focus on that. We seek truth and clarity. You're confused? Not bad. Confusion means struggle, which points to change. Try to read. Books are good friends. People don't read much nowadays and it shows in their conversations.

Schedule of Classes

Chapter 1 Philosophical Problems
1.1: Explaining The Possibility Of The Impossible: Philosophical Problems. Stakes In Philosophical Enquiry: An Account Of Problems, Such As Mind-Body, Free Will, Personal Identity, Moral Relativism, And The Concept Of Evil.
1.2: Evidence And Inference.
1.3: Thought Experiments

Chapter 7 Epistemology
7.1 Skepticism As A Key To Certainty: Descartes
7.2 Perception Of The External World.
7.3 How Much Do We Know? What Knowledge Is: Defeasibility Theory; Causal Theory; Reliability Theory; Explanationist Theory

Chapter 2 The Mind/Body Problem
2.1 The Ghost In The Machine: Mind As Soul: Descartes’ Doubt; Je Pense Donc Je Suis; Conceivability Argument; Divisibility Argument; Causal Impotence Of The Mental; Causal Closure Of The Physical; Other Minds
2.2 You Are What You Eat: Mind As Body: Empiricism; Positivism; Logical Behaviorism; Identity Theory
2.3 I, Robot: Mind As Sofware: AI; Functionalism And Feeling; The Turing Test; Intentionality
2.4 There Are No Ghosts: Mind And Myth: Psychology; Subjective Knowledge
2.5 Mind As Quality: Primitive Intentionality; Mental Dependence; Downward Causation

Quiz

Chapter 3 Free Will Or Determinism?
3.1 Freedom As Chance: Hard Determinism; Indeterminism
3.2 Freedom As Necessity: Traditional Compatibilism; Hierarchical Compatibilism;
3.3 Freedom As Self-Determination: Agent Causation

Chapter 4 Personal Identity And Selfhood
4.1 Self And Substance: Animalism; The Soul Theory
4.2 Golden Memories: Self As Psyche: Memory Theory; Inconsistency Objection; Circularity Objection; Reduplication Problem
4.3 Self As Process: The Brain Theory; Split Brains; Identity And Survival; Identity And Responsibility; Explaining Selfhood

Midterm exam

Chapter 5 Ethics and Political Philosophy
5.1 Might Makes Right: Subjective Absolutism And Relativism; Cultural Relativism; Divine Command Theory; Are There Universal Moral Principles?
5.2 Good Makes Right: Ethical Egoism; Act Utilitarianism: Problems With Rights, Duties And Justice; Rule Utilitarianism
5.3 Duty Makes Right: Kant’s Categorical Imperative: First And Second Formulations; Ross’ Prima Facie Duties;
5.4 Virtue Makes Right: The Virtuous Utilitarian, Kantian; Purpose Of Morality; Aristotle On Virtue, Mcintyre On Virtue; Virtue Ethics

Maybe Chapter 6

Addendum: Triff’s Notes on Political Philosophy

Final (Not cumulative)

I reserve the right to make changes in the order or chapters, provided I let you know in advance.

Welcome!

PHI 2010 Final Topics

Find the final topics for our PHI 2010 Final Exam here.

Add to it the following taken from section 5.4:

1. Aristotle's notion of virtue
2. Virtue Ethics

Also, use this link from the textbook and test yourself (I may take one or two questions from here). Remember to bring a scantron sheet for the test next Thursday.

Euthanasia

An interesting case on MSN today, possibly involving euthanasia.

PHI 2604 Chapter 7 Homework

1. Explain the idea of legitimate and illegitimate influence.
2. What’s “informed consent”?
3. Go over the reasons why business use polygraph tests.
4. There are generally three assumptions people have about polygraph tests. Which are they?
5. Why do companies use “personality tests”?
6. Go over four remarks about drug testing in pages 334,335.
7. What are the moral issues surrounding day care and maternity leave?
8. Go over the reading on page 364 Work, Privacy, and Autonomy and try to answer questions 1, 3 & 5.

Insider Trading

This is a very interesting piece of news. It concerns the stealing of trade secrets, which is illegal and unethical Apparently, an executive from Coca Cola offered Pepsi a sample of a secret new beverage, but Pepsi tipped the FBI...