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: 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." In Confucian Philosophy, this is known as LI. 

3. Morality and Law (not everything that is legal is moral; for example, slavery was legal but 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 to 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? No contradiction exists in a moral action being right in 2023 and not 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 concerning 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.

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."

topics for our final exam fall 2019

click here for my lecture on rights,
click here for my lecture on animal rights,

deductive and inductive arguments (fall 2019)

A deductive argument is an argument that is truth preserving, i.e.,  it establishes the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true.

This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An argument in which the premises follow the conclusion is called a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is SOUND.

All arguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no middle ground.
 Here is a valid deductive argument:

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. So, Socrates is mortal. (VALID AND SOUND)


An inductive argument is an argument that is intended to be strong when there is a high probability of obtaining the conclusion if the premises WERE TRUE.


So, inductive arguments ARE NOT TRUTH PRESERVING, THERE IS NEVER CERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER THE CONCLUSION WILL OBTAIN:

click here for a video lesson,

is business good or evil?

above the graph of maximin function

(this point goes to Anna, whom I thank for a productive discussion). her point if I remember, was in the form of a conditional: if a business is successful it has to engage in some form of wrongdoing.

The ethical egoist claims this is a false cause. 

in fact, the opposite is the case. WHY? 1- a business happens out of economic selection. 2- they exemplify the moral principle of HOMO ECONOMICUS.

1- Doing business is not a decision caused by a cabal of neolithic elders in a cave, high on mushroom ecstasy. Business transactions happened out of necessity to ensure human survival!

Ancient economic history tells us there's no human progress without commerce.

Let's go back 20,000 years ago. Commerce starts with the simple practice of bartering. 7,000 years ago. Phoenicians and Babylonians exchanged goods all over Mesopotamia and east Mediterranean Sea. here's a business transaction. 

A needs x, B has x. B needs y, A has y. (x, y) exchange happens. now both A and B are better off than before they started (this is the DNA of business).

This is called supply and demand. Salt was so valuable that Roman soldiers' salaries were paid with it.  Wars are and were fought over commerce. 

Karl Marx acknowledges that the history of mankind is based on economic leaps. In other words, merchants have changed the world.

Where does morals come in?

2- Bartering cannot happen unless there is TRUST. And trust can only occur when individuals keep their word (this is the beginning of the idea of DUTY).

WHY DO EARLY HOMO SAPIENS KEPT THEIR WORD? Not because they love their fellow sapiens, but because they need to succeed in order to survive. This is the basic insight of ethical egoism.

The same goes for businesses and corporations. A business that doesn't follow these basic rules is likely to fail (again, economic selection, what makes a business successful IS NOT success, is maximizing BEST INTERESTS). Maximizing is a concrete economic function given by:
mc = mr (where "c" is cost and "r" is revenue).

persons, groups, ethics, bezos & monopoly

dear class, as always I try to flesh out stuff we don't have the time, or space to properly address in class.

1. are groups persons?

my point to Paola a few classes back is that ethics is not about groups (of persons). definitions first. what's a person? if p is a person, p has 4 properties: reason, free will, autonomy, sentience.

only then we ascribe responsibility. Groups do not, cannot fulfill these properties in the same manner.

example: suppose we had 200 persons breaking into a Wall-mart and 55% of them steal items from the store. We'd have to ascribe different degrees of responsibility one by one. Speaking of the "group's responsibility" may be guilty of false analogy: what is true of the whole is true of the parts ("if A is made up of persons, A is a person") or fallacy of division: what is true for the whole is true of the parts ("if my foot hurts my toe hurts").

now, are corporations persons? as the modern definition of LLC implies:

The primary reason business owners opt to take the LLC route is to limit the principals' personal liability. Many view an LLC as a blend of a partnership, which is a simple business formation of two or more owners under an agreement, and a corporation, which has certain liability protections.

As an individual, I own all my parts, but within a corporation, the parts own the whole. Big  difference.

2. amazon and monopoly

is amazon a monopoly? definitions first: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action.

First, charging Amazon of being a monopoly doesn't fit with the prevailing definition of monopoly that's currently used by courts and the Federal Trade Commission since the 1970s. this is a crucial point:

The long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

if so, a company can grow as much as it wants and control as much of the market as it wants as long as prices are competitive and consumers don't suffer.

Second, keep in mind that Amazon isn't even the largest retailer in the U.S. Walmart IS with profits of half a trillion dollars last year, 3.5 times larger than Amazon's annual sales. 

Critics of Amazon point to Whole Foods' 450 locations leverage (to push out competition in the grocery delivery business). Yet, despite its size, Amazon currently makes up only 3.6% of annual retail revenue in the U.S. which is nothing. Amazon doesn't sell cars or operate restaurants.   

here, a compelling piece by economist charles sizemore. 

economists have tweaked the complex relationship of Amazon with other business as a classic example of "coopetition," a combination of competition and cooperation. "

you're competing with Amazon, but you're partnering with Amazon, you're using their services yourself, so you're a customer of them as an organization. hope this works.

How Amazon employees felt about Amazon? in class, we debated this point. The company gets 3.8 our of 5 in worker satisfaction: a pretty good grade!

so?