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: 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.