HL1SWhatsPhil?.pdf

What is Philosophy? Erasmus School for Philosophy Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE) What is philosophy?............ The Utilitarian Principle......... Utilitarianism and Economics (teaser) Structure of this lecture..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3 4 5 1. Conceptual Analysis 6 What is X?.............................................................. 7 INJS conditions............................................................ 8 What is knowledge? Epistemology.............. What is knowledge?.......... Knowledge and Truth........ Knowledge and Belief........ Knowledge and Justification.... The JTB account of knowledge.. Principles as hypotheses....... Testing and thought experiments. Thought experiment: example... Reactions to a counterexample.. Conceptual Analysis (recap)........................................................................................................................................ 2. Conceptual analysis andthe aim of Philosophy The aim of Philosophy.................... Inconsistency.......................... Reflective equilibrium..................... “Pretty much hangs together”....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.... 21 22 23 24 25 What is Blame? 26 Causation and Blame-Cause................................................... 27 1 Brakes.................................................................. 28 Poison & Holes............................................................ 29 A hard decision............................................................ 30 3. The Utilitarian Principle & Conceptual Analysis Recall the UP........................... Lifeboat and the UP...................... Organs and the UP....................... World Cup and the UP.................... What to do?............................ Breaking down UP....................... The 5 principles of the UP.................. P1. Consequentialism..................... P2. Welfarism.......................... P3. Weak Pareto........................ P4. Cardinal Comparability.................. P5. Transitional Equity.................... Structure of the course.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4. More Philosophy Philosophical education...... A course in philosophy....... The four branches of philosophy Philosophy of X / Economics.. Interested?............... Our ReMa programme................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51.................................................................................... Appendix Summary 1. Conceptual Analysis......... 2. C.A. & The aim of Philosophy. 3. The UP & Conceptual Analysis. 4. More Philosophy........... 52........................................................................................................................................................................................ 53 54 55 56 57 Literature 58 Want to read more?........................................................ 59 2 What is philosophy? Philosophy Philosophy is the systematic investigation into the foundational concepts and principles of any subject matter. Philosophical methodology: methods of philosophical investigation. In the first two lectures, I will introduce you to two such methods: 1. Conceptual Analysis This lecture 2. Logic / Arguments. Next lecture I will illustrate these methods via a principle that is familiar to you. 2 / 59 The Utilitarian Principle Which principles determine how we should act (in general)? Utilitarian Principle (UP) You should perform an action which, of all actions that are available to you, results in the greatest sum-total of individual well-being. The UP will not only be used to illustrate philosophical methodology but, more importantly: the UP will structure the course as such. As an economist, you might think that this is attractive. Why? The UP plays an important role in (welfare) economics. 3 / 59 3 Utilitarianism and Economics (teaser) Utilitarianism is a family of moral and political philosophies according to which general utility or social welfare is ultimately the sole ethical value or good to be maximized. Normative economics endorsed a hedonistic version of utilitarianism from the latter part of the 18th century well into the 20th century. Despite the ordinalist revolution, some version of utilitarianism continues implicitly to serve as the ethical basis for economic policy judgements. While there are signs that this may be changing, economic theory has not yet moved decisively beyond utilitarianism, nor is it clear that it should. Riley (2018: 14205) For any set of possible outcomes, a typical version of utilitarianism calculates social welfare W (x) at any outcome x by adding together the individual utilities at x: For all x: W (x) = ∑ ui (x) The doctrine then prescribes as best an outcome x⋆ at which the sum of utilities is maximized. 14205) (Riley 2018: Riley (2018), Utilitarianism and Economic Theory, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, pp 14205-14218. 4 / 59 Structure of this lecture 1. Conceptual Analysis The method of formulating, testing and revising conceptual principles. Illustrated by analysing the concept of Knowledge 2. Conceptual Analysis and the aim of Philosophy To reach a reflective equilibrium, which gives you principled view of the world. Illustrated by analysing the concept of Blame 3. The Utilitarian Principle & Conceptual Analysis Evidence for and counterexamples to the UP The five constitutive UP principles that structure this course 4. More Philosophy Why Philosophy? The Philosophy of Economics 5 / 59 4 1. Conceptual Analysis 6 / 59 What is X? What is knowledge? / What is meaning? / What is freedom? / What is fairness? / What is consciousness? / What is a cause? / What is rationality?/ What is reality? / What is love? /... How should I act? i.e. What is a morally right action? When philosophers ask what is X?, they are asking for...... a clarification of the meaning of X.... principles that explain how we use X.... principles that explain how X is related to other concepts.... a conceptual analysis of X. A conceptual analysis of X seeks to increase our understanding of X by specifying principles which specify how X is related to other concepts. 7 / 59 INJS conditions The (ideal) result of a conceptual analysis of X consists of Individually Necessary and Jointly Sufficient (INJS) conditions for X: x is X if and only if condition1 (x) and,... , and conditionn (x). (when X is a unary, i.e. one place concept) What is a vixen? x is a vixen if and only if x is female and x is a fox. (1) Being female and being a fox are individually necessary for being a vixen. If x is a vixen then x must be a fox. If x is a vixen then x must be female. (2) Being female and being a fox are jointly sufficient for being a vixen. x being both female and a fox suffices for being a vixen. Let’s look at INJS conditions for a philosophically more interesting concept. 8 / 59 5 What is knowledge? 9 / 59 Epistemology Epistemology: what can we know? Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the foundational concepts and principles that are at stake when we discuss the question: what can we know? Very generally, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: (1) What is knowledge? (2) What can we know? (3) What are the best means to acquire knowledge? (assuming that we can). Let’s turn to the first question. 10 / 59 What is knowledge? Three types of knowledge: (1) Propositional knowledge. (“John knows that Feyenoord won the Dutch football championship in 22-23”). (2) Knowledge how (“John knows how to patch a tire”). (3) Knowledge by acquaintance (“John knows Ann”, “Ann knows Rotterdam”). We will present a conceptual analysis of propositional knowledge. We will do by specifying INJS conditions for: A knows that p (with A an arbitrary agent, p an arbitrary proposition) NB a proposition is a statement which can be true or false and which is expressed by a declarative sentence. cf. L2 11 / 59 6 Knowledge and Truth (1) John knows that Rotterdam is the capital of the Netherlands. (1) is false, because It is false that Rotterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, and because it is impossible to know false propositions. Truth is necessary for knowledge If A knows that p, then p is true. Now, John may believe that Rotterdam is the capital of the Netherlands. Belief is not a sufficient condition for knowledge. 12 / 59 Knowledge and Belief (2) John knows that Robert Brandom wrote Making it Explicit. (Suppose that John has neither heard of Brandom nor of Making it Explicit.) (2) is false, because John does not believe that Brandom wrote Making it Explicit, and because it is impossible to know a proposition that you do not believe. Belief is necessary for knowledge If A knows that p, then A believes that p. In fact, Robert Brandom did write Making it Explicit Truth is not a sufficient condition for knowledge. 13 / 59 7 Knowledge and Justification (3) John knows that he will win the lottery. (3) is false because, unless John has insider information (e.g. that the lottery is rigged), John is not justified in believing that he will win the lottery.. Justification is necessary for knowledge If A knows that p, then A must have a justified belief that p. Suppose that John will in fact win the lottery and also that he believes he will. Truth and Belief are not jointly sufficient for knowledge. 14 / 59 The JTB account of knowledge The Justified True Belief account of knowledge (JTB) (i) A knows that p if and only if (iff): p is true, and Truth condition (ii) A believes that p, and Belief condition (iii) A is justified in believing that p Justification condition According to JTB (i), (ii) and (iii) are INJS conditions for knowledge. In other words, JTB says that: Truth is necessary for knowledge. Belief is necessary for knowledge. Justification is necessary for knowledge. Truth, Belief and Justification are jointly sufficient for knowledge. 15 / 59 8 Principles as hypotheses A conceptual analysis of X seeks to increase our understanding of X by specifying principles which specify how X is related to other concepts. These five principles specify how knowledge is related to other concepts: (i) If A knows that p, then p is true. (ii) If A knows that p, then A believes that p. (iii) If A knows that p, then A is justified in believing that p. (iv) If A justifiedly believes that p and p is true, then A knows that p. (v) JTB: (i) & (ii) & (iii) & (iv). A principle may be understood as a conceptual hypothesis. Philosophers test such hypotheses via thought experiments. 16 / 59 Testing and thought experiments A thought experiment (TE) typically presents an imagined scenario with the intention of eliciting an intuitive judgement about the (way things are in the) TE. The scenario will typically be designed to target a particular philosophical concept, such as morality, knowledge or the nature of the mind. The response to the imagined scenario is supposed to tell us about the nature of that concept in any scenario, real or imagined. Source: Wikipedia Philosophers test a principle by comparing, for a TE: (1) What the principle says about the TE, with (2) What our intuitive judgement says about the TE. When (1) = (2): the TE provides evidence for the principle. When (1) =/ (2): the TE is a counterexample to the principle. Let’s test the knowledge principles via a thought-experiment. 17 / 59 9 Thought experiment: example Broken watch (is right twice a day) At 11:03 last night, Ann’s watch broke. So the hands of her watch are stuck at 11:03. At 11:03 this morning, Ann looks at her watch. Since she doesn’t yet know that the watch is broken, she forms the belief that it’s 11:03. This belief is true. Also, looking at your watch is (typically) a reliable method for forming beliefs about what time it is. Hence, as Ann formed her belief by looking at her watch, she is justified in her belief that it’s 11:03. It seems that: Intuition: Ann does not know that it’s 11:03 (“as she was just lucky”). JTB: Ann knows that it’s 11:03 as she has a JTB that it’s 11:03. If so, then: Broken Watch is a counterexample to JTB, in particular to (iv): (iv) If A justifiedly believes that p and p is true, then A knows that p. 18 / 59 Reactions to a counterexample Revise (or reject) the principle. Dispute the counterexample: argue that, in fact, P does not contradict with our considered intuitive judgement about the TE. Bite the bullet: stick to P , reject our intuitive judgement about the TE. Gettier (1963): Broken Watch shows that JTB has to be rejected. Lots of philosophers have revised the JTB by identifying a further condition C such that JTB + C yields INJS conditions for knowledge. Some philosophers have disputed that Broken Watch is a counterexample to JTB as Ann does not have a justification for her belief. Philosophers hate to bite the bullet: they want to explain our intuitive judgements via principles: intuitions are (the) data of philosophy We will see an example of biting the bullet in due course. 19 / 59 10 Conceptual Analysis (recap) A conceptual analysis of X is a philosophical method which seeks to formulate, test and revise principles for X in order to increase our understanding of X: A conceptual analysis of X seeks to increase our understanding of X by specifying principles which specify how X is related to other concepts. Principles are tested by applying them to thought-experiments. When a thought-experiment is a counterexample to a principle, one can: Revise the principle / dispute the counterexample / bite the bullet The ideal of a conceptual analysis of X consists of INJS conditions for X Philosophers hate to bite the bullet: intuitions are the data of philosophy 20 / 59 2. Conceptual analysis and the aim of Philosophy 21 / 59 The aim of Philosophy Philosophy is the systematic investigation into the foundational concepts and principles of any subject matter. One philosophical method of investigation is Conceptual Analysis. What is the aim of philosophy (and its methods)? “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term” (Wilfred Sellars) Philosophy aims to offer principled, unified view of the world. Philosophy aims to make our thinking about a subject matter as clear, systematic and consistent as possible. 22 / 59 11 Inconsistency Philosophy aims to make our thinking about a subject matter as clear, systematic and consistent as possible. Your thinking about a subject matter S is inconsistent when the propositions that you believe about S are jointly inconsistent, i.e. when it is impossible that all these propositions are jointly true. For example, the following three propositions are jointly inconsistent: 1. Ann does not know that it’s 11:03 in Broken Watch. 2. Ann has a JTB that it’s 11:03 in Broken Watch. 3. For any p: if Ann has a JTB that p then Ann knows that p. In general, the propositions you believe can be: (Intuitive) judgements about particular cases. (such as 1 and 2) (General) principles (such as 3) 23 / 59 Reflective equilibrium More generally, to avoid inconsistency, we need to (i) realize which of our beliefs are inconsistent with each other, and (ii) decide which of our beliefs to reject. Often we will end up rejecting or modifying a (general) principle. Occasionally we will end up rejecting an intuitive judgement about a particular scenario / thought experiment. That is, we seek to bring our (general) principles and our (particular) intuitive judgements into a reflective equilibrium When trying to resolve an inconsistency, philosophers rarely agree on the best way of doing so. That is philosophy rarely provides arguments so persuasive that everyone will agree: different philosophers will reach different reflective equilibria. We use Conceptual Analysis to reach a reflective equilibrium. Typically, a r.e. about a more or less delineated subject matter. However... 24 / 59 12 “Pretty much hangs together” “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term” (Wilfred Sellars) Pretty much things “hangs together”. For example: Propositions about causation and consciousness, “hang together” with propositions about free will, which ‘hang together” with propositions about responsibility and blame, which ‘hang together” with propositions about (criminal) justice. Philosophy seeks to understand how exactly i.e. in virtue of which principles and concepts, propositions about a.o. these subject matters are related. Philosophers seek to bring their beliefs about them in a reflective equilibrium. Let’s now illustrate how these things hang together. 25 / 59 13 What is Blame? 26 / 59 Causation and Blame-Cause Blame-cause principle: If agent A is to blame for situation S, then A’s action was (must have been) one of the causes of S. Ethical question: what is blame? I.e. when is an agent to blame? Causation principle: Event C was one the causes of event E iff if C had not occurred then E would not have occurred either. Metaphysical question: when is one event the cause of another? So principles from different branches of philosophy may “hang together”. Metaphysics and Ethics are branches of philosophy that systematically investigate the foundational concepts and principles that are at stake when discussing the questions, respectively: what is the nature of reality? and how should we act? Epistemology is another branch: what can we know? 27 / 59 14 Brakes Brakes illustrates the plausibility of (is evidence for) the 2 principles: Brakes Lara is hired to fix the broken lights on Charlie’s car. Bao is hired to fix the broken brakes. They both forget to do so. Charlie drives his car during the day, and crashes, because the brakes are faulty. Who is to blame for the crash? Intuition: Lara is not to blame (and Bao is to blame). Causation: if Lara had not forgotten to fix the lights, the crash would still have occurred. So Lara’s forgetting to fix the lights is not a cause of the crash. Blame-cause: As Lara did not cause the crash, she is not to blame for the crash. So Blame-cause and Causation together imply that Lara is not to blame. (Note that it follows from Causation that Bao caused the crash but also that this does not allow us to infer from Blame-cause that Bao is to blame) 28 / 59 Poison & Holes Poison & Holes Alma is going on a long trek across the desert alone. The only water that she has is contained in a large water bottle. Without anyone knowing,“Poisoner Piet” adds poison to the water. Without anyone knowing, “Cutter Kurt” cuts a hole in water bottle so the water leaks out. Poisoner Piet and Cutter Kurt act independently, without the other knowing. When Alma comes to take her first drink of water in the middle of the desert, she finds the water is completely gone. She dies of thirst. Who is to blame for her death? Intuition: (Only) Kurt. Causation: neither Piet nor Kurt caused Alma’s death. So, by Blame-cause: neither Piet nor Kurt is to blame for it. Poison & Holes is a counterexample to Causation and Blame-cause together. 29 / 59 15 A hard decision The following propositions are jointly inconsistent: (1) The Blame-cause principle. (2) The Causation principle. (3) (The intuitive judgement that) Kurt is to blame in Poison & Holes. So we either have to: Revise (1) or (2) / Dispute the counterexample / Bite the bullet, i.e. give up (3). Indeed, no reflective equilibrium can contain (1), (2), (3) together. Fifty years of research in philosophy has shown that it is surprisingly difficult to come up with an alternative general principle that respects the intuition that Kurt caused Alma’s death but that Piet didn’t (Paul and Hall 2013). In light of this, a few philosophers are willing to “bite the bullet” here: they reject the particular judgement that Piet wasn’t to blame for Alma’s death. (After all, he did something that made her death very likely.) 30 / 59 16 3. The Utilitarian Principle & Conceptual Analysis 31 / 59 Recall the UP Utilitarian Principle (UP) You should perform an action which, of all actions that are available to you, results in the greatest sum-total of individual well-being. Here is an alternative way of expressing what UP says: UP: A should do h if and only if, of all actions available to A, h results in the greatest sum-total of (individual) well-being. This alternative expression shows that the UP formulates INJS conditions for what an agent, morally speaking, should do, i.e. for a morally right action. Let’s first run some thought experiments to test the UP. Then, I will explain that the UP can be analysed in terms of more fundamental principles which will be used to structure this course. 32 / 59 17 Lifeboat and the UP Lifeboat After a shipwreck, one person is stranded on some island a and five persons are stranded on some other island b. All six persons are strangers to you. You have a lifeboat which allows for a trip to one of the islands but, owing to a lack of fuel, you can only make one trip. When you use your boat to visit an island, you can rescue all persons which are stranded on that particular island. However, as an unavoidable consequence, all persons stranded on the other island will die. What should you do? Intuition: visit island b, because... UP: visit island b, because doing so maximizes the sum-total of well-being. For Lifeboat, UP agrees with intuition. Lifeboat is evidence for the UP. 33 / 59 Organs and the UP Organs Five persons need a heart, kidney, lung, liver and brain transplant respectively. Without the transplant they die. Some other person, call him David, is perfectly healthy. All six persons are strangers to you. By harvesting David’s organs, you can save the life of 5 persons. What should you do? Intuition: do not harvest, because... UP: harvest because doing so maximizes the sum-total of well-being. For Organs, UP disagrees with intuition. Organs is a counterexample to the UP. In Organs, you need to kill the one in order to save the 5. “You should never kill a person, as this violates his rights.” But the UP does not recognize such things as “rights.” 34 / 59 18 World Cup and the UP World Cup Suppose that Bob has suffered an accident in the transmitter room of a television station. Electrical equipment has fallen on his arm, and we cannot rescue him without turning off the transmitter for fifteen minutes. A World Cup match is in progress, watched by many people, and there is still an hour to play. Bob’s injury will not get any worse if we wait, but his hand has been mashed and he is receiving extremely painful shocks. Should we rescue him now or wait until the match is over? Intuition: rescue now, because... UP: rescue after the match, as this maximizes the sum-total of well-being. For World Cup UP disagrees with intuition. World Cup is a counterexample to the UP. 35 / 59 What to do? UP Intuition Organs Harvest David’s organs Do not harvest David’s organs World Cup Rescue Bob later Rescue Bob now The conflict between UP and Intuition: In Organs: David’s right (to bodily integrity) should never be violated. In World Cup: a sum of insignificantly small well-being gains by TV viewers should not outweigh Bob’s moderate well-being loss. These conflicts seem to put pressure on different “parts” of the UP. It would be convenient to be analyse the UP into “different parts’”, as this would foster our understanding of the UP. But also, this would allow us to see which “partial principles” may need to be revised in light of certain thought-experiments. 36 / 59 19 Breaking down UP In Utilitarianism in the twentieth century (2014), Krister Bykvist writes: The greater precision of utilitarian theories in the twentieth century was enabled by an analysis of each theory into its more fundamental parts. For instance, [the UP], according to which an action ought to be done just in case its outcome contains a sum total of well-being that is greater than that which is contained in the outcome of any alternative action, was broken down into two parts: P1 Consequentialism. You should perform an action iff its outcome is better than the outcome of any alternative action available to you. Sum-ranking Welfarism. One outcome is better than another iff the sum-total of individual well-being in the former is greater than in the latter. Bykvist then notes that Sum-ranking Welfarism can broken down into 4 further principles P2, P3, P4, P5. 37 / 59 The 5 principles of the UP The UP is (provably) equivalent to P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 together: P1 Consequentialism. You should perform an action iff its outcome is better than the outcome of any alternative action available to you. P2 Welfarism. Only well-being determines how good an outcome is. P3 Weak Pareto. If everyone is better off in outcome y than in outcome x, then outcome y is better than outcome x. P4 Cardinal comparability. People’s well-being gains and losses can be compared. P5 Transitional Equity. If x is obtained from y by: increasing the well-being value of person i by amount k, and by decreasing the well-being value of person j with k, then x and y are equally good. These five principles will structure this course. Here, I will briefly comment on the plausibility of the principles. I will roughly sketch in what lecture we will discuss them in more detail. 38 / 59 20 P1. Consequentialism P1. Consequentialism You should perform an action if and only if its outcome is better than the outcome of any alternative action available to you. (Where the fact that you have performed an action is part of the outcome of that action) Consequentialism defines “the right in terms of the good”: The morally right action (what you should do) is defined as the best action. Ann: Consequentialism is trivially true, the hard task is to spell out what makes outcomes good / bad. Bob: You should act only according to that rule whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. So the right is defined independently of the good. Hence, Consequentialism is false. (cf. L6 / L7) 39 / 59 P2. Welfarism P2. Welfarism Only well-being determines how good an outcome is. Well-being ≈ what is intrinsically good for people (and other subjects of well-being). Well-being ≈ what is it that makes a life go well or badly for the person living it. Ann: How could welfarism be false? The task is just to spell out what well-being is, e.g.: Pleasant experiences / Preference satisfaction / Capabilities /... (cf. L4A) Bob: How good a situation is depends, amongst others, on whether people get what they deserve, whether they are treated fairly, and on whether their freedom and rights are respected. No plausible account of well-being can take these factors into account. Hence, Welfarism is false. (cf. L6 ) 40 / 59 21 P3. Weak Pareto P3. Weak Pareto If everyone is better off in outcome y than in outcome x, then outcome y is better than outcome x. Ann: If Welfarism is true (which it is), then Weak Pareto must be true as well: If the goodness of outcomes is solely determined by well-being then surely, increasing everyone’s well-being yields a better outcome Bob: Even if Welfarism is true (which it isn’t), Weak Pareto is false: In situation x, John and Sue live comparable middle-class lives. In y, Sue’s life a tiny bit better than in x and that of John an awful lot. Owing to the large inequality between John and Sue in y, x is better than y. Hence, Weak Pareto is false. (cf. L5) 41 / 59 P4. Cardinal Comparability P4. Cardinal Comparability People’s well-being gains and losses can be compared. Ann: Cardinal Comparability is true as we make such comparisons all the time, i.e when we say: John would benefit more from having a car than Sue would. More generally, it makes perfect sense to say, for instance, that: My gain in well-being is greater than your loss in well-being. Bob: We say lots of things that, upon reflection, are meaningless from a more scientific point of view, your examples being a case in point. It is meaningful to say that a car is better for John than a train subscription. But not how much a car is better for John than a train subscription is. Let alone to compare such alleged quantities for John and Sue. So, Cardinal Comparability is false. (cf. L3, L4B) 22 42 / 59 23 P5. Transitional Equity P5. Transitional Equity If outcome x is obtained from outcome y by: increasing the well-being value of person i by amount k, and by decreasing the well-being value of person j with k, then outcomes x and y are equally good. Ann: Transitional Equity is true as, in moral considerations: “everybody is to count for one, nobody for more than one”, i.e. “all persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status” Bob: Surely, Transitional Equity is false: In x, John’s well-being is very low and that of Sue extremely high. By transferring k units of well-being from Sue to John, we obtain y. Surely, y is better than x Hence, Transitional Equity is false. (cf. L5) 43 / 59 Structure of the course For a somewhat more fine-grained mapping of lectures to the 5Ps of the UP, have a look at the course-description at Canvas. About the lectures: Slides, handouts and recordings of a lecture all appear on the Canvas (sub)page devoted to that lecture. The MC exam (40 questions) counts towards 60% of your grade and is only about the content of the lecures. About the tutorials: During the tutorials you develop philosophical skills which are relevant for essay writing. See also the essay instruction video on Canvas. You will write 2 short essays for this course which count towards your grade for, respectively, 15% and 25%. How to prepare for a tutorial (e.g. which article to read)? What will we be doing during the tutorial? See the Canvas (sub)page devoted to the tutorial. 24 44 / 59 25 4. More Philosophy 45 / 59 Philosophical education The purpose of a philosophical eduction is to enable one to find reasons to commit oneself one way or another in response to important philosophical questions. What is important is not so much the particular set of answers one arrives at by way of reflective equilibration (the process of reaching equilibrium). Rather what is important is the process of rational reflection that one has to undergo in order to arrive at such equilibrium. One needs to open one’s mind to the possibility that one has premised one’s personal and intellectual life thus far on unexamined assumptions about God, self, life, personhood, purpose, meaning, rationality, value, thought, language, the future, free will, morality, causation, space, time, the physical universe, and our place in it. And not only that; some of those assumptions (or indeed many of them, or perhaps even all of them) might, upon being more consciously considered, wilt in the light of critical scrunity. One may need to suspend them or abandon them; indeed one might even need to reject them. This is an extreme, and often emotionally unsettling, case of rational belief revision. Neil Tennant (2015). Introducing Philosophy: God, Mind, World and Logic. 46 / 59 A course in philosophy You will probably not get a full philosophical education. And Tennant’s words may sound a bit pompous to your mind. Still, I hope that taking this course will at least show you that: 1. Doing philosophy can be plain fun. 2. Philosophy is useful in general, as its methods will force you to: 2a. Argue in a persuasive manner. 2b. Write in a comprehensible and structured manner. 2c. Analyse and structure complex problems. 3. Philosophy is relevant for economics, as the disciplines are conceptually intertwined. 47 / 59 26 The four branches of philosophy The four branches of philosophy systematically investigate the foundational concepts and principles that are at stake when discussing: Metaphysics: what is the nature of reality? Epistemology: what can we know? Ethics: how should we act? Logic: how should we reason? As formulated, the four questions are very general and abstract. For lots particular phenomena or subject matters X , it makes sense to ask: Metaphysics of X : what is the nature of X ? Epistemology of X : what can we know about X ? Ethics of X : how should we act in situations of X ? Logic of X : how should we reason about X ? Logic is way less subject dependent than the other 3 branches (and quite a few argue that logic is universal) but still we have: Quantum Logics, Logics for Semantic Paradoxes, Logics for Vagueness,... 48 / 59 Philosophy of X / Economics The twentieth century saw the development of the ‘Philosophy of X ’ for X taking, amongst others, the values: Logic; Mathematics; Science; Social Science; Physics; Chemistry; Biology;Archaeology; Art; Education; Sport; Medicine; Mind; Psychology; Perception; Action; Cognitive Science; Language; Linguistics; Information; Literature; Economics; Politics; Law... The content of this course belongs to the Philosophy of Economics. But we completely neglect other branches of the Philosophy of Economics, e.g. methodological questions, such as: Does game theory really explain human behaviour? When are idealized economic models reliable? How reliable are ”diagnostic tests” in econometrics? What role if any should economists’ values play in how they do economics? 49 / 59 27 Interested? In case you are interested in combining philosophy with economics... Erasmus School of Philosophy (ESPhil) offers two great opportunities: Bachelor in Philosophy of a Specific Discipline ESPhil offers the unique programme Bachelor in Philosophy of a Specific Discipline for students who wish to obtain a second degree in philosophy. This programme is highly flexible and can be easily combined with all bachelor programmes (such as Economics) offered at EUR. After that, you have the perfect background for our: Research Master in the Philosophy of Economics The Research Master is a two-year full-time programme in the philosophy of economics. The first of its kind, the programme remains one of the few programmes in the world that focuses especially on philosophy of economics, and that offers a comprehensive overview of the field. 50 / 59 Our ReMa programme Our ReMa is rated as one of the best research master programmes in Philosophy and among the Top-22 of all master programmes in the Netherlands. 20 ECTS Electives + 45 ECTS Research + 55 ECTS Mandatory: Core courses in the Phil. of Economics Methodology of Economics 7.5 Rationality and Choice 7.5 Ethics and Economics 7.5 New Developments in Economics 7.5 (30 ECTS) ECTS ECTS ECTS ECTS Research topics in the Phil. of Economics (15 ECTS) Deliberative Democracy: Clashing Viewpoints 3.75 ECTS The Philosophy and Economics of Climate Change 3.75 ECTS Climate Change and the Demands of Justice 3.75 ECTS Two courses in the Phil. of Economics from ESPhil’s MA (10 ECTS) Social Choice Theory and Political Representation 5 ECTS Welfare and Cooperation 5 ECTS Justice in the Economics and Politics of Wealth 5 ECTS Capitalism and Freedom 5 ECTS 51 / 59 28 Appendix 52 / 59 Summary 53 / 59 1. Conceptual Analysis A conceptual analysis of X is a philosophical method which seeks to formulate, test and revise principles for X in order to increase our understanding of X: A conceptual analysis of X seeks to increase our understanding of X by specifying principles which specify how X is related to other concepts. Principles are tested by applying them to thought-experiments. When a thought-experiment is a counterexample to a principle, one can: Revise the principle / dispute the counterexample / bite the bullet The ideal of a conceptual analysis of X consists of INJS conditions for X Philosophers hate to bite the bullet: intuitions are the data of philosophy The conceptual analysis of knowledge as Justified True Belief. 54 / 59 2. C.A. & The aim of Philosophy “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term” (Wilfred Sellars) Philosophy aims to offer principled, unified view of the world. Philosophy aims to make our thinking about a subject matter as clear, systematic and consistent as possible. Philosophers seek to bring their (general) principles and (particular) intuitive judgements into a reflective equilibrium. Different philosophers will reach different reflective equilibria. To reach a reflective equilibrium philosophers use, amongst others, the method of Conceptual Analysis. 55 / 59 29 3. The UP & Conceptual Analysis UP: You should perform an action which, of all actions that are available to you, results in the greatest sum-total of individual well-being.” The UP specifies INJS conditions for what you should, morally speaking, do i.e. for a morally right action. UP is equivalent to the following five principles: P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Consequentialism Welfarism Weak Pareto Cardinal Comparability Transitional Equity Sum-Ranking Welfarism is equivalent to P2 & P3 & P4 & P5. The 5Ps of the UP will structure this course. 56 / 59 4. More Philosophy Metaphysics / of X : what is the nature of reality / of X ? Epistemology / of X : what can we know / about X ? Ethics / of X : how should we act / in situations of X ? Logic / of X : how should we reason / about X ? The Philosophy of Economics asks Metaphysical / Epistemological / Ethical / Logical questions about Economics. Interested in the Philosophy of Economics? Have a look at: ESPhil’s Bachelor of a Specific Discipline (combined with economics) ESPhil’s Research Master in Philosophy & Economics. 57 / 59 30 Literature 58 / 59 Want to read more? What is Philosophy? 1. Stewart D, Blocker G and Petrik J. 2012. The Activity of Philosophy, in Fundamentals of Philosophy pp 1-7. What is Knowledge? 2. Gettier, E. 1963. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23(6) : 121-123. Locating the Philosophy of Economics 3. Reiss, J. 2013 Philosophy of Economics: a contemporary introduction. Routledge. pp 1-352. (1) is short and very accessible reflection on the question What is Philosophy?. Answers the question roughly along the lines of this lecture. Definitely read this! (2) is Gettier’s 2 page paper which discredited the JTB account of knowledge! (3) is a very broad and accessible textbook, covering virtually all areas of the Philosophy of Economics. Written by a former ESPhil professor and used to teach a predecessor of this course. 59 / 59 31

HL1SWhatsPhil?.pdf

Related

Transcript

Tags

Upgrade to continue