Philosophy Study Guide - Exam 2 PDF

Philosophy Study Guide - Exam 2 Definitions - terms and what they mean *Kantian definitions Maxim = rule by which an action was performed ○ Voluntary actions always have rule/reason for which they were performed ○ Maxim prescribes performing a certain kind of act...

Philosophy Study Guide - Exam 2 Definitions - terms and what they mean *Kantian definitions Maxim = rule by which an action was performed ○ Voluntary actions always have rule/reason for which they were performed ○ Maxim prescribes performing a certain kind of action in a certain kind of situation in order to achieve a certain kind of end: whenever ____, I will ____, in order to ____. ○ Maxim = imperative (synonyms) 2 maxim/imperative forms ○ Hypothetical imperative = tells you what you should do if you have certain goals Reason to do something depends on having certain motivation (hypothetical reasons) - without right motivations, reasons don’t exist Hypothetical reasons only apply if you have certain goals - if you have those goals, these suggestions are good way to achieve goal Ex: if you want an A in the course, then you should study hard OR if you want to destroy the human race, then you should detonate some nuclear weapons ○ Categorical imperative = tells you what you should do no matter what your goals are Apply regardless of motivations Baby with the fork example = you see random person poking baby with a fork, you yell at the person to stop because they’re hurting the baby and it is morally wrong but the person doesn’t stop or care - however, you don’t change your mind that it is morally wrong because reason to act morally doesn’t disappear even if person doesn’t care about it (isn’t dependent in motivations) (Onora O'Neill) A mean = something used solely as instrument to achieve separate goals ○ Only purpose is to achieve ends = something recognized as something that cannot be used solely as instrument *Personal identity definitions 2 types of identity ○ Qualitative identity =identical can just mean alike in qualities, 2 things are just like each other (ex: identical twins) A is like B ○ Strict or numerical identity = there is only one thing (ex: Joe Biden is identical with the President of the United States [very same person])  A is B In trying to determine identity conditions for persons, we are looking for strict numerical identity across time and change *Existence of God definitions Theists = believe in God Atheists = believe God does not exist Agnostics = have no belief about the matter A posteriori vs a priori arguments ○ A posteriori = known after seeing evidence ○ A priori = known not through observation but just by thinking something through Concept that a table is either brown or not brown - simply known just by thinking about it, without ever seeing the table Set theory definitions ○ Set = collection of distinct entities Set of entities distinct from entities themselves Some sets finite, some infinite Normal intuitions don’t apply to infinite sets - Ex: (AW Moore) number of natural numbers vs number of even natural numbers are both infinite, you would think set of natural numbers would not be equinumerous as set of even natural numbers (because you are cutting set in half) but because both are infinite the are equinumerous //// Ex: (George Cantor) more real numbers than natural numbers (sets are not equinumerous), proven by trying to do one to one correspondence with the 2 sets and then constructing a real number that wasn’t a natural number (diagonalization argument - number created by changing digits in specific pattern on a diagonal) ○ Member = one entity in a set ○ Cardinality = number of members in a set ○ Equinumerous = when 2 sets have same cardinality Determined by one to one correspondence = every member of 2 different sets can be matched up with unique member of other set Contingent = something that may have failed to exist Necessary = something that could not have failed to exist, are not reliant on previous events (like the number 2) Views- theories and what they say Kant’s Theory ○ Basis of theory  Kant believes that: What is characteristic of categorical imperatives is that they apply regardless of motivations Morality is supposed to apply universally (have reasons to act morally regardless of personal desires) Because morality is universal, same moral truths apply to everyone equally Different formulations of categorical imperative ○ Formula of universal law theory = view that an act is morally permissible if and only if the agent of that act can consistently will (possible for everyone to perform same action) that everyone follow her maxim Basic idea = something is morally wrong just in case it would be irrational for everyone to do it (reason action was taken would be undermined), if there is some reason for adopting course of action and inconsistency (goal of action undermined) would be generated if everyone acted upon same reason then course of action is morally wrong Logical inconsistency in this sense = if everyone acted in the same way I did, could we still accomplish goals or will there be contradiction (not reasonable) Morality about what is right and wrong for everyone, not about making exception for yourself - can’t be freerider on beneficial action that others cannot partake in Examples Tax example = I don’t want to pay taxes and if I don’t then I will be super happy and loss of my taxes won’t have big enough impact on government revenue so no one will be negatively affected - BUT action is self undermining: wouldn’t be able to accomplish goals of running country if government didn’t have enough revenue through this action if everyone stopped paying taxes because government revenue would be affected (action only works if you assume no one else does it and you make exception of yourself) → cannot generalize action which means it is not rational because would have contradiction if everyone stopped paying taxes because then goal of government revenue would be impossible Watering lawn case = Jack’s maxim (whenever there is a drought, I will water my lawn in secret, in order to have a nice lawn) would be undermined if his action were generalized because water would run out and Jack would not get the nice lawn he wants - universalizing maxim would undermine reasons for acting - therefore is morally impermissible under FUL  Lying promise case = maxim in this case (whenever I need money, I will make a lying promise to pay the lender back when I know I cannot pay them back, in order to get the money I need) cannot be made universal law because cannot consistently will that everyone follow maxim because to do so would undermine purpose in acting (getting money) - of everyone followed maxim and made lying promises to get money, I couldn’t get money I wanted because no one would be dumb enough to lend it to me *maxim would defeat purpose in acting if I consistently willed everyone to follow it, thus FUL determines action of making a lying promise is morally wrong ○ Formula of Humanity theory = view that act is morally permissible if and only if the agent of that act treats humanity as an end in itself and not as a means Act morally permissible when it treats person as end in itself, morally wrong when it treats person as merely a mean (Onora O’Neill) X treats Y merely as a means whenever X acts on a maxim that Y wouldn’t/could not consent to Ex: lying promise case - asking for money knowing you won’t pay it back means you keep maxim a secret from lender, prevents lender from consenting to maxim (and they would not consent to it if they did know) - FH says act is morally wrong Reasons to develop theory of personal identity 1) Tied closely to question of survival of death/living in an afterlife (personal immortality = continuation after death of conscious individual and implies continuation of same identity - one and the same person before and after biological death) a) Beliefs about personal immortality presuppose beliefs about personal identity 2) Future concern = concerned about what will happen to us in the future and make decisions based on how future selves will be affected - future identity 3) Reward and punishment = believe someone shouldn’t be punished for crimes they didn’t commit nor rewarded for things they didn’t do themselves - what about split personalities? *theory of personal identity - Answers 3 questions = (1) what features must something have in order to count as a person? (2) when is a person at one time numerically identical to a person at another time? - what changes can a person undergo yet remain numerically identical to themselves? (3) what makes me the person that I am? - Is formative account of what it is for person at one time to be same person at another time (problem of personal identity) - Ex: one way to approach problem of personal identity = look at person aging throughout time as person undergoing series of changes over time -  various stages that make up their history (temporal parts of extended-through-time-person) - Person remains the same, just not in the same stage anymore - Stages of same person = space time worm 3 basic positions on personal identity survival ○ Same body = survival of person requires survival of same living body ○ Same soul/immaterial substance = survival of person requires survival of same soul (immaterial mental substance) ○ Psychological continuity = survival of person need psychological continuity (ex: linked by memory - one extended consciousness) Locke’s theory of personal identity ○ To Locke: Person = thinking + intelligent being, reason + reflection, consider itself as itself at different times through consciousness Claims personal identity explained in terms of memory and consciousness = identity is stream of consciousness stages linked through memory *person is conscious being that exists as one and the same being at different times if they have unified consciousness across time linked by memory ○ Defends psychological continuity view - simple memory theory = person 1 is the same as person 2 if and only if person 2 can remember thinking person 1’s thoughts or performing person 1’s actions “Episodic memory” (memory of past experiences) is what is important to Locke, not “semantic memory” (memory of general facts) Psychological continuity is what matters for personal identity - sameness of body and sameness of soul are neither necessary nor sufficient ○ Memory continuity theory = person 1 is person 2 if they are memory continuous (memory continuous: connected by a chain of directly memory connected persons [memory connected: can remember thinking same thoughts or performing same actions]) Adjusted version of simple memory theory in response to soldier theory (solves problem of principle of transitivity) Parfit’s no self theory ○ Your identity doesn’t survive numerically, simply series of qualitatively similar beings - identity is illusory concept Hume agrees = believed humans have bundled sensations, ideas, memories, etc but no self (nothing exists that is numerically identical all the while) ○ No single you from one time to the next = rather, life is composed of series of consecutive persons, related to you in various ways but not identical to you  Each person comes into existence for a little while before replaced with another qualitatively similar person Important questions to be investigated surrounding existence of God ○ What do we mean by ‘God’? God and the Boy Scout Case = young boy is atheist, wants to be Eagle Scout, 2 requirements: (1) must acknowledge you believe in God (2) must have ability to be reverent (deeply respectful towards God, faithful in religious duties, and be respectful toward God), boy in pickle, goes to pastor who says boy does believe in God simply because he believes there is order in the universe which pastor says is God - does boy truly believe in God? What would something have to be like in order to be God? A being is God if and only if that being is: ○ Omnipotent = all powerful, or almighty ○ Omniscient = all knowing ○ Omnibenevolent = all good, morally perfect Also common to say God is: ○ Eternal = exists at all times or outside time ○ Immutable = does not and cannot change ○ Omnipresent = everywhere ○ Unique ○ Necessary *items on list because concept of God is concept of greatest possible being ○ Should one believe in the existence of God? Which belief should be the default position? Agnosticism - opinion held before any evidence presented against/in favor of existence of God Atheism - burden of proof is on proving God does exist and if not, believe God does not exist ○ On what basis should one decide? Arguments - arguments +objections and the problems they pose/support they give for theories Utilitarianism Theory ○ Objections (JJC Smart) Watering the lawn objection = hot weather/drought means rule put in place that says no water can be used to water flowers (water must be conserved), Jack assumes everyone else will follow rule so water he uses is therefore negligible, Jack waters his flowers that grow into lovely plants that give happiness to him while water he used did not have  any negative effects on anyone else - HAU claims watering the lawn is morally correct because overall happiness is raised (Jack happier, amount of water negligible so no one harmed) but using water everyone is conserving during a drought is not morally permissible because Jack is making an exception of himself 1) If HAU is true, then it is morally permissible for Jack to water lawn 2) It is not morally permissible for Jack to water his lawn 3) Therefore, HAU is false Colosseum objection = emperor has 100,000 people who want ro see handful of Christians get eaten by lions (each will get 1 hedon which will outweigh of dolors of Christians eaten by lions), if emperor doesn’t feed Christians to lions because he feels it is wrong then spectators will be slightly worse off (each will get 1 dolor which means total amount of lost wellbeing will outweigh the hedons of saved Christians) - HAU claims emperor is morally obligated to kill Christians when that is not true in reality 1) If HAU is true, then emperor is morally obligated to throw Christians to the lions 2) Emperor is not morally obligated to throw Christians to lions 3) Therefore, HAU is false Punish the innocent objection = deranged killer committed series of horrible crimes, commits suicide, police suspect man who committed suicide is man who committed crimes but have no proof, other murderers follow same pattern set by deranged killer to make it seem like original killer is still active (don’t know original killer is dead) so police won’t suspect them, proposal to police chief: pick random innocent person and hang them in public - will stop imitators by taking away cover and relieve panic of public and good for police as its kept secret - HAU says its morally obligatory to authorize frame up and hang innocent person because no other option produces as much wellbeing 1) If HAU is true, chief is morally obligated to authorize frame up 2) Chief not morally obligated to authorize frame up 3) Therefore, HAU is not true Formula of Universal Law ○ Objections Showing up early to skip long lines objection = maxim of showing up early to skip long lines cannot be consistently willed that everyone do it because then everyone would be there early and the lines would be there too - FUL claims action is morally wrong when it is not in reality 1) If FUL is true, then showing up early to skip long lines is morally wrong  2) Skipping long lines is not morally wrong 3) Therefore, FUL is false *demonstrates how Kant’s theory is very abstract - hard to apply to concrete situations *maxims can be reworded to erase contradiction Formula of Humanity ○ Objections Throwing a surprise birthday party means keeping maxim a secret for birthday person, birthday person cannot consent to maxim, FH says act is morally wrong because birthday person is treated as a means when in reality this act is not morally wrong 1) If FH is true, then your throwing a surprise party is morally wrong 2) Your throwing a surprise birthday party is not morally wrong 3) Therefore, FH is not true Locke’s theory of personal identity ○ Locke defend psychological continuity and simple memory theory by attacking 2 other possible positions (same body and same soul theories) Refuting same body theory (p1=p2 at different times if p1 and p2 have the same living body) Same person can occupy different bodies - “Prince and the Cobbler” objection ○ Prince wakes up in cobbler’s body after cobbler was deserted by how own soul but prince retains past memories and same consciousness in cobbler’s body - Locke argues Prince is same prince even in different body because retains same consciousness unified by memory which is not what same body theory would say ○ Similar case = wake up in the body of someone who has an angry mob wanting to kill them, you are still original you because you have same consciousness and memories even in different body, not responsible for actions of body you are in while same body theory would claim you are responsible 1) If same body theory is true, then before cobbler is the same as after cobbler (Prince inhabiting) 2) Before cobbler is not the same as after cobbler 3) Therefore, same body theory is false Different people can exist in same body - Socrates + Mayor of Queenborough / Charles + Hank objections  ○ Distinct personalities with dissociative amnesia (loss of identity with loss of consciousness linked by memory) ○ Socrates + Mayor of Queenborough = when Socrates is asleep he is the Mayor of Queenborough but while he is awake he is Socrates, 2 distinct people with distinct consciousnesses and memories ○ Charles + Hank = Charles and Hank are 2 separate streams of consciousness with no shared memories and are never simultaneously conscious yet live in the same body, charlie cannot be held responsible for Hank’s actions (what if Charles woke up one day covered in blood and in front of a dead body but has no recollection of any of the events?) - therefore same body theory is false 1) If same body theory is true, then Hank is Charlie 2) Hank is not Charlie 3) Therefore, the same body theory is false *disproving of same body theory is indirect evidence for Locke’s own theory - Cobbler + Prince case shows not having same body is not necessary for being same person - Split personality/amnesia case shows that having same body is not sufficient for being same person Refuting same soul theory (souls are immaterial entities that are centers of consciousness - do the thinking and are bearers of psychological characteristics, p1 is p2 if p1 and p2 have same soul) Epistemological objection 1) If soul theory is true, then none of our judgements concerning personal identity are justified 2) Some of our judgements concerning personal identity are justified 3) Therefore, soul theory is not true ○ Premise rationales Premise 1: our souls are not directly observable, cannot judge if person is same as before based on their soul because you cannot observe their soul, thus we cannot make justified claims about personal identity because we cannot observe souls [according to soul theory] Premise 2: obviously some of our judgements concerning personal identity are justified and many  daily practices rest on this (such as punishing/rewarding people for past actions) ○ Objection to objection = psychological characteristics are signals of same soul so continuation of those can be observed Problem with this objection = what about 2 different souls with qualitatively similar psychological characteristics? Transmigration objection = what happens if a person’s memories were deleted from the soul and soul entered a new body (reincarnated into a new body with no memories), what are intuitions about a new person? - soul theory claims person who inhabits body is same as person who previously inhabited different body because sameness of soul means sameness of personal identity but this notion seems wrong ○ Locke’s version = Nestor’s soul without memories migrates into your body with all your memories - are you responsible for Nestor’s war crimes committed at the siege of Troy? Soul theory claims you are because you have Nestor’s soul within you so you are therefore Nestor (seems wrong) 1) If soul theory is true, then Nestor is you 2) Nestor is not you 3) Therefore soul theory is false Constantly changing soul objection = suppose our souls were constantly being replaced with new souls which had exact same psychological characteristics and memories you presently have - soul theory says you are constantly changing personal identities which seems false ○ Objections to Locke’s account (simple memory theory) (Thomas Reid) Soldier objection = 3 stages of man’s life are child + young soldier + old general, young soldier remembers child’s experiences and old general remembers experience of young soldier but old general does not remember child’s experiences 1) If simple memory theory is true, then child is not the same as old general 2) If simple memory theory is true, then the child is the same as the old general (via the transitive property of logic) 3) Therefore, if simple memory theory is true, then child is both identical and not identical to old general 4) Child cannot be both identical and not identical to old general 5) Therefore, simple memory is false Response to this objection = weaken Locke’s analysis of personal identity so principle of transitivity is not violated ○ Adjust theory to become memory continuity theory = person 1 is person 2 if they are memory continuous (memory continuous: connected by a chain of directly memory connected persons [memory connected: can remember thinking same thoughts or performing same actions]) Joseph Butler’s objection = cannot define personal identity by memory because memory is in part defined in terms of identity - Locke’s account is circular Having false memories (having memory of something that did not actually happen) - real memory needs person to be same person who had experience they seem to remember (need to have memory and be person who experienced it) ○ Therefore memory is in part defined by identity - cannot then use memory to define identity → real memory = person’s apparent memory M of some event E is a real memory of E only if E was experienced by that person Means true memory is explained by identity so identity is in part defined by itself (circular reasoning) - if memory can only be defined in this way, either theory is wrong or it is impossible to distinguish between real/false memories so therefore simple memory theory is false 1) If simple memory theory is true, then it is not possible for me to falsely remember doing something I did not do, which was done by someone else 2) It is possible to falsely remember doing something I did not do, which was done by someone else 3) Therefore, simple memory theory is false Response to objection - Locke needs to define real memory without mentioning identity ○ Define memory with causal theory of memory = a person’s apparent memory M of some event E is a genuine memory of E only if person is causally connected to E (Parfit) transporter objection = transporter is teleportation machine where you step on pad and computer scans every particle in body and then disintegrated and computer in new place reforms you from particle scan, want to use transporter machine at tele-transporter station to send  Abraham Lincoln’s top hat to Mars at speed of light but would top hat that appeared on Mars be same hat? (presumably not as it would be physically identical but not the same object as they are destroyed in the process of transportation, would only be duplicate), want to do the same thing with dissertation + would it be the same dissertation? (presumably yes, would not be same physical object but contents are same - bits of matter don’t survive but information does) What about people? - depends on definition ○ If people are simply programs running in the brain, programs are simply information in the brain that would survive the trip = same information in duplicate body Information = psychological continuity preserved through memory Malfunction case = disintegrator on Earth malfunctions - computer scans body and sends information to Mars, duplicate of you is there while you still exist on Earth - psychological continuity not enough to define identity because duplicate has psychological continuity with you but you would not say its you (you still exist and therefore you are still the real you) 1) If psychological continuity theory is true, then I survive teleportation 2) I do not survive teleportation, only a qualitatively identical duplicate comes into existence 3) Therefore, psychological continuity theory is false (Parfit) Split brain objection = procedures to treat seizure disorders: anatomical hemispherectomy (removing one hemisphere of brain)shows you can survive with only one hemisphere of your brain and keep most memories/personality (maintaining identity), corpus callosotomy severs connection between 2 hemispheres which creates 2 distinct hemispheres that have distinct experiences and impulses (2 hemispheres cannot communicate which is problematic because right side of brain only controls left side of body and vice versa and functions unique to separate hemispheres cannot work together = 2 distinct and non overlapping spheres of consciousness) Thought experiment = person gets into a car accident and their body is fatally injured but their brain is healthy, 2 hemispheres were split and put into 2 other people (Righty + Lefty) ○ Can survive with only half of brain and splitting brain results in 2 separate consciousnesses ○ 4 possible outcomes  Original donor survives - cannot be because both hemispheres survive Only Righty lives OR only Lefty survives - cannot be because brain hemispheres are same with same qualities so the 2 cannot be distinguished between Both Righty and Lefty survive - cannot be because because hemispheres are very similar but not identical so Righty and Lefty aren’t identical but psychological continuity says they would be because they are identical with original donor (transitive property of logic) 1) If psychological continuity theory is true, then donor is identical to both Lefty and Righty 2) Original donor cannot be identical to both Lefty and Righty 3) Therefore psychological continuity theory is false Existence of God ○ What belief should be the default position? Agnosticism Case of counting the number of blades of grass on the quad - exact number of blades is not known ○ When faced with question of is the number of blades of grass on the quad even or odd, due to the lack of evidence, makes sense to not have an opinion - be agnostic Atheism Teapot argument 1) If it is reasonable to believe God exists unless God’s existence can be disproven, then it is reasonable to believe that Russell’s teapot exists unless existence of teapot floating around earth and invisible to all telescopes can be disproven 2) It is not reasonable to believe that Russell’s teapot exists unless teapot existence can be disproven 3) Therefore, not reasonable to believe that God exists unless God’s existence can be disproven ○ 2 claims from this argument Burden of proof not on skeptics or agnostics Atheism should be default position (not agnosticism) because this burden of proof is on the believers ○ Teapots should not be accepted without evidence (accepting claim about teapot even though there is no  evidence and never will be any evidence) and having no belief about teapot (no belief is nonsense to Russell) is also mistake = teapotist + teapot agnostic beliefs both mistakes, ateapots best answer 1) Default position with respect to belief in Russell’s teapot should be teapot atheism, not agnosticism 2) If default position for teapot is atheism, default for position for God should be atheism 3) Therefore, default position for God should be atheism *The basis for both of these arguments rests on the idea that their case is more analogous to the question of God - is the question of God more analogous to blades of grass question or teapot question? - Is the question of teapot and question of the existence of God truly analogous? (attempt to disprove premise 2 of above argument) - Lots of people believe in God and no one believes in teapot so cases are therefore disanalogous (widespread belief = something reasonable about it) - therefore teapot cause missing something God question has - Russell’s response = just because widespread belief in support of a belief exists does not mean that belief is true - many absurd beliefs were/are widespread (ex: flat Earth theory) - Previous beliefs about teapots make floating teapot in space highly improbable but we do not have any pre-existing beliefs about God that make God’s existence highly improbable so cases are therefore disanalogous What reasons/arguments are there for believing in the existence of God? ○ Argument in favor of existence of God = Cosmological argument Claim that there must be first (uncaused/ultimate) cause of universe, world, and cosmos - leads to claim there is a God Focused on origin of cosmos = cosmological argument Note: ○ Universe is ordered place = everything has reason for occurring (not always complete causal story but always reason) = everything has a reason, ground, or explanation (cause) for happening ○ Ordered chain of causes cannot have infinite regress = must stop somewhere = must have first cause Basic cosmological argument 1) Something (En) exists 2) Everything that exists must have a cause 3) Therefore, En has a cause 4) Either En caused itself to exist or caused by something else (En-1) 5) En cannot cause itself to exist 6) Therefore, En-1 must exist and is what caused En to exist 7) En-1 has a cause 8) Either En-1 caused itself to exist or caused by something else (En-2) 9) Infinite regress of ordered chain of causes is impossible 10) If infinite regress is impossible, must be first uncaused cause (Eo) that began series 11) Therefore, must be first uncaused cause (Eo) that began series Rough version of argument based on basic form 1) Everything has a cause 2) Nothing is cause of itself 3) Infinite chain of ordered causes is impossible 4) Therefore, must be first uncaused cause (which everyone calls God) ○ Rationale for this argument Premise 1 = 2 basic strategies for establishing claim Claim is conceptual truth = can be demonstrated by deductively valid argument (nothing cannot cause something to exist because nothing is nothing) Claim supported by empirical observation (generalization from past experience) = observation of world reveals nothing has ever been without a cause Premise 2 = conceptual truth Nothing can cause itself to exist since then it would have to exist before it existed to cause itself to exist (contradiction) Premise 3 = multiple attempts to prove Thomas Aquinas argues = that if there is no end to a series of efficient causes, there is no first cause, then there are no intermediate causes (because eliminating cause eliminates event it causes), then there i no end (which cannot be true) so therefore there must be a first cause ○ This argument is bad - circular = assumes very thing it's trying to prove (begs the question) JL Mackie argues = wouldn't expect railway train consisting of infinite number of carriages (each pulled by carriage ahead of it) to get along without  an engine, chain consisting of series of links should have hook somewhere Puzzlement at these cases signals acceptance of claim that chains of dependance must end somewhere - still lacking explanation why however ○ Major issue with this version = premises 1 and 3 are contradictory If claim 1 is true, then everything must have a cause to exist BUT claim 3 would then be false If claim 3 is true, then something must exist without a cause (God) but then claim 1 is false Alternative version of argument 1) Universe exists 2) Whatever exists must have a cause 3) Universe has a cause 4) Whatever is caused to exists is caused to exist by something other than itself 5) Therefore, whatever caused the universe to exist is caused to exist by something other than itself 6) The only thing other than the universe that could cause it to exist is God 7) If universe has cause, the God exists 8) Therefore, God exists ○ This argument faces a similar issue - why is God excepted from having a cause and why is it the only thing that could have caused the universe to exist? Need argument to prove why God is exempted from causal principle and why God is only possible first uncaused cause without making entire argument arbitrary - 2 versions of argument Kalam Cosmological Argument = uses God’s eternality as key difference from universe - allows for exemption and existence as only possible first cause ○ Certain things (like the number 2) did not come into existence [#2 always existed] and are not tangible [#2 exists outside of time and space] = eternal, weird to ask about a cause Because of this, can restrict causal principle without being arbitrary/ad hoc = everything that begins to exist  has a cause [not God because eternal things don’t have a cause] 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) Universe began to exist 3) Therefore, universe has a cause (and this cause is God who is the first cause because God is eternal) ○ Evidence for premise 2 (that universe began to exist Empirical evidence = doesn’t decisively favor claim that universe began to exist A priori argument = if universe didn’t begin to exist, then there would be an infinite temporal series of events BUT that is incoherent so therefore universe began to exist Set theory argument = is it possible to form a concrete infinity (not like abstract ones with numbers) - if there is no concrete infinity, universe must have had to begin to exist Tristram Shandy taking 1 year to write 1 chapter in his autobiography - could write his book only if he were immortal (by living forever, number of days in his life as sam as number of years [both are infinite]) Hilbert’s Hotel = infinitely many rooms with 1 guest per room, new guests just shift old guests up 1 room, makes world with no homeless *both situations are absurd and fail to make actual concrete infinity 1) If an actual concrete infinity were possible, then Hilbert’s Hotel would be possible  2) Hilbert’s Hotel is no possible 3) Therefore, an actual concrete infinity is not possible 4) If an actual concrete infinity is not possible, the universe must have begun to exist (since a beginningless temporal series of events would be an actual concrete infinity) 5) Therefore, the universe began to exist Leibnizian cosmological argument = uses God’s necessity as key difference from universe - allows for exemption and status as only possible first cause ○ Basic idea: modify causal principle so it only applies to contingent things - infinite chain of events must be explained by something outside series (since series is contingent) so thus God (necessary being that doesn’t owe existence to anything else) must exist to start series ○ Need further proof why this necessary being is God with qualities we attribute to God (meany attempts - Christian Wolf, Emilie du Chatalet) 1) Everything contingent has a reason for its existence 2) Universe is contingent 3) Therefore, universe has reason for its existence (which is necessary being [which is God]) ○ Argument against existence of God = Argument from Evil Problem of evil Argument against existence of God (or at least existence of God having all attributes given by traditional theism) ○ Attack on coherence/consistency of traditional concept of God ○ Deductive argument from posteriori premises = appeal to facts known by experience concerning existence of evil and suffering in actual world Appeals to particular observed facts about world and shows those facts imply God doesn’t exist  ○ Example evidence = natural disasters, warfare, cancer, plagues, genocide, colonialism, etc Mugging in the park case = someone being mugged, you don;t intervene ○ Reasonable excuses = didn’t see it, muggers outnumber you, etc ○ What if you saw mugging and had power to stop it but you don’t intervene = makes you a bad person ○ Huemer’s serial killer neighbor case (neighbor knows serial killer is murdering people and can intervene by calling police) is very similar *problem of evil = why might an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being allow for existence of evil? ○ Need to develop reasonable excuse = omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being might allow for existence of evil if _____ ○ Argument from evil says only reasonable excuse is that God does not exist 2 versions of argument ○ Logical variation = no solutions to problem of evil - no reason for why God would allow for existence of evil Logical deductive argument: theism is incoherent due to logical inconsistency 1) If God exists, then evil does not exist a) Saying there are no reasons (none at all) why God would allow evil to exist - flaw: there could be implausible reasons beyond our comprehension 2) Evil exists 3) Therefore, God does not exist Supposed inconsistency between 4 propositions: God is all powerful (omnipotent), God is all good, God is all knowing (omniscient), the world contains evil - can’t all be true (if first 3 are true, last one is false) and we know world contains evil, so first 3 claims cannot be true ○ Evidential argument = no plausible solutions to problem of evil - no plausible reasons why God would allow existence of evil  Evidential inductive argument: refers to actual instances, types, and degrees of suffering to show how scale and scope of evil functions as evidence against existence of traditional God - horrendous suffering functions as evidence against claim for omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God 1) An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would not allow evil to exist a) Saying no plausible reasons why God would allow evil to exist 2) Evil exists (and in great abundance) 3) Therefore, God does not exist ○ Overall argument from evil 1) God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being 2) If God is omnibenevolent, then he would eliminate any evils he could unless he didn’t know about them 3) If God is omniscient, then he would know about any evils that exist 4) If God is omnipotent, then he would be able to eliminate any evils that exist 5) Therefore, if God exists, then there would be no evils 6) But evils exist 7) Therefore, God does not exist Responses to argument from evil Necessary means strategy = reason God allows bad things to happen is they are necessary to causing good things to happen that outweigh the bad ○ Bad is necessary means to greater good ○ Bad example of use of this strategy: population control response = reason God allows for so many evils to occur is because it is necessary means for causing greater good (or preventing greater evil) like for example, it is necessary to kill off a large part of the population in order to avoid overpopulation (which would be bad for many people because lack of resources would mean starvation and death and suffering) - better for only a few to die so God allows death to avoid overpopulation *problem with this application =does not take seriously God’s omnipotence - if God is all powerful, he could avoid overpopulation without killing people (alternative solutions like providing more land to spread to also exist)  Must be only option available if bad is used as means for good because if better solution existed God would find it ○ Clarifying definition of God’s omnipotence to strengthen necessary means strategy Paradox of the stone = can God create a stone so big that he cannot lift? Either way there is something God can’t do - thus, God is not all powerful Argument not a very good one = omnipotence is ability to do absolutely anything (not just a meaningless arrangement of words - omnipotence doesn’t include logically impossible descriptions) = therefore an omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible ○ Creating a stone he cannot lift = not logically coherent, impossible object (doesn’t impact God’s omnipotence) *helps necessary means strategy = God can allow evil if there is no other logically coherent way to achieve greater good - some cases it is logically impossible to achieve greater good without the bad means ○ 2 constraints must be satisfied to use necessary means strategy Necessity test = is the evil really necessary? (is it logically impossible for God to bring about the good without allowing for the evil?) Value test = is the good that we get really so valuable? (is the good worth the evil?) *An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being might allow for existence of various evils if there is a good such that = It is logically impossible for God to bring about that good without allowing those evils That good is worth those evils ○ Some ways to employ necessary means strategy Evil is necessary as counterpart to good “We wouldn’t be able to appreciate good if evil did not exist. And our lives would be  much worse if we could not appreciate the good.” Response = argument only how we wouldn’t notice good without evil not that good could not exist without evil, to notice the good by contrast with evil why wouldn’t a little evil suffice? Why is there so much evil? Evil is necessary punishment for sin “Bad things shouldn’t happen to good people but bad things should happen to bad people. God is just giving bad people what they deserve.” Response = argument only shows why bad things should happen to bad people but does not explain why bad things happen to good people (even idea that no one is innocent does not work - punishment should fit the crime) Evil is necessary for building character “Evil is necessary for building moral character. It’s necessary in order to develop into mature moral creatures. Just think about the kinds of people we take to be our heroes: Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X. These people all fought against oppression. If it weren’t for the world’s evils, they wouldn’t have been such virtuous people.” Response = does it pass both tests? - up for debate Evil is necessary for long term goods Evil is necessary for free will A human who freely does good is better than someone who has no choice but to do good = world where we have free will is better than world without it but if we have free will, then we must have ability to do evil (can explain evil by saying it is result of free actions)  *Since a world in which agents act freely is better than world where they do not, it follows that it is better for God to create a world in which agents act freely (and hence do evil) than one where they cannot (but is perfectly good world) 1) An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being could not prevent moral evils without taking away our free will 2) Positive value of free will outweighs negative value of all moral evils in the world 3) Therefore, God might allow moral evils to exist Response = natural disaster response: free will only accounts for some of the bad things that happen (such as murder) - other bad things happen that seem to have nothing to do with free will → why does God allow for occurrence of these natural evils? ○ Many evils caused by natural processes like earthquakes or diseases - don’t result from morally wrong actions and therefore an appeal to free will does not explain these evils ○ Response to response = natural disasters give people an opportunity to do morally virtuous actions (not available without these disasters) - world is better with people who exercise real moral virtue than world where no one did (value test) Response = quality response: we could have free will without there being as much evil as there is - why does there need to be so much evil in order for us to have morally significant free will? ○ Ability to act freely is valuable but does not entail that we should never intervene to prevent someone from  exercising their free will (if that action produces evil that outweighs good of allowing free will - ex: torturing and murdering someone) *God should intervene in those cases - better for those agents not to have ability to act freely rather than commit heinous actions Response = why does God allow us the ability to freely commit very heinous acts? Why couldn’t God have given us free will, but nevertheless not given us the ability to do very harmful things? Overall response to argument from evil ○ Humans are cognitively limited - simple because we cannot see why God would allow certain things to occur doesn’t mean God may not have legitimate reasons for allowing them to occur Response to this response (Huemer) = cognitions argument doesn’t show that there is anything wrong with argument from evil (claims it is sound but still somehow false) which means the evidence supports the view that there is no God (at least none of the sort the theists believe in - one that is good and omnipotent) yet theists believe by claiming it is beyond our comprehension - not coherent