Final Flashcards
1
Q
What is the Antikythera Mechanism?
A
The antikythera mechanism is currently housed in the Greek National Archaeological Museum in Athens and is thought to be one of the most complicated antiques in existence. The device was very thin and made of bronze. It was mounted in a wooden frame and had more than 2,000 characters inscribed all over it. Though nearly 95 percent of these have been deciphered by experts, there as not been a publication of the full text of the inscription.
Today it is believed that this instrument was a kind of mechanical analog computer used to calculate the movements of stars and planets in astronomy.
2
Q
Faulty Analogy
A
assuming that because two things are similar they are necessary alike in other aspects
3
Q
Fallacy of Composition-
A
erroneous argument from a property of a part of a whole to a property of the whole. E.g., each of these feathers is light so this whole box of feathers is light.
4
Q
a posteriori
A
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
5
Q
Hume
A
n empiricist, contends that an arg. for the existence of God that is based upon our experience of cause/effect relationships, will lead to “dangerous consequences.”
Hume will argue that the teleological argument commits the fallacies of faulty analogy and of composition, and that the analogy itself leads to “dangerous” consequences concerning the being of God.
6
Q
Paley’s analogy
A
Watch and other human———–Universe
made things
(design, purposes, etc.) (design, purposes, final causes, etc.)
So, Watchmaker
So, God
similar causes
7
Q
Hume contends that the teleological argument is
A
based on a weak and faulty analogy—the universe is too dissimilar to a ship, a house, or a watch. On page 39 (12th and 13th , 53-14th ) he says that exact similarity of cases provides for a STRONG argument. But, the more unlike the things are, the weaker the argument.
8
Q
Observation of the circulatory —-à Joe’s circ. system, system of humans
A
good analogy
9
Q
Observation of Circ. System —à Joe’s circ. system, Of frogs and fishes
A
This is not a good comparison. Our argument is weak and the conclusion a presumption.
10
Q
Observation of circ. In ——-à Circulation of sap in
animals vegetables
A
A very weak analogy. Conclusion is not reliable.
11
Q
Two sorts of evil:
A
Moral Evil-the wicked things which humans choose to do, and Natural Evil-the pain, suffering, and death which are caused by natural events, e.g., floods, fires, disease, etc.
12
Q
Manichaeism asserted that evil
A
was the work of an evil god (the god of darkness). There was also a good god (of light). Both gods were equally powerful and humans, by choosing a side, would determine which would eventually win.
13
Q
‘Theodicy’
A
ocmes from the Greek words ‘theo,’ meaning God, and ‘dikē,’ meaning ‘justice’ or ‘right.’
Theodicy is the title of Leibniz’s work, but it is also the name of a genre of writings. A theodicy is a work that attempts to justify God’s ways to humanity, specifically, it attempts to vindicate God’s goodness in allowing the existence of evil.
14
Q
A prosyllogism
A
is an argument whose conclusion is used as a premise in another argument.
15
Q
Leibniz is famous for saying that
A
“this is the best of all possible worlds.”
16
Q
Objection I, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
A
- Whoever does not choose the best course is lacking either in power, or knowledge, or goodness.
- God did not choose the best course in creating this world.
- Therefore, God was lacking in power, or knowledge, or goodness.
A valid argument—Leibniz will question its soundness.
17
Q
Prosyllogism to Objection I, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
A
. Whoever makes things in which there is evil, and which could have been made without evil, or need not have been made at all, does not choose the best course.
- God made a world in which there is evil; a world that could have been made without evil or that need not have been made at all.
- Therefore, God did not choose the best course.
This argument is valid. Leibniz is going to question its soundness. He asserts that 1st premise is false. He argues that “. . . the best course is not always one which tends toward avoiding evil, since it is possible that evil may be accompanied by a greater good.”
He proceeds to provide examples which are supposed to prove that sometimes evil is accompanied by a greater good. The first one uses the analogy of a general and God.
The general of an army prefers a great victory with a slight wound to no victory and no wound.
So, he is saying, a great victory is worth putting up with a slight wound.
18
Q
Another example he gives is the felix culpa
A
(happy sin) of Adam’s sin. It led to the incarnation of Christ. So, again, evil was accompanied by or led to a greater good.
19
Q
Leibniz then says that It was “consistent with order and the general good” for God to grant free will to some of his creatures even though God foresaw that these creatures would sin.
A
Leibniz states that God could correct the evil but in preventing sin God would have to always act in an extraordinary way.
20
Q
Leibniz concludes that the world with evil in it may
A
be better than a world without evil.
21
Q
Objection II, Leibniz
A
- If there is more evil than good in intelligent creatures, there is more evil than good in all God’s work.
- There is more evil than good in intelligent creatures.
- Therefore, there is more evil than good in all God’s work.
Again, the argument is valid (by modus ponens – If X then Y
X
So, Y )
Leibniz rejects the truth of both premises this time. He argues that the 1st premise is questionable because it commits the fallacy of composition. He asserts that it is incorrect to assume that we cannot count the goodness of “creatures devoid of reason.” He asks “But why might not the surplus of good in non-intelligent creatures that fill the world compensate for and even exceed . . . the surplus of evil in rational creatures?”
22
Q
objection 1, If we have been persuaded by his argument, then we agree that premise one of the prosyllogism is false and so, the Prosyllogism is not sound.
A
If the prosyllogism is unsound, Leibniz can deny that “God did not choose the best course,” and he can reject the 2nd premise of Objection I making that argument unsound. So, we do not have to deny one of god’s perfect qualities.
23
Q
Objection IV, Leibniz
A
- Whoever can prevent the sin of others and does not do so, but knowingly contributes to it, is an accessory to the sin.
- God can prevent the sin of intelligent creatures; but does not and God knowingly contributes to the sin by co-operation and the opportunities he causes.
- Therefore, God is an accessory to sin.
The argument is valid. Leibniz denies the truth of the 1st premise. It may be that one ought not to prevent a sin because one could not prevent it without committing a sin oneself, or in the case of God, without acting unreasonably. We might contribute to sin by doing our duty. But, in such a case we are not responsible for the consequences. So, when God does what reason demands, God is not responsible for the events, even though God foresees them. God does not will these evils, but allows them for the greater good. God permits men to sin for superior reasons.
24
Q
Objection V [not in textbook], Leibiniz
A
- Whoever produces all that is real in a thing is its cause.
- God produces all that is real in sin.
- Hence, God is the cause of sin.
Valid. Leibniz disagrees. Imperfection comes from limitations, from privation. God is the cause of all perfection (this is real). But limitations or privations result from the original imperfection of creatures. Error and evil are born of privation. To prevent evil coming from privation, God would have to make other natures for creatures, or create miracles, which the best plan could not admit.
25
Objection VIII, Leibniz
1. Whoever cannot fail to choose the best is not free.
2. God cannot fail to choose the best.
3. Therefore, God is not free.
The argument is valid. Leibniz denies the 1st premise. He says that it is true and the most perfect freedom to be able to always make the best use of one’s free will. “There is nothing less servile and more befitting the highest degree of freedom than to be always led toward the good, and always by one’s own inclination, without any constraint and without any displeasure.”
Dr. Gallo says “So, if God had made humans with the inclination to always do good . . .”
26
Stoicism
comes from the Greek ‘stoa poikile,’ meaning ‘painted porch.’
The founder of the school was Zeno of Citium (336-264 BCE) a Greek.
27
Marcus Aurelius,
emperor of Rome, was another important stoic philosopher (121-180 AD/CE)
28
The Summum Bonum [L . greatest good] for the stoics is Apatheia
a state of tranquility, of never being moved by emotion. Reason is the guide. Emotions are mistaken judgments.
29
how do you achieve Apatheia?
Keep your will conformable to nature. Live in accordance with nature. What does this mean?
Exercise reason.
Submit to divine providence.
Actually the two things are one thing-
30
Stoicism-Providence
The stoics believed in Divine Providence.
‘Providence’ comes from the Latin ‘Providere’
to foresee.
We ought to submit to providence. God has a "plan" and we are to submit to the plan. Submission to providence is rational because every event in the universe (other than humans’ evil actions) is determined by rational causation. So, the plan is good
31
God, for the stoics, is the Logos
reason, or the rational principle which organizes and permeates the universe. This God is also the soul of the world, pneuma, and is physical.
This God does not transcend the universe.
32
More on Stoicism
When one always submits to providence, one always behaves rationally, and virtue automatically follows [They are really all part of the same thing.]
The important virtues are:
atience, temperance, endurance, courage and emotional self-control.
The Stoic who always submits to providence, who is always patient, courageous, always in a state of apatheia, etc., achieves the level of being a Sapiens, a wise person. Very few people are/were Sapiens.
The stoics are serious about submission to destiny, or providence.
33
More on Providence
They compare humans to a dog chained to a wagon. When the wagon moves the dog must follow. If the dog willingly follows the wagon, he carries a loosened chain. If the dog fights it, the dog suffers. The wagon is providence and we are the dog.
Seneca in De Vita Beata (On the Happy Life) says that to obey God is freedom. When we submit to providence we carry a loosened chain.
34
De Providentia
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
De Providentia ("On Providence") is a short essay in the form of a dialogue in six brief sections, written by the Latin philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "Seneca the Younger" (died AD 65) in the last years of his life.
35
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Seneca begins by offering a teleological argument for the existence of the Stoic God. He notes the regularity of nature; the stars and the predictability of tides, etc. This regularity demonstrates that the world has someone to "guard it" and that the heavens are "ruled by eternal laws." [Pp. 3,5,7]
36
"problem" of the suffering of the good
Seneca introduces the analogy of the strict father. He states that God does not make a pet of the good man. God tests, hardens, and fits the good for [H]is service. God, the "all-glorious" parent, "rears" the good as strict fathers do, with severity.
37
Seneca states that "No evil can befall the good man. . ." [p. 7]
The spirit of the brave always maintains its poise. Brave people calmly meet and overcome adversity. Adversity is training. Seneca uses the analogy of wrestlers in training who pit themselves against the strongest opponents, so as to build strength. [p. 9] Seneca states that without adversity prowess shrivels.
38
Seneca states that good people ought to act
likewise; they should not avoid hardships nor complain of fate. They should take adversity as an opportunity to exercise virtue.
39
analogy of the strict father appear
athers demonstrate a "manly" love for their offspring. Waking them early, making them work, etc. [Pp. 9-11] So, too, God cherishes humans with "manly" love saying, "Let them be harassed by toil, by suffering, by losses, in order that they may gather true strength." [p. 11] Seneca argues that this is good because unbroken prosperity weakens a person, while he who has struggled and suffered is hardened and can withstand misfortune. This person will " fight upon his knees."
40
Seneca states that he will show that things that seem evil are not really evil. He will argue that
Adversity is good for the individual who experiences it.
| Adversity is good for the human family.
41
Proof for 1. That Adversity is good for the individual who experiences it.
Seneca argues, by analogy, that these things are good.
The sick are cured by surgery and fasting. The sick sometimes have their bones scraped and removed, their limbs amputated. So, "bad" things are sometimes good for people. [p. 15-16] On the other hand, things that many people think are good are sometimes destructive. His analogies are over-eating and drunkenness, which kill by giving pleasure. [17]
Many think that an easy life is good. But, the person who has never faced adversity has never had the opportunity to test him/herself. Such a person will be "routed" by a paltry threat and will immediately surrender. According to Seneca, such a person was deemed unworthy by fortune. He uses the analogy of a gladiator who feels disgraced to be matched to an inferior. To win without danger is to win without glory. Fortune seeks the worthy opponent. He then discusses virtuous men who were tried by fire (Muncius), poverty, exile, torture (crucifixion, Regulus), poison (Socrates), etc. They are examples of virtuous persons. [Pp. 17-23]
How can we know whether someone is good, if they have not been tested? He compares it to someone who wins an Olympic contest by default. If you had no competition, you win the crown, but you do not win the victory. [p. 25] If you have never suffered adversity, no one can know what you can do, not even yourself. To know oneself, one must be tested. We know a pilot in a storm, a soldier in battle.
So, we ought not to shrink in fear from those things which the gods apply like "spurs" to our souls. Disaster is Virtue’s opportunity.
Those who have not faced adversity are weak. Like "raw recruits" they turn pale at the thought of a wound. But, the experienced veteran is brave.
God hardens and disciplines those who [H]e favors, and keeps those not favored "soft against ills to come." [p. 29] Everyone will eventually face misfortune. Luxury and "good fortune" make people soft. He uses the analogy of a person spoiled by comfort and luxury. (Warm feet, heated rooms, etc.) Such a person is at risk if brushed by a gentle breeze.) [p. 31]
And so, God requires effort from the good. Just as a teacher is more demanding of good students. So, if we are presented with adversity, it is not cruelty but a struggle, and it makes us stronger. He uses the analogy of body parts strengthened by use.
42
Proof of 2-That adversity is good for humankind
It is God’s purpose, and that of the wise person, to show that the things that humans ordinarily desire and dread are neither good nor evil. If things are only bestowed on the good, then we will think they are good things. If things are only inflicted on the evil, then we will think those things are evil. But riches, health, and a pampered life are not good. God discredits the value of such things by bestowing them on "bad" men and withholding them from good men. [35]
God gives "bad" men "unreal goods" and has mocked their empty minds with a deceptive dream. The easy life is not genuine good fortune. It is a veneer.
The good suffer hardships so that they may teach others to endure them. They are examples of virtue. [43] Good men labor, and are spent. Yet they follow fortune willingly. [p. 37] The good man despises riches, scorns pain, scorns death. So, this teaches us that riches are not good and that neither death nor pain is evil.
43
The Enchiridion
By Epictetus
Written 135 A.C.E.
Translated by Elizabeth Carter
echiridion book by epictetus that is full of ways of how to live a better life
44
KANT “a good will”
a will which acts for the sake of duty alone. A “good will” is one which does her duty because it is her duty. (There is no other motive. If there is any self-interested motive such as pleasure or benefit, then the will does not receive any “moral points.”)
How do you know what your duty is? You determine what you should do by applying the Categorical Imperative.
45
KANT categorical Imperative
is a command which is absolute and unconditional.
46
KANT opposite of categorical Hypothetical Imperative.
A Hypothetical Imperative follows this form- If you want ‘Y,’ you must do ‘X.’
So, a Hypothetical Imperative’s command is conditional. That is, you must do X on the condition that you want Y.
47
Kant’s Argument
Kant says that Nothing can be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a Good Will. (P. 57912th, 625-13th, 590-15th )
Kant constructs a proof by arguing that other ‘goods’ are contingent upon a good will.
Intelligence, wit, judgment, courage, perseverance, can be used for evil purposes if a person does not have a good will.
Wealth, health, and even happiness can inspire pride (which is “bad”) if there is no good will. Thus, Kant says, a good will is the condition of being WORTHY OF HAPPINESS (we deserve it but that does not mean that we get it.) (Proof: We can’t stand to see jerks being happy.)
48
KANTA good will is good by virtue of its volition, not utility, i.e., it is good in itself. (It is intrinsically good.)
Even if it does not accomplish its purpose, it is good. Usefulness is not what gives it its value. (It is good because its motive is good, to act for the sake of duty.)
49
KANT Reason guides the will. But, reason was not provided for the purpose of attaining happiness. For, if the purpose of a rational being were merely self-preservation and happiness, then nature could have led us by instinct. And, often, reasonable people envy those who follow instinct because reason does not lead to happiness.
So, reason is provided as an influence on the will. The purpose of reason is to produce a will that is good in itself (intrinsically good) and not as a means to something else.
50
According to Kant, to have moral worth an action must be done from duty and not inclination.
Kant says that if inclination or self-interest is the motive, an action has no moral worth.
E.g., the Tradesperson who is honest and never overcharges anyone. We do have a duty to be honest. But, the tradesperson has a selfish motive, its good business to be known as “honest.(p. 581-12th, 628-13th, 591-15th )
A person who loves life avoids suicide. No moral worth here.
But, if a person is suffering a dismal existence and preserves himself out of duty, then the action has moral worth.
We have a duty to be beneficent, but if we do it because we enjoy it, we do not get "points." We have to do our duty out of respect for the moral law.
51
The Categorical Imperative-1st formulation (paraphrased) p. 588-12th, 629 and 634-13th, 594-15t
Act only on that maxim which you could will to be a universal law. (If your maxim leads to a contradiction or if you cannot consistently will it to apply universally, then your proposed action is immoral.)
Kant applies the Categorical Imperative to discover four duties(pp589-590-12th, 635-636-13th, 594-595 15th):
1. You must always tell the truth.
2. You must preserve yourself (No suicide).
3. You have a duty to be beneficent to others.
4. You should develop your talents.
1 and 2 are Perfect Duties. 3 and 4 are Imperfect or meritorious Duties. Perfect Duties must be done.
2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Always treat humanity, in yourself and in others, as an end and never as a means only.
52
The Kingdom of Ends-
The ideal moral community which Kant thinks could come into being. Everyone would apply the Categorical Imperative, everyone would respect other persons, everyone would agree as to what is right.
53
Hedonism’
comes from the Greek word ‘hedon’ meaning pleasure.
For all hedonists, pleasure is intrinsically good, pain is intrinsically evil. So, hedonists say that we ought to seek pleasure and attempt to avoid pain.
54
Utilitarianism-Non-egoistic Hedonism
(Egoism-from L. ‘Ego’ meaning an emphatic ‘I’)
Utilitarianism is a teleological, consequentialist theory.
For the Utilitarian, pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically evil. Pleasure can be the absence of pain. But, Utilitarianism is altruistic in the sense that we have a duty to increase the pleasures and reduce the pain that others might experience.
55
All Utilitarians would agree that the Summum Bonum
nd Ultimate goal for Utilitarians is the "happy life" described as
" . . . the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments . . ." (
56
sum·mum bo·num
he highest good, especially as the ultimate goal according to which values and priorities are established in an ethical system.
57
Utilitiarian Bentham’s "Principle of Utility"
An action is right if it tends to add to the happiness, pleasure benefit, advantage of those affected and wrong if it diminishes the happiness, pleasure, etc., of those affected. (paraphrased)
58
Utilitiarian J. S. Mill’s "Greatest Happiness" Principle
Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness for all those affected-it is not the agent’s own happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether . (Mill, p. 600-14th, p. 597-15th )
Mill defines ‘Happiness’ as pleasure and the absence of pain.
59
The ‘Theory of Life’ on which this theory is grounded, according to Mill, is
"Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and . . . all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves [intrinsically good] or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain [extrinsically good]." (p. 600-14th, p. 597-15th)
Would this life be the life of beasts? No, according to Mill.(See pages 600-603-14th and pages 597-599 15th for his discussion) A beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conception of happiness.
Mill points out that even the Epicureans value intellectual pleasures more highly than sensual pleasures, because intellectual pleasures are safe.
60
As opposed to Kant, Mill does not recognize a list of hard and fast rules. In each situation you are supposed to choose the action which brings about the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of persons. P. 608-14th.
E.g., according to Mill, sometimes one has a duty to lie, although most of the time lying harms social relations. Can you think of some situations in which it might be one’s duty to lie?
Most of our actions do not affect numerous persons. However, politicians’ choices do affect a large number of persons, and they special have a duty to consider the consequences for all members of the society.
61
Epicurus-(C. 341-271 BCE)
Epicurus adopted materialism, specifically, atomism as his metaphysics. (Democritus, 460-370 BCE)
He began his school in 306 BCE, just outside the walls of Athens. The school was called “The Philosophy of the Garden” because discussion took place in Epicurus’ garden. (The garden was still in existence 450 years later.)
62
Egoistic Hedonism
Hedon-[Greek] Pleasure. For the hedonists pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically evil. Pleasure can be the absence of pain.
For the Epicureans the ultimate goal, the Summum Bonum (L. ‘Greatest Good’) is
63
Eudaimonia
Gr. Happy Spirit, or having a good guardian spirit)
64
There are two components to Eudaimonia:
1. Ataraxia- freedom from anxiety and mental pain
2. Freedom from physical pain.
So, what they really want is
a life with the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of pleasure for yourself.(You have no duties to anyone else)
65
The Criteria of Choice
Pleasure and the absence of pain. Pain and pleasure tell us what to seek and what to avoid. Of course, we must use reason and memory when determining what we ought to do.
According to Epicurus, all pleasures are equally good, but not all pleasures are to be chosen. [See Letter to Menoeceus] If a pleasure leads to pain, it is to be avoided (Pain is evil). However, we may choose to accept pain if it leads to greater pleasure or the absence of pain.
According to the Epicureans, the gods exist, but they did not create us, they do not care what we do, they neither punish nor reward us. (Principle Doctrine 1) The question arises; do the Epicureans think “Eat, drink, and be merry?” After all, the gods do not care what we do, and there is no after life in which we can suffer for our wrongdoing. Death is nothing to us
66
Epicurus on Desire
1. Natural and necessary desires-security, relief from pain, food, drink to sustain body, etc. (See Principle Doctrines 26 and 29)
2. Natural but unnecessary-fancy food, etc. (See Letter to M. Keep it simple.)
3. Neither natural nor necessary-fame, power, great wealth, etc. (PD 21].
Friendship is good and helps to provide security and happiness. 27 and 28.
67
Part V—(pp. 48-50-12th, 49-51-13th , 63-65-14th , 73-74-15th)
We can’t compare humans to God. God is immutable, etc.
Furthermore "dangerous consequences" follow from the use of this analogy HUME
1. God is not infinite-proportioned to the effects, said Cleanthes. The effects are finite.
2. God not perfect.
3. God not omniscient.
4. God not One.
5. Hey, like the Greek gods, the gods reproduce, have eyes, etc. Maybe our world is the botched job of a juvenile god, or a really old one who has died!
68
HUME Part X-(pp. 60-65, 12th, 61-66, 13th , 75-80-14th , 84-89-15th )
The Problem of Evil [why should there be evil, if god is perfect?]
[A highly summarized version of what Hume is arguing.]
We look at the world [the effect] and that tells us something about its cause. What do we see in the world? Misery, misery, misery! Even animals are miserable. The few moments of pleasure are not as lasting as pain, etc. All beings inflicting pain upon others. That is the effect. What does it say about the cause? God does not intend living beings to be happy. What does this say about God?
69
readings of hume
Hume says, when we see a house, we may conclude with certainty that it had a builder (infer from effect to cause), based on experience. We have experienced these sorts of cause/effect relationships. [And we have seen houses built. ] So, we can infer from similar effects to similar causes.
But a house and a universe are so dissimilar that we cannot infer that the universe had a cause similar to that of a house. We are guessing or presuming. [and we have never seen a universe being built. There is nothing to which we can compare the universe, it is unique.]
Philo states that from Cleanthes’ point of view, experience alone gives us the true causes. This point of view says that if we did a [Cartesian] withdrawal from experience we couldn’t say what the universe might be. For all we could know, matter could contain its own source of order.
From what we can know based on experience, order is related to mind. Pieces of metal never turn into a watch. Pieces of wood never turn into a house. Our experience shows that minds plan houses, etc.
So, Cleanthes concludes that experience shows that there is an organizing principle in mind, not matter.
So we conclude that the order in the universe was directed by mind.
But, according to Philo ( p. 41-12th and 13th, 55-14th , 64-15th), thought, design, intelligence, are only one of the "springs" in the universe. Heat, cold, attraction, etc. can be efficient causes.
So, (Fallacy of Composition) We cannot move from the part to the whole. Besides, mind is such a small part of the universe. He compares this to observing the movement of a leaf and concluding that we understand the tree.
And, even if we were to find thought and reason throughout the universe, we cannot infer that the world, in its "embryo" state, had the arrangement and order that we find now. [We could not correctly infer from adult humans back to the order and arrangement of the embryo.] (p. 41-12th, p. 42-13th , 56-14th , 65-15th) [Dr. G says-Aristotle did something like that, he thought the sperm had a tiny guy in it.]
The more we learn from astronomy and the more we learn about the "universe in miniature" (through microscopes), the more we are led to infer that the universal cause of everything is vastly different from mankind.
70
more on evil
If God is omniscent God would know about the evil (even foresee it).
If God is omnipotent, God could prevent it from occurring.
If God is perfectly good, God would prevent it.
Evil exists.
Therefore, there can be no God which is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
71
A Solution Leads to More Evil
Possible solutions to the problem:
Deny the existence of evil-assert that the universe is good and we are suffering the delusion that there is evil.
But Mc Taggart says that this solution will not work. His argument is
Further Evil
72
Futher Evil
If we suffer from a delusion that evil exists, the delusion prevents us from seeing the goodness of the universe.
Whatever prevents us from seeing the goodness of the universe would itself be evil.
So, the delusion that evil exists would itself be evil.
Therefore, even if we contend that evil is a delusion, evil still exists.
73
more soutions to evil
We could attempt to argue that evil and sin are actually good things.
But Mc Taggart says that will lead to "Ethical Skepticism." We would have no basis for calling anything good, including God.
A Solution proposed by Sts. Augustine and Aquinas (Leibniz too): evil is the Privation of the good (as blindness is the privation of sight)and so it has no positive existence. It is a lack of perfection necessitated by the fact that any created thing is imperfect. (It is other than the perfect being.)
74
Other Solutions
Evil exists but for a greater good- "Soul-Building."
suffering allows us to develop virtue, e.g., courage generosity, sympathy, etc. (Seneca tries this in De Providentia ) But, Mackie asserts that means that good is dependant upon, and is derived from, evil.
Suffering from evil is a learning experience, e.g., pain teaches us what we ought to avoid. But, there is the problem of useless suffering. A fawn dies in a forest fire. No one sees it, no one learns from it. A baby is tortured and murdered. The baby learns nothing. Maybe we learn from the baby’s death. Is the baby just a prop? Is it just that the baby suffers so that we can learn something?
75
More "Solutions" to evil
Goodness cannot exist without evil. But God is perfectly Good. God existed before the universe existed. If good cannot exist without evil, God was not good before the creation of the universe. So, God’s goodness is contingent.
We cannot understand God’s goodness without the experience of evil. But, again, are the innocents who suffer mere learning tools for us? If so, is God good?
76
Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God
an A priori argument
Anslem wanted to construct a simple argument which could prove the existence of a perfect being (with all the perfect qualities; omniscience, omnipotence, etc.)
77
Anselm begins with this definition of God-
“Aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit"
‘Aliguid’ means ‘someone or some thing of significance.’ The definition has been translated as ‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived.’
78
Anselm’s Logic-the Logic of Superlatives magnus
Comparative: Major (majus) Superlative: Maximus
79
Anselm’s Logic-the Logic of Superlatives
Great comparative: greater superlative: greatest, supreme, mighty
80
Reductio ad Absurdum.
a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.
81
Anselm’s “Chapter II” Argument
1. The atheist understands what I mean when he hears me speak of the “greatest.”
2. So, even the atheist admits that the “greatest” exists in the understanding (as idea or concept).
3. The “greatest” can also be conceived to exist in reality (outside the mind).
4. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding.
5. Suppose the atheist asserts that the “greatest” exists in the understanding but not in reality.
6. That would mean that the “greatest” is not the greatest (we could conceive something greater than the greatest, [we did that in 3] -that is absurd!) Reductio ad Absurdum!
7. Therefore, the “greatest” cannot exist in the understanding alone.
8. Hence, the “greatest” must exist both in the understanding and in reality!
82
Anselm’s “Chapter III” Argument
1. It is possible to conceive of a necessary being.
2. A necessary being is greater than a contingent or “possible” being. (One that can be conceived not to exist.)
3. Suppose the “greatest” is conceived of as a “possible”, contingent, being.
4. That would mean that the “greatest” is not the greatest! That is contradictory, absurd! (Reductio)
5. Therefore, the “greatest” cannot be thought of as “possible,” the “greatest” must be a necessary being.
83
gaulino
Philosophical monk that was not an atheist who refuted Anselms famous lost island argument
84
The lost or perfect island argument
Anselm's argument to prove the "greatest" "god" must exist
