Final Exam Flashcards
Locke (P.P)
State of Nature: Humans are generally reasonable and moral but need a government to protect their rights.
Natural Rights: Everyone has rights to life, liberty, and property.
Social Contract: Government exists to protect these rights; if it fails, people have the right to rebel and create a new government.
Hobbes (P.P)
State of Nature: Without government, life is “nasty, brutish, and short” because humans are naturally selfish and violent.
Social Contract: People give up some freedom to a strong ruler (a sovereign) in exchange for security and order.
Absolute Power: A powerful government (like a monarchy) is necessary to prevent chaos and conflict.
Mill (P.P)
Liberty: Individual freedom is crucial as long as it doesn’t harm others.
Harm Principle: The only reason to restrict someone’s freedom is to prevent harm to others.
Utilitarianism: Society should aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Marx (P.P)
Class Struggle: History is defined by conflict between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and working class (proletariat).
Capitalism: Exploits workers, as the rich profit from their labor while paying them little.
Revolution: Workers will rise up, overthrow capitalism, and create a classless society where resources are shared (communism).
Aristotle – Virtue Ethics (M.P)
Moral Character: Being a good person comes from developing virtues (good habits like courage, honesty, and kindness).
The Golden Mean: Virtue is the balance between extremes (e.g., courage is between cowardice and recklessness).
Happiness: The goal of life is eudaimonia (flourishing), achieved by living virtuously.
Aquinas – Natural Law Theory (M.P)
Moral Order: Morality is based on God’s design for the world.
Natural Law: Humans are naturally inclined to do good and avoid evil.
Primary Goods: Things like life, reproduction, knowledge, and society are naturally good, and moral actions align with these purposes.
Kant – Deontology (Priority of Right over Good) (M.P)
Duty and Rules: Morality is about doing what is right, regardless of consequences.
Categorical Imperative: Act only in ways that you would want to become a universal law (e.g., don’t lie, because you wouldn’t want everyone to lie).
Respect for People: Treat people as ends in themselves, not as tools for your goals.
Mill – Utilitarianism (Priority of Good over Right) (M.P)
Greatest Happiness: The best action is the one that creates the most happiness (pleasure) and the least pain for the greatest number of people.
Consequences Matter: What’s right depends on the outcome, not the intention.
Higher vs. Lower Pleasures: Intellectual and moral pleasures (e.g., art, learning) are better than basic physical pleasures.
St. Anselm – The Ontological Argument (R.P)
Aquinas offers five arguments to prove God’s existence:
- Motion: Everything in motion must have a cause → there must be a “first mover” (God).
- Causation: Every effect has a cause → there must be an “uncaused cause” (God).
- Possibolity: Things exist but don’t have to → there must be a necessary being (God).
- Perfection: There are degrees of goodness → there must be an ultimate standard (God).
- Design: The universe has order and purpose → there must be a designer (God).
Pascal - The Wager
Belief as a Bet: If God exists and you believe, you gain eternal reward; if you don’t believe, you risk eternal loss.
Rational Choice: Believing in God is the safest “bet” because the potential gain outweighs the loss.
Plantinga – Belief in God is ‘Properly Basic’
No Proof Needed: Belief in God doesn’t need arguments or evidence to be rational.
Properly Basic Belief: Just like trusting your senses or memory, belief in God can be “basic” and justified without proof.
Mackie – The Problem of Evil
Logical Problem: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then evil shouldn’t exist.
Conclusion: The existence of evil makes belief in an all-powerful, good God irrational because the two seem contradictory.
Hick – Critique of Plantinga and Mackie
Against Plantinga: Plantinga’s “Modal Argument” (that God exists in all possible worlds) lacks plausibility.
Against Mackie: God and evil can coexist if evil serves a purpose, such as soul-making (developing human virtues).
Baron d’Holbach – Hard Determinism (H.A)
No Free Will: All human actions are determined by causes (like biology, environment, and physics).
Determinism is True: Everything happens out of necessity, so freedom is an illusion.
Incompatibility: If determinism is true, free will cannot exist.
Dan Dennett – Compatibilism (H.A)
Freedom and Determinism Can Coexist: Being “free” doesn’t mean being completely uncaused. It means acting according to your own desires and reasons.
Practical Freedom: As long as we can act without external constraints (like being forced), we are “free,” even in a determined world.
John Searle – Indeterminism (H.A)
Genuine Choice Exists: Not all human actions are determined; some involve real, free choices.
Incompatibility: True freedom and strict determinism cannot both exist.
Rational Choice: Humans sometimes make deliberate, rational decisions that are not caused by prior events.
Locke – Human Being and Personhood Are Two Different Things
Human Being: A physical, biological body.
Personhood: A thinking, self-aware being with memory and consciousness.
Identity: Personal identity comes from continuity of memory, not the body. Example: You remain “you” if you remember your past experiences.
Parfit – Psychological Continuity Matters, but Self-Identity Does Not
Self as Continuity: What matters is the continuity of your psychological experiences (memories, personality, intentions).
No Permanent Self: There’s no fixed, unchanging “self”—identity is like a chain of connected experiences.
Identity Is Overrated: The concept of a single, enduring “self” is not important for what really matters in life.
Dennett – Human ‘Self’ Is Grounded in Narrative
Narrative Self: The self is a story you tell about yourself, built from your experiences, memories, and beliefs.
Center of Gravity: The self is not a thing but a useful concept—a “center of narrative gravity” that gives our life structure and meaning.
Strawson – Against Narrativity
No Need for Stories: Not everyone’s sense of self comes from a life story.
Episodic Self: Some people experience life in episodes—they don’t see their life as a connected narrative.
Narrativity Isn’t Universal: The idea that a self requires a narrative is a mistake—it’s not true for everyone.
John Locke - Primary and Secondary Qualities (R)
For Locke, secondary qualities, while real properties
of an object, are not inherent in the objects. Rather, secondary qualities are powers
an object has to produce certain sensations in us. A sharp needle may prick us and
cause us pain.
We say the needle is painful, but we don’t think being painful is an inherent property
of the needle. Needles merely have the power to cause us pain. Locke thought
colours were like being painful and unlike being round.
Berkeley – Classical Idealism
“To Be Is to Be Perceived”: Reality consists only of minds and the ideas they perceive—no material objects exist independently.
Against Matter: Physical objects exist only because God perceives them continually.
Conclusion: The external world is not “real” in itself; it exists in the mind.
Whitehead – Reality as Process
Process Philosophy: Reality is not made of static “things” but is a constant process of change and becoming.
Events Over Objects: The basic units of reality are events (happenings) and relationships, not physical substances.
Dynamic Universe: Reality is always in motion—everything is interconnected and evolving.
McWhorter – ‘The Language Hoax’
Against Linguistic Relativity: Language does not significantly shape how we think or perceive reality.
Universal Human Thought: All humans have similar ways of thinking, regardless of their language.
Language Reflects, Not Creates, Reality: Language expresses our ideas but doesn’t determine how we see the world.
Orwell – Linguistic Idealism (Selections from 1984)
Language Shapes Reality: The way we use language determines how we understand and perceive reality.
Newspeak: By controlling language, the government controls thought and limits what people can conceive as real.
Reality Control: If you control language, you can redefine truth and manipulate reality.
John Locke - Truth theory
Tabula Rasa: The mind is a blank slate at birth, and all knowledge comes from experience.
Sensation and Reflection: We gain knowledge through sensory input (from the external world) and reflection (our mind’s operations).
Empirical Truth: Ideas are built from experience; there are no “innate ideas” in the mind.
David Hume - Truth theory
Knowledge From Experience: All knowledge arises from impressions (vivid sensory experiences) and ideas (fainter copies of impressions).
Skepticism: We can’t prove causality, the self, or the external world—these are just habits of thought.
Problem of Induction: We assume the future will resemble the past, but this belief has no logical justification.
Bertrand Russell – Truth theory
Correspondence:
Truth = Correspondence: A statement is true if it corresponds to facts in the real world.
Reality and Language: Language and logic allow us to represent reality, and truth depends on how well statements match reality.
Objective Truth: Truth exists independently of individual beliefs
Willard Van Orman Quine – Truth theory
Coherence and Holism:
Against Pure Empiricism: All knowledge is interconnected—no statement can be tested in isolation.
Web of Belief: Truth is determined by how well a belief “coheres” with the entire web of our knowledge.
Pragmatic Holism: Some parts of the web (e.g., math and logic) are harder to change than others.
Richard Rorty – Truth theory
Pragmatism and Anti-Foundationalism:
Truth Is Not Objective: Truth is not about correspondence to reality; it’s about what works in practice.
Language Creates Truth: Truth depends on social agreements and how we use language.
Anti-Foundationalism: There’s no ultimate foundation for knowledge—truth is a human creation.
John Searle – Truth theory
Defending Realism and Correspondence:
Objective Truth: Truth corresponds to facts in an objective reality.
Against Relativism: Truth is not just about what works or what society agrees on—it’s grounded in a shared external world.
Speech Acts: Language connects us to reality, and statements can succeed or fail to represent the truth.
What “pithy” statement was made about Socrates by the Oracle at Delphi? How did he respond to it? To what conclusion did he come after he had heard the statement?
The Oracle at Delphi made the pithy statement that “Socrates is the wisest of all men.”
Socrates’ Response:
Socrates was surprised and skeptical because he believed he possessed no wisdom. To test the Oracle’s claim, he began questioning those considered wise—politicians, poets, and craftsmen—to see if they were truly wise.
His Conclusion:
Socrates realized that these people thought they were wise but were not, as they could not explain or justify their beliefs. He concluded that he was “the wisest” because he recognized his own ignorance, while others falsely believed they had knowledge.
In his words: “I know that I know nothing.”
This acknowledgment of ignorance became the foundation of his philosophical approach and the Socratic method of questioning.
What three statements were inscribed on the portico column at the Temple of Apollo? Which statement was Socrates likely most guilty of infringing, and how did Socrates infringe on it? How does his apparent crime relate to Prometheus’s curse?
The three statements at the Temple of Apollo were:
Know thyself.
Nothing to excess.
Surety brings ruin.
Socrates likely infringed on the first maxim (Know thyself) because the maxim suggests that mortals ought to know their place as mortals and not attempt to cross the divide between mortals and gods. To the Athenians, Socrates’s “crime” of seeking knowledge was like Prometheus stealing fire from heaven, and that was an impious offence to them: “Be careful what you take from the gods!”
State the Euthyphro problem in terms of what is good and what defines good. What are the two horns of the dilemma? What two problems face each horn of the dilemma?
The Euthyphro problem as it relates to morality is:
Is good good because it is good, or is good good because God wills it?
The horns of the dilemma are intellectualism (which argues that good is good simply because it is good) and voluntarism (which argues that good is good because God wills it). The problem with intellectualism is that it limits God’s will to His rational nature which determines the good. God is, therefore, less free than humans. The problem with voluntarism, on the other hand, is that it makes morality arbitrary based on whatever God wills (e.g., murder can become good if God said it is).
The ideal city is governed by three classes of citizen; name the three classes and the virtues they exemplify. What occurs to the city-state when these three classes of citizen fail to execute their jobs accordingly?
The three classes of citizen in the ideal (just) city, and the virtues they exemplify, are:
The philosopher kings who exemplified wisdom,
The auxiliary class who exemplified courage,
The industrial class who exemplified temperance.
Just as justice occurs when there is a harmony of parts in the soul, it occurs in the city-state when its classes of citizens simply did their jobs in accord; when the members of any one of the classes of citizen fails to do their jobs, this results in a loss of justice—within the city.
Discuss the key differences between rationalism and empiricism: How does one make sense of the world through these epistemological theories? Name the philosophers associated with each of these theories.
Rationalism: Knowledge comes from reason and introspection—thinking about ideas and the relationships between concepts and reality. Rationalists believe in necessary truths that can be discovered through the intellect, not the senses.
Key Figures: René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza.
Empiricism: Knowledge comes from experience and sense observation of the world. Empiricists argue that ideas and thoughts come from reflecting on what we perceive, and we can’t have knowledge without experience.
Key Figures: John Locke and David Hume.
Name and briefly describe the four views on truth. Name one philosopher associated with each view on truth.
The Platonist view, which argues that something is truthful if (1) it is the purest and deepest essence of something, or if (2) it is told as it really is or is not. Plato is associated with this view of truth.
The correspondence theory, which argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact; it cares more about saying or believing things that accurately represent the world, no matter how trivial. This theory, just like the Platonist theory, is a realist idea more concerned with mind-independent facts than epistemic justification. John Searle is associated with correspondence theory.
The coherence theory, which argues that a belief is true if it can be justified by other beliefs. “Truth” on this view refers only to a relationship of beliefs without objective reality on which those beliefs must necessarily be attached. Furthermore, coherence theory denies a hierarchy of beliefs or the existence of a single, foundational truth (foundationalism); no one belief has epistemic privilege over another. Willard van Orman Quine is associated with coherence theory.
The pragmatist view, which argues that truth is only that which can be used to one’s own advantage and has been tested to be useful. This theory, just like coherence theory, is an antirealist idea more concerned with epistemic justification than mind-independent facts. Richard Rorty is associated with pragmatism.
What did Descartes believe about the relationship between the mind and the body?
Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the physical world in the same way that God interacts with creation (interactionism). Descartes described the mind as the res cognitans (a non-physical substance) that never extends, and the body (extension) as the res extensa (a physical substance) that never thinks, but he otherwise did not explain how the res cognitans interacts with the res extensa.
Alvin Plantinga was a committed Cartesian dualist. What did he think about thoughts? Are physical things capable of thinking, according to Plantinga? How did Peter Van Inwagen respond to Plantinga’s challenge?
Alvin Plantinga saw thoughts as neuronal events with content, but neuronal events by themselves are only physical events that occur in a physical brain; a physical thing like a brain cannot think, and whatever happens in the brain (neuronal events) do not have content by themselves. That is Plantinga’s challenge to the physicalist.
Peter Van Inwagen argues that dualism faces the same conundrum. Van Inwagen argues that dualists do not know how immaterial things can think, either.
Name the three theories related to the question of self-identity. Describe each theory and the potential setbacks of each theory
Soul theory: Following the person is following the soul. The soul in the Platonic sense has a beginning but has no end; it remains immortal and unchanging. There is a potential problem with soul theory: As an example, for a zygote that splits radically to form maternal (identical) twins, it is a mystery when the soul is imparted (i.e., Is it imparted during the conception of the one zygote and forcibly removed when it is split into two? Or is the soul imparted to the twin zygotes only after the original zygote is split?). Furthermore, the soul theorists—seemingly without fail—insert their bodily and mental identities in their discussions about the afterlife: The soul brings with it the body into the afterlife. They neglect their own proposition that the soul is the only part of the person that is immortal, not the body.
Body theory: Following the person is following the body. Provided there is no radical splitting following conception, every human being who has ever lived ends up with a gapless numerical identity; in other words, though each of us has survived innumerable biological changes, none of those changes ever resulted in discontinuity in our identity. However, the body theory provides no explanation for the soul and the conscience (i.e., How does consciousness arise from physical matter?).
Mind theory: Following the person is following the mind. A mind theorist argues that the self is located in mental states, most especially in the continuity of memory. However, unlike the body, memory has gaps; therefore, in this sense, identity has gaps! People like Schechtman and Dennett have answers for this. Schechtman argues that self-understanding of one’s personhood, rather than a complete recollection of his life events, constitutes one’s identity. Dennett argues that a continuous, uninterrupted narrative is important for a sense of self; the self becomes a product of narrative rather than a source of narrative. Nevertheless, mind theorists are focused on cognitive functions but neglect the physical body as the part of the identity; the “container of identity” is not the person, but only that which is inside the container.
Explain the difference between first- and second-order volitions. What are they, and how could they possibly be related to the idea of self-identity? [Hint: What does Daniel Dennett argue is the source of the sense of self?]
A first- order volition is a desire to do something or to have in the moment. A second-order volition is wanting to want. We conceive of our second-order volitions as more important than first-order volitions because we think of second-order volitions as those which determine the direction of our lives. Thus, volitions are possibly related to self-identity in that one’s volitions—one’s desires to act in however which way—become the source of one’s life narrative.
Thomas Aquinas made five proofs for the existence of God. Name these proofs and briefly define each one.
Proof from Motion: Everything in motion must have been set in motion by something else. There must be a first unmoved mover, and that is God.
Proof from Causation: Every effect has a cause. There must be a first cause that started everything, and that cause is God.
Proof from Possibility: Things in the world exist but could also not exist. This points to a necessary being—one that must exist—and that being is God.
Proof from Perfection: We recognize imperfections, which means there must be a perfect standard. That perfection is God.
Proof from Governance: Non-intelligent things in nature act with purpose. This implies they are directed by an intelligent being, and that being is God.
What are some of the weaknesses of Pascal’s Wager for rationalizing the existence of God?
Many gods objection: Pascal’s Wager assumes there is only a binary choice between believing in the Christian God and not believing in any god at all, and does not account for the other religions of the world.
Pragmatism: Pascal’s Wager argues for a consequentialist view on belief rather than on the truth of belief. In other words, it argues that one must believe in God simply because it is useful, but belief in God is much more than simply for pragmatic purposes.
Theological implications: Believing in God simply for one’s self-interest is not genuine belief. Indeed, a belief in God often comes with other self-sacrifices, too: money, personal freedom, or time.
A theodicy is a vindictive approach to divine will and providence in the face of the existence of evil. Discuss Plantinga’s free will theodicy and his “skeptical” response to the problem of evil.
antinga’s free will theodicy makes several points about human action:
He argues that free or voluntary worship and belief is preferable to God than unfree worship and belief. Conversely, he argued that bad actions and unbelief are preferable to humans acting like “innocent automata.”
God gave us free will to know how we will live, and in doing so, God understood that some people would employ their free will to sin and disobey him: it is a consequence for which God was prepared.
It is not impossible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
Finally, Plantinga’s “skeptical” objection to the problem of evil is that humans, in their finite minds, cannot possibly know—nor are in any position to know—why God allows evil, or that God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. The skeptical theist is not skeptical about belief in God; rather, the skeptical theist argues that humans are not obligated to know about God’s reasons—we are to be skeptical about the human capacity to know the things about which we do not know.
Discuss Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Golden Mean; what does it mean to do virtuous deeds? Do motives have much to do with doing virtuous deeds?
Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Golden Mean asserts that virtuous deeds are a middle ground between two vices (i.e., courage is the mean between cowardice and brashness). According to Aristotle, virtuous deeds must be done in the spirit of the virtuous person; in other words, one cannot pretend to be courageous (for example) by doing courageous acts.
Name the categorical imperatives for Kant’s normative ethics. For Kant, what difference is found between acting in accordance with moral law genuinely and simply appearing to act in accordance with moral law?
Kant’s First Formulation (Universal Law):
Rule: Act in a way that your action could become a universal rule for everyone in the same situation.
Test: Ask yourself, “What if everyone did this?” If it leads to contradictions or a bad world, the action is not moral.
Kant’s Second Formulation (Humanity as an End):
Rule: Treat people as having intrinsic value and dignity, not as tools for your own benefit.
Respect: Even if you use someone to achieve a goal, you must respect their humanity, dignity, and welfare.
Genuineness in Morality:
True morality is acting out of duty and respect for moral law, not just for appearances.
Acting morally is about sincerity, not virtue signaling (acting moral just to look good).
According to John Locke, how does a private citizen acquire property and goods for himself? What proviso does Locke make to avoid the unbounded acquisition and exploitation of goods and resources?
Locke argues that individuals can gain ownership of common property by mixing their labor with it (e.g., farming land). This ownership happens naturally and doesn’t need laws or a ruler to approve it.
However, Locke adds a limit:
When taking property, leave “enough and as good” for others.
Don’t take the best resources and leave the worst for others.
No one should exploit or monopolize resources in a way that prevents others from accessing and benefiting from them.
Name the four principles of classical liberalism and briefly discuss each view. Discuss briefly why a Marxist would be opposed to such freedoms.
Four Tenets of Classical Liberalism:
Tyranny of the Majority: The government must protect minority rights and ensure the majority doesn’t oppress the few.
Harm Principle: People are free to do as they wish as long as they don’t harm others.
Sovereignty of the Individual: Individuals have the right to self-ownership and personal freedom.
Asymmetry of negative & positive rights: The right to be free from interference (e.g., freedom of speech).
Positive Duties: A responsibility to help others (e.g., providing welfare).
Marxist Critique of Classical Liberalism:
Class Conflict: Marxists argue liberals ignore the conflict between the bourgeoisie (owners) and the proletariat (workers), focusing too much on individual rights.
Opposition to Private Ownership: Marxists reject private ownership of resources, seeing it as a cause of inequality, while liberals defend private property and free markets.
Role of the State: Marxists believe the state serves the ruling class in a liberal democracy. True freedom, they argue, comes through collective action, not individualism or limited government.
Doctrine of the Divided Line
draw and explain
