PACES Flashcards
In a question on wether the Tripartite definition successfully guarantees knowledge what would your PACES be?
P - Tripartite definition
A - Conditions are not jointly sufficient (belief)
C - John the student had unconscious belief
E - Tripartite definition stands
A - Conditions don’t guarantee knowledge - Gettier S&J
C - Amend definition to JTB + No false lemmas
A - Fake Barn country - No false lemmas does not avoid
E - No false lemmas doest guarantee knowledge
A - Can strengthen definition via Infallibalism
C - Infallibalism is far too strict
E - Inflallibilism may avoid Fake Barn but can’t accept on the grounds that its too radical/absurd.
No definition provides a guarantee of knowledge.
In a question on wether we perceive the world Directly what would your PACE be?
P - Direct Realism
A - Russels Perceptual variation
C - Conditions inflicted on objects not objects themselves
E - Direct Realism stands
A - Argument of Hallucination
C - Disjunctive theory of perception
E - Direct Realism stands
A - Time-Lag argument
C - Response that lag in time is due to lightwaves reaching earth + the can accept lag in time
E - Direct Realism stands
Overall its arguable that we do perceive the world directly
In a question on wether we perceive the world Indirectly what would your PACE be?
P - Lockes Indirect Realism
A - Indirect Realism leads to skepticism about existence of mind-independent objects
C - Lockes 2 supporting arguments; ‘Involuntary nature of our experience + coherence of various experiences’
E - Indirect Realism stands
A - Indirect Realism paves the way for possibility of solipsism
C - Russells existence of the external world is best hypothesis
E - Indirect Realism stands
A - Direct Realists would object to Indirects argument that there is no sense-impression
C - Russell; Perceptual variation proves we perceive Indirectly
C - In case of perceptual variation its conditions inflicted which change physical objects
A - Indirect Realisms ‘theres a dictation between appearance vs reality - sense data is what we are immediately aware of
E - Indirect Realism stands + provides sufficient counetrs
In a question on wether utilitarianism provides a plausible ethical theory what would your PACE be?
Utilitarianism itself is a quantitive hedonistic moral theory which asserts actions are morally right/wrong sole dependent on their consequences alone + an act is right if it maximises happiness for the greatest number of ppl + that nouns happiness is of more worth than anyone else.
P - Benthams quantitive hedonistic Act Utilitarianism
A - Nozicks experience machine (objection to hedonism)
C - Mills ‘Proof of Utilitarianism’
A - Problems with the calculation
E - Act utilitarianism does not stand
A - Preference utilitarianism as non-hedonistic approach
C - Tyranny of the Majority + Fairness/liberties
E - Preference does not stand
A - Rule utilitarianism - can amend rules
C - Smarts objection ‘Rule worship’
A - Can amend rules in case of exceptions
C - Rules protecting integrity could prove problematic
E - Rule utilitarianism does not hold.
Overall no form of utilitarianism seems to be a plaice ethical moral theory.
In a question on wether Aristotelian virtue ethics is useful or provides a plausible ethical theory what would your PACE be?
P - Aristotles doctrines principle, function argument, Eudimonia + the good for human beings
A - Virtue alone doesn’t provide adequate ‘Guidance on how to act’
C - Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean
E - Aristotelian virtue ethics stands
A - Possibility of Circularity
C - The Doctrine of the mean isn’t set algorithm or formula ‘practical wisdom’ + ‘the skilll analogy’ are required
E - Aristotelian virtue ethics stands
A - ‘Conflicts between Virtues’
C - Aristotle denies this is possible
E - Its certainly arguable that this sufficient counter reply however if we really have practical wisdom in vast majority of cases there would never be conflicts
Overall Aristoelian virtue ethics does provide a plausible ethical theory.
In a question on wether Non-Cognitivism is correct or plausible what would your PACE be?
P - A.J Ayers Emotivism
A - ‘Rejecting the verification principle’
C - The VP is intended to guide not always relevant
A - Morla lanaguge is not always emotive
E - A.J Ayers Emotivism does not seem plausible
A - Hares Prescriptivism
C - ‘Moral language has other functions than perscribing’
A - Arguably prescription is the central aspect of it
C - ‘The only rationality is consistency’
E - Hares Perscriptivism doesn’t seem plausible
A - Mackies Error Theory
C - Surely moral principles held in majority of countries can be classified as moral/imoral or objectively categorical?
A - Makes Argument from Relativity
C - This doesn’t necessarily prove all moral facts are false
A - Mackies Epistemological + Metaphysical Queerness arguments + doesn’t seem plausible to argue one cultures discovered ‘moral truth’ they just developed over time + were taken as reality due to experience
E - Mackies Error Theory is plausible
Overall Mackies Error Theory stands
In a question on wether Kantian deontological ethics is a plausible ethical theory what would your PACE be?
P - Kantian Deontological ethics + Shop Keeper example
A - The Value of Certain motives
C - Focus on duty is pivotal ie Axe Murderer example + 2nd categorical imp.
E - Kantian Deontology stands
A - Partiality
C - Need to be able to universalise moral duties/action - 1st categorical imperative + 2 contradictions which can’t be universalised
A - Conflicting Duties
C - Conflicts between categorical duties never occur
E - Kantian deontology is plausible however the concept that duties can never conflict does not seem entirely accurate
