phil 14 exam 2

Question 1

Necessary Conditions

Answer 1

The condition that has to be present for an event to happen, a condition that must be met for a concept or term to apply

Question 2

Sufficient Conditions

Answer 2

A condition or set of conditions that will produce the event, it is enough for something to happen

Question 3

Bodily continuity

Answer 3

S2 at T2 is the same person as S1 at T1 iff S2 and S1 are or have the same body
as long as one person has the same body all their life they will have the same identity

Question 4

psychological continuity

Answer 4

S2 and T2 is the same person as S1 and t1 iff S2 and S1 are psychologically continuous and connected. S2 and T2 is the same person as S1 and T1 iff S2 remembers the experiences of S1

Question 5

Causation, understood as an antecedent condition

Answer 5

Causation is a relationship that describes an analysis of cause and effect, essentially the antecedent sufficient condition states that if one thing happens that means that something else will happen because each event necessitates the one that follows. Example is if Domino D1 will fall and if D2 falls then D3 will fall and so will D4

Question 6

Determinisn

Answer 6

Every event has a cause, the view that all events and actions including human choices and decisions are ultimately determined by prior causes and conditions

Question 7

The Dilemma of Determinisn

Answer 7

1. Either determinism is true or not
2. If determinism is true, we are not free
3. If determinism is not true, then we are not free
4. So we are not free
   If determinism is true then that means humans have no free will and cant be held responsible for their actions

Question 8

Compatibalism

Answer 8

Determinism is correct but we are nonetheless free

Question 9

Fatalism

Answer 9

theory that all events are fated to happen, the event would have happened no matter what the person could have done, since whatever is true is necessary and since it is pointless to deliberate about what is necessarily already the case, it is pointless to deliberate about the future, our actions make no casual contributions to the world and every event has a cause

Question 10

Libertarianism

Answer 10

Theory that we posses free will and that our free will is neither determined nor the result of random chance, instead the result of rational agency which argues that freedom is incompatible with determinism, determinism is false and we do in fact often posses the sort of freedom necessary for moral responsibility. Reminds us that human actions are subject to special explanations like the actors own reasoning for acting

Question 11

Transeunt causation

Answer 11

Also known as external causation an event that happens at a distant externally and causes something else, an event that causes another event like domino causation

Question 12

Immanent causation

Answer 12

when an agent makes something happen, the cause and effect are not different they are the same entity, the agent like someone doing something and making a cerebral event happen

Question 13

Reactive attitudes

Answer 13

Emotional responses that we have towards the actions of other people, their attitudes or even their character traits, these can be things like love and even gratitude, and they are reactive because we have these responses because of what people do. Essentially, emotional responses to our interactions with other people

Question 14

What is the bodily continuity theory of personal identity? What are the main arguments for and against this theory

Answer 14

The theory that S2 and t2 are the same person as S1 and T1 if and only if S1 are or have the same body. Our identity is who we are as long as, overtime, we are in our bodies.
The main arguments for this theory are that being psychological beings isn’t enough because our memories could change and so could our beliefs but our bodies stay, our bodies are essential to who we are because it is essentially our self conception that makes us do things or not do them, and our bodies give us our identity.
The main arguments against this theory is that there is a problem of fission where a person is split into two different bodies with the same brain, the problem of us aging and possibly forgetting memories as we grow older

Question 15

State and explain Lockes’ examples of the prince and the cobbler. Locke’s attempts to derive both negative and positive consequences from this example? What are these consequences? Is he right?

Answer 15

Argument: If a prince and cobbler should have their consciousnesses switch bodies, outwardly they would appear to be the other. However, others would still be able to identify the prince in the cobbler’s body due to his actions/memories/etc. They themselves would also still maintain their identities within the body of the other.
Negative Proposal (against BC):
IF BCT, sameness of body is both necessary and sufficient for PI. If that was the case, than the body of cobbler would still be the cobbler, even if informed by the mind of the prince (and vice versa)
However, it is not such that the body of the cobbler is merely still the cobbler when informed by the consciousness of the prince.
Thus sameness of body is not sufficient for Personal Identity, since if sameness of body was necessary, the prince and the cobbler could not switch bodies. However, it is possible the prince and the cobbler could switch bodies, since we can logically think of such a scenario.
So sameness of body is not necessary for Personal Identity. Thus the Bodily Continuity Theory cannot be true.
Positive Proposal: the scenario of the prince and the cobbler introduces the idea of the psychological continuity theory of PI: S2 at t2 is the same as S1 at t1 iff S1 and S2 are psychologically continuous with one another
For instance, if S2 can remember the previous experiences of S2
PC has its advantages, in that it captures various features of our own self conception
We consider ourselves to be agents/thinkers/feelers/perceivers and we hold ourselves praiseworthy and blameworthy for our actions. We hold memories of ourselves from the inside, which are only accessible to us. We are essentially psychological beings and thus tend to regard the self as a locus of value.

Question 16

What is the psychological continuity account of personal identity? What are the main considerations offered on its behalf? What are the main objections offered against this view? Is it defensible?

Answer 16

psychological continuity theory of PI: S2 at t2 is the same as S1 at t1 iff S1 and S2 are psychologically continuous with one another
For instance, if S2 can remember the previous experiences of S2
PC has its advantages, in that it captures various features of our own self conception
We consider ourselves to be agents/thinkers/feelers/perceivers and we hold ourselves praiseworthy and blameworthy for our actions. We hold memories of ourselves from the inside, which are only accessible to us. We are essentially psychological beings and thus tend to regard the self as a locus of value.
Is it defensible: in some ways, yes and in others no. I think Locke did touch upon an important (and mostly integral) part of personal identity. I think it is defensible in many cases, however it does falter when issues of memory loss or mental illness are concerned. To that extent, I think it fails to account for the ways in which the physical and the mental can affect each other. The physical deterioration of the body over time can disrupt one’s psychological continuity, however, I don’t think that necessarily means someone loses their personal identity because of it. I also think a portion of our personal identity is tied to the body we exist in and our experiences/personality/development of identity can be greatly affected by it.
I think any theory that proposes one singular trait to track identity and the continuity of identity is going to be faulty and not holistically defensible, since our identities are composed of too many different components.

Question 17

Three propositions seem individually true, even though they form an inconsistent triad: (i) every event has a cause, (ii) every event has a cause, we are not free; (iii) we are free. Are these genuinely inconsistent? If so, which must go?

Answer 17

Under causal determinism we see that every event has a cause, it says that nothing can change or alter unless it’s made to change or alter and nothing simply jhappens. If like CD says, every even is necessitated and if every event is necessitated it is made to happen, ultimately our choice was not free, it was determined and therefore we are like dominoes falling in a row and so if we could not have done otherwise than I do now because of this chain of events the only logical proposition to give up would be (iii), that we are free.

Question 18

State, explain, and asses the dilemma of determinism

Answer 18

(1) Either determinism is true or it is not
(2) If determinism is true, then we are not free
(3) If determinism is not true, then we are not free
(4) So, we are not free
Essentially determinism is meant to say that every event has a cause, and so we therefore are not free because there are chains that happened before we were born that make us do so and so we are not free because we are ultimately powerless. The dilemma of determinism is interesting because it can be rebutted with the compatibilist view that, determinism is correct but one still has free will and agency over some of the choices that we make

Question 19

State, explain, and assess one argument on behalf of the second premise of the dilemma of determinism (Scil. if determinism is true, we are not free)

Answer 19

1. We could have done otherwise with respect to a only if it was in our power to refrain from a
2. If determinism is true then there are casual chains stething back to the times before our birth
3. We are powerless to effect changes in events which occurred before we were born
4. Hence, if determinism is true, we could have not done otherwise with respect to a
5. Hene, if determinism is true, we are not free
   Relies on the fact that we as humans have no ability to cause things or change how the dominoes fall and so everything is beyond our control, this premise entails the conclusion and it makes logical sense, so this is valid

Question 20

States explain and assess one argument on behalf of the third premise of the dilemma of determinism (scil. If determinism is false, we are not free

Answer 20

(1) if determinism is false, then there is at least one uncaused event a
(2) we are free with respect to a only if a is not random
(3) If an event is uncaused, then a is random
(4) Hence, we are free with respect to a only if a is caused
Thus, this entails that we are only free with regards to determined events
Under the determinism argument, we are not free with regard to determined events/events in a deterministic world
(5) hence, if determinism is false, then we are not free

Question 21

What is the difference between determinism and fatalism? Is fatalism defensible? In thai connection, state, explain and assess the Lazy Student argument

Answer 21

Determinism states that every event has a cause. Fatalism states that since whatever is true is necessary and since it’s pointless to deliberate what is necessarily the case it’s pointless to think about the future. Essentially the main difference is that determinism is simply a statement and fatalism is more of giving up, it is hopeless. Fatalism is not defensible, especially with free will.
Since every event have a cause its already determined that I will get an A in this seminar or I want
If it’s already causally determined that im gonna get an a then there’s no need for me to study
Is its already causally determined that i’m not gonna get an a then there’s no point in studying
If studying is either unnecessary or pointless, then i should simply avoid studying
So i should simply avoid studying
Lazy student conflates determinism and fatalism
The world may be that the lazy student will get an a only if her studying causes her to do well on her final exam
So basically, fatalism’s defensibility is highly dependent on the truth value of determinism, The lazy student should study after all, i agree with this point because it would be bleak that we could study so hard and for so long and still fail

Question 22

State one argument for and one argument against compatibilism. Should we be compatibilists

Answer 22

One argument for compatibilism is it is not necessary for S’s being free that S could have done otherwise, and what really matters i that humans are not pathologically overwhelmed by an irresistible deserve, we are reason respovie and we can grasp and apply moral reasons in particular
One argument against it is the consequence argument, the consequence argument states that if determinism is true, we have no say in the actions that will happen in the future and the things that have happened in the past and so we are not free.
I think we should all be compatibilism because even though there may be certain things that can happen like us coughing we can decide not to cough in someones face and so when given a choice we can decide if we want to or not

Question 23

What is the consequence argument? Is it sound

Answer 23

We have no control over the events that happened before we were born and we have no control over the laws of nature.
2. If we have no control over either and one has consequences we have no control over any of the above
3. If determinism, then the past together with the laws of nature have the present and future as consequences
4. So if determinism we have no control over the present or future
5. We have free will only if we have control over the present or future
6. So, if determinism we are not free
This argument is valid but it is not sound. It is not sound because premise number five can be confused. The definition of free will can be very subjective. One person might consider free will one thing and one another which is why it is not sound, one can have the urge to cough but where one coughs is ultimately their decision and that can be free will.

Question 24

What is agent causation? Does this form of causation usher in a defensible approach to the problem of free will? Is this view ultimately defense?

Answer 24

The fundamental concept of this is that we have to reflect on what we actually think about causation, we need to reflect on the notion of causation, we have understood cause as an antecedent sufficient condition and this gave rise to the domino world but this restricts causation to being a relation between events and agent causation is a primitive kind of causation and it cannot be reducible to transeunt causation. Essentially it seems as though this causation is that we can still cause and initiate things that happen in the world. I think this view is ultimately defensible because it still gives humans agency and they can still do things on their own account and they cna make their own choices

Question 25

Would life be worth living without free will? Here you should consider the role of reactive attitudes in a world bereft of free will.

Answer 25

In my opinion life without free will wouldn’t be worth living. If the universe was deterministic in nature and everything was already decided for me there would be no point in living. Nothing I could do would prevent anything from happening, if I don’t have free will there’s no point because I am not an agent in control of myself. The role of reactive attitudes determines that to some extent we have free will because we are able to still engage in feelings and attitudes that give our life meaning like love, and even guilt. A life without free will would not be worth living because we would ultimately be puppets in a endless chain of dominoes falling, but in respect to reactive attitudes, we would still have free will and it would be worth living because we could still have reactions and feelings towards things and that’s a big part of free will and what it is to be human