Philosopher's Toolbox - Short Answer w/Example Flashcards
Briefly present one example of an abductive argument. Explain what makes the argument of this type.
Of the options about what always benefits a person between power, cunning, money, and knowledge, at least one option is true.
Because cunning, money, and power can corrupt and turn a person wretched, knowledge is the only option left and is the true one because it is the only one left.
• To establish p, sets up possibilities and states that at least one is true
• discounts options
• concludes p since it is the only option left
Briefly present one example of an argument that begs the question. Explain why the argument is subject to this complaint.
Russell uses IBE to account for patterns in sense data; from two hypotheses, dream world and external world, his criteria for the best explanation is simplicity, so the external world hypothesis is the best. Why is it the simplest, because it is the most intuitive. Why is the most intuitive, because it is the explanation we already believed. Begs the question against someone who doesn’t already believe in the external world
Anselm says that you are rationally committed to God’s existence when you understand what she is because God is a being greater than which none can be conceived. Existing in fact and in understanding are different, so if God exists in the understanding, God must also exist maximally in fact. However, someone who uses a general concept use of exists would not believe this because they understand the criteria necessary for God to exist but nothing in fact meets that criteria, whereas anselm uses exists to refer to a particular thing that exists to then say about that particular thing that it exists.
College is awesome, why? because it is great.
The point of a college education is to increase your lifetime earning potential.
B: I think there are other valuable aims
A: But they don’t make you any money, so they aren’t valuable
• Uses a conclusion as a premise that someone who didn’t already accept the conclusion wouldn’t use
Briefly present a proposed solution to a problem that (plausibly) only labels the problem. Explain why the solution is subject to this complaint.
To compatibilism (agents sometimes are morally responsible for their actions), libertarianism (agents are free to cause actions without themselves being caused to do so) : labels the problem because it is a notion that solves the problem but doesn’t advance understanding of the problem
Briefly present a position that can be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness. Explain why the position is subject to this complaint.
I have an iPhone 5, iPhone 6 comes out and I buy it because I argue that it’s better. What matters to me is that it can make phone calls and store photos. They can both do that but I actually buy the new one because it is shinier.
I am being arbitrary because shiny is not what matters to me in a phone
Only care about people that live within 2 miles of you and not people that live further
• Subject to this judgment because the position imposes a distinction that rests on a feature that cannot matter whatever the point at hand is
Present and explain an argument that has the form of a reductio ad absurdum.
Target claim: god is the first changer
Assume God is not the first changer
If x changes y, x undergoes a change
If god changes something, god must undergo a change
If god undergoes a change, something must change god
Something else changes god,
God is not the first change
Contradiction so god is the first changer because negating it leads to a contradiction
