Quiz Three Flashcards
- Define anti-natalism.
The philosophical commitment that it is either always or at least presumptively wrong to procreate
- If happiness is a psychological state, how would one describe a person’s happy life?
experiences of satisfaction
- If there were a pill that guaranteed that one would never experience unhappy feelings
(disappointment, shame, fear, etc.), explain one reason that would count against taking that pill.
Disappointment and shame can turn into motivation and improvement
- If there were a pill that guaranteed that one would never experience unhappy feelings
(disappointment, shame, fear, etc.), explain one reason that would count in favor of taking that pill.
Happy people live longer, are more connected, more attentive & creative
- What is Euthyphro’s Dilemma?
If life is meaningful, is it meaningful because God judges it meaningful OR does God judge life meaningful because its meaningful
- What are the salient similarities between our lives and Sisyphus’s tasks in the afterlife?
Sisyphus’s tasks are like all of life’s activities: ongoing and ultimately pointless. Taylor Analogy
- What is Taylor’s proposed modification of Sisyphus and his tasks? How does he think it contributes to meaning?
If Sisyphus gained a compulsive impulse to roll stones, he is guaranteed to endless fulfillment. The meaning in life approach
- Trujillo’s Sisyphus has _____________ . How is that supposed to change things?
friends, reminds of the meaning that belongs to his life. Others anoint our lives when they value us
- According to Schwarz, the problem with objective nihilism is what?
There is still decisions that have to be made, we still deliberate over things, feel good about some results and bad about others
- Explain the following sentence: If nothing matters, then it doesn’t matter that nothing matters.
Supports nihilism
Embracing contingency and groundlessness
- What is the harm argument for anti-natalism?
Humans are responsible for significant environmental destruction
obligated to reduce harm,
so obliged to have fewer humans born
- What is the force argument for anti-natalism?
Living a life is like working a full-time job,
one shouldn’t force others into job with out consent
one shouldn’t force another to live
(forced labor isn’t good)
- According to anti-natalists, family-ism is like ______________. Why?
racism; one treats people who are like oneself with more moral favor than others
- What’s the difference between accounts of the meaning of life and accounts of meanings in life?
Meaning of life is the single purpose of life, while meaning in life are shaped by personal experiences
- The motto of enlightenment is, we are told, sapere aude. What’s that mean?
Dare to know
- Why would someone say that profound immorality could not be part of the meaning of life?
Someone might argue that profound immorality undermines meaning
because meaning often presupposes moral engagement.
Activities or projects that are deeply immoral conflict with shared human values
that contribute to a meaningful existence
- What influential 20th Century philosopher problematizes the thought that philosophy is a tool for moral improvement and judgment? Why?
Martin Heidegger, he was a Nazi but was a great philosopher
- What is the bad attitudes argument for anti-natalism?
having children makes one a “family-ist”,
similar to racism, one should oppose family-ism and activities that make it probable
one shouldn’t have children
- What is meta-philosophy?
“Philosophy about philosophy”
- True or False? Anti-natalists believe that there is a significant moral difference between failing to prevent pains versus failing to promote pleasures. Explain.
True, anti-natalists believe that there is an obligation that humans should prevent pain but not obliged to promote pleasure
- What does it mean to say that the projects of meta- are generally aspirations of improvement loops?
This means that meta-level projects aim to refine or improve the underlying systems, theories, or practices they analyze.
They are iterative, seeking to continually enhance understanding and effectiveness (#36 Law).
Theorizing on the meta level is intended to improve theorizing on first order practices
- What does it mean to say that enlightenment is a product and process?
Enlightenment is both the outcome (product) of achieving intellectual maturity and autonomy and the ongoing effort (process) of questioning, learning, and applying reason. This dual nature reflects Kant’s view of enlightenment as continuous growth
- The philosophical view that not everything is determined, but there is still no free will
free will skepticism
- What is an epistemic bubble?
An epistemic bubble excludes outside information by ignoring or avoiding it,
- What is an echo chamber?
an echo chamber actively discredits opposing views to reinforce its own beliefs. Echo chambers create a closed system where only preferred views are heard
- A question directing a search for the meaning of life: how is our life like ______________’s torments in Hades?
Sisyphus
- For the (Benedict-styled) moral relativist, “It is good” is synonymous with “It is__________”
habitual
- Descartes’s method for finding a criterion for truth is The Method of _____________.
Doubt
- The top doubt-maker for Descartes is the hypothesis of an evil _____________.
demon
- ‘Epistemic’ means having to do with _______________.
knowledge
- What is the name of this theory of truth? Beliefs are true when their contents correspond to the realities they are about.
Correspondence Theory of Truth
- The epistemic injustice of not being treated as a reliable source of information:_________
Testimonial Injustices
- The epistemic injustice of not having the concepts or vocabulary to communicate or make sense of one’s experiences. _____________
Hermeneutic injustice
- When an argument or piece of reasoning seems good, but it actually isn’t, it is a _____________.
fallacy
- What is the problem of evil?
- An all good God want to create a perfectly good world
- All powerful Good would be able to create one
- No evil in a perfectly good world
- There is evil in the world
- What is the free will defense against the problem of evil?
God allows humans to have free-will, which includes acts of evil
- Explain the following sentence: teleological arguments and arguments from evil are symmetric.
God of the gaps problem, science keep catching up to things previously associated with God’s work
- “What if your experience of blue is my experience of red?” That is the question of the ________________.
Inverted Spectrum
- What is a teleological argument for God’s existence?
- A theistic argument with the objective of explaining an otherwise unlikely good thing in the universe in light of divine agency
- God is omnipotent, omniscient, and free
- Depends on experience, supports are inductive
- A statement made with indifference to its truth, but solely for the purpose of giving an impression of the speaker.
Bullshit
- A statement made with the intention of inducing false beliefs in the listener.
Lies
- The view that we can directly change our beliefs or desires simply by wanting to:
__________.
volantarism
- What is an ontological argument for God’s existence?
- A theistic argument with the objective of demonstrating God’s existence in light of God’s essence
- Depend on truths from reason, support is deductive
- God is a necessary being, necessary beings must exist, so god must exist
- The cosmological argument for God’s existence starts with the question: “Why is_____.”
there something rather than nothing
- The view that human freedom is consistent with universal determination ___________?
compatibalism
- Libertarian free will requires that free agents that do anything could …..
have done otherwise
- What is the trilemma of options with the regress of reasons?
infinite regress, foundationalism, or circular reasoning
- What is theological fatalism?
Free will and omniscience are incompatible.
God is omniscient…Free only if could otherwise
- The point of punishment is to give bad consequences back to someone who did a bad thing: ______________.
retribution
- A definition that is about a thing that is in thought only, so is only about words is _________.
nominal
- The view that minded entities have only very recently (at least in cosmic time) evolved:
_________ ____________.
psychological naturalism
- Socrates: the ______________ life isn’t worth living.
unexamined
- The fallacy of inferring that since a person is bad or objectionable in some way, they must be wrong about so many things.
ad hominem
- If something just is, and has no deeper explanation, its existence is called ____________.
brute facts
- True or false? Haack’s argument from indispensability is that you can’t really have other political values or aspirations without a value of or an aspiration to truth.
True
- True or false? The Golden Rule (that you should treat others as you would want to be treated) depends on the assumption that others have minds and experiences like yours.
True
- A response to the problem of evil, emphasizing God’s justice (or justification): _______.
free will theodicy
- What is one of the paradoxes of divine properties?
omnipotence; can someone create a stone so heavy that no one can lift
- Anselm’s Proslogion is addressed to _________, as a ___________.
God, prayer
- Give a pragmatic argument for not believing in free will.
Belief in free will correlates with RWA, JWB, they correlate with victim blaming, we should oppose victim blaming, avoid free will
- Explain the following sentence: If free will is a skill, it is gradable.
In a compatibilist view, who you are isn’t up to you, but your actions are your products
- Explain the following sentence: If free will is a skill, then freedom has an elitism problem.
Skills are gradable and social products, meaning that there are people who are unfree because of their social position in culture
- Explain how the argument by analogy is supposed to answer the problem of other minds.
The argument by analogy posits that, because I know I have a mind and I observe similar behaviors in others, it is reasonable to infer that others also have minds.
This reasoning compares my own mental states with those of others.
- What is the argument from disagreement/variance for relativism?
The argument from disagreement holds that because people and cultures often disagree on what is true or morally right, truth itself must be relative to perspectives. This raises the challenge of explaining why one view should be preferred over another without falling into intellectual bias or circular reasoning.
- Explain why relativists hold that relativism yields a form of tolerance.
Relativism suggests that all viewpoints are equally valid from within their respective cultural or personal perspectives. If you believe everyone is equally right, it leads to a form of tolerance, since there is no single “correct” viewpoint to impose on others.
- Explain the livability problem for relativism.
The livability problem refers to the practical difficulties of relativism, where one must accept conflicting viewpoints as equally true. This can lead to uncomfortable situations where a person has to tolerate or even live by decisions they fundamentally disagree with, such as permitting actions they believe are harmful or coating oneself in bulletproof oil. Many people find that
the situation this forces onto you is ‘unlivable’.
- What is Foundationalism with reasons for knowledge?
Foundationalism is the view that certain basic beliefs (or “foundations”) provide reasons for all other beliefs. These foundational beliefs do not require justification from other beliefs, making them self-evident truths upon which knowledge is built
- What is the regress problem for reasons? What are the three horns?
The regress problem arises because if every belief requires a
reason, and every reason requires another reason, we either end up in an infinite
regress, go in a circle, or stop arbitrarily.
* The three horns are: infinite regress, circular reasoning, or foundational beliefs that require no further justification
- What’s the difference between an epistemic bubble and an echo chamber?
An epistemic bubble excludes outside information by ignoring or avoiding it, whereas an echo chamber actively discredits opposing views to reinforce its own beliefs. Echo chambers create a closed system where only preferred views are heard, while bubbles simply lack exposure to opposing view points
- How is pre-emptive silencing as a form of testimonial injustice?
Pre-emptive silencing occurs when someone’s contributions are
not acknowledged or given uptake in conversation, leading them to stop con
tributing altogether. This form of testimonial injustice denies individuals the
chance to express themselves, silencing their testimony before it can even be
heard
- What makes hermeneutic injustice an injustice?
Hermeneutic injustice arises when someone lacks the concepts
or vocabulary to make sense of their experiences. This creates a form of in
equality (which, when unmotivated, is a form of injustice), as those without the
necessary interpretive tools are unable to achieve self-understanding or communicate their experiences to others
- What’s Relativism’s Self-Refutation Problem?
The problem with relativism is that it leads to a paradox. If relativism is true, then all truths, including absolutism, must be considered true for those who hold them. But if absolutism is true for some, then relativism is false because absolutism asserts that there are objective truths. Therefore, relativism undermines itself by making both relativism and absolutism true, which is a contradiction.
- What is the argument that relativism doesn’t guarantee tolerance?
The assumption that relativism leads to tolerance is false because, according to relativism, all values are true for the individuals or cultures that hold them. This means that if a culture values intolerance, then intolerance is “right” for that culture. Relativism doesn’t mandate tolerance; it can equally justify intolerance, depending on what a culture believes.
- Why would someone say that bullshit is a greater threat to truth than lies?
Lies, while false, still involve a relationship with the truth since the liar knows the truth and intentionally hides it. Bullshit, on the other hand, shows no concern for truth at all—its aim is not to mislead about specific facts but to disregard truth entirely. Because bullshit dismisses the importance of truth, it poses a greater danger to truth than lies do.
- Why is Descartes’s cogito taken as exemplary of self-evidence?
Descartes’s famous statement “I think, therefore I am” is self-evident because it cannot be doubted. To doubt one’s existence would require thinking, which in turn confirms the very existence of the thinker. Thus, Descartes’s cogito is immune to doubt and serves as an undeniable truth.
- What’s the absolutist temptation that comes from being in a globally dominant culture?
Being part of a globally dominant culture can lead to the belief that this culture is superior or represents the peak of human progress. This superiority can then lead to the assumption that the dominant culture’s values are absolutely correct, making the members of that culture prone to cultural
absolutism.
- What are some basic problems for claims that something is self-evident?
Two major issues arise with self-evident truths. First, people may disagree on what counts as self-evident, leading to conflicting claims about what is undeniably true. Second, if a truth is genuinely self-evident, there should be no disagreement, but in practice, people do argue about what is self
evident. This creates a paradox where something considered self-evident is not
universally accepted.
- What makes echo chambers resilient to counter-evidence?
Echo chambers actively discredit opposing views as untrust worthy, which makes them resistant to counter-evidence. Unlike epistemic bubbles, where missing information can “pop” the bubble, echo chambers have mechanisms that prevent members from accepting counter-evidence. Even when opposing evidence is introduced, it is dismissed because it comes from sources already deemed unreliable by the echo chamber
What is philosophical conservativism? Why would someone be a philosophical conservative?
Philosophical conservatism is a political, social, and philosophical position that emphasizes the value of tradition, stability, gradual change, and established institutions as a way to preserve social order and individual freedom.
Philosophical conservatism can be rooted in skepticism about the ability of reason or ideology to completely transform society.
- What is a radical or revisionary philosophical program? Why would someone be a philosophical radical?
Philosophical radicalism involves questioning deeply held beliefs and practices, aiming to scrutinize them to the point of eliminating those that don’t stand up to rational examination. A philosophical radical believes that only ideas and actions that survive rigorous scrutiny are worth following. This leads to a process of radical revision, where anything unjustified is
abandoned, and only well-supported principles remain.
- What is Kant’s paradox of political freedom and freedom of thought?
individuals should have the freedom to think, reason, and form their own beliefs (intellectual freedom or freedom of thought), political or social structures can impose constraints that limit this freedom. However, these constraints can be necessary to maintain order and security within a society.
