Exam 1

Front 1

intrinsic goods

Examples

Back 1

a good that is a pleasure in it of itself. It does not lead to a good as a result.

watching a sunset, a hug, happiness, pleasure, knowledge.

Front 2

instrumental goods

ex.

Back 2

a good that leads to a pleasure. it gets you other things.

money, dentist visit, education

Front 3

overall value

Back 3

when considering an action, you must consider the pleasure and pains of everyone involved.

Front 4

how to test to see if something is instrumentally or intrinsically valuable?

Back 4

W1 and W2 tests

if you are better off in a ceteris paribus world with more of a good, it is instrinsic. If the world is the same in either, it is instrumental

Front 5

defintion of hedonism

Back 5

1. all pleasure is instrinsically good
2. only pleasure is instrinsically good

Front 6

EDJE argument from malice

extract

Back 6

1. if hedonism is correct, then malice (a sort of pleasure) is instrinsically good.

2. malice (a sort of pleasure) is not intrinsically good.

=hedonism is not correct

Front 7

EDJE argument from malice

define

Back 7

hedonism- 1) all pleasure are intrinsically good. 2) only pleasure is intrinsically good.

malice- the enjoyment of the undeserved suffering of others.

Front 8

EDJE argument from malice

justify

def of justify

Back 8

1. Suppose that hedonism is true. If hedonism is true, then pleasures are intrinsically good. If malice is pleasure, than malice is intrinsically good. Thus, premise 1 of the above argument is true.

2. getting pleasure out of someone who is getting hurt is not intrinsically good. the victims family and people around would be devastated by an event such as someone getting hit by a car

make up reasons as to why the premises are true

Front 9

EDJE argument from malice

evaluate

Back 9

1. argument is valid by modus tollens

2. premise 1 is valid by definition

3. Premise 2 of the argument is unreasonable. Premise 2 attempts to argue that there is something morally wrong with malice, which is irrelevant to the argument. If a person is malicious, then they would receive pleasure from the car incident mentioned above.

since premise 2 is false, the argument is weak

Front 10

sentence

Back 10

a bit of language that can express a single or multiple propositions

Front 11

propositions

Back 11

thought or ideas that are expressed by sentences

Front 12

are sentences ever true or false?

Back 12

no. the proposition that the sentence expresses is what is true of false

Front 13

how to properly mark a sentence

Back 13

use single qoutes

Front 14

how to properly mark a preposition

Back 14

brackets (< and > signs). <snow, being-white>

Front 15

two sentences that express the same proposition

Back 15

'julie is female'
'julie is a woman'

<julie, having-two-x-chromosomes)

Front 16

one sentence that expresses multiple prepositions

Back 16

'that car weighs a ton!' can express <car, weighing-2000-lbs. or <car, to-heavy-for-an-average-human-to-pick-up>

Front 17

correspondence principle

Back 17

a proposition is true IFF it corresponds to the way the world actually is. a proposition is false IFF it does not describe the way the world actually is.

Front 18

one truth value principle

Back 18

every proposition has exactly one truth value

Front 19

subjective relativism

Back 19

expresses the diea that things are true for one person, but not true for another, and vice versa.

Front 20

infallible and subjective relativism

Back 20

through subjective relativism, someone could always be right (infallible). this cannot happen. people are fallible. not everyone can be right

Front 21

true contradictions and subjective relativism

Back 21

someone cant believe that god exists and someone believe that god doesnt exist. both of these cannot coexist.

Front 22

justification principle

Back 22

a person S is justified in believing proposition P iff: S's total evidence supports P

Front 23

is justification relative?

Back 23

yes

Front 24

3 doxastic attitudes one can take towards a proposition

Back 24

1. believe it
2. disbelieve it
3. suspend judgement

Front 25

evidence

Back 25

all the info you have: perceptions, other beliefs, testiomy from other people, memories...etc.

Front 26

how is evidence connected with justification

Back 26

evidence includes all the reasons you have for believing or disbelieving a proposition.

Front 27

rational or irrational in connection with justification

Back 27

a person is rational if their beliefs (justification) follows the evidence.

Front 28

why are justification and rationality relative

Back 28

what a person believes is based on a particular person's body of evidence.

Front 29

epistemic justification

Back 29

justification based on evidence

Front 30

pragmatic justifcation

Back 30

justification based on what is beneficial to us. beliefs are pragmatically justified when they are useful or helpful to have

Front 31

empirical claim (a posteriori)

Back 31

-claims made by experience
-done by observing the world

Front 32

a priori claim

Back 32

-done by reasoning
-"c is an a priori claim iff reason us at least (in principle) sufficient to show that "c" is either true of false

Front 33

universal affirmative generalization

Back 33

claims about every single member in a particular category

'all tigers have stripes'

Front 34

how ti disprove a universal affirmative gerneralization

Back 34

create a counter example

"all A are B"

find an A that is not B

Front 35

valid argument

(T,F premises and conclusions)

Back 35

a valid argument will never have a false conclusion if all of its premises are true. but if at least one premise is false then the conclusion can be false as well

Front 36

modus tollens

Back 36

If P then Q
Not Q

Not P

Front 37

multiple modus ponens

Back 37

If P then Q
If Q then R
P

Therefore, R

Front 38

modus ponens

Back 38

If P then Q
P

Therefore Q

Front 39

universal insantiation

Back 39

all A are B
x is A

therefore, x is B

Front 40

can something be intrinsically good but instrumentally bad, or vice versa?

Back 40

yes. one thing can be intrinsically good for one person but instrumentally bad for another (malicious person watching someone get bit by a car)

Front 41

how to test if something is intrinsically or instrumentally good

Back 41

W1 and W2 Tests

Front 42

does:
1. malice produce pleasure

or

2. malice IS pleasure

Back 42

malice IS pleasure

Front 43

EDJE experience machine argument
extract

Back 43

1. if hedonism is correct, then the amount of pleasure and plain you feel is all that matters to how good a life is.

2. if the amount of plesaure and pain you feel is all that matters to how good a life is, then a life on the experience machine is as intrinsically goods as a corresponding real life.

3. a life on the experience machine is not as intrinsically good as a corresponding real life.

-hedonism is not correct

Front 44

EDJE experience machine argument

define

Back 44

experience machine- a machine that simulates real life conditions. conditions can be selected by the user.

hedonism- 1) all pleasure is intrinsically good, 2) only pleasure is intrinsically good.

Front 45

EDJE experience machine argument

justify

Back 45

practice

Front 46

EDJE experience machine argument

evaluate

Back 46

argument is valid by multiple modus tollens.

practice

Front 47

eudamonism

def

Back 47

rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue over a complete life

Front 48

eudaimonism

explanation

Back 48

1. activity of the sole in accordance with reason (this leads to virtue and happiness

2. need some external goods (friends, wealth, power, beauty, good birth, good children, etc)

3. luck

Front 49

why does aristotle think that eudaimonia is not reducible to

-pleasure
-honor
-virtue
-wealth

Back 49

pleasure: can be felt by lowly animals. pleasure is not unique

honor: superficial. it depends on the view of others

virtue: you can be virtuous without having a well lived life.

wealth: wealth is only an instrumental good.

Front 50

EDJE argument for happiness after death

extract

Back 50

1. If artistotles conception of eudaimania is correct, then whether or not people are happy can change after they die

2. whether a person is happy or not cannot change after their death

-therefore, aristotles conception of eudaimania is not correct.

Front 51

EDJE argument for happiness after death

define

Back 51

definition of eudaimania: rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue over a complete life.

Front 52

EDJE argument for happiness after death

justify

Back 52

premise 1 is true by def.

premise 2 is true by the def of death.

Front 53

EDJE argument for happiness after death

evaluate

Back 53

valid by modus tollens

evaluate arguments

Front 54

EDJE argument for undeserved happiness

extract

Back 54

1. if eudaimanism is correct, then teds happiness is intrinsically good

2. 2. teds happiness is not intrinsically good.

eudaimanism is not correct.

Front 55

EDJE argument for undeserved happiness

define

Back 55

eudaimanism

intrinsic goods

Front 56

EDJE argument for undeserved happiness

justify

Back 56

premise 1 is corrrect by definition

premise 2 takes into account the suffering of the people that ted walks on

Front 57

EDJE argument for undeserved happiness

evaluate

Back 57

valid by modus tollens

premise 1 is correct.

premise 2 is false. his eudaimania is instrinsically good.

Front 58

infallibilism

Back 58

theres no such thing as being confident

nothing is true unless you are 100% sure it is the truth

this can never happen. we cannot know what is really true (brains in test tube example)

Front 59

infallibilism vs falliblism

Back 59

fallibilism understands that their is uncertainity in what is known.

empiricial knowledge suggest the truth

Front 60

multiple modus tollens

Back 60

If P Then Q
If Q then R
Not R

Not P

Front 61

definition of soundness

Back 61

an argument is sound IFF

1. the argument is valid
2. all the premises of the argument are true.

Front 62

are arguments called unsound

Back 62

No. either arguments are invalid or they have false premises

Front 63

definition for strength

Back 63

an agrument is strong for a person IFF

1. the argument is valid
2. the person is justified in believing all of the argument's premises

Front 64

do you say if a premise is true or true by def in the justification part?

Back 64

NO

Front 65

defining strength or weakness

Back 65

an argument is strong if the premises are true, which causes the conclusion to be true (assuming it is also valid)

an argument is weak if one of the premises are false (assuming the argument is valid)

Front 66

steps to the EVALUATION part of an argument

Back 66

1. is it valid?

2. are the premises true? (by def)

3. is the argument weak or strong?

Front 67

what fallacy does aristole commit when he argues that there is only one ultimate good?

Back 67

the argument is invalid. (road example)

Front 68

what is aristotles characteristic function of human beings?

Back 68

activity of the soul in accordance with reason or applying reason