Intro To Philosophy

Front 1

knowledge

Back 1

JUSTIFIED true belief

Front 2

job applicant counterexample

Back 2

Smith has evidence that Jones will get the job, and Smith knows that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket. The boss says that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job. Smith is justified in believing that Jones will get the job but unknown to him, Smith has 10 coins and will get the job. So smith does not know that Jones will get the job despite his justification for believing it.

Front 3

Ford counterexample

Back 3

Smith has evidence that Jones owns a Ford. Smith does not know where Brown is. He proposes that either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Boston, Barcelona, or Brest-Litovsk. He is justified in believing the latter things because he is justified in believing that Jones owns a Ford. However Jones doesn't own a Ford but Brown is in Barcelona. Therefore Smith doesn't know that Brown is in Barcelona even though it is true, Smith believes it's true, and Smith is justified in believing it's true.

Front 4

psychological egoism

Back 4

all actions are done in one's own self-interest

Front 5

desire-satisfaction psychological egoism

Back 5

all people are motivated by inner desires that they gain satisfaction from filling

Front 6

welfare psychological egoism

Back 6

all actions are aimed at increasing one's own welfare/well-being

Front 7

arguments in support of psychological egoism

Back 7

1. one's own motives prompt actions, not those of another
2. it's the purpose, not the origin, of actions that matter
3. when a person gets what they want, they feel pleasure
4. moralists usually appeal to pleasure/pain to educate others

Front 8

arguments against psychological egoism

Back 8

1. malice, hatred, revenge (willing to sacrifice one's own happiness to cause somebody else's unhappiness as the primary objective
2. moral education is truly successful when it produces persons who are willing to do the right thing simply because it is right and not because it is popular or safe"

Front 9

skepticism

Back 9

we cannot actually know if an external world exists since the only connection to it we have is our own mind and experience

Front 10

dream argument

Back 10

we could be living in a dream right now; we can never really depend on what things seem like. we don't know anything beyond our own experiences

Front 11

"no argument" argument

Back 11

we cannot trust our memories; we cannot know that our mind has existed before this moment, all that we know is that we are in the present with our present memories

Front 12

science (skepticism)

Back 12

science is only as reliable as our perceptions of the world. we cannot directly observe any kind of reality

Front 13

argument for existence of the eternal world

Back 13

Moore's attempt to prove that objects exist at the same time he tries to prove they exist

Front 14

soap bubble example

Back 14

1. it could exist before he perceived it and continue to exist if he never perceives it
2. since he had an experience of it, it had to have existed at some point in time
3. therefore it is external to his mind and other minds
4. if hecan prove that there are 2 of these things that can be met in space an external world exists since there are many external things

Front 15

hands example

Back 15

1. attempt to prove that objects that exist in the present also existed in the past
2. he held up his hands in the past
3. he knows he held up his hands in the past so they existed in the past
4. therefore at least two external objects have existed in the past so an external world exists

Front 16

induction

Back 16

we are not justified in believing the conclusions of inductive arguments
1. matters of fact can only be known through experience
2. can only be justified by recourse to experience
3. circular attempt, therefore no justification for inductive references

Front 17

relations of ideas

Back 17

express the relationship between figures (like the pythagorean theorem); discoverable by the mere operation of thought

Front 18

matters of fact

Back 18

1. the contrary of any matter of fact is possible
2. can't be found by thought, must be determined true through experimentation

Front 19

instrumental value of morality

Back 19

because acting in a certain way will help an individual reach their goal

Front 20

intrinsic value of morality

Back 20

the value an object has "in itself"; an object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end

Front 21

ring of Gyges

Back 21

1. Glaucon tries to prove that people are only just becuase they are afraid of punishment for injustice
2. mythical artifact that granted its owner to become invisible at will
3. would an intelligent person be moral if he didn't have to fear being caught/punished?

Front 22

principle of control

Back 22

if the differences in actions of two agents are due only to factors outside their control, then the differences are insignificant to our moral evaluation of those actions. people cannot be morally assessed for things that are not their fault.

Front 23

moral luck in how things turn out

Back 23

1. an action should be assessed morally regardless of the outcome
2. somebody who runs a red light and hits a person should be treated the same as somebody who runs a red light and doesn't hit a person
3. our justice system violates principle of control since we punish people differently for these two situations

Front 24

constitutive luck

Back 24

1. people are often assessed with what they are like
2. an envious person can be morally condemned as envious even if they do nothing to ruin the success of others
3. violates principle of control since who we are fundamentally is not our fault but we are still morally judged for it

Front 25

circumstantial luck

Back 25

1. we are judged morally by the decisions we make, but we don't have control over which decisions we have to face
2. ex - Nazi Germany
3. determination of our actions by previous events that are beyond our control
4. suggests we don't have free will, implies we don't have genuine moral responsibility since our actions are outside of our control

Front 26

consequentialism

Back 26

1. we should do whatever will have the best consequences
2. before action, you should examine all the possible benefits/drawbacks of each action and choose the one with the most benefits and least drawbacks

Front 27

optimific

Back 27

describes an action that maximizes benefits and minimizes drawbacks

Front 28

utilitarianism

Back 28

the goal of any action should be the greatest good for the greatest number of people

Front 29

principle of utility

Back 29

if an act or rule is right, it will produce the greatest happiness/good for the greatest number of people

Front 30

benefits of utilitarianism

Back 30

1. impartial
2. coincides with our intuitive moral convictions (says that murder is bad)
3. helps resolve moral conflicts since there will always be a course of action
4. flexible (allows lying to be acceptable sometimes)

Front 31

ojections to utilitarianism

Back 31

1. ignores justice (most good for most people isn't necessarily most just)
2. impossible to predict consequences of many actions; takes too much time
3. too difficult/demanding to apply to all situations
4. requires complete impartiality, unreasonable in many situations
5. separates the intentions from the results of an action (would make a badly-intentioned action with a good outcome moral)

Front 32

hypothetical imperative

Back 32

1. only exist and apply conditionally
2. tell us how to act to attain a specific goal
3. ex: if I want to obtain knowledge, I have to learn

Front 33

categorical imperative

Back 33

1. denote absolute, unconditional requirements
2. an act is morally wrong if it violates the categorical imperative

Front 34

formula of universal law

Back 34

"if everybody acted in that way, would you be able to complete the action?"
gives us a procedure for acting morally: we shouldn't do something if we couldn't do it if everyone were doing it

Front 35

formula of humanity

Back 35

1. never ignore the humanity of a person
2. people have intrinsic value
3. do not use as a means, no manipulation

Front 36

advantages of formula of humanity

Back 36

1. focuses on fairness and consistency
2. allows us to determine when something is morally required allowed, or forbidden
3. respects humanity

Front 37

problem with the formula of universal law

Back 37

has counterexamples (killer gardener)

Front 38

problems with formula of humanity

Back 38

vague on what it means to treat somebody as an "end"; no clear way of dealing with conflicts and it doesn't deal with misery or happiness

Front 39

divine command

Back 39

1. an act is morally wrong if it goes against the command of god
2. something is holy if and only if it is loved by god

Front 40

questions about divine command

Back 40

1. is an act morally right because god commands us to do it, or does god command us to do it because it is morally right?
2. no good answer to the question "why does god give us the commands that he does?"