Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Cosmological Argument
|
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect. |
|
|
Natural theology
|
-Is the study or science or knowledge of God through natural intellect. (the intellect in its natural state, unaided by any special or supernatural input)
-Also known as Philosophical theology and rational theology |
|
|
Revealed theology
|
The knowledge of God through special revelation, such as the Bible, Church, Moses, Christ, or the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
DIFFERENCE: Natural and Revealed Theology
|
Natural theology people attempt through their own natural faculties to approach God, whereas in revealed theology God has in His own special way approached humanity.
Natural – humans to God Revealed – God to humans |
|
|
A priori arguments for God's existence
|
-Attempt to demonstrate God independently of sense experience – through reason alone
- Ontological - Moral o Moral |
|
|
A posteriori arguments for God's existence
|
-Attempt to demonstrate the existence of God by means of sense experience.
-From nothing, nothing comes -Cosmological -Telelogical |
|
|
Teleological Argument
|
1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 4. Therefore, God exists. 1. Complexity implies a designer. 2. The universe is highly complex. 3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer. |
|
|
What it means for belief in God to be properly basic
|
-->It is a belief that may be accepted immediately, without evidence.
“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity…..God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty….men one and all perceive that there is a God and that He is their maker” John Calvin -Belief in God may be embraced apart from rational evidence, and at the same time be justified as a natural disposition implanted in the soul by God himself. |
|
|
Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for God’s existence
|
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is a motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God. 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how low they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God. 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God. 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God. |
|
|
The Kalam cosmological argument
|
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Support for premise 1: 1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite. 3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist. |
|
|
How cosmological arguments rely on the principle of causality
|
-No matter how long the world has existed – or even if it has always existed – it is contingent or dependent, upon something else for its existence, and finally, on Something which is NOT dependent.
-By it’s nuture, this something must be transcendent(out of space and time) and therefore, the ultimate being. -Time must havfe a beginning and the cause of time must itself be something transcendent and ultimate. |
|
|
The details of Paley’s teleological argument for God’s existence
|
•Watches exhibit design, and they are planned and produced by intelligent beings
•The universe exhibits design •Therefore, the universe was planned and produced by an intelligent being. |
|
|
How Darwinian evolution represents a challenge to teleological arguments
|
•Since Darwin’s Origin of the Species…Paley’s claim has become considerably less powerful.
-Different view on how God created things |
|
|
How Tennant’s “Theistic Evolution” represents a middle ground.
|
•Theistic Evolution – The belief that God uses natural evolutionary processes to bring about his desired effect.
•Shifts attention from specific instances of design to the design of the whole •Says we must put aside the narrow teleology of Paley and adopt a wider (cosmic) teleology. |
|
|
Hume and Kant’s objection to the principle of causality
|
•The concept of causality cannot be legitimately extended beyond the objects of possible sense experience, and therefore cannot be extended to God.
•Hume – Causality is limited to the sensible world because we know it only through sense experience. We have no grounds for applying it to a transcendent God. •There is an unjustified application of the concept of causality to God •Are we not limited by our experience to a small part of reality. What possible basis do we have for thinking that the causal relation hold for anything beyond our experience? a.Our Idea of causality is based on our experiences. b.God’s creation of the world is hardly an object of possible experience •Kant – Causality is limited to the sensible world because it is constitutive of sense experience, it is part of what experience means. It therefore has to possible application to a transcendent God. •The cosmological argument is a “transcendental illusion.” •Causality could not possibly apply to God! |
|
|
The difference between deductive and inductive arguments from evil
|
•Deductive Argument
-If there is an O-3 God, then evil would NOT exist -Evil does exist -Therefore, there is no O-3 God. (it is impossible for him to exist) •Inductive Argument -It is improbable that the O-3 God exists because of the amount of evil. |
|
|
Natural Evil
|
The evil or suffering that springs from natural causes. Think of the starvation in Bangladesh, the great San Francisco earthquake, the sinking of the Titanic, the Black Death, and so on….
|
|
|
Moral Evil
|
The evil that springs from human will. Think of the Nazi death camps, the Stalin purges, the Manson murders, Idi Amin, and the like…..
|
|
|
Augustine’s privation theory of evil
|
•Evil is not a “thing” but rather the privation of something (goodness)
•“what is called evil in the universe is but the absence of Good” •“All beings were made good, but not being made perfectly good, are liable to corruption.” |
|
|
The details of Plantinga’s free-will defense
|
By means of the Free-Will Defense, many thinkers, ancient and modern have undertaken to defend God for the charge that he is responsible for the moral evil: In order for human beings to be truly capable of moral goodness, they must also be capable of moral evil; but this means that with respect to good and evil they must have genuine free choice; but this mean the real possibility (or the inevitably?) of the introduction of moral evil into the scheme of things.
|
|
|
How the definition of omnipotence is central to the free-will defense
|
•God’s perfect nature and unlimited power marks that He must also be bound by laws of reason.
•Doesn’t make four sided triangles •God could not create an irrational world (such as one where all men chose freely to do only good). |
|
|
The details of Hick’s “soul-making” theodicy
|
•The experience of evil is a necessary part of the “soul-making” activity of God
-The sufferings and hardships contribute to the development of a mature and virtuous soul -Free will is a condition of humanhood, and sin enters the world through human free will. •“Significant Fact” •No “authentic love” between God and Man unless Man has the CHOICE to love God •Free will and independence from the creator mark genuine humanity -Yet allows for sin |
|
|
Nihilism
|
The rejection of values as having any objective validity. Life is meaningless.
|
|
|
How God’s Middle Knowledge might be a counter-argument to the free-will defense
|
•Middle Knowledge (Molinism)
1.God knows all present facts 2.God knows future facts given the present state of affairs 3.God knows counterfactual states of affairs •i.e. what would have been the case if the circumstances had been different |
|
|
The difference between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics
|
•Meta-ethics
-Theories about morality itself -Deals with questions that call into question the business of ethics -Addresses the question "What is (moral) goodness?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations. •Normative-ethics -Theories/principles that OUGHT TO guide our thoughts/actions •Applied-ethics -Abortion/Capital punishment --- the “played out” ethics |
|
|
How relativism represents a challenge to traditional morality
|
•There is no absolute moral/standard
•Right vs Wrong is left up to the individual |
|
|
Reasons for Thinking that Moral Relativism is True
|
•Disputes can agree to disagree
•Everyone can have different ideas. •Observable cultural relativism, lack of a universal code or right and wrong. •Different moral codes show that there is no objective truth in morality. |
|
|
Possible Objections to Moral Relativism
|
•No moral progress is possible (reduction ab absurdum)
•Cannot live consistently by this principle (no one acts as if there are no morals) •Consequent of Hobbesian state of nature •Disagreements in cultures do not prove that there is no objective moral code, only that we do not agree on it. |
|
|
How determinism represents a challenge to traditional morality
|
•There is no choice (which leads to no morals because…..)
•Everything, including the will, is determined (it couldn’t have happened otherwise) |
|
|
The difference between soft and hard determinism and possible objections to each
|
•Hard determinism
oOutside the individual oDoes not reflect character oObjections Cannot live according to Free will •Soft determinism oWithin the individual oReflects character oObjections Where was the character determined? Leads straight to hard determinism |
|
|
The sense in which psychological egoism is a descriptive theory of human nature
|
•Psychological egoism
-All actions are primarily motivated by self-interest •Descriptive theory of human nature -Humans DO act according to self interest |
|
|
How psychological egoism is different from ethical egoism
|
•Psychological egoism is descriptive
•Ethical egoism is prescriptive -Humans OUGHT to act according to self-interest Leads to hedonism •Enjoy yourself and make a life of “happiness” |
|
|
Hedonism
|
The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that is good for a person. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain* (i.e. suffering) they produce.
|
|
|
The sense in which psychological egoism is unfalsifiable
|
•Examples of benevolence don’t prove selflessness
•It is impossible to interpret actions apart from self-interest •You never really know what someone’s motivation is |
|
|
How existentialism calls into question traditional views of morality
|
•Emphasizes the individual and the individual creates its own values
•No objective right/wrong •“existence precedes essence” •For oMan is the measure of all things oAtheism is true •Against oYou cannot create meaning out of subjectivity oProblem of inconsistency oValues are not chosen, but discovered |
|
|
Consequential(teleological)
|
-Emphasis on the results of actions as the test of their rightness
-What you do is measured by the consequent of the action Utilitarianism Social hedonism |
|
|
Deontological
|
-Emphasis on the performance of duty, rather than the results, as the sign of right action
-Duty or obligation that Is ALL about the action itself |
|
|
Basic Definition of utilitarianism and how it differs from Kant’s theory
|
•The ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
•Kant has an deontological view where utilitarianism is under consequentialism -Did you act out of duty? •Kant: believed the human mind is capable of discovering moral facts on its own and making right choices without regard to outcome. •Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He didn't necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result. |
|
|
Kant’s use of the “categorical imperative” in making ethical decisions
|
•Categorical Imperative (principle of universaliziability)
-Is the fundamental principle of morality. -It is a criterion or test by which we can make sure our actions are moral, that is, that they are motivated by a good will or performed out of duty. -Before you do something you ask yourself whether you can will that everyone else act in the same way. If the answer is Yes, the you may be assured that you are acting out of duty or with a good will. •Action is universal -Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law |
|
|
The difference between Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism
|
Bentham
-Quantity of Happiness -Hedonic Calculus Mill -Quality of Happiness -Meaningful relationships |
|
|
Hedonic Calculus (Bentham – quantity)
|
In attempting to calculate a pleasure, we must measure or weigh it in seven ways:
1.Intensity – how strong it is 2.Duration – how long it will last 3.Certainty – how likely it is to occur 4.Propinquity – how near at hand it is 5.Fecundity – it’s ability to produce sill further pleasures 6.Purity – its freedom from ensuing pains 7.Extent – the number of people affected by it |
|
|
Possible Objections to Utilitarianism
|
•It asks us to do the impossible
-To anticipate endless chains of consequences from our actions -We cannot for see all of the consequences •It sidesteps to some degree the charge that it is egoistic -yet not altruistic – seeking the good of (only) others •We count the number of pleasures we have…..but is it really possible to be able to measure or compare, say, the intensity of different pleasures in different people? •Awkward puzzles arise -½ scholarship to 10 people or full to 5 people? -Which one is greater? •Incompatible with the moral standards that we actually employ. -Example….if we thought bringing back slavery would produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people…is it right to do so? •It is a pig-philosophy that encourages the pursuit of base pleasures •It is a godless philosophy that establishes a criterion of morality independent of the question of God’s will. •It is such a “calculating” philosophy as to chill our human feeling for one another it focuses attention on the consequences of actions to the exclusion of their motives |
|
|
Naturalistic Fallacy
|
•When you derive an ought from an is
-Is implies ought -WRONG!!!! – cannot do this -Just because people do act selfishly it doesn’t mean that they ought to |
|
|
How virtue theory differs from utilitarianism and absolutism
|
•Virtue Theory
-Looks at motivation rather than the acts or consequences •Where does motivation come from? -In a category all by itself |
|
|
Aristotle’s understanding of virtue as a means between two extremes
|
•He believed that all virtues are means because with any trait it’s possible to have either an excess or a deficiency…..and either will lead to a vice.
•Cardinal Virtues -Fortitude (courage) – means between foolhardiness and cowardice -Temperance (self-control) – means between self-denial and addiction -Justice (fairness) – means between -Prudence (wisdom) |
|
|
Possible objections to virtue theory
|
•The virtue approach does not help in resolving moral dilemmas or mediating between conflicting values.
-Shifts from moral conflicts to neglected area of character -The claim that we should act virtuously seems like little help in the face of a difficult and pressing decision. •Virtue ethics is an incomplete theory -We need to look more closely at what lies beneath the individual virtues •Why is one courageous and honest and humble? •How can you understand virtue without an idea of what is right and what is wrong? An absolute understanding of right and wrong is still needed, so virtue theory is incomplete. -What is appropriate?? |
|
|
What is utilitarianism? Provide 2 objections
|
•The ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
•2 objections -It asks us to do the impossible To anticipate endless chains of consequences from our actions We cannot for see all of the consequences - It sidesteps to some degree the charge that it is egoistic yet not altruistic – seeking the good of (only) others - We count the number of pleasures we have…..but is it really possible to be able to measure or compare, say, the intensity of different pleasures in different people? - Awkward puzzles arise ½ scholarship to 10 people or full to 5 people? Which one is greater? -Incompatible with the moral standards that we actually employ. Example….if we thought bringing back slavery would produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people…is it right to do so? -Naturalistic Fallacy Derive an ought from an is Example…..if insane people derive the most exquisite happiness from torturing starving children •He is doing it, BUT •Should he ought to be doing it? |
|
|
Altruism
|
selfless concern for the welfare of others. Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.
|
|
|
Psychological egoism
|
the view that humans are always motivated by rational self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism
|
