The Pros And Cons Of The Preservation Theory

Good Essays
I disagree with the idea that the Dualistic Theory entirely avoids the problems posed by the five-minute hypothesis. Huemer asserts that his theory dodges the objection because it explains why both A and B are still rational where the Preservation theory fails in doing so. The Preservation Theory claims that while rational A’s justification is preserved because he experienced the original justifying experiences, B is irrational for the lack of original experiences despite the fact that he retains the same exact memories. But the Dualistic Theory still needs to answer how one can be justified in believing their own memories. The five-minute hypothesis entails that both A and B should be doubtful of the accuracy (or even the entire content) of their memories—Perhaps A is in the same state as B but his memories are replicated from a person, Z—. Suppose we say that both A and B share the belief that they bought a new bike last week. Both people have seeming memories of this transaction so according to Huemer’s claim, they both …show more content…
Furthermore B would not be justified in his belief of P as he/she would have justification for retaining the apparent memories but would not be justified in his/her acquisition of the memory. I would respond by asserting that if we were to blindly question A and B, there would be no way in telling whose memory acquisition is genuine or not. The fact that they have the same memories makes it so that their thought process and knowledge in general is exactly the same. Using Russell’s hypothesis, it is clear that Huemer’s theory fails, as it does not offer the full answer for how we can be justified in our

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Even Shafer Landau (2015) states “If all we can do is look out for Number One, then there is little point in demanding we do otherwise.” (pg.104). Action is not always motivated by one’s strongest desire, because it is skewed by perceptions such as duty and human emotions. This is why opponents of psychological egoism have a stronger argument against this…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires. Without criticizing and discussing beliefs James’s idea of maximizing true beliefs is not accomplished. William James was a radical empiricist (James, Preface). He says “‘radical’ because it treats the doctrine of monism itself as a hypothesis, and, unlike so much of the half-way empiricism that is current” (James, Preface). James believed that there are multiple true experiences of a singular reality.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One example includes prohibiting sex discrimination, as we deem it immoral. In this sense, ‘separation’ may be substituted with ‘separability’ for a better representation of the thesis’s ideology. Further, while Hart does not define ‘necessary connection’, he proves to be liberal in his interpretation. Despite this, the critics of positivism have managed to reach a patently false conclusion that, according to positivism, there is no connection whatsoever between law and morality. Therefore, Fuller argues, Hart’s ‘minimum content theory’ represents a contradiction on his part.…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Shepherd’s argument does note some interesting observations and things the Berkeley should consider addressing, however, I do not think that it poses a serious threat to Berkeley’s argument. Berkeley believes that external objects are incoherent with the mind because matter itself is unnecessary. Furthermore, since God gives us sensations, the fact that our sensory organs are outside of the mid would not matter, because eye, for example are capable of deceiving us. On the other hand, sensations given to us by God are dree from deception, and are therefore more reliable. Moreover, Berkeley would respond to Shepherd’s objection regarding inefficiency, by simply stating, one who is wise, all things good, and powerful has the ability to create the sensation that He feels is…

    • 2059 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rene Descartes believes we should be skeptical of our sense perceptions. He is a rationalist and believes we are born with innate ideas. Although others are imperialist, like John Locke, who oppose this idea and state that all knowledge is based from sense perceptions. Through Descartes’ “First Meditation” he goes through a line of reasoning with three key arguments. There is an objection to Descartes argument that innate ideas can be unaware of.…

    • 1114 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cohen’s rebuttal takes the form of denying that Williams’ publicity requirements, specifically (ii) and (iii), are a demand of justice and therefore cannot be drawn on to discredit his egalitarian ethos. Williams assesses the premises and conclusions of the above reconstruction, explaining where the argument breaks-down. Referring to racial discrimination, Cohen points out that C1 must be false: even if I do not expect others not to discriminate with respect to race, it does not follow that it is not a demand on me. In other words, justice demands non-discriminatory behaviour per se, no matter if others are adhering to it. Cohen is appealing to our intuition here; that this is such an obvious and unequivocal demand of justice is sufficient to reject C1.…

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The other views pointed out problems with humans that disallow communication from being successful. Peters looked at it from a different perspective, the unfixable problem of communication is what makes humans human. Whatever communication may mean, Peters argued that it “is not a matter of improved wiring or freer self-disclosure, but involves a permanent kink in the human condition” (Peters 29). He argued that communication is not the insurmountable barrier that solitary selfhood makes it out to be, the self and the other can be connected through communication. On the other hand, he also does not believe the dream of communication should be perfect connection like it is in the semiotic view.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays