Philosophy Exam 3

Front 1

Posit

Back 1

put forward as true

Front 2

Disparate

Back 2

very different

Front 3

Posit

Back 3

put forward as true

Front 4

Disparate

Back 4

very different

Front 5

Materialism

Back 5

form of monism in which the mind is just a function of the brain because matter is all there is (emphasis on the material world)

Front 6

naturalism

Back 6

nature is all there is (emphasis on the lack of the supernatural)

Front 7

physicalism

Back 7

everything can be explained by physical processes (chemistry and physics)

Front 8

Monism

Back 8

reality reduces to 1 fundamental essence (either the mind- like Berkely; or the brain: 1.materialism 2. naturalism 3. physicalism)

Front 9

Dualism

Back 9

reality reduces to two disparate essences, which are a composite of the material brain and the immaterial mind

Front 10

consciousness

Back 10

awareness + qualia + intentionality

Front 11

qualia

Back 11

experiences of sensations

Front 12

intentionality

Back 12

meaning or purpose

Front 13

Good

Back 13

that which conduces (provides) wellbeing and happiness

Front 14

Justice in the state?

Back 14

the set of actions taken by the state to preserve and protect the natural rights (life liberty pursuit of happiness) of its citizens

Front 15

Justice in the individual?

Back 15

treating people with dignity, respect and kindness; also the definition of love; justice = love in practice

Front 16

Justice is what kind of good?

Back 16

intrinsic

Front 17

Happiness? a condition resulting from? why is it not a feeling?

Back 17

the state of being satisfied with the overall pattern of one’s life; a condition resulting from a life that is rich in the higher pleasures; it is a quality not a feeling because we associate feelings with happiness

Front 18

joy

Back 18

feelings associated with happiness

Front 19

two things that result in happiness?

Back 19

joy (feelings) and a lot of higher pleasures

Front 20

morality

Back 20

behavior that is right or wrong

Front 21

ethics

Back 21

the study and analysis of moral behavior

Front 22

Ethical Absolute

Back 22

something that is always right or wrong regardless of circumstances

Front 23

Ethical Relativism

Back 23

right and wrong are determined by the time and culture (society) in which people live; appeals to youth

Front 24

Ethical Subjectivism

Back 24

ethical view that denies the existence of ethical absolutes and the right and wrong are determined by the individuals feels, prejudices, and biases

Front 25

Ethical Egoism

Back 25

form of ethical subjectivism that is the view that we should put our own interests ahead of others

Front 26

Emergentism

Back 26

compromise between dualism and materialism because the brain GENERATES the intangible mind

Front 27

pre-modern

Back 27

theist; dualist; freewill (libertarian)

Front 28

modern

Back 28

atheist; monist; materialism

Front 30

Ethical Nihilism

Back 30

form of ethical subjectivism that is the view that nothing is right or wrong, nothing matters, and “morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction” (back to ethical subjectivism because the person has to choose how to live)

Front 31

Ethical Pragmatism

Back 31

the ends justify the means

Front 32

Altruism

Back 32

form of ethical subjectivism that is the view that we should put the interests of others above our own

Front 33

mind body problem

Back 33

body = brain; mind = mental events; can you observe, quantify, localize in space or time the mind?; what does the brain do that the mind does not?

Front 34

2 arguments that a materialist uses agains a dualist?

Back 34

1. dualism violates the law of parsimony (thus the mind is not a thing but a function of the brain) 2. the idea of disparate essences interacting is too incomprehensible to believe (how does the immaterial interact with the material?)

Front 35

arguments the dualist uses against the materialist?

Back 35

1. law of parsimony: the dualist says that consciousness, qualia, and intentionality are not accounted for. 2. idea of disparate essences interacting is too incomprehensible: the dualist says the materialist believes the same thing (star causes space to bend thus matter causes space to bend thus how does something cause nothing to bed?)

Front 36

einstiens’s theory of relativity

Back 36

matter tells space to bend and space tells matter where to move

Front 37

Law of parsimony?

Back 37

the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the best (but not necessarily true); ockham’s razor cuts away the unnecessary parts of an explanation

Front 38

how do you distinguish between an intrinsic and instrumental good?

Back 38

ask “what do I want it for”, if it is instrumental, the question will make sense

Front 39

Intrinsic Good

Back 39

good in itself (happiness: happiness makes you happy)

Front 40

Instrumental Good

Back 40

good because of what it leads to; ask “what do i want it for?”

Front 41

Higher Pleasure? examples? opposite?

Back 41

psychological (intellectual/emotional) satisfactions; laughter achievement love friends; sense of dissatisfaction

Front 42

Lower Pleasure? too much? opposite?

Back 42

physical gratifications; if we have too much it brings pain; opposite equals pain

Front 43

3 arguments against ethical relativism/subjectivism?

Back 43

1.self refuting (says there are no absolute truths about morals thus means no absolute absolutes) 2. too hard to define culture (thus back to ethical subjectivism ie individual) 3. most people belong to more than one culture, thus which is morally authoritative (thus back to subjectivism) 4. minority is wrong by definition (thus a reformer is always wrong, and no reformations of society, thus wrong and must conform to society to be right)

Front 44

how do you distinguish between selfish and unselfish acts we benefit from?

Back 44

1. altruistic: acts done for others, even if we benefit. 2. egoistic but NOT selfish: acts done for oneself but DO NOT disregard the interests of others (had lunch) 3. SELFISH: acts done for oneself that disregard the interests and wellbeing of others (both selfish and egoistic)

Front 45

soul

Back 45

also interchangeable with mind for some philosophers; every true proposition about you thus constitutes essence; maybe part of god’s data base? if not destroyed at death, maybe downloaded into a new body?; does information create the body? maybe the body is just a representation of the soul

Front 46

kant’s postulates of practical reason are needed to? the 3 postulates?

Back 46

have to assume these to make sense of ethics; 1. God (no god = no moral dictionary) 2. freedom (free will- moral language is nonsense if we do not have free will. If determined, then “should” does not make sense.) 3. Immortality (if death is the end, then no moral obligations)

Front 47

utilitarianism

Back 47

should always do the act that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people

Front 48

Altruist believes?

Back 48

my happiness is not important; yours is important

Front 49

egoist believes?

Back 49

my happiness IS important; you happiness doesn’t matter unless is makes me happy

Front 50

utilitarian believes?

Back 50

my and your happiness are equal

Front 51

3 principals of utilitarianism?

Back 51

1.the right act is the one that produces the greatest net happiness 2. each individual’s happiness is equally important 3. traditional moral rules should generally be followed but they are not absolute

Front 52

3 criteria that must be met for the end to justify the means according to utilitarians?

Back 52

1. the end must be reasonably certain 2. the means must be the least evil means available 3. the good of the end must outweigh the evil of the means (NET GOOD)

Front 53

the utilitarian believes that traditional moral rules? but?

Back 53

generally propagate the maximum happiness of the most people; break the traditional rules if it results in the maximum amount of happiness

Front 54

2 criticisms of utilitarianism?

Back 54

1.why care about the happiness of others? (if no god, then no moral dictionary; also it provides no basis for accepting the idea that we should care about other people’s happiness because “it just feels right”) 2. the ends don’t justify the means (if the end maximizes happiness, does that mean whatever it takes justifies the means?)