Consider the abortion co ntro versy.Thosewh o ar e pro- life believethatabor tion is wrong;thosewho are pro -choicebelie ve that it is right. Do es thismeanth at thesetwo gro ups of peop le have differentvi ews about the na tur e ofmorality?
I would say no because they both believe that killing is wrong.
Peopl e in differentsoci eties makediffe rent mor al judg mentsregar din g thesameaction
Everyone individual has their own moral code usually built around the way they were raised or their culture.
Giv en culturalrelati vism’smanyfailings, why is it so po
Why is it so popular?
Mor al disputesare no t ab out whether pe ople knowtheir own minds.But ifsubjectiverel ativismwe re true, that’sall they couldbe abou
Subjective relativism is not consistent with the experience of the moral life.
An adequatetheoryof mora lity shoul d also be wo rkable;it shou ld he lp ussolv e moraldilemmas.
This theory of morality should aid in us in solving moral problems that we run into during a normal day.
Obviously the conclusiondoesn’tfollo w fromthe pre mises.Th e fac t thatthingsare a certainway doesn’timplyth at th ey sho uld be that
I agree. Just because something is the way it is, does not mean it cannot change or is supposed to change.
ense.Is it wrong to kill som eoneto puthim out of his miser y? Th e Te n Commandments do not sa y. To der ive an an -swer from them,we must inte rp re t th em, an d to int erpr et th em, we mus t ap -peal to mor al t
In order to figure out the answer to the question we must appeal to moral theory.
An argum ent fro m analogycla ims that things tha t resem bleone anothe r in certai n respe cts re sembl e on e ano ther in furt her respec ts .For exam ple : “The earth has air, water, and living orga nis ms. Mar s ha s ai rand water. Th erefore Mars ha s
The example presented here makes a faulty analogy much easier to understand.
An argumentis fallaciousif it contains(1) unacc epta ble pre mises , (2) ir -rele vant premises,or (3) insufficientpremis
An argument is fallacious for those three reasons.
An argumentis fallaciousif it contains(1) unacc epta ble pre mises , (2) ir -rele vant premises,or (3) insufficientpremis
An argument is fallacious for those three reasons.
The first re quirementof any ade qua te hypot hes is iscon siste ncy .Not onlymust an adeq uate hypo the sis be in tern ally cons ist ent—c ons ist ent with it -sel f— but it must also be ex tern ally con sisten t— co nsist ent with th e dat a itis supposedto explai
You need a conspiracy for any adequate hypothesis.
r ren t cas e. Th e pers on who winssuch court cases is often determinedby the str ength of the analo gical arg u-ments pres
The individual who wins a case like this tries to convince the court that the case at hand is similar to a case in the past.
This kind of reasoni ng is use d in many other fields, inclu ding medic al re-sear ch an
Here is an example of an analogical induction that is very easy to understand. This reasoning is used in medical research and law.
Clear ly, this argumentis inv alid. In a valid ar gumen t, you will recall, it ’s im -poss ibl e for the premisesto be tru e and the conc lu
This is different from the previous page. In this case, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
m ent are false. Never theles s, this ar -gumentis valid becau seifthe premiseswere true ,thenthe conclus ion wou ldbe tru
Again, because the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
This argumentis valid bec ause if the pr emises are true , the conclu sion mus tbe true
So if the premises are true, then the conclusions must be true.
In these argum ents, the co nclusio n com
Is this common for the conclusion to come before the premises?
Anargument, th en, is a group of cla ims cons is ting of one or mor epremisesand a conclus ion that supposedlyfollow s from the pr
This is a very different way to look at an argument.
The laws of science must obey the laws of logic. But the laws of logic need not obey the laws of science. In other words, something can be logically pos-sible even though it’s causally impossible. Something is causally impossible if and only if it violates a law of nature.
Laws of science must obey the laws of logic, but the laws of logic need not obey the laws of science.
Philosophy, like science, aims at solving problems and getting at the truth.
I like how they both aim to do the same thing but in completely different ways.
Other pre-Socratics focused on the problem of change and developed radically different theories to deal with it. The problem is, How can some-thing change and yet remain the same thing? If it has changed, it’s different, and if it’s different, it’s no longer the same.
This is a good point, how can something change but remain the same?
Although Socrates was unable to find anyone wiser than himself, he did not conclude that he had any substantive knowledge that they lacked. What made him wiser than they, he claimed, was that, unlike them, he knew that he didn’t have any wisdom
he knew that he didn't have any knowledge? what does that mean?
Identifying necessary and sufficient conditions is difficult because we can have a concept without being able to state the conditions for applying it.
This does seem very difficult. I would like to discuss this more in class because the concept does not really stick.
For example, loving someone is not a sufficient condition for being loved by that person because the feeling might not be mutual
This example is saying that loving someone is not a sufficient condition for being loved by that person because the feeling might not be mutual. This is an example of determining whether a condition is necessary or sufficient.
What Is Your Philosophy?
Each one of these questions makes me think tremendously. It was very interesting to see what answer I chose for each and how they show where I stand on these issues. Also, it showed some of my philosophical beliefs.
To many, however, a being that is limited in any of these ways would not be God. So unless a solution to this problem can be found, it looks like the traditional conception of God must be revised.
I agree with this logic. Everyone has their own view on God. Therefore, the normal conception of God must be revised to fit the likes of everyone.
If morality is just a matter of personal opinion, however, then there is no more reason to argue about what is right or wrong than there is to argue about what tastes better—chocolate or vanilla—because there is no accounting for taste
I find this very interesting. I never really connect how arguments over political topics stem from everyone's code of morality.
Although Skinner believes that our behavior is determined primarily by how we are brought up, or nurtured, other scientists believe that it is deter-mined primarily by our genetic endowment, or nature.
I see a distinct connection here as well, between our behavior and the way we were brought up.
The view that we have no free will has long been thought to follow from materialism. The ancient Greeks realized that if everything happens as the result of a collision between atoms, then we are powerless to change the future. Whatever will be, will be. We may seem to be masters of our destiny, but that is just an illusion
I do not agree with this, I feel as if everyone has a free will and it is not just a result of a collision of atoms.
The problem of personal identity arises from the beliefs that we change in many ways throughout our lives and that these changes happen to the same person. But if we change, we’re different
This is very relatable because our lives are constantly changing. Is it really possible for a person to change and remain the same?
Philosophical beliefs affect not only how we live our lives, but also how we conduct our inquiries. What we look for is determined by our theory of real-ity, how we look for something is determined by our theory of knowledge, and what we do with what we find is determined by our theory of value
I did not know our beliefs had so much control over our lives. What we do and how we look for things is all determined by our philosophical beliefs.
By replacing the blind acceptance of authority with a reasoned consideration of the evidence, philosophical inquiry liberates us from preconceived ideas and prejudices.
I have never critically evaluated these questions, I am hoping this class helps me in doing so .