The Love of Wisdom

Steven B. Cowan James S. Spiegel

Introduction to Philosophy

What is Philosophy?

Philo

+

Sophia

= Love of Wisdom (love) (wisdom)

“Philosophy is about gaining insights into the Big Questions which culminate in a life well-lived.”

What is Philosophy?

The Big Questions:

• What is the meaning of life? • What are human beings? • Where did we come from? • Are we responsible for how we live? • What

happens

after we die? • Is there a God? If so, what is God like?

• What is real and what is mere appearance?

• Can we know the answers to such questions?

• Can we know anything at all?

Philosophical Method

• The Socratic Method – Dialectic – Socratic Ignorance – The pursuit of virtue • Defining Terms • Using Arguments • Identifying Presuppositions

Introduction to Philosophy

Unit 1: The Study of Knowledge

A Little Bit of Logic

The Three Laws of Thought

– Law of Non-Contradiction – Law of Excluded Middle – Law of Identity

Arguments

– Deductive – Inductive

Validity

= a property of deductive arguments in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Soundness

= a property of deductive arguments that are valid and have true premises.

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms

Categorical Syllogisms

I.

All M are P All S are M  All S are P III.

All M are P Some S are M  Some S are P II.

No M are P All S are M  No S are P

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms

IV.

V.

Pure Hypothetical Syllogism

If P then Q If Q then R  If P then R

Modus Ponens

If P then Q VI.

Modus Tollens

If P then Q not-Q  not-P P  Q

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms

VII.

Disjunctive Syllogism

Either P or Q not-P  Q VIII.

Constructive Dilemma

If P then Q If R then S Either P or R  Q or S

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Valid Argument Forms

IX.

Reductio ad Absurdum

Assume P (the claim to be proven false) . . .

Q 

Contradiction!!!

not-Q  not-P

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Formal Fallacies

The Undistributed Middle

All P is M All S is M  All S is P

Affirming the Consequent

If P then Q Q  P

Denying the Antecedent

If P then Q not-P  not-Q

Affirming a Disjunct

Either P or Q P  not-Q

A Little Bit of Logic

Some Informal Fallacies

False Dilemma Begging the Question Argument from Ignorance Equivocation Straw Man Attacking the Person Appeal to Popularity Composition Division False Cause Hasty Generalization Biased Generalization

The Question of Truth

Is Anything True?

Relativism –

the view that there are no objective truths.

•

Subjectivism –

what counts as true is a matter of individual preference •

Conventionalism –

what counts as true is a matter of cultural preference

Objectivism –

the view that truth is a real feature of the world that is independent of personal or cultural preference

The Question of Truth

Is Anything True?

“There are no absolute truths.” “All truth-claims are socially conditioned.”

It is logically impossible that truth is relative!

The Question of Truth

What is Truth?

Correspondence Theory of Truth

A proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the way things actually are.

The Coherence Theory of Truth

A proposition is true if and only if it coheres with the set of beliefs that a person holds.

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

A proposition is true if and only if it is useful to the believer in achieving desirable results.

Can We Know?

The Skeptical Challenge

Skeptical hypothesis

= any logically possible scenario that we apparently cannot rule out and would, if true, call most or all of our ordinary commonsense beliefs into question 1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some belief

p

of mine, then I do not know

p

.

2. There is a skeptical hypothesis for

p.

3. Therefore, I do not know

p

.

Can We Know?

The Rationalist Response

Rationalism

human reason = the view that all knowledge comes through

Descartes’ Argument for Material Things

1. I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being (i.e., God).

2. Only an absolutely perfect being could be the cause of my idea of it.

3. Therefore, God exists.

4. God, by definition, is not a deceiver.

5. God is the cause of all my cognitive faculties.

6. Since God is not a deceiver, He would not give me cognitive faculties that are unreliable.

7. My senses give me ideas of (alleged) material objects.

8. Therefore, material objects exist.

Can We Know?

The Empiricist Response

Empiricism

= the view that all knowledge arises from sense experience • Distinction between Sensation & Reflection • The Representational Theory of Perception

Hume’s Skeptical Critique

• We can only know our sensory impressions.

• We cannot know causal connections.

• We have no metaphysical knowledge.

Can We Know?

Do We Need Certainty?

1. If there is a skeptical hypothesis for some belief

p

of mine, then I do not know

p

.

Degrees of Certainty

3 – Beyond all doubt 2 – Beyond a reasonable doubt 1 – More probable than not 0 – Equally probable and improbable

What is Knowledge?

Different Kinds of Knowledge

• Procedural Knowledge • Experiential/Acquaintance Knowledge • Propositional Knowledge “I know that bachelors are unmarried.” “I know that the Earth is spherical.” “I know that Cowan is really cool.”

What is Knowledge?

The JTB Account

S knows p if and only if: (1) S believes p, (2) p is true, and (3) S is justified in believing p.

The Gettier Problem:

It appears that there are counterexamples to the JTB account that show that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge.

What is Knowledge?

• •

Solutions to the Gettier Problem

Strengthening the justification condition Adding a fourth condition    The “No-False-Belief” condition The Defeasibility condition Replacing the justification condition (reliabilism)

For S to know p there must be no true proposition q which, if S were to come to justifiably believe q, he would no longer be justified in believing p.

What is Knowledge?

Internalism vs. Externalism

Internalism

= the view that in order for a belief to be justified, a person must have cognitive access to the justifying grounds for his belief

Externalism

= the view that in order for a belief to be justified, it is not necessary that a person have cognitive access to the justifying grounds for his belief but only that his belief be produced in an appropriate way

What is Knowledge?

Virtue Epistemology “Intellectual Virtue”

= an intellectual habit that predisposes a person to acquire beliefs in such a way that their beliefs are more likely than not to be true

S knows p only if p is acquired through an act of intellectual virtue.

What is the Structure of Justification?

Foundationalism

A belief p is justified for a person S if and only if: (1) p is a properly basic belief for S or (2) p is ultimately based on a properly basic belief for S.

• •

Classical Foundationalism

A belief B is properly basic for a person S if and only if B is: (1) self-evident to S, (2) incorrigible for S, or (3) evident to the sense of S.

Modest Foundationalism

A belief B is properly basic for a person S if it is (1) evidently true to S and (2) S is unaware of any undefeated defeaters of B.

What is the Structure of Justification?

The Regress Argument for Foundationalism

Suppose one says that p is justified by q, and q by r, etc. Then, either: 1. The regress comes to an end with a justifying belief x that is itself unjustified, 2. The regress continues infinitely, 3. The regress is circular, or 4. The regress comes to an end with a justifying belief x that is itself justified immediately apart from other beliefs.

Problem:

The myth of the given

What is the Structure of Justification?

Coherentism

A belief p is justified for S if and only if it fits within a coherent system of beliefs of S.

Problems:

• The isolation problem • The alternative coherent systems problem • The regress problem

What is the Structure of Justification?

Contextualism

A belief is justified relative to a specific context; beliefs that are justified in one context might not be justified in other contexts.

The Relevant Alternatives View

A belief p is justified for S in a specific context if S can rule out all the relevant alternatives in that context.

What is the Structure of Justification?

Problems for Contextualism

• If a person is not justified in a broader context, why would he be justified in the narrower context? Wouldn’t justification in the latter presuppose justification in the former?

• Contextualism seems committed to the view that an epistemic regress comes to an end with justifying beliefs that are

unjustified

.

• Contextualism assumes that knowledge requires absolute certainty.

What is Science?

• •

The definition problem The presuppositions of science

1. The laws of thought 2. The general reliability of sense perception 3. The law of causality 4. The uniformity of nature 5. Values

The Nature of Scientific Theory

Scientific Realism

The view that scientific theories properly aim to provide a true account of the physical world.

•

Inductivism

– The process of confirmation – The problem of induction •

Falsificationism

The Nature of Scientific Theory

Scientific Non-realism

Truth is not the real aim of science.

1. Instrumentalism –

The aim of scientific theories is not to describe the world but to solve problems. Theories are preferred because of their usefulness.

Problem:

Why

are some theories more useful than others?

The Nature of Scientific Theory

2.

Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science

• Scientific observation is theory-laden.

• The history of science proceeds through paradigm shifts.

Paradigm

= a theoretical model and set of problem-solving techniques which guide scientific inquiry • Rival paradigms are incommensurable.

The Nature of Scientific Theory

Objections to Kuhn’s View

1. Kuhn’s view can’t explain the progress of science.

2. Kuhn’s view can’t explain why some scientific theories are rejected after crucial tests.

3. Kuhn’s view undermines itself.

The Nature of Scientific Theory

3.

Feyerabend’s View of Science

• Science as mythology • The tyranny of science and the social ideal of methodological neutrality

Problem:

Feyerabend’s view can’t explain the progress or practical achievements of science.

The Laws of Nature

(Hume) – The laws of nature are mere descriptions of physical regularities.

2. The instrumentalist view

of nature are useful fictions.

(Dewey) – The laws

3. The necessitarian view

(Chalmers) – Regularities in nature are due to (logical or causal) necessity.

4. The theistic view

(Swinburne) – The laws of nature are an aspect of divine providence.

Science and Theology

Two Kinds of Naturalism:

• Metaphysical naturalism • Methodological naturalism

Theistic Science

• Problems with methodological naturalism • Intelligent design theory

Introduction to Philosophy

Unit 2: The Study of Being

Obstacles to Metaphysics

Kantian Epistemology

• His “Copernican Revolution” • Distinction between noumena and phenomena

Noumena

= the unknowable “real” world beyond the mind

Phenomena

= the knowable world of appearances organized by the mind.

Problems

• Noumena/Phenomena distinction is self-defeating.

• Leads to radical relativism and antirealism.

Obstacles to Metaphysics

•

Logical Positivism

• Elevates science as a privileged way of knowing and seeks to eradicate speculative metaphysics • Verification Principle:

A proposition is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable in principle.

Problem:

Verification principle is self-defeating

What is the Nature of the World?

• What is the underlying “stuff” of reality?

• The problem of the one and the many

Three Major Views

• Dualism • Materialism • Idealism

What is the Nature of the World?

Dualism

Reasons For:

• Solves the problem of the one and the many • The difficulty of a materialist view of the mind • Evidence for God’s Existence • Supports life after death • Biblical evidence (Gen. 1:1; Matt. 10:28; 2 Cor. 5:8, etc)

What is the Nature of the World?

Dualism

Reasons Against:

• The interaction problem • Ockham’s Razor

What is the Nature of the World?

Materialism

• Hard determinism • Atomism

Reasons For:

• Ockham’s Razor  Problem of the one and the many  Mind-body problem  The origin of the universe • The Progress of Science

What is the Nature of the World?

Materialism

Reasons Against:

• Inconsistent with Christian belief • Ockham’s Razor???

  Evidence for God Mind-body correlation does not imply materialism  Undermines responsibility and life after death  Requires nominalism • Progress of science requires scientific realism

What is the Nature of the World?

Materialism

Plantinga’s Argument Against:

1. If materialism is true, then our cognitive faculties aim at survival not truth (because materialism assumes Darwinism).

2. If our cognitive faculties aim at survival not truth, then we have good reason to doubt that our beliefs are true (because false beliefs can ensure survival as well as true ones).

3. If we have good reason to doubt that our beliefs are true, then the materialist has good reason to doubt that materialism is true.

4. Therefore, if materialism is true, then the materialist has good reason to doubt that materialism is true.

What is the Nature of the World?

Idealism

Reasons For:

• Ockham’s Razor • Avoids the interaction problem and problems with a material view of the mind • Consistent with Christian theism, moral responsibility, and life after death • Does not require nominalism • “Matter” is unnecessary and leads to skepticism • “Matter” is absurd • The Master Argument for the inconceivability of matter

What is the Nature of the World?

Idealism

Reasons Against:

• The Direct Realist response?

• It’s possible to defend the coherence of matter • The Master Argument is invalid • Common sense?

Are There Universals?

Platonism (Realism)

The view that universals are real

What is a universal?

• Abstract entities • Multiply instantiable • Eternal and necessary

Kinds of Universals

• Properties • Relations • Propositions

Are There Universals?

Platonism (Realism)

Reasons For:

• A straight-forward explanation of resemblance • A ready account of predication

Are There Universals?

Nominalism

The view that there are no universals; only particulars exist

Extreme Nominalism

• Denies the existence of properties, relations, and propositions altogether • Reduces predication to assertions of set membership • Reduces resemblance to shared set membership

Problems

• Reduction to set membership fails to preserve meaning • The Companionship Problem

Are There Universals?

Nominalism

Moderate Nominalism (Trope Theory)

• Admits the existence of properties, but sees them as

abstract particulars

• Reduces predication to membership of tropes in sets of tropes • Reduces resemblance to similarity of tropes, making resemblance a brute fact

Problems

• Making resemblance a brute fact is implausible • Making resemblance a brute fact suggest that judgments concerning resemblance could be conventional

Are There Universals?

Nominalism

Nominalism and Ethics

• All version of nominalism reject the existence of universal essences such as dogness, humanness, etc.

• But this means that there is no objective definition of concepts like “humanity” (i.e., what counts as “human” is merely conventional) • But this means that human rights and who has them is conventional.

• But this means that morality is conventional.

Are There Universals?

Conceptualism

Views “universals” as mental concepts

Problems:

• Implies that if there were no mental concepts, there would be no properties • Cannot explain resemblance

But these problems can be avoided on theism!

But then it seems that conceptualism becomes a form of Platonism!

What is a Particular Thing?

The Bundle Theory

Particulars are bundles of properties.

The Substratum View

Particulars are bare substrata that bear properties.

The Substance View

Natural-kind particulars are irreducibly basic.

Do We Have Souls?

Mind-Body (Substance) Dualism

The view that the mind and body are two distinct substances

Arguments For:

• Argument from Subjectivity • • Argument from Qualia Argument from Intentionality

Arguments Against:

• The Problem of Causal Overdetermination • The Interaction Problem

Possible Response: Occasionalism?

Do We Have Souls?

Physicalism

The view that the mind is fully explainable in terms of natural processes

Five Versions:

1.Philosophical Behaviorism 2.Strict Identity Theory 3.Eliminative Materialism 4.Functionalism

5.Property Dualism

What is Personal Identity?

The Memory View

A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he has memories of that earlier time.

Problems:

1.Transitivity Problems 2.The Circularity Problem

What is Personal Identity?

The Physical View

Personal identity depends on maintaining relevant physical characteristics.

• • •

The Body Criterion – A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is the same body at both times.

The Brain Criterion – A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is the same brain at both times.

The Causal Continuity Criterion – A body (or brain) is the same body (or brain) from one time to a later time just in case the parts that compose the body at the later time are causally continuous with those parts that composed the body at the earlier time.

What is Personal Identity?

The Soul View

A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is (or has) the same soul at both times.

Problems:

1.The Fission Problem 2.An Arbitrariness Problem

Do We Have Free Will?

Incompatibilism –

The view that freedom and determinism are not logically consistent

The Consequence Argument

1. If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past.

2. It is not in our power to change the laws of nature.

3. It is not in our power to change events in the remote past.

4. If our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past, and it is not in our power to change these things, then we cannot do otherwise than what we do.

5. If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then we are not free.

6. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are not free.

Do We Have Free Will?

Incompatibilism

•

Hard Determinism

– determinism is true; human • freedom and responsibility are illusions.

Libertarianism

– determinism is false; human beings have the power of contrary choice.

Problems:

• Makes it impossible to hold people accountable for their actions.

• Contrary to Scripture.

Do We Have Free Will?

Incompatibilism

•

Libertarianism –

determinism is false; human beings have the power of contrary choice.

Reasons for:

• Consequence Argument • Introspection Argument • Scripture?

Do We Have Free Will?

The Libertarian’s Dilemma

1. If a person’s actions are

determined

, then her actions are not under her control (because she lacks the ability to do otherwise).

2. If a person’s actions are

undetermined

, then her actions are not under her control (because they happen by chance).

3. Therefore, whether a person’s actions are determined or undetermined, they are not under her control.

Do We Have Free Will?

Compatibilism

“Free will” = the ability to do what one wants to do.

Response to the Consequence Argument:

• The conditional analysis of “ability to do otherwise.” • Challenge to the assumption that freedom and responsibility require the ability to do otherwise.

– Frankfurt-type Counterexamples

Is There Life After Death?

•

The Argument from Substance Dualism

•

The Argument from Theism and Ultimate Justice

•

The Evidence of Near-death Experiences

Is There Life After Death?

What about Reincarnation?

Evidence For

: Apparent memories of past lives.

Problems:

• Alternative explanations for apparent memories • Concerns over personal identity • Concerns about justice

Does God Exist?

Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1. I have an idea of the greatest conceivable being (GCB).

2. That which exists in reality (and not only in my mind) is greater than that which exists only in my mind.

3. If the GCB exists only in my mind, then the GCB would not be the GCB (because I can conceive of it existing in reality, not only in my mind).

 The GCB exists in reality.

Does God Exist?

•

Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

1.There is an order of causes in the world.

2.Nothing can be the cause of itself.

3.Hence, everything that is caused is caused by something else.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

 There must be a first, uncaused cause.

Does God Exist?

•

Paley’s Teleological Argument

1.A watch has many complex working parts and is intelligently designed.

2.The universe has many complex working parts.

 The universe is probably intelligently designed.

Does God Exist?

•

The Fine-tuning Argument

1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either necessity, chance, or intelligent design.

2.The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity or chance.

 The fine-tuning of the universe is due to intelligent design.

Does God Exist?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

b) The universe began to exist.

1. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events would have occurred prior to the present moment.

2. It is impossible that an actually infinite number of events occur prior to the present moment.

 Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Does God Exist?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

c) The cause of the universe was God.

Eternal Changeless

/

Immutable Immaterial Uncaused Enormously Powerful Personal Good

Do We Need Arguments for God?

•

Evidentialism

– the view that it is wrong or irrational to hold a belief without sufficient evidence.

− Implication: Belief in God is wrong or irrational unless based on good arguments.

− Problem: Based in discredited classical foundationalism.

•

Reformed Epistemology

can be properly basic.

– the view that belief in God Objections: 1. Reformed Epistemology would allow any belief to be properly basic (The Great Pumpkin Objection).

2. Reformed Epistemology makes belief in God immune to criticism.

What Is God Like?

Views on Divine Omnipotence:

Aquinas: Omnipotence is the power to do anything that is logically possible.

Ockham: Omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, even to defy the law of noncontradiction.

Problems with Ockham’s View:

• Even to pose the possibility of violating the law of noncontradiction is nonsensical.

• It assumes the laws of logic are distinct from God.

What Is God Like?

Views on God’s Relationship to Time: 1. Atemporalism

– the view that God transcends time; God is not essentially temporal

Arguments for:

– Scientific evidence for the relativity of time – Biblical evidence that time had a beginning (1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2)

What Is God Like?

Views on God’s Relationship to Time: 2. Sempiternalism

– the view that God is essentially temporal; God is bound by time

Arguments for:

– Only temporal beings can be truly personal.

– God relates to human beings in time (Jer. 18:7-8; Exod. 32:14; Jonah 3:10, etc.).

What Is God Like?

Views on God’s Relationship to Time: 3. Omnitemporalism

– God is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe (Craig) – Arguments for both atemporalism and sempiternalism count in favor of omnitemporalism.

– Problem: This view seems to imply that God changes (from an atemporal to a temporal being) upon creation of the world.

What Is God Like?

The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge:

If God foreknows all future human actions, then how can we be free?

If God knows today that Jones will mow his lawn tomorrow, can Jones be free with respect to mowing his lawn tomorrow?

What Is God Like?

Proposed solutions to the problem of divine foreknowledge: 1. Compatibilist solution

– Human freedom is compatible with determinism.

Problem:

This approach is dependent on the definition of freedom as the ability to do what one wants.

What Is God Like?

Proposed solutions: 2. Open theist solution

– God does not know all future events; free human choices cannot be foreknown.

Problem:

This does not square with the biblical evidence for exhaustive divine foreknowledge of human actions (e.g. Isa. 46:9-10; Ps. 139, etc.).

What Is God Like?

Proposed solutions:

– God’s beliefs about future events are

caused

by those events.

Problem:

The causation relation does not change the fact that God’s infallible knowledge of a future human action guarantees that it will occur.

What Is God Like?

Proposed solutions: 4. Molinist solution

– God possesses “middle knowledge”; he knows all counterfactuals of human freedom and thus indirectly knows all future human choices.

Problem:

The grounding objection

What Is God Like?

God does not experience emotion.

Arguments for:

Appeals to divine perfection, divine immutability, and scripture (Mal. 3:6, James 1:17, etc.)

Problem:

Seems to undermine divine personhood

What Is God Like?

God experiences emotion in a temporal way.

Arguments for:

Appeals to divine personhood, divine omniscience, and Scripture (Exod. 4:14; Prov. 11:2, etc.)

Problem:

Seems to contradict divine immutability

What Is God Like?

Views on Divine Emotion: 3. Divine omnipathism –

God eternally experiences all emotion .

Arguments for:

Appeals to reasons for both passibilism and impassibilism

Problem:

happiness.

Creates difficulty in accounting for divine

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Logical Problem of Evil

(1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

(2) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil.

(3) An omniscient being has the knowledge to prevent evil.

(4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent evil.

(5) Therefore, of God exists, there is no evil.

(6) Evil exists.

(7) Therefore, God does not exist.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Logical Problem of Evil

(4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent evil.

(4’) An omnibenevolent being has a prima facie reason to prevent evil.

(4’’) An omnibenevolent being has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil, and thus an ultima facie reason to not prevent evil.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil

If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.

(1) There are pointless evils.

(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil

(1) There are pointless evils.

• •

The Noseeum Inference:

(1) I do not see an

x.

(2) Therefore, there likely is no

x

.

Rowe’s Noseeum Inference Concerning God’s Reasons for Evil:

(1) I do not see a reason why God would allow instance of evil

x

.

(2) Therefore, there likely is no reason why God would allow instance of evil

x

.

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The Noseeum Rationality Principle:

A noseeum inference is reasonable when it would be reasonable to believe that we would see the item in question if it existed.

--Per Daniel Howard-Snyder

Turning Rowe’s Argument on its Head:

(1) If God exists, there would be no pointless evils.

(2) God exists.

(3) Therefore, there are no pointless evil.

Introduction to Philosophy

Unit 3: The Study of Value

How Should We Live?

Two Kinds of Ethical Inquiry

• •

Metaethics –

examines the meaning of ethical concepts and seeks to discover whether or not they refer to objective truths.

Normative Ethics –

seeks to ascertain our ethical duties in light of metaethical commitments.

An

Ethical Theory

is a coherent set of beliefs about the foundation, nature, and goals of morality designed to enable us to make reliable moral judgments.

How Should We Live?

Ethical Relativism

The view that there are no universally true moral values 1.

Cultural Relativism

– the view that moral values are the products of the customs, tastes, and standards of a culture, and thus are not objectively true • •

The Plurality Argument:

Moral values differ from culture to culture.

Therefore, there is no objective moral standard.

• • •

Problematic Implications:

We could never criticize another culture.

Moral progress would be impossible.

All moral reformers would be corrupt.

How Should We Live?

Ethical Relativism

2.

Moral Subjectivism

– the view that moral values are relative to each person’s subjective preferences.

• • •

Hume’s Argument for Subjectivism

All truths are either relations of ideas or matters of fact.

Moral judgments are neither relations of idea nor matters of fact.

Therefore, moral judgments are not objectively true.

• • •

Problematic Implications:

No one would ever be mistaken in his moral judgments.

People don’t really disagree about moral issues.

No behavior can be objectively praised or condemned.

How Should We Live?

Other Forms of Moral Skepticism: Emotivism –

the view that moral statements are mere expressions of emotion

Nihilism –

the denial of all meaning and value in human life

How Should We Live?

Ethical Objectivism –

the view that there are universally true moral values 1.

Ethical Egoism

– the view that people

ought

to always pursue their own self-interest (Rand)

Problems:

• Problem of clashing self-interest • Problem of justice • Epistemological problems

How Should We Live?

2.

Classical Utilitarianism

(Bentham & Mill) • • •

Principle of utility

– always act so as to promote the greatest pleasure for all involved

Pleasure-pain calculus

– assess utility using Bentham’s seven criteria (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent)

Qualitative hedonism

higher and lower pleasures – distinguish between

How Should We Live?

2.

Classical Utilitarianism Problems:

• Problem of justice • Problem of rights • Difficulty in anticipating consequences • Unreasonable demands

How Should We Live?

3.

Kantian Ethics

• • • A deontological approach Emphasizes proper motive in action

The “good will”

moral law.

= the will that acts for the sake of duty alone = acting out of respect for the Involves categorical not hypothetical imperatives

The Categorical Imperative (1

Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law

.

st Form): The Categorical Imperative (2 nd Form):

Act so as to treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

How Should We Live?

3.

Kantian Ethics

How Should We Live?

3.

Kantian Ethics Problems:

• Overemphasis on moral autonomy?

• Ignores legitimate concern for consequences?

• Vagueness in formulating maxims • Why care about rationality in ethics?

• Is acting for the sake of duty alone an appropriate motive?

How Should We Live?

4.

Rule Utilitarianism

• Seeks to avoid problems of classical utilitarianism and Kant’s pure deontology.

• Rather than maximizing happiness with regard to individual acts,

we should follow those rules that, when followed, tend to produce the most happiness for the most people

.

• • •

Problems:

It collapses into act utilitarianism How do we decide which rules will produce the most happiness?

How do we resolve conflicts between rules?

How Should We Live?

5.

Virtue Ethics

• • • • Focuses on character traits in moral evaluation rather than on principles and actions.

Being moral is about being a certain kind of person more than abiding by principles A good act is the act that a virtuous person would do.

Strengths: sanctions morally appropriate forms of partiality and provides personal motivation for acting rightly.

Problem:

It cannot provide specific moral guidance or resolve moral dilemmas.

How Should We Live?

Natural Law Ethics

• • A non-naturalist theory A teleological theory in which moral laws are discerned through rational reflection on God’s design for human beings.

Some Principles:

• Good is to be pursued and evil avoided.

• • Sanctity of Life Principle of Double Effect

Some Problems:

• It may not provide clear direction on many moral issues.

• • It fails to provide a strong concept of duty.

It presupposes the existence of essences.

How Should We Live?

Divine Command Theory

The view that right and wrong are determined by God’s will (X is right = X coheres with God’s commands).

Benefits

: • • Provides a basis for moral obligation Provides moral motivation

Problem:

The

Euthyphro

Dilemma – morality is arbitrary Response: False Dilemma

Modified Divine Command Theory:

wrong are grounded in God’s immutably good nature, and His commands are one way we

know

Right and what’s right and wrong.

The Golden Rule

• What does its application presuppose?

• How must it be qualified?

How Should We Live?

Toward a Complete Ethical Theory

• • • • • • • • Moral objectivism The moral relevance of consequences The principle of universalizability Sanctity of human life Importance of moral character Natural law as a source of moral principles Divine commands as a source of moral principles The Golden Rule

Why be moral?

Because of the recognition of the authority of an omnipotent, holy God and his promise of rewards and punishments

What is a Just Society?

Three Important Concepts 1. Justice

• Remedial • Commercial • Distributive

2. Rights

• Negative or Positive • Moral or Legal

3. Law

• Natural Law Theory • Legal Positivism

What is a Just Society?

Theories of the State

1.

Anarchy

• • • Anarcho-socialism Anarcho-capitalism Absolute anarchy

Problems:

• The problem of motivation • The problem of human nature

What is a Just Society?

Theories of the State 2. Monarchy

• Absolute monarchy • Limited monarchy

Problems:

• The problem of finding a worthy leader • The problem power’s corrupting influence • The problem of succession

What is a Just Society?

Theories of the State 3. Social Contract Theory

• Social Contract Absolutism • Modern Liberalism

Problems:

• The problem of placing too much power in the hands of amateurs • The problem of the tyranny of the majority

What is a Just Society?

Views on Distributive Justice 1. Libertarianism –

The view that government should be small and that its primary responsibility is the protection of individual liberties; strongly rejects the redistribution of wealth by government

Problems:

• An imbalanced emphasis on the value of personal autonomy • An arbitrary restriction to considerations of resource transfers over resource holdings.

• Results in extreme disparities between the wealthy and the poor.

What is a Just Society?

Distributive Justice 2. Socialism –

The view that private property should be prohibited and that all resources should be held in common by members of the society

Problems:

• • An unrealistic optimism about human nature.

Prone to degenerate into totalitarianism.

What is a Just Society?

Distributive Justice 3. Welfare Liberalism –

The view that attempts a middle ground between libertarianism and socialism, seeking to uphold personal liberties while limiting socio-economic inequalities.

John Rawls Theory of Justice:

Proposes that the most just society would be one founded on principles chosen behind a “veil of ignorance” 1. The Principle of Equal Liberty 2. The Principle of Difference

What is a Just Society?

Problems with Rawls’ Theory of Justice:

1. Vagueness in applying the theory.

2. Presupposes that people behind the veil of ignorance would desire to minimize risk rather that maximize gain.

3. Assumes that fairness in selecting principles guarantees the fairness of the principles.

What is a Just Society?

Some Theological Reflections On Distributive Justice

• The importance of caring for the poor • • Personal responsibility in meeting one’s own needs Communitarianism?

On Religion in the Public Square

• Argument from Pluralism • • Argument from Secularism The Pragmatic Argument

On Civil Disobedience

• When the state commands what God forbids or forbids • what God commands No precedent or permission for violent opposition

What is Art?

Definitions of Art

• Any human-made object • Whatever is presented as art • The product of the artistic process • Whatever brings aesthetic pleasure • The paradigm case approach

Definition criteria vs. Identification criteria

What is Art?

The Function of Art

• • • • •

Mimesis

—art as imitation (Aristotle)

Expressionism

—art as expression of emotion (Collingwood)

Formalism

—art as significant form (Bell)

Marxisim

—art as ideology and political power

Christian aesthetics

—imago Dei and world projection (Wolterstorff)

Are There Standards for Art?

Two Perspectives on Aesthetic Truth:

• •

Aesthetic subjectivism

– the view that aesthetic judgments merely reflect personal preferences about art

Aesthetic objectivism

– the view that beauty and other aesthetic qualities are objective facts about art objects.

Are There Standards for Art?

Objective standards for judging art and artistry:

• Genre specific vs. non-genre-specific standards • Aesthetic virtues—diligence, veracity, boldness, etc.

Art and Ethics

Three Perspectives on Art and Ethics 1. Aestheticism

– The view that art and the artist are insusceptible to moral judgment. Art and ethics never conflict, because the creative artist is above morality. (Wilde, Dewey)

2. Moralism

– The view that moral-spiritual value is the sole criterion for assessing art. The only relevant judgments of art are ethical in nature. (Tolstoy)

3. Ethicism

– The moral qualities of an artwork contribute to or detract from the overall quality of an artwork. (Gaut)

A Christian View of Aesthetic Value

Why should the Christian care about aesthetics?

• The Genesis creation account (“it is good”) • Bezalel and Oholiab (Exod. 35) • God’s nature—the beauty of God, “glory” as an aesthetic quality, etc.(Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards)

Some Practical Guidelines

1. Depiction of evil vs. endorsement of evil 2. Necessary depiction vs. gratuitous depiction of evil 3. Depiction in service of a noble theme vs. depiction in service of a trivial theme 4. Provision of insight into truth vs. obscuring of truth 5. Final justice and personal redemption vs. moral lawlessness and personal hopelessness 6. Objective content of the artwork vs. subjective response of the audience