A222Revision

• SELF: What Am I? / Locke / Self as Fiction / Self and Future

• RELIGION: Introducing PoR / Design / Modern Design / Acts of God

• ETHICS: Plato / Bentham & Mill / Kant / Abortion• KNOWLEDGE: Descartes / Hume / Popper / Kuhn• MIND: Cartesian Dualism / Functionalism /

Extended Mind / Consciousness• POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: Plato / Consent &

Consequences / Distributive Justice / Equality• The topics focused on by the TMAs are less likely

to come up (in any case, there’s less need to cover them now)

Topics covered

Locke on Self• The orthodox view in Locke’s day

was that a person consisted of a material body and an immaterial soul.

• Locke argues that the consciousness a person has of being him or herself, and of being the same now as at earlier times is what personal identity consists in.

• Prince and Cobbler.• OBJECTION: Butler claimed that

consciousness of personal identity pre-supposed, and so could not constitute, that identity.

• OBJECTION: Memory is imperfect. If I forget what I did last week, Locke’s view seems to entail that I did not do it...

• Although Hume was the focus of TMA 01, I’ve included a slide on his view because that was so long ago.

• Hume, like Locke, was an empiricist. He believed that all knowledge came from experience and divided our perceptions into two kinds: impressions and ideas.

• Simple impressions come from experience and ideas are derived from them.

• Hume argues that the self has no empirical basis. When we introspect we find ‘nothing but a bundle or collection of different impressions’ in a state of continual change.

• OBJECTION: Hume seems unable to adequately explain what keeps a particular bundle of experiences together.

• OBJECTION: Hume’s argument only works if we accept that all ideas are derived from impressions but if we instead believe the mind has any innate content Hume’s theory is undermined.

Hume on Self

Parfit on Self• Parfit’s view is influenced by both

Locke and Hume. He argues both that psychological continuity is central to identity and that I am not the same person now as I will be in 20 years.

• Brain bisection: both resulting people remember my life, have my character. Which is me? Both? Neither?

• Teletransporter: In ‘beaming’ to Mars my body is destroyed and ‘I’ am reconstituted from new matter. Does someone who uses the teletransporter commit suicide?

• On Parfit’s view you shouldn’t worry too much about death as the person who dies will not be you, only someone related to you in various ways.

Taylor on Self• Argues that the ‘neutral’ or

‘bleached’ view of the self taken by Parfit cannot account for the way our conception of the good shapes our lives.

• For Taylor we must consider our whole life narrative if we are to understand ourselves.

• EXAM TIPS:• Although the section on Taylor is

small, it’s worth knowing as it can be used in almost any question on Parfit.

• Book 1 is smaller than the others which means there is a chance of an unexpected question (on, for instance, the Ship of Theseus or the legitimacy of thought experiments in philosophy)

• Paley offered an argument from design. He used an analogy between the natural world and a watch.

• PREMISE Given a watch’s precise organisation and functionality, it is overwhelmingly more likely that the watch should be the result of design than of accident.

• SUB-CONCLUSION By analogy, for all the features of nature that display precise organisation and functionality, it is overwhelmingly more likely that each of them should be the result of design than of accident (inferred from Premise).

• MAIN CONCLUSION So nature must have a designer, namely God.

Paley’s Design Argument

• 1. The universe is not like a machine. Hume instead suggests that the universe is more like something organic than a machine. A better analogy is that the universe is like a giant vegetable. We wouldn’t think a carrot in a field must have had a designer, so we don’t need to think that about the universe.

• 2. Our experience is too limited to draw the analogy. Hume poses the rhetorical question, ‘from observing the growth of a single hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?’ – presumably we cannot.

• 3. Even if nature is ordered AND we can make the analogy work, this doesn’t prove God’s existence.

Hume’s Objections to the Design Argument

• The basic irreducible complexity argument is:• PREMISE: Evolution can explain how things change

gradually, through a process of natural selection.• PREMISE: There are some phenomena that cannot

be explained by gradual change, because their complexity could not have come about in slow stages.

• CONCLUSION: Evolution cannot explain such phenomena (and this conclusion is then used to support the design argument).

• Youtube video outlining arguments against irreducible complexity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Modern Arguments From Design: Irreducible Complexity

• PREMISE: If the initial cosmological conditions had not been just right, the universe could not contain life.

• PREMISE: The fact that the initial cosmological conditions were just right was either a result of chance or it was a result of design.

• PREMISE: It is hugely improbable that these initial conditions could have been right by any sort of chance.

• CONCLUSION: They were right by design, and so there is evidence for a designer (God).

Modern Arguments From Design: Fine Tuning

• Objections:• A – We could still offer Hume’s objection

that the argument does not prove the existence of God in the traditional sense.

• B – We could deny that the universe needs to have been fine tuned. Physicist Victor Stenger denies that the universe needs to have a narrow range of constants.

• C – Some physicists claim that there have been / are numerous universes. Eventually one of them would have the constants of our universe, so the appearance of design is an illusion.

• D – A complex universe needs a complex designer, but then the complex designer needs to be explain... Possibly by another complex designer! This would lead to an infinite regress.

• E – Whatever numbers come up in the lottery seem unlikely, but any particular combination was equally likely.

Epicurus on Evil• 4 basic possibilities:• 1- God is willing to help but

unable, in which case he is weak.• 2- God is able to help but is

unwilling, in which case he is malevolent.

• 3- God is neither willing nor able, in which case he is weak and malevolent.

• 4- God is willing and able, in which case it is impossible to explain the existence of evil.

• The existence of evil is taken to show that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

• RESPONSE: free will defence.• RESPONSE: revised conception of

omnipotence.• RESPONSE: illusion of evil.

(These responses are compatible)

• TIP: The audio recordings are important here. If you’re considering answering on evil I advise you to give the CD as much attention as the book.

Socrates’ response to Glaucon• Glaucon’s challenge: Show me

that justice pays!• Based on the Ring of Gyges. • EXAM TIP: don’t spend too long

explaining the Ring of Gyges myth itself. Note that it is a ring that makes those who wear it invisible and then move on to the philosophical argument. There’s no need to remember much about the myth, it’s far more important to remember the arguments that follow. It you suddenly develop a mental block and call it ‘an invisibility cloak’ you can still produce an equally good argument.

• Glaucon claims that we do good due to social pressure.

• Socrates response:• Argument from mental

health. The unjust person cannot flourish because they are not ruled by the rational part of their mind.

• Argument from superior judgement. Those who love knowledge will be unlikely to be unjust and will be best able to decide what is good and best to do.

• EXAM TIP: It wouldn’t be all that surprising for there to be a question comparing Kant and Socrates/Plato.

Mill• Consequentialism + Hedonism =

Utilitarianism• Objection to Bentham’s version

of utilitarianism: it is a swinish morality! Bentham leaves us with no way to justify preferring noble and dignified human pursuits over base pleasures (or even pleasures derived from cruelty).

• Mill attempts to solve this problem by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. One pleasure is higher than another if those who have adequate experience, and are therefore competent judges, of both would chose it.

• Mill happened to think that people would generally prefer intellectual pleasures over bodily pleasures, but it’s not obvious that this is the case.

• Mill also focused on rules which led to most utility in the long run, to avoid the possibility of cruel enjoyments which seems to be a problem for Bentham.

OBJECTION: The notion of ‘competent judge’ is unclear.OBJECTION: We cannot easily compare pleasures of different kinds. The pleasure of reading a good book is totally different to the pleasure of swimming in the sea.OBJECTION: Sometimes ignoring rules (e.g. Never murder the innocent) could, conceivably, lead to greater utility, so even rule utilitarianism might lead to serious breaches of rights.

• 4 Kantian themes:• 1) our reasoning must be universal, 2) the good will is valuable even

when it doesn’t yield the best consequences, 3) an act has no moral worth if it is done because the agent enjoys doing so, 4) it is wrong to treat others as mere means, they must be treated as ends.

• Universalisability test (the Categorical Imperative):• “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that

my maxim should become a universal law”• The maxim ‘I will make false promises when doing so benefits me’

fails this test.• Trickier cases: the miser’s maxim: ‘when I want things to continue

going well for me, I will refuse to aid those who need some assistance. Kant argues this fails the test because it causes my will to conflict with itself. If I could never rely on assistance from others things wouldn’t go well for me.

• Against Plato Kant holds that even the best character traits are only ever good in a qualified way (consider the brave suicide bomber, the intelligent serial killer who evades capture, and so on).

Kant on Ethics

• Descartes’ method to establish certainty was to doubt everything he could.• We are going to consider his arguments for establishing the method of

doubt.• 1) The unreliability of the senses.• 2) The dream hypothesis.• 3) The demon hypothesis.• Sceptics, in the course of their ordinary lives, do not doubt whether they

exist, whether being hit by a bus would harm them, etc. Instead Sceptics think that it is important that we should be able to ‘know’ that we are not dreaming, or being deceived by a demon.

• Scepticism challenges the notion that our ordinary justifications are adequate.

• OBJECTION: Descartes does not doubt the fact that the words he uses are meaningful, however all languages require a system of publically governed rules, so we cannot really push the method of doubt as far as Descartes suggests.

• OBJECTION: Our practical concerns should govern our epistemological enquiries. It is fairly common to wonder whether some particular piece of evidence is reliable, but no real life situation will cause us to doubt the existence of the physical world.

Rene Descartes on Knowledge

Hume on Induction

• Hume argues that induction cannot be rationally justified.

• The constant conjunctions of impressions in our experience leads us to suppose there is a necessary connection between events (whenever I throw a stone into the sea it sinks), but we do not directly perceive this connection.

• There is nothing in the nature of our ideas which determines such a connection – a belief in this connection is the result of experience and custom.

• POSSIBLE OBJECTION: argument to the best explanation suggests that there is a causal connection between 2 events.

Popper on Science• Popper’s aim is to challenge the ‘received

view’ of science as an endeavour which progresses by observing natural phenomena and increasing knowledge. Popper claims that there is no such thing as pure observation.

• For Popper science must be falsifiable. Theories which are compatible with any and every state of affairs (Marxism and Freudianism, in his view) cannot be scientific.

• Science progresses through a series of conjectures and refutations. If I claim that all birds can fly(conjecture), and then come across a piece of evidence which falsifies, e.g. A penguin, my claim is refuted.

• A theory which survives serious testing is corroborated, but not confirmed because there might be an undiscovered piece of evidence which will refute it.

• Thus what we take to be scientific truths are simply the best conjectures we have so far.

OBJECTION: Popper’s view does not adequately distinguish between when a view should be rejected and when it should be modified.

Kuhn on Science• Kuhn argues that scientific change is

best explained as a series of paradigm shifts.

• Paradigms are “accepted examples of actual scientific practice – examples which include law, theory, application and instrumentation together – [and which] provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research”

• According to Kuhn normal science solves puzzles. When a scientific tradition finds it impossible to solve the puzzles it sets itself it might enter a revolutionary period (note: Kuhn does not specify the exact conditions under which a scientific tradition becomes imperilled).

• Scientists never reject a theory outright. A theory is only abandoned when another is available.

• Based on Descartes’ method of doubt. I can doubt that I have a body but I cannot doubt that I have a mind.

• If it is possible that my mind is distinct from my body, then there must be a real distinction between them.

• Cartesian dualism captures some of our basic intuitions about mind and body. It makes sense to say “She has a probing mind” but perhaps not “She has a probing brain”. Mind and matter seem to be conceptually distinct.

• OBJECTION: Perhaps Mind and Body only appear to be distinct, but are two aspects of a single substance.

• OBJECTION: The Interaction problem. Elizabeth of Bohemia ask Descartes how something solely immaterial could interact with something solely material.

• EXAM TIP: People sometimes think that Descartes’ view is obviously false and that the interaction problem is insurmountable. This leads them to write slightly dismissive rebuttals. Be as charitable as possible (and remember that those marking the exams will probably have read hundreds of essays that say ‘Here’s D’s view, here’s the interaction problem, TA DA!’).

Descartes on Mind

• Clark and Chalmers argue that our minds can, and do, extend beyond our brains.

• They give the example of Otto. Otto has Alzheimer’s, so can’t remember things well. He uses a notebook to record useful information.

• Clark and Chalmers argue that the information in Otto’s notebook is just like the information in our memories. They are both mental states. The notebook has become part of Otto’s mind.

• Features of the case: 1) Otto always keeps his notebook with him. 2) Otto always checks his notebook automatically when asked a question (or when wondering about a question) that relates to the information in his notebook. 3) Otto trusts his notebook implicitly, just as much as we trust our memories.

• Chalmers video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksasPjrYFTg• OBJECTION: objects are unlike mental states in that they get their

meaning by being used by us. Also, mental states can be broken down into ‘attitude’ and ‘content’ whereas notebooks and iPhones cannot.

The Extended Mind

• Nagel’s “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?” is a response to physicalist theories of mind.

• According to Nagel it is hard to see how consciousness can be adequately accounted for in physicalist terms.

• An explanation of subjective phenomena is essentially connected to a subjective point of view.

• Bats have a point of view in a way that bricks don’t. We can understand bricks in solely objective terms – they have no subjective point of view.

• This means that a reduction of consciousness or an objective explanation of consciousness that can be grasped by any intelligent creature seems impossible.

• We can’t yet conclude that physicalism is false: “It would be a mistake to conclude that physicalism must be false…. It would be truer to say that physicalism is a position we cannot understand because we do not at present have any conception of how it might be true.”

• OBJECTION: Perhaps Nagel is asking too much from a scientific explanation of the mind.

Nagel on Mind

Nozick: Entitlement theory• Robert Nozick, in his Anarchy, State and

Utopia, argues that justice involves three ideas:

• 1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property rights over something that has not previously been owned.

• 2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone else.

• 3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer.

• Nozick's ‘Wilt Chamberlain’ argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty.

• Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player. Let’s assume 1 million people are willing to freely give him 25p each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Wilt now has £250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. The new distribution in society obviously is no longer ordered by our favoured pattern. However Nozick argues that this society is just.

Nozick

Public address system• Imagine a group of your neighbours invests in a public

address system with the aim of entertaining people on your street.

• There just so happens to be 365 people living on your street.• Those who bought the system assign everyone a day on

which they are to spend a few hours entertaining people using the system.

• “On his assigned day a person is to run the public address system, play records over it, give news bulletins, tell amusing stories he has heard, and so on. After 138 days on which each person has done his part, your day arrives. Are you obligated to take your turn? You have benefited from it… but must you answer the call when it is your turn to do so?” (Nozick, 1974: 93)

• What do you think? (Once you’ve decided, try to come up with some reasons for the opposite view)

• There isn’t enough time in the exam to think up a totally new answer to a particular question. Therefore it is important to know your main argument in advance.

• The best way to do this is to write practice essays. The very best way is to write 1000 word long essays (or however long you think you can manage in an hour) on your favourite aspects of the course. Take as long as you like and be sure that you’re happy with the essays, and then practice writing similar answers in exam conditions.

• So: if as you revise you write down your thoughts (arguments) on Kant’s ethics, turn these notes into an essay entitled ‘Outline and assess Kant’s ethics’. You’ll find that you’ll be able to produce a very similar answer to ‘Is it ever right to lie?’, ‘Kant claims that we should act only on universalisable maxims. Is he correct?’ and so on.

• Questions that look different are often very similar. • When you’re sick of practicing, practice some more. When you’re so

sick of practicing you curse the day you ever decided to do philosophy... Have a short break to regain your senses!

Good luck!