HY1001 Introduction to Philosophy Test 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download HY1001 Introduction to Philosophy Test 1 PDF

Description

HY1001 Introduction to Philosophy Test 1 1) Double-Crux technique requires a common reason for each of the beliefs such that, if false, both parties would change their minds. In this case, Frederick and Alice have opposing views. The mistake they are making is they lack a common basis in their argument as they treat their ideas separately and they did not find the reason that will make both of them change their minds. Rather than asking each other “Why do you think that?”, they should have asked “What would get you to change your mind?” instead. First, we have to determine what are the cruxes. They should ask themselves these questions. If it was found that stricter gun laws do not lower the murder rate, will Alice change her mind to believe that the US should not have stricter gun laws? If it was found that stricter gun laws will lower the murder rate, will Frederick change his mind to believe that the US should have stricter gun laws? If both of them change their mind, both their beliefs are supported by whether stricter gun laws will lower the murder rate. Now, there is a double-crux in their argument which they previously lacked, leading to a more productive conversation. The second question they can ask is if it was found to be easier to murder people with guns than it is with other things, will Frederick change his mind to believe that the US should have stricter gun laws? If it was found to be harder to murder people with guns than it is with other things, will Alice change her mind to believe that that the US should not have stricter gun laws? If they change their mind based on this reason for belief, there is a double-crux. 2) 1.

1) No watches are made of gold. 2) Only watches tell time. 3) Nothing made of gold tells time.

2.

1) All men are philosophers. 2) Socrates was a man. 3) Socrates was a philosopher.

3.

1) All men are mortal 2) Socrates is a man. 3) Socrates is mortal.

4.

1) No dogs are brown. 2) Everything that is cute is brown. 3) No dogs are cute.

The last argument (4) is valid. All things cute are brown but no dogs are brown so the conclusion of no dogs being cute is valid. The conclusion follows from the premises 1 and 2, so it is a valid argument.

4) John Mackie argued that God is not compatible with the existence of evil and that where God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good, evil cannot exist. He argued that a JCM God could create a world with only moral good but no moral evil, and in this question, God could create only people who will freely choose not to murder. This contradicts the statement in the question where God actually allows people to make their own choices, which include murders and evil. It is possible for people to have the highest form of freedom to choose evil but never do so. Mackie argued that God knows who will freely choose to murder and who will not, and can hence decide which people to create, and to only create people who freely choose not to murder. However, in this question, God allowed murderers. Mackie believes that since God is wholly good with the ability to do anything, God would not allow the existence of murderers. The fact that there is so much evil in the world makes the existence of God seem even less likely. Thus, he will disagree with the argument in the question without denying free will. 5) Incompatibilism is a view that if determinism means we don't have free will. Determinism is a system where everything that happens stems from prior causes and the effects must follow. Therefore we never act freely as we have no control. Incompatibilism and determinism go hand-in-hand for cases where cannot act freely like induction into the army because you have been drafted or handing over your wallet at gunpoint. Instead, I think compatibilism and determinism are opposing views to an extent. The idea of us not being able to act freely supported by determinism opposed the theory of compatibilism. However, there are exceptions where compatibilism and determinism go hand-in-hand. Compatibilism is the idea that an act can be both free and determined. Actions like donating or joining the army are free because choices are based on desires without anyone asking. And these actions are perfectly compatible with actions being causally determined by history and events. The basic idea of Compatibilism may be summed up as free will is compatible with causal determinism because “free” does not mean “uncaused’ and we are free when we act according to our desires. So, compatibilism and determinism are not exactly opposing views. 6) Descartes think the mind is the only thing he know for certain. Descartes believed that a powerful “evil spirit” was intent upon deceiving him and the spirit can manipulate Descartes’ experiences and his beliefs. So to determine if there is anything that he can be certain, he decides he can be certain that he exists, because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind to doubt. But the demon could have convinced him otherwise that his body and the physical world exists. So he asked: what is the “I” that is doing the thinking? The answer is the mind is a purely thinking thing. What Descartes perceives with his senses could be false but he cannot deny that he perceives. So the human mind is capable of thought and perception. He explains this using the wax example. Solid wax and wax melted by a candle are both wax. Therefore perception is not strictly a function of the senses. It must be the reasoning mind that makes this judgment. Because the senses can be deceived, physical objects, including

bodies, are properly perceived only by the intellect, and the mind is still the only thing he can be certain exists....