front 1 deductive reasoning | back 1
|
front 2 induction/abduction | back 2
|
front 3 deductive validity | back 3 IF the premises WERE true, they would guarantee the truth of the conclusion
INVALID IF POSSIBLE FOR CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE IF PREMISES ARE TRUE |
front 4 testing for invalidity | back 4
|
front 5 circular arguments | back 5
|
front 6 God's qualities | back 6 God is all PKG
|
front 7 Aquina's argument from contingency | back 7
|
front 8 diff btw necessary and contingent entities | back 8 necessary
contingent
|
front 9 difference btw necessary and contingent propositions | back 9 necessary
contingent
|
front 10 a priori vs. a posteriori propositions | back 10
|
front 11 ontological argument (a priori premises) | back 11
her notes: definition of God entails God's existence necessary existence is a perfection God has based on him being all-PKG - God exists by definition BUT defition by itself does not entail that the concept is true - ex: empty names: unicorn, can define the concept, but whether any exist depends on empirical confirmations (saying its definition includes existence does NOT make the unicorn exist) - this basically says that if God exists, he must have these qualities, but this cannot fully prove God exists |
front 12 what kind of argument is the ontological argument? | back 12 IS A PRIORI - WANNA PROVE GODS EXISTENCE BY REASONING OF DEFINITION |
front 13 pascal's wager | back 13
|
front 14 objections to pascal's wager | back 14
|
front 15 problem of evil | back 15
|
front 16 Logical positivism + testability theory of meaning | back 16 testability theory of meaning
logical positivism - uses testability theory of meaning
|
front 17 Karl popper's demarcation criterion | back 17
|
front 18 JTB theory of knowledge | back 18 plato says JTB necessary for knowledge S can know P IFF these necessary/sufficient conditions are met
|
front 19 gettier problems | back 19 problems that show JTB is NOT sufficient for knowledge (person can have JTB without having knowledge)
ex: clock, person believes it is 9:55 AM and has all 3 cases met, BUT the subject does not KNOW it is 9:55 AM. If they looked at the clock just before/after 9:55, they would have formed a false belief because the clock is stuck. It just so happens that they observed the clock when it happened to reflect the real time, but since the clock is stuck and they could have seen a false time, they do not have true KNOWLEDGE that it is actually 9:55 AM. shows plato's JTB is NOT sufficient for knowledge subject has highly reliable, but not infallible evidence for proposition believed |
front 20 david hume's problem of induction and the PUN | back 20
|
front 21 arguments for skepticism and knowledge about justified belief | back 21
|
front 22 descarte's method of doubt | back 22
|
front 23 foundationalism - descartes argument against skepticism | back 23
|
front 24 cogito ergo sum | back 24
|
front 25 mind body problem | back 25
2 possible solutions
|
front 26 leibniz's law | back 26
|
front 27 cartesian dualism | back 27
extra:
|
front 28 Frank jackson's knowledge argument for qualia | back 28
|
front 29 what does jackson want to show? how does jackson try to show his point? | back 29 wants to show that physicalism (identity theory) cannot provide an account for qualia, and thus it cannot work
using Fred/mary |
front 30 according to jackson, physicalism cannot ___ | back 30 provide an account for qualia |
front 31 fred example from jackson | back 31
|
front 32 fred example for mary | back 32
|
front 33 qualia | back 33
|
front 34 a posteriori necessities | back 34
|
front 35 identity relation | back 35
|
front 36 a posteriori necessary truths examples | back 36
|
front 37 what are these a posteriori necessary truths used for? | back 37 identity theory
principle of parsimony - reject dualism bc parsimony is simpler (1 ontological category instead of 2) |
front 38 de re necessity | back 38 kripke argues a posteriori necessary truths are de re
|
front 39 de dicto necessity | back 39 used to be assumed that all necessities were de dicto at level of language until kripke challenged
|
front 40 ex: de re vs. de dicto necessities | back 40 de re
de dicto
|
front 41 what de re /dicto has to do w/ identity theory | back 41 wanna show mind = brain as de re necessity at metaphysical level (not jsut language), bc would be a necessary truth IF they are identical |
front 42 tom nagal "what its like to be a bat" | back 42 SUMMARY
MORE DETAIL:
|
front 43 subjective realism | back 43 says reality exceeds language
nagal's realism abt subjective domain implies belief in existence of facts beyond the reach pf human concepts possible for us to believe there are facts which humans will never comprehent bc humans do not have the requisite concepts |
front 44 hard problem of consciousness | back 44 chalmbers intractable - not solvable easy problems
hard problem
|
front 45 mcGinn on mind/body problem | back 45 had 2 perspectives
|
front 46 free will: determinism vs. indeterminism what are all 3? | back 46 free will - capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among alternatives
determinism - for every causal chain, there is 1 outcome
indeterminism - universe indeterministic means causal facts at 1 time leave open what will happen next (chance)
|
front 47 what does the shift from determinism to indeterminsm do? difference btw having either? | back 47
|
front 48 metaethics | back 48
|
front 49 normative ethics | back 49
|
front 50 subjectivism | back 50
|
front 51 ethical relativists | back 51
|
front 52 ethical realism | back 52
|
front 53 is/ought disctinction + fallacy | back 53
|
front 54 NORMATIVE theories: virtue ethics | back 54 virtue ethics - focus on inherent character of person rather than specific actions
|
front 55 eudaimonia | back 55 what you reach when act in accordance with virtues
|
front 56 NORMATIVE theories: kantian moral theory | back 56 moral requirements based on standard of rationality (categorical imperative) act in morality = act w/ reasoning immorality - irrational bc violates categorical imperative (logical contradiction)
moral acts must pass categorical imperative categorical imperative test
|
front 57 NORMATIVE theories: natural rights theory | back 57
|
front 58 NORMATIVE theories: utilitarianism | back 58
|
front 59 people as ends in themselves | back 59
|
front 60 thompson violinist thought experiment (objectives) | back 60
diffs/objections - undermine/weaken the argument
similarities
|
front 61 primary/negative and secondary/positive rights | back 61 secondary positive rights
negative rights
|
front 62 patrick lee's argument | back 62
|
front 63 marie anne warren on personhood | back 63
|
front 64 euthanasia | back 64
|
front 65 peter singer - animal equality | back 65
singer devoted to this question of moral standing of nonhuman animals
|
front 66 speciesism | back 66 systemic discrimination against the members of some species by members of another species violate animals rights for our interest/favor our own species over interest of other species |
front 67 cohen in defense of specisism | back 67
|
front 68 capital punishment | back 68 background
possible answers: retributivism
consequentialism
|
front 69 nathanson (abolitionist) | back 69 against DP
|
front 70 primoratz (retributivism) | back 70
|
front 71 pornography: mackinnon vs. strossen | back 71 main ethical question: is producing, publishing, or using it morally permissible? should any of these activities be legally prohibited?
|