PHIL 10 1st EditionFinal Exam Study GuideVocab/ Terms:Premise: a statement used to support other statementsBasic premise: a premise that is not supported by other statementsConclusion: supported by other statements in the argumentsIntermediate conclusion: used to support other statementsFinal conclusion: not used to support other statementsImplicit statement: part of the argument but is not explicitly stated in the argumentInference: a step in reasoning from premise(s) to a conclusionDeduction: a method of reasoning by which a conclusion follows (or is meant to follow) necessarily from the premiseAbductive: a method of reasoning by which one accepts a conclusion on the grounds that it explains the available evidenceInductive: a method of reasoning by which one generalizes from a series of instancesTheodicy: is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evilAnalytic: a sentence whose truth or falsity is deductively entailed by definitionPositivism: to be meaningful, a sentence must be decidable in principleTestable theory of Meaning: to be meaningful, a sentence must either be a priori or a posteriori; further a sentence is a priori if it is analyticA priori: a proposition that can be known or justified independent of sense experience (analytic)A posteriori: a proposition that can be known or justified only by sense experience (can be fulfilled through observation)Supererogatory: acts of good; morally goodGeneral approach to evaluating arguments:1. Determine the type of argument2. Ask “are the basic premises true (or likely to be true)?”3. Ask “Are the inferences strong”?a. Inference is a step in reasoningb. Underlined sentences (in basic format)Arguments:1. Paley's Abductive Argument that God exists. Conclusion: God existsReasonings: a. everything is created by somethingb. God must have created usc. Something so complex as a watch must have a designerWeaknesses:d. What does watches being designed have to do with anyone designing us2. Hume’s Inductive Argument that God exists.Conclusion: God existsReasons: a. If there is a house, there should be an architectb. Cleanthese argumentsc. A house is a machine much like a universe is a machine. This means that the universe must have been created by an intelligent being just as the house was, thus proving the existence of God.Weaknesses:a. Could think God does exist or does not3. The Argument from Evil (including the various theodicies raised in reply and, in turn, the objections one can raise to these theodicies). Conclusion: God does not existReasoning:a. if there was an all-powerful God, there would be no evil.Strengths:b. Soul buildingc. Free willWeaknesses:d. If there weren’t bad we would not appreciate the goode. Why wouldn’t he just make us all good4. Ayer's Argument that statements about God are meaningless.Conclusion: statements about god are meaninglessReasoning:a. You cannot prove or disprove god’s existenceb. Do not make sense5. Hardin’s Arguments that we are not obligated to help the starving people of poor nations. Conclusion: we are not obligated to help starving people in poor nationsReasoning:a. Spreading resources to all might not help in the long runb. If people keep putting into helping, people will keep takingc. No sense of self relianced. Population growth makes matters worsee. Lifeboatf. Tragedy of the commonsg. Increased environmental destructionWeakness:a. Helping could decrease population growth and negative environmental impactb. Tragedy of the commons assumes people would do the worst6. Unger’s Argument that we are obligated to help the starving people of poor nations (including the various ways one might object that there are morally relevant differences and, in turn, Unger’s method of responding to these).Conclusion: we are obligated to help people, and if you’re not doing something you’re doing something seriously wrongReasoning:a. All help is significantb. Shallow pong argumentc. Cost of help is justifiableStrengths:a. Just cause you cant see it doesn’t let you off the hookb. Physical distancec. Morality of it allWeaknesses:a. Physical distance7. Final Exam Study QuestionsPhilosophy of Religion- Paley presents an abductive argument for the existence of God. How does the argument go, and what weaknesses does it have?- Hume presents an inductive argument for the existence of God. How does the argument go, and what weaknesses does it have?- Summarize the argument from evil. Be familiar with some of the theodicies (responses to the argument) and the responses to these theodicies. - Summarize Ayer’s argument for the meaninglessness of statements about God.Applied Ethics - Summarize Hardin’s argument. - What is Unger’s argument?- Be prepared to apply Unger’s method of creating situations that show that some factor is not morally relevant to whether we should help those in need in poor nations. Ethical Theory- Best way to test an ethic theory is to test it against our intuitions- Utilitarianism agrees most out of ethical theories with our “common sense”________________________________________________________________________- In what sense does and in which sense doesn’t utilitarianism endorse equality (answer: it does insofar as it weighs each person’s happiness equally; it doesn’t in that it doesn’t guarantee that people will be at all equally happy)? - Utilitarianism says to maximize pleasure. There are drugs that make people extremely happy. If we discovered an unlimited supply of such a drug, would Utilitarianism say thatthe whole world should get high on this drug all the time? (answer: it depends on …) - Act Utilitarianism- well it depends, the general answer is easy, maximize happiness (this specific case)o Think about all the effects of the drug, both good and bad.o Say the drug has no downsides; no hurt to heath mentally and physically, no addictive qualities, you can still function to do your job, going to school, spending time with familyo Can you function on this drug? Could you still work? Could you still do other things that contribute to yours or others happiness?o The whole world should get high if there are no negative side effects at all because it would increase happiness- Rule Utilitarianism- says to follow rules,…. But which rules…. These moral rules need to be determined (in general, then applied to a specific case)o For example; never take any drug, or take