PHI 2010.02Fall 2012Final Exam Review SheetDefinitions and Distinctions1) Contingent vs. Necessary-Philosophers sometimes use the idea of a possible world to explain this distinction.-The distinction between the necessary and contingent is a metaphysical distinction. -Has to do with facts or propositions and truth.Contingent Fact : Facts that would not have been facts if things had happened differently. • True in the actual world but false in some other possible worlds. Examples:1. Consider the fact that Columbus reached America in 1492. Things could have turned out differently. If he had gotten a later start, he might not have reached America until 1493. -So the fact that he arrived in 1492 is contingent. Necessary Fact: Facts that could not have failed to be facts.• True in every possible world.Examples:1. The year 1492 would have occurred before the year 1493 no matter how long it took Columbus to get his act together.2. Mathematical facts -The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn’t depend on one thing happening rather than another.2) Teleological Arguments : Argue from a purposeful and ordered universe to an intelligent (divine) creator. *If successful, this argument proves the existence of an intelligent designer but not necessarily the traditional Judeo-Christian God.3) Ockham’s Razor: The principle states that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.• If two competing theories explain a single phenomenon and: -They both generally reach the same conclusion-They are both equally persuasive and convincing-They both explain the problem or situation satisfactorily-Then the logician should always pick the less complex one.• The one with the fewer number of moving parts, so to speak, is most likely to be correct.• The idea is always to cut out extra, unnecessary bits. (Hence the name “razor”) Example: Suppose you come home and discover that your dog has escaped from the kennel and chewed large chunks out of the couch. Two possible theories occur to you:(1) Theory number one is that you forgot to latch the kennel door, and the dog pressed against it and opened it, and then the dog pressed against it and opened it, and then the dog was free to run around the inside the house. • This explanation requires two entities (you and the dog) • And two actions (you forgetting to lock the kennel door and the dog pressing against the door) (2) Theory number two is that some unknown person skilled at picking locks managed to disable the front door, then came inside the house, set the dog free from the kennel, then snuck out again covering up any sign of presence, and then relocked the front-door, leaving the dog free to run wild in the house.• This theory requires three entities (you, the dog, and the lock picking intruder)• And several actions (picking the lock, entering, releasing the dog, hiding evidence, and relocking the front door)• It also requires us to come up with a plausible motivation for the intruder-a motivation that is absent at this point.Conclusion: Theory number (1) is much simpler and in light of Ockham’s theory is most likely correct.Other philosopher’s views:• Paley: the simplest explanation is that one infinitely powerful, free and knowledgeable being created this universe (simplicity in number).• Hume: such a being is not a simple concept and so simpler to posit multiple finite beings (simplicity in form).4.) Argument Defeater vs. Argument Against: Argument defeater- attempts to show that an argument fails to establish its conclusionArgument against- provides an argument in favor of the negation of a given conclusion5.) Natural Evil vs. Moral Evil-• Natural Evil: Evil that is seemingly brought about by nonagenital forces.E.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts Example: A deer being burned in a naturally caused forest fire• Moral evil: Evil that is brought about by the bad actions of human beings or other created beings. 6.) Deontology vs. Consequentialism:• Consequentialism- A view about what makes it right or wrong to do something. It maintains that the rightness of an action is determined by the goodness or badness of relevant consequences. E.g. Unitarianism is a consequentialist theory that holds what makes consequences better or worse is, at bottom, the welfare or happiness of sentient beings. • Deontology- Holds that the rightness of an action depends at least in part on things other than the goodness of relevant consequences.-Deontological ethics rejects consequentialism. • Example: Someone who rejects consequentialism might hold that the principle under which an act is done determines whether it is right or wrong. 7.) Intrinsic value vs. Extrinsic/Instrumental Value:• Extrinsic property- An extrinsic property is one that an object has partly in virtue of its relations to other things and their properties. -States that a thing could lose such a property without really changing it all.• Example: Omaha has the property of being the largest city in Nebraska. It could lose this property by virtue of Grand Island growing a great deal. Omaha wouldn’t have to lose population to lose this property, or change in any other way. Being the largest city in Nebraska thus an extrinsic property of Omaha.• Intrinsic value- A property (in contrast to extrinsic) that an object has because of the way it is in itself, independently of its relations to other things and their properties.• Instrumental Value- Whatever can be proved to be good must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof.- If something can be shown (or proved) to be good it can be shown to be good only by showing that it is the means to a good end (it brings about a good goal).- But this cannot go on forever. So, there must be something that other good things are means to but isn’t the means to any further good.8.) Imperative: an objective principle that tells us what it is most rational to do. - Hypothetical imperatives rely upon the end goal for their formulation but categorical imperatives do not. Therefore, there is only one categorical imperative (with different formulations) One categorical imperative but many duties follow• Hypothetical Imperative : Tells us what we should do to attain a certain goal.◦ Subjective because only those who have that particular goal ought to act according to the imperative. • Categorical Imperative : Tells