Philosophy

• What is Knowledge?

  • Knowledge is a central to life. Without knowledge we would die.
  • At the most basic level, as physical creatures, we want to know where to find food and shelter.
  • Technology is developed to help meet these needs, so we need to understand how things work in the world and how we can affect it.
  • As social creatures, we want to live with other people.
  • We want to know what people expect, or how they feel. We need to communicate, so we need to know a language. As curious creatures. we want to know.
• Types of knowledge

  Ability Knowledge: Knowing how to do something e.g knowing how to cook

  
  

  Acquaintance knowledge: Knowing of something. e.g knowing of Oxford

  
  

  Propositional knowledge: Knowledge about some part of reality, which I may or may not have experienced myself.. ‘I believe that’ e.g i know that eagles are birds
• Proposition: a statement or idea that can be true or false. For example, "The sky is blue" is a proposition because it can be evaluated as true or false.
• Cognitive Contact: Awareness of things around you
• Zagzebski


  Second kind of knowledge involves being ‘incognitive contact with reality’, Zagzebski puts in her article ‘What is Knowledge?
• Knowledge: Knowledge is needed for the survival of humans. This is because knowledge is needed for the most basic necessities such as obtaining food and shelter.
• Epistemology: Theory of knowledge
• Deriving from Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus, that knowledge is a belief that is both true and justified. The tripartite definition of knowledge claims that knowledge is justified, true belief.
• Belief: A though which is about the world
• Fact: Something that is 100% true, not opinion or belief.
• The tripartite definition aims to provide a complete analysis of the concept and nature of propositional knowledge.

  • Its three conditions, taken together, are intended to be equivalent to knowledge or to be the same thing as knowledge.
  • So, first, if you fulfil those conditions, then you know the proposition (idea that can be false or true)
  • If all the three conditions it lists are satisfied – if you have a justified true belief about that proposition – then you know that proposition
  • You don’t need anything else for knowledge; the three conditions, together, are sufficient.
• • Second, if you know the proposition, you fulfil exactly those three conditions. If you know that proposition, then you have a justified true belief about that proposition.
  • There is no other way to know that proposition, no other analysis of knowledge.
  • So, it claims, each of the three conditions is necessary.
  • If the proposition is false, or you don’t believe the proposition, or your belief of the proposition is not justified, then you don’t know that proposition.
  • The conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge that proposition
• The three condition for the tripartite definition of knowledge is:

  • Justified – You have good reasons or evidence for the belief.
  • True – The belief corresponds to reality or fact.
  • Belief – You must actually believe the statement is true.

  Together, these three conditions (justified, true, belief) define knowledge.
• One key difference between true belief and knowledge according to Plato is that true belief can change, but knowledge is stable and backed with evidence.
• Plato argues that reason or evidence is needed to make a belief knowledge
• Plato says the definition of knowledge is a true belief with justification (justified, true, belief). He discusses the difference between knowledges and true belief in Meno.
• Necessary and Sufficient Conditions


  If an element is necessary, then without that element you

  could not have the thing in question.

  Being an animal is a necessary condition of being a horse. If you are not animal, then you cannot be a horse.

  The definition of a necessary condition can be summed up as:

  X is a necessary condition of Y if without X you cannot have Y
• Having a necessary condition is not always enough to have the

  thing in question though.

  For example, being an animal is a necessary condition of being a horse, but it alone is not enough. Not all animals are horses.

  Other conditions need to be met in order to be a horse.
• If having certain necessary elements/conditions always guarantees having the thing in question, then these elements are called sufficient.

  For example, having never been married and being a man are sufficient conditions for being a bachelor.

  Every time you have a man who has never married, you have a bachelor. There is nothing more you need; the two elements are sufficient. (They are also necessary – you cannot be a bachelor without being a man or without being unmarried.)
• Belief Condition


  The belief condition says that a necessary condition for you knowing that proposition is that you believe that proposition. In other words, you must believe that the proposition is true, or hold that what it says really is the case.

  This is certainly plausible. After all, it appears that you cannot claim to know something to be true if you do not even believe it. So, for example, it is incoherent to say, ‘I know that it is raining, but I do not believe it is’.
• Philosophers have disputed the belief condition by arguing that

  knowledge and belief are separable, so that each can exist either with or without the other.
• Rule Utilitarianism


  The right act is one which conforms to a rule which has been shown to produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

  
  

  • Philosopher: Mill
  • Greatest happiness comes from individuals having freedom, but being prevented from harming others (by law).
  • Qualitative hedonistic: focuses on quality rather than pleasure.
  • Higher pleasures: philosophy, literature..(pleasure of mind)
  • Lower pleasures: Food, sex.. (pleasures of body)
  • People will choose small quantity of higher pleasures ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’
• Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism 


  * Improves on Act Utilitarianism -

  avoids tyranny of majority.

  * Universalisability - moral agents (moral agents are those who possess the ability to make moral decisions based on reason) cannot make exceptions for themselves.

  * Focuses on quality of pleasure so avoids repugnant conclusion.

  * Preserves people’s rights e.g. right to life, liberty etc. and sees these as ways of maximising happiness.
• Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism

  H&L pleasures: not all pleasures fit into these categories e.g. yoga

  Some people will argue that lower

  pleasures are better. Also seen as elitist (not everyone can read etc.)

  * Relies on countries laws which can

  change (e.g. homosexuality punishable by death).

  * Not truly utilitarian - values rights over happiness.

  * Fallacy of the composition - each

  person wants their own happiness does not follow that each of us also wants the general happiness. E.g. each person might want to win the lottery but each person does not want everyone to win the lottery.
• Correspondence Theory of Truth


  According to the correspondence theory of truth, a belief is true if it

  corresponds to an actual fact in the world.

  • If there is no fact to match the belief, then the belief is false.
  • Raquel, who believes the earth is flat, does not have knowledge according to this theory, because her belief does not align with the fact that the earth is round.
  • Despite her strong justification—her reasoning—her belief fails the truth condition. Therefore, it cannot be considered knowledge.
• • The correspondence theory, therefore, makes truth necessary for knowledge because a belief must align with external facts
  • According to the coherence theory of truth for a belief to be true it is needed to be accepted as a fact by society as a whole
• Plato argued that we are reluctant to

  grant someone knowledge if they have acquired a true belief by inadequate evidence, or by sheer luck; and a third condition is needed.

  • So if someone claims to know that proposition, then she must be able to justify it by appeal to evidence, since otherwise she is simply making an assumption
• Is justification necessary for knowledge? 


  Plato argued that we are reluctant to

  grant someone knowledge if they have acquired a true belief by inadequate evidence, or by sheer luck; and a third condition is needed.

  • So if S claims to know that p, then she must be able to justify it by appeal to evidence, since otherwise she is simply making an assumption
• Is justification necessary for knowledge?

  A good way of illustrating this point is to consider the example of a racist juror.

  • Suppose the juror comes to believe that a defendant is guilty purely on the basis of the colour of his skin.
  • Let us also suppose that, as a matter of fact, the defendant is guilty.
  • In this case, the juror has a true belief.
  • But is it knowledge?
  • It is generally thought that the answer here must be no, since the juror has no good justification for her belief.
  • Her belief is based on irrational prejudice, not on the evidence presented to her in court
• Act Utilitarianism: The right act is one

  which maximises utility (produces

  the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people)

  Philosopher: Bentham

  Quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism: ultimate goal of all actions is gaining pleasure and avoiding pain.

  • Utility Calculus: tool for calculating how much pleasure will be produced by an act ~ intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (how long will you have to wait for the pleasure), fecundity (will it lead to more pleasure), purity (will it lead to pain), extent (how many people will be affected by the decision).
• Strengths of Act Utilitarianism


  Fits with our general moral code that doing something which makes people happy is good.

  * Egalitarian: makes it fair and objective, considers everyone’s pleasure equally.

  * Clear Decision Procedure: clear

  guidance on what a good act is.
• Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism


  Unrealistic: difficult to not be biased when considering people’s happiness.

  Utility Calculus: impractical tool for

  calculating happiness.

  Ignores intentions: may have good

  intentions but consequences are negative.

  Tyranny of the majority: allows the abuse of individuals if it maximises pleasure for the majority.

  Repugnant conclusion: quantity of pleasure means quality is ignored. Better to have large population who are minimally happy then

  smaller but happier population.

  Epistemic Problem: Impossible to know what will happen in the future.
• Preference Utilitarianism: The right act is one which satisfies the preferences of the greatest number of conscious beings.

  Philosopher: Hare Singer

  • An action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all those affected by the action. A good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.
  • Animals: ‘beings’ means anyone or anything which is capable of conscious thought. Not always easy to know preferences of animals but reasonable to assume being alive, access to food & water, freedom from pain etc.
• What is a strength of Preference Utilitarianism?

  It provides a solution to AU & RU
• Why are preferences easier to determine in Preference Utilitarianism?

  Because we can ask people about their preferences
• What does Nozick's experience machine illustrate about pleasure?

  Pleasure is not the most important focus
• What choices does the experience machine offer according to Nozick?

  Live a happy life in false reality or reality with pain
• What do most people choose regarding the experience machine?

  They choose to live in reality with pain and pleasure
• What does the choice of reality over the experience machine suggest about happiness?

  Happiness/pleasure is not the highest good
• What should we honor according to Preference Utilitarianism?

  Preferences even if they don't maximize happiness