Philo

• Standard form


  A formal way of presenting the argument which makes clear which statements are premises, how many premises there are and which statement is the conclusion. In standard form each premise takes a new line and the conclusion of the argument is listed last. The premises and conclusion are separated by a line called 'the inference bar'.
• How do you put an argument into standard form?

  1. Score out non-statements.

  2. Locate the conclusion.

  3. Which statements are premises (give evidence for

  'C')?

  4. Write out the 'cleaned up' premises in a numbered

  list. Add the conclusion as the final point.

  5. Draw an inference bar.
• False dilemma


  A conclusion is established on the grounds that it is the best of the two options presented in the argument, when in fact more than two options are available.
• Slippery slope


  A conclusion (that an initial first step should not be taken) is established on the grounds that the first step will inevitably lead to further events and/or actions and/or commitments that are undesirable, without providing good reasons to suppose that further events will follow.
• Illegitimate appeal to authority


  A conclusion is established on the grounds of a claim made by an authority when that authority is not established as authoritative on facts relevant to the argument.
• Attacking the person


  A conclusion is established on the grounds that an irrelevant personal characteristic is used as justification for rejecting what someone claims in an argument.
• Argument


  A collection of statements (the premises) put forward support a central claim (the conclusion)
• Statement


  A sentence capable of being true or false. Statements are also known as propositions.
• Non statements


  Expressions of emotion, imperatives (commands) and questions are not statements (they do not have a truth value).
• Premise


  The part of an argument which is intended to defend the conclusion.
• Conclusion


  What an argument attempts to prove the truth of.
• Valid/Invalid


  A valid argument is one which would guarantee a true conclusion if the premises were true. An invalid argument does not guarantee a true conclusion when the premises are true.
• Formal fallacy


  An error in reasoning that is fallacious by virtue of having an invalid structure or form.
• Informal fallacy


  An argument which may be formally valid yet is fallacious because it has false premises or ambiguous terminology or grammar.
• Fallacy


  Errors in reasoning or arguments that fail.
• Reason


  For Kant, reason is the ability to look at things objectively and logically. Reason allows us to see past our own interests and to have freedom from our desires.
• Deontological


  An approach to ethics is deontological if it focuses on the things we have a duty to do or refrain from. Specific actions are either right or wrong for everyone
• Sovereignty of reason


  For Kant, possessing reason sets us apart from animals. As rational beings we are, therefore:

  1. Morally significant

  2. Morally responsible

  3. Equal, in that others possess

  it too

  Morality, for Kant, is where our reason overcomes our (selfish) desires.
• Universal law formulation


  You should only act on a maxim that you can will to become a universal law
• Humanity Formulation


  According to Kant you should never treat someone as a means only. Always an end.
• Good will


  The only thing that is good in itself. Acting out of duty (see deontological) because it is the right thing to do.
• Hypothetical imperatives


  A hypothetical imperative is an 'if...., then...' command. For example, 'if you want to be popular, be mean to people that are weaker than you.' Kant says that hypothetical imperatives can never be moral.
• Categorical imperatives


  An imperative that applies to all in all situations. For example, 'don't steal' or 'always help poor people'.
• "The categorical imperative"


  Kant's big idea. He tries to explain it three ways:

  1. Only do thing that you can will be done all the time, by everyone.

  2. Never treat someone and a means only, always as an end.

  3. Imagine you are the lawmaker in a kingdom of ends.
• Means


  Using someone "purely as a means" is using them to get what you want.
• An 'end'


  Treating someone as a means and an end also is when two parties mutually and willingly use each other to secure their end. For example taking a taxi.
• Contradiction in conception


  On investigation, it become impossible for some actions to be universalised. An action which is illogical in this way (like breaking a promise) is called a contradiction in conception.
• Contradiction of the will

  Some actions can logically be universalised, but we would not 'will' them to be. For example 'never help poor people'.
• Moral Law


  Objective moral rules that are discoverable by using reason.
• Maxim


  A rule which underpins moral action.
• Criticism: Ignoring Consequences

  Kant knew that consequences matter. Despite this his system chooses to define the moral value of an action completely in terms of the will in which it was done. A counterintuitive implication of this is that Kant thinks one should follow one's duty even where the consequences are awful. The axe murderer example shows this clearly.
• Criticism: Conflicting duties


  Kant doesn't tell us how to resolve conflicting duties. Jean-Paul Sartre for example describes a young French man in World War Two who is torn between his duty to support his mother and his duty to his country which would lead him to join the resistance movement. Many would argue that this notion of duty is not quite what Kant had in mind.
• Criticism: Problems with motives

  Kant asks us to accept that the only motive that makes an action morally praiseworthy is if it is done out of a sense of duty to the moral law. This criticism claims that there are other motives that we would want to count as morally valuable. An example would be a parent treating their child preferentially or buying a sandwich for a homeless person out of kindness rather then obligation.
• Impressions


  Sense-experiences from the world and the body

  Enable perception
• Ideas


  Created by the mind

  Enable memory imagination and conceptual thinking
• What is the distinction between impressions and ideas?


  Impressions are more forceful than ideas
• Where did Hume believe ideas come from?

  Hume believed that all ideas originally come from impressions. (The is known as the Copy Principle ).
• What is the difference between simple and complex ideas?

  Simple ideas cannot be broken down into parts (e.g. the idea of a pixel of green).

  Complex ideas can be broken down into parts (e.g. the idea of a blue square).
• What are Humes examples of the distinction between simple and complex ideas?

  Golden mountain - The idea of a golden mountain is created by imagination by combining the idea of 'gold' with the idea of a 'mountain'. Virtuous horse - The idea of a virtuous horse is a concept that we understand because we understand the simpler ideas of 'virtue' and 'horse'.
• What are Humes arguments for his theory about the origin of ideas (the copy principle)?

  1) All ideas can be traced back to earlier impressions, no matter how complex they are. Even the idea of God can be created by augmenting our ideas of love and intelligence.

  2) People without certain kinds of impressions lack the corresponding ideas. People with malfunctioning senses (the blind lack ideas of colour). People without relevant experience (the Laplander who cannot image the taste of wine). Species limitations (we cannot imagine what it is like to experience the world through ultrasound like a bat).