class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Discovering your philosophical beliefs ] .subtitle[ ## MSA 2024 ] --- class: middle, center # Metaphysics The study of the basic structure of reality, involving questions regarding existence, modality, and causation. --- # Existence - These things exist: - Chairs, tables - People - ... - These things don't exist: - Unicorns - Moons of Mercury - Perpetual motion machines - The round square The question is... are there _abstract_ objects? Do _numbers_ exist, for example? --- # Question 1 Q1: Philosophers debate whether abstract objects exist – things like numbers or colors. These are not physical objects, but some argue they are also more than just thoughts or ideas in people's minds. They are supposed to be a third kind of object that is neither physical nor mental. Which of these beliefs about abstract objects is closest to your perspective? a. Abstract objects exist. b. No abstract objects exist; everything that exists is concrete (material). --- class: center background-image: url("assets/existence-etymology.png") background-size: contain --- ### What is existence? .center[<img src="assets/existence-etymology.png" width="600">] Existence means _to stand outside (the mind)_. --- # What are abstract objects? If you think abstract objects exist (a), you are a **PLATONIST**. If you think abstract objects do not exist (b), you are a **NOMINALIST**. --- # Truth and existence Consider the statement: "The chair is black." Is it true or false? -- Two ways to falsehood 1. The chair exists but is not black. 2. The chair doesn't exist. One way to truth 1. The chair exists and it is black. According to the truth conditions of claims, if a claim is true, then the objects referred in it _must exist_. --- # Truth and existence Now consider: `\(2 + 2 = 4\)`. Is it true or false? -- Two ways to falsehood 1. Numbers "2", "4" and the operation of _addition_ exist but the result of `\(2+2\)` is not `\(4\)`. 2. Some of the terms don't exist. One way to truth 1. Numbers "2", "4" and the operation of _addition_ exist, and the result of `\(2+2\)` is `\(4\)`. If this sentence is true, then the objects featured in it _must exist_. -- Numbers "2", "4" and the operation _addition_ exist are not material objects, but _abstract_ objects. Thus, abstract objects exist! --- # An argument for platonism 1. If a statement is true, then the objects featured in it must exist. 2. The statement `\(2 + 2 = 4\)` is true. 3. If the statement `\(2 + 2 = 4\)` is true, then the objects `\(2\)`, `\(4\)` and the operation of addition exist. 4. The objects `\(2\)`, `\(4\)` and the operation of addition exist. 5. The objects `\(2\)`, `\(4\)` and the operation of addition are _abstract_ objects. 6. Therefore, abstract objects exist. --- class: medium-font # Nominalism .pull-left.w50[ There are no abstract objects because _there are not non-spaciotemporal and causally inert objects_. This _would mean_ that objects involving abstract objects are always false. So... is `\(2 + 2 = 4\)` strictly speaking false? No, because claims are true only relative to a context. The sentence is true _relative to the context of math_. Compare: - Frodo carried the ring up to the Mount Doom. - Frodo carried flowers up to the Mount Doom. ] .pull-right.w40[ <img src="assets/for-frodo.jpg" alt="" height="500"/> ] --- # Question 2 Q2: A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. The only action you can take to help is to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto another track, where it will kill one person instead. What would you do? a. Pull the lever, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. --- class: middle, center # Ethics The study of morality, including morally right and wrong actions, and other concepts such as rights, justice, obligation, and responsibility. --- # Trolley problem: The switch Most people think that is is morally permissible (or even required) to pull the lever. This response aligns with the moral theory of _consequentialism_. **Consequentialism**: The rightness or wrongness of an act is a matter of what effects that action has. Right actions cause good outcomes and wrong actions cause bad outcomes. A popular version of consequentialism is called _utilitarianism_. **Utilitarianism**: An action is morally required for a person if, and only if, out of all of the actions available to this person, such action maximizes the good and minimizes the bad for all of those affected by the action. --- # Alternative question Imagine a small town where a terrible crime against a child has been committed. People become upset and angry, while riots and violence occur as a result of the crime. If riots continue, there will be some losses of life (from violence, lack of services, etc.). The authorities cannot control the situation nor find the person responsible for the crime; but think that if they charge an innocent person for the crime, peace would finally be restored. Is it morally right to punish an innocent person to avoid life losses? a) Yes, it is morally right to sacrifice the innocent person to avoid a riot that will cause more losses of life. b) No, it is not morally right to sacrifice the innocent person to avoid a riot that will cause more losses of life. --- # Question 3 Q3: A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. You are standing on a footbridge next to a very large person. You know that you could stop the trolley by pushing the large person onto the tracks, which would undoubtedly result in their death. However, it would save the lives of the five people. What would you do? a. Push the large person, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. --- # Trolley problem: The footbridge Most people think that is is not morally permissible to push the large person to stop the train. This response aligns better with the moral theory of _deontologism_. If you said you would not push the large person, thus allowing the trolley to kill the five people, you might be a **deontologist**. **Deontologism**: The rightness or wrongness of an act is a matter of following fundamental moral rules (even if they sometimes might cause worse outcomes). - Fundamental moral rule: Do not kill others. - Golden rule: Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to you. --- ## Kantian ethics - Kant's categorical imperative: - Version 1: _Act only on those maxims that you can reasonably will that they become a universal law_. - Version 2: _Always act so as to treat persons—whether it is your own self or others—as an end in themselves and never merely as a means to an end_. --- # Pull the lever but not push the person? How can we explain the fact that people tend to choose these two seemingly incompatible answers? 1. If people were mostly utilitarian, they would push the large person. 2. If people were mostly deontologist, they would not pull the lever. --- # Question 4 Q4: A trolley is heading towards a group of five people. You are standing on a footbridge next to a very large person. In this case, the large person is standing right on top of a hatch, which you could open by pressing a button. This would make the large person fall to the tracks, which would undoubtedly result in their death. However, it would save the lives of the five people. What would you do? a. Push the button, sacrificing one life to save five. b. Do nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the five people. --- # Other moral theories **Virtue ethics** is the view that the right act is the one that a _virtuous person_, acting out of their virtuous character, would do in that situation. **Divine command theory**: An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it. **Natural law theory**: An act is morally right just because it is consistent with the Natural Law, and morally wrong just because it is inconsistent with the Natural Law. ... --- class: middle, center # Logic The study of _proper_ reasoning. --- # Question 5 Q5: Sophia is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Of these two alternatives, which is more probable? a. Sophia is a financial advisor. b. Sophia is a financial advisor and is active in the feminist movement. --- # Sophia > Q5: Sophia is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Of these two alternatives, which is more probable? Most people answer "(a) Sophia is a financial advisor" over "(b) Sophia is a financial advisor and is active in the feminist movement." Why? -- But this answer is _wrong_. Can you see why? --- # Representativeness heuristic As a matter of logic, there are more financial advisors than financial advisors that are also active in the feminist movement! Our answer seems to be an instance of the representativeness heuristic: > The representativeness heuristic is a mental shortcut that we use when estimating probabilities. When we’re trying to assess how likely a certain event is, we often make our decision by assessing how similar it is to an existing mental prototype. The information given in the prompt about Sophia is more representative of a person that has strong views regarding discrimination and social justice, so we use that "mental prototype" to assess the options. The second option seems to align more with such prototype. --- # Question 6 Q6: Which type of society do you find most preferable? a. A society that emphasizes the community, ensuring every person has the same level of material goods, even if it means sacrificing property rights. b. A society that ensures everyone has equal basic rights and opportunities, but accepts some level of material inequality. c. A society where the government aims to interfere as little as possible, with full property rights and no taxes, allowing the market to be the sole force in the distribution of resources. --- # John Rawls' thought experiment Imagine being part of a group that is embarking on the creation of a brand new society. As a collective, you are tasked with determining the laws and social structure that will govern this community. However, here's the twist: none of you have any knowledge of the roles you or others will assume within this new society, or which skills and abilities will be highly valued. For instance, individuals could be young or old, male or female, experiencing disability, proficient in math, art, humanities, sports, and so on. The choices you make in this thought experiment will dictate how the burdens and benefits of society are distributed. With that in mind, what kind of rules would you opt for? a) A society in which liberty is the main principle, and the government tries to interfere as little as possible. b) A society in which everyone's basic needs are met, and where equal opportunities exist for individuals to pursue any career or endeavor they desire. --- # Distributive justice .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Justice__: Individuals should get what is fair or what is owed to them. __Distributive justice__: The benefits and burdens of society should be distributed in an equitable and fair manner. ] ] If you chose option b, you are probably an **Egalitarian**. You think that fundamentally, people are equal in very important ways, and recognition of this fact should give us pause when confronted with systems that distribute benefits and burdens in in unequal ways, unless those unequal distributions have very good justification. - John Rawls: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. - Difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. --- # Distributive justice .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Justice__: Individuals should get what is fair or what is owed to them. __Distributive justice__: The benefits and burdens of society should be distributed in an equitable and fair manner. ] ] If you chose option a, you are probably an **Libertarian**. You strongly value individual freedom and maintain that governments have no right to interfere with individual choice and liberty without very strong reasons to do so. You believe that people can be coerced into respecting the freedom of others, and this is the primary role of government. But you also believe that governments should not coerce individuals into serving the ‘greater good.’ In fact, you probably even believe that people should not be coerced into serving their own personal interests by the government. --- # Question 7 Q7: Which statement best represents your belief about God? a. I believe God exists. b. I believe God does not exist. c. I do not hold any belief (either for or against) the existence of God. --- # Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury) 1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought. 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. Something that exists both as an idea in the mind and in reality is, all else being equal, greater than something that exists _only_ as an idea in the mind. 4. If God existed _only_ as an idea in the mind, then God _would not_ something of which nothing greater can be thought. 5. But God is something of which nothing greater can be thought. 6. Therefore, it cannot be that God exists _only_ as an idea in the mind, it must exist in reality as well. 6. Therefore, God exists as an idea in the mind and in reality. 7. Therefore, God exists in reality. --- # The problem of evil Our idea of God is _logically incompatible_ with the observation that there is suffering in the world. It seems that these propositions can't be _all_ true at the same time. So, _as a fact of logic only_, at least one of them should be false. 1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful). 2. God is omniscient (all-knowing). 3. God is omni-benevolent (wholly morally good). 4. Evil exists. --- # Pascal's Wager - If you believe in God... - ...__and God exists__, you go to heaven (positive infinite value). - ...__and God doesn't exist__, you lose a little (time, pleasure from sins, etc.). - If you _don't_ believe in God... - ...__and God exists__, you go to hell (negative infinite value). - ...__and God doesn't exist__, you gain nor lose nothing. Which action has greater expected utility? -- 1. Believing in God has more expected utility than not believing in God. 2. A rational agent always acts so as to maximize expected utility. 3. Therefore, a rational agent would believe in God. --- # Question 8 Q8: The mind enables us to think and be aware of the world. It also allows us to experience sensations, have desires, and feel emotions. Is the mind a physical entity? a. The mind is entirely physical, such as the brain. b. The mind is non-physical, existing as something different from the brain. --- # Philosophy of Mind Is the mind physical? - If you think it is, you are probably a **PHYSICALIST**. - If you think it isn't, you are probably an **ANTI-PHYSICALIST**. --- # Physicalism It is assumed that the mind can cause behavior (I can resolve in my mind to raise my hand and then raise it). If the mind is non-physical, how can it cause behavior? _Causal closure of the physics domain_: physical effects have only physical causes. My decision to raise my mind is a _pure physical_ event. --- # Anti-physicalism Imagine **philosophical zombies**: Creatures that are exactly like us in _all physical respects_ but _without conscious experiences_. By definition there _is nothing it is like_ to be a zombie. 1. If physicalism is true, then it is logically impossible for philosophical zombies to exist. 2. It is logically possible for philosophical zombies to exist. 3. Therefore, physicalism is false. --- # Question 9 Q9: Philosophers debate whether we can acquire knowledge about the world through observation. Some argue that it is impossible to know anything about reality since we can never directly experience it (our only access is through our senses, which can be deceiving). Which of the following best characterizes your view? a. The universe is a physical reality that we can comprehend through science and observation. b. We cannot obtain any knowledge about reality. --- # Skepticism Can we _know_ anything about the world via our senses? - If you think we do, you are a **EXTERNAL-WORLD REALIST**. - If you think we don't, you are a **EXTERNAL-WORLD SKEPTIC**. --- class: medium-font # External-world skepticism .pull-left.w40[ <img src="assets/apple.png" alt="" height="350"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ Your sensory experience helps you discriminate between the following possibilities: - This is an apple and not a door. - This is an apple and not a flower. - This is an apple and not an orange. ] --- class: medium-font # External-world skepticism .pull-left.w40[ <img src="assets/brain-in-vat.jpg" alt="" height="350"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ Your sensory experience helps you discriminate between the following possibilities: - This is an apple and not a door. - This is an apple and not a flower. - This is an apple and not an orange. But your sensory experience _does not help you_ discriminate between the following possibilities: - This is a real apple. - My brain is really in a bucket connected to a computer, which is feeding me the experience of an apple (so there's no apple). - I'm having a very vivid dream of seeing an apple in an MSA class (but there's no MSA class). ] --- # Question 10 Q10: Imagine there’s a machine that could make you experience anything you desire. When connected to this machine, you can feel what it’s like to be rich, be a celebrity, bring about world peace, or have an amazing and loving partner. You can fully experience the pleasures of these things as if they were real. If an experience doesn’t go as you hoped, you can reset or change it as much as you want. However, once you connect, you cannot return to reality. Would you connect to this machine and experience unlimited happiness, or stay in the real world? a. Yes, I would like to connect to this experience machine. b. No, I would like to stay in the real world. --- # The question of value What has intrinsic, as opposed to instrumental value? -- _Epicureans_ believe that what has intrinsic value is __pleasure__ (the absence of pain). Is pleasure the only thing that has intrinsic value? --- # Question 11 Q11: Imagine someone tells you that you are currently connected to an experience machine, meaning everything and everyone you know is not real. This person also says there’s a way to disconnect and return to the real world. However, in reality, your life might be radically different from your current experience: you could be an elderly person, an inmate, a rich person, a person of another sex or from another country, etc. The person also tells you that you can choose to stay in the machine and forget this information. Assume everything this person says is true. Would you choose to disconnect from the machine and face the real world, or stay in the machine and choose to forget this information? a. Disconnect from the machine and return to reality. b. Stay in the machine and forget this information.