class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Session 1 - Introduction ] .subtitle[ ## SLUH Philosophy Club ] --- # What is Philosophy? - Definition - Etymology of the word - What Philosophy has been historically --- .pull-left.w60[ # _φιλοσοφία_ - Philosophy is the systematic study of fundamental questions, such as those concerning existence, reason, morality, and values. - The word comes from the Greek _φιλο_ (love) and σοφία (wisdom): "love of wisdom" - Historically, philosophy encompassed **all** bodies of knowledge. - Early biologists, physicists, matematicians, doctors, etc., were called _philosophers_, and considered themselves as such. ] .pull-right.w35[ <img src="assets/newton-principia.jpg" alt="" height="500"/> Title page of _The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy_ by Newton (1687) ] --- # Areas of study - As areas of knowlede have matured and become fields of their own, philosophy today focuses on the following areas: - Metaphysics: fundamental nature of reality and existence. - Epistemology: nature of knowledge and belief. - Ethics: morality and theory of value. - Logic: rules of proper reasoning. - These other notable subfields cross over several of these basic areas: - Philosophy of Religion - Philosophy of Science - Political Philosophy - Philosophy of Language - Philosophy of Mind - ... --- 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. --- # 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. ...