Philosophy notes for Dummies

AS
By Chih-Wei Liu
Edited by Richard Collett-White

*Not a suitable replacement for actual teaching

1
Contents:

2
Philosophy of
Religion

3
 The Cosmological Argument

At a glance:

Infers the existence of God from the cosmos (and seeks to

establish our continued dependence on Him)

A posteriori - looks at the world to come to conclusions

about God

Put forth by Aquinas (First 3 ways), Copleston, Leibniz and

others (Kalam argument)

Critics: Ockham, Hume, Kant, Martin Lee

Uncaused Causer:
Aquinas:
First argument centred on the fact that everything is put
Unmoved Mover
into motion. This one focuses on things as causal agents.
Uncaused Causer
 Everything has a cause
Possibility and Necessity
 Every cause has its own cause

Unmoved Mover:  There cannot be infinite regress

Change is a form of motion: Aquinas was particularly inter-  Therefore there is an uncaused cause which causes
ested with change of state (e.g. water - solid/liquid/gas) everything but is not caused itself

Movement from potentiality to actuality  This is what everyone understands to be God

What is potentially x, is not actually x, but must be brought

about by something that is actually x (see diagram p4)
Possibility and Necessity
Whatever is changed, must be changed by something else
Attempts to establish de re necessity—necessary in and of
Put simply: itself
 Everything
Everything
is inismotion
in motion
or change
or change
is moved
is moved
or changed
or
 Ordinary
Ordinary
things
things
are are
contingent
contingent
(they
(they
cancan
perish)
perish)
by something
changed byelsesomething else
 If allIfthings
all things
are are
contingent
contingent
there
there
mustmust
havehave
been been
a time
a
 Infinite
Infinite
regress
regress
is impossible
is impossible
(or there
(or there
is no
is reason
no reason
for
when time nothing
when existed
nothingas
existed
given infinite
as giventime
infinite
all possibili-
time all
the for
movement
the movement
in the first
in the
place)
first place) tiespossibilities
would be realised
would be realised
 Therefore
Therefore
there
there
must
must
be an
be unmoved
an unmovedmover
mover
whowhostarts
 Nothing
Nothing
cancan
come
come
from
from
nothing
nothing
off the
starts
chain
off the
while
chain
not while
being not
moved
being
itself.
moved itself.
 Therefore,
Therefore,
there
there
must
must
be abe
necessary
a necessary
being
being
(God)
(God)
who
 ThisThis
is what
is what
everyone
everyone
understands
understands
to be
to God
be God
bought
whothings
boughtinto
things
existence
into existence

Other Forms of the argument:

Kalam Argument
 Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its exist-
ence
 Since the universe began to exist, it too has a cause
 This cause transcends the universe—this is God
Leibniz: principle of sufficient reason
In any case of positive truth, there is some sufficient rea-
son for it. The world does not seem to have a reason with-
in itself, so there must be some external reason which has
no reason beyond itself. There cannot be infinite regress,
or it would fail to provide a sufficient reason.

4
 The Cosmological Argument
Criticisms:
William of Ockham
Infinite series is not impossible:
 Originating causes, not conserving ones
 E.g. a mother who brings a child to the world does not
have to live for the baby to retain existence
 Important because Aquinas wanted to establish our
continued dependence on God
What caused the first cause?
 Each argument contains a contradiction which is only
solved by putting God in a special category (ad-hoc hy-
pothesis)
Hume:
Like causes resemble like effects:
 We can only derive finite causes from finite effects
 So why not postulate male and female gods who are
born and die, similar to us as agents of change?
We have no experience of universes being made:
 Cause and effect can only be established after many
incidences of seeing the relationship play out
If necessary means ‘imperishable’, then couldn’t the uni-
verse itself be necessary?
 Matter remaining constant, but changing form
All existential propositions are synthetic:
 Any claimed being may or may not exist—cannot be
logically necessary
 Aquinas was not establishing ’de dicto’ necessity, but
’de re’
Potentiality to Actuality: (see Unmoved Mover, p3)
Kant:
Cannot move from physical premises to metaphysical con-
clusions
 We cannot experience God, so we cannot reason our
way to him (Kant suggests moral reasoning over specu-
lative reasoning—see Moral argument)
 We can only know about phenomena, not noumena
Martin Lee
If totality is the aggregate of individual objects (Referring
to Aquinas’ 3rd way/Copleston), once you have explained
everything within it there is nothing left to explain.
Does the argument lead to the God of classical theism?
Aquinas makes a jump from establishing a cause, to nam-
ing it God.
Even then, he arrives at the Wholly Simple God
 Uncomplicated
 Pure actuality
 Bodiless
 Timeless/spaceless
However, this God does not have a personality in any
straightforward sense
 Tension between the wholly simple God and the God of
the Bible
 Deism would suffice
5
 The Cosmological Argument

Copleston vs. Russell radio debate (1948)

Copleston: Russell:

Provided the simplest cosmological argument Pointed out a jump in Copleston’s argument

 Everything in the world is contingent—dependent on  Cannot move from things in the world are contingent
something else for existence to the whole universe is contingent

 The universe is simply the totality of contingent things  Likened this to moving from ‘every human has a moth-
and is itself contingent er’ to ‘the human race has a mother’

 Given that the universe is contingent, there must be Even if one were to accept that everything is contingent,
something on which it depends one could maintain that the universe itself is necessary
(same as Hume’s point)
 This is God
2 further assumptions:

“The universe is just there, and that is all”  Whatever the universe depends on must be necessary

Russell rejected the idea of a contingent universe  It is the God of religious belief

The universe ‘just is’ - it is brute fact

Copleston was exasperated

 Saw this as Russell refusing to even engage in debate

 “If one refuses to even sit down at the chessboard and

make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.”

Acceptance of brute fact rules out need for an explanation

 Greg Hughes: “Any child of 5 could see that the ques-

tion ‘Why is there a universe at all’ is a reasonable one”

The key issue is whether the universe as brute fact is more

self-explanatory than God as the cause of the universe.

Answer me you fool!

I know you are but
what am I?

6
 The Teleological Argument

At a glance:

Infers the existence of God from the order and design of

the universe.

A posteriori - Begins with empirical ‘fact’ and establishes

dependence on God through analogy.

Put forth by Aquinas, Paley, Hume (as Cleanthes)

Critics: Hume, Darwin, Mill, Dawkins

Induction and Analogy Paley:

Induction: reasoning applicable to a posteriori knowledge If I stumbled upon a stone I could account for it through
(produces propositions that are contingently true or false) chance factors such as wind/rain etc.

Deduction: reasoning applicable to a priori knowledge
(produces propositions that are necessarily true or false)
E.g. This triangle is red is inductive, as I use my senses to
interpret empirical data.
This triangle has three sides is deductive, as to deny this
would contradict the meaning of a triangle .
However, the same is not true for a watch:
 Such is its complexity that it would be absurd to sup-
pose that it came to be through chance
 Thus, we must postulate some intelligence at work: a
watchmaker
Paley claims his conclusion is not weakened:

 If we have never seen a watch being made

Analogy is a form of induction
 If the watch can, and sometimes does go wrong
It is an argument from resemblances , which are used to
 If there are parts that we do not understand
support additional claims.

An argument from analogy is never conclusive, but is a

matter of higher and lower probabilities.

Paley extends his reasoning to the universe: Design qua purpose:

Cites examples in nature that exhibit design - e.g. the human eye The argument that the Universe
Hume summarises (through the character Cleanthes): appears to have been designed to
fulfil some purpose
 Man-made machines act to achieve some end or goal (telos)

 The universe, though infinitely more complex, resembles a vast man-made ma-
chine Design qua regularity:

 Man-made machines are the product of intelligent design The argument that the Universe
appears to behave according to
 Like effects have like causes some order or rule e.g. Newton's
Therefore: laws of motion

 The universe is probably the product of an intelligent being

 This is God

7
 The Teleological Argument
Criticisms:
Hume
The universe is unique:
 Analogy relies on resemblances
 The greater the difference, he weaker the inference
 We cannot justify any analogy which includes the uni-
verse as it is unique
 We have nothing else comparable to it.
Swinburne rejects this: the human race is unique but an-
thropologists still look at out roots and studying our ances-
tors. The universe is unique but not indescribable.
There is a diversity of causal explanation:
 Design can be accounted for through other means
Can’t the universe be seen as a ‘Great vegetable’?
 In the biological world, principles of instinct, generation
and vegetation operate to produce an ordered world
without external intelligent agency.
Epicurean hypothesis:
 Order is the result of chance collisions of particles of
matter
 After many ages there would be order
 Authentic design vs. Apparent design
There is no good reason to use a theistic explanation over
any other.
Proportionality:
 If we follow the analogy as closely as possible, we get a
God that is different to that of classical theism
Attributes to be excluded:
 Infinity: from finite objects we can only infer a finite
cause (see Cosm. Argument)
 Perfection: Examples of imperfection in the world lead
to an imperfect designer (cause is proportional to
effect)
Suggests a trainee or senile God. Was this universe a first,
failed attempt?
Hume
Proportionality continued:
Attributes to be included:
 Many gods working to create the world, much like
when humans collaborate.
 These gods would be anthropomorphic (closer resem-
blance to us as designers)
 Maybe God no longer exists: an architect does not have
to outlive his building to sustain it.
Darwin:
Supports Hume’s argument about diversity of causal expla-
nation
 Prime mover of the universe was not purpose, but
chance
 Epicurean hypothesis did in fact have scientific support.
Principal of Natural Selection:
Mechanism for evolutionary change
 Those animals best suited to their environment survive
and produce offspring with the same advantage, while
those who are not die out. Sub-optimal animals die
out, leaving animals which seem so perfectly adapted
as to have a designer. Survival of the fittest.
Darwin looked at breeding:
 If breeder could select traits, so could nature, acting as
the world’s ‘breeder’ - in a much more varied and po-
tent form. BUT nature does not do this actively it is a
passive mechanism.
 Variations are slight, but become more pronounced
over time.
Seems to account convincingly for the orderliness of the
8
 The Teleological Argument

More Criticisms:

Darwin’s additional criticisms

Added cruelty to Hume’s list of attributes to be included.

(Similar to Mill’s point)

 If an innocent man is killed by lightning, is it God’s de-

sign that he should die?

 If death is not designed, why should birth be?

Natural selection is frequently wasteful and cruel: Irreducible Complexity:

 The god implied by evolution is far from benevolent
 Totally unconcerned for his creatures and almost total-
ly unmoved by suffering that he has planned.
Post-Darwinian Teleological theories:
Responses to Darwin:
 Darwin himself accepted if it could be proved that an
organ could not have come evolved through a step by
step process, his theory would ‘absolutely break down’.
Behe argued such systems exist:
 Flagellar motor of a bacterium only works with all its
many proteins working together.

 Evolution could be the means by which God executed
design.
 BUT The whole point of natural selection is that it re-
quires no God and this seems to be merely an attempt
to retrofit God onto natural selection.
Natural selection does not account for our moral develop-
ment or our appreciation of beauty (aesthetic principle) as
they have no evolutionary benefit.
 This line of thinking replaces amazement at physical
phenomena (the eye) with mental phenomena
(intelligence, aesthetic appreciation)
Intelligent Design:
Certain features are better explained by an intelligent
cause rather than an undirected process
Anthropic principle:
Natural selection selects functionally advantageous sys-
tems, but motor function would only ensue after all the
parts have independently self-assembled. There would be
no advantage to the cell until after the motor was com-
plete. So why would they have formed in the first place?
Specified Complexity:
William Dembski
Argued that specified complexity points to an intelligent
cause.
 A single letter is specified without being complex
 A long sequence of random letters is complex but not
specified.
 A sonnet is both complex and specified
DNA is like this

 Design in the universe is for the specific purpose of

developing intelligent life

 Natural selection does not explain the origin of organ-

isms because it cannot explain the extraordinary coinci-
dences needed to produce them. Only describes what
happens after the origin.

 ‘Fine tuned universe’ - a miniscule change in the Big

Bang would have prevented life from evolving– it is
implausible this happened by chance
Bacterial flagellar motor

9
 The Ontological Argument
At a glance:
The only ‘a priori’ argument—(deductive)
Moves from a definition of God to the reality of God.
Put forth by: Anselm, Descartes, Norman Malcolm, Alvin
Plantinga
Critics: Aquinas, Gaunilo, Kant, Hume, Russell
Analytic and synthetic statements:
Predicate: A proposition that is affirmed or denied of a
subject/thing
E.g. This dress is red (red is the predicate, it is affirmed)
Analytic statements:
 The predicate is included with the subject, “triangles
have three sides”
 Analytical statements are either logically and necessari-
ly true or false. (The case above is necessarily true or
there would be a contradiction)
 Relies on linguistic convention, independent of senses
(a priori)
 Arrived at through deduction
Synthetic statements:
 The predicate is not included in the subject
 It adds information that is not implied by the predicate
 Can only be verified by empirical evidence (a posteriori)
e.g. all apples are green
 Arrived at through induction
Oh crap
Analytical existential propositions:
Anselm held that “God exists” is analytic
His existence is contained within the definition of God.
Aquinas believed we cannot fully comprehend God’s na-
ture. If we could, then he would agree that ‘God exists’ is
analytic—but we can’t.
 So we must argue instead from our experience of him
in the world around us (See other arguments)
Anselm: moves from an idea to reality - from de dicto to
de re necessity (Similar to Plato, reasoning without help of
the senses)
Aquinas: a posteriori (similar to Aristotle’s scientific obser-
vations)
Anselm’s first argument:
Starts with a definition: “God is that than which nothing
greater can be conceived”
Implies that God possesses all great-making qualities,
which includes existence.
 It is one thing to exist in the mind and another to exist
in both mind and reality
 It is greater to exist in both
 Therefore God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
If he did not, we could conceive of something that did,
which would be greater than God.
 This contradicts the definition of God so therefore God
exists in mind and reality.
Anselm’s second argument:
 God is the greatest possible being
 It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent
being (might not exist)
 If God exists only contingently, we could conceive of a
greater being who exists necessarily
 This cannot be, according to the above definition of
God
 Therefore God necessarily exists
10
 The Ontological Argument
Gaunilo:
Challenged Anselm with the Lost Island argument
 If the lost island is the greatest that can be conceived,
it too must exist or else it is not the greatest argument.
(Using the same reasoning to prove the existence of
things that clearly don’t exist)
Anselm’s reply: only God has all perfections, so the argu-
ment only applies to him
Platinga: “most excellent island” is as meaningless as “the
highest number” - no intrinsic maximum (it can always be
added to).
Anselm held that knowledge, power and goodness do have
intrinsic maximums:
 Perfect knowledge: knowing all true propositions
 Perfect power: able to do everything that is possible to
do
Anselm successfully counters Gaunilo as long as all proper-
ties essential to the notion of God can be said to have in-
trinsic maximums. (Or there would be incoherency)
Descartes:
Proposed another version of the argument:
 Just as we cannot conceive of a triangle without three
sides, we cannot think of God without conceiving of
him existing.
 It is the essence of God (as a being with all perfections)
that he exists, for existence is a perfection which must
be included in his essence.
 Therefore, existence must be affirmed of God.
Descartes qualifies his argument against criticism’s like
Gaunilo’s
 Argument only applies to an absolutely perfect being
 Not everyone has to think of God, but when they do,
he cannot be thought of not to exist
 God is the only being whose essence entails exist-
ence—cannot be two such beings.
Don’t worry, it’s nearly over….
Aquinas
We do not have an agreed definition of God
 Even if we did we have no way of knowing if it is true.
We can only reason to God from the effects of his actions
‘a posteriori’.
Kant’s challenges
Necessity applies to linguistic convention
 Applies to propositions (de dicto), not reality (de re)
 No matter how much you develop an idea, you must go
outside it by getting empirical evidence for its exist-
ence. (Hume)
Existence is not a predicate or a perfection
 Does not add anything to the concept of something as
it is not a property
 To say a hundred pounds is real rather than imaginary
is separate from the characteristics of the 100 pounds.
It is still a pile of shiny coins no matter whether it exists
or not.
 Therefore it is not a predicate which is essential to our
understanding
We do not add anything to the concept when we declare
that it exists. If existence is a separate ‘property’, our con-
cept of the thing in our mind would not correspond exactly
to the thing in reality as it would be lacking this property.
As a result, we can never think of anything that truly exists
in our minds as every concept in our minds lacks this
‘separate property’. I am thinking of the banana I bought,
but I cannot be thinking of that exact banana because it
exists and has that extra property. This is evidently absurd
Russell: to say something exists is merely pointing pout
that the concept is instantiated , it is not part of the con-
cept
It is not self-contradictory to reject both subject and predi-
cate
 We cannot think of a triangle while rejecting its three
sides, but we can reject the triangle entirely.
 Same applies for an absolutely necessary being
 The arguments only tell us what God would be like if he
did exist, not whether he actually exists. (I.e. He would
exist in mind and reality and would exist necessarily)
11
 The Ontological Argument
Norman Malcolm’s version of the ontological argument:

 If God does not already exist, he cannot come into existence—this would require a cause and make him a limited be-
ing.

 If he does exist, he cannot cease to exist or he would be limited

 Therefore, either God’s existence is impossible or necessary.

 It could only be impossible if it were logically absurd or contradictory, which it is not.

 Therefore his existence must be necessary

Furthermore, He cannot ‘merely possibly exist’ as this would make Him dependent, which is contrary to the definition of
God.

Kant: Only if God exists, does he exist necessarily.

Malcolm has reasoned to God’s logical necessity but not his factual necessity

Malcolm's argument is all very well and good in his own mind, but to actually prove that all this is real requires more than
fancy thoughts, but also evidence from the world around us.

12
 The Moral Argument
At a glance:

Uses the existence of morality or some feature of morality

to imply the existence of God

Put forth by: John Newman, Kant

Critics: Bertrand Russell, Freud

The nature of moral experience:

For many, God is the only satisfactory explanation for our

Is there really an objective morality?
sense of morality.
The argument rests on the assumption that an objective
There seems to be a universal experience that there is
reality exists.
right and wrong
However, there are other views which do not require God
 Not everyone agrees on what is right or wrong, but
as an explanation.
they all see that there is a concept of right or wrong.
Cultural relativism:
 We appeal to some moral authority that is more than
mere pragmatism (which is concerned with what  Morality is the product of different human cultures
works)
 Based on social history and customs
Rightness and wrongness seem to be independent of how
 Morality differs from culture to culture
we feel about them.
Emotivism:
 There appears to be objective moral truths
 When someone says an act is wrong, they are not
stating a fact, but an emotion or attitude.
John Newman: Argument from conscience
Evolution:
Obedience and guilt only seem meaningful if there is one
to whom responsibility is due.  Humans who had the notion to be kind, helpful etc.
were more likely to survive in the process of natural
Why do we feel guilty even on our own?
selection.
 Law implies a lawgiver, commands imply a commander
Unjust societies are a threat to their members. It is better
 Morality consists of a set of commands for everyone to be just and enjoy the benefits of a just
 Therefore there is a commander that commanded mo- society.
rality

 Commands only carry as much authority as their com-

mander

 Morality has absolute authority

 Therefore the commander of morality carries ultimate

authority

 Only God has ultimate authority

 Therefore the commander of morality is God

 God exists

13
 The Moral Argument
Kant Argument from absolute moral values:
Argued that there is no sound speculative proof for God’s Rashdall and Sorley
existence.
 There is an absolute moral law
However, he suggested moral reasoning can do what spec-
 People are conscious of this and accept the demands it
ulative reasoning cannot.
makes, even if they break it
 Suggests that the existence of God could be necessarily
 No finite mind grasps what the whole of this law entails
presupposed in the moral consciousness.
 Ideas, exist only in the mind
Three postulates of practical reason:

Freedom:  Therefore there is a supreme mind, beyond all finite

minds, in which absolute moral law exists.
 If we were not free to make our own judgements, mo-
rality would be an illusion  This mind is the mind of God

Immortality:

Kant assumes the universe is fair.

 It makes sense that virtue is rewarded with happiness

and the joining of the two is the ‘Summum bonum’ (the
highest good)

 We ought to be moral and do our duty and ‘ought im-

plies can’: if it is impossible to do something, there can
be no obligation to do it. So it is possible for us to be
virtuous and achieve the summum bonum.

 BUT we should only ever act out of duty, not a promise

of the summum bonum

 In this life, virtue is not always rewarded with happi-

ness

 Therefore there must be an afterlife where the sum-

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!
mum bonum is finally achieved
Criticisms:
God:
Ought implies can?
 God is necessary to guarantee this fairness
 If Kant meant it was logically possible to bring about
the summum bonum all he is saying is there isn’t a logi-
cal contradiction

 Does not mean it factually happens

 If he meant it factually happens—why? Why must the

universe be fair? How can we know?

 Ought only implies that we can seek to promote the

highest good. Does not require full realisation to be
possible.

 E.g. it is rational to seek to improve the condition of

human life, but it is useless to entertain notions of per-
fecting it.

14
 The Moral Argument
Freud’s criticisms:

We develop psychological mechanisms through our rela-

tionships with our parents.

Theses mechanisms, buried deep in our subconscious are

what we call the conscience.

Three sections to the mind:

The ego (the conscious):

 The personality the outside world sees

 Conforms to the reality principle—seeks to please the

id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit the long Bertrand Russell’s disproof of God
term.
Uses the Euthyphro dilemma to disprove God
The id:
 By definition, God has to be the most perfect being
The id is the unconscious part of our brain
 If there is a moral law, it stems either from God or it
 Controlled by the pleasure principle—compels us to
does not.
find gratification (e.g. sexual drive)
 If the law comes from God (Divine command theory)
The superego:
then God is arbitrary.
 Aims for perfection
 If it does not then God is subject to it
 Controls the impulses of the Id
 So God is either not essentially good (as he is arbitrary
 Conforms to the expectation parents and society about what is right or wrong) or he is subject to an in-
dependent standard
 Acts as our conscience
 Neither an arbitrary God nor a less than ultimate God is
So our conscience is the result of conditioning—moral
worthy of worship.
awareness is the super-ego of the mind. A moral police-
man developed through childhood.

Thoughts on Freud:

 Where’s the scientific proof? His studies were based on

a limited population of upper class Austrian women
living in the strict 1900s

15
 Plato
At a glance: Analogy of the divided line:

Student of Socrates Outlines the progression from ignorance to knowledge

Analogy of the Cave  Four stages which pass from the visible world (that of
opinion) to the intelligible world (that of knowledge)
Analogy of the divided line
 At each stage there is a parallel between the type of
Theory of Forms
object exposed to the mind and the type of thought it
makes possible.
The Theory of Forms:

The Sophists:

 Rejected the existence of true knowledge

 Impressed by the variety and change in the world

 Argued that knowledge is relative and comes from ex-

perience

Plato:

 There are fixed truths

 Empirical knowledge is indeed relative, so it is flawed The analogy of the cave:

(subject to the changing nature of the world) 1. Prisoners are chained facing a wall:
 Advocated a priori knowledge (before sense experi-  They look at the shadows of objects held by men pass-
ence) ing along the roadway.
He distinguishes between: Stage: imagining
The visible world  The shadows cast on the wall are the prisoners’ only
 Where we live—material and quick to change perception of reality.

The intelligible world where ‘the forms’ reside:  They do not realise they are mere reflections of the
truth
 These ‘forms’ (ideas) are unchanging and eternal
 Imagining is the acceptance of sense experience as
 More real than the world of appearances - deals with
reality - deals with images
knowledge, not opinion
E.g. poetry and art
 The forms are perfect counterparts to things in our
world (which are mere shadows of the forms) A painting of a man is three stages removed from the ideal
form of man
All things in our world participate in the corresponding
ideal form. Ideal form ——> actual man in our world———>artist’s
impression of the man——>the painting
Allows us to gain knowledge despite variety and change
Most of society is at this stage.
 We recognise terriers and Labradors as dogs because
they share in the ideal form of a dog.

 Knowledge of the forms accounts for our innate sense

of things, as our souls pre-exist our bodies and have
known the forms before.

 Knowledge is a kind of recollection

16
 Plato

2. One prisoner is then set free: 3. Prisoner is dragged out of the cave:

His eyes hurt - the path to truth is hard At first the sun is blinding, but he gets used to it.

Stage: Belief He has moved from the visible to the intelligible world.

 Deals with seeing actual objects Recognises reflections and eventually sees that shadows
are merely poor representations of the truth.
 The prisoner sees the actual objects causing the shad-
ows Stage: Thinking

 However, sight is not always certain (optical illusions)  Beginning to recognise common features in objects of
and restricts us to a certain context. the same class

 The prisoner has seen the real objects, but in the con-  Use of hypotheses - isolated truths that depend on a
text of the cave. higher one

 Corresponds to mathematical objects.

4. Understanding the Sun:

Prisoner now understands separate truths, such as the fact

that things are visible and that there are seasons.

However, when he understands the sun (the form of the

Good) he understands the relation between these truths.

 Disparate elements of knowledge (hypotheses) are

united by the form the Good. Just as the sun illumi-
nates all things.

Everything is connected - no need for hypotheses

Stage: Knowledge

Reaches the world of forms - true knowledge

The form of the Good is the greatest form and all other
5. Going back to the cave: forms participate in it.

The prisoner goes back to the cave and tries to educate

the others.

 However, now he cannot see well in the dark and so

cannot join the game of guessing the order of shadows.

 The others laugh at him and conclude that going out-

side is a bad idea.

 They will kill anyone who tries to free them.

(Link to Socrates’ death after ‘promoting atheism and cor-

rupting the young’)

The freed prisoner represents the role of the philosopher, A true leader?
which is to lead society to true knowledge.

17
 Plato

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Strengths: Is something wrong?

Corresponds with what we know

 Sense perception is flawed

Explains our innate sense of things

 We can judge beauty without having seen perfect

beauty

Explains why there are imperfections

Encourages us to learn, not just to accept things at face

value

Weaknesses:

Abstract ideas are not true reality, they do not exist objec-
tively

 Materialist view: they are invented to describe our ex-

perience of the material world

 A tree exists because we have had previous experience

of a tree, not some innate knowledge of an ideal form

Cannot prove the realm of the forms exists

 Concepts can exist in our world

The forms are supposed to be more real, but they do not

help us make sense of the world we live in.

 The appearance of a wall after running into it seems

much more real than the ideal concept of a wall, which
is vague and irrelevant.

The theory works better with some things than others

 Ideal cancer?

 Ideal dirt?

Infinite regression

 What constitutes a form? Mammals or species or sub-

species? We end up with a form of a form of a form

 Renders the theory impractical.

We rely on our senses everyday

 We have relied on them for survival for hundreds of

thousands of years. Yet, Plato disregards them.

18
 Aristotle
At a glance:

Plato’s most famous student

Scientist - dealt with empirical facts

Led to a philosophy that broke away from Plato in some

regards.

Change in the world

Four Causes

Unmoved Mover

View on knowledge and truth: Substance, Matter and Form:

Knowledge and truth can be gained from experience (a Matter: what something is made of
posteriori)
Form: what something is made into
Rejected world of forms
Substance: matter combined with form, it is the essence of
Universals do exist (or scientific knowledge would be im- something
possible)
No such things as pure matter or pure form
 However, they only exist in the physical world
 Any random piece of wood still has a form even before
Knowledge is not recollection of the forms, but the idea of use.
a ‘form’ is built up through contact with the material
 Shaping the wood to make a spear changes the form,
world.
but not the matter.
Aristotle believed that the forms can not help us under-
This is different to Plato:
stand our world
 Form is intrinsically linked with matter, cannot exist as
 Their immutability is at odds with our world, which is
a separate idea (without the idea of matter). Forms can
full of motion and change
change.
Led to his thoughts on cause and the unmoved mover.

Change

Everything is in motion (changing)

 Growth, decay, generation etc.

Can be natural or the result of humans

 Natural things have their own principle of change

 Artificial things have their form imposed on them by

someone

 Words do not group naturally into a play, but grass will

always grow straight given the right conditions.

Most important from of change: potentiality to actuality

 A seed is potentially a tree, so a tree is the actual reali-

sation of that potential.

19
 Aristotle
The Four Causes Everything is changing, moving towards its final cause
Aristotle accounted for everything with his four causes Moving from potentiality to actuality
Material Cause:  Potentiality: what something can become
 What something is made of  Actuality: fulfilment of that potential
 Not limited to material things e.g., hypotheses are the  This fulfilment is perfection according to Aristotle.
material cause of conclusions.

Formal Cause: Strengths of the Four Causes:

What the thing is, its form From sense perception we only learn the what of some-
 E.g. straightness is the formal cause of a geometric line. thing. E.g. snow is cold. We do not learn why.

Efficient Cause:  From the final cause we can understand on the pur-
pose of something or why it is that way.
 What brought about the motion or change for it to end
up as it is. Does not rely on the existence of an abstract world like
Plato
The Final Cause:

 The most important one

 The reason something exists, its goal

 Most important because without a goal in mind, an

action cannot be performed.

 Cannot hit a bulls-eye without the intention to shoot

an arrow

 Final causes exist in both human contrivances and na-

ture.

 E.g. the final cause of an acorn is to grow into an oak

tree

E.g. A bust of Aristotle

Material cause: stone

Criticisms of the Four Causes:
Formal cause: a statue
Some things have no purpose: appendix
Efficient cause: Richard the sculptor
Do things like war and rape have a purpose? Is their fulfil-
Final Cause: to celebrate Aristotle’s work
ment perfection?

What determines an end?

 Is love of medicine sufficient for studying it, or must

one want to become a doctor?

Aristotle gives no guidance on analysing moral situations

 How do we know whether a choice will lead to our ulti-

mate goal?

Do all things have a moving cause, or do they merely come

into being?

20
 Aristotle

The Unmoved Mover The nature of the Unmoved Mover

Explanation for motion in the universe
Actuality precedes potentiality
 Actuality is prior since we can think of something actual
without thinking of the potentiality that preceded it,
but we cannot think of a potential without thinking of
the fulfilment of that potential. E.g.
‘buildable’ (potential) means capable of being built
(Actuality)
The world is in potentiality, in the process of changing
Therefore logically, there must be some preceding actuali-
ty, which the world is currently striving for.
If this actuality were mixed with potentiality then it would
presuppose another actuality and so on, until we reach
pure actuality.
This is the unmoved mover.
Causes movement without itself moving (or there would
be infinite regress)
 Causes not by moving, but by attracting (‘The Great
Attractor’)
 E.g. a bowl of milk compels a cat to move to it, but it
does not move itself and remains unchanged.
It is the goal of movement, the final cause of everything,
attracting the universe to fulfil its purpose
Has no personality - cannot feel
Did not create the world, which has always been in a pro-
cess of change (unmoved mover is not the same as a first
mover—it is logically prior to all potentiality but not chron-
ologically prior)
Can think only of itself (thinking of other things involves
moving through ideas, which constitutes change)

 Pure actuality beyond potentiality  Perfectly content with only thinking of himself

 No interest in the world

 Merely an explanation for the eternal principle of mo-

tion

Weaknesses

Where did the matter of the universe come from if the

unmoved mover is eternal thought?

Does the universe need an explanation? - Bertrand Russell

says it ‘just is’.

Does the unmoved mover attract war, rape and murder? The Great Attractor
What are their purposes?

Contradiction to say that everything has a cause, but this Come to me girlies...
thing doesn’t.

21
 Judaeo-Christian God
At a glance:

Transcendent

Omnipotent

Omniscient

Omnipresent

Omnibenevolent

Early concepts of God: God as Creator:

Polytheism normal in most cultures The Greek and Roman gods did not create the universe

 Gods were anthropomorphic, with good and bad hu- Creation is fundamental to the Bible
man attributes
 Explains how we came to be, but also our relationship
 Represented different aspects of life to God

Could act on a whim - capricious Creation is described in Genesis in two parts:

 Loki - the god of discord and mischief Genesis part 1:

As a result, worship was a matter of placating the gods
from fear of reprisal.
The gods had great power, but were limited
 Did not create the universe
God is introduced - he is alone (transcendent)
Created the world from nothing (creatio ex nihilo)
 Before there was nothing (scientists have problems
with this)

 Augustine: “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven,

The Judaeo-Christian God not how the heavens go”

The monotheistic nature of the Judaeo-Christian God and
how people relate to Him, was markedly different from
previous accounts.
His existence is never questioned in the Bible
He creates by his word “Let there be light” and then there
is.
 His will is sufficient to create matter
God created everything

Everything he does is good and deliberate (evil?)

Created humans in his image.

Genesis part 2:

Adam and Eve’s fall from grace

God walks in the Garden of Eden (immanent)

 Destroying the perfection God had given them

 Caused by influence of the serpent (see evil)

Humankind is the pinnacle of creation

 Suggested that the world was made for us

We possess free will - we can choose to do what we want,

free from control.

22
 Judaeo-Christian God

The Goodness of God God as the source of morality

The special status of humanity means our relationship with God gave Moses the 10 commandments
God is different.
Includes a commandment of faith to him alone
God is seen as a father or shepherd to humanity.
“You shall have no other gods but me”
 He made a covenant with Abraham
We are expected to respond to his will with obedience.
 “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you”.

 Descendants of Abraham ‘Israelites’ are God’s chosen Righteous indignation:

people
His closeness with his creation is clear
Provides an interactive goodness, such as prayers.
He also makes demands of us
 God is seen as a judge and a lawgiver
 Sets a standard to live by and expects us to respond to
his guidance
What he commands is for the good of man
We should respond with faith
Those who go against God, suffer his anger
 He does not remain implacable and unaffected, but is
angered by injustice.
He calls prophets to warn people of his displeasure
 He has a particular concern for the poor and the weak
‘Anawim of Yahweh’. (Beloved of God)
 Wants people to treat each other equally– those who
treat the poor with contempt suffer God’s punishment
This is an image of a vengeful, albeit righteous God.

 Sometimes his demands seem to make no sense

(Abraham and Isaac) Problems with perfection and interactivity

 Those who trust him anyway are particularly praised
Compassion:
God is frequently moved to compassion for his people
 He gave Hannah the child she so desperately wanted in
1 Samuel
God is perfectly good, but not unmovable
 He is tender towards his creation
For Christians, Jesus demonstrates God’s love for humanity
and his personal nature.
The idea of a passionate, interactive and yet perfect God is
hard for some philosophers to accept.
 A personal God must be capable of change and re-
sponse, but perfection, by its definition, is always the
same.
How can a transcendent God have a relationship with hu-
manity?
Led to a rivalry between the Thomist view of God and the
Franciscan view of God

 Died on the cross for all the sins of mankind

 The Trinity: the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost

 These are not separate, but one in being

(homoousious)

23
 Judaeo-Christian God

The Thomist God - God as wholly simple The Franciscan God:

 God sustains the universe  Everlasting God

 He is spaceless, bodiless and utterly unchanging  Not timeless - temporal, but not dominated by time

 Separate from time - there is no ‘yesterday’ or  Omniscient - knows all things that it is logically possible
‘tomorrow’ for God to know

 Does not act sequentially but once, with multiple  The future is seen as open
effects over time
 Leaves certain creatures free (us) within limits
 God has no unactualised powers - he is omnipotent in that he sets
the sense that he can do anything that does not contra-
 Does not know the outcome of every human
dict himself
choice because he chooses not tot to preserve
 He is omniscient - sees the whole history of the uni- free will
verse in one eternal now
 Omnipotence can be talked of in terms of unactualised
 Allows free will as for us, in time, we still make
choices. However the outcome of those choices
can only ever appear to God in the eternal ‘now’
as he is separate from time. So what for us is the
future can only appear to God in the same in-
stant. Does not impinge upon our free will: he
merely has a different perspective. (Boethius).

 Cannot suffer– his personality is only analogical

Tensions between the Thomist God and God of the Bible

 Bible God is not always bodiless

 He changes his mind - says he will repent of any ‘evil’

he intended to do to a nation if it turns from evil

 Jesus is seen weeping and suffering - highly personal

 How does an immutable God respond to prayer?

 God is shown to perform miracles

24
 The Problem of Evil
At a glance:
Augustine: “Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not. If
he cannot then he is not all powerful; if he will not then he
is not all good.”
Moral evil: caused by human intent
Natural evil: caused by natural disasters
Possible explanations:
God is not omnipotent:
 He is not capable of destroying evil
 The continuance of evil is indicative of God’s lack of
power
 Process theology holds this view.
 BUT - does not fit with the God of classical theism.
God is not all loving:
 God is unconcerned about destroying evil
 Not the God of classical theism
There is no God
 Nietzsche held this view: “God is dead: of his pity for
man hath God died”
Protest atheism:
Dostoyevsky: Ivan Karamazov is a character in his novel
 Rejects God because of the suffering of young children
 Argues that whatever God’s reason for allowing evil,
the suffering of the innocent children is too high a price
to pay
 Better to have no world than one where children suffer
Ivan accepts that God exists, but believes God should be
rejected on moral grounds - he is not worthy of worship
Moral difficulties with the theodicy:
 Hell seems to be part of the design of the universe—
did God anticipate evil?
 Selection to go to heaven is not merciful, but irrational
inconsistency.
Augustine’s theodicy:
Theodicy: an attempt to justify the theistic existence of
God in the face of evil (as opposed to the deistic view)
 God is perfect, he made the world free from flaws
 God cannot be blamed for creating evil, as evil is not a
substance but a privation of good. (a privation is a lack
of something that should be there).
 Evil comes from angels and humans who chose to turn
away from God
 The possibility of evil is necessary as only God can be
truly perfect
 Everybody is guilty as they were seminally present in
Adam
 Therefore everyone deserves to be punished
 Natural evil is a fitting punishment because human ac-
tion destroyed the natural order
 Therefore God should not intervene
 That God saves some through Christ shows that he is
merciful.
Natural evil is a punishment for first sin.
Criticisms:
Logical criticisms:
 How can a perfectly created world go awry? That
means evil created itself from nothing
 Why is there privation if the world is perfect?
 It must come from God somehow
 How could beings with free will even have a notion of
disobedience, of good or bad in a perfect world?
Scientific difficulties:
 Goes against evolutionary theory
 The universe continually develops from preceding cha-
os, as opposed to a perfect world that has been cor-
rupted.
 The notion of a selfish desire to survive is fundamental
to evolution. Surely this must have come from God?
 We are not all related to Adam
25
 The Problem of Evil

The Irenaean Tradition

Iranaeus did not create a theodicy, but provided a frame-

work in which a theodicy could emerge that was not de-
pendent on the concept of the fall.

Accepts that God di not create a perfect world

Evil has a valuable role in His plan for humans

 Humans have a two stage creation.

 We are made in God’s image, but we are not yet in

God’s likeness (possessing the qualities of human life
that reflect the divine) Criticisms:
 We must make a free choice to move from the animal The concept of heaven is unfair if everybody gets there in
to the spiritual the end

 This necessitates the possibility of erring No reason to be moral

 There could be no erring if there was no evil The quantity of suffering is unacceptable

 Therefore, natural order had to be made with the ca-
pacity to cause harm
 God cannot compromise our free will by removing evil
 Eventually, evil will be overcome and everyone will
develop into God's likeness.
 Does our world really need the extent of suffering
found in such events as the holocaust? Why not 4 mil-
lion Jews instead of 6 million?
Love can never be expressed by allowing suffering
 (What about allowing an injection for your child?)

 This justifies temporary evil
John Hick developed this:
Suffering is necessary for the development of the soul
Experience of suffering does not seem equally spread
among people
Does not explain pointless suffering

Teaches us kindness and compassion when others suffer

Nietzsche:

The chaos of the world shows that God does not exist
Strengths: Man makes his own destiny
Allows for evolution “God is dead, of his pity for man hath he died”.
Avoids evil appearing from nowhere

26
 The Problem of Evil
Process Theology:
Alfred North Whitehead/John Cobb
Has its roots in panentheism (The universe is part of God)
God is not omniscient or omnipotent
 He did not create the world ex nihilo, but formed it
from pre-existent matter
 The kind of world he could create was restricted by the
limitations of this matter
 Matter (everything in the world) has the capacity to
turn from God
 This has happened and there is evil and suffering
 God can only lure mankind towards the future he be-
lieves best for us. Cannot force us
 God understands and suffers when evil is committed in
the world.
 He learns alongside humanity
Criticisms:
This is not a theodicy because it denies the traditional view
of God. The point of theodicy is to defend the God of clas-
sical theism.
By denying these traits, the problem does not even exist
God - Omnipotence and Omniscience ≠ God of clas-
sical theism
Boethius:
Issue: If our behaviour is determined or even foreseen,
then God has take some responsibility for the evil that
men do.
Concerns moral evil
Boethius argued that God is timeless: there is no yesterday
or tomorrow for him. He ‘sees’ all of history in one eternal
‘now’.
Just because God sees we will do something does not
mean we have to do it.
2 types of necessity:
 Simple necessity: all humans are necessarily mortal
 Conditional necessity: when you see a man walking
down the street, he is necessarily walking (as you see
him doing so)
However, this in no way forces the man to walk.
What is for us a future action, can only appear to God in an
eternal instant as he is timeless. As such, he knows what
we are going to do, not from simple necessity, but from
conditional necessity.
For example:
 I decide to eat an ice cream
 God knew this would happen, but not because he is
making me do so.
 He sees the outcome of my choice, but what I perceive
to be my future can only appear to him as part of an
eternal now, as he is separate from the concept of past
and future
 This is hard for us to comprehend because we experi-
ence time as linear
 So for God, I will necessarily eat an ice cream because
by his nature, he sees before me (since I am limited
within time) that I will choose to do so.
27
Ethics

28
 Relativism
At a glance:

The belief that actions should be judged relative to certain

factors (such as culture).

Rejects absolute morals: morality differs from culture to

culture (E.g. infanticide was practised by the Spartans of
Ancient Greece)

Contrasts with absolutism

Ethical Relativism: Strong dependency thesis:

Made up of 2 theses: Ethical relativists maintain that the very validity of moral
principles stems from the culture itself .
Diversity Thesis:
 They are not objective principles applied differ-
Acknowledges that concepts of right and wrong differ be-
ently, but relative ones that pertain only to a
tween societies (cultural relativism)
particular culture.
Anthropological facts used as evidence for this:

 There are distinct variations in customs, religion Strengths:

and taboos
Allows us to use common sense to judge morality
 However, these facts can also be used to argue
Recognises our variable nature
against the diversity thesis: pointing to similari-
ties between all cultures (such as love)  Avoids ethnocentrism
Dependency thesis: Gives us a chance to be merciful - avoids legalism
(following a rule even if the outcome is evil)
As a result of the diversity thesis, we should judge actions
within the context of the culture it took place. Weaknesses:
 Relativism sees morality as a set of customs that Morality is based on standards
have gained social approval and become like
 We must meet these standards regardless of
facts.
how we feel about them
 We gain ideals through experience
These standards do not exist in relativism
 Similarly, morality for a culture grows from its
 Becomes chaotic to judge actions as too many
social history.
variables must be taken into account
Weak dependency thesis:
Lacks the authority absolute systems
A non-relativist can accept that certain moral principles
The notion of tolerance seems to be treated as the only
are applied differently
exception of relativism
 Occidentals cover their feet and uncover their
 However, this is inconsistent, as to a relativist, it
head as a sign of respect while Orientals do the
is equally moral to be intolerant.
opposite.
Implies social reformers are wrong
Both recognise a need to show respect, but use different
approaches.  They go against the cultural standards of the
time (e.g. Martin Luther King)

Cultural relativism is a fact, but that in itself does not justi-

fy the truth of ethical relativism.

29
 Relativism
Subjectivism:
Applies relativism to individuals
 Moral values are dependent on beliefs of a specific
person and do not exist independently.
At first, this may seem tolerant and liberating.
BUT
Earnest Hemingway: “I know only that what is moral is
what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you
feel bad after”.
 If Hemingway felt good after murder, from a subjective
point of view, he would be justified in seeing this as
‘moral’.
On this basis, a mass-murderer is just as moral as Mother
Teresa as both live/lived by their chosen principles.
Subjectivism renders morality a useless concept
No interpersonal criticism is possible
Situation Ethics:
Joseph Fletcher
Uses an absolute as a fundamental rule
‘Agape’ love: selfless love for others should be the main
driving force in ethical considerations.
 No action can be judged immoral in advance
 Judged solely according to the demand of love
Allows the overriding of certain moral guidelines when the
most loving choice goes against them.
 E.g. Euthanasia - overriding ‘Killing is wrong’ in some
situations
Avoids legalism
Situation ethics is personal and pragmatic:
 What is right is what works, but people come first
Having an absolute foundation mitigates the problem of
having a weak base of criticism.
Objectivism/Absolutism
They are not the same! Absolutists believe that absolute values are never to be broken. Objectivists believe in absolute
truths, but the rules derived from them are breakable in some exceptional cases.
Subjectivist response
To justify his views, a subjectivist may argue that he must:
1. Be prepared to follow the principles he chooses
2. Ensure his views are consistent
However, leaving a moral code up to our commitment
places severe limits on how we face hard decisions
 Principles people are loath to follow will be abandoned
It is possible to have internally consistent moral systems
(e.g. Christianity and Buddhism), but they are still incon-
sistent with each other.
Principle of non-contradiction:
Objectivists would argue that something cannot be both x
and not x at the same time.
 Something cannot be both moral and immoral
Subjectivism renders morality useless: arguments would
have to be resolved with force.
Weaknesses of Situation Ethics:
Overemphasis on the word ‘love’
 Ambiguity can lead to manipulation of the ethic for self
-interest
Limited scope
 Situation Ethics rarely deals with larger problems such
international morality
The existence of other absolutes undermines its validity as
an ethical code
 E.g. our common humanity (humanism)
Ethics supported by emotional arguments are difficult to
challenge
 A loving choice is too vague
 Ends up relative to each person
30
 Natural Law
At a glance:

Everything has a purpose

We can use reason to discover our purpose and fulfilling

this purpose is what is ‘good’

Theistic view: this purpose stems from God

Non-theistic view: the purposes are things that bring about

human flourishing

Put forth by Aquinas (developing ideas of Aristotle)

Aristotle: Aquinas:

Natural Law can be seen in Aristotle’s 4 causes. Elaborates on Aristotle.

 Final Cause is the aim of an action/object. Our final cause is God’s purpose for us

 Every object has a final cause  Therefore the objective principles we discover
through reasoning have divine authority over
 This is the object’s ‘good’
mankind.
Therefore activity which brings about the final cause is
 (For non theists, natural law still has authority as
good and activity which prevents it is bad.
we are all human)
E.g. getting drunk goes against our purpose as rational
From God’s perspective natural law is mankind’s participa-
beings
tion in eternal law (the order of all creation)

For us, this entails following the principles laid down by

The purpose of humans: God which contribute to individual and common good.
‘Do good and avoid evil’  Animals follow natural law through necessity
Elaborates on this with the primary precepts.  We have been given reason and the capacity for
Arrived at by examining telos: choice

Worship God We follow it because we recognise the reasonableness of

these principles - even if we do not believe in God.
Ordered society

Reproduction
Real and Apparent Goods:
Learning
The self should be maintained
Defend the innocent
Natural Law supports the cardinal virtues of prudence,
From the primary precepts we derive secondary precepts. justice, fortitude and temperance.

E.g. “Protect the innocent” —-> “do not abort” There are many vices which must be avoided as they pre-
vent us from fulfilling our purpose
 These are absolute deontological rules (does not
take consequences into account) These are apparent goods - they seem good but are not

 Teleological principles lead to absolute rules. We must aim for real goods, based on our purpose

Exterior and interior acts:

Intention must be good as well. Motive must coincide with the cardinal virtues. (Helping an old lady across the road for
money is not moral)

31
 Natural Law
The Doctrine of Double Effect:
Sometimes we are faced with situations where good can-
not be done without bringing about an evil consequence.
How do we reconcile the bad effect with desire for moral
rightness?
The doctrine of double effect is used.
Consists of four conditions:
1. Nature of the act condition:
 The action must be morally good or indifferent (so Na-
gasaki bombing would not be justified - regardless of
the ‘greater good’. Natural Law is not utilitarianism.)
2. Means—End condition:
 The bad effect must not be how the good consequence
comes about
3. Right Motive condition:
 Bad effect must be unintended - the motive is to
achieve the good effect only
4. Proportionality condition:
 Good effect must be equivalent or better than the bad
effect.
Doctrine of Double effect applied to abortion:
Abortion would not be permissible as it is intentionally
harming an innocent, which goes against condition 1 and
2.
However, if the mother had a cancerous uterus, the moth-
er would be allowed a hysterectomy, which would result in
the death of the foetus.
 Removal of the cancerous cells is good (condition 1 and
2 passed)
 Death of the foetus is unintended (3)
 Saving the mother’s life is at least as good as saving the
foetus. (4)
Weaknesses of Natural Law:
Purposes can be ambiguous
 One can condemn contraception if the purpose of geni-
talia is to reproduce
 But, if the purpose is to show love between a com-
mitted couple, then it is justified.
 The first interpretation would rule out masturbation,
but not adultery.
The doctrine of double effect implies there is only 1 an-
swer to a moral dilemma
 Imposes artificial rigidity onto human nature
Utilitarians would argue that a bad action is sometimes
permissible to bring about a greater good.
David Hume:
Cannot argue to an ought from an is.
 Just because something is the case doesn’t mean it
should be the case.
 Someone may feel the urge to kill. Just because this is
the case, doesn’t mean it should be the case.
Many argue that there is no purpose in life
 Apparent purpose brought about by evolution
32
 Kant
At a glance:

Kant placed philosophy over theology

Noumenal/Phenomenal world

Primacy of reason and duty

Categorical Imperative

Deontological

Copernican Revolution: Ethics:

Kant argued that the mind is at the centre of reality and Deontological - based on objective moral duty, not out-
determines the way we see things. comes

 As such, human knowledge is subjective - limited by  Pleasure can come from evil acts, that does not make
the lens of time and space. an act good.

 How we see things is not necessarily the true reality. Did not believe in ‘good’ traits such as courage, intelli-
gence as they can be used for evil.

Two Worlds: The only good is the ‘good will’

Phenomenal World:

 World of things as we perceive them to be

Noumenal World:

 World of things as they truly are, independent from our

experience of them

We can never truly know the noumenal world, but we can

get glimpses of noumenal truth through reasoning or rare
moments of beauty.

Morality belongs to the noumenal world The Good Will

 Therefore, we cannot be led astray by our senses if we
wish to access moral truth.
 Reason is paramount: enables us to get closest to an
absolute standard of morality.
Kant assumes that law based on reason is absolute as all
reasonable people should reach the same conclusion.
Kant focuses on intention
When something is done out of pleasure, satisfaction, hab-
it or inclination then it is not moral.
 Even if the act itself is good, if the intention is not right,
it will only ever be lawful, not moral.
Good intention is following one’s duty

 Not from emotion, but as a reasonable person who

Duty…..
recognises that it is right to so

Reason... NO Emotion  Duty for duty’s sake

The ‘good will’ is resolving to act purely in accordance

with one’s duty.

Free will is essential to morality: if not, morality is just an

illusion as we have not control over our actions anyway.

33
 Kant
The Categorical Imperative Second maxim:

We experience duty as a categorical imperative Treat humanity as a means in itself, not a means to an
end..
Hypothetical imperatives only hold true given some condi-
tion: We should not use someone’s humanity for our own gain

 E.g. If I want to succeed, I must read these notes. Humans are rational beings who are equal

The categorical imperative cannot be avoided. It is done  Their value is intrinsic, not instrumental (based on how
for its own sake and is universal. useful they are)

Broken down into smaller rules, called maxims.

First maxim: Universalisatiion

For an action to be right it must hold up as a universal rule

One must only act if you are prepared for everyone else to
act the same

Perfect duty:

 We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims which are

contradictory
Third maxim: The Kingdom of Ends
 E.g. everyone ought to lie
Concludes the premises of the first 2 maxims.
Imperfect duty:
We should act as if we were a member of the kingdom of
 To act by maxims which we would desire to be univer- ends:
salised.
 Only using maxims that would harmonise with such a
 E.g. If you think people should give to charity then you hypothetical kingdom
have an imperfect duty to do so. (Even though a world
of stinginess is not contradictory)  Composed of entirely rational beings.

 Since imperfect duty depends somewhat on the subjec-

tive preferences of humankind, it is not as strong as a Radical Evil:
perfect duty, but it is still morally binding. When we consistently follow bad maxims we fall into radi-
cal evil

Once this happens we cannot escape without the help of a

transcendental act (he is referring to Jesus)

Kant was a Christian, but this is still surprising given his

whole philosophy is based on reason independent of reli-
gion.

W.D Ross

Adapted Kant’s ethics

Prima Facie duties: ‘at first appearance’ we should do the-

se things

However, if two duties conflict, we have to determine the

greater obligation

34
 Kant
Strengths:
Strong authority
Distinguishes between morality and inclination
 Morality is independent of our willingness to accept it
Justice for individuals is safeguarded
 Rejects utilitarian view
 Treats everyone, even minorities, fairly
Advocates unconditional respect for human life.
Are safe with Kant...
Weaknesses:
Rejection of emotion goes against human nature
 Practically no one can divorce themselves from emo-
tions during moral dilemmas
Duty for duty’s sake is legalism: cold and inhumane
Assumes everyone has the same capacity for reasoning
 What about the mentally ill?
According to Kant, someone who acts out of love is less
moral than someone who acts purely out of duty: most
would not see it this way
Dismisses habit
 But surely habit is the cultivation of some prior reason-
ing?
 Kant talks of good character yet rejects this
Hard to apply in everyday life
 The principle is too abstract
Goethe:
 Critical of Kant arbitrarily using faith to explain moral
regeneration when everywhere else it is subordinated
to reason
 “Kant criminally smeared his philosopher’s cloak with
the shameful stain of radical evil”
What happens when duties clash?
 E.g. lying to save a life
 Can lead to many sub-clauses in rules
Universalisability seems to allow things if the person is
willing for everyone to do it
 Does not account for deviants
 Kant would argue it must be used with the other max-
ims
Allows no exceptions - overly restrictive
 Actually it does, as long as they can be universalised.
Everyone has to adhere to the categorical imperative for it
to work.
35
 Utilitarianism
At a glance: Hedonic Calculus:

Ethical code based on utility (pleasure and absence of pain) Used to measure pleasure

Pleasure and absence of pain is happiness. Remoteness: how close it is

Put forth by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill Purity: how free from pain it is

Act utilitarianism Richness: how far it will lead to other pleasures

Rule utilitarianism Intensity

Certainty
Jeremy Bentham: Extent: number of people affected
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of pleas- Duration
ure and pain

 It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do

Described as a hedonist: dedicated his life to pursuit of

pleasure

 Hedonists: a group of Ancient Greeks who sought

pleasure (total absence of pain).

Bentham believed in the principle of utility:

 In moral situations, we should judge actions on their

tendency to produce happiness.

 Happiness is synonymous with pleasure for Bentham

Weaknesses: Strengths:
No concern for motive Clear, mathematical method of deciding a course of action
 Ignores the integrity of the individual Popular because we generally do seek pleasure and avoid
Bentham does not distinguish between different sorts of pain
pleasure, or give them a rank order  (but some enjoy inflicting pain)
 Pleasure for one person may be someone else’s pain Looks at consequences of an action
Hedonic calculus is not easy to apply in quick response  It is flexible
situations
 No law is unchangeable
 E.g. shooting someone who is about to shoot you
Authority and tradition can no longer be used as a reason
Minorities ignored in favour of the greatest number (what for conduct.
about gang rape?)

“One cannot deduce an ought from an is” - just because

we desire pleasure doesn’t mean we should.

Pleasure can be used to justify things considered to be

abhorrent .

W.D Ross: justice is not concerned with maximum good,

but the right distribution of it. Unfair allocation is evil in
itself.

36
 Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill: A hierarchy of pleasures:

Supported the principle of utility, but developed it. Some see hedonism as a pernicious doctrine worthy only
of swine.
Gave reasoning for the emphasis on happiness:
 However, they assume that humans are only capable of
 Happiness is a desirable state of affairs
the pleasures of swine.
 Happiness is the only desirable thing (other things
 Not so: pleasure for Epicurus included rationality and
seem desirable because they will lead to happiness)
moderation.
 The general happiness of all is desired because if every-
Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures:
one is happy, one’s own happiness is increased.
 Higher pleasures (reading/art) satisfy the mind
He believed this was achievable by all, “if not for present
wretched education and wretched social institutions”.  Lower pleasures (eating/sex) satisfy the body

The difference is in quality

Act Utilitarianism:
Higher pleasures are preferred because of their sense of
Bentham’s utilitarianism is act utilitarianism dignity.
 Deals with individual actions This is seen in the majority of people
 Accepts no general rules  Most would rather see a film than be puking up after
binge-drinking
 Flexible, but time-consuming
“It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”.
Critics argue it can justify anything
 We should strive for pleasures befitting us as humans.
How can we be sure of consequences?
BUT geniuses who were immersed in ‘higher pleasures’ are
Rule Utilitarianism: often depressed and unhappy...

An attempt to remedy the imprecise nature of judging

pleasures Preference Utilitarianism:

Mill used utilitarianism to form rules in a society Pleasure is too primitive

 Seek the greatest good for the greatest number of peo-  Seeks to replace the balance of pleasure with a balance
ple in a society of preferences.

 (This can mean sacrificing individual pleasure for the Preference of the person concerned has most weight, un-
less others go against it
community - e.g. paying a bus fare for a good public
transport system). Tries to avoid strange interpretations of ‘pleasure’.
Society needs general rules arrived at by utilitarian reason-
ing in order to operate.

 E.g. one must tell the truth

Rule utilitarianism looks at conduct: the consequences of

an action over a period of time should it be repeated.

Weak rule utilitarians: you can break rules to fit some cas-
es if the balance of pleasure dictates

Strong rule utilitarians: you should never break rules to fit

individual situations

Weak Rule utilitarians come dangerously close to act utili-

tarianism (leads to rules with many sub-clauses).
37
 Utilitarianism

Does utilitarianism ask too much? Utilitarian response:

Many critics say utilitarianism asks too little - it can lead to “Just because we are too lazy does not mean it is not desir-
actions which we accept as intuitively wrong able to do”

 E.g. More people enjoy gang rape (out of the people  But: this means actions which maximise utility must all
involved) than not. at once be what it would be wonderful/nice/necessary
to do.
However, it can also be seen as asking too much.
 We distinguish between these every day
Principle of utility: we should always seek to maximise
happiness  It would be nice for my friend to buy me lunch, but he
is not obliged to do so, even if it would maximise my
 Yet we rarely ever do this
happiness.
You could be sending money and clothes to Africa right
Furthermore, there is no distinction between harming and
now.
not helping someone:
 Many courses of action would produce greater social
 Failure to save a life is not that different to killing
utility than reading these notes.
someone as any of us could save a life if we really tried.
 According to utilitarianism, you are not being moral
 In not doing so. We are no better than murderers.
and you will continue to fall short for the rest of your
life.

OR

38
Applied Ethics

39
 Personhood
At a glance:

What makes us human?

Sanctity of life

Quality of life

What makes us human?

Human appearance is unreliable

 Aborigines were dismissed as not looking human

 Leads to giving rights only to those with whom we can

Peter Singer:
identify (Prof. David Williamson).
We count as human when we are:
Being capable of rational thought?
 Sentient
Feeling pain and pleasure?
 Self-conscious
Awareness of self, past, present and future?
 Aware of past/future
 Babies do not have this ability
 Have hopes
Having human genetic makeup?
 Can interact
 Relies on other conditions - we would not accord rights
to human tissue  Mobile

Being able to survive independently ? We only reach a ‘human’ stage of development at some
time around 3 years of age.
 What about people on life support machines?
 Singer thinks it is better to experiment on human em-
Some argue these conditions must be fulfilled to be a hu-
bryos than on adult rabbits (or any animal)
man being.
BUT conception is clearly the start of a chain leading to a
 This may be sometime after birth (implications for
rational being.
abortion)
 Embryos and foetuses are terms to describe stages of a
 Some may never reach this stage
human person.

 The process of actualisation of potential begins from

this point - embryos are people with possibility, not
possible people.

Is it right to deny embryos the right to fulfil their potential?

Even a very drunk person would fail Singer’s conditions

 Yet we would not allow the killing of drunk people on

the grounds that for that moment they are not human.

Is a 25 year old slob better than a child prodigy?

 No, neither is better: the value of human life is intrin-

sic, not instrumental (based on how useful we are).

 Personhood is conferred irrespective of whether socie-

ty recognises it.

40
 Personhood
Sanctity of Life: Quality of Life:

Theistic view: Singer believes we should not focus on sanctity of life, but
instead on quality of life.
 Life is a gift from God, so only God can take it away
 Moving from absolutist to relativist
 Jesus showed us the importance of looking after lives
He supports the utilitarian ethic: attempting to maximise
We should respect everyone’s sanctity of life.
the good while minimising the bad
 A human should never be exploited, for good or ill
 Takes into account the pain of the individual in situa-
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: tions such as abortion and euthanasia.
 Provides an “indispensable guarantee of the individual
worth of persons within it”.

Declaration of Helsinki:

 The interest of the subject involved (in medicine)

should prevail.

If an embryo is a person, this entails:

 The right not to be treated as a commodity

 Not to be exploited

Singer would object that an embryo is of no more value

than a sperm or an egg (see previous page)

 Yet an embryo contains the characteristic, from the

outset, that the adult will possess.

41
 War and Peace
At a glance:

Just War :

Jus ad bellum

Jus in bello

Just War:

Proposed by Augustine and developed by Aquinas. Jus in bello (conduct in war):

Jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war): Discrimination:

Just cause:  Acts of war should be directed at military targets, not

 Augustine saw war as a righting of wrongs
 This includes self-defence, or assisting others against
an oppressive government.
 We must recognise the humanity in our enemies -
there must be no malice.
 However, when does an anticipated threat become a
sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike?
Legitimate authority:
 The war must be declared by a legitimate authority e.g.
a government
 What about civil wars?
Right intention:
civilians
Proportionality:
 Use of armaments must be proportional to the threat
or injury
 Principle of minimum force: an attack must have a mili-
tary objective, the benefits of which will outweigh the
possible civilian casualties.
 So bombing one terrorist hideout but killing thousands
of civilians violated this condition.
 The tendency is to value one of ‘our side’ more than
100 of the ‘other side’. We must be wary. Even many
Christians who believe in the equal value of human life
forget this when justifying certain acts of war.

 We must not seek war for personal gain.

Utilitarian view:
 Implications for Iraq war: was the intention to gain ac-
The end justifies the means
cess to Iraq’s oil?
 Strictly speaking, a country would not need a just cause
Last resort
to go to war as long as they had right intention - the
 War must be the last option, after all others have failed greatest good for the greatest number.

Proportionality:  Since the Iraq war began there has been cynicism sur-
rounding the motives of Bush.
The benefits of waging a war must outweigh the evil and
harm it will bring. Utilitarians would not support selfish motives that do not
maximise pleasure for the greatest number.

 However, act utilitarians would be happy for an author-

ity to make up a threat so long as they believed the
result of the war would make the world a better place.

Rule utilitarians may have a different approach.

 A world where people go to war without just cause

would be unstable. Therefore Just War criteria, though
not utilitarian, may be necessary to ensure the greatest
happiness for the greatest number in the world.

42
 War and Peace
Kant

Kant would not support needlessly going to war, as it

would mean willing that I might be shot, which is contrary
to the will.

However, he would support war in defence of others:

 We could universalise a maxim that said we should go

to war to defend another country from attack. We too
would want to be defended if we were attacked.

We must look closely at the justification of going to war:

 If soldiers had no vested interest in making the world a

safer place, then they would be mere means to an end

Situation Ethics:

Sometimes the most loving choice may be to go to war.

 Augustine said that when we go to war we must love

our enemies (as Jesus instructed) even as we fight
them.

However, situation ethicists would be against the use of

excessive force: E.g. nuclear, chemical or biological weap-
ons.

Natural Law:

Primary precept: defend the innocent

 This would justify wars in the defence of others

If an attack threatens the structure and authority of a

country, an ‘ordered society’, then war may also be justi-
fied.

War must be a last resort.

 Principals of natural law have a Catholic background.

 The idea of sanctity of life would be important. It is

impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties, so
every other solution must be sought before.

43
 Euthanasia
At a glance: Types of euthanasia:

Opportunity to end life voluntarily Voluntary euthanasia:

Criminal offence in most countries  The sufferer chooses to die

Voluntary euthanasia Involuntary euthanasia:

Involuntary Euthanasia  The sufferer cannot choose because of their condition,
the decision is taken by someone else.
Active/passive euthanasia
Active euthanasia:

Arguments for:  Euthanizing with drugs/other means which actively kill

the sufferer
 Euthanasia is not murder as many who chose it are
already dying Passive euthanasia:

 It is merciful to those who are suffering  Withholding treatment

 Gives people autonomy - control over their life Is there a difference when the intent is still death?

 Gives sufferers dignity - they do not die after drawn out

deterioration.

Arguments against:

Religious arguments:

 Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism oppose eu-

thanasia

 Life is a sacred gift from God - only he has the right to

choose

 Killing is forbidden: “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Personhood:

Other arguments: When are we no longer considered human?

 There can be doubtful motives: The person may not be
fully informed, may be pressured into choosing eutha-
nasia (to avoid being a burden).
 Motives for involuntary euthanasia may be less than
compassionate
 Someone could opt for euthanasia after being misdiag-
nosed.
 When we are brain dead?
Look at Singer’s condition’s for personhood on p40.
 Can the lack of these traits be used to justify euthana-
sia?
 Where do we draw the line between human and no
longer human?

 Negative cultural repercussions: choosing death be-

The Hospice Movement:
coming a common thing
Instead of euthanasia, the movement supports making the
 The Hippocratic Oath is undermined as it is based un
lives of patients as comfortable as possible before dying.
trust that the doctor will do the best to ensure the
health of the patient. Euthanasia does not do this.  Gives them their dignity while also dying naturally.

 Sufferers who choose death are not in a good condition  Not applicable to those who can live, but their condi-
to make such a decision tion is such that they choose not to.

44
 Euthanasia
Utilitarian response: Natural Law:

A utilitarian would measure the pleasure and pain caused
by two courses of action - helping someone to die, or not
doing so.
No sanctity of life: looks at the consequences
To consider:
 The intensity of the pain and its duration
Absolute deontological principles:
 The ends never justify the means
“Defend the innocent” leads to a secondary precept that
you should never kill an innocent person.
Natural law does not support euthanasia (not even passive
euthanasia).

 The number of people involved (extent)  Even if you see relieving pain as the main goal, with
death being a by-product, passive euthanasia fails the
 Would keeping someone alive lead to other pleasures?
means-end condition. The good effect is a consequence
(richness)
of the bad one.
 The pain involved with such a decision e.g., loss of dig-
Catholic background emphasises sanctity of life.
nity (purity)

 How certain a course will lead to pleasure e.g. the pos-

sibility of a cure

 The pain is immediate, while chance of a cure is re-

mote.

In most cases, the pain would be so great that Bentham’s

theory would justify euthanasia. Mill would too, as he be-
lieved in the sovereignty of the individual, despite the prin-
ciple of utility.

Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures is

important.

 If the condition does not affect the mind (e.g. Thomas

Hyde) then there is still a chance of a happy life.
 If the mind no longer works properly, Mill would see
little benefit in continuing with life.
Kant:
The outcome of an action is not relevant
Disregards moral choices motivated by compassion/love
etc. (Situation ethics)

 One must do what reason dictates.

 Kant would not be interested in the suffering of the

individual or the relatives.

Universalising the maxim “I should help *Richard+ die”

would give the law “everyone should be helped to die”. A
self-contradiction as you may be willing yourself to death.

 However, the maxim “anyone who is terminally ill,

suffering greatly and has freely chosen to die, should
be helped to die” is more acceptable.

We should not use people as means to an end.

 Killing someone with the intention of benefiting from it

would go against this.

Kant was strongly against any form of suicide.

Euthanasia: is it up to us?

45
 Abortion
At a glance:
Pro-life/pro choice
Personhood
Pro life:
Human life begins at conception - contains the total blue-
print of that person.
(See personhood for more)
Therefore, aborting is wrong, as it denies the humanity of
embryos.
Pro-choice:
Women are denied their human rights if they cannot make
decisions about their own bodies
A foetus is only a potential human.
The mother is an actual person so her rights must take
precedence.
Kant:
“You should have abortions” leads to the universal maxim,
“everyone should have abortions”. This is self-
contradictory as then there would be no-one to have abor-
tions it everyone aborted.
 We have a perfect duty not to follow such a maxim.
However, it could be possible to universalise and exception
such as, “people who have been raped should have abor-
tions”.
 However, if this was a universal law it would still have
problems as there are rational agents who have been
born out of rape and they would be willing themselves
out of existence.
Also, we must never treat humans as a means to an end.
 Hinges on the status of the foetus: is it a human?
 For Kantians, yes. At some point the foetus will grow to
be a rational being, capable of imagining different uni-
versal laws.
Possible exceptions:
 Ectopic pregnancies: there are no rational agents left
alive after such a pregnancy, so a universal maxim justi-
fying abortion in this case does not contradict the will.
Utilitarianism:
Does having an abortion bring about the greatest good?
 Having an abortion for financial reasons, other family
members’ needs, education or work may be justified by
the hedonic calculus.
Utilitarianism generally supports a pro-choice stance:
Mill strongly believed in the sovereignty of the individual:
 “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the indi-
vidual is sovereign”
However, act utilitarians would never say a woman always
has a right to choose.
 Concept of absolute rights is not compatible with con-
sequentialism.
 Even rule utilitarians would accept some situations
when denying choice would be for the greater good.
Natural Law:
Ignores consequences (e.g. potential benefits)
Would not support abortion, as one of the primary pre-
cepts is to ‘defend the innocent’.
For Catholics, life begins at conception: strong sanctity of
life principle
See ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ p32
UK law:
The Abortion Act 1967 provided a legal defence for carry-
ing out an abortion up to 28 weeks (24 weeks since HFE
Act 1990) or ‘viability’ if:
Continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to
the physical or mental health of the woman, or her ex-
isting children, than having a termination.
There is a substantial risk that the child when born would
suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seri-
ously handicapped.
46
 Right to a child
At a glance:
IS a child a gift or a right?
IVF
A child is a gift:
A child is not a commodity like a house.
Religious view: a child is a gift from God
 He decides who can have a child or not
Perhaps God does not intend for some people to be par-
ents.
Infertility is nature’s way of controlling the population.
IVF:
Arguments for:
God created us with a natural inclination to want a child
It is distressing to be infertile
Everyone has a right to a child
 Even paedophiles? Women too old to raise the child?
Arguments against:
Separates procreation from the fully human context of the
conjugal act
Creates spare embryos that are destroyed or used for re-
search
 Reduces human life to ‘biological material’ to be freely
disposed of
The infertility of the parents is not actually treated
IVF can be and is used for eugenics purposes
No one has the right to a child
IVF makes making babies into manufacture, irrespective of
rights.
A child is a right:
Reproduction is a basic human instinct
Women who cannot have children experience real psycho-
logical suffering
Assisting infertile couples is correcting a malfunction, like
performing a heart by-pass
 But a heart by-pass is necessary to stay alive, a baby is
not
Advances in medicine are a God-given method of helping
others.
Natural Law:
Would not support IVF as the disposal of spare embryos
goes against the primary precept, “defend the innocent”.
Absolute: no exceptions.
Intrudes on the natural process of conception.
Masturbation to procure sperm goes against the purpose
of genitalia.
Utilitarianism
Concerned with outcome
Would weigh up the happiness and pain of all involved
Mother, family, cost of treatment etc.
Is the pain of embryos being destroyed balanced out by
the pleasure of having a child?
Kant:
People should be treated as ends in themselves.
This is not the case with IVF as the spare embryos are
merely being used as means to an end (a successful preg-
nancy).
This depends on if the embryo is considered a person
47
48