Dr. Martin Schönfeld
Summer B 2004
Class Meetings: Tuesdays
and Thursdays
Office Hours: Every
Tuesday
Contact: Office: FAO 221. Phone: 974-5698. Email mschonfe@chuma.cas.usf.edu
Address: Department
of Philosophy FAO 226 (mail point), USF,
Course: The class is a non-technical introduction to moral philosophy.
Goals: Training in the rational examination of moral problems; familiarity with basic philosophical concepts and the major ethical theories (virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and Kantian & contractarian ethics); and a casual acquaintance with two of the greatest thinkers in the world—Aristotle and Confucius.
Format: The class is a mixture of lectures and discussions. Lectures will be based on readings and handouts. Note that your instructor will occasionally go off on a tangent. If I do so, pay attention: the tangents have a point. Also, please prepare the readings before the meeting for which they are assigned; that way you’ll get more out of the course, and class discussions will be more substantial. Feel free to ask if you don’t understand something—if you don’t get it, odds are others won’t either, and by raising your voice, you’ll do everyone a favor.
Grading: The course grade is based on three tests (each counts a third of the grade). Tests are on readings assigned and material discussed in class. The tests have short essay questions and some fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice questions. Academic dishonesty is handled according to USF policy. Borderline course grades are determined by participation and attendance. S/U contracts must be negotiated in writing in the first two weeks of the term. Missed tests can be made up if you have a legitimate excuse (talk to me!). Incompletes are given for special circumstances (again, talk to me).
Test dates: Test 1 July 13; Test 2 July 22; Test 3 August 3.
Texts: James Rachels,
The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th
Edition (
Aristotle (384-322 BCE), The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross
Online at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachean.1.i.html (selections)
Confucius (551-479 BCE), Selections from the Analects and the Great Learning
Will be made available as handouts (2 pages)
Sequence: We will begin with a short general survey of philosophy, continue with Rachel’s Moral Philosophy, and conclude the class with a look at Confucius and Aristotle.
Assignment: In the next meeting (Thursday), we will discuss the handouts distributed today and the beginning of Rachels’ book (definitely chapter 1 and, if time permits, chapter 2). Please carefully read the handouts and chapters 1-2 (ca. 25 pages).
Dr. Martin Schönfeld
Summer B 2004
Handout 1
Philosophy is the rational investigation of human existence in the world. It is related to science; historically, it is the "mother" of the sciences. Like science, p. involves theories and examines issues and claims through logical checks and critical thinking. Unlike science, p. does not perform experiments because its objects are either rational entities or empirical issues too broad for experimentation. The term is from the Greek "philein" (love) and "sophia" (wisdom). P. involves multiple disciplines organized in the branches ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology.
Ethics studies the nature of morality and features
of human conduct. "What should we
do?" and "what
is happiness?" and "what is the good?" are its basic
questions. E. is the main discipline in
Eastern philosophy. It is related to social
and political philosophy (on justice and social goods), to philosophy of
law (on the foundations of legal norms), and to environmental ethics
(which applies ethical notions to our interaction with nature). Other names for E. are practical
philosophy and moral philosophy.
Logic studies the nature of truth, validity, and
the form of reasoning. It is related to philosophy
of mathematics, which investigates the basis of mathematical calculi, and
to philosophy of language, which studies the relations of syntax,
semantic, and the links between thoughts and words.
Metaphysics investigates the essence of being, the
structure and types of objects in the world.
M. was the main philosophical discipline in the West. In asking about fundamental frameworks,
metaphysics goes "beyond" (= "meta", Greek) the questions
asked by physics. Related to metaphysics
are ontology (the study of being), philosophy of religion (on the
question of God and the range of religious beliefs), and aesthetics (the
study of beauty).
Epistemology investigates the structure of knowledge,
the processes of perception, and the nature of cognition. Asks, "What is it that
we can know?" Ep. is related to the interdisciplinary cluster of the
brain sciences—philosophy of mind/cognitive science/artificial
intelligence. It is also related to philosophy
of science. While epistemology
studies the structure of knowledge in the individual, philosophy of science
studies the structure of knowledge (the methodology) in a group (the scientific
community). Another word for
epistemology is theory of understanding.
Dr. Martin Schönfeld
Summer B 2004
Handout 2
A theory
is a system of statements and strategies with the aim to explain
something. The central statements of a
theory are the core hypotheses; they supply the explanation of
events. For example, the core hypothesis
of the theory of relativity is “mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve,
and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move.” If a core hypothesis is confirmed (such that
its predictions turn out to be correct time and again, or that its implications
are corroborated by repeated experiments and match the gathered data), then it
will advance to a law of nature.
The hypotheses of a
theory are unified: the theory involves one consistent problem-solving
strategy. A problem that can’t be
solved immediately with the core hypotheses is an anomaly. Anomalies can be dealt with by advancing
additional claims, that is, by framing auxiliary hypotheses. Making an auxiliary hypothesis is guided by
rules (the new hypothesis must not only agree with the core hypothesis but also
be independently testable). An auxiliary
hypothesis that breaks these rules is an ad hoc hypothesis (which
flunks).
In an ethical
theory, core hypotheses are the central assumptions defining the view on
morality advocated by the theory. There
are two types of ethical theories. Some
ethical theories are descriptive: their aim is to describe the nature of
morality. They suggest answers to
questions such as "what is morality?" or "what does the moral
good consist in?" Essentially, such
theories specialize in analyzing morality as a human and cultural
phenomenon. They study and describe this
phenomenon like a flower or a tree, trying to understand its roots, leaves,
blossoms and rots.
Other ethical
theories are normative: their aim is to prescribe norms of
behavior. They propose answers to the
questions, "what is the right conduct?" or
"what should we do?"
Essentially, such theories specializing in constructing morality as a
guideline for action—they tell you what to do.
Although descriptive and normative theories deal with different things,
descriptive theories can have results that also point to normative
consequences.
Obviously, there
are lousy theories and awesome theories.
Their distinctions start already in their formal setup. In science, a good theory shares the
following features:
1. Unity
2. Internal
consistency
3. External
consistency
4. Explanatory and
predictive power
5. Parsimony, as
well as elegance or beauty
6. Fertility or
incompleteness
In ethics, a good
theory must satisfy a somewhat different set of criteria. In the above list, item 4 refers only to
descriptive, not to normative ethical theories.
In addition, a good theory in ethics must satisfy four more criteria:
7. Compatibility
with the most basic and rational moral convictions (without forgetting # 6)
8. Precision
9.
Comprehensiveness
10. Justifiability
by good reasons
Dr. Martin Schönfeld
Summer B 2004
Handout 3
The mind is a muscle. It gets stronger with practice. But regrettably, practice is work; it is more comfortable to watch TV and let the mind-muscle get all flabby and weak. But the easy way out is a bad solution—first of all, turning into a mental zombie makes one depressed and stupid, and second, mental zombies create problems for others. Philosophy is the practice of thinking, and philosophy makes us smarter. Even if we start with the mental equivalent of a butter knife, philosophy hones your mind to a razor blade—but only if you take the effort of sharpening it.
Philosophical analysis and theory is a rational investigation that involves steps of reasoning. The steps have structure, which is investigated by logic. Knowledge of logical structures allows you to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.
A step of reasoning
is an argument. It consists of statements
(individual sentences or syntactically complete parts of sentences). The result of the reasoning process is a
statement called conclusion. The
conclusion depends on prior statements, the premises, which set
forth the evidence for the conclusion.
Often we recognize premises and conclusion by key words: hence, thus,
so, therefore (conclusion); since, as, because (premise). The reasoning process by which you arrive at
a conclusion from premises is called an inference. In a deductive argument, the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. In an inductive argument, the
conclusion follows probably from the premises.
Truth and falsity refer to the content of
statements---to the content of the elements of the argument. Validity and invalidity refer
to the general skeleton or overall form of the argument. Logicians use "valid" and
"invalid" to refer to deductive arguments; while inductive arguments
are either "strong" or "weak". A deductive argument is valid if its
structure is OK. If the structure is
flawless, then true premises will always lead to a true conclusion, no
matter the content of the statements.
But if the structure is flawed, then true premises may lead to a false
conclusion. So, you can define validity
in this way: an argument is valid if it
is impossible that it has true premises and a false conclusion. An argument whose structure is valid and
whose premises are true is called a sound argument.
Bad arguments are
called fallacies. A formal
fallacy has a flaw in its form (invalid argument); an informal fallacy is
a bad argument whose form may be all right but whose contents are screwy. Informal fallacies may be caused by mistake,
but they could also be deliberate attempts to deceive you. Such deceptions can be subtle, and many
informal fallacies look like persuasive arguments.
Examples of valid
and invalid argument types:
1. Modus Ponens (valid): P à Q.
P. Therefore Q.
2. Formal Fallacy
of Affirming the
Antecedent (invalid): P à Q. Q. Therefore P.
3. Modus Tollens (valid): P à Q.
Not Q. Therefore
not P.
4. Formal Fallacy
of Denying the Consequence (invalid): P à Q.
Not P. Therefore
not Q.
(Try it yourself: P
= it rains, Q = the street is wet)
Dr. Martin Schönfeld
Summer B 2004
Handout 4
This list looks rather boring but is worth contemplating. The interesting (or creepy) thing about informal fallacies is that they work. Since they are essentially lies and deceptions, they tend to lead to bad outcomes. This is most visible in history and politics—fallacies create police states.
The Bandwagon:
"According to most people, X. Therefore, X."
Problem: Whether something is true has nothing to do
with how many people believe it true.
The Appeal to
Snobbery: "According to cool people, X. Therefore, X."
Problem: Coolness has nothing to do with truth.
Ad Hominem (Argument against the Person): "According to y, X. y is a creep. Therefore, not X.
Problem: The circumstances of a person do not make a
statement by the person true or false, unless the circumstances have something
to do with the statement.
Tu Quoque ("You, too!"): "How dare you say I
shouldn't do X; you do X yourself!
(Therefore, X is OK.)"
Problem: Whether somebody does
something has nothing to do with whether something is true or false, or good or
bad. It is ok to use this argument to
point out a contradiction in someone's behavior, but it’s not ok not to
legitimize something that's false or wrong.
Appeal to
Authority: "y thinks that X. y is excellent,
famous, etc. Therefore, X."
Problem: If y is not an authority on the issue, then
this is a fallacy. If y is an authority on
the issue, then the conclusion follows inductively, not deductively (even
experts make mistakes).
Straw Man: A great rhetorical trick, used by politicians and radio hosts all the time. First, you repeat the argument of your opponent, but with a twist, making the opponent's argument sound sillier than it is. Then, you present your refutation. Problem: What is refuted is only your own, silly version—not the original argument. You’ve merely knocked down a straw man.
Appeal to
Ignorance: The premises state that nothing has been
proven about X the one way or other but the conclusion makes a definite
assertion about X. Problem: duh!
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question):
Often used by fundamentalists.
Big but empty words hide the fact that some premises may not be
true. It involves circular reasoning;
the argument tricks you into granting the very claim that needs to be proved.
Hasty
Generalization: Formally, like a normal inductive argument;
it involves an inference from a sample to a larger group. The problem occurs, and the generalization
becomes "hasty", if the sample is too small or not representative of
the larger group.
False Dichotomy: famously used in Fascism---if you
criticize our leader, you’re not a patriot!
(Implicit structure: either you’re a critic or a patriot. You’re a critic. So you’re not a patriot. Formally: Either C or P. C.
Therefore not P. Problem: The listener is cheated into thinking that
the disjunctive premise exhausts the alternatives (but there may be third
options).
Red Herring: Similar to another fallacy, the Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point). Missing the Point occurs when the information of the premises points to a certain conclusion, but then a different conclusion is drawn. The Red Herring happens when the arguer diverts attention by changing the subject to some totally different issue.