Abbreviation key:
w/ = with
Introduction to Ethics Lecture Notes FULL w/o = without
b/w = between
Friday, April 12, 2019 10:03 PM b/c = because
vs = versus
Ex: = For example,
1. Arguing Philosophy AKA = also known as
• Deduction/Sound Argument: if premises are true, the conclusion is supported to also be
true. 6. Philosophy of Mind
○ If one structure of an argument is true, then the same structure would always be • Philosophy concerned with the nature of the mind, how we know there are other minds, nature
valid. of consciousness. Focus on 3 areas:
○ However, if the premises are false, the conclusion may be true-- it just isn't ○ Problem of consciousness, nature of perceptions, emotions.
supported by the premises given. • Phenomenal consciousness: conscious only known to the person experiencing it. Subjective!
• Induction Argument: premises make the conclusion more likely, yet said premises Even neurological studies cannot capture its nature.
doesn't entail it. • Taxonomy of views (4):
○ This argument is used widely in science. 7. Reductionist physicalism: once one knows all about the physical realm, there is nothing else to
know.
• Philosophy works with abstract claims. The hard part is to carefully construct
reasoning/arguments to support said claims. 8. Non-reductionist physicalism: contends that there is an explanatory gap b/w the mental and
physical realms. States that although the mental realm is grounded upon facts about the
physical realm, one cannot directly infer the mental from the physical.
2. Ethical Theory
PART 1 7. Metaphysics
• Ethics: how to live a "good life" in general. No moral aspects. A much broader concept • Abstract objects: objects that are not made of matter -> thus not located in space-time.
than morality. • Ex. Numbers. Exists outside space and time (Platonical world); not physical.
• What makes a good life? What is fundamentally valuable in life? • Platonists: those who believe in an abstract realm where abstract objects exist.
○ An example of this would be wisdom: how to employ knowledge wisely. ○ Natural explanation: abstract objects are involved stand in appropriate relation to one
• Morals: what is right or wrong. another. Object 1 is in relevant to Object 2. Their positions depending on one another
• Instrumental vs Non-instrumental: valuable for its worth (i.e. money), versus for its own suggest that said statement involving those objects are true. -> for this statement to be
sake. true, we are appealing to real objects now.
○ Non-instrumental value is the final, most sought after value.
• Intrinsic vs Extrinsic: one must know its relational properties for it to be valuable, versus ○ Reason alone can determine important truths of the world around us.
the description of being valuable by itself with no further explanation. ○ Yet where might they exist?
PART 2
• Moral Relativism: the notion that morality is relative to the culture or the individual. • Nominalists: those who do not believe there are abstract objects.
○ It is in the eye of the beholder. Similar to taste, beauty, humor, etc. ○ Believe in the empiricists idea that all we ever encounter in our experience is material
○ One's morals can be conditioned by the cultures they grew up in. objects.
○ Cons: Being a relativist involves a lot of open-mindedness. Ex: The Holocaust ○ Reason alone cannot help us reach a truth/build up accounts around us-> it is experience
• Had to make sense of progress if relativist. we should be relying on.
• Counteract moral professionals, and state no one can be an expert at morals, ○ Fictionalism: popular kind of nominalism with radical conclusion. Claims that involving
because everyone is on their own path. abstract objects are not true. Statements involving abstract objects (mathematical claims)
○ Pros: Opinionated statements made in a discussion do not have to turn into are like a story-- a narrative.
arguments. Without moral relativism, morals would involve disagreement (such as in ○ Have a "kind of truth," but only in the narrative (fictional truth). Can apply that to
our real world). Something objective about moral judgement. Thus... mathematics: structuring abstract objects in these ways allows us to make sense of these
○ Is morality objective? According to relativists, it is not. It's something we project onto claims.
the world. Yet, there are certain objective statements associated with morality. Ex: ○ Ex. Harry Potter is a wizard. Harry is not a real person, nor do wizards exist. Yet… only
Don’t kick babies for fun. true in the books.
• According to G.E. Moore, it is intelligible to consider a moral property when questioning a ○ However, math is the core part of science/scientific understanding of the world. How is it
natural property. ---> This is an open question! Used this argument to state whether possible that our scientific understanding of the world appeases to statements that are not
morality cannot be identified with natural property. true?
• We are not acquainted with abstract objects. How would we determine a mathematical equation
as true? (2+2=4)
• Universals: belief that properties should be viewed by the abstract objects the share. Aka
properties are abstract objects.
3. Political Philosophy • Universals do not appeal to physical property of the object, appeals to how those physical
PART 1 properties instantiate [have an instance; be represented by an actual example] a universal that
• Political Philosophy: questions the nature of the state and the government, and the is common to both objects (brown shoe and couch). Aka objects share the same property.
relationships of people in it. But…
○ Will focus on freedom, justice, and global justice • If we explain that objects can share properties, you must also acknowledge that that will appeal
• Positive vs Negative (individual) Freedom: to universals to do that.
○ + = freedom to achieve our goals ○ Are also appealing to abstract objects, those that do not appear in the world.
○ - = freedom from coercion and interference from others. • As opposed to Trope: views properties as strictly physical.
w/ = with
Introduction to Ethics Lecture Notes FULL w/o = without
b/w = between
Friday, April 12, 2019 10:03 PM b/c = because
vs = versus
Ex: = For example,
1. Arguing Philosophy AKA = also known as
• Deduction/Sound Argument: if premises are true, the conclusion is supported to also be
true. 6. Philosophy of Mind
○ If one structure of an argument is true, then the same structure would always be • Philosophy concerned with the nature of the mind, how we know there are other minds, nature
valid. of consciousness. Focus on 3 areas:
○ However, if the premises are false, the conclusion may be true-- it just isn't ○ Problem of consciousness, nature of perceptions, emotions.
supported by the premises given. • Phenomenal consciousness: conscious only known to the person experiencing it. Subjective!
• Induction Argument: premises make the conclusion more likely, yet said premises Even neurological studies cannot capture its nature.
doesn't entail it. • Taxonomy of views (4):
○ This argument is used widely in science. 7. Reductionist physicalism: once one knows all about the physical realm, there is nothing else to
know.
• Philosophy works with abstract claims. The hard part is to carefully construct
reasoning/arguments to support said claims. 8. Non-reductionist physicalism: contends that there is an explanatory gap b/w the mental and
physical realms. States that although the mental realm is grounded upon facts about the
physical realm, one cannot directly infer the mental from the physical.
2. Ethical Theory
PART 1 7. Metaphysics
• Ethics: how to live a "good life" in general. No moral aspects. A much broader concept • Abstract objects: objects that are not made of matter -> thus not located in space-time.
than morality. • Ex. Numbers. Exists outside space and time (Platonical world); not physical.
• What makes a good life? What is fundamentally valuable in life? • Platonists: those who believe in an abstract realm where abstract objects exist.
○ An example of this would be wisdom: how to employ knowledge wisely. ○ Natural explanation: abstract objects are involved stand in appropriate relation to one
• Morals: what is right or wrong. another. Object 1 is in relevant to Object 2. Their positions depending on one another
• Instrumental vs Non-instrumental: valuable for its worth (i.e. money), versus for its own suggest that said statement involving those objects are true. -> for this statement to be
sake. true, we are appealing to real objects now.
○ Non-instrumental value is the final, most sought after value.
• Intrinsic vs Extrinsic: one must know its relational properties for it to be valuable, versus ○ Reason alone can determine important truths of the world around us.
the description of being valuable by itself with no further explanation. ○ Yet where might they exist?
PART 2
• Moral Relativism: the notion that morality is relative to the culture or the individual. • Nominalists: those who do not believe there are abstract objects.
○ It is in the eye of the beholder. Similar to taste, beauty, humor, etc. ○ Believe in the empiricists idea that all we ever encounter in our experience is material
○ One's morals can be conditioned by the cultures they grew up in. objects.
○ Cons: Being a relativist involves a lot of open-mindedness. Ex: The Holocaust ○ Reason alone cannot help us reach a truth/build up accounts around us-> it is experience
• Had to make sense of progress if relativist. we should be relying on.
• Counteract moral professionals, and state no one can be an expert at morals, ○ Fictionalism: popular kind of nominalism with radical conclusion. Claims that involving
because everyone is on their own path. abstract objects are not true. Statements involving abstract objects (mathematical claims)
○ Pros: Opinionated statements made in a discussion do not have to turn into are like a story-- a narrative.
arguments. Without moral relativism, morals would involve disagreement (such as in ○ Have a "kind of truth," but only in the narrative (fictional truth). Can apply that to
our real world). Something objective about moral judgement. Thus... mathematics: structuring abstract objects in these ways allows us to make sense of these
○ Is morality objective? According to relativists, it is not. It's something we project onto claims.
the world. Yet, there are certain objective statements associated with morality. Ex: ○ Ex. Harry Potter is a wizard. Harry is not a real person, nor do wizards exist. Yet… only
Don’t kick babies for fun. true in the books.
• According to G.E. Moore, it is intelligible to consider a moral property when questioning a ○ However, math is the core part of science/scientific understanding of the world. How is it
natural property. ---> This is an open question! Used this argument to state whether possible that our scientific understanding of the world appeases to statements that are not
morality cannot be identified with natural property. true?
• We are not acquainted with abstract objects. How would we determine a mathematical equation
as true? (2+2=4)
• Universals: belief that properties should be viewed by the abstract objects the share. Aka
properties are abstract objects.
3. Political Philosophy • Universals do not appeal to physical property of the object, appeals to how those physical
PART 1 properties instantiate [have an instance; be represented by an actual example] a universal that
• Political Philosophy: questions the nature of the state and the government, and the is common to both objects (brown shoe and couch). Aka objects share the same property.
relationships of people in it. But…
○ Will focus on freedom, justice, and global justice • If we explain that objects can share properties, you must also acknowledge that that will appeal
• Positive vs Negative (individual) Freedom: to universals to do that.
○ + = freedom to achieve our goals ○ Are also appealing to abstract objects, those that do not appear in the world.
○ - = freedom from coercion and interference from others. • As opposed to Trope: views properties as strictly physical.
