6 Intel

TELECOURSE STUDY GUIDE FOR

The Examined LifeFOURTH EDITION

author

J. P. WhiteChair, Department of Philosophy

Santa Barbara City College

contributing author

Manuel VelasquezProfessor of PhilosophySanta Clara University

The television series The Examined Life was designed and produced by INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommu-nications, Netherlands Educational Broadcasting Corporation (TELEAC/NOT), and Swedish EducationalBroadcasting Company (UR)

Copyright © 2007, 2005, 2002, 1999 by INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, elec-tronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,without the written permission of INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications, 150 E. Colorado Blvd.,Suite 300, Pasadena, California 91105-1937.

ISBN: 0-495-10302-0

This Telecourse Study Guide for The Examined Life is part of a college-level introduction to philosophy telecourse developed in conjunctionwith the video series The Examined Life, and the text Philosophy: AText with Readings, tenth edition, by Manuel Velasquez, TheCharles Dirksen Professor, Santa Clara University.

iii

ContentsIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vLesson One — What is Philosophy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Lesson Two — What is Human Nature?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Lesson Three — Is Mind Distinct From Body?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Lesson Four — Is There an Enduring Self?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Lesson Five — Are We Social Beings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Lesson Six — What is Real? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Lesson Seven — How Do We Encounter the World? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Lesson Eight — Do We Have Free Will? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Lesson Nine — Is Time Real? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Lesson Ten — Does God Exist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Lesson Eleven — Can We Know God Through Experience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Lesson Twelve — Is Reason the Source of Knowledge?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Lesson Thirteen — Does Knowledge Depend on Experience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Lesson Fourteen — Does the Mind Shape the World? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Lesson Fifteen — How Does Science Add to Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Lesson Sixteen — Does Science Give Us Truth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Lesson Seventeen — Are Interpretations True? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99Lesson Eighteen — Is Morality Relative? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Lesson Nineteen — Does the End Justify the Means? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Lesson Twenty — Can Rules Define Morality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Lesson Twenty-one — Is Ethics Based on Virtue? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123Lesson Twenty-Two — Moral Dilemmas . . . Can Ethics Help? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129Lesson Twenty-three — What Justifies the State? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135Lesson Twenty-four — What is Justice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Lesson Twenty-five — What is Art? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147Lesson Twenty-six — What is the Meaning of Life? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153Appendix — Answers for Self-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

v

Introduction

THE ADVENTURE

At the dawn of a new century, a new millennium,we bring to this moment of our history nearly10,000 years of thinking and rethinking the natureof our universe, our world, and ourselves. Whilevast, elaborate, and complex systems of belief litterthe path of our history, we presently face our futurewith a myriad of belief systems scattered aroundplanet Earth. Not one of the belief systems operativetoday is without paradox and incompleteness. Yetthese systems of belief constitute our understandingand serve as the guides for our actions. The Exam-ined Life takes you on an unparalleled adventure ofphilosophical reflection through the fundamentalbeliefs and presuppositions that variously underlieall of humanity’s various systems of belief. In thecompany of some of the late twentieth century’s fin-est philosophical minds, you are about to exploreThe Examined Life.

Philosophy, a term believed to have beencoined by Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.,comes from two Greek words, philein, to love, andsophia, wisdom. Philosophy thus means a love ofwisdom and marks at least 2,500 years of humani-ty’s passionate commitment to seeking wisdom. Butwhat is wisdom? Who might have wisdom?

Essentially, the history of philosophy indicatesthat wisdom minimally requires knowledge of bothwhat is and what ought to be. The Examined Life,through its 26 episodes, will explore significantphilosophical ports of call pertaining to knowledgeand value. By embarking upon this adventure, you

will experience questions, issues, and viewpointsyou may never have considered previously.

In conjunction with Professor Manuel Ve-lasquez’s text, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, TheExamined Life introduces you to specific problemsand people who have come to define our philosophi-cal heritage as well as those who are presently defin-ing our philosophical future. Significantly, TheExamined Life is a problem-based series and notsimply an historical narrative. The series is verymuch alive with its contemporary focus upon issuesthat are sometimes ancient in their origins yet ur-gent in their modern application. As the twentiethcentury Oxford philosopher of history, R.G. Colling-wood remarked in The Idea of History.

In part, the problems of Philosophy are un-changing, in part, they vary from age to ageand in the best philosophers of every age thesetwo parts are so interwoven that the perma-nent problems appear sub specie saeculi, andthe special problems of the age sub specieaeternitatis.

This study guide is one part of the total pack-age you will have available to you when you embarkupon the 26 half-hour journeys that make up TheExamined Life. As a telecourse, this series – in con-junction with your campus instructor as your guide– will also be enhanced by the newly revised tenthedition of Professor Manuel Velasquez’s, Philosophy:A Text With Readings. Professor Velasquez has sig-nificantly tailored his very popular and thoroughtext to generously complement The Examined Life.

Telecourse Study Guide for The Examined Life

vi

In this Study Guide you will find:A set of Learning Objectives, which will

serve as benchmarks for your climb from the unex-amined to the examined life.

An Overview of each episode, which high-lights the significant concepts and points of viewcontained in each episode.

Text Links will guide you to relevant sectionsof the Velasquez text, Philosophy: A Text With Read-ings, for a further, and in most cases more detailed,analysis of the problems and theories under discus-sion. This scholarly, yet accessible, text also pro-vides an opportunity to read original works, eitherhistorical or contemporary.

Key Terms will provide definitions of thosephilosophical terms which now largely define theprofessional nomenclature of academic philosophybut may yet be foreign to the novice philosopher.

A Self-Test proves a series of questions to as-sist you in understanding the material in each epi-sode and to provide a method of review.

Paradoxical Pursuits will provide succinctstatements of the conflicting points of view brought

forth in each episode with suggestions for your fur-ther philosophical reflections.

Applied Philosophy will conclude eachchapter with suggestions on how you can apply theconcepts and theories learned in each episode toother aspects of your life – classes you may be tak-ing, conversations you may have with your familyaround the dinner table, or just about anywhere re-flective people concerned with their intellectual in-tegrity might gather.

Net Links will provide you with addresses toaccess the rich resource of the Internet. Rememberthat each site provided here is linked to many othersites. Any one of the websites listed throughout thistext will provide even the novice web surfer withpotential contacts to the entire world of philosophy.

As Socrates claimed, “The unexamined life isnot worth living.” The Examined Life is the tele-course that will introduce you to the examined lifein all of its fascinating and rich detail. Welcome tothe adventure. Welcome to The Examined Life.

1

Lesson One

What is Philosophy?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon completing this lesson, you should be familiarwith the concepts contained in the lesson and ableto critically discuss:

� the distinction philosophers draw between theexamined life and the unexamined life.

� Plato’s Myth of the Cave and its relevance to liv-ing the examined life.

� at least five of the traditional aspects of the pro-cess whereby a person moves from an unexam-ined life to the examined life.

� basic elements of the Socratic method and itsapplication.

� the essential role that questions play in definingan examined life.

OVERVIEW

Imagine living your whole life in an apartment withno windows or doors; only electric lights for illumi-nation. All of your information comes from televi-sion, and all that ever plays are cartoons in endlessvariety. You have a few friends who live with you inthis apartment but no one knows of the sunny out-doors. The refrigerator and pantry are always

stocked with nicely wrapped packages of food andthe apartment nicely decorated throughout with ar-tificial plants. You have no idea of what the foodproducts actually are or where they come from, notbecause you can’t get any answers but because thequestions never occur to you. You never think of go-ing anywhere because this seems to you all that ex-ists.

One day you’re standing alone when part ofthe wall suddenly slides back. You’re grabbed frombehind and jerked out of your apartment. Startledand frightened, you are relentlessly pulled up a longhallway to a control center where technicians andsupport staff work to keep your apartment and othersimilar apartments functioning. Their booth is illu-minated by a large skylight whose filtered sunlight isvery harsh compared to what you’re accustomed to.You are confused, disoriented. You cannot see verywell as you are actually suffering from a conditionknown as rigid pupilary reflex. The pupils of youreyes have not been exercised as they would havebeen had you grown up in the complex, ever chang-ing real world of variable natural light. Now yourpupils must adapt to this more complex and chang-ing environment. These changes will not, accordingto the standard prognosis, be comfortable for you.

Again, you are dragged. You pass the techni-cians’ booth. Continuing to squint, as the light hurtsyour eyes, you can hardly make out who is draggingyou so relentlessly. You beg to stop just to get ori-ented, or plead to go back to the familiarity of yourapartment, but they continue to pull you along, uptoward an opening that is blindingly bright. Finally,

Kevin

Sticky Note

The parable of the cave is undoubtedly a powerful metaphor for the process of gaining a heightened sense of understanding of the true nature of reality. When I got my

2 Telecourse Study Guide for The Examined Life

you are tossed out. You can’t see a thing but you feela breeze. This breeze is so very different from thebreeze your hair dryer would make. This breeze isnot constant but changes in intensity, in tempera-ture, even in smell. The ground also feels different.It is uneven, rough, nothing like your smooth, soft,always-level nylon carpet. Slowly your eyesightreturns and you are absolutely stunned by the mag-nificent onslaught of colors and shades that flood inupon you. The lush panorama stretches to the hori-zon, the distance of which you had never beforeimagined. Stunned, you start to smile, then laughuncontrollably, then finally cry and laugh whilemuttering, “Reality! So this is Reality!”

What you’ve just read, as you have no doubtrealized since viewing Episode 1 of The ExaminedLife, is an updated variation on Plato’s parable,known as the Myth of the Cave. Rather than a cave,we have an apartment; rather than shadows, wehave cartoons on television. The question ariseshere again, 2,250 years after Plato first posed it,would anybody, would you, choose to live out yourlife at the bottom of Plato’s cave, or in the abovedescribed apartment? Would you choose to livewhere your beliefs and thoughts were only directedat shadows or cartoons? Ignorance could perhapskeep one blissful under such conditions but to any-one not ignorant of the alternative, the prospect ofsuch a life of cave or apartment dwelling is no doubtterrifying. The thought of living out one’s life undersuch conditions raises profound questions concern-ing the value of life itself. As Socrates so eloquentlyand unconditionally expressed, “The unexaminedlife is not worth living.” Socrates, as we know, gaveup his life rather than live the unexamined life,rather than live under conditions of pervasive igno-rance.

The prospect of being placed in such a cave orapartment of ignorance awakens in one questionsabout the role of knowledge in terms of the value oflife. For life alone is not worth living, as Socratesreminds us; only the good life is worth living. Thegood life is not one of ignorance but is the examinedlife. Socrates inevitably brings this issue directlyhome to each of us. How extensively have youexamined the beliefs that have come to define whoyou are and how you live your daily life? Has themass media, the shopping mall mentality, suburbanhomogeneity socialized you so thoroughly that youlive in a world of shadows and don’t even realize it?Do you actually live an examined or an unexaminedlife? Have you fallen prey to such glib, popular viewsthat morals are a matter of how you feel or truth isrelative to each of us? Are you, say, a Christian who

believes in one God, because that is how you wereraised but had you been raised in India, you wouldhave been a Hindu, believing in many gods? Are wesimply socialized cave dwellers oblivious to the pro-cesses that have caused our beliefs? Are we ignorantof the questions that might deepen our understand-ing and thereby provide us with an examined life?

Socrates (469 B.C. to 399 B.C.) has come tohistorically exemplify this quest for an examinedlife. Socrates’ pursuit is philosophical in the oldestand hence broadest sense of the word philosophical.Philosophy begins in wonderment, as Socrates’ stu-dent, Plato, pointed out. In that wonderment a ques-tion arises but, as Socrates made abundantly clear,not just any answer will do. The acceptable answeris not simply one you may feel comfortable with norone that you really want to believe. An acceptableanswer is ultimately one that satisfies some rationalor logical criteria. This reliance upon rational crite-ria as the test of an answer’s acceptability is the pri-mary reason all academic disciplines today award aPhD—the Philosophical Doctorate. Questioning,then searching for rationally defensible answers, isthe legacy of Socrates.

Because Socrates would not settle for just anyanswer, his questions often remained withoutanswers. People sometimes criticize philosophy asconsisting of only questions and no answers.Socrates would probably be perplexed by such a crit-icism and might ask, “And so, what’s your point?”

Some questions are very personal; they rattlethe foundation of one’s belief system. These are thequestions that Socrates pursued relentlessly—thequestions that finally landed him in prison, facingexecution. His questions concerned religious beliefs,and whether or not such beliefs are rational.Socrates encouraged youth to look beyond the shad-ows of convention and acculturation in the cave,and to expose their beliefs to the light of rationalinquiry directed at the truth. For such questioning,Socrates was condemned for impiety and corruptingthe youth.

The joy of wonderment, the need to question,the discovery that not just any answer will do arethe critical activities that Socrates so vividly exem-plified over 2,000 years ago. They still motivatehumans to philosophize in its broadest sense. Forthe philosopher, these activities make life itselfworth living. To repeat and emphasize Socrates’point, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Contemporary philosophers, W. V. Quine,John Searle, Hilary Putnam, Stephen Toulmin,Daniel Dennett, and others describe in this openingepisode how they came to philosophy through this

Lesson One: What is Philosophy? 3

same process. Some question initially sparked theirsense of wonderment. The realization that not justany answer will do motivated them to search—sometimes for a lifetime—below the surface, behindthe shadows.

In this sense, all rigorous pursuers of truth arephilosophers and in this sense the Myth of the Caveis about the intrinsic value of education, or, as some-times translated, enlightenment. Without philoso-phy in this grand sense there would be no systematicquestioning nor would there be the pursuit ofanswers capable of rational support.

Through Plato, we have inherited a picture ofSocrates as someone who relentlessly but systemati-cally both raised questions and evaluated purportedanswers with such integrity that when finally hisown life was held in the balance he chose to dierather than live an unexamined life. Socrates’ lifeand legacy haunts every one of us who are con-cerned about our intellectual integrity and the qual-ity of our life. Now you must decide for yourself thevalue of the examined life.

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 1.1“What is Philosophy?” How does Velasquezrelate Plato’s Myth of the Cave to the goal ofautonomy? What has autonomy to do with theexamined life?

� For a look at an extended example of theSocratic method, turn to Velasquez 1.3 “AnExample of Philosophy: Socrates.” Includedhere are selections from Euthyphro, The Apol-ogy, and Crito.

� For a brief discussion of some of the earliest phi-losophers, see Velasquez 1.6 “Historical Show-case: The First Philosophers.” Included areThales, Heraclitus, and Parmenides as well as aselection from the Upanishad philosophers.

KEY TERMS

Ambiguity: Having more than one meaning in aparticular context. The word “pen” is ambiguous in

the sentence, “The farmer’s pen is empty.” Ambigu-ity is sometimes popularly used to mean vague, butin the study of language vagueness and ambiguityare distinct features. Some have argued that whilewords, phrases, and sentences can be both vagueand ambiguous, concepts and propositions can onlybe vague and are never ambiguous.

Autonomy: The freedom of being able to decide foroneself by using one’s own rationality.

Dogmatism: An inflexibly held position that is notopen to inquiry or questioning.

Euthanasia: Good death, in ancient Greek. Today,it has come to be associated with mercy killing.

Explanation: Giving an account of why somethingtaken to be true is true. While all explanations mayrequire descriptions, not all descriptions require oreven involve explanations.

Ignorance: Not knowing. Ignorance and stupidityare not treated here as synonyms.

Intrinsic value: The inherent value a thing pos-sesses independent of some external or extrinsicvalue it might have or bring about.

Metaphysical: Concerning the ultimate nature ofreality.

Parable: A story meant to teach a moral or giveinsight.

Philosophy: A modern variation on two Greekwords, philein, to love, and sophia, wisdom. Hence,philosophy has the traditional definition of being alove of wisdom.

Reasoning: To systematically think about someproblem. More specifically, the activity of justifyingsome position.

Synthesis: The bringing together of conflictingviews, claims, and the like to create a new view fromthose conflicting views. The new view being thesynthesis of the old.


SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to Socratesa. if life could become a party, then life is worth

livingb. too many questions can make life not worth

livingc. fortune and fame alone make life worth liv-

ingd. the unexamined life is not worth living

2. In the Myth of the Cave, Plato describesa. a group of curiosity seekers getting lost in the

cave of ignoranceb. a group of people existing in ignorance at the

bottom of a cavec. a group of persecuted scholars hiding out in a

caved. an individual finding the secrets of the uni-

verse in the bottom of a cave

3. For Plato, the process whereby an individualleaves his or her state of ignorance will occur bya. being dragged out reluctantly and forced into

the light of realityb. individually breaking lose of the chains of

ignorance and bravely pursuing the truth onone’s own

c. conforming closely to what one has beenraised to believe

d. seeking a guru who possesses the ultimateanswers

4. The Socratic method primarily focuses upona. answersb. clever answersc. the most complicated answersd. questions

5. For Socrates, the greatest thing a person can doisa. having a job that pays a decent wageb. question oneself and others to discover what

makes us goodc. accept the status-quo, since the world is

never perfectd. leave society to meditate and purify oneself

6. According to the Myth of the Cave, the processof getting out of the cave is:a. disorienting, painful, frightening, gradual b. clear, pleasant, fun, quickc. something each individual must do com-

pletely alone, in isolationd. an act that curious humans do quite naturally

7. Socrates was condemned to death fora. giving State secrets to the Spartansb. desecrating the temple of Athenac. dishonesty and cowardiced. impiety and corrupting the youth

8. While the Oracle at Delphi claimed Socrateswas the wisest of men, Socrates came to acceptthis as true because hea. knew, he knewb. knew he knew more than most peoplec. knew, he didn’t knowd. didn’t know he knew, he knew

9. Philosophy consists of all of the following excepta. thinkingb. reasoningc. factsd. arguing

10. The primary value of philosophy isa. extrinsicb. monetaryc. vocationald. intrinsic

True or False

These questions are only from the reading assign-ment in Velasquez, Sections 1.1 and 1.3. Specificpage references are given in the answer key.

11. The female Greek philosopher, Perictione,wrote that while other subjects study a particu-lar aspect of the world, philosophy is concernedwith all that exists.

12. The Republic shows Socrates at his trial, defend-ing his life-long commitment to philosophy.

13. Socrates asks Euthyphro to identify the charac-teristic that makes all beautiful things beautiful.

14. In The Apology, Socrates argues that the unex-amined life is not worth living.


15. In Crito, Socrates argues that we should obeythe laws of society because they are establishedby God.

PARADOXICAL PURSUITS

Some people with Down syndrome, while havingvery limited IQs, tend to be very pleasant, even joy-ful. If these are cases of ignorance bringing bliss,would you prefer ignorance and blissfulness toknowledge with its additional burdens? Would youchoose to have Down syndrome if you could beguaranteed blissfulness?

�Socrates states, “I tell you that wealth does notmake you good within, but that from inner goodnesscomes wealth and every other benefit to man.” Jesusasked in the Gospels, “What benefits a person togain the world and lose her soul?” Do you think So-crates and Jesus share a similar view?

�Certain of the philosophers in this series reportcoming to philosophy as a result of discovering thatquestions arose regarding beliefs they had previous-ly accepted uncritically. Quine describes being skep-tical over his family’s religious beliefs, Wongdiscovered the problem of evil, and Toulmin reactedto his father’s dogmatism. What questions of thissort are you facing presently? Be very clear in youranswer, then ask this question again after viewingthe entire Examined Life video series. Have your an-swers and/or questions changed, increased, de-creased?

�Which is more important to living the examined life,the art of questioning or the skill in finding an ac-ceptable answer? How do questions shape their an-swers? Can you give examples to illustrate yourclaims?

�If the pursuit of knowledge is as difficult, gradual,disorienting, and painful as Plato describes in theMyth of the Cave, why do it?

�Would you describe your present culture, circle offriends or family as one open to critical inquiry and

investigation? If not, what are their limits? If yes,how searching or sophisticated is their inquiry?What types of questions are they typically con-cerned with?

�It was claimed that Socrates often asked questionsbut no satisfactory answers were ever found thoughmany were suggested. Is it possible that Socratesfound no answers to his questions because he wasasking the wrong kind of questions?

�Quietly reflect and honestly answer, where you arepersonally more comfortable—at the predictable,cozy bottom of the cave or in the arduous attempt toget out? What actions of yours would support thisbelief you have about yourself?

�Are there limits to examining life? When does thepursuit of knowledge undermine the value of life?When does one become a pedantic bore?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your family and friends what they know aboutSocrates. In talking with your family or other mem-bers of your class, how does your understanding ofSocrates compare to theirs?

�Try having a discussion with someone during whichyou don’t express your own opinion, but discoverthe depths of their views by only asking questions.

�Tell your friends the Myth of the Cave or describethe story of the apartment, then find out if they be-lieve the examined or the unexamined life is worthliving.

�Tied to the view of the unexamined life not beingworth living is the ancient Greek view that igno-rance is the root of misfortune. Reading today’snewspaper, how many of the day’s misfortunes aretied to ignorance? to someone not thinking clearly?

�


How often do you become annoyed, frustrated, oreven angry because of your own or someone else’sfailure to think clearly? to not think at all? to actstupidly? Are these all marks of the unexamined lifeand the loss of life’s worth or goodness due to igno-rance?

NET LINKS

Check out these Internet sites for additional rele-vant philosophical information. Remember the In-ternet is a web. Each of these listed sites is linked toother sites. By surfing you will soon be linked to aresource the vastness of which civilization has nev-er previously had available.

Philosophy Resources:

— http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/phil-inks.htm

This site can link you to the world of philoso-phy. It is regularly maintained and is very userfriendly. It could take you years to exhaust thisresource.

— http://www.epistemelinks.com

— http://www.refdesk.com/philos.html

— http://www.lib.uci.edu/online/subject/subpage.php?subject=philos

Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

— http://www.utm.edu/research/iep

Just select a letter for an alphabetical listing oftopics.

Philosophy Papers:

— http://philosophy.hku.hk/paper/info.php

— http://cogprints.org/view/subjects/phil.html

Eastern and Western Philosophy:

— http://www.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/philoso-phy.htm

This site includes rich references to work inboth the Eastern and Western traditions of phi-losophy as well as information and links to the

myriad schools within these two vast traditions.It is also a rather colorful site.

Metaphysics:

— http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHI.html

Socrates:

— http://socrates.clarke.edu

Julia Annas:

— http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jannas

David Chalmers:

— http://consc.net/chalmers

An outstanding site.

Paul Churchland:

— http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/pchurchland/index.php

Daniel Dennett:

— http://www.2think.org/dennett.shtml

— http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap16/author.html

Susan Haack:

— http://www.miami.edu/phi/haack

Martha Nussbaum:

— http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum

Hilary Putnam:

— http://www.webalice.it/af_gazzola/putnam/home.htm

— http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_jun2002.htm

W.V. Quine:

— http://www.wvquine.org

Richard Rorty:

— http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/rorty


Michael Sandel:

— http://kevincmurphy.com/sandel.html

John Searle:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle

— http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Searle/searle-con0.html

J.J.C. Smart:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._C._Smart

Stephen Toulmin:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin

Susan Wolf:

— http://www.unc.edu/depts/phildept/wolf.html

9

Lesson Two

What is Human Nature?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon completing this lesson, you should be familiarwith the concepts contained in this lesson and beable to critically discuss:

� the traditional Greek view of human nature.

� the Christian view of human nature and how itarose out of and differs from the Greek view.

� the implications of Darwin’s principle of naturalselection on the traditional western view ofhuman nature.

� the significance of the existentialists’ claim thatexistence precedes essence.

OVERVIEW

Risen ape or fallen angel? Is there such a thing ashuman nature? What do such claims as, “I’m onlyhuman after all” or “Just act like a human being”come to? Do the words humanely, humanity, inhu-man refer to the presence or absence of somethingdistinctively and significantly human; to a humannature?

Throughout most of our recorded history, wehave conceived of ourselves as consisting of twoparts, a physical body and a non-physical soul. Whilemany other things have bodies, humans came to be

regarded as different, distinctive in their havingsouls. For most of our ancestors, this soul wasbelieved to survive the death of the body. Accordingto many traditions, the soul was also believed to beimmortal. The presence of a soul was the mark of thehuman.

In the fourth century B.C., the Greek philoso-pher Plato argued that the soul was contained in thebody, like the captain within the body of the ship.Borrowing from his predecessor Pythagoras, Platoheld a tripartite view of the soul, describing it as hav-ing three parts: appetite, spirit, and reason. Appetiterefers to desires, such as the desire for air, nourish-ment, sleep, shelter, and sex. Spirit refers to moreaggressive emotions and feelings such as anger, ven-geance, jealousy, and hate. Appetite and spirit weredistinct for Plato since two people can have the samedesire but have very different emotional reactions toit. The rational part, according to Plato, directs thespirit and appetite. Reason, the rational part, directsspirit and appetite, according to Plato, like a chario-teer with two steeds.

Plato’s student Aristotle agreed with many ofhis teacher’s views, but broadened his theorybecause of his own research in biology. For Aristo-tle, rationality became the defining feature of man.Since everything in nature has its own distinct telos,or purpose, Aristotle argued that rationality is man’stelos. It is what distinguishes man from all othercreatures.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition claims inGenesis, the first book of their Bible, that man wasmade in the image of God. Borrowing from the


Greek view, early church thinkers made rationalitythe feature that is in God’s image. The Church alsogave a central role to the will and choice. For some,the story of the fall of man in Genesis marks not somuch Adam and Eve’s failure to reason but rathertheir willful defiance of God’s commands.

St. Augustine, an early church father who livedin the fourth century A.D., was strongly influencedby Platonic views. For Augustine, sin is the result ofour inability to control our spirit and appetite. Spiritand appetite are what we share with animals. Theyare of the body; of the earth. Rationality, which cancontemplate the eternal, is divine.

By the thirteenth century A.D., Aristotle’swritings had resurfaced in Europe and were stronglyaffecting the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. ForThomas, Aristotle’s telos was a reflection of God’swill. Man’s purpose or nature is to know God. Allmotion, causality, all design in the world is theworking of the Divine Creator.

While this sense of the uniqueness of humanbeings has persisted for at least the last three andhalf millennia, surfacing in various forms in most ofthe world’s cultures, it has not fared well over thelast couple of centuries in the West. Belief in aunique human nature has come under attack frommost of the social sciences, as well as contemporaryphilosophers. One of the strongest attacks has comefrom biology, specifically evolutionary biology, andresearch related to human evolution.

Tracing human evolution back nearly five mil-lion years, proponents of evolutionary biology pointto the principle of natural selection at work. Oneform of this principle was articulated by CharlesDarwin in the mid-19th century. According to theproponents of natural selection today, humans arenot only risen apes, but ultimately peculiar compos-ites of evolved star dust. While some crucial detailsmay still be missing, the mosaic of scientific knowl-edge, they argue, is now so complex and powerful inits explanatory and predictive powers that the requi-site details are assumed to be forthcoming with moreresearch.

According to the theory of evolution, there isno distinctly human nature as Plato, Aristotle, andthe early Church Fathers speculated. Rather, there isan apparently seamless continuity between thehuman animal and the rest of the kingdom of life.Complex causal patterns give rise to individual vari-ations. Rationality is not a single skill but a conceptdescribing a wide variety of skills or intelligences,with many of these skills possessed in varyingdegrees by many other species and perhaps now,even some machines. Humans are but a strand in the

vast, continuous, complex web of nature, accordingto the naturalistic view.

Not everyone, of course, accepts Darwin’s the-ory of evolution. Some people have claimed that thetheory is mistaken in major ways, and many biolo-gists have expressed serious reservations aboutmany of its details. Nevertheless, the theory of evo-lution shows how important the natural scienceshave become for understanding who and what weare or at least might be.

The quest for understanding who we areincludes not only the natural, but also the social sci-ences. Today, the causal forces shaping the humanare readily discussed within the context of not onlynature but nurture—nurture within the family, thecommunity, the culture, the greater social milieu.Such discussions of cultural influences go back atleast to the seventeenth century French philosopher,Blaise Pascal.

While rationality no longer has wide philo-sophical support as a unique or divine feature indefining human nature, some twentieth Centurythinkers have come to see language and choice as sig-nificant features of human beings. For existential-ists, the claim is that many of us are condemned tochoose. First we exist, then we choose our essence.That is, we are self-defining. There is a universalaspect to the human condition for some existential-ists that involves life’s condition reflecting “. . . thenecessities of being in the world, of having to laborand to die.” But there is no universal human nature.

Despite these various theories, questionsremain. Do our views mark simply a difference overtime or is there progress in our understanding?What do you think? Is there such a thing as humannature and if so, would it prove to be at all interest-ing or helpful to know?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 2.2:“What Is Human Nature?” focusing upon thetopics, “The Traditional Rationalist View,” and“Traditional Western Religious Views ofHuman Nature.” Here you will find a moreextended and detailed discussion of the Greekview of human nature followed by a discussionof the Judaic-Christian view. In the section,“The Darwinian Challenge,” Velasquez detailsthe impact Darwin’s theories have had on thesetraditional views. The section on “The Existen-

Lesson Two: What is Human Nature? 11

tialist Challenge,” describes Sartre’s existential-ist views, while “The Feminist Challenge”summarizes some feminist criticisms of tradi-tional western views of human nature.

� For an in depth look at the views of Plato, Aris-totle, and Confucius see Velasquez Section 2.7,“Historical Showcase.”

� In reflecting on views suggesting that humansare unique, you may wish to read Peter Singer’s,All Animals are Equal, in Velasquez, Section7.10.

KEY TERMS A priori: Known independent of sensory experi-ence. Necessary or universal.

A posteriori: Knowledge dependent upon sensoryexperience.

Essence: A property or set of properties that definewhat a thing is.

Existence: To be, actuality.

Existentialism: Primarily a twentieth centuryphilosophical movement in which concerns aboutthe nature and condition of human existence arecentral. Existentialism tends to deny that there is ahuman nature, claiming that existence precedes es-sence.

Free will: The view that at least some human actsare not completely determined.

Human nature: Generally, that which is distinc-tive, significant, and serves to define what it is to behuman.

Metaphysics: The study of the ultimate nature ofreality.

Mental: Used to describe the activities of the mindor cognition.

Rationality: The use of reason or the rules andprinciples of logical thinking

Soul: a distinct non-physical thing or substance thattraditionally constitutes the person and is what sur-

vives the death of the body and retains the identityof the self.

Teleology: The view that the universe is permeatedwith purpose and is contrasted with Mechanism.

Telos: (Greek) A thing’s purpose, or goal.

Theory of evolution: Traditionally attributed toCharles Darwin as the theory that accounts for thedevelopment and survival of living species.

Virtue: For Aristotle, an excellence either in termsof rationality, the intellectual virtues like wisdom orexcellence in action, the moral virtues like courage,justice, and the like.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The traditional study of human nature has beenan attempt toa. account for why humans are the only animals

that smileb. discover if there is anything distinct and sig-

nificant about humansc. understand how humans have affected natured. account for why humans typically come in

two genders

2. According to the traditional Greek view, thesoul wasa. a single, unified thinking thingb. pure synthetic unity of apperceptionc. a bundle of perceptionsd. composed of three parts: aggression, appetite,

and reason

3. Plato compared the parts of the soul toa. a wine cask leaking at a partyb. a chariot with a charioteer and two horsesc. three dancing nymphs at a Bacchus festivald. Poseidon’s trident

4. According to Aristotle, reality is permeated witha. telosb. agapec. ideotesd. sin


5. For the Greeks, the essence of human naturewasa. pleasureb. emotionc. appetited. reason

6. According to the Judaic-Christian-Islamic viewof human nature, humans area. created in the image of Godb. rational animalsc. creatures whose existence precedes their

essenced. different only in degree from other animals

7. The Judaic-Christian-Islamic view of humannature differed from the traditional Greek viewin that it emphasized oura. natural desire for warb. capacity to reasonc. capacity for choiced. need for leisure

8. According to the traditional Christian view, asespoused by Aquinas, it is an essential aspect ofhuman nature toa. want to know Godb. want to make moneyc. be a politiciand. take philosophy classes

9. The theory of natural selection claims thata. humans are the most important animals on

earthb. there is a difference in kind between humans

and all other creaturesc. there is a difference in degree between hu-

mans and all other creaturesd. societies with big bombs are the most supe-

rior

10. By the twentieth century the view that there issomething significant and distinct about humansa. is embraced by most thinkersb. is viewed with skepticismc. has been proven by social scientistsd. has been adequately answered by Sigmund

Freud

11. For existentialistsa. humans are self-defining creaturesb. humans must do good works to attain salva-

tionc. the soul, while not immortal, can live for over

two centuriesd. the soul and the mind are the same thing

True or False

These questions are only from the reading assign-ment in Velasquez, Section 2.2. Specific page refer-ences are given in the answer key.

12. Plato believed the self consisted of reason, appe-tite, and desire.

13. Saint Augustine borrowed Plato’s view that hu-mans have an immaterial and immortal soul.

14. According to Darwin, humans are the productsof a purposeful plan.

15. Darwin wrote: “Existence precedes essence.”

16. According to the existentialist view, humanscreate their own nature.


Are we risen apes or fallen angels? Could we beboth? For the sake of truth, and your intellectual in-tegrity, make your view clear and provide yourstrongest defense.

�In the context of Aristotle’s negative views re-garding women and his justification of slavery (re-call Bernard Williams remarks) what do you thinkJames Rachels meant when he said, “Aristotle was asmart guy. Aristotle was smarter than me and youand anybody who’s gonna see this program . . .”?

�At one time in our history, our ancestors believedthere was something distinctive and significantabout humans. They also believed that the earth wasat the center of the universe. Today neither of theseviews is widely accepted. Are these beliefs similar inthat each will be relegated to our past?

�

Lesson Two: What is Human Nature? 13

Could Aristotle have been wrong about the presenceof telos in nature but correct about telos in humans?

�Could humans have traits that are quite distinctiveto being human, but insignificant and irrelevant inanswering the question of human nature? Whatwould Aristotle say? What is the relationship be-tween something having a purpose or telos and itshaving some defining or distinctive trait(s)?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your friends and family if they believe there issuch a thing as human nature. Do they tend to em-phasize the spirit, the appetite, rationality, willor . . . ?

�Ask your psychology, biology, or sociology professorif he or she believes in souls. Does he or she have ananswer to the question of human nature?

�According to Sartre, we create who we are. Who areyou? Are you trustworthy, honest, generous, kind,loving, supportive of others, positive, rational? Mustyou choose such traits or do they come naturally toyou? Who should you be? How would others de-scribe you?

�In the film, The Elephant Man, the horribly disfig-ured John Merrick finally screams out after ruthlesstorment, “I am not an animal!” What is the signifi-cance of that remark to a discussion of human na-ture?

�Do you believe there is such a thing as human na-ture? If not, what would you tell Plato, Aristotle,Augustine, Aquinas? If you think there is such athing as human nature, what would you tell Rorty,Searle, Dennett, Churchland, Sartre? Make yourreasons clear.

NET LINKSCheck out these Internet sites for additional relevantphilosophical information. Remember the Internetis a web. Each of these listed sites is linked to othersites. By surfing you will soon be linked to a seem-ingly vast resource.








Philosophy Papers:



Evolution:

— http://evolution.berkeley.edu

— http://www.evolutionary.org

Existentialism:

— http://www.dividingline.com/

Greek Philosophy:

— http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas

Aristotle:

— http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/aristotle_info.html


Jean Paul Sartre:

— http://www.dividingline.com/private/Philoso-phy/Philosophers/Sartre/sartre.shtml

Socrates:


Julia Annas:


Paul Churchland:


Daniel Dennett:

— http://www.2think.org/kom.shtml


Ian Hacking:

— http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/html/hacking.html

James Rachels:

— http://www.uab.edu/philosophy/faculty/rachels

Richard Rorty:


John Searle:



Nicholas Smith:

— http://www.mq.edu.au/~phildept/staff/nismith

15

Lesson Three

Is Mind Distinct from Body?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon completing this lesson, you should be familiarwith the concepts contained in the lesson and beable to critically discuss:

� the nature of Cartesian dualism and the problemof interactionism.

� the traditional view of materialism and a mod-ern refinement in Gilbert Ryle’s logical behav-iorism.

� the view of artificial intelligence, and the rele-vance of the Turing Test.

� the Chinese Room problem and the problems ofprogramming common sense for artificial intelli-gence views.

� the strengths and weaknesses of reductionists’accounts of mental activity.

OVERVIEW

“I’m overweight.” “I need to exercise this old bodyof mine.” “You look so beautiful tonight.” “I don’tcare what you think, just get your body out thereand hold that line!” Such remarks may have mean-ing to you; they may even sound familiar. Ordinarylanguage, however, suggests two underlying and ap-

parently incompatible views of what we are, and ofwhat reality might ultimately consist of. Are weminds, separate but seemingly related to our bodies/brains, or are we just bodies/brains that simplyfunction in highly complex ways? Did this subtlephysical complexity fool our less sophisticated an-cestors into believing we were something more thanjust bodies? Or have we been intellectually seducedby modern science into thinking we can make all ofreality fit into the little box of science? Is mind dis-tinct from body?

To say someone is overweight or beautifulseems to suggest the person simply is his or herbody. Yet if I say I need to exercise this old dog ofmine, all things considered, I don’t claim to be mydog, but rather my dog is something that belongs tome. Hence, “I need to exercise this old body ofmine” suggests this body is something that belongsto me. If I don’t exercise my body, it too, like my dog,will be something I will have to watch journey toBlubberville. But what then am I? Am I actually athing distinct from my body? Do I, as a thinking per-son, exist independently of my body? How do Iinteract with my body?

If I am not a thing distinct from my body, thenhow is the salvation or damnation of my soul possi-ble? What is there to be reincarnated, if I am simplymy body? The question raised in this episode of TheExamined Life is one that not only carries profoundimplications for a large number of belief systems,but involves a belief that typically serves as anassumption for most of the world’s major religions.There is much at stake here as civilization searches

Kevin

Highlight


for the truth as to whether or not mind is distinctfrom body.

In the seventeenth century, René Descartes—the father of modern philosophy and one of themajor contributors not only to the Scientific Revolu-tion but to the discipline of mathematics with hisformulation of analytic geometry and Cartesiancoordinates—argued for the position of metaphysi-cal dualism. Descartes claimed that reality consistedof two kinds of things. There was body, whichexisted in space and time and whose essence was tobe extended. But there was also the self, the mind orsoul, which existed in time but not space and whoseessence was thinking.

In his first Meditation, Descartes presented anumber of skeptical arguments, which raised a spec-ter of doubt that lingers to this day. Despite thisdoubt, Descartes argued further that no skepticcould shake his clear and distinct idea of himself as athinking person. He could doubt the existence of hisbody, but it was inconceivable, to him, that he coulddoubt that he was doubting. Hence, reality consistedof two substances in Descartes’ dualistic metaphys-ics: mind and matter.

What seemed equally clear was that mind andbody—body being that clump of matter most closelyrelated to us—interacted. But where and how? Des-cartes claimed it all took place in the tiny pinealgland at the top of the brainstem. According to Des-cartes, “. . . it [the pineal gland] thrusts the spiritswhich surround it toward the pores of the brain. . ..” However, according to some theorists, the thrust-ing spirits or any other version of causal interactionbetween a mind and a body, seem to violate certainfundamental laws of nature. For some of Descartesown contemporaries, it also seemed inconceivablethat something not spatial—the mind—could besomeplace spatial to interact with a body. This prob-lem of interaction between mind and body hashaunted dualism over the centuries.

As the new science grew, with its metaphysicalmaterialist assumptions, a contemporary of Des-cartes’, Thomas Hobbes, argued that, like all reality,humans are matter in motion. There is only onekind of thing, matter, and it variously moves inaccordance with the laws of nature. Humans arecomposites of matter, configured by the laws ofnature, according Hobbes.

By the twentieth century, metaphysical mate-rialism was gathering strong support not only fromthe neurosciences, but from the philosophical theoryof logical behaviorism, as well as the budding studyof artificial intelligence. According to Gilbert Ryle inThe Concept of Mind, our mental language—the lan-

guage we use to talk about our minds—when cor-rectly understood, is actually about our behavior orour dispositions to behave. Thus to claim that Sallyis jealous or Sally is in love isn’t to refer to some pri-vate mental experience, to some ghost in a machine,as Ryle characterized Cartesian dualism, but rather,to behaviors or dispositions to behave given specificcues. It’s through such behavior that we learn whatmental terms mean, Ryle argued. If our mental lan-guage was actually about private mental episodes,then, according to Ryle, we could never learn to usesuch a language.

By the end of the twentieth century, logicalbehaviorism seemed unable to account for a certainresidue of consciousness which Descartes hademphasized. However, the neurosciences and artifi-cial intelligence continued mounting the materialistoffensive. In the 1970s and 1980s, artificial intelli-gence advocates were claiming that the mind isreally just the software that the brain, the hardware,is running. This computational model of the mindhas proven intellectually seductive as computersgrow in sophistication and their capacity for growthand change seems limitless.

However, like Descartes’ clearly articulatedmodel of dualism, some of the clearly articulatedmodels of artificial intelligence are vulnerable tofundamental conceptual flaws. John Searle argues inhis Chinese Room example that at most a computercan manipulate symbols and marks, but it is unableto understand their meanings. For humans, it is themeaning in language that is crucial to our mentallives, and not simply following rules for manipulat-ing words and marks in our language. For HubertDreyfus, it is conceptually impossible to programmental capacities like common sense or a sense ofrelevance into a computer.

From the neuroscience point of view there aresignificant differences in how mind and computerphysically organize and distribute information. Acomputer primarily distributes its computationalload over time since it processes information elec-tronically essentially at the speed of light. The brain,an organic entity, is comparatively slow, and thusprimarily distributes its load over space and nottime. Thus, some agree, it processes information allat once over billions of neural connections. But evenhere there is no consensus regarding the level atwhich purported mental activity occurs. Is it at theneuron level, at a sub-neural level, in neural nets orneural columns, or some combination?

While dedicated neuroscientists search for afeasible neural model, there is a growing concernthat this entire reductionist attempt to understand

Lesson Three: Is Mind Distinct from Body? 17

all mental activity as physical brain activity may beconceptually impossible. How can any science pro-vide an objective, third-person description of thisfirst-person experience? Is the I, the self, an illusion?Are we at the brink of re-conceptualizing what weare?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section: 2.3,“The Mind-Body Problem: How Do the Mindand Body Relate?” Velasquez discusses Des-cartes’ views on how body and mind relate, aswell as Hobbes and various twentieth centurymaterialist views. The section also explainsSearle’s Chinese Room example.

� For arguments for and against substance dual-ism by contemporary philosophers see Garrett J.DeWeese’s and J.P. Moreland’s, “The Self andSubstance Dualism” and John R. Searle’s “TheMInd-Body Problem” in Velasquez Section 2.8.

KEY TERMS

Behaviorism: A school of psychology that restrictsthe study of human nature to what can be observedrather than to states of consciousness.

Common sense: The way of looking at things apartfrom technical or special training.

Dualism: The metaphysical view that reality ulti-mately consists of two kinds of things. Within dual-ism, distinctions are made between substantive andproperty dualistic views.

Functionalism: A theory that claims humansshould be thought of as complicated computers.

Interactionism: The theory that the mind and thebody interact, originally associated with Descartes.

Materialism: The metaphysical position that reali-ty is ultimately composed of matter.

Reductionism: The idea that one kind of thing is,or can be defined as, another kind of thing.

Turing Test: A test for judging when a computerhas reached the equivalent of a human mind by de-termining if the outputs a computer generates in re-sponse to the inputs it receives are the same as theoutputs a human mind would generate in responseto the same inputs.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The metaphysical view that claims reality ulti-mately consists of two kinds of things isa. materialismb. dualismc. pluralismd. dadaism

2. The scientific conception of the nature of themind tends to take the metaphysical view ofa. dualismb. materialismc. scepticismd. deism

3. The seventeenth century philosopher who gaveus analytic geometry and focused much atten-tion upon the theory of dualism wasa. Thomas Hobbesb. René Descartesc. David Humed. Hilary Putnam

4. Traditionally, one of the most formidable prob-lems facing any metaphysical theory of dualismisa. how mind and body can interactb. how a mind can think logically and non-logi-

callyc. how souls can be immortald. how the body becomes diseased

5. From a scientific point of view, dualism lacksfeasibility since ita. tends to be defended by religious thinkersb. is most strongly associated with the Frenchc. apparently violates the First Law of Thermo-

dynamicsd. claims that bodies are essentially extended.


6. Thomas Hobbes, a contemporary and critic ofDescartes, argued that reality ultimately consistsofa. matter in motionb. bodies and disembodied spiritsc. only ideas and the minds that think themd. people, who possess minds and objects, which

have no minds.

7. Which of the following contemporary theoriesof the mind would be considered a version ofmetaphysical materialism?a. behaviorismb. dualismc. pluralismd. idealism

8. A fundamental problem with all forms of behav-iorism isa. accounting for the subjective feature of all

consciousnessb. developing adequate schedules of reinforce-

mentc. accounting for immortalityd. the theories are complex and not fun

9. The Turing Test for determining artificial intel-ligence involvesa. creating organic computersb. requiring a computer to have limited visual

experiencec. requiring that information be computed at a

speed of at least 200 megahertzd. being unable to distinguish between the

responses of a computer and those of ahuman

10. According to John Searle’s Chinese Room argu-menta. the Chinese language is much more complex

than Englishb. the Chinese Room demonstrates that com-

puter language also has semanticsc. computers only manipulate formal symbolsd. syntax and semantics are synonyms

11. A fundamental distinction between a computerprocessing information and the brain processinginformation is thata. the brain distributes its load over time but a

computer distributes over spaceb. the computer distributes is load over time but

a brain distributes over spacec. the brain transmits information at the speed

of lightd. the computer is dependent upon neural trans-

mitters

12. Theories claiming that mental phenomena arereally some type of physical phenomena are con-sidered to bea. reductionistic theoriesb. synthetic theoriesc. ad hoc hypothesesd. dualistic and Cartesian

True or False


13. Descartes held that thinking is part of the es-sence of the self.

14. Traditional dualism holds that a human is com-posed of a material body and an immaterialmind.

15. According to J.J.C. Smart there is a contingentidentity between sensations and brain states.

16. Hilary Putnam uses the example of a “superac-tor” and a “superspartan” to prove behaviorismis true.

17. Functionalism holds that we should explainmental activities and states in terms of inputsand outputs.


If our mental life is a complex activity of brainstates, how is it possible for anyone to dream in im-ages? Where would those images be? If they are inyour brain, how are they illuminated?

�If consciousness is a neural process, does that meanthat self-consciousness involves neurons beingaware of other neurons?

�

Lesson Three: Is Mind Distinct from Body? 19

According to traditional dualism the mind is a non-spatial thinking thing. If one takes that position ofdualism, does that then mean that asking where themind and body interact is analogous to asking ifThursday is taller than purple? That is, it is non-sense to ask where a non-spatial thing is?

�Are you a dualist or a materialist, or do you holdsome other view? If your answer is another view, isyour view free of the difficulties that plague theviews of dualism and materialism presented in thisepisode?

�Has the growth of science made every form of dual-ism untenable?

�Must science rest upon a metaphysical view of mate-rialism?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your priest, rabbi, minister, or spiritual leaderwhat his or her metaphysical views are regardingthe mind/body relationship. Ask one of your scienceinstructors what his or her views are regarding themind/body relationship. How adequately does eachresolve the traditional philosophical problems foundin these positions?

�What metaphysical position is most popular amongyour friends? How articulate are your friends re-garding this debate?

�If you believe we have life after death—that is thatthere is a heaven or hell or reincarnation—must youalso accept dualism? If you know someone who be-lieves in life after death, is that person a dualist or amaterialist?

�It may be that both dualism and materialism arefalse. Can you think of a viable alternative theorythat does not face the problems each of them seem toface?

�What, metaphysically, are you?

NET LINKS

Check out these Internet sites for additional relevantphilosophical information. Remember the Internetis a web. Each of these listed sites is linked to othersites.








Philosophy Papers:



Cognitive Science:

— http://cns-web.bu.edu

Dualism:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism

Metaphysics:


— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-meta-physics/

Neuroscience:

— http://neuroguide.com

— http://www.moge.org/okabe/lab/index.html.en


David Chalmers:


Paul Churchland:


Daniel Dennett:



John Searle:


—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle

21

Lesson Four

Is There An Enduring Self?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the philosophical perplexity concerning an en-during self.

� the role that the idea of an enduring self plays inlegal, moral, and religious contexts.

� the criterion of memory in accounting for an en-during self.

� the enduring self as illusion.

� contemporary alternative explanations to ac-count for the idea of an enduring self.

OVERVIEW

“Please sweetheart, I have got to finish writing thischapter,” I try consoling my daughter.

“But,” she pleads, “you have been working onit forever.”

Joking, I smile, “I‘m not that old. I’ve onlybeen working on this chapter for two days.”

“Don’t forget the day before and the daybefore!” she corrects.

“That was a different chapter.”

“I probably won’t even be your little girl by thetime you get finished!” With guillotine precision,she cuts-off our conversation.

“I probably won’t even be your little girl by thetime . . .” her remark echoes in my memory. Isn’tthere something that will endure, that will remainunchanged over time? Won’t she in some sensealways be herself, a soul, perhaps even immortal? Ifimmortal, then this enduring self will not be chang-ing substantially for eternity. And wasn’t it truly Iwho wrote those other chapters over previousweeks? And isn’t it the same you that will watchand study the different episodes of The ExaminedLife? Yet, as a result of this educational experience,you will indeed change. So what is it that remainsthe same in the midst of so much change?

Philosophers, both Western and Eastern, havesearched long and hard, over many centuries, forthis enduring self. This self has proven extremelyelusive. Nonetheless, our natural languages, ourlegal, moral, and religious systems, our concepts ofresponsibility and promises, all seem to support, ifnot require, some enduring self. Who is punishedwith eternal damnation, rewarded with heavenlysalvation, or reincarnated to work out karma, if notsome enduring self? Who stands before the judge forsentencing but the very same person who purport-edly committed the crime, perhaps days or in thecase of Klaus Barbie, the Nazi war criminal, decadesbefore his sentencing?

Plato on occasion utilized the notion of rein-carnation, and Socrates does at least entertain thepossibility of life after death. However, it is Socrates


who nevertheless raises the central philosophicalproblem regarding the actual existence of an endur-ing self. As Socrates asks, what is it that remainsunchanged or endures through a lifetime of changesin both our body and soul?

For some philosophers, like René Descartes,knowledge of the self or soul, and its existence, isknown with certainty. “I am, I exist. This is cer-tain,” Descartes claimed in his Second Meditation.The mind itself is a mental substance that enduresthrough time and remains the same through all thechanges we undergo. In Descartes’ philosophy, then,we are the same person from one day to the nextbecause we continue to have the same mind or soulfrom one day to the next.

In the late seventeenth century, John Locke, anEnglish philosopher and the father of modern Britishempiricism, attempted to give an alternative accountof the nature of the enduring self. Locke argued thatDescartes’ mind-substance is not what makes usremain the same person through time. What then isit than holds the various pearls of past experiencetogether, thereby making our life a single necklace asopposed to only a collection of loose pearls? ForLocke, memory is the thread that holds the seem-ingly independent pearls of past events, experiences,and feelings. Memory creates the enduring self.

Forms of dementia or Alzheimer’s may, inpart, support Locke’s claim regarding the role ofmemory. As these diseases set in and destroy mem-ory we tend to describe such situations as the loss ofself. As Patricia Churchland, philosopher and neu-rologist, points out, the afflicted person slowly ebbsaway, slowly ceases to exist. However, Churchlandand many others doubt that there actually is such athing as a distinct, independent self that could alsoendure over time.

This skeptical attack on the very idea of a self,enduring or not, was powerfully mounted by DavidHume, an eighteenth century empiricist. First,Hume doubted that memory could serve the roleLocke claimed for it. Don’t we, after all, talk as if ouridentity reaches beyond the lapses, even the termi-nation points in our memories? Second, when Humelooked inward, he did not find any enduring idea ofa self. He found only passing experiences, and thusconcluded that the idea of an enduring self was psy-chological fiction.

Patricia Churchland agrees with Hume. In dis-cussing ordinary perception, she points out thatwhen you claim to see someone across a room smil-ing at you, you are not having a single perceptualexperience. Rather, your perception of the whole isactually a mosaic of smaller perceptions resulting

from your eye moving on average three times persecond and your brain then integrating these distinctvisual messages into what seems to be a single image.The same kind of integration may be carried out bythe brain over the course of time, blending distinctexperiences to create the illusion of an ongoing,enduring self.

Other thinkers are willing to accept neurologyas the complete story regarding our mental life. (SeeEpisode 3 of The Examined Life, “Is Mind Distinctfrom Body?”) They are also reluctant to embraceDescartes’ notion of a substantive enduring self. ForRichard Rorty, the self is just a name for a variety ofrelationships amongst our beliefs and desires. Sincenames are parts of language, Rorty argues, an infantwho is not taught a language will not have a self.

Other thinkers, like Daniel Dennett, take aview more typical of contemporary philosophy.Dennett compares our concept of an enduring self toa whirlpool with water continuously flowingthrough it. The self, not being a specific thing, cre-ates a type of unity in the stream of continuousexperiences. Just as the whirlpool is dependent uponthe continual flow of water, so is this unity of selfdependent upon the flow of experiences. Questionsarise. Is this unity of self thus to be understood interms of a space and time? If, for example, there is adrought and the creek dries up, then the rains returnand with them a whirlpool in the same spot, wouldwe judge it to be the same whirlpool? It would seemnot to be the same whirlpool, but perhaps a similarwhirlpool. Now what do we say about the self after anight of sound sleep, a sort of drought of experience?In the morning are we the same self or a similar self?Is the whirlpool a bad analogy, or do we need to re-conceptualize what the self actually is?

Some scholars have argued that the philosoph-ical view of the nonexistent self is also found insome Eastern views such as Buddhism. Massao Abe,a Buddhist philosopher, tells the story of a youngman who couldn’t find his head until he realized hewas looking for his head with his head. This Bud-dhist story illustrates the confusion between nothaving knowledge of something because it is elusive,and not having knowledge of something because it isan illusion.

In the rock garden at the Ryoan-Ji temple inKyoto, there are a total of fifteen stones, but no mat-ter where you stand, you can only see fourteen.According to some disciples, the fifteenth is consid-ered to be the self. It illustrates that the self, the fif-teenth stone, actually exists, but is ever elusive,never seen.

Lesson Four: Is There An Enduring Self? 23

Is the self an illusion or just ever elusive? Is theself a creation of language, or a kind of whirlpool inthe flow of experience? Who are you?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 2.4, “IsThere an Enduring Self?” This section providesan extended discussion of the traditional philo-sophical problems of personal identity includingPlato’s view along with a number of thought ex-periments. A discussion of Descartes’ view ofthe soul as the enduring self is included alongwith an analysis of the strengths and weakness-es of John Locke’s claim for memory as the crite-rion for identity. Views which claim that there isno enduring self, found in both Buddhism andDavid Hume’s work conclude this section. Thesection ends with provocative essay questions.

� Section 5.7, “Historical Showcase” provides bio-graphical information along with additional de-scriptions of the philosophical views of DavidHume.

KEY TERMS

Alzheimer’s Disease: A nonreversible, degenera-tive disease of the central nervous system typicallyafflicting the elderly and bringing on dementia.Named after the German physician, Alois Alzhe-imer who died in 1915.

Attribute: A quality or property belonging to a per-son or thing.

Consciousness: To be aware. As used by Locke inthis episode, an awareness of the operation of amental faculty. Closer here to one sense of self-con-sciousness.

Dementia: Deterioration of mental faculties due toorganic brain disorders.

Elusive: Difficult to capture, to find, to understand.

Enduring: To persist. In the sense of an enduringself to remain the same self over time while allowingfor some changes without thereby losing one’s iden-tity or self.

Idea: For David Hume a copy of an impressionwhich is thereby less lively and vivid than an im-pression.

Identity: That which either individualizes us ormarks a person or thing as being the same over time.This episode of The Examined Life is concernedwith identity in the later sense of re-identificationand specifically of re-identifying a self or person.

Illusion: An erroneous perception or sense experi-ence.

Impression: For David Hume our lively, immediateperceptions.

Introspection: Looking inward to the contents ofone’s own mind or mental experiences.

Imperishable: Indestructible, non perishable

Memory: The mental faculty which enables us torecall past experiences or a recalled past experience.

Self: Who each of us is, our identity.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The belief in an enduring self is a claim that theselfa. is an illusionb. remains the same through changec. is an integration created by the braind. is a construction of language

2. Plato raised some skeptical concerns about anenduring self becausea. all parts of our body and soul change dramat-

ically over timeb. all knowledge was doubtfulc. when he introspected he could find no invari-

able idea of a selfd. memory too often failed


3. Which of the following belief systems tends tosupport the view of an enduring self?a. legal systemsb. moral systemsc. religious systemsd. all of the above

4. For René Descartes the self wasa. known for certainb. ever elusivec. only an illusiond. a psychological fiction

5. Some philosophers, including John Locke, haveargued that personal identity or sameness of selfresides ina. having the same bodyb. immortalityc. continuity of memoryd. a mystical super-glue

6. According to David Hume, if the self is to beknown then it is known througha. perceptionb. mystical experiencec. introspectiond. experimentation

7. According to David Hume, we havea. a vivid and lively idea of an enduring selfb. a certain and distinct idea of an enduring selfc. a divinely inspired idea of selfd. no constant and invariable idea of an endur-

ing self

8. Some modern neurological accounts considerthe notion of an enduring self to bea. an illusory integration created by the brainb. a religious object beyond scientific investiga-

tionc. a mental substance better studied by meta-

physiciansd. that thing which is channeled over time in

different bodies

9. Some contemporary philosophical views haveargued that our idea of an enduring self is betterunderstood asa. a construction of languageb. a religious object beyond philosophical reflec-

tionc. a something; I know not whatd. an object of psychic research

10. The Japanese rock garden of the Ryoan-Ji tem-ple in Kyoto suggests that the self isa. illusory and unrealb. elusive but realc. real but stone coldd. holy and capable of salvation

True or False


11. A person always remains the same person evenwhen the person has total amnesia.

12. The philosopher Diotima argued that “unlikethe gods, a mortal creature cannot remain thesame throughout eternity.”

13. Descartes wrote that “if I should wholly ceaseto think . . . I should at the same time altogethercease to be.”

14. Locke held that what makes a person at onetime the same person he is at a later time, is thefact that he continues to have the same soul.

15. According to the Buddha, the idea of an endur-ing self is an illusion that produces sufferingand egoism.


If the self is elusive and never to be seen, why enter-tain an idea of its reality? Analogously, supposeyour car mechanic told you that your car runs badlybecause you have gombers in your engine. Con-fused, you ask, “What’s a gomber?” When your me-chanic tells you they are invisible things that cannever be seen because they are elusive yet they arethe cause of your car running badly, would youdoubt that gombers existed? Would you doubt thesanity, or at least the competence, of your mechan-ic? Does this differ from saying you have a “self”?

�You are the judge in the following purported salesscam. Mr. Smith always wanted to own a genuineIndy race car that had actually raced in the India-napolis 500. After the Indy race one year, Mr. Smith

Lesson Four: Is There An Enduring Self? 25

sought out the owner of car number 54, the car thatwon the race that year. He insisted on buying the carfor one million dollars from its reluctant owner.However, while changing the car’s tires, oil, etc., theowner insisted that Mr. Smith could not have car 54until the entire racing season was over. Disappoint-ed, Mr. Smith agreed and made a half million dollardown payment. The remaining money would beturned over when the car was delivered at the end ofthe Formula 1 racing season. In its next race, car 54hit a wall and had to have its entire front end re-placed. In the following race, not only was the driverof 54 seriously injured when he was rear-ended dur-ing a practice run, but car 54 was unable to even en-ter that race. During its final race of the season,though it caught fire during a qualification run andneeded extensive body work, car 54 went on to winanother title. At the end of the season, the ownerwent to deliver car 54 to Mr. Smith but instead ofcollecting the remaining half million dollars, Mr.Smith was suing the owner to regain his half-milliondollar down payment. Mr. Smith claimed that theowner was trying to pass off another car. You, as thejudge, must decide whether the car 54 delivered toMr. Smith at the end of the racing season is the samecar he originally agreed to purchase at the end of theIndy 500 race. Mr. Smith argues that photos takenover the course of the racing season prove that allthe parts of car 54 were replaced, and the car is nolonger the car he agreed to buy. The owner insiststhat such changes are a common occurrence, andthat everyone who races would agree that he is de-livering the now famous car 54 to Mr. Smith. If it isthe same car, what makes it the same? Suppose thatsomeone had gathered up all of the damaged partsand reassembled the car, even the burnt hood withits painted 54. Is this the car Mr. Smith actuallyagreed to pay one million dollars for? What is yourverdict? Is there really an enduring car 54?

�Try David Hume’s thought experiment and look in-ward; introspect. Do you find something that con-tinues invariably, that endures throughout all of thechanges in experience?

�Consider Daniel Dennett’s analogy to a whirlpool. Ifthere is a sudden surge of water and the whirlpoolsuddenly disappears, but a whirlpool suddenlyforms just a few feet away from the original loca-tion, is that the same whirlpool or a different whirl-pool? What if a rock on the river bank rolls in,

changes the flow of water, and though the whirlpoolcontinues spinning, it moves three feet further intothe stream, is it the same whirlpool? What gives awhirlpool its identity over time? Does this analogyof a whirlpool provide any insight for understandingthe idea of a self? Can you think of a better analogy?

�Does it make sense to imagine all of your memoriesbeing in another body but you remaining in yourbody? Are you just your memories?

�Under what conditions would you not hold someoneresponsible for a crime committed on the groundsthat he or she is not the same person that had com-mitted the crime?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

How would you decide the case of Tammy Fisher,who was executed in Texas in 1998 for a brutalmurder she committed while high on alcohol anddrugs? While in prison she became a born-againChristian. Some made the argument that she hadchanged so completely, it would be wrong to executethe new Tammy for what the old Tammy had done.What does the notion of born-again imply about thenotion of an enduring self?

�Get out your baby pictures, grade school pictures,high school pictures, and some recent pictures.Make a list of your likes and dislikes during each ofthese periods in your life. If you believe in an endur-ing self, show who that constant, invariable you ac-tually is throughout these different times. Try thiswith your grandparents.

�Speak with the elders in your own family or withfriends who are elderly and ask them if they believethere is something that remains the same through-out the length of one’s entire life.

�Ask your priest, rabbi, minister, mullah, or otherspiritual leader what his or her views are on the pos-sibility of an enduring self actually existing. What is


it that he or she believes is actually saved, damned,or reincarnated?

�As an experiment, borrow a small amount of moneyfrom a friend and agree to pay it back in a couple ofdays. When it is time to pay it back tell your friendthat you are not the same person and do not repaythe debts of strangers. Does your friend agree withyour reasoning or at least think it is funny?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



British Empiricism:

— http://karn.ohiolink.edu/philosophy

Cognitive Science:

— http://cns-web.bu.edu


— http:/www.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/philoso-phy.htm

Neuroscience:

— http://neuroguide.com

— http://www.moge.org/okabe/lab/index.html.en

René Descartes:

— http://radicalacademy.com/adiphilrational-ism.htm

David Hume:

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/h

Socrates:

— http://socrates.clarke.edu/

David Chalmers:


Patricia Churchland:


Daniel Dennett:



27

Lesson Five

Are We Social Beings?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the atomistic and social views on the forming ofself.

� influences of the historical-social context on theforming of self.

� the experience of self-respect when belonging toa valued culture.

� problems of multi-culturalism in retaining mi-nority cultural identity.

OVERVIEW

Have you ever heard someone make remarks suchas “I wish I had lived one hundred years ago” (orhowever long)? “Back then I would have . . .” or “Iwish I had lived as a pilgrim” (or just fill in the cul-ture/group you’d prefer). Do such wishes rest upona fundamentally flawed understanding of who weactually are? If the self is molded by its historical-so-cial context, then there appears to be no self whichexists independent of its specific historical-socialmoment. Self is instead like a rose, each petal theproduct of a complexity of historical-social forces.

Take away the petals, and nothing remains. Hence,to imagine you could change your culture and stillremain yourself may reflect a fundamental miscon-ception as to what your identity, your self, actuallyis.

René Descartes, the father of modern philoso-phy, set out on a systematic search for a secure foun-dation for knowledge. Descartes initially wasskeptical about nearly all his own beliefs. But he dis-covered that skepticism could not touch his knowl-edge of himself. For Descartes, the self is a thing thatthinks, wonders, imagines, desires, and feels. Theself is a mental substance that performs variousmental activities but is not to be mistaken as simplybeing those activities. By analogy, I can run, walk,crawl, but I am not the run, or the walk, or thecrawl. I am not simply the activities but somethingin addition. (See Episodes 2, “What is HumanNature?” and Episode 3, “Is Mind Distinct fromBody?” for more detailed discussions of the self.)Thus, Descartes would probably disagree with thedescription of the self as only a product of some his-torical-social context.

Descartes would claim there is a core self thatis independent of the historical-social context inwhich we live, though Descartes readily accepts thatcontext does have an influence. This view of ouridentity as consisting of some core self is sometimesreferred to as an atomistic view. Such an atomisticview of the self would seem to underlie the wish tolive in another historical period. Only if there issuch an independent kernel of a self, could such awish make sense. From the atomistic view point, we

Kevin

Sticky Note

hagel - collectivism descartes - individualism

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Sticky Note

I think this isn't entirely right. I think people have a core personality that nobody can change, as well as a side that can be influenced by the person's social, economic, and religious surroundings.


are not like roses but more like cherries, with a veryspecific pit—a specific ego or self—at our core.

Ancient Greek philosophers, like Aristotle,argued that we are social creatures by nature, andcan be human only when affiliated with socialgroups like the family and larger units like a city orstate. This Greek view constituted one of the earlysocial views of the self.

By the early nineteenth century, at the outsetof the Romantic Era, the self was again said to resultfrom social forces. In fact, Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,an influential philosopher from this period, main-tained that a person cannot have an identity inde-pendent of a social context. A similar view of theself can be found in Karl Marx’s writings, which areborrowed in part from Hegel. For Marx, however,the specific forces shaping a society are quite differ-ent from the forces Hegel claimed to have discov-ered.

This social view of the self explains many ofthe experiences of contemporary people whose cul-tures are being displaced. In the case of the Sami, adistinct culture living in northern Scandinavia andnorthwestern Russia, there is a shared worry that astheir cultural ways disappear, they themselves arebeing lost. As they lose some of their Sami ways,they describe themselves as getting “flattened out,”as “becoming something else.” Similar, though lessdrastic, are the experiences of people who visitanother culture. After awhile some people will startlonging for “home.” It may start with wanting theircultural food. If, by chance, they meet someone fromtheir country, or their hometown, they feel a power-ful and spontaneous camaraderie that would likelybe absent if they had been at home and met the sameperson. On the other hand, some people willdescribe themselves as finally “being themselves” or“feeling really at home” once they’ve left their cul-ture and entered another. Poignant experiences sup-port the powerful influence of historical-socialcontext for the forming of the self.

However, when one culture comes to domi-nate another culture—either intentionally or unin-tentionally—and the dominant culture has anegative attitude toward the dominated culture,members of the dominated culture may experienceshame and a loss of self. These feelings can arise outof conditions that have no bearing on the group orwhat someone actually does or believes. Hegel meta-phorically describes this experience of being definedby another in his example of the master and theslave. Since slavery is a relationship in which a per-son’s freedom is lost, and thus the person is not freeto choose how to define herself or himself, who that

person is, is largely under the control of the master.Since slavery is conventionally understood as a neg-ative circumstance, the feelings of shame and loss ofself-respect may cause the slaves to try to changeaspects of themselves that cannot be changed.Although the case of the Sami people is less oppres-sive than slavery, it is still a case of a dominant cul-ture negatively viewing a subculture. A young Samigirl describes how in high school she was soashamed at being Sami that at night she would useadhesive tape to try and make her eyes grow in theopposite direction.

When one’s identity is so determined by one’shistorical-social context, the contemporary issues ofmulti-culturalism become delicate yet very urgent.Can unique cultures continue to exist in a worldwhere global communication is instantaneous,international business the norm, and travelingaround the planet more and more typical? In this ageof vast and fast change throughout every strata ofsociety, perhaps we are all experiencing some subtlesense of cultural loss, a loss of identity. And what dowe do about those cultures that do not seem worthyof saving? Nazi culture, the Khemier Rouge, theKKK and other cultures of hate, discrimination, andviolence seem better not to exist. How far should thetolerant tolerate the intolerant? Ironically, as liberal,tolerant societies are fast discovering, it may be theirunconditional commitment to tolerance that under-mines other communities’ cultural identity. If free-dom of speech and assembly must be tolerated, howcan communities that abhor pornography, forinstance, rid themselves of that which is protectedby such freedoms? Can a larger, tolerant communitytolerate well-defined intolerant smaller communi-ties?

As we continue to discover the forces thatshape each of our identities, we will be pulledbetween contrasting views of self—the atomisticview of Descartes and the social view of Hegel. Willthe future of planet Earth be one in which a richmosaic of different cultures will flourish or willthere be the emergence of one pervasive, homoge-nous culture, shaped by a historical-social context ofinternational technology?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 2.5,“Are We Independent and Self-Sufficient Indi-viduals?” In this section you will find an extend-

Kevin

Sticky Note

Aristotle argued that we are social creatures by nature, and that we can only be human when affiliated with other people.

Lesson Five: Are We Social Beings? 29

ed discussion of the atomistic view of the selffrom the writings of Walt Whitman to the philo-sophical views of Descartes and Kant. This viewis contrasted with the social view of the self aspresented by the contemporary philosopher,Charles Taylor, and the historical views of Aris-totle and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

KEY TERMS

Atomistic view: As used in this context, the viewthat the self is a subsistent thing upon which culturecan have some influence.

Culture: As used in this episode, the totality of so-cially transmitted behavior patterns.

Descartes’ Meditations: A series of six short arti-cles/meditations that Descartes wrote in the late1630s to summarize some of his views in epistemol-ogy and metaphysics.

Age of Enlightenment: An eighteenth century Eu-ropean intellectual movement in which reason wasoptimistically assumed capable of answering all in-tellectual and social questions.

Identity: Those features or properties that definean individual as that particular individual.

Sami: A culture of nomadic people living in areas ofnorthern Scandinavia, Finland, and northwesternRussia.

Multiculturalism: The inclusion of many cultures;tolerance of cultural diversity.

Paradox: Beliefs accepted as true, but which arecontrary or contradictory.

Romantic Era: In European history, beginningaround the turn of the nineteenth century.

Self: As used in this episode, that part of a personthat persists or remains the same through change.

Social-historical forces/context: The totality offorces, excluding physical or biological forces, whichact in shaping a person at any particular moment inthat person’s history.

Social view: As used in this context, the view thatthe self is the end product of a variety of social-his-torical forces.

Tolerance: To allow.

Universal: Applies in every context. To be true inall possible worlds.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to the atomistic view of the self, theself isa. formed solely by genetic factorsb. essentially independent of historical-social

forcesc. essentially a reflection of its historical-social

forcesd. the end product of forces of conditioning

2. According to the social view of the self, the selfisa. formed solely by genetic factorsb. essentially independent of historical-social

forcesc. essentially a reflection of its historical-social

forcesd. the end product of forces of conditioning

Which view seems most clearly exemplified by theremarks that follow?

a.the atomistic viewb.the social view

_____ 3. To be—to actually come from the peoplewe do come from, and not be flattened outand become something else.

_____ 4. Every human being is an individual in avery absolute sense. All my knowledge isfounded on things that I myself experi-ence.

_____ 5. You have a closeness all the time in Samifamilies that you don’t have in Swedishfamilies.


_____ 6. The essential thing in us—our ability toreason, to decide what we shall believeand think—that is common to all humanbeings.

7. The ancient Greeks primarily tooka. a social view of the selfb. an atomistic view of the selfc. no view of the self as it had not yet been dis-

coveredd. a view that the self was essentially a rugged

individualist

8. According to Hegel, the self is best understoodin thea. atomistic viewb. social viewc. Marxian viewd. biological view

9. Ironically, one of the strongest forces undermin-ing a culture’s identity may bea. religionb. tolerancec. ward. hunger

10. Descartes’ view of the self is a(an)a. atomistic viewb. social viewc. Marxian viewd. biological view

True or False


11. Descartes turned to the company of others andto conversation with others to discover thetruth about himself.

12. For Kant the real me is a being who can chooseor will for himself.

13. Descartes wrote “I must acknowledge my be-longing before I can understand myself.”

14. According to Hegel, the self’s struggle for free-dom is the basis of the rise of masters andslaves.

15. According to Taylor, we can become full humanbeings only by withdrawing from others anddiscovering who we really are by turning withinand realizing our independence from others.


If our identity—that is, who we are—is formed sole-ly by the historical-social context in which we live,how is it ever possible to think “outside” of that his-torical-social context? How could I make these re-marks, or how is this episode of The Examined Lifepossible, unless the self is more than some historical-social context?

�If cultures now consist of subcultures, and the linebetween culture-subculture and sub-subcultures isunclear, in what sense are we shaped by some his-torical-social environment? What is a culture in to-day’s complex, industrialized societies?

�Do we tend to describe the forming of our self interms of the atomistic view, while we describe theforming of other selves in terms of the social view?

�Is there a middle path between the atomistic and so-cial views? Clearly articulate that view.

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your parents what they believe were the stron-gest influences in shaping your identity. How doesthat description compare to their description of thestrongest influences in shaping their own identities?

�Ask your brothers and sisters what they believewere the strongest influences in shaping their iden-tities. How do these compare to your parents’ de-scriptions? Ask your friends the same questions.

�Ask someone the questions in the opening sentenceof the Overview, so as to elicit his or her view of ouridentities. Is the respondent’s view, assuming it is

Lesson Five: Are We Social Beings? 31

consistent, most similar to the analogy of the rose orthe cherry? Give philosophical descriptions of therose and the cherry analogies.

NET LINKS









Culture Studies:

— http://hirsch.cosy.sbg.ac.at/www-virtual-library_culture.html

Greek Philosophy:

— http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm

Aristotle:


René Descartes:

— http://radicalacademy.com/adiphilrational-ism.htm

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

— http://www.hegel.org

33

Lesson Six

What is Real?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the metaphysical problem of the ultimate natureof reality.

� the metaphysical views of monism, both materi-alism and idealism, along with dualism and plu-ralism.

� the view that language is the source of meta-physical confusion.

� the distinction between realists and antirealists.

� the claim that reality is a social construct.

OVERVIEW

In the middle of the night, I comfort my son, “Don’tbe afraid. It was only a dream.” While many of usdiscovered early in life that Santa Claus is not real,we are also aware of the tremendous variety of be-liefs concerning spirit worlds and dimensions of re-ality that different cultures hold. Nonetheless, webelieve that there is a significant distinction betweenwhat is real and what is not real. It may even seemobvious. However, when we begin to systematically

and critically search for the line between the twowhen we begin to itemize what we would considerto be real (physical objects, events, numbers, con-cepts, relationships), we discover that sharp, cleancategories are a bit elusive.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy thatrationally pursues the basic or ultimate nature ofreality. Thus far in our journey into The ExaminedLife, we have encountered views that claim the mindand its ideas are metaphysically distinct from physi-cal or material things. Thinkers who argue thatthere are two types of real things are called dualists.Monists claim that only one type of thing is real. Ifthat one real thing is matter, the monist would alsobe termed a materialist; if only mind is real, an ideal-ist. A pluralist claims that what is real includes morethan what a dualist would be willing to accept. So,what is real?

By the fifth century B.C., human beings werebeginning to think philosophically, and specifically,metaphysically. Democritus, who defended themonist position of materialism, believed that all ofreality is constructed out of atoms. The word“atom” is Greek for uncuttable. Atoms are the small-est existing things and are what, in various combina-tions, make up everything else including earth, air,fire, humans.

Materialism was not the dominant metaphysi-cal view during the Middle Ages. It is incompatiblewith religious assumptions about reality that tend tobe dualistic. (See Episode 3, “Is Mind Distinct fromBody?” for a closer look at dualism.) Materialism,nonetheless, returned to prominence after the

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight


Renaissance, which marked the rebirth of classicalthinking. Its prominence grew during the centuryalongside the rise of modern science. One of modernmaterialism’s earliest and most able spokespersonswas the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.

According to Hobbes, only matter exists, and itis in motion. Hence, all that is real can be accountedfor in terms of matter or matter in motion. Thehuman body, for example, is a machine moved bythe subtle movements of other bits of matter inmotion. If a person uses words like soul, mind, orthought to refer to non-material things, Hobbesclaimed, then that person does not know what sheor he is talking about. For Hobbes, such words canonly refer to the brain and its motions.

Yet there remains a kind of residue of the men-tal. What does one say about dreams, memories,intentions? If I describe my dream last night of fly-ing over jagged, snowy peaks against a mountainpanorama, a materialist like Hobbes would have toexplain how matter in motion (neurons firing, touse a more contemporary description) constitutes orcreates these dream images. Or, if we are sometimesself-conscious, how can one neuron or neural net-work know another neuron or neural network? Thenotion of neurons or any sort of matter accountingfor these mental phenomena seems impossible toimagine. As David Chalmers remarks in this epi-sode, “to generate consciousness, you have to gobeyond the fundamental ingredients of physics.”

Now if we start with consciousness—or ourideas, to use an older expression—then, as GeorgeBerkeley argued, it’s difficult to imagine material orphysical reality existing. Interestingly, George Ber-keley, an Anglican Bishop and a scientist who stud-ied optics, argued that only minds and their ideasreally exist. For Berkeley, that we have ideas is notin dispute. But how do we know that there arethings independent of our ideas? How could an idea,a mental thing, be caused by a material or physicalobject, which is not itself an idea but exists in a com-pletely different metaphysical realm? Berkeley con-sidered the entire idea of material or physical objectsmuddle-headed and unwarranted. According to Ber-keley’s famous summation of his idealism, “To be isto be perceived.” This may be true of dreams, hallu-cinations, and illusions, but is it reasonable tobelieve that all that is real exists only when it is per-ceived?

Perhaps materialism, dualism, idealism, and allsuch metaphysical talk is nonsense. That is, it hasno real meaning. Rather, perhaps such talk is theresult of linguistic confusion. That is what sometwentieth century philosophers, like A.J. Ayer, have

argued. What we think is meaningful talk about ulti-mate reality is really disguised, subtle nonsense thatexpresses a variety of emotions. A.J. Ayer claimedthat “No statement which refers to a ‘reality’ tran-scending the limits of all possible sense-experiencecan possibly have any literal significance. [Suchtalk] is devoted to the production of nonsense.” ForAyer, all such metaphysical talk may be similar toasking if your dream last night weighed two poundsor ten pounds.

If language is a significant component in deter-mining what is real and what is not real, Darwin’stheory of evolution seems to present a picture of lan-guage that plays a crucial role in our adaptation andsurvival. It is this picture of language that waspicked up by a school of philosophers known aspragmatists. According to this view, language is atool for survival. Language is an adaptive behaviorin one’s arsenal for survival and not an abstract wayof representing reality. For many pragmatists, anyquestion concerning the warrant of a belief aboutreality must to be understood in terms of the practi-cal consequences of holding such a belief or havingsuch a language. Does language describe a real, exis-tent world, independent of our awareness, or is real-ity a reflection of the particular language we speak?These seem to be questions that not only go beyondthe particular pragmatist standard presented, butseem to be at the heart of the question, what is real?

Realists like John Searle argue that what is realis external to us. It exists whether or not we haveexperience of it, which is to say that it is not depen-dent upon our consciousness. Antirealists likeGoodman, Putnam, and Rorty have contend that weconstruct all reality. All reality is dependent on usand our consciousness. While there may be some-thing “out there” that is external to us, whatever itis, it is essentially shaped by our concepts or ideas. Itis, metaphysically, nothing to us until we name it orconceive of it. Hence, we know what is real onlythrough our descriptions, our language.

Perhaps you are a realist or a materialist whoargues that when we discuss an issue, what we arereally talking about is our brains being variouslyconfigured in terms of synaptic weights. Or perhapsyou are an antirealist who argues that all such arejust conceptual models. Both realists and antirealistsbelieve that much of what we take to be reality issocial construction. For some thinkers, like JohnSearle, there are many social or institutional factsthat are social constructs. But for Searle, who is arealist, there are also objects that exist independentof our experience. Others, from the feminist camp,along with a number of disenfranchised minorities,

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Sticky Note

In the study guide, it says that "According to Berkeley's famous summation of his idealism, 'To be is to be perceived.'" I view the body as a highly complex biological control system

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight

Kevin

Highlight

Lesson Six: What is Real? 35

might want to add concepts like gender or racialsuperiority and inferiority to the list of socially con-structed “facts.”

Is there something real beyond such social con-structs? Don’t all social constructs occur in a threedimensional world of physical objects, or is space aconceptual construct along with physical object?What is real?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Chapter 3, Sec-tion 3.1 for an introduction to the general issuesof what constitutes ultimate reality.

� For a more complete discussion of the issues in-volved in the debate between materialism andthe non-materialists see Section 3.2 of Velasqu-ez.

� Read about the pragmatists’ view of reality inSection 3.3 of Velasquez.

� While this episode only briefly mentions theviews of A.J. Ayer, he was a representative oflogical positivism, a powerful philosophicalforce during the mid-twentieth century. Theirviews of metaphysics as involving linguisticnonsense are given an extended introduction inVelasquez Section 3.4, “Reality and Logical Pos-itivism.”

� Velasquez Section 3.5 brings the discussion ofultimate reality up to the present with an over-view of contemporary antirealist positions.

� For a more detailed discussion of Thomas Hob-bes and George Berkeley, which includes ex-tended passages of their work, see Velasquez,Section 3.10.

KEY TERMS

Antirealism: A metaphysical view that the objectsof experience do not exist independently of our ex-perience.

Atomism: A materialist view first attributed to aschool of thought in Ancient Greece which arguedthat all of reality is reducible to elementary things

called atoms, which means uncuttable, since theyare the ultimate building blocks.

Conceptual framework: Refers to the integratedstructure of concepts or beliefs that give identity tothe understanding of an individual or community.

Idealism: The metaphysical view that reality ulti-mately consists of ideas and the minds that havethem. Again, there are variant views of idealismsuch as transcendental idealism.

Monism: Metaphysical view that reality ultimatelyconsists of one thing.

Neuron: A nerve cell.

Pragmatism: A philosophical school of thought,which epistemologically tests truth in terms of “use-fulness” or “workability.” Tends to be metaphysi-cally pluralistic.

Realism: The metaphysical view that the objects ofexperience exist independently of their being expe-rienced.

Synapse: The gap between the dendrite of one neu-ron and the axon of another neuron.

Synaptic weight: A metaphorical reference to thechanges that occur within the brain, specifically thenumber and locations of synapses, as living experi-ences “shape” the brain’s neural anatomy.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Metaphysics, as a branch of philosophy, isa. the theory or study of knowledgeb. the study of good and bad reasoningc. the study of the ultimate or basic nature of

realityd. another term for theoretical physics

2. The notion that a corporation is like a living or-ganism that thinks, acts, and directs the activi-ties of its members is an example ofa. dualismb. metaphysical collectivismc. monismd. pluralism


3. Pragmatists reject the significance of the debatebetween metaphysical materialism and idealismbecausea. it has no experiential consequencesb. it arises out of a misuse of languagec. it is focused on abstractions that have little to

do with reality as it is revealed to human con-sciousness

d. there are many realities

4. According to some critics of materialism, the fa-tal flaw of materialism is that reality seems tocontaina. some unpredictable sub-atomic particlesb. only matter in motionc. objects that may not be causally relatedd. a mental residue beyond physics

5. One of the earliest materialist views was ex-pressed in thea. twentieth century by Albert Einsteinb. nineteenth century by J.J. Thompsonc. seventeenth century by Thomas Hobbesd. fifth century BCE by Democritus

6. According to Thomas Hobbes,a. only matter in motion is realb. only minds and their ideas are realc. only minds and the bodies they inhabit are

reald. nothing is real

7. For George Berkeley, to exist—that is, to be—istoa. endure as a physical objectb. be an event involving physical objectsc. be described by a languaged. be perceived

8. In the history of philosophy, an outstanding de-fender of metaphysical idealism wasa. A.J. Ayerb. George Berkeleyc. René Descartesd. Thomas Hobbes

9. According to a pragmatist like William James,metaphysical disputes can be resolved bya. scrupulously analyzing the nature of an ideab. leaving all such issues to scientific investiga-

tionc. studying closely the sacred literature of many

cultures

d. tracing each view’s practical consequences tosee if they make any real difference

10. Much of the debate between realists and anti-realists about the nature of reality turns on theclaim that a. reality is external and independent of our

consciousness of itb. language is shared by non-human animalsc. metaphysical pluralism must be trued. language is only a label for our thoughts

True or False

These questions are only from the reading assign-ment in Velasquez, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and3.5. Specific page references are given in the answerkey.

11. As Robert Nozick has said, to say something isreal is to say it has “value, meaning, impor-tance, and weight.”

12. Idealism is the view that matter is ideally the ul-timate constituent of reality.

13. According to subjective idealism, the world con-sists of my own mind and things that are depen-dent on it.

14. In his work on pragmatism, William Jamesagrees that the dispute between materialism andidealism has important practical consequences.

15. Logical positivists like A. J. Ayer view meta-physical statements as meaningless becausethey are neither tautologies nor statements offact that can be verified by observation.


If you are a materialist and if you believe that thefunctioning brain is all that we are in terms of ourexperience, then who are you? How can a neuron ora bunch of neurons cause the tongue to say, “To beor not to be? That is the question.” This remark isvery different from just a tape recording. Who saysit and how is such a sense of self, and reality, possi-ble?

�

Lesson Six: What is Real? 37

If there are conscious states that are different fromthe things they are supposedly about—tables, chairs,classes, family—how can they be about things thatare so different?

�Professor Gerald Jacobs of the Neuroscience Re-search Institute at the University of California, San-ta Barbara has remarked, “We live in a world ofcolor, but color is only a useful illusion created inthe brain. It is an interpretation of wavelengths oflight . . .” If color (your experience of yellow, red,blue) is not in the world but is an illusion, how andwhere does it occur in the brain? No neurologist ex-amining your brain, in whatever detail, will ever seeyou experience of a blue sky. Are colors real?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Take a philosophical field trip and do some sidewalkmetaphysics. Ideally, take a video camera and inter-view people on the street asking if they are monists(probably materialists), dualists, or pluralists. If theydon’t know what they are, explain the different po-sitions then ask if it is important to know the meta-physical assumptions inherent in one’s system ofbelief?

�Make a list of all the things you believe are real. Canyou place them all in some neat, comprehensive cat-egories like material or physical object, mental orspiritual object, or abstract objects? How many cate-gories do you need? Which do you honestly believeare real and which are only fictional?

�Invite your friends over and take a metaphysicalcensus to see what each believes makes up the stuffof reality.

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Metaphysics:


— http://mally.stanford.edu

David Chalmers:


Paul Churchland:


Nelson Goodman:

— http://www.aesthetics-online.org/memorials/carter.html

Hilary Putnam:


Richard Rorty:


John Searle:



39

Lesson Seven

How Do We Encounterthe World?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� Edmund Husserl’s development of phenomenol-ogy.

� the role of phenomenon and the significance ofhuman subjectivity.

� the role of intention in consciousness.

� the significance of noema and lebenswelt as wellas their relationship.

� Heidegger’s view of human double nature, inau-thenticity and determination.

OVERVIEW

“Let’s go and watch the sun set. It promises to bequite beautiful this evening,” you might remark.“The colors, with all of their subtle hues, are magnif-icent.” “Look how they reflect off of the clouds and

slowly change as the sun goes down.” According tothe accepted scientific account of a sunset, not onlydoes the sun not go down but the colors themselvesare not objective features of the world. Rather theyare subjective parts of our experience. The variouswave-lengths and frequencies of electromagnetic ra-diation, it is theorized, cause us to experience colors.What about other properties that only appear to befeatures of our consciousness? Quite naturally thequestion presents itself, “How do we encounter real-ity?”

In the history of philosophy the seeming gapbetween appearance and reality has generated manytheories that attempt to bridge this gap. Some theo-ries attempt to show that there really is no gap.However, with the philosophical movement of phe-nomenology, whose founding is often attributed toEdmund Husserl, there is an attempt to avoid suchtheorizing and deal only with consciousness itself.Phainomenon is the Greek word for appearance.Thus, Husserl starts with human subjectivity, thesubjective consciousness.

In Husserl’s phenomenology the first questionis, “What does it mean to be aware of something?”This deceptively simple question belies the decep-tively simple understanding most of us have aboutthe nature of our awareness or consciousness,regardless of its relationship to the world. The firstthing to realize, according to Husserl, is the large


number of assumptions, particularly culturalassumptions that we bring to every experience. Ananalogy is sometimes drawn to the training of apainter or photographer who must relearn how tosee in order to appreciate the subtle role our learnedperspective plays in effecting how we ordinarily see.

To illustrate the role of assumption in percep-tion, consider any of the cases of ambiguous figures.The duck-rabbit ambiguous figure shown in the epi-sode illustrates that the figure itself presents a singlebit of visual information, yet this singular informa-tion can be experienced in more than one way. Howdoes such a shift in perspective occur? If someonehad no conception of a duck, then they might seeonly a rabbit and vice-versa. The assumptions webring to experience seem to play a very significantrole in what we actually experience.

For phenomenologists, all consciousnessinvolves an intentional act. What this means is thatevery act of conscious awareness is directed towardan object. We always seem to see, feel, hear, smell,desire, believe something. We may believe that thepresident is the commander in chief or desire thatwe be able to eat sooner rather than later. Con-sciousness is never simply pure belief or pure desireor pure feeling but always an intentional believingthat, or desiring that or feeling that. The object ofour beliefs need not be real, as in the case of a childwho believes that a monster lives under the bed. ForHusserl the distinction between what is real andwhat is unreal or fictional is not important. Rather,we must put the world in parentheses and simplydescribe subjective consciousness.

In describing subjective consciousness, Hus-serl introduces the notion of noema. Noema is a partof the intentional act inherent in consciousness.While all consciousness is intentional, directedtoward an object, noema refers to the structuralaspect of consciousness in which the object of con-sciousness is determined to be the object that it is.Using again the duck/rabbit ambiguous figure as anillustration, the noema is the structure of the antici-pations or assumptions that determine whether wesee a duck or a rabbit at any one time.

The subjectively-experienced world thatresults from our noema is our lebenswelt, our life-world, according to Husserl. It reflects the worldthat we live in from our childhood experiencesonward. In an important sense, there are unique,individual aspects to each lebenswelt. A large part ofthe phenomenological method is to uncover andreveal the complicated pattern of anticipations andassumptions. Yet if each lebenswelt is structured bysome noema, then isn’t Husserl’s entire phenomeno-

logical method itself simply another lebenswelt orlife-world?

For Martin Heidegger, one of Husserl’s mostfamous pupils, the phenomenological method wasnot focused on consciousness itself, but upon theobject of consciousness. Heidegger searched for aphenomenological insight into what it means to beanything at all—into the very meaning of beingitself.

The being of man is marked by a doublenature. We are physical objects and thus exist likerocks, dirt, trees, and fire, but we also have a mind, aconsciousness, and hence a conscious relationshipto the world. Heidegger’s major work, Being andTime (1927), is a systematic attempt to describe theways that this conscious relationship to the worlddiffers from the relationship a non-conscious beinghas in the world. In short, while other beings are, weexist. We are not merely in the world, we have aworld. And to have a world means to live a life thatis marked by sorge, a caring relationship.

For Heidegger, we do not, for the most part,live simply as spectators of our lives. To understandis not simply a pure intellectual act. Rather, life ispractical. A person has projects, possibilities. Theseprojects and possibilities only reveal themselvesthrough a mood. Thus, for Heidegger, the worldreveals itself very differently to those gripped by amood of paranoia, than to those influenced by amood of happiness or gloom. For Heidegger, if wehad no moods, the world would not reveal itself atall.

When we care not just for a variety of beingsbut for being itself, we act most authentically,according to Heidegger. To act inauthentically is tofall into the world of others. We cease to be our-selves, and become what others expect or demand ofus. The authentic individual lives from personalchoice, not from some cultural stereotype. Sorge—for the future, for the past, for other beings and thecommunity—gives reality to our lives as well.

People also escape inauthenticity through theexperience of angst. Angst or anxiety is experiencedin our recognition of death. Anxiety, in this sense, isnot the same as fear according to Heidegger, becauseit has a cognitive aspect. This cognition results in adiscovery of our freedom as well as knowledge ofour eventual termination. In view of our inevitabledeath, we must choose a life that justifies itself,makes itself worthy. Thus for Heidegger, realityreveals itself through sorge or care, but to liveauthentically the sorge that guides us must be ourown and not that of others. The authentic individual

Lesson Seven: How Do We Encounter the World? 41

cares for others but does not live to conform to theircare or demands.

TEXT LINKS

� For a more detailed discussion of phenomenolo-gy and its relationship to existentialism see Ve-lasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, tenthedition, Section 3.6, “Encountering Reality:Phenomenology and Existentialism.”

� The issues of consciousness and subjectivity re-call were also central concerns of metaphysicalidealists such as George Berkeley. For an ex-tended discussion of Berkeley, along with ex-tended excerpts from Berkeley’s writing, seeSection 3.10, “The Historical Showcase.”

KEY TERMS

Authentic: To be, to act, to feel as one genuinely is.To live one’s individuality.

Consciousness: Awareness of a world, experienceof the world. Consciousness is sometimes distin-guished from unconsciousness, in which there is noawareness or experience of a world. Consciousnessis not the world, but of the world. For Husserl, con-sciousness could be bracketed and simply studied initself and significantly independently of the worldor its relationship to the world.

Gestalt psychology: A German school of psycho-logical study founded in the early twentieth centuryby Max Werthheimer. Gestalt psychologists claimedthat perception or sensory consciousness goes be-yond the basic physical data provided by the senses.

Intentional: As used by phenomenologists, an es-sential aspect of the structure of consciousness inwhich consciousness is always directed toward anobject or objectivity. Thus, it is not possible to sim-ply believe, but one must believe that something isthe case. One cannot simply feel, but one must feelpain, or joy, or pleasure.

Lebenswelt: In Husserl’s phenomenology, it is thelife-world or that structured world that we live inand that reflects our past experience from our child-hood onward.

Noema: Those expectations or assumptions withinconsciousness that are involved in structuring thecontent of our consciousness. In the case of ambigu-ous figures, such as the duck-rabbit example, thenoema is that aspect of consciousness which deter-mines that we see the figure as a duck as opposed toa rabbit and vice-versa.

Phenomenology: A twentieth century school ofphilosophy whose founding is traditionally attribut-ed to Edmund Husserl. In phenomenology, philo-sophical study starts with our subjectivity orconsciousness; consciousness being ultimately realand hence the ground of being itself.

Phenomenon: Within the school of phenomenolo-gy, the phenomenon is that which appears, the im-mediate contents of consciousness.

Sorge: A German word used by Martin Heideggerand usually translated to mean care. Care or sorge isused to characterize the different ways in which ourconsciousness relates to the world.

Subjectivity: The starting point for phenomenolo-gists, which concerns the structure and content ofconsciousness and nothing that exists apart from it.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to Heidegger, reality reveals itself tous througha. ideasb. material or physical objectsc. moodsd. prayers and grace

2. For phenomenologists, the starting point ofphilosophical study is/area. atoms and the voidb. consciousnessc. the subconsciousd. sociology and anthropology

3. Phenomenon, in phenomenology, isa. that which appears or shows itselfb. a hypothesis of ontologyc. noemad. noumena


4. To claim that consciousness is essentially inten-tional is to claim thata. all conscious acts are about physical objectsb. fictional objects are composites of actual

objectsc. all mental activities are directed at somethingd. unconsciousness is always accidental

5. Ambiguous figures, like the duck/rabbit, illus-trate Husserl’s view of the role ofa. intentional objectsb. noemac. authenticityd. angst

6. Taking the phenomenological point of view, forHusserl, required that we put the world withina. bracketsb. the scientific methodc. some lebensweltd. sorge

7. Noema is Husserl’s term for how a. consciousness, in part, determines its objectb. an existentialist confronts absurdityc. consciousness grasps material objectsd. consciousness gives words meaning

8. For Husserl, a lebenswelt or life-world is thea. structured world of our experienceb. structure of the world itselfc. laws which govern natured. customs or mores of a society

True or False


9. Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, asksthat we “bracket” the “natural standpoint.”

10. Soren Kierkegaard wrote “What I really lack isto be clear in my mind what I am to do, notwhat I am to know.”

11. According to Heidegger traditional thinking isconfused over the question of being.

12. Edmund Husserl divides reality into being-for-itself and being-in-itself.

13. According to Sartre, psychology has proven thata man cheats and robs because of the conditionsunder which he grew up.


According to phenomenology, we must start withsubjectivity, with consciousness. How do we startwith subjectivity? Isn’t the claim of we, already toplace us in an objective world beyond subjectivity?

�When a phenomenologist distinguishes in con-sciousness the object of consciousness, then de-scribes this as objectivity or being, itself, in whatsense is the object of one’s own consciousness objec-tive? Is this the ordinary sense of objectivity you arefamiliar with?

�If, as phenomenologists direct, we should start withsubjectivity, can we ever get out of subjectivity? (Re-call Descartes problems from Episode 3, “Is MindDistinct from Body?” along with those and otherproblems arising again for Descartes as well as forGeorge Berkeley in Episode 6, “What is Real?”)

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY Consider Heidegger’s view that if we had no moods,the world would not reveal itself to us. How do yousee other people when you are in a bad mood as op-posed to a good mood? How do your family mem-bers and friends differ in moods, how does thisaffect how they “see” the world?

�Find someone who is a painter and discuss with thatperson what is involved in relearning how to “see.”Is this what Husserl had in mind?

�Discuss Heidegger’s angst or anxiety about deathwith your family or friends. Do you and they agreethat such angst is a source of authenticity and thediscovery of freedom and life’s worth?

�

Lesson Seven: How Do We Encounter the World? 43

Do you live authentically or inauthentically? Areyou more authentic around some people than oth-ers? Why? Is it easier to live authentically as anadult than as a child or adolescent? Why? Do yousometimes feel you are simply the product of yourculture or the expectations of others? Look at yournails. Are they painted? How is your hair cut? Whatdo your clothes look like? Must you own a particularstyle of car or house to be “cool”?

NET LINKS









Existentialism:


Phenomenology

— http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/phenom.htm

— http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/

—http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenol-ogy/

Martin Heidegger:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger

Edmund Husserl:

— http://www.husserlpage.com

Jean Paul Sartre:


Richard Rorty:


45

Lesson Eight

Do We Have Free Will?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the philosophical perplexity regarding the prob-lem of determinism and freedom of the will.

� the position of libertarianism in the free will/determinism debate.

� compatibilism and incompatibilism in the freewill/determinism debate.

� the relationship between responsibility and free-dom of the will.

OVERVIEW

Most everyone reading this overview will havepassed through puberty. This event in your life wascausally determined by your genetic make-up. Thetime of onset, the duration of this passage fromchildhood to adulthood was largely, if not totally, be-yond your choice.

Still others of us have watched our hair turngray. Hair turning gray marks another causallydetermined event. However, with hair color we mayalso believe we can choose to change our natural

gray. We believe we can choose to give our hair,even ourselves, a younger look.

Then we realize we live in a culture peculiarlyobsessed with youthfulness and sexual attractive-ness urged on by mass media. It becomes apparentthat our desire to color our hair, to have a certainlook, to even feel a certain way, has been causallyimplanted within us, the result of the subtle powerof socialization.

So some desires are biologically determined,and others appear to be socially determined. Wheredoes free will fit into this pattern of causality? Afterall, nature seems a seamless web of complex causalrelationships and homo-sapiens are a part of nature.How can we be an exception to this causal determin-ism? Is free will an illusion? Do we have free will?

Today, there is a cynical attitude among peoplein the United States regarding legal responsibility.Some social critics use the phrase, “culture of vic-tims” to refer to what they believe to be a failure onthe part of people to take responsibility. Individualsfound guilty of committing horrendous crimes areexcused because they were victims of “bad” upbring-ing, “bad” social environment, or in the case of Clar-ence Darrow’s defense of Nathan Leopold andRichard Loeb, victims of “good” upbringing and a“good” social environment. There has been a “junkfood” defense for a murderer, and a high on drugsdefense for rapists, torturers, and murders. What isthe role of free will and moral responsibility in aworld in which both our natural and social sciencesincreasingly direct us to look for the cause?


Our ideas regarding legal responsibility, andthe whole of morality, seem to require that we riseabove fate, act autonomously, and exercise a genu-inely free will. Among various philosophical posi-tions, libertarians claim that we do have genuinealternatives to select from, and that we are free tochoose our actions. As one commented, “The futureis a garden of forking paths. We have alternativepossibilities at least some of the time.” Traditionally,going back to at least Plato, we exercise free willwhen our rational faculty governs our desires andtempers our emotions. (See Episode 2, “What isHuman Nature?” for a more complete descriptionand discussion of Plato’s views.) However, can liber-tarianism be reconciled with the ever growing andpowerful deterministic model of the universe thatscience presents us?

Determinists take the view that human beingsare but a small part of a vast system of cause andeffect. For a determinist, it is naive to considerhumans outside this vast web of causality whichdefines the law-like behavior of the universe.Human beings, like all other physical things, are col-lections of matter that move according to a variety ofnatural laws. Some of these laws are well under-stood, some not so well understood, and others areyet to be discovered. But the fact that nature oper-ates according to causality is not in doubt from thescientific point of view.

Some have argued that an area of theoreticalphysics—quantum physics, which deals with thevery small—has shown that the behavior of at leastsome things, such as an electron, is indeterministic.That is, it is not always possible to predict the behav-ior of an electron. Yet unpredictability is not free-dom. Free will seems to be more than mere chance.

The position of compatibilism, a positiontaken by the great sixteenth century materialistThomas Hobbes, accepts determinism but claimsthere is still room for our notions of free will, choice,and responsibility. As Hobbes argued, what is cen-tral to having choice or free will is that our actionsnot be blocked—that we not be physically stoppedfrom doing that which we desire to do. Our desiresare, as a part of our natural fabric, determined. Butas long as there are no external impediments to sat-isfying those desires, we are said to be free.

With the rise of modern psychology, and thework of Sigmund Freud, the idea of unconsciousmotivations, of compulsions and phobias, gainedprominence. These unconscious desires and needsso effectively determined behavior that the personcaught in their invisible web lacked a free will. Sowhile there may be no external forces preventing or

forcing a person to eat or gamble, it appears thatinternal, perhaps unconscious, needs and desiresinfluence behavior with as much effectiveness asexternal forces.

Contemporary compatibilists qualify the pres-ence of these more subtle psychological forces bydescribing free agents as people who act on orexpress their “true” desires and values. Such distinc-tions are unpersuasive to the determinist, who takesseriously the idea of universal causality in nature.They wish to rule out any meaningful role for freewill; all things in nature are causally determined.Because human beings are things in nature, they arecausally determined. But perhaps nature only coverspart of reality.

Immanuel Kant argued that nature, whichconsists of a vast network of causal relationships, isin the realm of phenomena. There is another realmin reality, the realm of noumena, in which we existas free agents and as moral agents. In the realm ofphenomena, we are causally determined along withthe rest of the world of phenomena. If one under-stands these as two distinct realms, then one facesproblems of interactionism. (See Episode 3, “IsMind Distinct from Body?” for a more complete dis-cussion of the problems of dualism and interaction-ism.) On the other hand, perhaps Kant’s distinctionis a distinction between two different ways of look-ing at our world. If so, then we seem to be backwhere we started. Is the world of noumena only anillusion since the world of phenomena and scienceseems so persistent?

If we accept determinism, then it appears thatwe have to rethink our ideas about responsibility.We do not hold people responsible for being a cer-tain race, going through puberty, or suffering fromnightmares. How is someone held responsible if heor she could not have acted otherwise? As somehave argued, perhaps punishment should bereplaced by re-education and retraining. We mayhave to change our punitive practices, our prisonsystem and our jails, if we accept determinism as themost reasonable view.

Rethink as we may, we are still stuck withhaving to choose in actual, concrete situations. Ourcapacity to reason allows us to assign values to dif-ferent courses of action in our daily lives. As theexistentialist writer, Jean Paul Sartre, claimed,humans are “. . . condemned [determined] to be free,each of us is responsible for the world and for our-selves as a way of being.” Yet, how is this conceiv-able? How can we be such an exception to all ofnature?

Lesson Eight: Do We Have Free Will? 47

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, Section 3.7, “Is Freedom Re-al?” Velasquez discusses the three key positionsof determinism, libertarianism, and compati-bilism.

� See also Velasquez, Section 7.7, “Ethics andMoral Responsibility” for a discussion of moralresponsibility and its relationship to the primarypositions in the free will/determinism debate.

KEY TERMS

Consistency: Following logically without contra-diction

Compatibilism: In the free will/determinism de-bate, the position that determinism does not rule outwhat is meant by free will.

Determinism: In the free will/determinism debate,the position that all things are determined by ante-cedent conditions. That everything occurs accordingto some pattern or law.

Fate: The inevitable unfolding of events beyondanyone’s control.

Free will: In the free will/determinism debate theposition that at least some humans have a genuinecapacity for self-determined choice.

Incompatibilism: In the free will/determinism de-bate, the position that given that all things arecaused, there is no genuine free choice.

Intentional: To act deliberately; to act with or for apurpose.

Libertarianism: In the free will/determinism de-bate, the position that humans do make genuinelyfree choices, that humans do have free will.

Matter: Physical stuff which exists independent ofanyone thinking about it.

Necessity: In referring to the relationship betweenevents, the claim that certain events must occur inthe sequence in which they present themselves.

Neurotic: A person who may suffer from any of anumber of functional disorders of the mind or emo-tions. Generic for emotional dysfunction.

Phobia: An irrational fear such as hydrophobia,which is an irrational fear of water.

Quantum mechanics (physics): An area of theo-retical physics that studies the very small, quanta.

Responsibility: Being held accountable for whatone does. To be the author of some event that resultfrom one’s choice.

Theory of determinism: As used in this episode,the view that all events are caused.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. In the free will debate, libertarians claima. genuine free will is an illusionb. having a free will is to be without external

and/or internal obstaclesc. we are free to choose our actionsd. government should be at an absolute mini-

mum

2. In the free will debate, compatibilists claima. genuine free will is an illusionb. having a free will is to be without external


mum

3. In the free will debate, determinists claima. genuine free will is an illusionb. having a free will is to be without external


mum

4. The scientific point of view rests upon the as-sumption thata. all events and things in nature are causedb. creatures other than humans have a free willc. only God has a free willd. only humans escape the laws of cause and

effect


5. In western civilization, the classic or traditionalview of human beings is that they area. matter in motion like everything elseb. slaves to their passionsc. creatures living in both the noumenal and

phenomenal realmsd. reasoning, free moral agents

6. To hold someone responsible for his or her ac-tion seems to require thata. the person could have chosen another course

of action.b. the person’s act was simply reflex behaviorc. the person had no idea why he or she did the

actd. all events are causally determined

7. Existentialists tend to bea. deterministsb. compatibilistsc. libertariansd. Freudians

8. Traditional compatibilists failed to account fora. cases of external obstacles to freedom or lib-

ertyb. cases of internal obstacles to freedom or lib-

ertyc. the role of science in providing natural expla-

nationsd. the role of value in choice

Use the categories below to identify the statementsthat follow. (Be ready to defend your answers.)

a. determined b. free will

_____ 9. Being a member of a particular race

_____10. Being a drug addict

_____11. Being a member of a particular religiousgroup

_____12. Brushing your teeth in the morning

_____13. Wanting a particular candy bar, car, pieceof clothing

_____14. Having a particular sexual preference

True or False


15. The determinist view of reality claims that de-terminism does not rule out personal responsi-bility.

16. Sigmund Freud wrote that “the unconscious isthe master of every fate and the captain of everysoul.”

17. The libertarian view of reality holds that hu-man freedom and causal determinism are bothtrue.

18. The compatibilist holds that a couple must becompatible if their marriage is to succeed.

19. Thomas Hobbes was a libertarian.


In view of the theory of determinism, as presentedin this episode, all events, including the thoughtsyou are now having, are caused. The chain of causesthat brought about these thoughts stretches into thedistant past. Hence, you could not have had any oth-er thoughts than those you are now having, havehad, and will have. If this is so, whatever positionyou take on this debate, you were caused to take.Thus, if determinism is true, no one could know it istrue since all positions are determined. Do you agreewith this analysis?

�A profound shift is presently underway in howAmericans view drug addiction. For most of our his-tory, drug addiction has been considered a weaknessof the will, an inability to control one’s desires. Butnow there is a growing consensus in the medical andtreatment communities that addiction is a disease.What is the relevance of the free will/determinismdebate for this shift in thinking about drug addic-tion?

�Causal determination is the more well-known formof determination but others would argue that there

Lesson Eight: Do We Have Free Will? 49

is also logical determination. Once the logic or justi-fication of some belief is understood, a rational per-son is compelled to accept the belief. Since most ofus have abandoned our childhood belief in SantaClaus, could you choose to actually believe in Santaagain? Do we ever choose our beliefs?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Professor Van Inwagen claims that if we ever havechoice, it is about the “great decisions in life.” Pro-fessor Searle claims that if, “You go into a restau-rant, they confront you with a menu. . . . You haveto make up your mind (choose).” If you were havingdinner with these two fellows, what would you say?Who would you side with? Are they in disagree-ment?

�

Watch a show that you find funny. When you laugh,did you choose to laugh at the moment you laughedor was it simply the effect of a cause? What causedyou to laugh? Does broad comedy, physical antics,farce, or more subtle comedy like plays on wordsand innuendo make you laugh? Do you share yoursense of humor with some members of your familybut not others? Is sense of humor determined orchosen?

�

Make a list of your most prominent physical andpersonality traits, then trace them causally throughyour family. Who gave you your eye color, hair tex-ture, sense of humor, your smile? Draw up a list ofthose things over which you believe you clearly havea choice. Why are these things on this list and notthe causal list?

�

Consider the music most repulsive to you—punkrock, opera, rap, polka, new age, techno, whatever.Could you choose to like it? Could you not choose toplay it but choose to genuinely appreciate it, like youdo the music that is “your music”? Most would ar-gue that you do not choose your appreciation of mu-sic. What does your musical taste tell you about yourcultural conditioning, about how you’ve been social-ized? What choices are you capable of in this do-main?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Existentialism:


Metaphysics:



Jean Paul Sartre:


Daniel Dennett:



Larry Hinman:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/about/editor/index.asp


Nicholas Jolley:

— http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/eyeghiay/Philosophy/Faculty/jolley.html

Gary Watson:

— http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/eyeghiay/Philosophy/Faculty/watson.html

Susan Wolf:

— http://www.unc.edu/depts/phildept/wolf.html

51

Lesson Nine

Is Time Real?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the difference between felt time and objectivetime.

� paradoxes regarding the nature of time.

� the passage or flow view of time.

� absolute versus relational theories of time.

� the view of time in the theory of specialrelativity.

OVERVIEW

A student of mine once remarked, rather nobly itseemed, “If I could travel back in time, I would haveassassinated Adolf Hitler and stopped World WarII.” Despite what may be a naive view about howsuch assassinations actually occur, how complexhistorical events unfold, or even the morality of kill-ing someone before he or she does something wrong,there is perhaps the more basic question as towhether time travel is even possible. We do readilytravel through space to different locations, why notthrough time to different times? Is it simply because

we lack the technology, as we do in sending humansto other planets? Or is time travel logically, or assome might say, conceptually impossible? You reallycan’t imagine time travel any more than you canimagine Thursday beating the sun in gymnasticfloor exercises. What is time? Is it a thing that existsin reality alongside other stuff? Is it part of the veryfabric of reality? Is it only part of our experience ofreality? Is time real?

Is there a difference between how we measurethe movement of time by our feelings versus howtime itself really moves? Our feelings tell us that theflow of time is not smooth or continuous. It seems tospeed up or slow to a crawl. Children invariably re-port that time moves very slowly while people inlate adulthood describe weeks becoming like a day, amonth like a week, a year, a month. Even decadesseem to speed by. The beginning of a new millenni-um appears to mark quite a significant moment forlarge numbers of people. But it is only significant, itonly exists, given our calendar. This sense or feelingof time, felt time, we distinguish from what wesometimes describe as objective time, or cosmic orworld time. External objective time we describe asbeing continuous and independent of our felt time.Our finest clocks measure the external objectivetime. But what is time exactly?

If you measure my office, your act of measur-ing is one thing. The tape measure, or whateverinstrument you use to measure, is another thing.And then there’s my office itself, existing whetheror not it is measured. But what is time such that it isindependent of all instruments of measurement?


Time is not seen, smelled, touched, heard, nortasted, but seemingly felt. But it is not felt throughour nervous system like the heat of a fire or thecoarseness of sandpaper. We seem to have no literalsense or contact with something that is time inde-pendent of our individual fickle feelings. So what istime?

St. Augustine seemed to know what time wasas long as no one asked him the question, “What istime?” He commented that if he had to give anaccount of time, he wouldn’t know what time was.Is this only an autobiographical remark by a wiseman who knows the limits of his own understand-ing? I would give a similar response if asked ques-tions about gene splicing by molecular biologists.While I may not be able to give an account of genesplicing, I know someone can. Is it just that St.Augustine is not particularly informed or knowl-edgeable about time, or is his remark a profoundstatement about time itself?

Aristotle claimed that time is paradoxical. Ifyou take any segment of time like the present, what-ever its length, it exists between the past which isno-longer, and the future which is not-yet. How is itpossible for the present, a seemingly existing thing,to be so intimately related or connected to thingsthat have no existence? Since the future and the pastare so much greater in length than the present, itwould seem that so much non-existence wouldmean that the present is nothing as well.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the Cam-bridge philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart argued thattime is unreal. McTaggart’s work has been the focusof much of the philosophical debate over the natureof time during this century. McTaggart claimed thatsince past, present, and future are incompatibleproperties—that is one and the same thing—anevent cannot have all of these properties. Analo-gously, if you were holding a block of wood behindyour back and asked someone to guess its shape andthat person said it is both square and circular, youwould probably be confused and ask the personwhich shape he or she meant. A piece of wood can-not be both circular and square because these areincompatible properties. The wood could be squareand blue, since color and shape are not incompati-ble. If time were real, McTaggart argued, eventswould have the properties of being future, beingpresent, and being past. Thus, since actual thingscannot have incompatible properties, like the pieceof wood, we know that time does not exist.

If one were to suggest to McTaggert, “But noevent has those incompatible properties simulta-neously, hence the properties are not actually

incompatible. If the block of wood can be circularnow but square later, then square and circular arenot incompatible.” However, McTaggert argued thatone had to introduce the ideas of simultaneity andsuccession, both temporal concepts, in order toresolve a problem about time. Using time to resolvea paradox about time leads one into an infiniteregress.

While it may appear that our idea of time isfilled with riddles and paradoxes, perhaps suchproblems are only true of our idea of time and notthe reality of time in itself. Immanuel Kant claimedthat time in itself does not exist. Time is completelymind-dependent as is space, according to Kant. (SeeEpisode 14, “Does the Mind Shape the World?” for amore detailed look at Kant’s epistemological andmetaphysical theories.) Time, Kant argued, is anintuition of our sensory understanding. It forms apart of our experience of an external world. Withoutcreatures having the kind of experience of the worldthat we have, time would not exist.

On the other hand, when science studies theuniverse, it largely assumes that time is in somesense a feature or a part of reality, independent ofour thinking. Time exists on its own and has certainfeatures or qualities that we can objectivelydescribe. We even discover some new things abouttime as we discover new things about our solar sys-tem—which exists, we assume, independent of ourthinking about it. For Isaac Newton, one of thefounders of modern physics, time was absolute.Time exists as duration and would exist even ifother objects and things did not exist. Time, likespace, is a sort of container with its own, objectiveexistence. Everything in the universe exists in thepresent, in the now, though it has had a long history,its past, and has a future which appears to stretchfar in the distance, or so at least it seems at this time.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his theoryof special relativity, which generated what has cometo be known as the twin paradox. Contrary to New-ton, Einstein argued that the present is not a simul-taneous event occurring throughout the universe.Not all things share our now. Rather, as thingsapproach the speed of light, which is a constantthroughout the universe, time and space change.Now moves. As one approaches the speed of light,time slows. Thus, if twins were born on earth andone twin grew up to be an astronaut and took a triptraveling through space at a very high rate of speed,he would age more slowly than his twin on earth. Ifthe astronaut twin had started his travels on their25th birthday, and traveled for one year as hemarked off the days on the calendar in his spaceship,

Lesson Nine: Is Time Real? 53

upon returning to earth he would be 26 years of age.But the twin who had remained on earth, in a differ-ent reference frame, would now be 35 years of agesince ten years would have passed in earth’s frameof reference compared to the astronaut twin’s frameof reference.

According to Einstein, as your frame of refer-ence approaches the speed of light, time slows. Sothe question naturally arises, what does now mean?Does now refer to a specific moment in time? AsEinstein remarks, “You have to accept the idea thatsubjective time with its emphasis on the now has noobjective meaning. The distinction between past,present, and future is only an illusion, however per-sistent.” Neurologists, like Paul Churchland, havetaken a similar position viewing our notion of thepassing or flow of time as an illusion, which ourbrains are wired to think in terms of. Some haveargued that our notion of time flowing or moving isanalogous to our ancestor’s belief that the sun movesfrom east to west. Now we know that the sun’sapparent motion is an illusion and that its actualmotion cannot be detected by our senses.

However, philosophers like William LaneCraig insist that the passage or flow of time cannotbe some universal and gigantic illusion. To doubtthat time moves pushes us to the edge of absurdityanalogous to your being able to genuinely doubt thatyou are presently reading this sentence.

So what is time? It is intimately with us everymoment of our existence but remains mysterious.Neither history nor thought would be possible with-out it. But is time real, and if time is real, what pre-cisely is it and how precisely does it exist?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 3.8,“Is Time Real?” This discussion gives you amuch more in-depth look at St. Augustine’sview of time from the human and from God’spoint of view in addition to a more extensivelook at problems within the passage or flowview of time. There is also included an extendeddiscussion of the view of Henri Bergson, whichis not presented in this episode.

KEY TERMS

Absolute theories of time: The view that time ex-ists independently of things and that time wouldpass or occur even if nothing was happening in theuniverse.

Einstein’s relativity theories:

— Special theory of relativity: Concerns space/time and the claim that all of the laws of physicsare equally valid in all nonaccelerated frames ofreference; light has a constant speed and thesehave the consequences that the mass of anobject increases as it approaches the speed oflight and time slows in reference to otherframes of reference.

— General theory of relativity: An extension ofthe special theory of relativity to a geometrictheory of gravitation with the principle thatgravitational and inertial forces are equivalent.

Flow theory of time: The view that time is in mo-tion. That moments of time, like water in a river,flow from the varyingly distant future into thepresent then recede into the more and more distantpast.

Incompatible: Two claims are said to be incompati-ble when it is not possible for both of them to be si-multaneously true though they could both besimultaneously false. For example, if I say today isTuesday and you say it is Thursday, we cannot bothbe correct though we could both be wrong. Henceour two claims are incompatible.

Newtonian physics: Typically having to do withthe theories of motion and universal gravitation de-scribed by Isaac Newton.

Paradox: When two apparently justified beliefs areseen to be incompatible or inconsistent.

Relational theories of time: The view that timecould not exist independently of the existence ofchanging things and thus time should be conceivedof as a kind of dimension of changing things.

Twin paradox: Generated from the special theoryof relativity in which twins are no longer the sameage. The different ages of twins results from onetwin traveling away from earth at a highly accelerat-


ed speed. Since this accelerated and thus differentreference frame, according to theory, will have timeslow in relationship to the reference frame of earth,the traveling twin will age slower than the earthtwin.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to this episode, the Earth’s 24 timezones resulted froma. a need for uniform global time by airlinesb. a need for uniform global time by steamship

linesc. a need for uniform global time by military

plannersd. a need for uniform global time by railroads

2. Aristotle found the existence of the present dif-ficult since the presenta. is always changingb. never changes, it always remains the presentc. is a part of the future and the past which do

not existd. seems to speed up and slow down

3. According to J.M.E. McTaggert, time isa. unrealb. absolute and realc. real but only an idead. intimately related to space, hence there is

space time

4. McTaggert argued that no event could be said tobe past, present, and future since these proper-ties area. incompatibleb. of different durationsc. imbalanced regarding their extentd. intrinsic to the flow of time

5. The view that time is a mind-dependent intu-ition was held bya. Aristotleb. Platoc. Kantd. Einstein

6. According to the flow or passage view of time,a. time actually has motion or movementb. there is only the present, and time motion is

an illusionc. time is a primitive concept and cannot be

definedd. time is only in the mind of the beholder

7. St. Augustine’s understanding of the nature oftime is best summed by the quotea. “time does not exist independent of the space-

time continuum”b. “time is part of the structure of our experi-

ence of the world”c. “time has both psychological, subjective and

objectively reality”d. “I don’t know”

8. The twin paradox was the result ofa. Einstein’s special theory of relativityb. Newton’s theory of absolute timec. McTaggert’s paradoxes of timed. Aristotle’s paradox of time

9. Einstein seemed to prove that as one approachesthe speed of lighta. time slows relative to another, slower, frame

of referenceb. time speeds up relative to another, slower,

frame of referencec. time is time and speed is only relevant to

spaced. time converts from seconds to nanoseconds

True or False


10. Immanuel Kant said “If no one asks me, I knowwhat time is; if someone asks and I want to ex-plain it, I do not know.”

11. Saint Augustine argues that the present instantis the only part of time that is real.

12. The Australian philosopher J. J. C. Smart arguesthat our experience of time as passing is valid.

13. Real time for Henri Bergson is the time flowthat I experience as moving from future,through present, and into the past.

14. According to Einstein, “the distinction betweenpast, present, and future is only an illusion.”

Lesson Nine: Is Time Real? 55


If motion is a relational concept that is, somethingcan be said to move only in relation to somethingelse, which itself may or may not be moving. What isit that time moves in relation to, if we want to be-lieve that time does in fact move or flow?

�

You decide to travel back in time to kill Hitler andsave the world from the horrors of World War II.You arrive in Berlin and it is 1929. Fortunately, youremember the stories your grandfather told youabout these times and you brought a very old post-card with his boyhood Berlin address on it. Yousearch out and find your grandfather. He is aboutyour age, a bit younger. You befriend him, then to-gether you find an old rifle at his home. It is a pow-erful weapon. As you examine it, it accidentally goesoff and kills your grandfather. Do you cry in horroror do you do suddenly vanish since you couldn’t ex-ist because now your grandfather never had chil-dren, hence you never had parents, so you neverexisted.

�

Is it possible to get into a capsule and travel slowerthan the earth is presently traveling, so that the twinparadox works in reverse? The returning astronautis now older than her twin.

�

Since we do not believe that fictional characters likeMickey Mouse or Hamlet could actually and literallydo anything in the real world—after all, they don’treally exist—how is it that the present is actuallyanything since it does seem to be affected by whatdoesn’t actually exist, namely the future and thepast?

�

If you believe that time is real and moves or flows,do you believe that its motion is uniform and con-stant or does its flow vary? What keeps it constant,if you believe that it is constant? If you believe itflows evenly or at a constant speed, why is our expe-rience of time so strewn with illusions? What is thecause of such an illusion?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask a physics professor or a physicist why time is af-fected by speed. Then ask him or her if he or shethinks time is objectively real. Do they agree withEinstein that the word now has no objective mean-ing?

�Ask your grandparents or some other senior citizensif they think time speeds up as one gets older. Askchildren if time seems to speed along.

�Given the twin paradox, if you were the travelingtwin what would be the psychological effects uponyou when you returned to Earth now that everyoneyou left behind is so much older?

�Do you think that St. Augustine’s claiming not toknow what time is, is simply an autobiographical re-mark about his ignorance or is there something to belearned about the very nature of time?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:




— http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=2201

Philosophy of Science:

— http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu

— http://www.friesian.com/science.htm

Aristotle:


Albert Einstein:

— http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

Immanuel Kant:

— http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

— http://naks.ucsd.edu/

— http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/Kant.html

J.M.E. McTaggart:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart

Paul Churchland:


William Lane Craig:

— http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html

Dagfinn Follesdal:

— http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~scctr/philosophy/follesdal.html

Hugh Mellor:

— http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/

Paul Ricoeur:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ricoeur

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/

Quentin Smith:

— http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith

57

Lesson Ten

Does God Exist?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s exist-ence.

� St. Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological proof forGod’s existence.

� William Paley and the argument from design.

� the relevance of the big bang theory to God’s ex-istence.

� the problem of evil and God’s existence.

� a sense of the sacred—secular or divine.

OVERVIEW

Across the midwest and southern part of the UnitedStates of America stretches what has come to beknown as the Bible Belt. While its boundaries arenot sharp, the Bible Belt refers to the deep culturalpresence of Christianity. Christians, as most of usknow, and Jews and Muslims as well, structure theirlives around the belief in a single God. This belief intheir God gives both meaning and purpose to all as-

pects of their lives, from personal and family valuesto social and political values. While Christianity, Ju-daism, and Islam are some of the world’s major reli-gions, there are other world religions that do notinclude a belief in one God or even in any God orgods. Thus the question naturally presents itself,Does God exist?

For some who do believe in the existence ofsuch a God, the evidence supporting this particularbelief seems to be either obvious or unnecessary. Forthose who find evidence for the existence of a Godinadequate or unpersuasive, the belief in a Godseems to be motivated by some psychological need orsocialization process rather than logical persuasion.Since belief in a God is not only an ancient belief,but also a claim about the nature of reality, aboutwhat actually exists, the debate among believers andnonbelievers over God’s existence has had a longand varied history.

In the eleventh century A.D., a European theo-logian, St. Anselm, argued that God’s existencecould be deduced from the nature of God’s being.Anselm’s argument is known as the ontologicalargument or the ontological proof of God’s existence.God, Anselm reasoned, is “that than which nonegreater can be conceived.” Now, what if God werejust an idea? If so, we could easily conceive of some-thing greater—a God who actually existed. There-fore, Anselm concluded, if God is “that than whichnone greater can be conceived,” then God mustexist.

Over the centuries there have been manyadherents and many critics of St. Anselm’s ontologi-


cal argument. To many people today the argumentseems wrong, in part because of the gap betweenthinking and reality. Having an idea about some-thing that exists in reality seems in need of some-thing more than its just being an idea. This concernis also reflected in other proofs or arguments forGod’s existence. Many of the more popular argu-ments for God’s existence start not with an idea, butwith our actual experience of the world.

In the thirteenth century A.D., another Euro-pean theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, gave fiveproofs for God’s existence called The Five Ways.These arguments, he said, would persuade any ratio-nal person of the existence of God. Many peopletoday still accept one or more of these arguments.

Aquinas’ first argument relates to why thingsare in motion. The medieval physics of Aquinas’ dayconsidered rest as the only natural state; the law ofinertia had not yet been formulated. Aquinas sayswhatever is moved is moved by another. If in asimultaneous series of motions A moves B, whichmoves C, which moves D, there must be a “firstmover.” That first unmoved mover, Aquinasclaimed, is God.

According to Aquinas’s second proof, God isthe “uncaused cause.” There are a number of ver-sions of this argument but the one discussed in thisepisode concerns God as the Creator. For many sci-entifically-minded thinkers, evidence for the bigbang, or some other naturalistic beginning for theuniverse, seems overwhelming. However, defendersof the existence of God claim that some reason mustyet be given for the big bang, and this sort of reasonscience cannot provide.

Appealing to the principle of sufficient reason(or as this principle is referred to in this episode, theprinciple of universal explanation), believers arguethat some explanation must be given for every factof reality. The fact that there is a reality, that there issomething, rather than nothing, marks a reason forGod’s existence. After all, what could be the cause ofthe universe as a whole but something that isregarded as being outside of the whole of nature,said to be timeless, nonspatial, changeless, and enor-mously powerful? Such a cause sounds a lot like thetraditional view of God, according to a number oftheologians such as William Lane Craig. Nonethe-less, that argument alone does not demonstrate thatthis creator-God still actually exists, nor that it hasthe traditional features of an all knowing, all power-ful, and all supreme being.

Others, while not focusing upon the origins ofthe universe, claim that the detailed intricacy andfunctioning of nature are sufficient to prove the

existence of the traditional God. This type of argu-ment is traditionally referred to as the teleological ordesign argument. While Aquinas’s fifth proof wassimilar to the teleological argument, it was the nine-teenth century European theologian, William Paley,who gave one of the most compelling design argu-ments. Paley used the example of someone finding awatch while crossing a heath. One could as easilyapply Paley’s example to finding a watch at thebeach or while hiking through a forest. Upon find-ing a watch and observing the intricacy of its design,no one would hesitate to infer that it had been con-structed intentionally by some intelligence. ForPaley, if one examines closely the intricacy ofnature, which is by far greater than that of a watch,the conclusion one should draw is that there is adivine designer—God.

However, not all organization and order is theresult of intentional design. In his Origin of the Spe-cies, published in 1859, Charles Darwin describedmechanisms of evolution, such that the order ofnature, in particular that of all biological species,could be readily accounted for without an appeal toanything supernatural or beyond nature. (The sec-ond episode of The Examined Life, “What is HumanNature?” discusses how Darwin’s views attackedthe idea that nature exhibits design and purpose.)While some claim that the theory of evolution is justthat, a theory, the ever-expanding fields of molecu-lar biology, genetics, and organic chemistry haveserved to intensify the present debate between cre-ationists and advocates of a naturalistic evolution-ary view.

However, if the universe were designed byGod, some thinkers are troubled by the presence ofevil. The existence of evil seems to counter the ideaof a God who is all knowing, all powerful, and allgood. However, according to believers, evil is eitherthe result of human choice and thus not reallyGod’s, or is a mystery woven into the fabric of real-ity in the form of natural disasters, diseases, andcongenital deformities. Finite humans, the believerwill argue, cannot fathom the wisdom of God indrawing good out of such evil.

Those who think the presence of evil is incom-patible with the possible existence of God are simplytoo sentimental. This claim that God is not so senti-mental as to eliminate all evil or that it is a mistaketo hold God directly responsible for everything thathappens fails, according to some critics, to accountfor such absolute horrors as Hitler, famines, or thecrushing despair of disease. These sorts of cases can-not be accounted for by a vague appeal to mystery or

Lesson Ten: Does God Exist? 59

our ignorance. And so the debate continues. DoesGod exist?

Perhaps the belief in the existence of God isnot based upon argument or reason but is rather apersonal, existential response to one’s experience ofthe world. Some believers will accept all of the vari-ous problems concerning the purported evidence forand against God’s existence, but evidence is not thesource of their belief. For them, God’s existence is agiven. God’s existence may or may not be within therealm of reason, and the difficulties surroundingissues of evidence may or may not be settled. But,for these believers, belief in God’s existence is sim-ply the best way for them to make sense of theworld.

Social theorists, like the late nineteenth centu-ry psychologist Sigmund Freud, have argued thatsuch commitments to a belief outside of all reason-ing or evidence indicate psychological need. Accord-ing to Freud, there is in all of us a sense of helpless-ness, or fear of death. Humans have created the ideaof a God to soothe these fears. Still earlier thinkers,like the great late-eighteenth century philosopher,Immanuel Kant, argued that our moral understand-ing could not function without our also postulatingthe existence of God. While Kant also argued that nometaphysical proofs could rationally establish theexistence of God, he did claim that God’s existencewas necessary for our belief that morally good peo-ple will be rewarded while evil people will be pun-ished.

Some of us will look up at the vast night sky ata beautiful sunset or into the eyes of a baby and seeevidence of God’s existence. Others of us look uponthe same sky, the same sunset, and the same babyand, while sharing a sense of awe and wonderment,never relate the experience to a God. In both casesthe sense of awe is shared but one finds somethingsacred while the other remains secular. And so thequestion persists. Does God exist?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Chapter 4, Sec-tion 4.1, “What is Religion?” for an introductionto the general issues of what constitutes religion.

� Section 4.2 of Velasquez, “Does God Exist?”places this ongoing philosophical debate in itsrich historical context with detailed discussionsof Aquinas, Anselm, and Paley.

� In Section 4.3, “Atheism, Agnosticism and theProblem of Evil” Velasquez provides extendeddescriptions and analyses of the positions ofatheism and agnosticism along with a discussionof the problem of evil. This section also discuss-es the views of Freud and Kant on God.

KEY TERMS

Agnosticism: The view that sufficient or persuasiveevidence has not been given to atheism.

Atheism: The view that sufficient or persuasive ev-idence has been given to believe that God does notexist.

Law of inertia: An object in motion will remain inmotion unless acted upon by an external force and abody at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon byan external force.

Ontology: Area of study within metaphysics fo-cused primarily upon the nature of being and exist-ence.

Ontological argument: An argument that appearsto prove God’s existence based upon our idea ofGod.

Principle of sufficient: See principle of universalexplanation.

Principle of universal explanation: The claimthat for every positive fact of existence there issome, at least one, explanation for its existence.

Theism: The belief in a God (monotheism) or manygods (polytheism) or that God is everything (pan-theism).

Theologian: A systematic study of the nature andexistence of God or gods.


SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to Saint Anselm, God’s existencecould be proven by starting with thea. Bible and Scriptureb. miracles of Jesusc. need for a creatord. idea of God

2. According to the ontological proof of God’s ex-istencea. God is the greatest conceivable or the most

perfect beingb. evil is necessary for free willc. God is the unmoved moverd. God is the uncaused cause

3. The principle of universal explanation statesthata. every positive fact of reality has an explana-

tionb. God is the uncaused causec. acceptable explanations are always scientifi-

cally testabled. some explanations are universally accepted

4. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, God was a. an enigma wrapped in a mysteryb. an object of mystical intuitionc. an uncaused caused. a something; I know not what

5. To prove God’s role as a designer of the uni-verse, William Paley draws an analogy to find-ing aa. Bibleb. butterflyc. moths adapting to changing environmentsd. watch

6. According to someone like Sigmund Freud, Godisa. a creation of man to soothe his fearb. the greatest conceivable beingc. the uncaused caused. the unmoved mover

7. As discussed in this episode, the reality of thebig bang theory as an account of the origin of theuniversea. proves God does not existb. proves God must existc. neither supports nor undermines the possibil-

ity of God’s existenced. proves God once existed but does not now

exist

8. Darwin’s theory of evolution raised problemsfor the traditional argument from design sincea. according to Darwin there is no design or

orderb. design and order could be accounted for natu-

ralisticallyc. with so much intricate design and order there

must be more than one Godd. evil in the design raises questions about God’s

goodness

9. The problem of evil initially claims that if God isall good, all knowing, all powerful, and there isin fact evil, thena. God cannot be all of those things or God

doesn’t existb. God has abandoned Earthc. mysticism is the only solutiond. polytheism is true

True or False

These questions are only from the reading assign-ment in Velasquez, Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Spe-cific page references are given in the answer key.

10. Monotheism is the belief that there is only oneGod.

11. The ontological argument is an argument forthe existence of God deduced from the nature ofGod’s being.

12. One version of the argument from design arguesthat “it is necessary to admit that there is a firstefficient cause.”

13. Spinoza supported pantheism, the belief that ev-erything is God and God is everything.

14. The agnostic holds that the existence of evilproves conclusively that there is no God.

Lesson Ten: Does God Exist? 61


According to the problem of evil, no God can be allgood, all powerful, and all knowing if evil exists. Ifyou claim that evil is necessary for choice, does suchnecessity limit God’s power thus forcing you to giveup the idea of God being all powerful?

�According to a popular form of the paradox of allpowerfulness (omnipotence), an all powerful Godshould be able to create something so large that itcannot be moved, but if God creates something solarge that it cannot be moved, then God is not allpowerful. If God can’t create something that large,then God is not all powerful. Hence nothing can beall powerful, as nothing can—in a similar context—be a married bachelor. How would you solve thisparadox?

�Can it be true that there is one God, as some worldreligions claim, and that there are many gods, as oth-er world religions claim? Can both positions be cor-rect? Could both positions be mistaken?

�Is faith an alternative to reasoning for discoveringthe truth? Can you give a clear example of usingfaith outside of a religious context to discover truth?

�Can an atheist have faith that there is no God?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Interview your friends and family about their beliefin the existence of God. Does everyone agree onwhat God is like? Do they tend to offer argumentsabout creation and the way the world is, likeAquinas, or do they appeal simply to ideas likeAnselm?

�Often on college campuses there are religious cru-saders doing missionary work. Ask them why theyhold the beliefs they hold. Do they offer evidence? Is

the evidence like Aquinas’s or Anselm’s? Are youpersuaded?

�Have a discussion about God, but do not use any ref-erences to the Bible.

�Attend a religious service, preferably one you arenot very familiar with. Does this congregation un-derstand God as you do? What are the differences?What are the similarities?

NET LINKS


Philosophy of Religion:

— http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/Phi_Rel_info.html

Philosophers discuss God’s existence:

— http://www.infidels.org/library/modern

Atheist/Agnostic:

— http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/

Christian Connections:

— http://www.christiancadre.org/Philoso-phy.html

Evolution:



Metaphysics:



St. Thomas Aquinas:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas

63

Lesson Eleven

Can We Know GodThrough Experience?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� varieties of religious experience.

� recurrent features of mystical experience.

� introvertive and extrovertive mystical experi-ences.

� the role of culture in interpreting mystical expe-rience.

� hyper-religiosity and temporal lobe stimulation.

� the principle of credulity, the will to believe andthe role of rationality and evidence in religiousexperience.

OVERVIEW

“Can we know God through experience?” is a rathersimple and easy question for millions of people. Is anexperience of God much like an experience of the ta-

ble in front of me or the chair I am sitting on? Inmost reported cases, such experiences are not de-scribed as ordinary perceptual experiences similar toperceiving the furniture around me. Nonetheless, allof the world’s religions have reported, and continueto report, cases of individuals who have seen a God,or an angel or some divine reality by means of ordi-nary perceptual experience.

At Fatima, at Lourdes, children reported see-ing the Virgin Mary. Mohammed describes seeingthe angel Gabriel. The Buddha is reported to haveseen all his past lives like a spinning wheel of fire. In1981 in Medjugorje, in present day Bosnia-Herze-govinia, six teenagers described a vision of the Vir-gin Mary. In 1995, two women reported seeing theVirgin Mary on a hilltop near Santa Maria, Califor-nia. These sorts of perceptual experiences are un-usual. For those hearing of these sightings secondhand there is typically skepticism, as there is in thecase of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.

For most religious people, having a religiousexperience seems instead to involve a deep sense ofgratitude, guidance and order, and mystery or awe.Although there is often a sense that what is happen-ing can’t be identified with nature, a religious type ofexperience may also result from ordinary devotionalpractices. These sorts of religious experiences arenot considered to be ordinary perceptual experienc-es, which are our typical means of discovering the


world around us. Rather they are closer to what Wil-liam James described as involving that “feeling[which] is the deeper source of religion.”

Another type of experience, traditionally re-garded as also being religious, is a mystical experi-ence. Mystical experiences have been reportedamong all of the world’s major religions—Judaism,Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. They ap-pear to be not only cross cultural, but also trans-his-torical, having been reported by individuals for overtwo thousand. Are such mystical experiences actualencounters with the divine as an objective reality, orare mystical encounters powerful but private experi-ences generating an illusion of contact beyond one-self? Western Christian mystics inevitably describedtheir experience as bringing them into contact, orunion, with God. Eastern mystics do not have such aGod in their religious system of belief. Their encoun-ter is typically with nothingness. These widespreaddifferences in the content or interpretation of re-ported mystical experiences appear to be, in part,culturally relative.

Further distinctions are drawn between kindsof mystical experiences. Some are described as beingextrovertive while others are described as introver-tive. In the case of the extrovertive mystical experi-ence, there is a sense of the world being transfiguredor transformed; all distinctions and differences seemto dissolve or disappear. Such distinctions are only areflection of our rational minds; in the mystical ex-perience, all is one. In the case of the introvertivemystical experience, one enters into “the deepestand darkest part of oneself, detaching oneself fromone’s ordinary state of consciousness.”

In the mystical experience there appears to be abreaking down of ordinary consciousness, whichhas been described by some philosophers as inten-tional in its structure. Intentional consciousnessdraws a distinction between the subject of experi-ence and that which is experienced by the subject.(See Episode 7, “How Do We Encounter theWorld?” of The Examined Life for a discussion of theintentional structure of consciousness according tophenomenology.) The mystic reports a state of con-sciousness that is empty of the ordinary contents ofconsciousness yet is not a state of unconsciousness.The mystic is fully conscious though no longer sepa-rate from the world but one with reality. While mys-tical experiences do not last for long periods of time,they are often extremely powerful in their transfor-mative effects upon the individual.

The mystical experience is also described interms of feeling an overwhelming loving presence,an experience some call blessedness. St. Teresa of

Jesus, reported that the experience took “away myvices and made me virtuous and strong; for it wasquite clear to me that these [mystical] experienceshad immediately made me a different person.” Somepeople refer to this transformative feature of a mys-tical experience as an ethical test of mysticism. Tothem, it demonstrates that such experiences are notjust personal, subjective mental states, but are ratherunique, profoundly transformative experiences ofdivine reality.

Since the mystical experience is one in whichrationality and ordinary understandings of theworld dissolve, mystics do not argue for nor try toprove their claims. Rather, they state with a seem-ingly unshakable conviction that the mystical expe-rience is self-authenticating. Anyone who has hadsuch a powerful experience finds it impossible todoubt that he or she was not in touch with some-thing ultimately beyond one’s self.

Advances in science have allowed researchersto monitor the brain at very subtle levels. Studies ofbrain functioning in relation to mystical experienceshave yielded fascinating results. Brain scans revealthat someone in a mystical state has neural activitysignificantly distinct from neural activity when aperson is awake, in a deep sleep, or unconscious be-cause of injury or trauma. Thus the mystic appearsto be conscious without being conscious of anything,as is consistently reported by mystics.

Since mystical experiences are rare could theybe the result of some peculiar neurophysiologicalevent or are they indeed unique encounters that areself-authenticating? According to Richard Swin-burne’s principle of credulity, such mystical experi-ences “ought to be taken at their face value in theabsence of some positive reason for challenge.” ForSwinburne, the burden of proof is not the responsi-bility of the mystic, but of the person who doubts themystic’s claim. On the other hand, if the mystic’sclaim is about the nature of reality and the relation-ship between oneself and the world, then questionsabout the nature of the self and the relationship be-tween self/mind and body do arise. Thus, the burdenof proof may actually shift back to the mystic. (For adetailed discussion of the possible nature of the selfsee Episode 2, “What is Human Nature” and for adetailed discussion of the mind/body issues See Epi-sode 3, “Is Mind Distinct from Body?” of The Exam-ined Life.)

Perhaps proof, rationality, scientific investiga-tion are not the appropriate or relevant methods fordeciding issues raised by mysticism. William James,in “The Will to Believe,” argues that some issues,particularly metaphysical issues must be decided by

Lesson Eleven: Can We Know God Through Experience? 65

our passional nature. While not denying the impor-tance of reasoning and evidence for many of our be-liefs, James claims that in certain cases we are facedwith a choice that is

a) a forced option—one in which we have no alter-native;

b) a vital option—a choice that will make a signifi-cant difference in our lives; and

c) a living option—a choice that is not theoreticalbut actual in that it presents itself to us in theconcreteness of our daily existence.

Given these conditions, we must choose accordingto our emotional predilections, that is our passionalnature.

Whether emotional predilections provide somepsychological comfort, or whether the mystical expe-rience is so powerful that it relegates issues of truthand knowledge to a secondary role, the ongoing oc-currence of mystical experiences remains a fascinat-ing means by which people claim to know God.

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text WithReadings, tenth edition, Section 4.4, “Tradition-al Religious Belief and Experience” for a de-tailed discussion of the views of William Jamesalong with descriptions of different mystics.

� Section 4.5 of Velasquez, “Nontraditional Reli-gious Experience,” focuses upon the contribu-tions to religious thought that Soren Kierkeg-aard, Paul Tillich, and contemporary feministtheologians have made to the discussion ofknowing God. This section concludes with dis-cussions of Eastern religious traditions includ-ing Hinduism and Buddhism.

KEY TERMS

Epilepsy: A disorder of the nervous system charac-terized either by mild episodic loss of attention orsleepiness or by severe convulsions with loss of con-sciousness.

Ethical test in mysticism: A test that determinesthe validity of a person’s mystical experiences by

whether they make the person a morally better per-son.

Extrovertive mystical experiences: A sense ofthe world around one being transfigured and trans-formed giving the individual the experience of alldistinctions becoming one.

Introvertive mystical experiences: A sense ofone entering into “the deepest and darkest part ofoneself, detaching oneself from one’s ordinary stateof consciousness.”

Mystical experience: An enraptured and inde-scribable state of union with a higher reality or withGod.

Mysticism: A tradition which focuses upon thestudy of and/or the having of a unique experiencecalled a mystical experience.

Principle of credulity: The view that mystical ex-periences should be taken at their face value whenwe have no positive reason to doubt them.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Religious experiences area. always mystical experiencesb. always visions of saints and angelsc. not of one kind but variedd. not had by children

2. The content or interpretation of mystical experi-ence is said to bea. universal and constantb. only of Godc. only of Vishnud. culturally relative

3. According to Rudolf Otto, the essential elementin religious experience is an awareness of anoth-er as holy and divine, and this awareness is char-acterized bya. awe and dreadb. joy and func. pleasure and playfulnessd. fear and giddiness


4. A universal feature of all mystical experiences isa. unity or unionb. insight into the basic structure of the universec. a profound separation from that which is not

humand. a terror as one approaches the existential

abyss

5. Mystical experiences are found ina. only Eastern religious traditionsb. Eastern and some Native American Indian

religious traditionsc. Eastern and Middle Eastern (Islamic) reli-

gious traditionsd. all of the world’s major religions

6. According to the extrovertive mystical experi-encea. one enters into “the deepest and darkest part

of oneself, detaching oneself from one’s ordi-nary state of consciousness”

b. the world around one is transfigured andtransformed, giving one the experience of alldistinctions and categories of individuals

c. the world around one is transfigured andtransformed, giving one the experience of alldistinctions becoming one

d. one enters into “the deepest and darkest partof oneself, attaching oneself to one’s ordinarystate of consciousness.”

7. A central philosophical question regarding mys-tical experience is a. whether or not such experiences ever really

happenb. whether or not drugs can induce mystical

statesc. whether or not the mystical state is a power-

ful but essentially personal, subjective experi-ence

d. why do more women than men have mysticalexperiences

8. The ethical test of mystical experience concernsthe power of such experiences toa. make criminals turn themselves inb. profoundly change one to be betterc. demonstrate to those who have not had such

an experience just how good the experience isd. allow the individual to gaze directly upon

God’s goodness

9. According to the principle of credulitya. the younger a person is the more credulous

that person’s beliefs will beb. experiences ought never to be taken at their

face valuec. experiences ought to be taken at their face

value even in the face of some positive reasonfor challenge

d. experiences ought to be taken at their facevalue in the absence of some positive reasonfor challenge

10. For William James, a person should choose a be-lief when there is insufficient evidence for thebelief, if the options presented area. very appealing, comfortable, and funb. forced, living, and monumentalc. isolated, clear, and populard. profound, theoretical, and abstract

11. The syndrome of hyper-religiosity is associatedwitha. anemicsb. diabeticsc. epilepticsd. sinusitis

True or False


12. William James in “The Will to Believe” wrote:“‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ isitself a decision.”

13. A numinous experience is often characterizedby feelings of terror, mystery, and bliss.

14. According to Kierkegaard, God is not subject torational, objective analysis.

15. Paul Tillich claimed that “Depth is what theword God means, the source of your being, ofyour ultimate concern, of what you take seri-ously without any reservation.”

16. According to feminist theologian Mary Daly,the male conception of God has had a profound-ly oppressive impact on women.

Lesson Eleven: Can We Know God Through Experience? 67


Within the mystical tradition, the mystical experi-ence is described as ultimately ineffable, meaning itcannot be adequately described with language. If so,why is there so much talk by mystics about mysti-cism? Can you think of other ordinary aspects ofyour experience which are ineffable? What aboutcolors, tastes, temperatures, pleasures, and pains?

�

In this episode Professor Patricia Churchland sug-gests that mystical experiences may be “ways thatthe brain is just doing things, perhaps not even veryhealthy ways of doing things.” How would the possi-bility of these “unhealthy ways” relate to the ethicaltest of mystical experience?

�

If God is an infinite, all-powerful deity, how could afinite, relatively powerless creature come into unionwith such a being, as mystics describe? Is this simi-lar to trying to imagine yourself being carried along,balanced with both feet on the back of a spider?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Have you ever had a mystical experience? Be surenot to confuse it with popular “weird” experiencespeople report like out of body experiences, or seeingUFO’s. Be sure you understand the essential marksof the mystical.

�

Have any of your family or friends had mystical ex-periences? What do they believe such experiencesare? Do they agree or disagree with the descriptionspresented in this episode?

�

Ask your priest, rabbi, mullah, or preacher what heor she thinks of mysticism. Do they agree or disagreewith the descriptions presented in this episode?

NET LINKS

Check out these Internet websites for additional rel-evant philosophical information. Remember the In-ternet is a web. Each of these listed sites is linked toother sites.








Philosophy Papers:



Buddhism:

— http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha

Christianity:

— http://www.mcgill.ca/phwr/


— http:/www.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/philosophy.htm

Islam:

— http://www.islamic-knowledge.com

Metaphysics:


— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-meta-physics/


Mysticism:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

Marilyn Adams:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_McCord_Adams

William Alston:

— http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Alston.html

Patricia Churchland:

— http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/pschurchland/index20.html#

William Lane Craig:

— http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html

William James:

— http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html

69

Lesson Twelve

Is Reason the Source of Knowledge?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES?Upon completing this lesson, you should be familiarwith the concepts contained in the lesson and able tocritically discuss:

� the difference between rationalism and empiri-cism.

� the significance of mathematics, particularly ge-ometry, for rationalism.

� the significance of innate ideas for rationalism.

� Plato’s Dialogue, The Meno, and its significancefor the theory of innate ideas.

� rationalism’s difficulty with experimental sci-ence/empiricism.

OVERVIEW

You overhear someone remark that he is a proud,new uncle. Without listening further, you thinkabout the idea of being an uncle and you reason thatthis fellow must have either a niece or a nephew.Your reasoning does not necessarily commit you to

either one of these possibilities but you do know forcertain, from reasoning alone, that this is true. Withpure reasoning about an idea, you have discovered atruth about the world.

On the other hand, suppose an evil sociologyprofessor had assigned you the task of taking an in-formal poll to determine the average income of mar-ried bachelors. You would not undertake this poll.Rather, through reasoning alone, you could inferthat the world does not contain a single marriedbachelor. These may be trivial examples of what thegreat philosophical school of thought known as ra-tionalism claims on a grander scale. However, for arationalist, the answer to the question, “Is reasonalone the source of knowledge?” would be a straight-forward, “Certainly.”

By the seventeenth century, central tenetswithin the traditional European system of beliefwere in upheaval. For centuries, most people had be-lieved that the earth was at the center of the universeand the sun daily moved from east to west. Thanksto Nicolas Copernicus, the earth was no longer be-lieved to be at the center. The sun’s motion was ac-tually an illusion generated by the spinning motionof Earth as it orbited the sun. While some membersof the church attempted to suppress such views, thework of Johannes Kepler in northern Europe, andGalileo Galilei in southern Europe, seemingly out-flanked traditional views.


During this tumultuous time, the prevailingsystem of belief seemed infested with doubt. RenéDescartes, the father of modern philosophy, was notonly keenly aware of this upheaval, but claimed tohave discovered the solution to humanity’s deep-seated doubts and confusion. Being one of history’sgreat mathematicians, Descartes was fully con-vinced that by fixing upon at least one idea that hecould know with certainty, he could build anew thefoundations of a solid system of knowledge. Follow-ing the method of geometry, in which one starts withapparently obvious assumptions (axioms) in orderto deduce not so obvious conclusions (theorems),Descartes believed he could set all of human knowl-edge on a secure foundation.

Descartes claimed that his knowledge of him-self, as a thinking thing, could not be doubted. Thisgave him a starting to point to build upon. (See Epi-sode 2, “What is Human Nature?” and Episode 3, “IsMind Distinct from Body?”) As Descartes built onthis foundation, he discovered that even his idea ofmaterial or physical objects did not come from expe-rience or through his senses, but was innate to hismind. As he pondered a piece of wax, he first notedall of its physical properties—its color, taste, temper-ature, shape, smell, the sound it made when tapped.But when he brought the wax close to a flame all ofthese physical properties changed. Yet, as Descartesnoted, we still judge the wax to be the same piece ofwax. The idea of a physical or material object—theidea of a thing that endures through all of these per-ceived changes—is, for Descartes, an innate idea.

Innate ideas have served as a defining charac-teristic of the philosophical school known as ratio-nalism. Rationalists not only argue that many, if notmost or all, ideas do not and could not arise from ex-perience. Opposing the rationalists, and pitted in anintellectual battle over the source of ideas were theempiricists. Where the rationalists viewed percep-tion as a confused way of thinking, empiricistsclaimed that the mind is a blank tablet, a tabula rasa,at birth. We obtain our ideas only through percep-tion and experience.

Some of history’s great rationalists—Plato,Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz—were extraordi-narily gifted mathematicians. Descartes developedanalytic geometry and cartesian coordinates. Leibnizdeveloped the calculus which may have predatedNewton’s work in the field. What mathematical andlogical systems seem to provide are necessarytruths—truths, according to Leibniz, that hold in allpossible worlds.

Experience and the experimental sciences pro-vide contingent truths, which are sometimes charac-

terized as being true in at least this world andpossibly some other worlds, but are not true in allpossible worlds. While in this world, gravity maymake it possible for you to get up from where youare at this moment and walk across the floor to awall. Gravity makes it impossible for you to walk upthe wall to the ceiling then across the ceiling. In theworld of your imagination, you might imagine your-self violating the restraints of gravity. Hence thetruths of science regarding gravity seem to be contin-gent truths—truths that are true in this world butnot in the world of your imagination. On the otherhand, no matter what world you are in or imagine, arationalist would claim, a triangle will have threesides and two plus three will equal five. These arethe necessary truths of mathematics and logicknown only through pure reasoning, a rationalistwould claim.

If experience is not the source of innate ideasand necessary truths, what is their source? Plato ar-gued that our soul had come into contact with theseideas in a previous life. Due to the trauma of our soulentering the body we forgot them. For Plato, learn-ing about these ideas is actually a case of remember-ing. In his dialogue, The Meno, Socratesdemonstrates to Meno how such innate ideas can beelicited even from a slave boy’s memory by means ofquestioning.

The necessity of mathematics and logic sug-gested to the rationalists that all knowledge shouldbe accounted for through reason alone. For Des-cartes, and Galileo, reality ultimately consisted ofcorpuscles; what the ancient Greeks had called at-oms. These, the smallest bits of matter, have onlymathematical properties such as spatial location, mo-tion, shape, figure, and size. Other properties likecolor, taste, or sound were not considered objectivebut subjective properties. For Descartes, these sub-jective properties were located in the mind. For ra-tionalists, only mathematical or quantifiable proper-ties were objective. Hence, one could know aboutreality from pure reasoning, since reality was ulti-mately mathematical in nature.

According to many rationalists, this view of re-ality as “ultimately mathematical” was consistentwith their religious view that reality had been creat-ed by God with an underlying, eternal order. Sincethe human mind is made in the image of God, asclaimed in Genesis, man through his capacity to rea-son could know the will of God. By exercising thisdivine capacity, humans became god-like. (See Epi-sode 2, “What is Human Nature?” for a more com-plete treatment of the religious view of human rea-son as unique and its relationship to the divine.) The

Lesson Twelve: Is Reason the Source of Knowledge? 71

empiricist view of the human mind as a blank tabletseemed undignified to many a rationalist.

As the experimental sciences grew, the ratio-nalist view of innate ideas underwent much criti-cism and change. After John Locke attacked Des-cartes’ doctrine of innate ideas, Gottfried WilhelmLeibniz described innate ideas as tendencies, inclina-tions, or natural potentials. For Leibniz, innate ideasare not the full fledged, content-filled ideas of Platoor Descartes. Instead, innate ideas need experienceto shape. Leibniz’s comparison of innate ideas to ablock of marble with veins running through it,which mark out the shape of Hercules, is intended toillustrate how Hercules is innate to the marble. Ac-cording to Leibniz such a marble block would bemore “determined” to take the shape of Herculesthan some other figure. So we are more disposed tothink of reality one way as opposed to another be-cause of the innate ideas within us.

While Leibniz’s analogy has not been univer-sally accepted, the rationalists’ view that mathemat-ics and logic yield truths, and that the language of re-ality is mathematical, seems to support whatWilliam James called our “sentiment of rationality.”According to James, we have a deep desire for expla-nation, a conviction that whatever our inquiry,there should be a reason to explain it. And what bet-ter explanations than those that appear necessaryand eternal—the so called laws of nature, mathemat-ics and logic.

TEXT LINKS � Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with

Readings, tenth edition, and read Section 5.1,“Why is Knowledge a Problem?” for an interest-ing discussion of why we need to understandknowledge.

� Read 5.2, “Is Reason the Source of Our Knowl-edge?” where Velasquez discusses the rational-ists, focusing on Descartes, Plato, and innateideas.

� Check Velasquez, Section 5.8, “A Defense ofSkepticism” by Peter Unger and “How Do WeKnow Anything?” by Thomas Nagel for nicelywritten, accessible contemporary discussions ofthe sorts of skeptical doubts raised by Descartes.

KEY TERMS Axioms: A proposition or truth claim held to beself-evidently true and so neither requiring nor ca-pable of proof. (See the definitions of theorem andproof below.)

Contingent Truths: Truth claims that are de-scribed by some philosophers as being true in a par-ticular context or dependent upon at least one worldbut not all worlds. Thus, if it is a contingent truththat there is an apple on my desk, it is contingentsince there are other circumstances or worlds whereit is false that there is an apple on my desk. (See thedefinition of necessary truth below.)

Empiricism: The view that all of our ideas comefrom experience and that no belief about any matterof fact can be known independently of experience.

Geometry: The mathematical study of the proper-ties and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfac-es, and solids.

Innate ideas: The actual having or the dispositionto acquire ideas or concepts such as being, substance,duration, and even God in some cases.

Law of inertia: According to Galileo and Newton, anatural law describing the fact that an object at restwill remain at rest, while an object in motion will re-main in motion.

Necessary truths: Truth claims that are describedby some philosophers as being universally true, ortrue in all possible worlds. Thus, if it is a necessarytruth that three is a prime number, then three is aprime number in all possible worlds or is universallytrue.

Proof: A belief or set of beliefs or propositions thatare offered in support of the truth of the claim of an-other belief or proposition. The proof that this U.S.president is a U.S. citizen is that all U.S. presidentsare U.S. citizens. Also the act of giving reasons to be-lieve.

Properties: A quality or attribute of a thing or sub-stance that cannot exist independent of some sub-stance. Color and beauty are properties. While abicycle can exist without being blue, blue can onlyexist as part of a bicycle or substance.


Pure reasoning: As used in this episode, it means tothink or understand independent of sensory experi-ence.

Rationalism: The view that the mind has “innate”ideas or powers and that by means of this knowl-edge, matters of fact or reality can be had indepen-dent of sensory input.

Tabula rasa: Literally, the blank tablet; philosophi-cally, a description most often associated with em-piricists’ views of the “empty” or “blank” mind priorto experience furnishing the mind with impressionsor ideas.

Theorems: Propositions or truth claims that are typ-ically deduced using logical rules from a set of axi-oms or first principles.

Theory: A general and/or abstract proposition usedto explain a set of phenomena or to give an accountof a confirmed hypothesis.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Rationalism is the view that

a. our knowledge of the universe comes throughour senses

b. we can discover basic laws of the universethrough pure reason.

c. a rigid experimental method is needed toacquire knowledge of the universe

d. knowledge of the universe ultimately restsupon authority

2. Empiricism is the view that

a. our knowledge of the universe comes throughour senses

b. we can discover basic laws of the universethrough pure reason

c. a rigid experimental method is needed toacquire knowledge of the universe.

d. knowledge of the universe ultimately restsupon authority

3. European thought during the seventeenth cen-tury A.D., like that of fourth century B.C.Greece, was marked bya. stability and widespread social acceptanceb. simplicity and lack of imaginationc. staleness and stagnationd. change, uncertainty, and perilousness

4. Geometry proved an ideal model for rationalisticthought since ita. yielded truths that appeared indisputable and

certainb. was only known by a select few researchersc. relied only upon experience for its axiomsd. was discovered by a Greek

5. Descartes uses the example of the wax to dem-onstrate thata. ideas ultimately arise within experienceb. some innate ideas are acquired from experi-

encec. he could not be certain he was awake or

dreamingd. we know physical or material objects through

an intuition of the mind

6. Rationalists prefer mathematics and logic sincethese yielda. contingent truthsb. personal truthsc. necessary truthsd. historical truths

7. Most ______ believe that that basic principles oflogic and math are innate.a. rationalistsb. empiricistsc. philosophersd. mathematicians

8. Truths based upon experience are said to bea. contingent truthsb. personal truthsc. necessary truthsd. historical truths

9. According to many rationalists, the only proper-ties of an object that are objective are itsa. mathematical propertiesb. visual propertiesc. acquired propertiesd. cultural properties

Lesson Twelve: Is Reason the Source of Knowledge? 73

10. Innate ideas are traditionally regarded as thoseideas that wea. acquire through experienceb. have independent of experiencec. acquire on legitimate authorityd. acquire through our culture and upbringing

11. According to Plato, learning is best understoodasa. being filled with ideasb. rote memorization of new ideasc. remembering ideas one already possessesd. acquiring new ideas through the work of oth-

ers

12. In Plato’s dialogue, The Meno, Socrates has aslave boy solvea. a puzzle about the nature of justiceb. a mathematical problemc. a dispute over the nature of a fair waged. the problem of freedom and slavery

13. Leibniz’s example of veins in a block of marblemarking out the figure of Hercules was an at-tempt to illustrate the nature ofa. Greek mythology in modern European cultureb. the evolution of sculpture in European historyc. the nature of innate ideasd. the power of empiricism

True or False


14. Plato and Descartes were rationalists.

15. Descartes’s assumed that “some evil genius notless powerful than deceitful, has employed hiswhole energies in deceiving me.”

16. Most of the rationalists felt that the basic princi-ples of logic and math could not be innate ideasin us.

17. In the Meno, Socrates claims that ideas about ge-ometry are remembered and must have been ac-quired at some time before we were born.

18. Leibniz completely rejected the theory of innateideas.


Can there be any laws of nature or mathematics ifyou believe you get all of your ideas from experi-ence? Remember that experience only gives us con-tingent truths.

�Does it tend to be true that 2 + 2 = 4 or is it alwaysand forever true that 2 + 2 = 4? Do you think thatperhaps in China or Italy you could meet someonewho was an uncle but had neither niece nor neph-ew? How about in an alien culture on anotherplanet?

�If an idea, like the ideas of chair, book, ice cream,and having fun, are general in nature—that is, theycan apply to a number of different, particularthings—how do such ideas come to pick out the par-ticular things they seem to obviously pick out? Canyou avoid answering this question by simply listingmore ideas (probably giving a definition of what anidea means by using other ideas in your definition)and hence only putting the question off and not real-ly answering it at all?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY Ask a math teacher if he or she is an empiricist or arationalist regarding mathematics. Does he or sheregard mathematics as a system of contingent truthsor necessary truths? How would you describe theviews of empiricism and rationalism if this teacheris unfamiliar with them?

�Ask a science teacher if he or she is an empiricist ora rationalist regarding science. Does he or she regardthe laws of nature as a system of contingent truthsor necessary truths? How would you describe theviews of empiricism and rationalism if this teacheris unfamiliar with them?

�Try out Descartes’ wax example on some of yourfriends or family. Are they persuaded that the ideaof a material object is innate? Do they think the wax


has remained the same wax through all of its percep-tual changes?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



75

Lesson Thirteen

Does Knowledge Depend on Experience?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the general characteristics of the philosophicalposition of empiricism.

� John Locke’s empiricism and its troublesome“gap” between mental experience and the mate-rial world.

� George Berkeley’s solution to Locke’s “gap” andDavid Hume’s skepticism regarding any rationalsolution to Locke’s “gap.”

� David Hume’s skepticism regarding our knowl-edge of the uniformity of nature.

� empiricism, naturalism, and science.

� W.V. Quine’s view of contemporary empiricismand language.

OVERVIEW

Are you male or female? Are you now standing, sit-ting, or walking? Are you now reading this Over-view? Questions such as these, which seem to haveeasy and ready answers, appeal to our sensory expe-rience or perception of the world. We seem to see,hear, taste, smell, and feel our way through a threedimensional world of objects. If you claim or believethat sensory experience or perception is the meansby which we come to know the world or, perhaps abit stronger, that through sensory experience or per-ception our minds come to have the ideas we have,then you are an empiricist. A true empiricist wouldclaim that all of our knowledge comes from experi-ence.

The tenets of empiricism seem to be some ofthe strongest of our philosophical presuppositions.Our fascination with technology and the historicalrelationship between science and empiricism mayhave nurtured our strong empiricist beliefs.

Among the great British empiricists—JohnLocke, George Berkeley, and David Hume—it wasJohn Locke and David Hume who were particularlyimpressed by the accomplishments of Sir Isaac New-ton. Newton described his theories as having been“inferred from the phenomena.” As a physicist, hewas not concerned with understanding how our


knowledge or experience of the world was possible.But for John Locke, the philosophical problem ofhow the mind is furnished with the materials ofknowledge dominated his philosophical reflection.

In his Essay Concerning Human Understand-ing, published in 1690, John Locke argued that allknowledge is founded in experience. “Let us supposethe mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of allcharacters, without any ideas,” Locke began. First,the mind becomes aware of simple ideas such as col-or, taste, sound, and smell. Given the mind’s powerof understanding, these simple ideas are repeated,compared, and united into complex ideas. Somecomplex ideas are already united in experiencewhen they are perceived and these we judge to bematerial objects. But it is not in the power of anyone,Locke maintained, to frame or invent one simplenew idea.

According to Locke, our ideas represent to usthe way the material or physical world exists. Todraw an analogy, our mind is like a mirror reflectingthe external world. The immediate object we knowis the reflected image in the mind rather than thethings that cause the reflection.

One of the key questions to arise out of Locke’sview concerning the relationship between ideas andexternal material objects is how exactly do mentalthings—ideas—copy material things? (For a relateddiscussion concerning the relationship betweenmind and body and their purported interaction seeEpisode 3, “Is Mind Distinct From Body?”) Lockewas acutely aware of this gap between an idea of aphysical object and the object itself. Though he builtno theoretical bridge across the “gap,” he did claimthat no one in earnest could be so skeptical as todoubt the existence of an external material world. Inshort order, both of Locke’s successors—George Ber-keley and David Hume—would doubt our knowl-edge of a material or physical world.

For Bishop George Berkeley, there were nottwo distinct realms to be bridged but only one—therealm of ideas. Objects are just collections of ideas.“Thus, for example, a certain color, taste, smell, fig-ure, and consistence, having been observed to go to-gether, are accounted one distinct thing, signified bythe name apple. Other collections of ideas constitutea stone, a book, a tree, and the like,” argued Berke-ley. However, some ideas seem to come to us invol-untarily and persist independent of our individualexperiences. For Berkeley, such ideas could only beaccounted for by something that could perceive orthink ideas constantly, and the only mind capable ofsuch a feat was God.

David Hume viewed God as yet another thingexternal to our own experience. Thus God’s exist-ence, like material objects, could not simply be pos-tulated but must be proven. Not only could DavidHume not find satisfactory proof for the existence ofGod, Hume found all proofs of an external, materialworld impossible as well. Hume fully understood theapparent impossibility of moving beyond the realmof one’s own experience to another realm that is in-dependent and outside of all experience.

According to David Hume, we have no way ofproving that the future will resemble the past or thepresent. For Hume, causality is a matter of the con-stant conjunction between experiences. We come tosay that cause C brings about effect E because we al-ways experience C before E; that is, they are con-stantly conjoined. Hume argued that no one hasexperienced the constant conjunction between a ma-terial world and our experiences independent ofone’s experiences. Thus, no one could claim that ourexperiences are caused by an external, materialworld.

It was Hume’s keen analytic mind that tookLocke’s empiricist principles to their apparent logi-cal conclusion—skepticism—an idea that is intellec-tually formidable even to this day. But Humeadmitted that when he left his study and was amongfriends, perhaps playing one of his favorite games—backgammon, these skeptical doubts were forgotten.

Among contemporary philosophers—like JohnSearle of UC Berkeley and Hilary Putnam of Har-vard University—the empiricism of seventeenth andeighteenth century philosophers Locke, Berkeley,and Hume is the result of a false start. The basicproblem is in postulating that sensation occurs insome “inner theatre,” or that we are only indirectlyaware of material objects by means of ideas in ourmind caused by external objects. For both Searle andPutnam, we directly see books, hands, and bicycles.

For much of the history of philosophy, theview of our minds as some private, inner world thatcan only be known indirectly by others if we chooseto communicate through language, was the domi-nant model. However, some contemporary philoso-phers have claimed that this “inner theatre” view,which results in skepticism, is itself the result of afalse view of language. Language is not a way of la-beling inner thoughts but, as W.V. Quine remarked,“The child learns language from his elders, not byseeing what’s going on inside of the mind of the per-son who’s using the words and then relating thethoughts to the words. [Rather] language is learnedonly from one another’s behavior. And all the mean-ings that we gather and grasp are learned finally by

Lesson Thirteen: Does Knowledge Depend on Experience? 77

observing other people’s behavior in situations, ob-serving under what circumstances they utter thewords.”

Some have described Quine as the twentiethcentury’s David Hume. According to Quine, we aschildren learn cognitive language (that part of ourlanguage used to make statements of fact or belief),through learning to assent or dissent to occasion sen-tences. Occasion sentences, like “It is windy” or “Iam sitting” are true or false at particular momentsand places when uttered in the presence of appropri-ate stimulations. Occasion sentences are not thesorts of sentences that are true or false once and forall. For Quine, occasion sentences elicit a responsethat is immediate, unthinking, and unreflective.These are the types of sentences a child first learns.

Occasion sentences are a form of observationsentences. Observation sentences are sentencesabout the world that are fundamental to science. Ob-servation sentences are the evidence for scientifictheories, according to Quine.

While both Hume and Quine are empiricistsand naturalists, Quine does not share the traditionalview of the mind as some “inner theatre.” Addition-ally, Hume has been described as taking a “narrowinductive” view of the relationship between our ex-perience and scientific theories whereas Quine talksabout our “web of belief.” Quine’s views have beendescribed as holistic compared to Hume’s morepiecemeal approach. While Hume argued that ourscientific beliefs are individually drawn from experi-ence, Quine argues that our scientific beliefs form acomplex, elaborate web and that experience only im-pinges along the web’s periphery. Theories tell uswhat observable conditions should occur given someprior set of observable conditions. If the second setof observable conditions fails to occur given the firstset of conditions, then our theory does not pass itstest.

While empiricists tend to be naturalists,searching for rational accounts of natural phenome-na within the sphere of nature as opposed to the su-pernatural, the progress of science supports neitherempiricism nor rationalism to the exclusion of theother. For in science we seem to find an ever so sub-tle wedding of reason and experience. It may be thata complete understanding of our experience of theworld requires some synthesis or combination of ra-tionalism and empiricism.

TEXT LINKS� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with

Readings, tenth edition, and read Section 5.3,“Can the Senses Account for All of Our Knowl-edge?” for an extended overview of empiricism.

� Read Section 5.7, “Historical Showcase: Hume.”These showcases contain not only extended ex-cerpts from original works by the figures whoare being showcased, but also fascinating bio-graphical information placing each in the con-text of his historical period. There is also a set ofquestions which follow. These are excellent es-say questions, which will further test your un-derstanding.

KEY TERMS

Cognitive language: The use of language to makeclaims which have truth value or to express beliefs.

Ideas: As used by empiricists, basically the contentsof the mind which have been acquired, ultimately,through sensory experience.

Inductive: Either an act of the understanding inwhich a generalization is made from some particu-lars, or a probable inference is claimed to hold be-tween two or more statements.

Naturalism: Seeking natural explanations for em-pirical phenomena or experience as opposed to su-pernatural explanations for the same phenomena orexperience.

Observation sentences: For W.V. Quine, thosesentences which report observable situations.

Occasion sentences: Observation sentences thatare true on a particular occasion but may not be trueon another occasion. For example, “It’s raining” or“I’m wearing a coat.”

Skepticism: To doubt the truth of some claim or theadequacy of the justification for some claim.

Sensory experience: That experience which re-sults from our senses such as sight, smell, hearing,touch, and taste.


SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Empiricism is the view thata. the mind has certain ideas innatelyb. innate ideas are abstract entitiesc. all legitimate ideas come from authorityd. sense experience is the source of ideas

2. According to John Locke, which of the followingis a simple idea?a. a chairb. a colorc. a blade of grassd. a single apple

3. According to John Locke, which of the followingis a complex idea?a. intense heatb. powerful pleasurec. a single deskd. the color yellow

4. According to Locke’s empiricism, there is a gapbetweena. simple ideas and complex ideasb. ideas and the material objects they are sup-

posed copies ofc. causes and their effectsd. religion and justice

5. For George Berkeley, material objectsa. are what science studiesb. can only be known indirectlyc. are rare and difficult to knowd. do not exist

6. George Berkeley argued that an object isa. a something; I know not whatb. a material thingc. always an illusiond. a collection of ideas

7. According to David Hume, ideas are distin-guished from impressions bya. ideas being real while impressions are notb. impressions having more force and vivacityc. impressions being copies of ideasd. ideas being one and all complex

8. David Hume argued that causality wasa. the constant conjunction between distinct

eventsb. the necessary relationship between a cause

and its effectc. the universal and eternal relationship be-

tween natural eventsd. the mortar between events, as divinely

designed

9. Our belief in an external, material world is, forHume, the result ofa. a rational analysis of the nature of a sense im-

pressionb. a rational analysis of the nature of an ideac. a very likely cause given its effect, which is

our experienced. custom and habit

10. According to some contemporary philosophers,traditional empiricism resulted in skepticism be-cause it treated experience or sensation asa. only being about the external world and not

our internal worldb. being “inside us,” or occurring in some “in-

ner theatre” of our mindc. a confused form of thinkingd. requiring innate ideas

11. According to a contemporary empiricist likeW.V. Quine, we learn the meanings of a lan-guage bya. correctly labeling ideas in our mindb. getting the correct label on specific objects in

the worldc. observing people’s behaviors in specific situ-

ations while specific words are utteredd. studying dictionaries early in life

Use either a or b to indicate how Quine would labeleach of the following sentences.

a. occasion sentencea. not an occasion sentence

_____12. I am answering a question in this booklet.

_____13. Force equals mass times acceleration.

_____14. My pen is out of ink.

_____15. The sum of the interior angles of a triangleequals 180 degrees.

_____16. This page is rectangular.

Lesson Thirteen: Does Knowledge Depend on Experience? 79

True or False


17 Empiricism is the belief that all knowledgeabout the world comes from or is based on thesenses.

18. The British empiricists were Locke, Berkeley,and Hume.

19. Locke’s primary qualities include color andsmell, and his secondary qualities include sizeand shape.

20. Berkeley denied that there are houses, books,trees, and cats.

21. Contemporary philosopher Barry Stroud arguesthat we have no way of checking to see what thereal world might be like.


“Thus, for example, a certain color, taste, smell, fig-ure, and consistence, having been observed to go to-gether, are accounted one distinct thing, signified bythe name apple. Other collections of ideas constitutea stone, a book, a tree, and the like,” argued Berke-ley. If you believe there are material or physical ob-jects, how would you answer Berkeley?

�For David Hume the belief in an external, materialworld cannot be rationally justified but can be ac-counted for in terms of habit and custom regardingour psychology. What is the relationship betweenthe psychology of beliefs and the logic of beliefs? Doyou agree with Hume as to which category the beliefin an external world belongs?

�Did David Hume use the essentially public and ob-jective activity of language to prove that public, ob-jective activities cannot be known?

�

Since the word “chair” is meaningful and is not onlyused as a complex idea but as a general idea (generalin the sense that it apparently applies to a type of ob-ject), do we actually have general ideas or do weonly have simple and complex ideas? Remember, thegeneral idea or concept “chair” is not a synonym forthe plural “chairs.” Can you think of the generalidea or concept chair without the word “chair”?

�

If, as some contemporary philosophers claim, oursensory experience does not occur in some “innertheatre,” where do such experiences as dreams andhallucinations occur? What would Quine say aboutthe sentences we use to report such experiences?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Recall, according to Locke’s theory of ideas, thatsimple ideas, as opposed to complex ideas, are thosethat cannot be broken down into other ideas. For ex-ample, colors are simple ideas. According to Locke,in order to have or understand a simple idea youmust have an experience of it. In this regard consid-er describing colors to a blind person or sounds to adeaf person.

�

According to recent studies a large percentage ofmen are color deficient, which is sometimes mislead-ingly described as “color blind.” Are any of your fel-low students color deficient? If so, how does theworld appear to them?

�

John Locke makes the following claim, “It is not inthe power of the most exalted wit, or enlarged un-derstanding, by any quickness or variety of thought,to invent or frame one, new, simple idea in themind.” Do you believe Locke is correct? Can youthink of a case that would count against Locke’sclaim? Can you imagine a type of sensory experiencebeyond or in addition to your present senses? (Note:Bats are said to have a sonar capability which is sosophisticated that a bat can locate, at some distance,an insect in flight, then catch it. What is a sonar ex-perience? What is it like to be a bat?)

�


Ask your family and friends Locke’s question, “Howdo our minds come to be furnished?” Are their re-sponses primarily empiricist or rationalist? If one isa Lockean empiricist, can you lead them down Hu-me’s logical path to skepticism?

�Go to a park or volunteer at a day-care center andobserve how very young children linguistically re-late with adults. Is Quine’s description of the use ofoccasion sentences with children assenting and dis-senting to the sentences accurate?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Metaphysics:



George Berkeley:

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm

David Hume:


John Locke:

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke.htm

Paul Churchland:


Hilary Putnam:


W.V. Quine:


John Searle:



81

Lesson Fourteen

Does the Mind Shapethe World?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� philosophy’s scandal and Immanuel Kant’s syn-thesis solution of empiricism and rationalism.

� the a priori and a posteriori in experience.

� the Age of Enlightenment giving way to Roman-ticism.

� the relativized a priori and the linguistic versionof Kant.

� Wilhelm von Humbolt’s linguistic weltan-schaung.

� whether reality is the shadow cast by languageor language is the shadow cast by reality.

OVERVIEW

What a scandal, Immanuel Kant claimed, philoso-phy had fallen into just beyond the midpoint of theeighteenth century. He wrote “. . . it still remains ascandal in philosophy and to human reason in gen-eral that the existence of things outside us . . . mustbe accepted on faith, and if anyone thinks good todoubt their existence, we are unable to counterthese doubts by any satisfactory proof.” The scan-dal: if experience gives us our ideas and these ideasexist in our minds as mental pictures or copies of theobjects as the early empiricists had argued, then weseem unable to have any genuine knowledge ofthose objects which we initially claimed caused ourideas. Empiricism thus seems to end up in DavidHume’s skepticism. (See Episode 13, “Does Knowl-edge Depend on Experience?”) If, on the other hand,sensory experience is only a confused way of think-ing and we start instead with the certainty of someof our ideas, as the rationalists argued, then we seemunable to relate the realm of ideas and thinking tothe world of material objects. (See Episode 12, “IsReason the Source of Knowledge?”) Descartes’ dual-ism seemed unable to bring these two realms, themental and the material, back together again. Kant’sresolution to this scandal, since he took it as quiteobvious that we do have knowledge of an external,


objective world, was to find what he considered themiddle ground between the extremes of empiricismand rationalism. Kant’s solution was to synthesizethese two great traditions.

Originally schooled in rationalism, ImmanuelKant was educated in and lectured initially on thephilosophy of Liebniz. Kant’s life as a professor tookplace entirely in Konigsberg, his home town, wherehe lived all his life. He is said to have never venturedmore than fifty miles from his home. However, intel-lectually Professor Kant had an international reputa-tion as people came from all over Europe toKonigsberg to meet the great philosopher.

Kant’s synthesis of rationalism and empiricismbegan by pointing out that “. . . it has been assumedthat all of our knowledge must conform to objects.But all of our attempts to extend our knowledge toobjects have ended in failure. We must thereforemake trial whether we may not have more success ifwe suppose that the objects must conform to ourknowledge.” Kant’s key idea is that we do not pas-sively receive our knowledge of objects. Instead, themind somehow takes the sensations it receives andactively puts them together into the objects weknow. The world of objects that we see around us isa world that our own mind constructs. Our knowl-edge of the world, then, comes from two sources.First, our senses passively receive sensations of col-or, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc. This is where em-piricism was right: all our knowledge begins with thesenses. But, second, the mind then actively putsthese sensations together into the orderly world ofobjects we experience around us. This is where ra-tionalism was right: the order we see in the worldhas its source in our own reason, and so reason alsocontributes to our knowledge of objects. For exam-ple, Kant argued that every object we know is con-nected to other objects through cause-and-effectrelationships. That is, every object is caused to bewhat it is by other objects. But these causal relation-ships, Kant claimed, are put there by the mind itself.The mind takes the sensations it receives and orga-nizes them into objects that are causally related toeach other.

For Kant, all our daily, ordinary experiencecontains elements that are necessary and found inevery object we know. Kant referred to these ele-ments as the a priori elements. By a-priori Kantmeans prior to, or independent of, our sense of expe-rience. For Kant, for example, causality is a priori. Itis a priori because it is a relationship that is put thereby the mind, and not a relationship that our sensesperceive. Hume failed to realize this because he didnot understand the structuring role that the mind

plays when we know the world around us. Humehad objected that our senses do not see causality. Sohe was led to skepticism about causality. Kantagreed that we do not have sensations of causality.Nevertheless, he argued, all objects are causally re-lated because the mind itself organizes objects intocausally related objects. Causality is part of what ourmind contributes when it shapes our world.

According to Kant, the a priori contributionsthe mind makes to the world it knows include morethan causality. Kant claimed that space, time, unity,plurality, substance, properties, and all other suchrelationships are also a priori. Altogether, he argued,there are twelve basic relationships or categories,that the mind uses to organize its sensations into re-lated objects.

But where do our sensations come from? Kantclaimed that our sensations had their source in theding an sich or thing-in-itself. The ding an sich iswhatever it is that produces the sensations we expe-rience. We cannot ever hope to know what this dingan sich is in itself, though, because we can knowsomething only after it has been organized by themind. We cannot know what there is “out there” in“external” reality apart from the mind’s ordering ac-tivity. Some have argued that this reduces Kant’sown views into a form of skepticism regarding ourability to know the external world as it “really” is.But Kant would answer that for us the only “reality”is the reality our minds organize for us. So that is theway the world “really” is for us.

Kant’s writings were very much a part of a gen-eral cultural or historical period now known as theAge of Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenmentmarked a period in European history when the pow-er of reasoning was considered paramount, not onlyin relation to discovering truth, but also in shapingsociety. The Age of Enlightenment gave way to theRomantic Age in which feeling, emotion, a fascina-tion with the exotic and the conditioning effects ofculture and history were highlighted. During thistransition, Kant’s seemingly universal, fixed, finitecategories of the understanding came to be seen asmore a reflection of his own time. Kant’s insight intothe mind as a shaper of experience was not aban-doned, but his notion of the a priori as universal andnecessary came to be relativized—relativized to ahistorical period or a language.

A critic of Kant, Wilhelm von Humbolt was aphilosopher and a linguist with a specialty in non-Indo-European languages. Von Humbolt argued thatdifferent languages create different worlds for us tolive in. The world-view, or the weltanschaung, creat-ed by Kant’s a priori concepts may not be the same as

Lesson Fourteen: Does the Mind Shape the World? 83

those created by another language group. A simpleexample cited in this episode concerns the Chineseword chuenlee, which is used in translations for ourword right, but is very close in sound to the Chineseword for power. It is suggested by Professor Harb-smeier that since the Chinese tend to translatechuenlee as power, because their language does nothave a word for right, they seem not to understandthe political world in terms of rights but rather interms of power.

Some contemporary philosophers such as Pro-fessor Richard Rorty treat the notion of a priori, notwith Kant’s view of universality or necessity, butrather as a way some philosophers, within a particu-lar language, pay compliments to concepts they con-sider central to their particular views. The questionthus arises as to whether views like Kant’s are onlyreflections of distinctions found in grammar. Couldour experience of enduring objects in a three-dimen-sional space be a kind of shadow cast by the univer-sal conceptual structure, as Kant would argue? Or isour reality of three-dimensional objects but the shad-ow cast by a particular language, as von Humbolt ar-gues? Or do you think that our thoughts andlanguage are a reflection or shadow cast by theworld, as Locke would argue? Do you believe themind shapes reality, or does reality shape the mind?

TEXT LINKS

� For a more detailed and highly readable discus-sion of Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics and epis-temology see Velasquez,: Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, Section 5.4, “Kant:Does the Knowing Mind Shape the World?”This section not only provides rich explanationsof Kant’s and von Humbolt’s views but also of-fers a brief description of gestalt psychology’s re-search into structured perception and a briefdiscussion of the Hopi Indian weltanschaung.

� See also the “Historical Showcase,” Section 6.6,which features Immanuel Kant.

KEY TERMS

Age of Enlightenment: A period in European his-tory, usually identified with the late seventeenthcentury and the eighteenth century, in which therewas a shared optimism regarding the power of rea-son to know all of reality and to solve all social andpersonal problems.

A posteriori: Dependent upon or originating in sen-sory experience.

A priori: Independent of experience or, as sug-gested in this episode, prior to experience.

Conceptual schemes: The integrated system ofconcepts and beliefs which constitute our under-standing.

Ding an sich: Kant’s term for the thing-in-itself orthe unconceptualized source of our sensory intui-tions.

Necessary: A claim that is always and everywheretrue or a concept that applies always and in everycase.

Noumena: Kant’s terms for the ding an sich (seeabove definition).

Rationalism: The philosophical view that experi-ence is not the sole source of our ideas but that cer-tain ideas and principles are innate, or a priori.

Relativism: The theory that beliefs or conceptualschemes not only vary, perhaps from culture to cul-ture—cultural relativity—but are fundamentallyrationally indeterminate or incommensurate.

Romanticism: A viewpoint that accentuates feelingand emotion over reason.

Synthesis: The bringing together or unifying into anew viewpoint of two or more diverse viewpoints.

Universal: Applies always, everywhere.

Weltanschaung: World-view, conceptual scheme.


SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Immanuel Kant attempted to philosophicallyprove that

a. empiricism was more tenable than rational-ism

b. rationalism was more tenable than empiricism

c. a synthesis between Greek and Medievalthought was necessary

d. a synthesis between empiricism and rational-ism was necessary

2. According to Kant

a. our mind shapes the world

b. the world shapes our mind

c. our culture shapes our mind

d. our personalities give each of us our own spe-cial world

3. In Kant’s view our mind provides

a. structure

b. content

c. structure and content

d. neither structure nor content

4. Kant argued that a criterion for discovering theformal structuring components of experience is

a. a culture’s religious concepts

b. the a priori nature of some concepts

c. the a posteriori nature of some concepts

d. the personal importance of some concepts toan individual

5. To solve David Hume’s skepticism regardinganyone ever proving that our experience of ob-jects actually conforms to the nature of the ob-jects themselves outside or beyond experience,Kant made

a. it apparent that all of Hume’s skeptical argu-ments were written when Hume was only inhis twenties

b. all of our ideas innate

c. the mind more of a tabula rasa than Locke

d. objects conform to our experience

6. In Kant’s view, the senses provide us witha. the content but not the structure of experi-

enceb. the structure but not the content of experi-

encec. insight into the nature of the thing-in-itselfd. only confused thinking and should not be

trusted at all

7. According to Kant, what remains beyond ourunderstanding isa. the moral lawb. an answer to Hume’s scepticism regarding

causalityc. the ding an sich, or the thing-in-itselfd. the formal structure of ordinary experience

8. A part of the traditional meaning of a priori isbeinga. necessaryb. skepticalc. contingentd. sacred

9. According to some critics of Kant’s views, his apriori concepts are actually relativized toa. ageb. genderc. raced. language

10. Kant’s philosophy is most closely identified withthea. Romantic Ageb. Age of Enlighenmentc. Age of Uncertaintyd. Age of Anxiety

11. For Wilhelm von Humboldt, a language embod-ies aa. means for labeling our ideasb. strictly a priori universal structurec. weltanschaungd. Koyannisqatsi

True or False


12. Kant rejected the view of knowledge now calledtranscendental idealism.

Lesson Fourteen: Does the Mind Shape the World? 85

13. According to Kant, we need only reason, andnot the senses, to know anything about theworld around us.

14. Kant’s revolutionary claim that the world mustconform to the mind is often referred to as theCopernican revolution in knowledge.

15. The romantic philosopher Wilhelm von Hum-boldt vehemently denied that we construct theworld according to the categories of our lan-guage that we happen to use.

16. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis says that the struc-ture of a language determines how a speaker ofthat language thinks.


In western culture, during the thirteenth centurywhen the bubonic plague hit Europe killing some es-timated one-third of the population, the dominantlanguage for understanding reality was religious.Thus, the plague was understood as either the pun-ishment of God or God’s abandonment of mankind.In today’s world, the dominant language for under-standing reality is scientific and so the plague is nowunderstood as caused by a particular bacterium. Ifthis is an example of what von Humbolt had inmind, would Kant find it a criticism of his view?

�Many Native American Indian cultures are said tohave not had a concept of private property. Thuswhen the European settlers arrived and laid claim toopen land, the Native Americans found this initiallyrather amusing since it was inconceivable that any-one could own the land. How does this case relate tothe Kant, von Humbolt views of the mind shapingreality? What is the role of weltanschaung?

�According to Kant’s view of dang an sich, the thing-in-itself is beyond our understanding. How cansomething be categorized as a thing and beyond ourunderstanding, and not at least be understood tothat extent? Can Kant consistently claim the dangan sich to exist?

�

Can you think conceptually without a language? Ifnot, what implication does this have for von Hum-bolt’s view?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask some non-philosopher instructors, particularlythe natural scientists, if they believe the mindshapes reality, not simply in terms of values, whichis a popular view, but in terms of objects and causal-ity? How do they account for the a priori nature ofcausality? What would they say in response to Hu-me’s skeptical arguments?

�Survey the philosophy faculty at your school andfind out if they are empiricists, rationalists, or Kan-tians. Ask them how they would answer some of themany questions raised in these last three episodes ofThe Examined Life.

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:




Metaphysics:



David Hume:


Immanuel Kant:




Paul Churchland:


Richard Rorty:


Stephen Toulmin:


— http://www.mnstate.edu/borchers/Teaching/Rhetoric/RhetoricWeb/Toulmin/Toulmin.htm

87

Lesson Fifteen

How Does Science Add to Knowledge?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� Francis Bacon’s method of induction.

� Immanuel Kant’s view of a scientist as pupil orjudge.

� Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability.

� Thomas Kuhn’s paradigms and scientific revolu-tions.

� whether science has a method or methods.

OVERVIEW

So you’ve watched another episode of The ExaminedLife. Watched it on broadcast television or via a vid-eocassette and VCR? Technology, or applied science,has not only made this episode and its viewing possi-ble for you, but the entire Examined Life series, inaddition to my typing this text on a computer and ex-changing e-mail with everyone involved in this se-ries. As you glance around, you’ll see how much ofour present environment reflects our deep depen-

dence upon science and its technology. Modern hu-man existence seems to need science and technologylike our bodies need air.

Surprisingly, science is a relatively new way forhumans to gain knowledge of the world. Some peoplewould claim that the rise of modern science is asrecent as the fifteenth or sixteenth century. Yet, inthis short period, modern science has substantiallychanged our lives. Science has made it possible formembers of our species to leave the planet, travelingto the moon and back. Most of us living in the indus-trialized world live, on average, twice as long as ourgreat grandparents did at the turn of the twentiethcentury. While most of us know that science hassomething to do with experiments and observation,such information tells us very little about how sci-ence actually works. When one turns to these specif-ics, not surprisingly there seem to be a number ofdiffering views. So, how does science give us knowl-edge?

Philosophy of science attempts to give a sys-tematic account of the methods and the conceptswhich have come to constitute the practice(s) of sci-ence. In the modern age, Francis Bacon was one ofthe first philosophers to give an account of what hebelieved the scientific method to be. Rather thansimply doing science, which he did do, Bacon wasalso concerned with describing the method scientists


follow, or should follow. Bacon’s method came to beknown as the method of induction.

Bacon’s method of induction consisted of a se-ries of activities. First, there was the crucial require-ment of making extensive observations. At theoutset, the scientist makes a list or table of all theknown instances of the phenomenon under study. Ifone were studying heat, one would list all of theknown cases of heat or hot things. Second, one looksfor general patterns, in part by noting cases similarto those listed previously but where the phenome-non is lacking. Third, one tests the patterns andfourth, one grasps the underlying laws of nature.Thus, in the end, Bacon believed a scientist wouldarrive at a warranted generalization from the manyparticular cases collected and examined.

Essentially, Bacon emphasized the empiricalsignificance of the new science and the need to testall claims in experience or, as he noted, in the bookof nature. This emphasis on empirical observationand testing was a radical departure from the Medi-eval Age, which relied significantly on authority andtradition. By the middle of the seventeenth century,Bacon’s method of induction had become the officialcreed of the Royal Society of London. However, de-spite its emphasis upon observation, Bacon’s methodfound many critics who disagreed with his descrip-tion of how science works.

Seeing the mind as a mirror that reflects theworld around it, Bacon seemed to accept the tradi-tional empiricists’ view that the mind is passive in itsconfrontation with reality. (As we have already seenin Episode 13, “Does Knowledge Depend on Experi-ence?” the traditional empiricists’ model of the mindrepresenting the world through experience culmi-nated in David Hume’s skepticism. In Episode 14,“Does the Mind Shape the World?” we discoveredthat Immanuel Kant brought this entire empiricist’sview of the mind as a passive receptacle into ques-tion.) He viewed a scientist as a student or pupil ofnature who gathers observations, waiting patientlyfor nature to reveal herself.

Immanuel Kant saw the scientist as a judge, anactive pursuer who brings specific questions to na-ture, then goes about testing for specific answers tothe questions he or she compels nature to answer.This view of the scientist as the active pursuer whoputs nature to some specifically designed test, is alsoechoed in this episode by W.V. Quine. He describesthe practice of science as “setting a trap as best wecan to get one of her [Nature’s] secrets . . . a trap inwhich we’re hoping to get nature to express herself.”Thus the scientist does not wait for nature to suggestor pose questions and answers, but rather actively

constructs hypotheses and puts them to the test. Butwhat sort of test?

According to Karl Popper, when a hypothesisor a conjecture is put forward, the scientist sets outto discover if the hypothesis is right by trying toprove that it is wrong. In contrast to the Baconianinductivist method, a test is not an attempt to findconfirming evidence; this is what astrologers andother pseudo-scientists do. Rather, genuine scienceattempts to falsify a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is notfalsified by the test, then the hypothesis has someprobability of being true. On the other hand, if a hy-pothesis is not falsifiable—that is, there is no testimaginable that would falsify the hypothesis—thenthe hypothesis is not a genuine scientific hypothesisbut rather a pseudo-scientific hypothesis. Popperwould argue that because astrologers always, inprinciple, have a way to explain away false predic-tions, their hypotheses are in principle unfalsifiableand hence pseudo-scientific.

While Bacon’s methods of induction seem todescribe what some scientists have done—for exam-ple, Galileo’s study of terrestrial motion or Boyle’sstudy of gases—it would appear that Popper’s viewis closer to describing what Isaac Newton or CharlesDarwin appeared to be doing as scientists. However,physicist, philosopher of science, and historian ofscience Thomas Kuhn believes Popper has only de-scribed what scientists tend to do in the midst of“scientific revolutions.” According to Kuhn, Popperdid not quite capture what scientists actually do dur-ing periods of “normal science.”

A period of normal science is dominated by aparadigm, according to Kuhn. A paradigm provides apowerful model for explaining the facts we observe.In astronomy, Aristotle’s geocentric model of thesun and the planets revolving around the earth pro-vided a paradigm for understanding the order dis-played by the apparent motion of the sun, theplanets, and the so-called fixed stars. However, therewere planetary motions that did not readily fit Aris-totle’s model because the model was so strongly heldthat these facts, which appeared to falsify it, insteadspurred on revisions introduced by Ptolemy. Fromthe time of Aristotle to Copernicus, roughly 1,800years, Aristotle’s geocentric paradigm was domi-nant. Then, in the fourteenth century, a paradigmshift occurred when Copernicus introduced his he-liocentric model. This paradigm shift constituted ascientific revolution, according to Kuhn. Like politi-cal revolutions, there are typically conservative fac-tions in a scientific revolution which insist uponrevising the old rather than accepting the new.These conservative factions can make even scientific

Lesson Fifteen: How Does Science Add to Knowledge? 89

revolutions violent. For example, Copernicus did notwant to let his work be published until after hisdeath, and Galileo spent the last years of his life un-der house arrest for supporting Copernicus’s helio-centric view.

Once a paradigm shift has occurred and thenew paradigm is in place, a period of normal sciencebegins once again. Kuhn describes the vast majorityof scientific work, as “mopping up.” An acceptedparadigm doesn’t readily yield to one or two falsepredictions. Rather, anomalies or facts that do not fitthe paradigm are typically treated with no seriousconcern. The paradigm remains undisturbed.

Neither Popper nor Kuhn view themselves asinductivists like Bacon. Neither believes that theo-ries or hypotheses are arrived at inductively bystudying some set of facts, then generalizing to someexplanatory statement. Rather, a theory or hypothe-sis first arises from a scientist’s imagination and isthen tested against some set of facts. However, onepoint of disagreement between Popper and Kuhnseems to involve the nature of progress in science.Do new theories mark growth in science? Is one the-ory, in some sense, an improvement over the other,or are different theories simply different models forunderstanding some set of facts? While Popper findslinear progress in the history of science in which en-suing theories bring greater explanatory power thantheir predecessors, Kuhn, at times, talks of differenttheories being incommensurable. Yet he also allowsthat simplicity and scope or explanatory power mayserve as standards of progress.

As philosophers of science have attempted toarticulate how science works, perhaps they haveonly demonstrated that science does not work in justone way. The scientific “method” should perhaps bereplaced with the “methods” of science. Rather thanviewing science as giving humanity the essential,eternal truth regarding the workings of nature, sci-ence is instead a many-faceted undertaking—a his-torical work in the making.

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 5.5,“Does Science Give us Knowledge?” This sec-tion of Velasquez will provide a more detaileddiscussion of Bacon’s methods along with exam-ples supporting and countering his inductivistsmethod. Additionally, there are similar extend-ed critical discussions of both Karl Popper’s

principle of falsifiability and Thomas Kuhn’sviews of scientific paradigms and scientific revo-lutions. The section concludes by contrastingthese various views about scientific methodwith pseudo-sciences and their purported meth-ods.

� See Velasquez, Section 5.8, “Readings.” Thissection opens with a story by Ambrose Bierce,An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, in which theprotagonist is deceived by his own psychology.This section of Velasquez also includes two ex-cellent philosophy papers discussing the moregeneral issue of knowledge and scepticism: PeterUnger’s, “A Defense of Skepticism” and Tho-mas Nagel’s, “How Do We Know Anything?”

KEY TERMS

Anomaly: A deviation from what is normal or ex-pected. In this episode, an anomaly is a fact which isnot consistent with accepted theory.

Confirmation: Finding a state of affairs or a factwhich supports or verifies some claim.

Falsification (to falsify, falsifiable): As used by KarlPopper, a criterion for testing the warrant of a scien-tific claim. A scientist tests a hypothesis by trying toprove it false rather than trying to confirm or verify.

Generalization: A statement or claim referring toan entire group or population as opposed to referringto some specific individual.

Incommensurable: Having nothing in common.For Kuhn, the strong claim that two paradigms havenothing in common.

Induction: Reasoning to the probable truth of someclaim or explanation. A limited usage involves draw-ing probable generalizations from particular claimsor observations.

Law of nature: A highly generalized description ofa uniformity in nature which holds universally.Thus, Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation ac-counted for both celestial mechanics and terrestrialmechanics.

Normal science: For Thomas Kuhn, that period inthe life of a paradigm where the majority of scientific


activity is focused on working out the details of theparadigm.

Paradigm: A theory with much explanatory powerthat solves a certain set of problems or anomaliesand becomes the model for future scientific work.Darwin’s theory of evolution or Copernicus’s helio-centric theory of the solar system are examples ofparadigms.

Pure reason: Thought, speculation without the useof the senses.

Scientific revolution: A period in the history ofWestern civilization, dated at the end of the Renais-sance, in which critical thought about the world wasnaturalized, and many astronomical and biologicalinsights gained. As used by Thomas Kuhn, a periodof transition when one paradigm replaces some oth-er paradigm. Thus an example of this latter conceptoccurred when the heliocentric theory of the solarsystem replaced the geocentric theory of the solarsystem.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Francis Bacon advocated a method of sciencea. requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifi-

ableb. requiring scientific hypotheses to be based

upon accepted authorityc. requiring scientific hypotheses to be induc-

tively inferred from a collection of factsd. in which paradigms serve to define acceptable

methodology

2. An inductivist model of scientific method placesa strong emphasis upona. initial observation or collection of factsb. attempting to disprove or refute a hypothesisc. guaranteeing that one’s work is in line with

the overall scientific community’s workd. the mathematical description of a hypothesis

3. The inductivist model seems to make the role ofthe scientist tooa. activeb. passivec. luckyd. secular

4. According to Immanuel Kant, a scientist shouldapproach nature as aa. pupilb. neophytec. tape recorderd. judge

5. Karl Popper advocated a method of sciencea. requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifi-




methodology

6. Thomas Kuhn advocated a method of sciencea. requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifi-




methodology

Identify the events below as:

a. paradigm shiftsb. not paradigm shifts

_____ 7. Copernicus’s heliocentric theory of thesolar system versus the geocentric theory.

_____ 8. Darwin’s theory of evolution versus thetheory of creationism.

_____ 9. The discovery of a gene for Alzheimer’sdisease.

_____10. The discovery that the universe is closerto 15 billion than 12 billion years old.

11. According to Thomas Kuhn, normal science oc-curs when scientistsa. are not having to deal with erratic funding

sourcesb. are not having to deal with theories like

astrology or phrenologyc. work out the various details of the dominant

paradigmd. go about their business setting up reputable

experiments and controlling all of the perti-nent variables

Lesson Fifteen: How Does Science Add to Knowledge? 91

12. If scientific paradigms are genuinely incommen-surable thena. progress in science may be an illusionb. progress in science is realc. the insights of a scientific paradigm constitute

insight into the ultimate nature of realityd. only the social sciences mark progress

True or False


13. Francis Bacon and John Stuart Mill claimed thatinduction is the primary tool of the scientificmethod.

14. The way that Gregor Mendel developed his lawsof heredity is a good example of inductionism.

15. William Whewell, an opponent of Mill, claimedthat great scientific advances occur when scien-tists make a creative guess or hypothesis.

16. According to Kant, the mark of science is that ittries to disprove or falsify proposed theories.

17. Kuhn claims that scientists often continue tohold on to a theory even if some observationsshow up that do not fit into the theory.


If you take an inductivist view of scientific method,which observations of species actually evolving didCharles Darwin observe in formulating his generalclaim regarding the evolution of species? Does Dar-win’s theory of evolution count against the inductiv-ist’s method? How about Stephen Hawking’s workon event horizons around black holes?

�As a student taking a lab science, do/did most ofyour labs turn out to be consistent or inconsistentwith what was predicted by your lab manuals? Ifyour results were inconsistent with what the labmanual predicts, is this proof that: a) the manual iswrong, or b) you made a mistake? What if most ofyour fellow students got results inconsistent with

what the manual predicts? What might Popper sayabout such results?

�Some have argued that creationism should be taughtalongside the theory of evolution since after all, thetheory of evolution is just that, a theory. Does thetheory of evolution differ from the theory of cre-ationism in terms of falsifiability or any of the othercriteria proposed in this episode?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

As a student taking a lab science, if your lab does notturn out consistent with what your lab manual haspredicted, what does your instructor suggest you do?If your instructor suggests you redo the experimentso that you get the “correct” results—i.e. the resultspredicted by your lab manual—is your instructortaking a view of science more in line with Kuhn orwith Popper? Would Kuhn and Popper agree or dis-agree with your instructor?

�Describe the methods of research used in a chemis-try class, an anatomy class, an economics class, anda psychology class. Did you find a single method orvarieties of methods?

�According to recent speculation concerning the ex-tinction of the dinosaurs, there is a growing consen-sus in the scientific community that a large comethit the earth just east of the Mexican peninsula andcaused an ecological catastrophe. The result of thiscatastrophe was the extinction of the dinosaurs,with smaller, warm-blooded animals, the mammals,surviving and then becoming dominant. How doessuch a theory fit Bacon’s, Popper’s, and Kuhn’s viewof scientific methodology?

NET LINKS










Philosophy Papers:






Evolution:



Francis Bacon:

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bacon.htm

Thomas Kuhn:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn

Karl Popper:

— http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biogra-phies/Philosophy/Popper.htm

— http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw

Arthur Fine:

— http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/fine.html

Susan Haack:


Ian Hacking:


W.V. Quine:


Stephen Toulmin:



93

Lesson Sixteen

Does Science Give Us Truth?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the correspondence theory of truth and scientif-ic realism.

� the coherence theory of truth and conceptualrelativism (consensus theories).

� the pragmatic theory of truth and instrumental-ism.

� quantum mechanics’ challenge to theories oftruth.

� Einstein’s realism versus Bohr’s instrumental-ism.

� capital “T”—Truth; or small “t”—truth?

OVERVIEW

As man-made satellites now leave our solar system,and other satellites map in detail the surfaces of themoon and Mars, science appears to be generating anavalanche of truth or truths. Never in the history ofcivilization has our apparent knowledge of the uni-verse, our solar system, the ecology of our planet, or

the cures for and elimination of so many diseasesand illnesses been so apparently sophisticated andeffective. The very question, “Does science give ustruth?” seems a question asked by someone eitherextremely gullible or perhaps a smart but silly per-son. However, the question is actually rather com-plex, and can be understood to be asking a numberof quite different questions.

Does science give us all truths? Most philoso-phers, and probably most scientists as well, wouldagree that the methods of science are limited and arenot appropriate in discovering truths within mathe-matics, logic, and morality. Perhaps the more signif-icant limitation of science is that scientific methodscannot be used to give a rational or theoretical ac-count of themselves and the concepts they rely up-on. Science cannot tell us why its claims, whichappear to be true, are indeed true. While scientificmethods constitute powerful procedures for allow-ing us to seemingly know some truths, any theory oraccount of the nature of truth itself, has traditional-ly fallen within the domain of philosophy.

Questions about the nature of truth, or howthe concept of truth functions, are not directed atdoubting that some statement or belief is actuallytrue or false, but are instead directed at attemptingto give a rational account of what occurs when a be-lief is true. So the question, “What is truth?” or“What is it for a belief to be true?” should not beconfused with questions as to whether or not some-one knows that a belief is true. For example, know-ing that George Bush is presently fishing issomething you could come to know in a variety of


ways. You could see him out fishing, watch livenews footage of his fishing, or perhaps his neigh-bor—a chronic truth teller—calls you, reporting itto you. Thus, coming to know that a belief or state-ment is true is quite different from giving an ac-count of what it is for a belief or statement to betrue.

In this episode, John Searle claims that thereare certain opinions which everyone starts from andfinally goes back to before they ever start doing phi-losophy. Such opinions, Searle calls default opin-ions. One such default opinion concerns theintuitive notion of what makes a belief or statementtrue. For Searle, this default opinion is the claimthat if a statement is true, then that statement istrue because it accurately reports the way the worldactually is. For example, if I claim that Santa Clauslives at the North Pole, then that statement shouldpick out a particular large elf, wearing a red suitwith white fur trim, who lives in the far snowyreaches of planet earth. However, in this world, onthis planet, there is no such elf living anywhere nearthe North Pole. Statements of this sort about SantaClaus are false because they do not correspond to oraccurately report anything in reality.

Children may think such beliefs about SantaClaus are true, but though the child may genuinelybelieve it to be true, the belief is actually false. Sucha belief remains false regardless of the child’s enthu-siasm for it, or any other psychologically interestingaspects of holding onto such a false belief. This viewof the nature of truth, which Searle has put forth, isknown as the correspondence theory of truth.

According to the correspondence theory oftruth, statements are true if they correspond to oraccurately report an actual state of affairs in theworld. So again, the correspondence theory of truthcan give an account of why a statement, such asZeus lives in a palace on Mount Olympus, is false.Such a statement simply does not correspond to re-ality.

If science does give us truth, do scientifictruths rely upon a correspondence theory of truth?According to scientific realism, scientific theoriesare true when they describe reality accurately. Sci-entific realism thus utilizes a version of the corre-spondence theory of truth. A question that arises iswhether such a theory can give us the whole storyabout truth. Professor Hilary Putnam makes thepoint that the correspondence theory of truth (andrealism in general) is not appropriate to “mathemat-ics, logic, and morality.” Alternatively, a theory oftruth which, others have argued, can account forthis diversity of statements or beliefs that we ascribe

truth and falsehood to, is the coherence theory oftruth.

According to the coherence theory of truth, anidea or statement is true when it coheres or fits inwith other ideas or statements. For some coherencetheorists, Euclidean geometry and various systemsof mathematics provide the most perfect examplesof coherence. What a scientist actually does is workto find a theory which coheres with beliefs which heor she has already accepted as settled. Science doesnot compare a theory with a reality which is inde-pendent of all experience, as correspondence theo-rists seem to claim. Rather, scientists search for the“tightest” fit between some theory and those beliefswhich we acquire as the final outcome of an incredi-bly complex process and which are only indirectlyrelated to the world.

The holding of a coherent theory or set of the-ories within science has been described by ThomasKuhn as a paradigm. Einstein’s theories of relativityserve as a contemporary paradigm in physics. Theyaccount for much of the relevant data and serve asmodels that define present day understanding andresearch. Truth, in a coherence theory sense, is es-sentially a human-centered activity and as such isvery much in conflict with realists’ views of truth.Again, realists claim that our theories get closer andcloser to capturing reality. Among philosophers ofscience, those who have taken a coherence view oftruth have come to be described as consensus theo-rists or, sometimes, conceptual relativists. For allclaims, beliefs, and theories about the world arisefrom some point of view or perspective. Thus thereare no facts which are independent or neutral ofsome point of view or perspective.

Within the history of philosophical theories oftruth, a third theory is that of pragmatism. Pragma-tism claims that beliefs which are useful or havesome practical application are true. Within thestudy of scientific methods, pragmatism is mostclosely associated with the view of science known asinstrumentalism. According to instrumentalism, sci-entific theories are tools or instruments, and a truetheory is one that yields successful predictions.Thus scientific theories do not aim to give us truthabout some independently existing reality, as a real-ist claims, but rather aim at having some utility orreliability.

The twentieth century has seen the emergenceof a number of profound scientific theories, or para-digms, as some would describe them. The theory ofquantum mechanics is such a paradigm. Its subjectmatter concerns very small atomic and subatomicparticles. The success of quantum mechanics has

Lesson Sixteen: Does Science Give Us Truth? 95

brought lasers, breakthroughs in our understandingand use of electricity and atomic energy. At thesame time, the theory of quantum mechanics seemsto generate some significant, perhaps problematic,implications for all of these various theories oftruth.

One of the fathers of quantum mechanics,Neils Bohr took an instrumentalist view of truth re-garding quantum theory. Bohr argued that not onlydid Newton’s laws not apply at the level of quantumobjects, but that our categories of space, time, andcausality do not apply at this level either. Despitethe fact that the theories of quantum mechanicsyield very accurate predictions, they nonethelessdefy traditional assumptions in Newtonian or classi-cal mechanics in that we cannot, at the same time,know both the position and velocity of a quantumobject. For Bohr, the physics of quantum objectsmay be stranger than we can even imagine or con-ceptualize. Thus, while the theories of quantum me-chanics yield accurate predictions, we seem not toknow what might really exist at this level. Accord-ing to Bohr, quantum mechanics is a calculating tooland not a picture or representation of the inner se-crets or workings of nature.

As a realist, Albert Einstein found Bohr’sviews unacceptable. Bohr’s instrumentalism orpragmatism had a negative, if not degenerative, ef-fect upon scientific knowledge. If our present con-cepts of space, time, and causality—or position andmomentum—do not seem to work at the level ofquantum objects, then according to Einstein, weneed to discover new concepts that will allow us topenetrate the deeply hidden features of the uni-verse. Einstein maintained that science could pene-trate to the underlying structure of reality and as aresult of this commitment he spent the last twentyyears of his life unsuccessfully attempting to devel-op a unified field theory that would show that Bohr,in particular, was mistaken. Recent developmentsin quantum mechanics, some claim, vindicate atleast a part of what Einstein was claiming againstBohr.

Like the apparently dubious notion that thereis only one method of science, so it may also be withtheories of truth. Perhaps our search for Truth, cap-ital T, or for Reality, capital R, and the like is a mis-take. Perhaps our search for such truth or theories ismore of a reflection of our human psychology thanthe way things actually are. Perhaps “small letter”concepts like truth, reality, and knowledge are clos-er to the truth. But if that is so, then what is truth?

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReading, tenth edition, and read Section 6.1,“Introduction: Belief, Knowledge, and Truth”for an introduction to these important episte-mological concepts. Read Section 6.2, “What isTruth?” for a rich overview of the major philo-sophical theories of truth: correspondence, co-herence, and pragmatism. Included at the end ofthis section is a provocative discussion on thevalue of truth in “Does Truth Matter?”

� Velasquez Section 6.3, “Does Science Give UsTruth?” provides a more in-depth view of all ofthe main issue presented in this segment of TheExamined Life. Notice Velasquez uses “concep-tual relativism” for what this episode calls “con-sensus theories.”

KEY TERMS

Anomaly: A deviation from what is normal or ex-pected. In this episode, an anomaly is a fact which isnot consistent with accepted theory.

Confirmation: Finding a state of affairs or a factwhich supports or verifies some claim.

Correspondence theory of truth: The philosophi-cal theory of truth which argues that a statement istrue if, and only if, it corresponds to or correctly re-ports some state of affairs or fact(s) in reality.

Coherence theory of truth: The philosophical the-ory of truth which argues that a statement is true if,and only if, it “fits” or coheres within a consistentsystem or set of other statements.

Consensus theory: The view that scientific theo-ries are true if they cohere with the accepted viewsof scientists. Sometimes called “conceptual relativ-ism.”

Default opinions: According to John Searle theseare the sorts of opinions (seemingly philosophical innature) which everyone starts with and ends withafter philosophizing.

Falsification (to falsify, falsifiable): As used byKarl Popper, a criterion for testing the warrant of a


scientific claim. A scientist tests a hypothesis by try-ing to prove it false rather than trying to confirm orverify.

Induction: Reasoning to the probable truth of someclaim or explanation. A limited usage involvesdrawing probable generalizations from particularclaims or observations.

Instrumentalism: The view that a true scientifictheory is one that enables scientists to make accu-rate predictions.

Normal science: For Thomas Kuhn, that period inthe life of a paradigm where the majority of scientif-ic activity is focused upon working out the details ofthe paradigm.

Pragmatic theory of truth: The philosophicalview that a statement is true if it works or has pre-dictive value in science and everyday life.

Quantum mechanics: An area of theoretical phys-ics that studies the structure and dynamics of atomsand sub-atomic particles.

Scientific realism: The view that a true scientifictheory is one that correctly describes an objectivereality that exists independent of human conscious-ness.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Two theories of truth discussed in this episodewerea. empiricism and rationalismb. empiricism and transcendental idealismc. correspondence and coherenced. conceptual and categorical

2. According to the correspondence theory oftruth, a true belief or statementa. accurately reports some aspect of realityb. fits in with other beliefs or statementsc. has some usefulness or reliabilityd. is indubitable

3. According to the coherence theory of truth, atrue belief or statementa. accurately reports some aspect of realityb. fits in with other beliefs or statementsc. has some usefulness or reliabilityd. is indubitable

4. According to the pragmatic theory of truth, atrue belief or statementa. accurately reports some aspect of realityb. fits in with other beliefs or statementsc. has some usefulness or reliabilityd. is indubitable

5. Scientific realists tend to adopt thea. correspondence theory of truthb. coherence theory of truthc. pragmatic theory of truth

6. Conceptual relativism is a version ofa. correspondence theory of truthb. coherence theory of truthc. pragmatic theory of truth

7. Instrumentalism is a version ofa. correspondence theory of truthb. coherence theory of truthc. pragmatic theory of truth

8. Albert Einstein took a/ana. realist’s view of the truth in scienceb. consensus theorist’s view of truth in sciencec. instrumentalist’s view of truth in science

9. Neils Bohr took a/ana. realist’s view of the truth in scienceb. consensus theorist’s view of truth in sciencec. instrumentalist’s view of truth in science

10. Karl Popper took a/ana. realist’s view of the truth in scienceb. consensus theorist’s view of truth in sciencec. instrumentalist’s view of truth in science

11. Thomas Kuhn took a/ana. realist’s view of the truth in scienceb. consensus theorist’s view of truth in sciencec. instrumentalist’s view of truth in science

Lesson Sixteen: Does Science Give Us Truth? 97

12. Quantum mechanics is the study of

a. galaxies and black holes

b. gravitation as it is effected by huge bodieslike our sun

c. effects upon space and time as one approxi-mates the speed of light

d. the very small such as the structure of atomsand subatomic particles

True or False


13. Modern philosopher Bertrand Russell held thata statement is true if it corresponds to reality.

14. The correspondence theory has problems ex-plaining what a fact is.

15. According to the coherence theory of truth, astatement is true if it is consistent with otherstatements that we regard as true.

16. The instrumentalist view of scientific truth isbased on the correspondence theory of truth.

17. The realist view of scientific truth holds thattrue scientific theories correspond to the waythe world is.


According to the correspondence theory of truth, abelief or statement is true if it corresponds to reality.Many find this a very persuasive, if not true accountof truth. If this theory of truth is true, does it corre-spond to reality in the same manner as beliefs orstatements about Santa Claus and who the presidentof the United States is supposedly correspond to re-ality? What do the statements describing the corre-spondence theory correspond to?

�

Some paranoid schizophrenics are said to have ex-tremely coherent, or consistent, belief systems,

which are nonetheless accepted as being false. Cancoherence theories of truth ever be intellectually ac-ceptable if they only fit our beliefs or statements?

�

Some philosophers have argued that pragmatistshave confused a belief’s or statement’s usefulness orpragmatic value with a possible criterion of truthversus the actual meaning of truth. In other words,if a belief is useful or can be used to make predic-tions, do you think that is enough to know the beliefis true? Or does truth actually mean something elsealtogether?

�

If Bohr is correct in that quantum objects may be be-yond our capacity to conceptualize, then is it possi-ble that both he and Einstein are correct, thoughthey disagree? What do the limits of conceptualiza-tion or logic have to do with reality?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

What are you, a correspondence theorist, a coher-ence theorist, or a pragmatist? If you are some com-bination, what theory do you use to prove the truthof your theory of truth?

�

Ask science and math instructors what theory oftruth they accept and why. Do you find more corre-spondence theorists amongst the scientists and morecoherence theorists among mathematicians?

�

Organize a showing of this episode of The ExaminedLife and invite faculty and students from a variety ofdepartments for a discussion of the different viewstaken on truth and a scientific theory’s relationshipto reality.

�

Do religious beliefs or statements primarily assume,in terms of their truth, a correspondence, a coher-ence, or a pragmatic theory of truth?


NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:






Thomas Kuhn:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn

Karl Popper:

— http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biogra-phies/Philosophy/Popper.htm

— http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw

Arthur Fine:

— http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/fine.html

Susan Haack:


Ian Hacking:


W.V. Quine:


Stephen Toulmin:



99

Lesson Seventeen

Are Interpretations True?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon completing this lesson, you should be familiarwith the concepts contained in the lesson and be ableto critically discuss:

� hermeneutics and its historical context.

� Friedrich Schleiermacher and the outline ofhermeneutics.

� Wilhelm Dilthey re-enactment and understand-ing versus explaining.

� Hans-Georg Gadamer hermeneutics and subjec-tivity.

� ideal languages: Georg Frederick Hegel & theearly Wittgenstein.

� Ludwig Wittgenstein’s language games.

OVERVIEW

In a recent edition of the journal Nature, speech pa-thologists Roger J. Ingham and Janis Ingham, facultymembers and researches at the University of Califor-nia at Santa Barbara, discovered that “stuttering isassociated with unusual hemispheric (brain) pro-cessing of speech and aberrant auditory monitoringof speech.” Some of history’s more well known stut-

terers include Moses, Demosthenes, and Virgil, withWinston Churchill and Marilyn Monroe bringing usinto the twentieth century.

Of those listed, Moses stands out because hereceived the Ten Commandments from God. IfMoses was a stutterer and stuttering is associatedwith “unusual (brain) processing and aberrant audi-tory monitoring of speech,” is it possible that Mosesmisinterpreted God’s commands? Is it possible thatthe Ten Commandments contain “nots” wherethere were no “nots” or vice versa?

According to the ancient Greeks, interpretingthe words of the gods (the Greeks were polytheists)was a most delicate undertaking strewn with poten-tial error. Hermes, the messenger god in ancientGreek mythology, was responsible for bringing thewords of the gods to humans. There were also theOracles, most often young girls who, under the in-fluence of hallucinatory drugs, had the gods speakthrough them. Why someone on hallucinatory drugswould be a good interpreter or mouthpiece for thegods is not explained.

The attempt to formulate a way of interpretingwords that will avoid misunderstandings, is thebranch of philosophy known as hermeneutics. Orig-inally, hermeneutics was concerned with interpret-ing the words of the gods. Named after the messen-ger god, Hermes, hermeneutics recognizes both thecomplexity and significance of achieving true inter-pretations.

In the Middle Ages allegorical interpretationbecame one of the accepted standard activities ofbiblical interpretation. Allegorical interpretation did


not treat the Bible as a literal, sequential history butrather as wisdom literature in which the divine mes-sage lies hidden within metaphors and allegories.Thus the story of the fall of man is not necessarily aliteral description of the early days of human exist-ence on Earth, but possibly an allegory that depictsGod’s judgment of human impertinence.

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible ran intodifficulties in the sixteenth century leading to theReformation. When Martin Luther turned from theCatholic church’s allegorical interpretations of theBible and read the Bible for himself, he found he dis-agreed with many of the officially sanctioned inter-pretations. Luther also disagreed with the Church’spractice of selling indulgences. For Luther, anyonecould gain salvation through faith alone. He felt thatthe Church bureaucracy, protected by its official in-terpretations of the Bible, had become corrupt andwas an impediment to knowing God’s real will.

Luther provided his own translation of the Bi-ble printed in German, the language of the commonpeople in Luther’s Germany, as opposed to Latin,the language of the educated and the Church. Whatconsiderations would support Luther or the Churchin their differing interpretations of the Bible? Howdo we arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bi-ble or any significant text for that matter? Can wearrive at a correct or true interpretation?

The nineteenth century philosopher FriedrichSchleiermacher appears to have been the first schol-ar to attempt to systematically formulate generalrules for interpretation. For Schleiermacher a textmust first be understood within its historical con-text. This historical context includes understandingthe author’s language and intentions for writing aparticular text.

Wilhelm Dilthey extended Schleiermacher’smethod to interpret many human activities includ-ing art, suggesting that to understand a painting youneeded to “relive” the painter’s life in your imagina-tion. By reliving or re-enacting, we can understandthe writer’s or artist’s intentions and thereby cor-rectly understand or interpret what they produce.This activity of re-enactment differs, according toDilthey, from what a scientist does in giving an ex-planation. Dilthey additionally claimed that if a his-torian used his method of re-enactment, thehistorian could give an objective picture of the past.However, can anyone actually know the intentionsof a historical figure?

The father of twentieth century hermeneutics,Hans-Georg Gadamer argued that we must abandonthe idea of objective knowledge. Anyone who inter-prets a text must use his or her own subjective expe-

riences. In contrast to Dilthey, Gadamer asserts thatreaders shouldn’t distance themselves from theirprejudices but rather should use their prejudiceswhen interpreting a text. The subjective context ev-eryone brings to an interpretation cannot be over-come so we cannot attain some objective view point.

For Gadamer not only are the methods of in-terpretation different from those methods used inthe natural or hard sciences, but his methods of re-search in hermeneutics, he claimed, are the basicmethods in the “soft” sciences. Gadamer recognizedthe overwhelming importance of language itself andthus the importance of hermeneutics for everyone.Every language speaker must interpret. Hermeneu-tics makes clear that this complex process is in partunconscious and subliminal.

Some philosophers have argued that ambigu-ity, vagueness, and other pitfalls that plague accu-rate interpretation could be avoided if there were anideal language—a language in which “anything thatcan be said, can be said clearly,” to quote LudwigWittgenstein, a twentieth century philosopher. Inthe seventeenth century, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnizattempted to develop such a formal, almost mathe-matical language into which ordinary languagecould be translated to avoid misunderstandings.While Leibniz never finished the construction of hisideal language, further studies of language duringthe nineteenth century allowed Wittgenstein to takea deeper look at language and its relationship toreality.

According to the early work of Wittgenstein,language becomes meaningful through its ability topicture reality. Wittgenstein’s early view of lan-guage has been characterized as a representationalview. Propositions are pictures or representations ofreality. And since reality is intimately related to ex-perience, there are limits to what one could legiti-mately or meaningfully talk about. Questions aboutultimate reality or a supernatural reality that is be-yond ordinary experience—the reality that so muchof traditional metaphysics and religion had beenconcerned with—are questions that we cannotmeaningfully discuss. Thus Wittgenstein directed,“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be si-lent.” Believing he had shown that many of the tra-ditional problems of philosophy and religion werethe result of misunderstanding language, and thathe had outlined what an ideal language was—name-ly one which pictured or represented the facts—Wittgenstein left philosophy. His work was done.

A decade later, Wittgenstein returned to Cam-bridge, convinced that he could still make some gen-uine contribution to philosophy, but now believing

Lesson Seventeen: Are Interpretations True? 101

that his earlier view of language was in error. Stillconcerned with issues of meaning and language,Wittgenstein now argued that linguistic meaning isnot determined by a word or sentence representingsomething beyond language. Thus, words are notfixed labels for objects, and do not acquire meaningas a result of labeling ideas or picturing facts. Rathermeaning is more complex.

If one considers the word “game” one will seethat it does not pick out some type of activity that allgames, and only games, share in common. Rather,the concept of game works to pick out a spectrum ofactivities which, at either end of the spectrum, maynot share anything in common. It is only when onelooks at the whole spectrum one that sees how theyare all related. For Wittgenstein, language is like agame, functioning or being used in a tremendous va-riety of complex but related ways. Thus, to under-stand meaning in language one must understand thelanguage game of the word or expression that is be-ing used. Representing is, perhaps, one way—butnot the only way— for language to be meaningful.

If Wittgenstein is correct about meaning beinga function of use, then the meaning of a text will bereflected in its use. Since there are many possible,and thus legitimate uses of a text, there are manypossible legitimate interpretations. So how do thevarious language games relate? Are misunderstand-ings in interpretation, or translation between lan-guage games possible? According to thinkers likeJean-Francois Lyotard and Paul Ricoeur there isroom for skepticism regarding the adequacy of suchtranslations and interpretations. However, asRicoeur remarks, “Make sure people can rely onyour words . . . that’s the basis of all interaction. It’sthe basis of the promise.”

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 6.4,“Can Interpretations Be True?” Included in thesection are more extended discussions and ex-amples of problems with issues of interpretationbeing raised regarding specific Biblical quotes,Blake’s poetry, as well as United States Consti-tutional issues. A more detailed discussion ofthe important views of Ludwig Wittgenstein onlanguage is also provided as well as discussionsof Schleiermacher, Dilthey, and Gadamer.

KEY TERMS

Allegory: From the Greek allegoreuo, meaning liter-ally, saying something different from what’s actuallysaid.

Genre: A style or method and typically used to de-scribe types of stories, plays, and films.

Hermeneutics: The branch of philosophy that dealswith the interpretation of words and actions by pro-viding correct rules for interpretation. Its originalfocus was upon the meaning of texts.

Ideal language: A language free of the ambiguityand vagueness of ordinary language.

Indulgences: As used in this episode in referring topractices of the Catholic church, indulgences weresold by the church for the purpose of getting thesouls of departed loved ones out of purgatory.

Intention: Ordinarily understood as the consciousmotivating factor behind some action.

Language game: As used by Wittgenstein, it is thepractice or use that gives meaning to a word or ex-pression.

Subjective: Uniquely personal, such as your feel-ings or thoughts.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Hermeneutics is the branch of philosophywhich focuses upona. ultimate nature of realityb. theories of knowledgec. issues and problems regarding interpretationd. issues and problems regarding the distribu-

tion of social goods

2. Hermeneutics gets its name froma. Hermits who wrote the Dead Sea Scrollsb. Hermes, the messenger godc. Hermenes, the ancient poet of Zybosd. the research method of hermeneology


3. Historically, an alternative method of interpre-tation as opposed to a literal interpretation ofthe Bible wasa. divine interpretationb. secular interpretationc. antithetical interpretationd. allegorical interpretation

4. The story of Persephone is told here to illustratea. divine interpretationb. secular interpretationc. antithetical interpretationd. allegorical interpretation

5. Martin Luther’s conflict with the Catholicchurch was in part the result ofa. Martin Luther’s low pay as a parish priestb. the Church’s lack of support for Luther’s

planned cathedral in Wittenbergc. disagreements over interpretations of the

Bibled. an apparently rigged election, which kept

Luther from becoming Pope

6. Friedrich Schleiermacher claimed that to cor-rectly interpret a text, one musta. know the text’s historical contextb. simply find some personal meaning in the

workc. look to the theme of the workd. understand how informed, educated people

react to the work

7. Wilhelm Dilthey’s work is most closely associ-ate with that ofa. Aristotleb. Hans-George Gadamerc. Paul Ricoeurd. Friedrich Schleiermacher

8. To know an artist’s intention, Dilthey claimedyou musta. almost relive or re-enact the artist’s lifeb. actually give up the idea of being able to

know an artist’s actual intentionc. study the work of art itself very closelyd. find the allegorical meaning in a work of art

9. Hans-George Gadamer emphasized thea. need for objective interpretationsb. need to find an artist’s true intentionsc. ever present subjectivity in all interpreta-

tionsd. lack of intention in speaking a language

10. Historically, one method attempted for avoidingmisunderstanding in interpretation wasa. the creation of an ideal languageb. universal literacyc. requiring people to speak more than one lan-

guaged. having every educated person learn Latin

11. Wittgenstein’s early work claimed that the ideallanguagea. would clearly or exactly represent realityb. would be formal and mathematicalc. would be essentially religiousd. was a fiction since language is much too com-

plex

12. Wittgenstein’s later view of language is mostclearly capture in the notion of languagea. as a pictureb. as emotional expressionc. labeling ideasd. as a game

True or False


13. The question of whether interpretations aretrue is important when trying to find out whatthe Constitution requires.

14. Thomas Aquinas claimed that biblical texts haveonly a literal meaning.

15. Schleiermacher and Dilthey embraced the corre-spondence theory of truth.

16. Wittgenstein’s early theory of an ideal languageaccepted the coherence theory of truth.

17. According to Gadamer, the true interpretationof a text is the one that best coheres with boththe prejudices of our own culture and what webelieve the text meant in its own culture.


If Gadamer is correct that subjectivity cannot beovercome in interpretation, can he be understood or

Lesson Seventeen: Are Interpretations True? 103

can his writing understood? What is the purpose ofhis writing?

�Is it possible to create a work of art which “says”something greater, more powerful, more insightfulthan what the artist or even historian may have in-tended? Can you give an example? If this is possible,what is the value of Dilthey’s claim of knowing theintention of the artist so as to interpret the work?

�The popular view of language and meaning is thatwords are meaningful when they label our ideas. Ifyou believe this, aren’t you taking a representativeview of language—meaning similar to Wittgen-stein’s early view? Isn’t such a view of the meaningof language erroneous and doesn’t it face all of theproblems that led Wittgenstein to abandon such aview?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Watch ordinary situation comedies from the 1950sand early 1960s like “Leave it to Beaver,” “The Don-na Reed Show,” “The Dick VanDyke Show,” or “Fa-ther Knows Best.” Do these shows and the life theyportray seem stilted, strange, alien? Did the 1950sconstitute a different culture from the 1990s? Since40 years separate these eras, how different was lifein the nineteenth century, the Middle Ages, or an-cient Greece? Can someone today even begin toimagine what life was actually like in such distantand different eras? If not, what is the value ofSchleiermacher’s and Dilthey’s work?

�Go to a movie with a group of friends then gather af-terward to discuss the film. How many different in-terpretations are there? Do some accounts simplydescribe the story line providing no allegorical inter-pretation? Are the allegorical interpretations provid-ed dependent upon knowing the intentions of thewriter or director, or are they simply based upon thefilm?

�Wittgenstein claimed that the word “game” does nothave an exact definition. Rather, if one looks at

those things or activities which the word picks outor makes reference to, one would find a spectrum ofexamples that share some features in common butnot others. Thus, the meaning of a concept shouldnot be understood as rigidly standing for or labelingsome single idea, as is popularly believed. Is this trueof all concepts? Is this true of the concept of a trian-gle? How about chair or cup?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Hermeneutics:

— http://www.endtimes.org/hermeneutics.html

— http://www.friesian.com/hermenut.htm

Wilhelm Dilthey:

— http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/dilthey.htm

Hans-Georg Gadamer:

— http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philoso-phers/hans-georg-gadamer.php


Friedrich Schleiermacher:

— http://www.island-of-freedom.com/SCHLEIER.HTM

Ludwig Wittgenstein:

— http://www.hd.uib.no/wab

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

Samuel Ijsseling:

— http://www.uta.edu/english/rcct/E5311/notes6.html

Paul Ricoeur:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ricoeur

Stephen Toulmin:



105

Lesson Eighteen

Is Morality Relative?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� examples of varying moral practices among dif-ferent cultures, historical periods, and amongindividuals.

� moral relativism and the apparent paradox oftolerance.

� moral relativism and the giving of “good rea-sons.”

� emotivism and moral language versus scientificlanguage.

� judging a complex situation morally versus tak-ing specific moral action.

OVERVIEW

Values and beliefs seemingly vary from person toperson and culture to culture, even over time. At onetime, for example, slavery was a legally sanctionedinstitution in the United States. While no longer tol-erated in the United States, slavery is still practicedin some cultures. California and the south of Francehave nude beaches but such beaches are not tolerat-

ed in the southern United States nor in the Arabworld. Perhaps one of the most popular beliefs aboutthe nature of morality in our culture is that moralityis relative.

As a result of this relativistic view of morality,some have gone on to argue that the reasonable posi-tion to take toward other cultures or another per-son’s moral values is that of tolerance. Such a viewof tolerance is expressed by the popular saying,“When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” However,both Gilbert Harman and Ronald Dworkin pointout, in this episode, that such a principle or ruleseems absolute. It applies to everyone’s actions re-gardless of culture, and thus appears to be in contra-diction with a position of relativity.

Depending upon the type of relativism oneclaims to accept, the genuine relativist does whatev-er he or she takes the source of his or her values tobe. Suppose he or she is a cultural relativist who sub-scribes to the values of a culture with no principle oftolerance for the values of other cultures. Then he orshe would be morally justified in adopting a range ofpossible practices ranging from indifference to geno-cide, depending upon the culture. In principle, prac-tices such as slavery or acts such as rape or stealingcannot be morally condemned cross culturally; theycan only be described as being different. Thus sla-very is not wrong nor was it wrong during an earlierera in United States history. The culture of the timesand the economic arrangement was simply differentthan what we have now in the United States. Butcan or does morality stop at cultural boundaries?Does morality depend on one’s culture?


In September 1994 the Dutchman Johannesvan Damme was sentenced to death in Singapore forsmuggling drugs. In Holland, Johannes’s nativecountry, the whole idea of the death penalty isstrange, even alien. The Dutch population reactedwith amazement and anger over his sentence. In Sin-gapore, the death penalty is automatically applied ifsomeone is convicted of drug smuggling. As theDutch foreign minister issued a formal protest, theforeign minister of Singapore replied that his gov-ernment respects the standpoint of other countries,who are opposed to the death penalty. But Singaporedoesn’t share that view and expects that other coun-tries, whatever their particular views, show compa-rable respect to Singapore. Can more be said or aresuch views similar to differences in taste that arefundamentally irreconcilable?

Does the foreign minister of Singapore’s posi-tion ring of, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,”and thus face an apparent contradiction? Is thereany inconsistency between asking that countriesshow respect for one another’s laws and the possibil-ity that the death penalty is an excessive form ofpunishment for a particular crime, thus failing toshow respect for human life? Can one consistentlydemand that respect be shown if he or she does notshow respect?

To other thinkers, such cases demonstrate thatdifference of viewpoint is not enough to justify hold-ing a position of moral relativity. Moral principles donot stop at culture’s borders but apply to acts andpractices no matter where or when they occur. Someacts are universally wrong from the moral point ofview. James Rachels points out that it is not enoughto know that someone or some culture has a differ-ent view from your own or your culture’s. Theremust also be “good reason(s)” for taking a particularpoint of view. As Rachels argues, there are good rea-sons to believe that slavery is wrong no matterwhere or when it occurs. But what about the beliefsome groups hold that homosexuals are sinister peo-ple? If there are no good reasons, then it is simply acultural product. In recognizing some cultural prac-tices as lacking good reason(s) do we then have anaccount of what is bigoted or prejudiced?

Some philosophers have argued that the core ofmorality consists of promoting the interests or wellbeing of those people who are affected by your ac-tions; where everyone’s interests are weighed equal-ly. Does such a view only postpone the issue ofrelativism, since we may have no way of decidingwhat is in someone’s interest or how to reconcileconflicts in interests when they arise? In the field ofscience, the international respect and global depen-

dence upon the work of the Center for Disease Con-trol when deadly bacteria are rampant illustratesthat cross cultural solutions can be found. But whyhaven’t moral methods been developed or discov-ered that produce similar agreement?

Emotivism suggests that such a moral consen-sus has not and probably cannot be reached sincemoral judgments are expressions of our personalfeelings and emotions. Scientific judgments are de-scriptions of facts. While moral language and scien-tific language share some superficial similarities,moral language is expressive and directive whereasscientific language is factual and descriptive, andthus has a truth value. If your language is not de-scriptive in the right way, then it lacks truth valueand hence you cannot develop methods for arrivingat a consensus.

Given this distinction, one can see that unlikemoral disagreements, a disagreement over facts canin principle, though perhaps not in practice, be rec-onciled. Take the issue of whether or not O.J. Simp-son killed his wife versus the appropriate degree ofpunishment, if any, a killer should receive. WhetherSimpson killed his wife is a factual issue. But ques-tions regarding punishment take one into the moraldomain and for the emotivists, since these are ulti-mately reflections of emotion or feeling, they lacktruth value.

But how do “good reasons” fit into the emotiv-ists’ account? Some philosophers argue that becausesome moral positions are more reasonable, emotiv-ism is only a part of the story about morality. So howdoes one determine the “true” moral judgment?When do reasons become “good reasons” in a case sothat an issue can be morally resolved?

Presently there are over 250 million childrenwho do not receive an education or spend time play-ing, as children in the industrialized world often do.Many of these children work, sometimes under verydangerous conditions, for long periods of time. Oftentheir families depend upon their wages for the sur-vival of the family. For some thinkers, such casespresent perplexing moral quandaries. Should we actto abolish child labor, when a possible consequencemay be the loss of income and harm to the families?It may be difficult to know what should be done insuch complex cases but, according to Ronald Dwor-kin, we should not shrink from recognizing that thepractices are immoral or morally wrong.

Action is an essential part of morality and theambiguity which moral relativism presents may besomething we simply need to accommodate our-selves to.

Lesson Eighteen: Is Morality Relative? 107

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 7.1,“Introduction: What Is Ethics?” This selectionopens with a series of provocative vignettes con-cerning the issue of abortion. The vignettes areintended not to discuss the abortion issue, butto illustrate how inescapable the moral dimen-sion of our lives is. This section goes on to dis-cuss in some detail the nature of morality.

� Velasquez Section 7.2. “Is Ethics Relative?” be-gins with a discussion of the crucial distinctionbetween descriptive and normative studies ofmorality. This section goes on to raise signifi-cant questions about many of the issues sur-rounding the notion of ethical relativism asopposed to cultural relativism.

� Velasquez Section 7.9, “Historical Showcase,”contains excerpts from Frederich Nietzsche andMary Wollstonecraft. Nietzsche is skeptical ofmorality and considers it to a large extent his-torically relative while Wollstonecraft opposesrelativism and takes more of an absolutist posi-tion, seeing morality as grounded in reason.

KEY TERMS

Absolutism: In the context of morality, the viewthat at least some moral standards or principles ap-ply universally and thus are not culturally, histori-cally, nor personally relative.

Aesthetics: As used in this episode, judgments ofvalues having to do with beauty as opposed to moralvalues.

Culture: The totality of socially transmitted behav-ior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all otherproducts of human work characteristic of a commu-nity.

Emotivism: In philosophy, a school of thoughtwhich claims that the primary function of languageis to express emotions or feelings

The melting pot: A somewhat dated metaphoricalexpression used originally by sociologists to de-scribed a cultural dynamic whereby a dominant cul-ture changed and was changed by other culturesentering its cultural sphere. The “melting pot” met-aphor is sometimes contrasted with that of the“tossed salad” metaphor where cultures enteringthe sphere of a dominant culture retain their cultur-al identity unlike the loss of identity suggested bythe melting pot metaphor.

Morality: According to some, simply the values wehold. According to others, a type of evaluation thatis distinct from other types of values.

Relativity: In the context of morality, the view thatmoral standards or principles do not apply univer-sally and are in some sense culturally, historically,or personally based

Unconditional: In the context of this episode, theview that some standards or principles hold withoutregard to or on condition of culture, time, or person-al preference.

Values: Preferences, expressions of good and bad,right and wrong, and the like.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. In the opening sequence of this episode, the fateof the following creatures is used to illustratedifferences in ideas about moralitya. alligators being raised for making handbagsb. turkeys being raised for Thanksgiving din-

nersc. lobsters in a restaurant aquariumd. dolphins trapped and drowning in gill nets

2. According to some philosophers, to insist thatone should show tolerance toward other cul-tures, since morality is culturally relative is totake a positiona. supported by the world’s major religionsb. which is inconsistentc. of fact marked by the truthd. typical of Democrats


3. The case of the Dutchman, Johannes vanDamme, raised the issue ofa. distinguishing Holland from the Netherlandsb. whether there are legitimate, international

war crimesc. international monetary responsibility and

punishmentd. the cross cultural legitimacy of the death

penalty

4. According to some philosophers in this episode,the issue of moral relativity must include notonly variations or differences in moral beliefbuta. there being “good reasons” for holding a be-

liefb. whether or not a person was raised to hold

the beliefc. whether or not a person’s community unani-

mously accepts the beliefd. does the belief have any real “cash” value

5. Emotivism is the view that moral language is es-sentiallya. a description of subtle moral factsb. an expression of certain emotions and feel-

ingsc. a language with truth value similar to scien-

tific languaged. used by people when they are highly emo-

tional

6. According to emotivism as discussed in this epi-sode, language can be used botha. descriptively and expressivelyb. by psychologists and philosophersc. culturally and sociallyd. intentionally and unintentionally

7. For an emotivist, moral judgments area. either true or falseb. neither true nor falsec. always true and never falsed. sometimes false but never true

8. According to James Rachels, conducting his in-terview in the nude would bea. morally wrong in an absolutist senseb. morally neutral but aesthetically problematicc. morally obligatory but illegald. grossly immoral but only in our culture

9. If someone argues against moral relativism, say-ing that the core of morality has to do with pro-moting human welfare, then according to thisepisode one musta. give a nonrelativistic account of human wel-

fareb. face the issue of the immortality of the soulc. confront so much superstition in the worldd. guarantee that this is a genuine expression of

one’s emotions

10. According to this episode, the problem of childlabor affectsa. approximately 800,000 children worldwideb. approximately 5.5 million children world-

widec. approximately 25 million children worldwided. over 250 million children worldwide

True or False


11. Ethical absolutism states that one and only onecorrect morality exists.

12. Ethical relativism and cultural relativism are thesame.

13. According to James Rachels, “the fact that dif-ferent societies have different moral codesproves nothing.”

14. The fact that all societies have to accept certainmoral standards to survive shows that ethicalrelativism is true.

15. A fundamental point the theory of ethical rela-tivism is trying to make is that we should be tol-erant of the moral beliefs of others and notassume our own are the only correct ones.


According to moral relativists there are no universalor absolute moral standards. Given this belief, somemoral relativists will claim that tolerance should beshown to other cultures; that one culture should notimpose its morality on another culture. Is such a

Lesson Eighteen: Is Morality Relative? 109

view paradoxical in that it directs a person to adoptthe universal or absolute standard to show respectsince there are no universal or absolute standards?

�

I like red cars but you like black cars; therefore mo-rality is relative. Do you believe that our values re-garding car colors are moral values? Do you believethat all value judgments are moral judgments? Canyou think of a value judgment that is not a moraljudgment? If so, what is morality?

�

Can the problem of moral relativity be addressedwithout a detailed discussion of the question of“What is morality?”

�

When women were given the right to vote in theUnited States in 1920, did this mark a greater align-ment of our laws with justice and morality, or did itonly mark a difference in law and moral judgment?Are there “good reasons” for women having theright to vote or for their not having the right to vote?

�

What is the difference between the question: “Whatis morality?” versus “Why be moral?” Does an an-swer to one suggest or entail an answer to the other?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your family and friends if they believe moralityis relative. Are they primarily cultural or historicalrelativists? Do they claim that morality is personallyrelative? If they believe morality is both personallyand culturally relative, can they hold such a positionconsistently?

�

Taking the “good reasons” approach to moral rela-tivity, discuss the issue of homosexuality. For exam-ple, a popular argument supporting thewrongfulness of homosexuality is that it violates thefunction of sex, which is procreation. If most peopledo not have sex to procreate then what is the func-tion of sex? If it serves other functions, then does the

argument from procreation not constitute a “goodreasons” approach to this debate?

�

Organize a panel discussion on your campus or inyour neighborhood on the topic of “Is Morality Rel-ative?” Include at least one representative from thefields of science, business, or economics and onefrom psychology, sociology, or anthropology, and aphilosophy representative. Is there a pattern to thepositions taken? Is there variation in the articulate-ness of the positions taken?

�

As you read the newspaper or watch a news pro-gram, does the article or program take a completelyneutral position on the issue under discussion? Canyou take a neutral position? Should you take a neu-tral position?

�

Do you find any substantial distinctions betweenyour favoring a particular athletic team versus yourfavoring a particular position regarding honesty orabortion?

�

Do you believe that morality is relative?

NET LINKS










Philosophy Papers:



Moral Musings:

— http://www.bigbrownbat.org/moralmusings/

Select v.2 no.1 (May 1998)

Moral Realism:

— http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEth-Chew.htm

Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/relativism

The Philosopher:

— http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/cite/staff/philosopher/

Ronald Dworkin:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

John Finnis:

— http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facul-typages/finnis.html

Gilbert Harman:

— http://www.princeton.edu/~harman

James Rachels:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rachels

111

Lesson Nineteen

Does the End Justifythe Means?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the utilitarian principle of ethics.

� the difference between qualitative and quantita-tive evaluations of utility.

� how problems of prediction and measurementraise difficulties for utilitarianism.

� utilitarian theories that allow several kinds ofintrinsic goods.

� whether nature has an intrinsic dignity or val-ue.

� whether the effects of our actions on non-humans should count in ethics.

OVERVIEW

On the island of Borneo in Malaysia preparationsare underway for building the huge Bakun dam. Thedam will produce immense economic benefits for theregion. It will provide electricity, control flooding,create jobs, and help bring industrialization to astruggling third world nation. But the dam will alsoimpose large costs on many people. Thirty villageswill be uprooted, 10,000 people will have to move,70,000 acres of rainforest will disappear, countlessnatural habitats will be destroyed, and immense eco-logical damages will be inflicted on the area. The cul-ture and way of life of many indigenous people willbe destroyed. Should the dam be built? How shouldsuch decisions be made?

Utilitarian philosophers, such as Peter Singer,argue that the moral or ethical way to resolve suchissues is by carefully weighing the good and bad con-sequences of the action—its “utility”—and choosingthe option that is most likely to produce the greatestbalance of good over bad. The benefits the dam willproduce for present and future generations must bemeasured and balanced against the costs that thedam will impose on present and future generations.The utilitarian principle holds that the moral courseof action is the one that will produce the greatest netbenefits or the fewest net costs for everyone affected.


Utilitarianism was pioneered by the eighteenthcentury British lawyer and philosopher JeremyBentham. Like other Enlightenment philosophers,Bentham maintained that humanity should rely onits own reasoning powers and not on the dogmaticauthorities of the past. If we examine the matter rea-sonably, he held, it is clear that pleasure is the ulti-mate good that people pursue and pain is theultimate evil. In everything people do, he argued,they are either pursuing pleasure or avoiding pain.Consequently, when making moral decisions peopleshould attend only to what they are ultimately pur-suing in their actions: maximizing their pleasure andminimizing their pain. People should always, inshort, choose whatever course of action will producethe greatest balance of pleasure over pain.Bentham’s position is sometimes said to be a form ofhedonism; the view that pleasure is the ultimate aimof life. Bentham, in fact, developed an elaboratemethod or calculus for estimating the quantity ofone pleasure as compared to that of another. A socialreformer, Bentham championed democracy, wom-en’s right to vote, and humane punishment sincethese policies, he felt, were most likely to producethe greatest good for the greatest number.

John Stuart Mill was introduced to the views ofBentham by his father, James Mill. James forced hisson John to study Greek at the age of three and tolearn Latin when he was eight. At the age of 20, notsurprisingly, John Mill suffered a mental break-down. After he recovered, however, Mill went on tobecome one of the period’s most respected moral phi-losophers. Mill agreed with most of Bentham’s utili-tarian claims, but argued that there are qualitativedifferences among pleasures and pains. Some plea-sures are qualitatively better than others—and socount for more—and these qualitative differenceshave to be taken into account when making moraldecisions. The pleasures of the intellect, for example,are “higher” than the pleasures of the senses. Millexpressed this idea in a colorful statement: “It is bet-ter to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satis-fied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a foolsatisfied.” Mill claimed that we should alwayschoose the course of action that will produce thegreatest balance of pleasure over pain, taking intoconsideration both the quantity and the quality ofpleasures and pains involved.

Utilitarianism may look simple. But trying topredict and measure the long-term consequences ofour decisions and actions is very complex and diffi-cult. Is it really possible, for example, to predict allthe significant long-term consequences of building adam in Malaysia? And even if we could accurately

predict what will happen, how do we measure thevalue of a rainforest or a culture? Perhaps the mosttroubling difficulty utilitarianism raises is what issometimes called the problem of interpersonal com-parisons: How do we compare the amount of plea-sure or value that one person derives from, say,living in a forest, with the amount of pleasure or val-ue that another person will derive from, say, livingin an industrialized city? How do we determine theextent to which one person’s pleasure or pain is larg-er or smaller than another person’s? The Canadianphilosopher Charles Taylor claims that it is impossi-ble for utilitarianism to measure and compare thevalue of living in one culture with the value of livingin another culture.

Early in the twentieth century the British phi-losopher G. E. Moore developed a new version ofutilitarianism. According to Moore, pleasure andpain are not the only things that are intrinsicallygood. Other goods such as knowledge, beauty andlife, he claimed, also have intrinsic value. Throughthe Bloomsbury group—a group of British intellectu-als with whom G. E. Moore regularly exchanged hisideas—Moore’s views became well known. Al-though Moore did not discuss the issue, he may havebeen sympathetic to the idea that natural habitats orecological systems such as the rainforests of Borneohave an intrinsic value that it is wrong to destroy.

Some contemporary philosophers such as theNorwegian environmental philosopher Arne Naess,have claimed that nature actually has a dignity or in-trinsic value that cannot be measured in the waythat utilitarianism requires. The value of the rainfor-est that the Bakun dam would destroy, for example,cannot be measured, and it is wrong to destroy it be-cause its dignity gives it a certain inviolability.

Utilitarian philosophers such as JonathanGlover, however, contend that all that matters inethics is how humans will be affected by a decision.The rainforest in itself does not have any intrinsicvalue and so it does not matter what we do to it, ex-cept to the extent that our actions will produce ben-efits or harms for human beings. However, otherutilitarians such as Peter Singer claim that the ef-fects of our actions on sentient creatures other thanhumans also matter. As a utilitarian, Singer believesthat pleasure and pain are the only values that ethicsmust consider, and since nonhuman animals also ex-perience pleasure and pain, their pleasures andpains are as relevant to ethics as those of humans.While skeptical of the intrinsic value of nature, Sing-er maintains that in making a decision we must takeinto account the benefits and harms that our actionswill produce on animals as well as humans. If we

Lesson Nineteen: Does the End Justify the Means? 113

think that the benefits or harms that we inflict onmembers of other species do not matter, we display amoral narrowness that is similar to that of the racistwho thinks that the benefits or harms we inflict onmembers of other races do not matter.

Perhaps in the end utilitarianism cannot pro-vide a clear answer as to whether the building of theBakun dam is morally justified. Nevertheless, utili-tarianism helps us to clarify the issues involved inmaking this moral decision, and it points to whereefforts need to be focused for collecting morally rele-vant information. As the philosopher Ross Harrisonpoints out, utilitarianism at least faces up to the dif-ficulties involved in making a moral decision, some-thing that other moral theories often fail to do.

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, Section 7.3, “Do Conse-quences Make an Action Right?” Velasquezdiscusses utilitarianism in detail, relating it toegoism, and discusses the views of Bentham andMill. Velasquez also discusses the implicationsof utilitarianism for the issue of sexual morality.

� See Section 7.10 where Velasquez includesthree provocative readings related to utilitarian-ism. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Om-elas,” science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guinprovides a fascinating description of an imagi-nary utilitarian world; in “Famine, Affluence,and Morality,” utilitarian philosopher PeterSinger discusses what utilitarianism impliesabout our duty to alleviate hunger in impover-ished nations; and in “All Animals are Equal,”Singer discusses what utilitarianism impliesabout our treatment of animals.

KEY TERMS

Consequences: In utilitarianism, the good or bad re-sults produced by an action.

Consequentialism: In ethics, the view that morali-ty of an action depends entirely on its consequencesand not simply on the kind of action it is; the viewthat no actions are intrinsically immoral.

Enlightenment: The eighteenth century philosoph-ical movement marked by rejection of traditional so-cial, religious, and political authority, and anemphasis on using one’s own reason.

Hedonic calculus: The methods developed by Jere-my Bentham to measure the quantity of variouspleasures and pain according to, for example, theirintensity, duration, and certainty.

Hedonism: The doctrine that pleasure is the prima-ry good that life has to offer.

Interpersonal comparisons: The attempt to deter-mine the extent to which the pleasure or pain felt byone person is greater or less than the pleasure orpain felt by another person.

Principle of utility: The view that actions are mor-ally right to the extent that they produce utility orbeneficial consequences, and morally wrong to theextent that they impose costs or disutility, the mor-ally right action being the one that produces thegreatest net utility in comparison to the utility pro-duced by all other possible courses of action.

Qualitative distinctions amongst pleasures: Inclassical utilitarianism, any differences among plea-sures that make one pleasure count for more or lessthan another but which is not a mere difference ofquantity.

Utility: In classical utilitarianism, the quantity ofpleasure or satisfaction produced by an action, fromwhich the quantity of pain or dissatisfaction can besubtracted.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Utilitarianism was a product of the philosophyof which era?

a. ancient Greece

b. the Enlightenment

c. the Industrial Revolution

d. twentieth century Global Capitalism


2. Which two forces govern the actions of humansaccording to Bentham?a. good and evilb. right and wrongc. pain and pleasured. crime and punishment

3. Bentham and his follower, John Stuart Mill,championed social reforms such as women’sright to vote and humane punishment becausea. they benefitted the rights of individualsb. they were likely to produce the greatest good

for the greatest numberc. they produced good resultsd. they increased the level of pleasure in society

4. John Stuart Mill added a new dimension to theutilitarian movement bya. asserting that there are qualitative differenc-

es among pleasures and painsb. his belief in the greatest happiness for the

greatest number of peoplec. measuring the quantitative differences among

pleasures and painsd. judging actions by their consequences only

5. Which utilitarian philosopher had himself pre-served as an “auto-icon”?a. John Stuart Millb. Jim Millc. G. E. Moored. Jeremy Bentham

6. Consequentialism holds thata. no actions are intrinsically immoralb. some actions are always immoralc. pleasure and pain determine an action’s valued. the net costs of an action determine its value

7. The theory of ideal utilitarianism was proposedbya. James Millb. Peter Singerc. G. E. Moored. Jonathan Glover

8. Sentient creatures, natural habitats, and goodssuch as art and love, according to G. E. Moore,havea. qualitative valueb. moral valuec. intrinsic valued. qualitative value

9. Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess has arguedthata. the value of the environment can be ex-

pressed quantitativelyb. certain natural habitats are living entities

and as such can claim equal moral status tothat of human beings

c. the sacrifice of natural habitats is justifiableif it promotes social justice

d. it is impossible to measure and compare thevalues of different cultures

10. According to philosopher Jonathan Glover,a. natural habitats have intrinsic valueb. it is impossible to make precise interpersonal

comparisonsc. the attempts to calculate the costs of large

scale projects such as the Bakun dam are a“formula for catastrophe.”

d. in ethics, all that matters is how humans areaffected by decisions.

11. Utilitarianism, according to Peter Singer,should consider onlya. pleasure and painb. intrinsic valuesc. the greatest benefit for the greatest numberd. net costs

True or False


12. Egoism is the view that holds that only pleasureis worth having for its own sake.

13. Some ethicists think that the most serious weak-ness of ethical egoism is that it undermines themoral point of view.

14. John Stuart Mill developed a hedonistic calculusthat determines how much pleasure an actionproduces based only on quantitative criteria.

15. Rule utilitarianism holds that as a rule in eachparticular act we should strive to produce thegreatest happiness for the most people.

Lesson Nineteen: Does the End Justify the Means? 115

16. The members of the Ramsey Colloquium use actutilitarianism to argue that moral rules tolerantof homosexuality, adultery, and divorce haveharmful effects on society and so should not befollowed.


Sentient things are those sorts of things that appearto experience pain and pleasure. What classes ofthings would you put in the category of sentient be-ings? Do you think that an event, for example, canexperience pleasure or pain? How about plants? Bac-teria? Insects? Reptiles? Dogs? Chimps? Whales? Allhumans?

�

Suppose that you always seem to be more sensitiveto temperature than I am, and you cry over sad mov-ies while I remain unmoved. According to utilitari-anism, does it follow that your pain and pleasuremust be more intense than mine and hence yourcomfort and discomfort should count for more thanmine?

�

It is the twenty-second century and you see an ad-vertisement: “The new Hedono-drome is now avail-able guaranteeing the perfect life. Step in, lie down,turn it on, and you can live and feel any fantasy orsensation you want in all of its vivid, virtual reality.If you are wealthy enough, you can spend the rest ofyour life living your ideal virtual life, which willseem as real to you as your actual life, except that weunconditionally guarantee that it will be much morepleasant. In your virtual life you win every contest,if that’s what you want, and have every pleasure youdesire. If you should die while on an extended He-dono-drome stay, (a minimum of two years is re-quired) we will see that you are buried according toyour requests. Welcome to Hedono-drome Inc.”Would you take up the offer? Would other people?Why or why not? What does your decision and/ortheirs imply about the utilitarian view that pleasureand pain are the only things that matter?

�

Think about those times that you have been startledby someone who, for example, jumps out from be-hind a door to scare you. Ask yourself: at the exactmoment of your scream were you afraid? Wasn’tthere a slight delay between the moment that yourbody responded with a jump and a scream, and themoment that your mind reacted with the feeling offear? If so, then the discomfort, the pain of fear,doesn’t set in until after the initial scare and thus re-quires some understanding of what is taking place.But if painful feelings like fear require the ability tounderstand what is happening, then is it possiblethat most animals do not actually feel pain in theway that we experience pain, even when they dis-play behavior that we humans associate with pain?If so, what does this imply for utilitarianism and theenvironment?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Take a day out of your life, and try for the whole dayto base every decision you make on the utilitarianprinciple. What does your experiment tell you aboututilitarianism?

�

Survey your family and friends asking what they be-lieve to be the greatest pleasure in life or the worstpain. Is there a pattern to the responses you get?Why does each person make the judgment he or shemakes? Do you find any patterns reflecting age, gen-der, ethnicity, or culture? If there are differences,how do different people react to each other’s claims?

�

Do you agree with John Stuart Mill that there aredifferences in the quality of pleasures? If not, thenwould you agree there is no difference between thesatisfaction or pleasure you will experience uponsuccessfully completing your education and receiv-ing your diploma than that experienced by some ad-olescent boys over a practical joke? If you do agreewith Mill, then can the case be made that opera, giv-en its complexity and appeal on multiple levels isgenerally better than other varieties of popular mu-sic such as heavy metal, rap, punk, soft-rock, or newage?


NET LINKS

Check out these Internet websites for additional rel-evant philosophical information. Remember the In-ternet is a web. Each of these listed sites is linked toother sites. By surfing you will soon be linked to aseemingly vast resource.

Links to the main texts mentioned in this epi-sode:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/books.html

Environmental Philosophy:

— http://www.erraticimpact.com/~ecologic/

— http://www.cep.unt.edu

—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_ethics

Ethics:

— http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/links/

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/

Moral Musings:



Utilitarianism:

— http://www.hedweb.com/hedabuti.html

— http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/deci-sion/calculating.html

— http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/moral_philosophy/utilitarianism.html

— http://www.bltc.net/ethics/utility.htm

Jeremy Bentham:

— http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biogra-phies/Philosophy/Bentham.htm

— http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Bentham.htm

John Stuart Mill:

— http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/utilitarianism.html

James Rachels:


Stephen Toulmin:



117

Lesson Twenty

Can Rules Define Morality?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� autonomous and non-autonomous ethics.

� maxim, universal law, and the categorical im-perative.

� at least two versions of the categorical impera-tive.

� applying the categorical imperative.

� when duties conflict.

OVERVIEW

You are standing in line patiently waiting your turnto buy a ticket. Everyone around you is excited andtalking about the show. The couple in front of youworries that tickets will be sold out before they get tothe box office. Glancing at the long line ahead, you,too, start to fret over getting a ticket when you sud-denly notice a half dozen, surly male bullies cut intoline just ahead of you. No one says a thing to thesebullies as they flash threatening glances and chal-lenging sneers. Whispers of resentment flowthrough the line. “Someone should do something!”

you say silently to yourself. You want to say some-thing to them but you feel cowardly. You don’t evencare about a ticket anymore. You just want thesebullies to know how rude, how arrogant, how selfishthey are. The line starts moving along and everyonefinally gets a ticket, but you and others still feel re-sentment. As the bullies walk down the aisle to taketheir seats, you see people glancing at them, whisper-ing and shaking their heads.

In this little story, you could expect one of thebullies to finally respond, “Hey, what’s the big deal?You got in, didn’t you?” The “big deal” is not simplyin getting to see the show, but in how you weretreated. In the case of line cutting, the line cuttergives priority to himself or herself over the otherswaiting in line. Lines are an attempt to reflect equal-ity among people. One takes one’s place and waitslike everyone else. But a line cutter says, “No! I gofirst.” Hence, when we are not treated as an equal,or with respect, we tend to feel resentment, anger.According to Immanuel Kant, it is through recogni-tion of the dignity of a person as an equal, rationalbeing worthy of respect, that we find the source ofmorality.

If line cutters were concerned about the moralworth of their actions, then Kant would have themask if the maxim—that is, the principle or rule bywhich they are guiding their act—could be made auniversal law. That is, could everyone act on theprinciple or rule they are acting on? As a universallaw, the act would reflect the equal status that all ra-tional beings share. Take, for example, the maxim ofthe line-cutters. Suppose the maxim of their action is


“Everyone should simply cut in line when they wantto see a show.” Now let us try to elevate this maximto the status of a universal law by imagining whatwould happen if everyone followed the maxim. Wequickly discover that it is inconceivable. If everyonebecame a line cutter, then lines would not be formed,would not even exist. When it is impossible to makeyour maxim a universal law, then you know it is anaction that not all rational beings could perform andso it is morally wrong, according to Kant. As a moralagent, you should not perform such an act.

To determine, in part, the moral worth of one’sactions, Kant provides a test of the categorical imper-ative. “Act only on that maxim that you can will tobe a universal law.” The bullies that cut in line failedthe first test of the categorical imperative; it is incon-ceivable that their actions would be considered auniversal law. For Kant, deceitful or false promisesalso fail the test. Thus, if one makes a promise withno intention of keeping it, the wrongfulness of suchan act becomes apparent when one tries to makesuch a maxim a universal law. It undermines thevery practice of promising. No one would makepromises knowing they will not be kept. Since themaxims of deceitful or false promises cannot be con-sidered universal laws, they are morally wrong.

According to Kant, rational beings have a ca-pacity to act autonomously, and are self-directed.Animals are not autonomous, and are said to be oth-er-directed in that animal behavior is determinedsolely by the forces of nature. The instinct or desirethat is strongest is the one that will move the animal,be it a trained domestic pet or a wild, cunning pred-ator. Rational beings, in contrast, are not simplymoved by their strongest desires. Because they havewills, they can act according to laws which theychoose.

For Kant, this capacity to act according to uni-versal laws we choose is the foundation of morality.In so acting, we treat other autonomous beings withthe respect their dignity demands; as ends and neversimply as means to our own personal ends. Both thechair I sit in and the computer I type on, while ofmuch value to me, are simply things used by me as ameans to the end. You and I, however, are persons,and persons should not be used as things but respect-ed as equal, autonomous beings.

Autonomous beings recognize this equality ofautonomy among themselves. Morality becomes away of reflecting their respect for this equality. Im-peratives or statements guide their behavior, andtypically include terms like “ought” or “should.”These imperatives are considered moral, according

to Kant, if they can be applied universally or categor-ically to all autonomous beings.

Since morality is concerned with autonomousbeings and their equal worth, Kant offers a secondversion of the categorical imperative. It does not fo-cus so much upon universal law, but rather on re-specting autonomous beings. In this secondformulation Kant states, “Act in such a way that youtreat humanity, whether in your own person or inthat of another, in every case as an end and never asa means.”

Consider the case of slavery. At one time in thehistory of the United States, slave owners used otherhuman beings to advance their economic interests.Much of the literature that attempted to justify sla-very claimed that the slave was not really a person—the autonomous being Kant described—but was in-stead a savage, a wild animal. As long as the slavewas not considered equal in worth or dignity to freemen, then slavery appeared acceptable. However, ifthe slave was recognized as an autonomous being,and skin pigment was no more significant than thepresence or absence of freckles, then major moralproblems arose.

Critics have charged Kant with not adequatelyaddressing the issue of conflicting duties. What hap-pens when two duties, both of which Kant recogniz-es, come into conflict. You have invited guests overfor dinner and promised to cook chicken tandoori.On the way to buy your groceries, you come across ahomeless family with very hungry children. Youonly have so much money and given your budgetyou cannot both help this family and fulfill yourpromise to cook this meal for your friends. Perhapseveryone could have some peanut butter and jelly,given your budget, but you did explicitly promisechicken tandoori for your friends. While this maynot constitute a morally momentous case, the prob-lem of conflicting duties can occur at more seriouslevels, as your own imagination makes clear to you.

Kant may have been overly optimistic in think-ing that conflicting duties are so rare that an ethicaltheory need not address them. His theory emphasiz-es the view that morality does not involve the bal-ancing of positive or negative consequences, butrather the possibility that all autonomous beingscould act in the same way. Thus, for Kant to pointout that all autonomous creatures would not chooseto act according to some maxim in a particular caseis irrelevant from the moral point of view. If everyautonomous creature could follow such an act, thenit would appear that a rule can be formulated. Hencerules or laws, for Kant, not only define morality, but

Lesson Twenty: Can Rules Define Morality? 119

they reflect our equal moral worth as autonomousbeings.

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 7.4,“Do Rules Define Morality?” In this section youwill find a more complete discussion of Kant’sethics with a much fuller exposition of hisviews on autonomy and the distinctions be-tween perfect and imperfect duties to ourselvesand others. There is also included a more com-plete discussion of the traditional criticisms ofpurported weaknesses in Kant’s theory.

KEY TERMS

Autonomy: Self-directed actions taken as a result ofan individual exercising both rationality and free-dom of choice.

Categorical imperative: Kant’s formula for deter-mining whether an action can apply universally orto all rational beings.

Consequences: The series of events or effects thatfollow as a result of some act or event.

Consistency: Statements or beliefs which do notcontradict one another.

Ethics: The philosophical study of morality.

Golden Rule ethics: A moral principle typically as-sociated with Christianity and attributed to Jesus inwhich a person is directed to do unto others has heor she would have them do unto him or her.

Imperative: A rule or directive for action. Anought or should statement.

Maxim: A reason or rule according to which some-one acts on a particular occasion.

Morality: For Kant a type of evaluation which re-flects respect among persons as opposed, for exam-ple, to prudence (self-interest) which is a type ofevaluation reflecting only the interests of an indi-vidual. More generically, morality is sometimes de-fined simply as value or as a culture’s, society’s, orindividual’s most important or fundamental values.

Persons as ends: According to Kant, the recogni-tion of persons as things that cannot be used simplyas a means to some other end.

Persons as means: According to Kant, the using ofpersons without their informed consent, and in sodoing, failing to show the respect which persons asends requires from the standpoint of morality.

Universal law: As used by Kant in his ethics, apart of the test of the categorical imperative inwhich a person tests an action by determining if itsapplication as a possible action for all rational be-ings—that is, being applied universally—is conceiv-able or desirable.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to Immanuel Kant, the source of mo-rality isa. divine commandsb. pleasurec. the laws of the stated. reason

2. The only thing that is good without qualifica-tion is, for Kant,a. a good willb. gifts of nature such as courage and resolutionc. talents of the mind such as wit and intelli-

genced. gifts of fortune, such as health and power

3. Within the Kantian moral system, a maxim isa. the highest goodb. laws enacted unjustlyc. the rule or reason by which a person actsd. the act with the best consequences


4. The categorical imperative asksa. “Is the maxim of my action the most benefi-

cial?”b. “Can the maxim of my action give the great-

est pleasure?”c. “Can the maxim of my action be consistent

with divine law?”d. “Can I will the maxim of my action to be a

universal law?”

5. For Kant, if an action can be made a universallaw thena. all autonomous beings will act according to itb. all autonomous beings could act according to

itc. all autonomous beings have already acted ac-

cording to itd. it is a part of science and not morality

6. Kant uses the following example to illustrate anapplication of the categorical imperativea. making a false promiseb. peeping in someone’s windowc. joining the militaryd. returning lost money

7. According to a second formulation of the cate-gorical imperative personsa. are only to be treated as ends, and never as

meansb. are to be treated as ends, and only as a means

if that is beneficial overallc. can be treated as a means as long as no cruel-

ty is involvedd. are to be treated only as a means and never as

an end

8. Kantian ethics is an attempt to describe a moral-ity thata. guarantees eternal salvationb. allows one to live a happy lifec. reflect the dignity of personsd. allow one to be envied for one’s good works

9. A traditional problem with the Kantian systemof morality isa. how to get people to do what is moralb. resolving apparent conflicts between compet-

ing dutiesc. teaching children how to act on such abstract

thinkingd. being able to prove that universal laws actu-

ally exist

True or False


10. Scriptural divine command theories hold thatwe should obey God’s commands as these areembodied in a set of sacred scriptures.

11. The natural law ethics of Thomas Aquinasclaims that we have a moral obligation to pursuethose goods toward which we are naturally in-clined.

12. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,Kant claims that ethics relies on a considerationof consequences.

13. Kant argues that every human being has a priceand the trick is to calculate the exact value ofeach person.

14. For Kant, to respect a person as an end is to re-spect her capacity to freely and knowinglychoose for herself what she will do.


Your friend has a learning disorder in addition tohaving a low I.Q. He wants to know what you’vebeen studying and you begin to tell him about Kant’sethics and the role of the categorical imperative inevaluating actions for their moral worth. While be-ing polite and listening attentively, even nodding, hedoes not understand a word of this abstract theoriz-ing. Can your friend act morally according to Kant?

�

You are a very busy person with many responsibili-ties. You have an assistant who you authorize tohelp you with all of your appointments. While yourassistant promises your favorite charity that indeedyou will attend their banquet, you are at the sametime promising not to miss your child’s baseballgame. Both events are scheduled at the same timebut on opposites sides of town. What should you doonce this conflict of promises is discovered? How

Lesson Twenty: Can Rules Define Morality? 121

would a Kantian resolve such a conflict? Is the cate-gorical imperative alone enough?

�Would Kant be willing to accept the principle of util-itarianism to resolve a conflict in duties? If not, whynot and do you agree?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

You are sitting in class ready to take an exam. Youstayed up late partying but knew you could cheat, ifnecessary, off the student next to you. You don’t reg-ularly cheat, and you are doing fairly well in answer-ing questions but you need to just check a fewanswers and so you cheat. How do you think a utili-tarian would judge your case? What would Kant tellyou? What do you honestly think is the correct an-swer from a moral point of view?

�Are you essentially a utilitarian or a Kantian? Askyour instructor if he or she is a utilitarian or a Kan-tian and why.

�Organize a panel discussion on your campus or inyour neighborhood on the topic, “What is Morali-ty?” Invite at least one faculty representative from avariety of academic departments including the phi-losophy department. Is there a pattern to the posi-tions taken? Is there variation in the articulatenessof the positions taken?

NET LINKS

Check out these Internet sites for additional relevantphilosophical information. Remember the Internet

is a web. Each of these listed sites is linked to othersites.








Philosophy Papers:



Journal of Philosophy:

— http://www.jstor.org/journals/0022362x.html

Ethics:

— http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/links

— http://ethics.acusd.edu

Immanuel Kant:




James Rachels:


Rudiger Safranski:

— http://www.granta.com/authors/1660

123

Lesson Twenty-one

Is Ethics Based on Virtue?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the distinction between ethical theories such asutilitarianism and kantianism versus virtue the-ories

� moral theories that are principle- or rule-basedas opposed to those that are character-based.

� eudaimonia and its relationship to virtue.

� Aristotle’s theory of virtues.

� the issue of relativity in regard to virtue theo-ries and the weaknesses of such theories in eval-uating or guiding actions.

OVERVIEW

If you are between 20 and 25 years of age, take to-day’s date and add 70 years to it. If you are between25 and 35, add 60 years to today’s date. If you are be-tween 35 and 45 add 50 years. Do you have an exactcalculation? Imagine as vividly as you can what you

might be doing at precisely this time but at that fu-ture date.

If you are fortunate to have had a long life,then at that particular time, your life as you’veknown it will be nearly over. There will come a mo-ment when you fully realize your death is imminent.There will now be no more meals, no more enter-tainment, no more getting up each day, no more col-ors, no tastes. The sound of the wind in the trees andthe warmth of the sun will never be heard nor feltagain by you. Your long life, seeming endless as achild, is at its conclusion. If, at this final moment,you look back over the wholeness of your life andwhisper, “Yes, it was indeed a good life,” then yourlife was one that some philosophers have describedas having eudaimonia.

Julia Annas suggests, “. . . the entry point forethical reflection [is] thinking about your life as awhole.” Martha Nussbaum talks of the “completelife,” and Bernard Williams “a worthwhile life.”This concern with the quality of life was the primaryfocus for the ancient Greek ethical theory. At thecore of their ethics was the concept of eudaimonia.While eudaimonia is sometimes translated as happi-ness, it does not mean a life dominated by pleasure,joy, or some other feeling or emotion, though theyare a part of it. Rather, eudaimonia is a quality of awhole, or completely worthwhile life.

Aristotle defined eudaimonia as, “that activityof the soul in accordance with virtue.” A life of vir-tue was the key to a happy life, to a life of eudaimo-nia for the ancient Greeks. Their ethical theory hasthus been characterized as one of virtue ethics. Un-


like the more modern ethical theories of utilitarian-ism and Kantianism, both of which focus ondiscovering some rule(s) or principle(s) to evaluatespecific actions, institutions, and practices, virtueethics focuses primarily on the character of the per-son. (See Episode 19, “Does the End Justify theMeans?” and Episode 20, “Can Rules Define Moral-ity?”) The goal, then is one of developing a virtuouscharacter. The virtues or vices, vice being a lack ofvirtue, largely define a person’s character. Most sig-nificantly, the virtues and vices are, to some degree,acquired. While they can be acquired in a variety ofways, once acquired, virtues allow a person to flour-ish in any area of life.

The ancient Greeks had one word for both vir-tue and excellence. Thus, virtues were regarded asexcellence of character. According to Aristotle’s the-ory of virtue, virtue is to be found in the “mean,” ormiddle, and so his theory of virtue came to be knownas the Theory of the Golden Mean. What Aristotlemeant was that the exercise of virtue regarding bothfeelings and actions falls between two extremes.Courage is the middle ground between cowardiceand foolhardiness or bravado. If you have too muchfear, then you act cowardly. On the other hand, ifyou have too little fear, you rush in foolishly. Thinkof the virtue of generosity. Too little, you are stingy.Too much, you are profligate. Generosity is thus themean between stinginess and profligacy.

Living a life according to virtue—that is, in ac-cordance with the mean—may have intuitive appeal,but difficulties arise when we attempt to apply thisdoctrine to the specifics of our daily lives. As Aristo-tle described, “. . . the mark of virtue [is] to act orfeel at the right time, on the right occasions, towardthe right person, with the right object and in theright fashion.” The successful application of virtuethus involves understanding and balancing a num-ber of variables, all of which are dependent on thesituation.

In virtue ethics there are no formal principlesor formulas to follow, as there are in utilitarianismor Kantianism. One cannot learn what one ought todo by studying a text, or understanding a principleor rule, and then applying it to a specific situation.Kantians and utilitarians focus on formal proce-dures; what Bernard Williams describes as proce-dures that allow a person to precisely evaluateactions and determine a course of action which ev-eryone similarly situated should follow. This ap-proach is foreign to virtue ethics.

Acting virtuously is learned not so muchthrough studying theories and finding formulas asthrough examples of people who act virtuously. Ac-

quiring virtue and acting virtuously is more likelearning a skill or craft than intellectually discover-ing some set of commandments or rules to follow.

An athlete or performer will practice conscien-tiously to perfect his or her activity but when the ac-tual game or performance occurs, there are no rigid,fixed rules to follow. For the athlete, on the day ofthe game it may be raining or colder than expected; acrucial teammate may be sick. You did have somegame plans but now what? The coach whispers, “Goin there and do your best!” For the performer, ahighly honored dignitary may arrived unannouncedfor the performance, lights may not be working, andsomeone may have ripped your costume but theshow must go on. You look to your director and heor she whispers, “Give it your all. Break a leg!” Youperform excellently because you’ve acquired thetraits or dispositions to rise to the level of excellencedemanded by your art or craft. Anyone who displayssuch excellence has phronesis, practical wisdom orintelligence, according Aristotle. To have phronesisis to have mastered a number of different virtues.

A further contrast between virtue ethics andthe principled views of utilitarianism or Kantianisminvolves the role of the emotions and feelings in eth-ical action. For Kant, to act in such a way that onefeels good about it, seems to dilute its moral worth.For utilitarians, an individual person’s feelings arenothing special from the moral point of view. Theprinciple of utility applies, in its social context, re-gardless of an individual’s feelings.

According to Aristotle, acting virtuously is es-sential to the happy life or the life of eudaimonia.The person who acts virtuously, who has mastered anumber of virtues, who has phronesis, feels goodabout his or her life. A unique sense of satisfaction isderived from the fulfillment of this rational activityof the soul. Having such a feeling demonstrates, forAristotle, the authenticity of the virtue.

And again, in contrast to ethical theories con-cerned with principles or rules, the traditional virtueapproach to ethics sees the human being as essential-ly a social animal. We are not isolated individualsmaking isolated, momentary choices. Joel Kupper-man describes these rule-governed views of decisionmaking as the “snapshot view of ethical choice.” Tovirtue theorists, an evaluation of character bringswith it a rich background or history. If there is a fail-ure or a success, it must be understood against a his-tory that includes a pattern of choices as well aspersonality or character.

For virtue ethics, problems arise when individ-uals or communities adopt competing virtues or setsof virtues. In such cases, a principle or rule beyond

Lesson Twenty-one: Is Ethics Based on Virtue? 125

the set of virtues appears to be required to resolvethe conflict. Related to this problem is Kant’s criti-cism that virtues such as honesty, courage, temper-ance, patience, and perseverance can all be usedinappropriately, for goals that are apparently immor-al. Analogously, what does one tell a woman agoniz-ing over an abortion decision, or a family torn by anemotionally wrenching case of euthanasia? To ad-vise simply, “Be courageous!” “Be honest!” “Actjustly!” is not morally helpful since a person can beall of these things yet not know what he or sheshould do.

Perhaps virtue is essential to a life of eudaimo-nia and we should all attempt to acquire phronesis.And perhaps, as Martha Nussbaum remarks, “. . .there is no incompatibility between virtue ethics andan emphasis on a universal account that also has alarge room for principle.” Perhaps we should viewthese diverse moral theories like a variety of lenses,as Manuel Velasquez suggests, looking at a moral sit-uation from a number of theoretical vantage points.If so, “then we can ask questions about that moralsituation that are not brought out by the other moraltheories.”

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 7.5,“Is Ethics Based on Character?” In this sectionyou will find a discussion of the strengths andweaknesses of virtue-based ethics. There are ex-tended passages from Aristotle’s “Nichoma-chean Ethics” included. Following the sectionon Aristotle’s ethics is a presentation of the con-temporary discussion of possible distinctionsbetween male and female moral views. Whilethe work of Carol Gilligan is emphasized, thework of Lawrence Kohlberg is introduced toprovide a contrast.

KEY TERMS

Care Ethics: The point of view of giving value pri-ority to particular relationships in which one is bothcaring and cared for and; as opposed to focusingupon broad social issues of justice and rights.

Character: A global concept referring to the uniquecombination of needs, desires, emotions, feelings,

moods, beliefs, talents, and skills, which togethermake up who an individual’s uniqueness.

Decision procedure: A description of how a per-son should and does decide or choose according tosome clearly articulated rule(s) or principle(s).

Eudaimonia: Often translated as happiness, but itis not a synonym for joy, as is so often the case withhappiness in ordinary language. For the Greeks, eu-daimonia was an overall condition of life which in-cludes many of the emotions—like joy—but it is notsimply joy nor is it to be tied to a specific emotion orfeeling, like pleasure.

Kantianism: In this episode, refers to ImmanuelKant’s ethical theory, specifically Kant’s view thatthe categorical imperative is part of the test for themoral worth of an action. (See Episode 20: “CanRules Define Morality?”)

The mean (golden mean): An average. Thatwhich falls in the middle. For Aristotle, virtuous ac-tion always fell within the mean or middle betweentwo extremes.

Phronesis: Practical wisdom which, for Aristotle,comes after a number of virtues have been mas-tered.

Utilitarianism: The ethical theory which claimsthat actions are to be evaluated by how well theymaximize the overall consequences of non-moralgoodness or minimize the consequences of non-mor-al badness.

Virtue: For the ancient Greeks, virtue and excel-lence were the same word. For Aristotle, virtue wasfound in the mean between too much and too little.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Virtue ethics tends to focus ona. actionsb. institutionsc. ritualsd. character


2. In ancient Greek, virtue was synonymous witha. dutyb. excellencec. obligationd. natural right

3. A core concept to the ancient Greek ethical the-ory wasa. eudaimoniab. euphoriac. euthanasiad. europa

4. In ancient Greece, if you mastered a number ofvirtues, then you were said to possessa. powerb. knowledgec. phronesisd. pleasure

5. Virtue ethics, as opposed to utilitarianism orKantianism, does not attempt to provide aa. formula or decision procedure for evaluating

all actionsb. any consideration of what a person should doc. any method for attaining happinessd. any role for an individual’s history or emo-

tions

6. The modern ethical theories of utilitarianismand Kantianism attempt to provide primarily aa. formula or decision procedure for evaluating

all actionsb. some consideration for the person’s characterc. a method for individuals to attain happinessd. role for an individual’s history and/or emo-

tional sensitivity

7. According to Aristotle, virtue is to be found inthea. commands of the godsb. maxim which can be consistently applied to

all rational beingsc. mean between deficiency and excessd. the greatest good for the greatest number

8. Generosity has been described as that virtuewhich falls betweena. spitefulness and beneficenceb. impulsiveness and inexorablenessc. stinginess and profligacyd. cowardice and bravado

9. According to this episode, a strength of virtueethics over ethical theories such as Kantianismis

a. the inclusion of the emotions and personalhistory

b. the emphasis upon the significance of inten-tion

c. the conceptual distinction between actionsand behaviors

d. an emphasis upon the consequences of an ac-tion

10. According to this episode, a weakness of virtueethics may be found in the fact that

a. it’s an old, even ancient, theory for dealingwith life

b. it emphasized having an overall good life

c. conflicts between virtues or sets of virtuesheld by different people or communities can-not be resolved by appealing to a virtue

d. a society such as ours is not really concernedwith living virtuously, but rather in acquir-ing wealth so that a person can do whatevermakes him or her feel good

True or False


11. Contemporary philosopher Alasdair MacIntryreargues that modern ethics has forgotten moralvirtue.

12. Aristotle rejects the idea that a virtue is the abil-ity to be reasonable in our actions, desires, andemotions.

13. According to Aristotle, virtue is never easy andpleasant.

14. Carol Gilligan argues that men and women ap-proach ethics in exactly the same way.

15. For philosopher Nel Noddings, the “feminine”virtue of caring is more fundamental than the“masculine” focus on principles.

Lesson Twenty-one: Is Ethics Based on Virtue? 127


Can you think of a clear example of your happinessconflicting with morality? If you can come up with acase, what should you do? What would you do? Doesit make a difference if the conflict involves a signifi-cant contribution to your happiness versus a ratherminor breach of morality? What if it were morallyvery significant but of minor importance regardingyour happiness? Can you imagine or have you faceda variety of cases ranging along such a spectrum?

�What is temptation? Does every case of temptationinvolve a conflict between values? Can you be tempt-ed without having a free will or any sense of virtue?

�Immanuel Kant characterizes the virtues as gifts ofcharacter that have no inherent or unconditionalmoral worth. If ethics is the philosophical study ofmorality, but virtues have no inherent moral worth,how could one have virtue ethics?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

List the virtues you find most important and give abrief justification as to why you believe those are themost important. Do the virtues on your list relate toone another? For example, if you listed the virtues ofhonesty and kindness, we can all think of caseswhere honesty can be very unkind and kindness canlead to dishonesty. Thus how do or should such vir-tues relate to one another? How do those on your listrelate?

�What are the primary virtues of being a good stu-dent? A good son or daughter? A good teacher? Agood parent? Rank your list of virtues in terms ofeach virtue’s importance and describe their relation-ships to each other.

�What is your strongest virtue? Your strongest vice?How about your weakest virtue and your weakestvice? Why do these virtues and vices have thesestrengths and weaknesses in your character? Make a

similar list for your family and friends. Are therecorrelations?

�

Would you describe your life as one possessing eu-daimonia? If you think you’ll be happy once you ac-quire some thing, like a car, a degree, a job, a house,a group of friends, do you think you have a mistakenunderstanding of genuine happiness?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



The Philosopher:

— http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/cite/staff/philosopher

Ethics Update:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu

Greek Philosophy:

— http://graduate.gradsch.uga.edu/archive/Greek.html




Moral Musings:



Aristotle:


Socrates:


Julia Annas:


Gilbert Harman:


Martha Nussbaum:

— http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum

James Rachels:


Nicholas Smith:

— http://www.mq.edu.au/~phildept/staff/nismith/

Stephen Toulmin:



Bernard Williams:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/

129

Lesson Twenty-two

Moral Dilemmas . . .Can Ethics Help?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� what a moral dilemma is.

� Kantian considerations for resolving a moral di-lemma.

� utilitarian considerations for resolving a moraldilemma.

� virtue ethics considerations for resolving a mor-al dilemma.

� decidability and the resolution of moral dilem-mas.

OVERVIEW

Moral dilemmas mark the gray areas of our under-standing. They are cases where clear decisions seemimpossible. Often such dilemmas are surrounded byblack and white cases. Consider the simple case of

being bald, a condition which seems to be withoutdilemma. But baldness may, if there is an event inwhich bald people get in for free, present a dilemmafor those who have to decide who is bald and whoisn’t. In dealing with our practical lives, sometimesthe most fundamental values by which we guide ourlives give rise to moral dilemmas.

Suppose you are a young lady, 21 years old,about to graduate from an excellent university a yearahead of schedule. You are celebrating your gradua-tion along with your acceptance to your first-choicemedical school. A young man, two years older thanyou and in graduate school where you are, has beenyour boyfriend for almost two years. He’s smart,seems to have fallen in love with you, has a greatfamily, and your family seems to love him. Youknow now that with your moving away to go to med-ical school, he’s going to ask you to marry him or atleast to become engaged. When you first met you re-ally liked him. But in your heart, you feel you justdon’t love him enough for such a step. “You’re justbeing silly,” your mother tells you. “You have somesort of unrealistic, Hollywood sense of romanticlove. Life is about compromise. You’ll never meetanyone who will love you more,” she warns. Youhave a dilemma. In this case, some philosopherswould debate whether or not this is a moral dilemmaas opposed to a problem of self-interest. After all, it is


about your happiness; the worth of your life. How-ever, consider the following additional twist of fate.

While you are struggling with these issues, youdiscover that you are pregnant. You’ve conscien-tiously practiced birth control, but it’s never 100 per-cent. Your family has very conservative religiousviews about abortion and that is how you wereraised, though you no longer actively practice theirreligion. The news of your pregnancy, you realize,would make your boyfriend ecstatic. Your familywould heartily support you in postponing medicalschool a couple of years, and even then help you andyour “husband” raise your baby. However, youdon’t want to have a baby now, not at this time inyour life. You have so many plans, so many dreams,so many expectations. Now do you have a moral di-lemma?

If you don’t think this case presents a dilemma,let alone a moral dilemma, then use your imagina-tion to find an area that does qualify. What if theyoung lady or the fetus has a heart or kidney condi-tion, and carrying the pregnancy to term will nega-tively impact her entire life or the baby’s life? Adjustthe severity of the negative impact until you find thedilemma.

In this episode of The Examined Life, the moraldilemma faced arises out of the very sensitive issueof keeping premature infants alive. If a fetus makesit to approximately the 26th week, then it has a 50/50 chance of survival. If it survives, it has an 85 per-cent chance of leading a normal life, a 6 to 7 percentchance of a slight, but “manageable,” handicap, anda 6 to 8 percent chance of a more severe handicap.The largest percentage of the cases seem to presentno difficulty. Our moral system, whatever ethicaltheory you accept, directs us to save lives. However,when a handicap is involved, other issues urgentlypresent themselves. As is often the case with moraldilemmas, they seem, fortunately, to constitute asmall percentage of the total number of cases.

In this episode, one of the premature twins notonly has significantly underdeveloped lungs, raisingthe issue of an adequate oxygen supply to a develop-ing brain, but has also had brain hemorrhaging. Howwould a Kantian, a utilitarian and a person who es-pouses virtue-based ethics deal with this case? Dothey come to differing or similar conclusions or dothey each make a different but compatible contribu-tion?

If one examines such a case according to theethical theory advanced by Immanuel Kant, then is-sues regarding dignity and respect for the infant im-mediately arise. If a life threatening medical casewere to arise concerning an adult, then for the Kan-

tian, the decision must remain with the adult who iscapable of making an informed choice. As an auton-omous being, the adult must be respected as an endin him or herself. However, the case of a child is dif-ferent since a child is not autonomous and thus can-not choose.

For the child, one must evaluate the prospectsof the child developing into an autonomous being.Would the child have the possibility of living a lifeautonomously, with dignity and respect? If so, Kantwould direct parents and medical personnel con-cerned with the child’s welfare to choose as if theirown lives were involved. Could the type of actionyou are contemplating become a universal law, asKant directed in the first formulation of the categor-ical imperative? If the child will live a short, painfulexistence severally retarded and only occasionallyconscious, keeping it alive may not be right for aKantian.

For a utilitarian, one acts so as to maximizeoverall utility for the greatest number of people.Hence, the principle of utility may arrive at a com-pletely different conclusion since now one must alsoconsider the consequences of the action on a largenumber of people. Contrary to Kant’s view, a utili-tarian primarily focuses on the consequences of anaction. If one understands utility as pleasure, then atfirst glance at least, a life of some pleasure appears tooutweigh no life at all, with dignity not being a cen-tral issue.

However, a serious application of the principleof utility requires many variables to be included inthe calculation of the greatest good for the greatestnumber. It is not the child’s potential good alone thatcounts. Once must consider the family of the child,the medical practitioners involved in the case, themedical support system, the community, even soci-ety as a whole, if indeed there are potential societalconsequences. So, while the child may not have a lifeof dignity that is free of pain, the child’s conditionmay galvanize society to commit resources for re-search. Now thousands of other infants will benefit.In this case, it is not obvious that despite the child’ssuffering, and the family’s suffering, the child shouldbe kept alive for these greater social purposes. Whilesuch an outcome might prove consistent with theprinciple of utility, it seems to violate Kant’s secondformulation of the categorical imperative to treatothers only as an end and never as a means. Utilitar-ians and Kantians seem to face a moral dilemma.

In virtue ethics, the primary consideration ishow this decision will affect the rest of one’s life orthe wholeness of one’s life; one’s character. Similarto the Kantian concern for the quality of the life that

Lesson Twenty-two: Moral Dilemmas . . .Can Ethics Help? 131

will develop, the virtue-based approach avoids theuse of a specific principle or formula, as Kant offeredwith his categorical imperative. Since virtues are ac-quired partly through how we act, and then by act-ing a certain way we exercise and reinforce certainvirtues, it becomes essential to these sorts of casesthat we ask ourselves what sorts of virtues or vicesthis case would require in our decision making. Weshould not decide such cases in ways that foster im-moral action by the family or medical staff. Rather,decisions should reflect virtuous actions.

Additionally, some philosophers claim that avirtue-based approach more readily recognizes theinherent conflict among the competing goods in ourlives. As an approach, it is more willing to live witha degree of uncertainty, that there may be no formu-la whereby all rational beings come to an agreement.Instead, there is recognition that good argumentscan be given supporting conflicting moral claims.

Moral dilemmas may be an essential feature ofour lives. They may actually be an essential featureof our larger practical lives. A wise doctor knowsthat there are no cut and dried recipes for dealingwith diseases and illnesses, as do engineers when de-signing space vehicles and teachers when transfer-ring knowledge. Thus dilemmas are not just peculiarto morality. They are found in all areas of our prac-tical life. As such, they force us to reflect, to clarifyour understanding as we pursue wisdom in livingour daily lives and becoming the characters wechoose to be.

TEXT LINKS

� Turn to Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text withReadings, tenth edition, and read Section 7.6,“Can Ethics Resolve Moral Quandaries?” Thissection will provide you with a deeper under-standing of the presence and significance ofmoral dilemmas in ethical theorizing. Importantis the clarification of the notion that dilemmasdo not render moral choices arbitrary. To fur-ther illustrate the role of dilemma and the sig-nificance of informed, reflective evaluation, thissection includes an extended overview of someof the most important philosophical issuesraised in the abortion debate and the debate re-garding euthanasia. Given the conceptual re-finement fostered by these debates, ask yourself

if the issues of abortion and euthanasia will gothe way of history in the twenty-first century,the way the issue of slavery and women’s suf-frage went in the twentieth century. In short,those are no longer significant moral debates asthey have been solved.

KEY TERMS

Autonomous being: According to Immanuel Kant,a self-directed, rational being.

Consequentialism: A type of ethical theory thatevaluates moral worth according to the nature of theconsequences, which result from some action, poli-cy, or practice.

Dilemma: A perplexity that seemingly confoundsthe understanding. Cases that do not seem to beclearly covered by available concepts or theories.

Ethics: The philosophical study of morality.

Kantianism: In this episode, refers to ImmanuelKant’s ethical theory, which applies the categoricalimperative as the moral test of action.

Moral dilemma: See definition of dilemma below.

Utilitarianism: Ethical theory which defines right-ness as the maximization of non-moral good.

Virtue ethics: A non-formula-based ethical theory,which emphasizes character traits as excellences.For the ancient Greeks, it was through a life of vir-tue that eudaimonia (happiness) was possible.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The moral dilemma discussed in this case con-cerns savinga. starving childrenb. premature infantsc. innocent victims in ward. dolphins from slaughter


2. According to the doctor in this episode, if an in-fant makes it to twenty-six weeks and is thenborn prematurelya. there is an extended medical discussion

about saving the infantb. the parents are immediately consulted as to

how the medical response should proceed re-garding saving the life of the infant

c. the parents and medical staff consult exten-sively about saving the infant

d. they are always treated

3. To take a Kantian moral point of view in thissort of situation would be to place first priorityona. the dignity of and respect for the infantb. the best overall consequences of any course

of actionc. the character and whole life of the infant and

those involved with itd. what seems the most natural course

4. To take a utilitarian moral point of view in thissort of situation would be to place first priorityona. the dignity of and respect for the infantb. the best overall consequences of any course



5. To take a virtues-based moral point of view inthis sort of situation would be to place first pri-ority ona. the dignity of and respect for the infantb. the best overall consequences of any course



6. Which of the following is Kant’s categorical im-perative?a. act so as to maximize the good for the great-

est numberb. act so as to maximize the good for yourselfc. act so that the maxim of your action could be

a universal law of natured. act so that the maxim of your action exempli-

fies a virtue

7. Kant seemed to believe that good will and goodintentions would automatically lead toa. the greatest good for the greatest numberb. morally good actionsc. wealth and prosperityd. happiness

8. Both Kantian and utilitarian ethical theorieshave been described asa. principle or rule-based theoriesb. virtue-based theoriesc. divinely-based theoriesd. overly concerned with character and emotion

9. Virtue ethics are sometimes contrasted to Kan-tian or utilitarian ethical theories in that theydo nota. tell the individual what he or she ought to dob. do rely upon a fixed set of rules or principlesc. do concern themselves with individuals but

first with institutionsd. deal with issues of happiness

10. Of the three ethical theories studied here, whichone offers a clear-cut answer to the moral dilem-mas faced in this episode?a. Kantian theoriesb. utilitarian theoriesc. virtue theoriesd. all offer critical considerations, but none of-

fer an irrefutable answer.

True or False


11. The imperfect state of ethical theories demon-strates the importance of rejecting them.

12. Richard Hare adopts a utilitarian approach toethics to prove that abortion is always morallyright.

13. Jane English shows that abortion is alwayswrong by using a Kantian approach to ethics.

14. The natural law position on euthanasia arguesthat life is a fundamental good that should notbe destroyed.

Lesson Twenty-two: Moral Dilemmas . . .Can Ethics Help? 133

15. James Rachels uses both a utilitarian and a Kan-tian approach to ethics to show that active eu-thanasia is sometimes morally acceptable.


You are the doctor heading up the medical team deal-ing with the troubled infant in this episode. Whatwould you do? Do you agree with the doctor that ev-ery infant at 26 weeks should be saved? What if thebaby was born retarded? What role would you allowthe parents to play? Should you first approach theparents and ask them what role they wish you andyour staff to play?

�

Still using the same case, consider the following sce-nario. The medical staff follows the virtues of con-scientiousness, perseverance, and effectiveness. Theparents follow sympathy and generosity, particular-ly concerning their other children. These virtues arein conflict in this case. How do you resolve such aconflict?

�

What is the most perplexing dilemma you can imag-ine? How would each of the three theories presentedhere resolve your problem? Which do you think isthe most reasonable?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Ask your family and friends what their most diffi-cult moral dilemma is, then discuss possible solu-tions. Do they tend to follow one of the threetheoretical approaches discussed in this episode? Doyou find that males differ in their responses from fe-males?

�

What moral dilemmas appear in today’s newspaper?Are they genuine dilemmas or only apparent quan-daries? How does the article tend to treat it? Checkthe editorial page and see what dilemmas are thereand how the different writers treat them. Which eth-ical theories tend to dominate? Do male writers deal

with moral issues in ways that are different from fe-male writers?

�

Which of the three theories discussed do you thinkprovides the most tangible, specific support for deci-sions? Do such decisions seem consistently moral?

�

What is, has been, or could be your most difficultpersonal moral dilemma? How would you attempt toresolve it? Which sort of ethical theory do you tendto intuitively adopt?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



The Philosopher:


Ethics Update:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu


Greek Philosophy:

— http://graduate.gradsch.uga.edu/archive/Greek.html



Moral Musings:



Utilitarianism:

— http://www.hedweb.com/hedabuti.html

— http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/practicing/deci-sion/calculating.html

— http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/moral_philosophy/utilitarianism.html

— http://www.bltc.net/ethics/utility.htm

Aristotle:


Jeremy Bentham:

— http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biogra-phies/Philosophy/Bentham.htm

— http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Bentham.htm

Immanuel Kant:




John Stuart Mill:

— http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/utilitarianism.html

Julia Annas:


Martha Nussbaum:

— http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum/

James Rachels:


Nicholas Smith:

— http://www.mq.edu.au/~phildept/staff/nismith/

Stephen Toulmin:



135

Lesson Twenty-three

What Justifies the State?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the social contract theory of the state.

� Hobbes’ argument for absolutism.

� Locke’s view of the state of nature and the pur-pose of government.

� Hume’s attack on social contract theory.

� Rawls’ new social contract theory of govern-ment.

� communitarian theories of government.

OVERVIEW

Government and its institutions—which we collec-tively refer to as “the state”—exercise an enormousamount of power over us. Government takes awayour money through taxes, it can declare wars onother nations and use the draft to force us to fight inthese wars, it can judge and imprison us, it can con-fiscate our property, force us to comply with its

laws, and in numerous other ways it can interferewith our lives. What justifies the power of the state?

Perhaps the most widely known attempt toshow that the state’s power is legitimate is providedby what is sometimes called the social contract theo-ry of the state. The social contract theory says thatthe state and its power are based on the consent ofthe people.

Social contract theory has a long history. Itwas discussed by Plato and Socrates, but it becameprominent in seventeenth century England duringthe English Civil War when the legitimacy of gov-ernment was hotly discussed. The seventeenth cen-tury British philosopher Thomas Hobbes arguedthat without government people live in a state of na-ture. In the state of nature people have none of theprotections and advantages that government pro-vides, and human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brut-ish and short.” To escape from this awful “war of allagainst all,” people came together in the past andformed a government whose purpose was to protectus from harm. In particular, government is sup-posed to protect us from each other, since withoutgovernment our greed would continually tempt usto use violence to steal from and attack each other.Hobbes felt that only an absolute government withunlimited power could succeed in keeping thepeace, so he argued that government has absolutepower over citizens. In the great debates that gaverise to the Civil War, Hobbes sided with those whosupported an absolute monarchy.

John Locke, an eighteenth century British phi-losopher, agreed with Hobbes’ view that the state is


the result of a compact that people make with eachother when they band together in a state of natureand agree to form a government. However, Lockefelt that people were not as aggressive in the state ofnature as Hobbes said. In the state of nature, Lockeargued, people have a natural moral sense that re-strains them. Nevertheless, Locke claimed, in “thestate of nature . . . the enjoyment of the property[man] has . . . is very unsafe, very insecure.” Gov-ernment is needed because in the state of natureeven morally good people would have disagreementsover their property and would need government toset the law, to arbitrate and interpret the law, and toenforce the law. Locke also disagreed with Hobbes’view that the power of government is absolute. Onthe contrary, Locke argues, the power of govern-ment is limited. Government has the power to dowhat it must to protect our “life, liberty, and estates,which I call by the general name ‘property’ ” but ithas no legitimate power beyond that. If a tyrannicalgovernment begins to exercise its power beyondthese limits, Locke argued, then it has broken theoriginal compact that brought it into existence, andthe people then have a right to rebel and overthrowthe government.

Locke’s version of social contract theory influ-enced the founders of the American Republic, par-ticularly Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declara-tion of Independence. However, critics of the socialcontract theory, such as the eighteenth century phi-losopher David Hume, have argued that the theoryis deeply flawed. In particular, he argued that gov-ernments are based on conquest and virtually nonehave been created by a contract. If we look back inour history, then, we will not find any evidence thatpeople ever gathered in some state of nature to formgovernment in the way that social contract theoryclaims. The social contract is a historical fiction.

Although the social contract tradition fell outof favor by the late eighteenth century, it was re-vived during the twentieth century in the work ofthe American philosopher John Rawls. In his majorwork, A Theory of Justice, Rawls agrees with Humethat the social contract is a historical fiction andthat governments were never actually formed in thisway. Nevertheless, he argues, social contract is auseful fiction because it shows us what govern-ments ought to be like. Rawls invites us to see thesocial contract theory as an imaginary thought ex-periment. Imagine, he suggests, that the people of asociety could all gather together to decide the rulesthey will live by in the future. Suppose, however,that none of them knows exactly what their situa-tion in this future society will be like. No one

knows, for example, whether they will be rich orpoor, male or female, black or white, talented or un-talented, young or old. In this original positionwhere a veil of ignorance prevents them from know-ing what they will be like in their future society,people will be forced to choose rules that are just toeveryone no matter what they turn out to be like.The rules they choose, for example, will require thatgovernment not favor the rich over the poor, normales over females, nor blacks over whites, since noone knows to which of these groups they will belongin the future.

The people in this original position behind theveil of ignorance, Rawls argues, will choose twoprinciples by which any government must abide:“The first requires equality in the assignment of ba-sic rights and duties, while the second holds that so-cial and economic inequalities, for example inequal-ities of wealth and authority, are just only if theyresult in compensating benefits for everyone, and inparticular for the least advantaged members of soci-ety.”

Critics of the social contract tradition, howev-er, have argued that it is not possible to know whatpeople in the original position might choose. In fact,some have argued, if the people in the original posi-tion know nothing about themselves, they will beincapable of knowing what kind of rules they wouldchoose to live by.

The most important critics of the social con-tract tradition in general and of Rawls in particularhave been a group of philosophers characterized ascommunitarians. Communitarians such as Aristotleand Hegel have held that humans are social animalsby nature, and that the state is a natural outgrowthof their social nature. Modern communitarians ar-gue that the social contract tradition wrongly seesthe state as a “necessary evil” needed to protect peo-ple from each others’ antisocial tendencies. GeorgHegel argued, however, that humans can developtheir abilities and potential only by living and grow-ing within a state and absorbing its cultural values.The social contract theory, particularly as Rawls hasdeveloped it, ignores the vital importance of thecommunity’s cultural values and traditions. Rawlstells us that people are to choose their rules withoutknowing what groups they belong to. This meansthey must set aside the cultural values and tradi-tions that they have absorbed. And it means thatgovernment must not support and nurture the val-ues and traditions of any particular group. Commu-nitarians argue that this is wrong. The state,through government, has a responsibility to nurtureand protect the cultural values and traditions of the

Lesson Twenty-three: What Justifies the State? 137

community. Without becoming immersed in the cul-tural values and traditions of their community, peo-ple could not develop their full humanity nor couldthey develop a full human character.

Modern communitarians like Michael Sandelclaim that “to be flourishing human beings with thefull range of capacities unfolded, requires that weengage in public life.” In particular, he claims, asthey mature, people must learn to rule themselvesand their community. They must, in short, partici-pate in the political life of their community. Only inthis way will the individual acquire the full range ofhuman abilities and capacities and thus be fully free.Both Aristotle and Hegel have made similar claims.Aristotle argues that a person who lives outside ofsociety would have to be “either a beast or a god.”Hegel claimed that “All the value a man has, all spir-itual reality, he has only through the State.” For theindividual to develop fully, therefore, he must livein a state that has a flourishing political and culturallife. It is for this reason that the state must supportthe cultural values and traditions of the community.

It is on this point—that government must pro-tect the cultural values of the members of the com-munity—that communitarianism conflicts mostdeeply with the kind of liberalism supported by thesocial contract tradition. Liberals like Rawls claimthat when individual rights conflict with communi-ty values, the rights of the individual take priorityover the values of the community. Communitariansargue that the values of the community and of cul-tural groups should sometimes, at least, take priorityover individual rights.

Critics claim that communitarianism raises ahost of difficult questions. Should the governmentsupport the individual’s right to free speech evenwhen her speech is destroying the traditional cultur-al values of the nation? When the cultural values ofone individual conflict with those of another indi-vidual, whose values should the government pro-tect? Should government stop individuals fromadopting lifestyles that the community’s traditionalcultural values condemn (for example, should gov-ernment prohibit homosexual lifestyles in Christiancommunities)? Should government support onlyone group’s cultural traditions and prohibit multi-culturalism? In protecting traditional cultural valuesand ways of life, won’t government often end upsupporting cultural practices that are racist, sexist,or otherwise unjust?

Many modern communitarians, such asMichael Sandel, believe these issues can be solvedthrough reasoned public debate. But what principles

should we appeal to in such a debate: liberal princi-ples of justice, which protect individuals, or commu-nitarian principles, which support the community’scultural values and traditions? Perhaps RonaldDworkin is right when he claims that at this timethe need is for philosophy to find a way of reconcil-ing the essential role of community values with therights of the individual.

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, read Chapter 8, Section 8.2,“What Justifies the State?” Velasquez providesdiscussions of the social contract tradition, in-cluding the views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rawls,and the criticisms of Hume and the communi-tarians Aristotle, Hegel, and Sandel. Section 8.2also includes a discussion of feminist criticismsof social contract theory and a discussion of thesocial contract theory of Rousseau.

� Velasquez Section 8.1, “Introduction: What IsSocial Philosophy?” provides an overview of theissues.

� Velasquez Section 8.6, “Historical Showcase:Marx and Rawls” includes discussions of thelife and philosophy of Karl Marx and JohnRawls with many excerpts from their originalwritings.

KEY TERMS

Communitarians: A group of philosophers who be-lieve in the importance of belonging to a communityof people who share a culture and a common set ofvalues. Communitarians believe that the state mustsupport and nurture the traditions the communityvalues.

Egalitarianism: The belief that each citizen is anequal partner in the collective enterprise of self-gov-ernment.

Original position: Corresponds to the state of na-ture in the traditional theory of the social contract.A hypothetical situation used by John Rawls to de-velop his concepts of justice.


Political obligation: The problem of why peopleshould obey the state by agreeing to such commit-ments as paying taxes; and the question of the limitsof such obligations.

Republicanism: People’s ability to rule themselves;an idea that Aristotle valued.

Social contract theory: Justification for govern-ment’s existence based on the idea that people agreeto form a government simply to protect themselvesfrom each other.

State of nature: In social contract theory, the situa-tion of people who have no government.

Veil of ignorance: In A Theory of Justice, JohnRawls refers to this as the situation that exists whena society must decide the rules of justice that willgovern their future society without knowing whatpositions its members will hold in this new society.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The social contract theory holds that the powerof the state is based ona. the power of a conquering armyb. religious customs and beliefsc. consent of the peopled. a community’s cultural values and traditions

2. Thomas Hobbes believed that the best form ofgovernment was one thata. exercised limited powersb. exercised absolute powersc. remained neutrald. allowed people to be in a state of nature

3. John Locke argued that in a state of nature,a. life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and

short”b. people lived under a “veil of ignorance”c. people will “seek out and . . . join in society

with others”d. the very idea of government is “far beyond

the comprehension of savages”

4. Who said “The greatest and chief end of menuniting into commonwealths, and putting them-selves under government, is the preservation oftheir property”?a. David Humeb. John Lockec. Thomas Hobbesd. Thomas Jefferson

5. In his book, A Theory of Justice, philosopherJohn Rawls describes an imaginary thought ex-periment “characterized so as to lead to a cer-tain conception of justice.” Which two princi-ples of justice did Rawls think people wouldagree to?a. equality in the assignment of basic rights and

dutiesb. equality in the assignment of rights according

to an individual’s meritsc. social and economic inequalities are just only

if they result in compensating benefits for ev-eryone, and in particular for the least advan-taged members of society

d. both a and c

6. Many communitarians have criticized Rawls’social contract theory because ita. ignores the vital importance of a communi-

ty’s cultural traditionsb. undervalues an individual’s rightsc. encourages governments to protect cultural

values and traditionsd. fosters social inequalities

7. The idea that a person becomes actualized bysubjecting personal interests to the larger com-mon good of the State, thereby obtaining truefreedom, was articulated bya. Georg Hegelb. John Lockec. Thomas Jeffersond. Karl Marx

8. The challenge to communitarianism that “indi-viduals have rights and these are trumps overthe social good,” was expressed by whom?a. John Rawlsb. Charles Taylorc. Michael Sandeld. Ronald Dworkin

Lesson Twenty-three: What Justifies the State? 139

Identify each of the statements below as represent-ing one of the following:

a. liberalism b. communitarianism

_____ 9. when individuals rights conflict with com-munity values, the rights of individualstake priority

_____10. a society should be engineered so that peo-ple are free to do what they want, evenwhen the majority thinks the lives theyare creating for themselves are bad lives

_____11. without a larger community, political andcultural life cannot flourish

_____12. the state must remain neutral and allowindividuals to choose their own values andends

_____13. individuals have no social context outsidethe State

_____14. a requirement of human flourishing isengagement in public life

True or False


15. In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays humans as self-ish, unsocial creatures driven by two needs: sur-vival and personal gain.

16. For Rousseau, a group of wills is general wheneach member of the group aims at their ownparticular interests.

17. For Rawls government is not justified when it isthe kind of government that we would choosein the original position.

18. Both Aristotle and Hegel argue that humanscannot develop fully unless they live in the stateand that the state is more important than the in-dividual citizen.

19. Feminists object that Hobbes, Locke, and Rous-seau do not apply to women the idea that au-thority requires consent and that they assumeonly males enter the social contract.


Suppose that since your first class in biology, youhave been struck by the individuality and beauty ofthe human body. You have made a photographicstudy of nudes as they seem to capture most purelyour uniqueness and vulnerability. Your photos seemto generate a deep sense of humility. Wanting toshare your work, you organize a show for your com-munity. While some citizens are initially very ap-preciative and supportive, others mount a protestthat they do not want to be members of a communi-ty which allows the presence of pornography. Theyclaim it violates the cultural traditions of their com-munity. You argue that your work is not porno-graphic. But a committee of citizens insists that thisis simply not a community that values public dis-plays of nudity. You claim that individuals haverights to freedom of expression and freedom of as-sembly. Perhaps so, the response comes, but not toexhibit or gather to look at nudity in this communi-ty. You must move to another community, if youwish to show your work. Which rights should takeprecedence? How would you support your views ifyou were part of the social contract tradition? Howwould a communitarian look at this dispute?

�

You oppose abortion, as it is murder according yourreligious beliefs. Can you live in a society or commu-nity that protects the right to freedom of religionalong with a right to choose abortion?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Have a discussion with your friends and/or familyabout the rights of the individual versus the rights ofthe community. Topics that prove particularly con-troversial are those regarding victimless crimes. Dis-cuss, for example, the legalization of drugs, prostitu-tion, pornography, or gambling. Be sure there issufficient information regarding psycho-pharmacol-


ogy and black market influences upon the respectiveissues so that you have an informed discussion.

�

Organize a campus debate between representativesof the Libertarian, the Democratic, and the Republi-can parties. What views along the spectrum of indi-vidual rights versus community values are present-ed?

NET LINKS







Political Philosophy

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Philosophy

— http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/polphil.html

— http://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainPoli.htm

— http://bubl.ac.uk/link/p/politicalphiloso-phy.htm

— http://members.tripod.com/~batesca/aristo-tle.html

Communitarian Philosophy:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

—http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarian-ism/

Thomas Hobbes:

— http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philoso-phers/hobbes.html

John Locke:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke

Karl Marx:

— http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/marx.html

John Rawls:

— http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rawls.htm

— http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html

Julia Annas:


Ronald Dworkin:

— http://its.law.nyu.edu/faculty/profiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=cv.main&per-sonID=19891

John Finnis:

— http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/finnis.html

James Rachels:

— http://www.uab.edu/philosophy/faculty/rachels

141

Lesson Twenty-four

What is Justice?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the difference between retributive and distribu-tive justice.

� egalitarian theories of distributive justice.

� justice based on merit.

� the socialist form of justice.

� Rawls’ views on justice and social welfare.

� Nozick’s views on justice as liberty.

� the problem of international justice.

OVERVIEW

Some people are rich, others are poor. Some revel inluxuries, have mansions, yachts, and leisure, whileothers labor all their lives and are still impoverishedand starving. Some are born into wealth and highsocial standing, while others are born into lives ofpoverty and misery. Is this fair? Is it just that some

should have so much, while others have so little?What, exactly is justice?

Often, when we think of justice, we think firstof what philosophers call retributive justice. Retrib-utive justice is the kind of justice that should prevailwhen punishments are fair. An ancient biblical rulefor retributive justice is expressed in the saying,“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”

But justice refers to more than just retribution.Justice also refers to how fairly or unfairly societydistributes the benefits and burdens it produces. Forexample, some philosophers have argued that dis-tributive justice requires some kind of equalityamong the members of society. Just as a pie is fairlydistributed among children when it is cut in equalpieces, so also society’s benefits and burdens arefairly distributed among people when they are dis-tributed equally. Some philosophers take the notionof equality literally and argue that justice meansthat we should try to arrange things so that every-one is equally happy, or has equal wealth or equalincome. These views are sometimes called egalitari-an views of justice. Egalitarianism, however, runsup against the objection that if we give everyone ex-actly the same benefits no matter what they do, thenwe fail to reward those who choose to work harderor to do more than others. Yet if justice does not re-quire strict equality, what does it require?

The ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Ar-istotle were among the first philosophers to discussthe concept of justice. Both of them lived in the city-state of Athens, which was then a highly stratifiedsociety. At the top were the male aristocrats. Below


them, in order, were free men, then women, thenchildren, and then, at the bottom, slaves. Writing insuch a society, with its wide extremes of status andwealth, Aristotle claimed that justice is “treatingequals equally, and unequals unequally, accordingto the differences between them.” Aristotle seems tohave meant that in a just society, benefits should bedistributed according to what people merit. Thosewhose merits are equal should receive the same,while those who merits are greater than others,should receive more than those others. Individualmerit might be determined by a person’s social sta-tus, or, as Plato suggested, by a person’s abilities andintelligence. The idea that justice depends on meritis still popular today, when many people believe thatjobs, promotions, and awards should be distributedon the basis of individual merit.

But Aristotle’s statement can be understood ina more general sense. Aristotle can be understood assaying that people should be treated the same whenthey are the same in all relevant respects, and treat-ed differently when they differ in the relevant re-spect. When deciding how much to pay workers, forexample, we might hold that they should be paid thesame when they are the same in all relevant re-spects, but should be paid more when they worklonger or work harder or work better than others.

Although Aristotle thought it was obvious thatsome should get more than others, he also felt thatthere was a minimum that all male citizens in a soci-ety should get. All male citizens should receive whatthey need to live a full human life, including an edu-cation and other material resources. Nevertheless,Aristotle did not feel that slaves—or women, forthat matter—should receive what male citizensshould receive.

Aristotle’s notions of justice were transformedin the mid-nineteenth century by the German phi-losophers Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels. Societyat that time was going through the throes of the In-dustrial Revolution. Capitalism rose and spread, andcreated tremendous inequalities of wealth. Whileworkers labored in dirty noisy factories for longhours at miserable pay doing dehumanizing work,the capitalist owners of these factories grew extraor-dinarily wealthy and lived opulent, luxurious lives.

Marx adopted Aristotle’s notion that peopleshould have what they need to flourish and live ful-ly human lives. However, Marx claimed that in ev-ery society workers failed to flourish. Throughouthistory every society has been divided into unequaleconomic classes in which those at the bottom wereexploited by those at the top: slaves by masters, serfsby lords, and now wage workers by capitalist own-

ers. Justice would not prevail until workers tookover the factories and other means of production,and did away with all social classes. In this newclassless society, Marx wrote, everyone would re-ceive what they needed to live fully human lives,and everyone would willingly contribute what theywere able to contribute to society. In short, societywould embody a new socialist form of justice:“From each according to his ability, to each accord-ing to his need.”

In the early twentieth century, several coun-tries, such as Russia, transformed themselves intocommunist nations modeled, they said, on the ideasof Marx. Some nations, while not becoming commu-nist, nevertheless adopted many of the socialistideas Marx had proposed, particularly the idea thatsociety should respond to people’s “need.” TheUnited States and other nations remained capitalistbut developed social welfare programs to deal withpoor people’s need. In the 1960s American Presi-dent Lyndon Johnson expanded welfare programswhen he tried to eliminate poverty in what he calledthe Great Society.

In the 1970s, the American philosopher JohnRawls developed a theory of justice that defendedthe new welfare state. Rawls’ views on justice arebased on an imaginary mental exercise. Imaginethat the people of a society could all meet together.Imagine that none of them knew what kind of peo-ple they would be in their society. Nobody knowswhether they will be rich or poor, male or female,black or white. Finally, imagine that they have toagree on the rules that will govern their society.Since nobody knows whether they will be rich orpoor, they will want rules that are fair both to therich and the poor; and since they do not knowwhether they will be male or female, black or white,they will choose rules that are fair to all thesegroups. In short, people in this imaginary situationare forced to be perfectly just. Justice, Rawls claims,is whatever people in this imaginary original posi-tion would choose.

What kind of rules would people in the imagi-nary original position choose? Rawls argued thatthey would allow the kind of inequalities that capi-talism creates because these inequalities motivatepeople to produce more wealth. But they wouldwant part of this wealth to be used to provide a min-imum standard of living for the poor.

Rawls’ ideas about justice—sometimes re-ferred to as the liberal theory of justice—were im-mensely influential. But in many countries, such asEngland and the United States, a new conservativ-ism emerged that was critical of welfare programs.

Lesson Twenty-four: What is Justice? 143

In this new conservative climate, the American phi-losopher Robert Nozick came forward and arguedthat Rawls’ ideas on justice were mistaken. Justice,said Nozick, is really liberty: letting people keepwhat they make. Providing welfare for the poor likeRawls said, requires taking people’s money throughtaxes to pay for government welfare programs. Suchtaxes are unjust because they take people’s propertyagainst their will and so violate liberty. Nozick’sviews on justice—sometimes referred to as the liber-tarian theory of justice—also became highly influen-tial.

For many philosophers, the views of Rawlsand Nozick are the two most important modernviews on distributive justice. Some argue thatNozick is right: taxing the rich to help the poor isunjustly stealing from the rich to give the poor whatthey have no right to. Others argue that Rawls iscorrect: justice requires that the rich help the poor.

If it is difficult to figure out what justice re-quires of the citizens of a single nation, it is evenmore difficult to figure out what justice requiresamong the many nations of the world. Some nationsare rich, while others are poor. And within somenations the vast majority is impoverished and starv-ing while a handful of elite live in luxury. Shouldrich nations provide the world’s poor with resourcesthat “empower” them to support themselves, suchas job training or business loans? What, exactly,does justice require on a global level?

Perhaps justice on a global level means thatthe citizens of rich nations should provide aid to theimpoverished citizens of poor nations. Rawls’ viewson justice seem to imply that such international aidis morally required and that governments shouldprovide aid. Yet Nozick’s views would oppose inter-national government aid. For the citizens of rich na-tions would have to be taxed to pay for such aid, andthose taxes would be a form of theft. Nozick’s viewsimply that while citizens of rich countries can vol-untarily contribute to international aid, govern-ments should not force their citizens to pay for aidthrough taxes.

What, then, does justice mean on an interna-tional scale? Is Australian philosopher Peter Singerright when he claims that “we can’t justify retainingluxuries for ourselves when others are starving”? Ifso, does justice demand that governments of richcountries tax their citizens to help the world’s poor?Or is liberty such an important value that taxing therich to help the poor is itself an injustice?

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, Section 8.3, “What Is Jus-tice?” This section includes detailed discussionsof the views of Aristotle, Marx, Rawls, andNozick. Also included are discussions of theviews of Plato and Mill on justice.

� Velasquez, Section 8.6, “Historical Showcase:Marx and Rawls,” provides an overview of thelives and philosophies of Karl Marx and JohnRawls, with many selections from their writ-ings.

� Read Velasquez, Section 7.10, “Famine, Afflu-ence, and Morality,” where Peter Singer, in aclassic article, discusses the obligations mem-bers of wealthy nations have toward membersof poor nations.

KEY TERMS

Inequality: Aa difference among people that resultswhen some people have more or less of some goodthan others.

Distributive justice: The justice that prevailswhen a society’s benefits and burdens are fairly dis-tributed.

Retributive justice: The justice that prevails whenwrongdoers are fairly punished.

Egalitarianism: The view that everyone shouldhave the same benefits and burdens.

Merit: A quality that makes a person deserving ofsome benefit or advantage.

Capitalism: An economic system based on profit,private ownership of the means of production, freemarkets, and wage labor.

Socialist justice: The view that justice should bebased on the slogan: “From each according to hisability, to each according to his need.”

Liberal theory of justice: The view that justice re-quires equal civil rights, equal opportunity, and a


minimum standard of living for all members ofsociety.

Libertarian theory of justice: The view that jus-tice requires leaving people free to do what theychoose with what they have, so long as their activi-ties do not directly harm others.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. According to Aristotle, justice is distributed insocietya. equallyb. to males onlyc. according to an individual’s meritd. according to one’s social status

2. Karl Marx’s ideas of social justice drew on theideas ofa. Platob. John Rawlsc. Friedrich Engelsd. Aristotle

3. Karl Marx based his analysis of capitalism onhis study ofa. Aristotle’s Ethicsb. governmental regulatory agenciesc. labor unionsd. economic growth

4. John Rawls’ theory of social justice argues thatall members of a society are equal based upontheira. moral status as individualsb. personal meritsc. social statusd. religious convictions

5. According to Rawls’ theory of social justice, in-equality can be reconciled with social justice bymeans ofa. higher taxesb. a distribution of social resources through

welfare programsc. elimination of taxes on private propertyd. voluntary charitable organizations

6. The ideas of Robert Nozick call fora. the redistribution of wealth through fair tax-

ation policiesb. the dismantlement of governments that tax

citizensc. the elimination of taxation for the purposes

of redistributing social resourcesd. social welfare programs to help the disadvan-

taged compete in capitalist economies

7. Empowerment is a type of economic aid thatdoes NOT includea. direct monetary reliefb. education programsc. small business loansd. job training programs

8. Large disparities in wealth can be harmful to so-cieties that value a commonwealth, is a viewheld bya. Aristotleb. Karl Marxc. Michael Sandeld. none of the abovee. all of the above

True or False


9. For Plato and Aristotle justice means that eachshould act and be treated according to his or herabilities, achievements, and social status.

10. Strict egalitarians reject the view that every per-son should be given exactly equal shares of soci-ety’s benefits and burdens.

11. Mill argued that a just society is one that distrib-utes benefits and burdens in whatever way willproduce the greatest social benefits or the low-est social harms.

12. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls advocated “Fromeach according to his ability, to each accordingto his need.”

13. Robert Nozick argues that justice is respectingpeople’s free choices.

Lesson Twenty-four: What is Justice? 145


Jonathan Glover gives the example of three childrenand three pieces of cake and claims that if the piecesare distributed in anything but an equal manner, thechildren will be outraged. What if the child, whosebirthday it is, asks for a larger piece? Is it obviousthe others will be outraged? What if such an un-equal distribution is part of this birthday culture? IsGlover inserting too much of his own “sentiments”or culture in this example, or do you agree with him,all things considered? If one child is large—that is,obese—and another quite small, would Marx claimthat the larger child should get a larger piece of cakeand the smaller child a smaller share, according tohis principle, “From each according to his ability, toeach according to his need”?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Approximately every seven seconds someone dies ofstarvation on this planet. The funding sufficient tofeed all of these starving people is currently beingspent on pet food in the industrialized world. Is thehaving of a pet, when some people suffer so horren-dously, immoral or unjust?

�

Organize a panel discussion on your campus or inyour neighborhood, inviting experts in the fields ofeconomics, business, philosophy, and religion to dis-cuss the nature of the justice. Do opinions vary de-pending on the perspective of the panelist? How dothe various views align with those theories present-ed in this episode?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



The Philosopher:


Justice:

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive

Moral Musings:



Moral Realism:

— http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthChew.htm

Poverty and Welfare:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/poverty/poverty.html

Retributive Justice:

— http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm

World Hunger:

— http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/worldHunger/


Ronald Dworkin:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

John Finnis:

— http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/finnis.html

Gilbert Harman:


James Rachels:


147

Lesson Twenty-five

What is Art?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� the imitation or mimesis theory of art.

� Plato’s criticism of art.

� the expressive theory of art.

� the formalist theory of art.

� Danto’s “end of art” theory.

� the concept of an artworld and Dickie’s theoryof art.

OVERVIEW

From prehistoric times, when humans painted pic-tures of animals on the walls of caves, we have sur-rounded ourselves with art. We decorate our bodieswith hand pretty clothes, neckties, jewelry, tattoos,piercings, hair dye, and cosmetics. We buy carswhose sleek looks attract us, hang up paintings thatwe feel are beautiful, and invest in furniture whoselooks we enjoy. We play music and read literaturethat we find pleasing. We visit museums and art gal-leries, and go out to concerts and movies. Art seems

to be almost everywhere. But what is art? Somemodern works of art seem ugly, shocking, even por-nographic. Other works of art seem absurd, almost ajoke. If you walk into a modern art museum youmay see there, prominently displayed as a work ofart, a urinal accompanied by the name of the artistMarcel Duchamp. What’s the difference betweenDuchamp’s urinal, and the urinal in the museum’srestroom?

Early Greek philosophers claimed that art isessentially a form of imitation or mimesis (theGreek word for imitation). A work of art, they felt,is a copy or representation of some object. A goodwork of art presents us with a good imitation of re-ality, while poor art is art that does a poor job of im-itating reality. From a good work of art a personcould learn about reality. Poetry or drama that real-istically portrayed human beings, for example, couldgive one insight into human nature and humancharacter. This view of art prevailed for many cen-turies. During the middle ages, for example, manyartists felt that in their art they were trying to repre-sent a view of the real world around them or, per-haps symbolically, of some spiritual reality. As thecenturies passed in Europe, artists gradually pol-ished their techniques and became better at render-ing lifelike imitations of the world around them.

But from the beginning, the view that art pre-sents us with a copy or imitation of something wassubjected to criticism. The ancient Greek philoso-pher Plato, for example, argued that art has littlevalue precisely because it is merely an imitation. InPlato’s view, the world around us is itself an imper-


fect imitation of the perfect ideas of goodness, truth,and beauty which exist in God’s heaven. A work ofart, then, is an imitation of an imitation. Instead ofwasting our time contemplating the imitations thatartists produce we should spend our time striving tocontemplate reality itself. Plato’s view is perhaps aprecursor of the view heard often today that insteadof wasting our time watching television or readingnovels, we should live in the real world.

Almost all art up to the eighteenth centurypresented a more or less realistic imitation of reali-ty. But a different kind of art emerged in the nine-teenth and twentieth century. Much of the art of thenineteenth and twentieth century is more than amere copy of reality: it seems intended to expressfeelings and emotions. Pablo Picasso’s well-knownpainting “Guernica,” for example, commemoratesthe Spanish civil war. The painting includes shapesthat are recognizable representations of heads andlimbs of animals, along with bodies and heads ofpeople. But Picasso’s painting seems to be an expres-sion of the horror of war rather than an accuratepicture of a war scene. Art here has become more anexpression of feeling than an imitation of reality.

The expressive theory of art holds that art isessentially an expression of emotion, so that goodart expresses emotion well, while bad art does sopoorly. The expressive theory of art has its roots inthe Romantic philosophers and artists of the eigh-teenth century who favored feelings over reason.They felt that through his feelings the artist can getin touch with the deeper significance of reality. Inpoetry and in painting, the aim of the artist was tocapture and convey emotion: anger, horror, loneli-ness, sorrow, and joy. Much of the art of the lateeighteenth and nineteenth centuries can be seen asprime examples of the expressive view of art.

Yet many twentieth century philosophershave not been satisfied by the expressive theory ofart. As art became less and less representationalduring the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-turies, it also often became less expressive. Thework of the early twentieth century Dutch artistPiet Mondrian, for example, gradually became lessrepresentative and more abstract. Eventually, hispaintings consisted entirely of grids of black lines onwhite with occasional rectangles of color.

A third theory of art emerged along with thisnew abstract art: the formalist theory of art. Theformalist theory of art holds that art is nothing morethan a form—an arrangement of lines, colors, andshapes—designed to please our artistic or aestheticsense. The formalist theory holds that art should notbe evaluated in terms of something outside of itself.

We should not evaluate art, for example, by its abili-ty to imitate some other object, or by its ability to“express” some emotion. Art should be evaluatedonly in terms of its own parts and how these partsare arranged.

For many philosophers the three main theo-ries of art—art as imitation, as expression, and asform—are mutually exclusive. But some philoso-phers feel that works of art from every age can beseen from all three perspectives. Even music can beappreciated as representational, as expressive, andas formal.

But twentieth century works of art have raisednew questions about the nature of art. Early in hiscareer, the French artist Marcel Duchamp producedart that could be understood as representational, ex-pressive, and formalist. But in 1915 he declared thatthe artist has the right to choose any object whatso-ever and turn it into an artwork by simply exhibit-ing it and calling it art. In museums and galleriesDuchamp began to exhibit bottle racks, snow shov-els, bicycle wheels, and even urinals as art. This“art” was not imitation, it did not express emotion,it was not an arrangement of elements into an aes-thetic form, and it was certainly not beautiful. Wasit even art? Duchamp’s art seemed designed to teas-ingly raise the philosopher’s question, “What isart?”

The American philosopher Arthur Danto hasargued that art like Marcel Duchamp’s indicatesthat art has now ended. The contemporary artist,Danto argues, no longer explores beauty, form, andfeeling, but instead asks philosophical questionsabout art: What is art? Thus, the artist has become aphilosopher, and his art is no longer art but a kindof philosophy. Art has ended and has been replacedby philosophy.

Not all philosophers agree with Danto. Re-cently the American philosopher George Dickie hassuggested a new theory of art that can take into ac-count the art of mavericks like Marcel Duchamp.Dickie points out that art is produced within an“artworld” that consists of artists, critics, audiences,museums, galleries, and patrons. Art, Dickie argues,is whatever an artworld accepts as art. Duchamp’surinals became art as soon as the artworld acceptedthem as art, in the same way that Andy Warhol’sBrillo boxes, soup cans, and pictures of MarilynMonroe became art when museums agreed to dis-play them.

The French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyo-tard also disagrees with Danto. Lyotard claims thatart has not ended because it can never be stopped.Lyotard believes that art is that which is sublime.

Lesson Twenty-five: What is Art? 149

Art is what wakes you up, startles you, takes you bysurprise. Art, in this sense, changes constantly withthe times and is not fixed. It is perhaps a kind ofgame whose rules are continuously explored andcriticized and thus subject to constant change.

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, Section 9.2, “What Is Art?”Velasquez includes discussions of the view thatart represents or imitates reality, the view thatart is an expression of emotion, and the formal-ist view that art is an arrangement of materials.Also included is a discussion of Danto’s claimthat art has become philosophy and so has end-ed, and of George Dickie’s view that art is what-ever the artworld says it is.

KEY TERMS

Aesthetic: Related to the contemplation and evalu-ation of art.

Artworld: That group of artists, exhibitors, critics,audiences, patrons, and institutions that share anunderstanding and appreciation of what a particularkind of art is and how it should be evaluated. Differ-ent kinds of art (classical music, rock music, classi-cal painting, pop art) may have different artworldscorresponding to them.

Expressive theory of art: The theory that a workof art is an expression of feeling or emotion.

Expressivism: The view that art is an expressionof emotion.

Formalism: The view that a work of art must be ap-preciated solely in terms of its components and theirarrangement, which may be called the “form” of thework of art.

Formalist theory of art: The theory that art mustbe defined and appreciated in terms of its own com-ponents and their arrangement, and not in terms oftheir relationship to something external such asemotions or objects in the world.

Imitation theory of art: The theory that a work ofart is a representation or copy of some real or imagi-nary object in the world.

Representational: The quality of being a copy orreproduction of some object.

Mimesis: A Greek word meaning representation, orimitation.

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. Works of art concern philosophy becausea. they challenge notions of realityb. they result from a search for deeper valuesc. they concern changing definitions of such

values as beauty, form, and feelingd. all of the abovee. none of the above

2. Which ancient philosopher thought that artcould not teach us about reality?a. Aristotleb. Socratesc. Platod. Heraclitus

3. The Greek word mimesis meansa. formalb. conceptualc. representationd. reality

4. During which era did expression assume an im-portant role in art?a. the Englightenmentb. ancient Greecec. the Middle Agesd. the Romantic Era

5. Which modern artist is often cited as an exam-ple of a formalist painter?a. E. L. Kirchnerb. Pablo Picassoc. Piet Mondriand. Marcel Duchamp


6. Which of the following elements do not describeformalism?a. compositionb. colorc. arrangementd. representation

7. Which modern artist first introduced ordinaryobjects into a museum and called it art?a. Pablo Picassob. Marcel Duchampc. Andy Warhold. Bruce Nauman

8. For the French artist Marcel Duchamp, whenartists define what art is, art becomesa. formalb. realisticc. abstractd. conceptual

9. According to the American philosopher ArthurDanto, art ends when it becomesa. formalisticb. abstractc. a form of philosophyd. ugly

10. According to philosopher Marteen Doorman,art cannot end so long as ita. teaches us new ways of interpreting the

worldb. teaches us new ways of thinking about art it-

selfc. continues to comment on other works of artd. all of the abovee. none of the above

11. The American philosopher George Dickie ar-gues that arta. has endedb. is essentially philosophyc. is whatever the artworld accepts as artd. should only be evaluated on formalist

grounds

12. The French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotarddefines a type of art as “sublime.” Which of thefollowing works of art would qualify as an ex-ample of “sublime” art?a. the Cathedral of Chartresb. “Striped Concrete Posts” by Daniel Burenc. cave paintings in Lascaux, Franced. all of the above

e. none of the above

True or False


13. Aristotle claimed that art can imitate feelingsand moral qualities.

14. The view that art is an expression of feeling washeld by both Plato and Aquinas.

15. The formalist theory, as explained by Clive Bell,claims that art is that which has “significantform.”

16. Danto held that “beauty is that which pleaseswhen seen” and that a thing has beauty whenits form has “integrity or perfection, due pro-portion or harmony, and brightness or clarity.”

17. The philosopher George Dickie has argued thatart is whatever the artworld says is art.


Andy Warhol puts a picture of a soup can on thewall and it is viewed as not only art but significantart. You put a picture of a soup can on the wall, per-haps one that looks just like Mr. Warhol’s. Is yourpicture art? What if you use a can of beans instead?Why is one art and the other not? Could soup canart also simply be in the cupboard? Must it be aphoto?

�

What are the conceptual distinctions between noise,sound, and music?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Visit the largest art gallery you have access to. Allowyourself enough time to start in the gallery with theoldest art in the collection then proceed, at an evenpace, don’t linger too long at one spot for this exer-cise, but walk slowly through all of the galleries un-

Lesson Twenty-five: What is Art? 151

til you reach the contemporary period. How has thesubject or content of the works changed over time?Have the colors changed? Is there a marked differ-ence in the framing of art works?

�

Visit the largest art gallery you have access to with agroup of friends. Each of you take enough time to goyour various ways and find that work which mostappeals to you then regroup and visit each of yourpaintings and have each person explain why he orshe chose the one they did. Do the explanations saymore about the person or the chosen painting?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Aesthetics:

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

— http://aesthetics-online.org

Cognitive Science and the Arts:

— http://www.hfac.uh.edu/cogsci/index.html

Film and Philosophy:

— http://www.hanover.edu/philos/film/home.htm

153

Lesson Twenty-six

What is the Meaning of Life?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


� mortality and the meaning of life.

� religion as a source of meaning.

� human progress as the source of meaning.

� Hegel and Marx, the systems builders.

� Kierkegaard, existentialism, and the three stag-es of life.

� Jean Paul Sartre and creating meaning.

� Simon de Beauvoir and the second sex.

OVERVIEW

For many people—including many philosophers—the most important philosophical question is this:Does human life have any meaning? The questionpresses in on us most urgently when we are con-fronted by our own death or the deaths of those welove. Our mortality raises the prospect that the endof human life is final and so puts an end to every-thing we are and were trying to be. If in the end it

comes to nothing, what is the point of all our striv-ing?

For many people it is clear that life has ameaning and that its meaning is defined by religion.Buddhism asserts, for example, that the purpose ofhuman life is to experience liberation from the greatwheel of death and rebirth by achieving enlighten-ment. The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that lifehas meaning because humans are part of a largerplan devised by God, and within this plan humanlife has a purpose.

But these religious responses to the meaning oflife are of little help to the unbeliever. Some philoso-phers, for example, argue that Darwin’s theory ofevolution has shown that humans and human lifehave no purpose whatsoever. Others are unmovedby religious claims because they do not believe inGod.

Although many people are unmoved by theidea that religion is the basis of meaning, they areoften moved by another idea that has deep religiousroots: the idea that human history is progressing to-ward a goal and that our lives acquire meaning bycontributing to this progress of history. The Germanphilosopher G. W. F. Hegel, for example, claimedthat history is progressing toward an ever fullerachievement of human freedom and reason. Hu-mans will achieve satisfaction and fulfillment to theextent that they are a part of this progress. Hegel’sdisciple, Karl Marx, agreed that history is movingtoward a goal, but the goal is a society in whichthere are no economic classes and justice prevailsfor everyone. Early in the twentieth century Marx’s


vision gave many millions of people a sense ofmeaning and inspired them to establish communisteconomic and political systems.

But these systems have collapsed in most partsof the world. And for many people the idea of inevi-table progress makes little sense in a world that isbecoming increasingly polluted and crowded andthat has witnessed the atrocities of countless majorwars. Disillusioned by the optimistic cosmic visionspainted by religion and the philosophies of humanprogress, many people today seek meaning in thepresent moment. For many the meaning of life is fo-cused on experiencing the pleasures and excite-ments of the moment.

But many philosophers argue that such at-tempts must end in disillusionment. The Canadianphilosopher Charles Taylor, for example, arguesthat such a life will end in a “terrifying sense ofmeaninglessness, of emptiness, of nothing being re-ally worthwhile.”

Where, then, can the unbeliever and skepticfind meaning? If meaning cannot be found in an ex-ternal vision, can it be found in ourselves and ourinner choices? This is the view of existentialism.

Existentialist philosophy has its roots in thewritings of the nineteenth century Danish philoso-pher, Soren Kierkegaard. Although a committedChristian, Kierkegaard was not a supporter of con-ventional Christianity. Kierkegaard, who died whenhe was only 42, felt deeply anguished throughoutmuch of his life. His anguish, he felt, was the prod-uct of his realization that he alone was responsiblefor his life. He wrote: “Anguish reaches its full ma-turity when the child becomes aware that it will beable to choose what it wants to do with its life.” Ki-erkegaard was convinced that each of us mustchoose for himself the truth by which he will live.

Kierkegaard described three lifestyles, whichhe called the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religiousstages of life. The key to living authentically is tochoose decisively among these, and to face up hon-estly to the shortcomings of each. The first stage, theaesthetic stage, is the lifestyle of a person who seeksmeaning in the pursuit of enjoyment and satisfac-tion. The honest individual will eventually sensesuch a life is not enough and will freely commit him-self to the second, the ethical, stage. In the ethicalstage the individual finds meaning in trying to livemorally. But eventually the individual will see thathe is incapable of fully living up to all the demandsof morality and may, in a “leap of faith,” entrusthimself to God, in “fear and trembling” because he

can never be sure that God will be there to save him.This leap is the choice of the third or religious stageof life.

A hundred years later, many of Kierkegaard’sthemes were taken up by the French philosopherJean-Paul Sartre. Unlike Kierkegaard, Sartre was anatheist. But like Kierkegaard, Sartre argued thatmeaning is based on our free choices and commit-ments. Because there is no God, Sartre argued, thereare no objective values and meanings that we mustaccept. Instead, humans have to create their ownmeaning by freely committing themselves to what-ever actions or causes they choose. Sartre exhortedpeople to accept responsibility for whatever mean-ing they chose to give their lives, and to accept theanguish that goes along with it. To refuse to acceptthis responsibility is to live in bad faith.

Sartre’s lifelong companion, the philosopherSimone de Beauvoir, accepted Sartre’s view thatmeaning is created through our free choices. But inher book, The Second Sex, de Beauvoir argued thatwomen did not have the same freedom to choosethat men had: they were always relegated to beingthe sex that counts for less.

What can be learned from existentialism? Per-haps its most important insight is the idea that weourselves are ultimately responsible for findingmeaning in our lives. Although many philosophersreject Sartre’s view that there are no objective val-ues, most would agree that even objective valueshave to be chosen and passionately embraced if theyare to be an authentic source of meaning for us.Even if I choose to commit myself to following somereligious or ideological authority, I am responsiblefor my choice and cannot blame it on that authority.

TEXT LINKS

� Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Read-ings, tenth edition, Section 9.3, “Does Life HaveMeaning?” In this section Velasquez discussesreligious views on the meaning of life, the viewsof Hegel and Marx that meaning is based on theprogress of history, the view that life has nomeaning, and the views of Kierkegaard and Sar-tre that meaning is chosen.

� See Velasquez Section 8.6 for a detailed discus-sion of the life and philosophy of Karl Marx.

Lesson Twenty-six: What is the Meaning of Life? 155

KEY TERMS

Aesthetic stage of life: In Kierkegaard’s philoso-phy, a lifestyle characterized by the pursuit of hisown satisfaction and enjoyment.

Ethical stage of life: In Kierkegaard’s philosophy,a lifestyle characterized by a commitment to a life ofmoral duty that admits no exceptions in one’s ownfavor.

Religious stage of life: In Kierkegaard’s philoso-phy, a lifestyle characterized by a trust in God thatis not based on reason but on a “leap of faith.”

SELF-TEST

Multiple Choice

1. The idea that man has no purpose is central tothe ideas ofa. Karl Marxb. G.W.F. Hegelc. Soren Kierkegaardd. Charles Darwin

2. The idea that human history is progressing to-ward a goal of fuller achievement of humanfreedom and reason is central to the philosophyofa. Karl Marxb. G.W.F. Hegelc. Jean-Paul Sartred. Charles Darwin

3. The ideas of Karl Marx are best described asa. Darwinianb. existentialistc. Hegeliand. Aristotelian

4. The view that meaning in life can be found inourselves and our inner choices is associatedwith which philosopher?a. Jean-Paul Sartreb. G.W.F. Hegelc. Soren Kierkegaardd. Simone de Beauvoir

5. What state of mind did the philosopher SorenKierkegaard regard as modern man’s symptomof the awareness that the meaning of life cannotbe found in external sources?a. miseryb. apathyc. anguishd. happiness

6. Which existentialist philosopher describes threestages through which a seeker of meaning in lifepasses?a. Simone de Beauvoirb. Soren Kierkegaardc. Jean-Paul Sartred. Martin Heidegger

7. Which statement best summarizes the standtaken by Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaardon the existence of God and man’s purpose inlife?a. God has devised a plan within which man’s

purpose liesb. man must put his faith in God’s purpose for

manc. man must create God by his own choice in

order to know the meaning and purpose oflife.

d. God does not exist and man has to find hisown purpose in life

8. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre shareswith Soren Kierkegaard the idea thata. meaning in life is based upon our free choices

and commitmentsb. we must entrust ourselves in a “leap of faith”

to a higher powerc. the seeker for meaning of life passes through

aesthetic, ethical, and moral stagesd. human beings are condemned to be free

9. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, to live in “badfaith” is toa. choose a conventional path in lifeb. choose a religious path in lifec. refuse the anguish that goes along with

meaning that one chooses in lifed. accept the consequences of the choices one

makes in life


10. The French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir fo-cused her writings on which central idea of ex-istentialism?a. that the individual has no essential natureb. that the individual must freely choose values

and meanings in lifec. that human beings are condemned to be freed. that human beings must accept the anguish

that accompanies freedom

True or False


11 For Albert Camus, “the meaning of life is themost urgent of questions.”

12 One theistic response to the meaning of lifeclaims that human life has meaning because hu-mans are part of a larger plan or order devisedby God.

13 Karl Marx wrote that “the history of the worldis none other than the progress of the con-sciousness of freedom.”

14 According to the nihilist, the end of the world isnigh.

15 For Kierkegaard, the move to the religious stageis a commitment not to a rational principle, butto a relationship with a person.


J. L. Austin claimed that the question, “What is themeaning of life?” commits the fallacy of AskingNothing In Particular. Take, for example, the ques-tions “Is shooting good?” or “What is the purpose ofwriting?” To ask such questions without a specificcontext does not allow for any genuine answer.Thus, regarding the meaning of life, if the questionis made specific, such as what is the meaning of mytyping this Paradoxical Pursuit right now, the ques-tion can be readily answered with a specific, true re-sponse. The meaning or purpose of this moment inmy life would include such claims as, this is how Isupport my family, pay the mortgage, buy clothing,this is part of my profession and the like. So, do you

agree with Austin that to simply ask, “What is themeaning of life?” appears to pose a profound intel-lectual problem only because the question is not agenuine question?

�

In a world with zealous Hindus, Moslems, Chris-tians, Buddhists, and Jews, can religion give a genu-ine, non-arbitrary meaning to life? Among theseworld religions are monotheistic, polytheistic, andatheistic views regarding the existence of a god,some gods, and no god. Isn’t someone wrong andthus some view ultimately misguided?

�

Does our mortality and inevitable death make lifemeaningless or meaningful? If there is life afterdeath, how does the prolonging of life make this life,or even that future life, meaningful? How doeslength of life make a life meaningful or meaning-less?

�

If, as Robert Solomon claims in this episode, themeaning of life is to be found in living according tothe grandest of passions, then what is the role ofreason and rationality as these are traditionally con-trasted with the passions?

�

How is it possible for an individual to give his or herlife meaning and that meaning not be, in somesense, arbitrary?

APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

Would you describe your life as meaningless, emp-ty? If not, is this because of your age and, perhapsthe fact that your youth has in a sense literallyblinded you to your mortality? Or if age is not a rele-vant consideration, and your life is meaningful,what is the meaning of life for you?

�

Given Kierkegaard’s distinctions between the aes-thetic, ethical, and religious stages of life, whichmost typifies your life? Lennart Koskinen character-izes, as does Kierkegaard, the religious stage as the

Lesson Twenty-six: What is the Meaning of Life? 157

highest stage. What do you think this means and doyou agree? Which would you characterize as thehighest and why?

�

Organize a panel discussion in your neighborhoodor on your campus, inviting experts in philosophy,business, physical education, administration, andreligion for a colloquium on “The Meaning of Life.”Do the various responses of participants follow Ki-erkegaard’s distinctions among life’s attitudes?

NET LINKS









Philosophy Papers:



Metaphysics:


— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-meta-physics

159

Appendix

Answer Key for Self Test

LESSON 1: WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?1. d (4, 25)

2. b (4–6)

3. a (4–6)

4. d (synthesis)

5. b (25–27)

6. a (6–8)

7. d (23–24)

8. c (24–25)

9. c (8)

10. d (Video)

11. True (8)

12. False (21–22)

13. False (18–19)

14. True (24–25)

15. False (25–29)

LESSON 2: WHAT IS HUMAN NATURE?1. b (46)

2. d (53)

3. b (53)

4. a (Video)

5. d (54)

6. a (56)

LESSON 2: WHAT IS HUMAN NATURE? (continued)

7. c (59)

8. a (58)

9. c (62)

10. b (60–66)

11. a (66–69)

12. False (53)

13. True (58)

14. False (63)

15. False (69)

16. True (67)

LESSON 3: IS MIND DISTINCT FROM BODY?1. b (75–76)

2. b (78–79)

3. b (Video)

4. a (76–77)

5. a (Video)

6. a (78–79)

7. a (82)

8. a (82–83)

9. d (85)

10. c (86)


LESSON 3: IS MIND DISTINCT FROM BODY?(continued)

11. a (Video)

12. a (79)

13. True (75–76)

14. True (76)

15. True (80)

16. True (82)

17. True (83)

LESSON 4: IS THERE AN ENDURING SELF?1. b (89–90)

2. a (91)

3. d (92–93)

4. a (93–94)

5. c (94)

6. a (98)

7. d (98)

8. a (Video)

9. a (Video)

10. b (Video)

11. False (90)

12. True (91)

13. True (93)

14. False (94)

15. True (97)

LESSON 5: ARE WE SOCIAL BEINGS?1. b (102)

2. c (103–104)

3. b (103–106)

4. a (101–103)

5. b (103–106)

6. a (101–103)

7. b (103)

8. b (104–105)

9. b (Video)

10. a (101–103)

LESSON 5: ARE WE SOCIAL BEINGS?(continued)

11. False (102)

12. True (102)

13. False (102–103)

14. True (104–105)

15. False (106–107)

LESSON 6: WHAT IS REAL?1. c (137)

2. b (142)

3. a (143)

4. d (148)

5. d (145)

6. a (146)

7. d (152–153)

8. b (152)

9. d (161–162)

10. a (173)

11. True (143)

12. False (143)

13. True (152)

14. False (162)

15. True (167)

LESSON 7: HOW DO WE ENCOUNTER THE WORLD?

1. c (Video)

2. b (180)

3. a (180)

4. c (183)

5. b (Video)

6. a (182)

7. a (Video)

8. a (Video)

9. True (182)

10. True (186)

11. True (183)

12. False (189)

13. False (190)

Appendix: Answer Key for Self Test 161

LESSON 8: DO WE HAVE FREE WILL?

1. c (199)

2. b (200–201)

3. a (197)

4. a (196–197)

5. d (Video)

6. a (199)

7. c (198–200)

8. b (Video)

9. a (196–200)

10. a (196–200)

11. b (196–200)

12. b (196–200)

13. b (196–200)

14. a (196–200)

15. False (198)

16. False (197)

17. False (199–200)

18. False (200)

19. False (200)

LESSON 9: IS TIME REAL?

1. d (Video)

2. c (Video)

3. a (205)

4. a (206)

5. c (207)

6. a (204)

7. d (204–205)

8. a (Video)

9. a (Video)

10. False (203)

11. True (204)

12. False (205)

13. True (209)

14. True (208)

LESSON 10: DOES GOD EXIST?

1. d (236)

2. a (236–238)

3. a (Video)

4. c (241–242)

5. d (243)

6. a (256–257)

7. c (240–241)

8. b (245)

9. a (252–253)

10. True (234)

11. True (236)

12. False (243–244)

13. True (249)

14. False (256)

LESSON 11: CAN WE KNOW GOD THROUGH EXPERIENCE?

1. c (264–265)

2. d (Video)

3. a (Video)

4. a (265)

5. d (Video)

6. c (Video)

7. c (264–267)

8. b (Video)

9. d (Video)

10. b (261)

11. c (Video)

12. True (261)

13. True (266)

14. True (269)

15. True (271)

16. True (273)


LESSON 12: IS REASON THE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE?

1. b (314)

2. a (315)

3. d (Video)

4. a (317)

5. d (322)

6. c (320–321)

7. a (324)

8. a (Video)

9. a (Video)

10. b (323)

11. c (326)

12. b (324)

13. c (326–327)

14. True (318)

15. True (320–321)

16. False (323–324)

17. True (324–326)

18. False (326–327)

LESSON 13: DOES KNOWLEDGE DEPEND ON EXPERIENCE?

1. d (328)

2. b (Video)

3. c (Video)

4. b (333–334)

5. d (335)

6. d (337)

7. b (337)

8. a (370)

9. d (370)

10. b (340)

11. c (Video)

12. a (Video)

13. b (Video)

14. a (Video)

15. b (Video)

LESSON 13: DOES KNOWLEDGE DEPEND ON EXPERIENCE? (continued)

16. a (Video)

17. True (328)

18. True (329)

19. False (331–333)

20. False (336)

21. True (341)

LESSON 14: DOES THE MIND SHAPE THE WORLD?

1. d (347)

2. a (346)

3. a (346)

4. b (346)

5. d (349)

6. a (345–346)

7. c (Video)

8. a (317)

9. d (350)

10. b (Video)

11. c (Video)

12. False (344)

13. False (347)

14. True (349)

15. False (350)

16. True (350)

LESSON 15: HOW DOES SCIENCE ADD TO KNOWLEDGE?

1. c (353)

2. a (353)

3. b (355)

4. d (357)

5. a (357–358)

6. d (358–359)

7. a (358–360)

8. a (358–360)

9. b (358–360)


LESSON 15: HOW DOES SCIENCE ADD TO KNOWLEDGE? (continued)

10. b (358–360)

11. c (Video)

12. a (Video)

13. True (353)

14. True (354)

15. True (356)

16. False (357–358)

17. True (359)

LESSON 16: DOES SCIENCE GIVE US TRUTH?

1. c (387)

2. a (388)

3. b (397)

4. c (400)

5. a (414)

6. b (415)

7. c (413)

8. a (Video)

9. c (Video)

10. a (Video)

11. b (Video)

12. d (Video)

13. True (388–389)

14. True (393)

15. True (397)

16. False (413)

17. True (414)

LESSON 17: ARE INTERPRETATIONS TRUE?

1. c (419)

2. b (419)

3. d (420)

4. d (Video)

5. c (420–421)

6. a (421)

7. d (421)

8. a (421)

LESSON 17: ARE INTERPRETATIONS TRUE?(continued)

9. c (424)

10. a (421)

11. a (422)

12. d (423)

13. True (418)

14. False (420)

15. True (421)

16. False (422)

17. True (425)

LESSON 18: IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

1. c (Video)

2. b (Video, 459)

3. d (Video)

4. a (459)

5. b (Video)

6. a (Video)

7. b (Video)

8. b (Video)

9. a (458–459)

10. d (Video)

11. True (457)

12. False (457)

13. True (458)

14. False (458–459)

15. True (459)

LESSON 19: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

1. b (Video)

2. c (464)

3. b (Video)

4. a (466)

5. d (Video)

6. a (460–461)

7. c (Video)

8. c (Video)


LESSON 19: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? (continued)

9. b (Video)

10. d (Video)

11. a (Video)

12. False (461)

13. True (463)

14. False (466)

15. False (467)

16. False (469)

LESSON 20: CAN RULES DEFINE MORALITY?

1. d (480–481)

2. a (480)

3. c (481)

4. d (483)

5. b (481)

6. a (482)

7. a (484)

8. c (484–487)

9. b (486)

10. True (471)

11. True (474–475)

12. False (481)

13. False (484)

14. True (485)

LESSON 21: IS ETHICS BASED ON VIRTUE?

1. d (494)

2. b (Video)

3. a (Video)

4. c (Video)

5. a (Video)

6. a (Video)

7. c (Video)

8. c (Video)

9. a (Video)

10. c (Video)

11. True (494)

LESSON 21: IS ETHICS BASED ON VIRTUE?(continued)

12. False (495)

13. False (496)

14. False (502)

15. True (504)

LESSON 22: MORAL DILEMMAS . . . CAN ETHICS HELP?

1. b (Video)

2. d (Video)

3. a (Video)

4. b (Video)

5. c (Video)

6. c (Video)

7. b (Video)

8. a (493–494)

9. b (494–497)

10. d (509–510)

11. False (509–510)

12. False (512)

13. False (512–513)

14. True (515)

15. True (516)

LESSON 23: WHAT JUSTIFIES THE STATE?

1. c (549)

2. b (550)

3. c (551)

4. b (551)

5. d (Video)

6. a (558)

7. a (560)

8. d (Video)

9. a (Video)

10. a (Video)

11. b (Video)

12. a (Video)

13. b (Video)


LESSON 23: WHAT JUSTIFIES THE STATE?(continued)

14. b (Video)

15. True (549)

16. False (555)

17. False (557)

18. True (560)

19. True (562)

LESSON 24: WHAT IS JUSTICE?

1. c (Video)

2. d (Video)

3. d (Video)

4. a (Video)

5. b (580)

6. c (581–582)

7. a (Video)

8. e (Video)

9. True (571)

10. False (572)

11. True (575)

12. False (577)

13. True (582)

LESSON 25: WHAT IS ART?

1. d (Video)

2. c (633)

3. c (Video)

4. d (635)

5. c (Video)

LESSON 25: WHAT IS ART? (continued)

6. d (Video)

7. b (642–643)

8. d (Video)

9. c (644)

10. d (Video)

11. c (643)

12. d (Video)

13. True (634)

14. False (633, 641)

15. True (638)

16. False (644)

17. True (643)

LESSON 26: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?

1. d (Video)

2. b (649–650)

3. c (651)

4. c (654–655)

5. c (Video)

6. b (654)

7. c (654–655)

8. a (656)

9. c (Video)

10. a (Video)

11. True (646)

12. True (647)

13. False (649)

14. False (653)

15. True (655)

Date post:	24-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	spartandfm19
View:	565 times
Download:	3 times

6 Intel

Documents