Final Review, Chapters 4, 5 (Ethics)

Chapter 4

Numerical identity: Two objects are identical if they are one and the same. Qualitative Identity: Two objects are qualitatively identical if they share the same properties (qualities).

Accidental property:  a property a thing can loose without ceasing to exist.
Essential property: A property a thing cannot loose without ceasing to exist.

Is numerical identity a necessary condition for qualitative identity? Read p. 266.

1. Animalism: Identical persons are those with identical human bodies (i,e., "I'm my body"). Problems: Siamese Twins (Hensel sisters), The "transgender issue". C/E: Locke's tale of the prince and the cobbler (as the cobbler and the prince trade souls, their bodies become redundant).

Soul Theory: Identical persons are those who share the same soul. ("I'm my soul"). The main argument against the soul theory is that there is nothing about the soul theory that one cannot already explain much better by referring to people's behaviors (or character).

2. Locke's Memory Theory of Personal Identity: (I am my memories and my memories are the result of my experiences). Problem: What if one forgets? Is that forgotten part still a part of my identity? Reid’s Tale of the Brave Officer reveals the following: Direct memory: A memory that a person can consciously recall. Indirect memory: A memory that an earlier stage of that person can consciously recall. Real memory: A memory of an event that was experienced by the person remembering it and that was caused by the event it records. Apparent memory: A memory of an event that either didn't happen or was not caused by the event it records.

The main objection against Locke's memory theory is that Locke's Memory Theory is circular. Why? It defines memories in terms of the self and the self in terms of its memories (i.e., I am my memories and my memories are what happens to me.

3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Identical persons are those who are psychologically continuous to one another. That is to say, two people are psychologically continuous if they form part of an overlapping series of persons that quasi-remember and quasi desire the same things.

A note about the relationship between q-memories and personal identity: What  is the difference between quasi-memory and real memory? Take a look at p. 297: A q-memory is an apparent memory caused in the right way by an actual experience. All real memories are q-memories but not all q-memories are real memories, because people can have q-memories of experiences they didn't actually have. Why is it so important that q-memories are caused in the right way?  Because q-memories ground personal identity, though not every way of causing memories is identity preserving. An example would be hypnosis, the hypnotists may give you a memory that happened to someone else. That doesn't make you identical to that person. 

C/E: William’s Reincarnation of Guy Fawkes; Williams' Reduplication Argument. The conclusion from this experiment is that psychological continuity is one-to-many, not one-to-one. That is to say, one can be psychologically continuous to many people at once. C/E Parfit Teletransporter Mind Experiment. Recall that in the second teleporter Po (on earth) and Pc (in Mars) are psychologically continuous, physically identical, but they cannot be the same person (it violates the principle of numeric identity: one person cannot be in two places at the same time). It also suggests that (as when Po dies of cardiac arrest, the Pc survives, which seems to suggest that identity is not necessary for survival.

4. Brain Theory: Identical persons are those who are psychologically continuous with one another and whose psychology is caused by and realized in the same brain. C/A: Parfit’s Division. Triplets, A,B,C. A's brain is transplanted into B & C and A dies. The surviving brothers (A and B) are now physically identical and psychologically continuous with one another. So, if your brain can be divided, the brain theory is flawed.

5. The difference between narratives of the self: 1- diachronic, 2- episodic. The diachronic sees the different stages of the life as part of a continuous series. The episodic sees the different stages as discontinuous episodes. This doesn't mean that the episodic individual cannot make a narrative, but they usually don't. However this integration doesn't seem to be necessary condition for being a person.

We've analyzed the example of Robert and Frank (p. 265) in class. If Frank and Robert are different persons it would be wrong to punish a person for what another person did. Some in the class affirmed they are the same, but that's what we needed to prove. In any case, the Frank-Robert case points to the self as a process.

6. Is personal identity a necessary condition for responsibility? No. Why? We have to talk about character, which is a function of our beliefs, desires, values, etc. Can a person change his/ her character? Remember the differences between Frank and Robert. Though Frank and Robert are numerically identical, they don't have the same character (they are qualitatively different). Yes, they are numerically identical, but their degrees of responsibility have to be taken into consideration. This is the idea behind rehabilitation. Parole boards take into account that if the character of a person changes for the better, the individual's responsibility for a crime is lessened.

What matters for responsibility is character. Character being a function of our beliefs, desires, values, etc and our actions being a function of our character. So numeric identity seems to be neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition for responsibility. What matters is sameness of character. 

7. Self as PROCESS.

What does it mean to say that the self is "a process." Let's recall Sartre's motto: l'homme n'est pas ce qu'il est, il est ce qu'il n'est pas ("the self is not what it is and it is what it is not"). The self is in constant  de-venir (or be-coming).


Chapter 5

Section 5.1

1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Objections: (a) SA makes moral evaluations a matter of personal opinion, (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 

 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Objections (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.

3. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE!
Counterargument: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering). I've brought up the argument of throwing acid into women's faces, as a proof that these women's suffering warrant a moral judgment of condemnation.  

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to differences between "deep" values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and "superficial" values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

6. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2.

1. Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

2. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else): 
3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office). 

4. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) McCloskey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue, (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
 
5. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.

Section 5.3.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).
 
2. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. Problem with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (I've commented this as Bin-Laden Syndrome).  How can we solve that?
 
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END.Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.

Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
5. Pluralistic Formalism improves upon Kantian theory's problem with exceptions. 

Section 5.4


Aristotle's virtue. Aristotle begins by saying that the highest good for humans, the highest aim of all human practical thinking, is eudaimonia. What makes a virtuous character (ethikē aretē) possible, which is in turn necessary if happiness is to be possible. He describes a sequence of necessary steps: righteous actions (under the influence of teachers) allow the development of the right habits, which in turn can allow the development of a good character in which the habits are voluntary, and this in turn gives a chance of achieving eudaimonia. 


Virtue is an admirable human quality, marked by a disposition to behave in certain ways in certain circumstances. Then, there is the mean between excess and defect. Here are some examples:

cowardice----courage----rashness

apathy----gentleness----short temper

stinginess----generosity----extravagance

grouchiness----friendliness----flattery

boorishness----wittiness----buffoonery

self-deprecation----truthfulness----boastfulness

insensibility----self-control----debauchery

Virtue ethics is centered around what makes a good person rather than what makes an action right. So the purpose of morality for Aristotle is to make it possible for everyone to enjoy a good life by restricting certain forms of self-interested behavior. And the best way to get people to abide by a system of moral rules is to instill in them certain dispositions known as virtues.
______________________
Here is the link for your textbook, "Doing Philosophy."

Why Politicians Get Away With Lying?

A very interesting article for discussion in the NYTimes: 

First definitions. What's a lie? 

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies

v.intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

For Lynn Vavreck, politics is a high-stakes game. She writes:

... in the 2000 Democratic nominating contest, when Al Gore claimed he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” was he lying? Or did his comment seem more like a lie after it was misreported that he said he “invented” the Internet? Or how about this case: was it a lie in January of 1998 when President Clinton forcefully denied he had “sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” adding that he “never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never”? And in 2003, when Colin Powell reported to the United Nations that U.S. intelligence showed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was he lying?

See that these examples are different: The first is a public appearance, Gore was being hyperbolic. The second is a more serious instance: lying under oath. In the third example, Powell (then secretary of state under G. W. Bush) was deceived by the C.I.A. Vavreck makes an interesting point:

 Why do Americans tolerate politicians who lie? Because most political lies are exaggerations or contextual lies. They are lies of omission, or put the way a politician might, they are economies of truth.

 For Sisela Bok, lying has become a norm of politics. Bok makes a good point. If your opponent lies and gets away with it, there is little you can do but to lie as well. And the public? This is why people accept that politicians are liars.

But most of the time, the truth is hard to discern amid the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations about fraud, the broken promises, and the outright lies that fly fast and loose among campaigns. The worst outcome would be for everyone to give up -- for voters to conclude that all politicians lie and for politicians to lie when they think that they will get away with doing so, hoping that enough people will be misled and that others won’t hold it against them.

How about evading instead of "lying"?

More disturbingly, politicians who dodged the question but did so in a smooth, practiced fashion were rated more favorably than those who answered the question but in a less fluid fashion: politicians are better off answering the wrong question well than the right question poorly. (Not all dodges go unnoticed – politicians who answered a question about the war on terrorism by riffing on health care were both caught, and punished.)

 George Lakoff is a linguist. For him, it's a two way street. Voters align themselves with their politician of choice and believe what they say because they believe those things. See it as candidate "X" lying to its base (but for them is not a lie). 

What do you think. Should we accept the fact that politics is this game of partisanship and just turn the other way and let the game go on? Is it just a matter of getting used to it? But a lie is a lie: There were no WMD in Iraq.

Politics can be seen as a theater of different factions pushing their versions of governance. In America this is generally Republican vs. Democrat every four years. But aside from the theater, this is a very serious issue. These versions end up affecting our daily lives and our future. Shouldn't we have a commitment to truth? 


I am closing this post next Friday at 11pm.

what's the higgs boson?

god spoke through CERN: here's the higgs boson

as we've been discussing in class, the most important news go under the carpet, few people paying attention to them. we live too preoccupied with our daily noises. this is great news!

Confirmation of the Higgs boson or something very much like it would constitute a rendezvous with destiny for a generation of physicists who have believed in the boson for half a century without ever seeing it. The finding affirms a grand view of a universe described by simple and elegant and symmetrical laws — but one in which everything interesting, like ourselves, results from flaws or breaks in that symmetry. According to the Standard Model, the Higgs boson is the only manifestation of an invisible force field, a cosmic molasses that permeates space and imbues elementary particles with mass. Particles wading through the field gain heft the way a bill going through Congress attracts riders and amendments, becoming ever more ponderous.Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight. There would be neither atoms nor life.

of course, as with crucial discoveries, this is just the beginning. now comes the process of understanding and recalibrating theories with empirical results.