A fetus is the only biological entity whose developmental telos leads toward rationality & autonomy

Kant's second formulation: treat humanity not as a means but as an end.

Even if actually existing autonomy is absent, the fetus is—unlike an object—directed toward possessing such autonomy. 

Analogy: A seed oak tree is not an oak tree, but one cannot deny it is the only ontological entity whose telos is fully oakhood. 

Thus, potentiality plus internal teleology confers on the fetus at least minimal moral status. 

The Argument From Irreversibility 

For Kant, moral responsibility is crucially tied to non-reversible effects affecting rational beings. Terminating potential personhood is metaphysically irreversible: once prevented, the future rational agent cannot come into existence. 

Thus, the maxim: I may eliminate a being whose rational agency has not yet been actualized implies: I am justified in preventing the existence of future rational autonomy. 

Kant holds that rationality & autonomy are the supreme moral values. 

So deliberately preventing its emergence is not morally neutral. 

(Kant’s Deepest Point) 

The moment the being is on the only natural trajectory toward rational self-legislation, then the duty becomes precautionary: If uncertainty exists about whether something is properly a bearer of dignity, one must treat it as if it is. 

We can summarize the Kantian position as follows: rationality and autonomy are the supreme moral ends. 

A fetus is the only biological entity whose essential developmental telos leads toward rational autonomy.

To eliminate it is to prevent the realization of that end. Preventing the existence of a future bearer of moral law cannot be universalized without contradiction. Therefore abortion (except where the mother’s own rational agency is critically threatened) violates the categorical imperative. 

See that the Kantian stance is not sentimental or biologically naïve. It arises logically from: the universality test, the refusal to instrumentalize humanity, the intrinsic teleology built into the concept of humanity as rational nature. 

Important Kantian nuance: A truly Kantian pro-life position does NOT (and cannot) base itself on: theological claims, emotive claims, utilitarian claims, sociological claims. 

Instead, it rests on ONLY one point: A being whose nature is to become rational & autonomous must be treated according to laws that protect rational agency. 

Therefore, even if the fetus is not yet a “person,” it is nevertheless the bearer of developing humanity and must not be destroyed for contingent private ends.

LA AUTODIGNIDAD KANTIANA EVALUADA EN EJEMPLOS ESPECÍFICOS

Relaciones afectivas o románticas 

Lo que se conoce como “pareja de repuesto”.  La otra persona te busca solo cuando está sola, aburrida o emocionalmente necesitada. Esto también ocurre entre amigos. Señal: tu presencia es un parche, no un reconocimiento de tu dignidad. 

La relación disfrazada de amor. Ej.: Alguien se queda contigo o está contigo por conveniencia (dinero, papeles, contactos, vivienda). Señal: te conviertes en un instrumento de estabilidad o de ascenso. 

Manipulación emocional (culpa, silencio, amenazas veladas). La persona usa tus emociones para obtener lo que quiere. Señal: tu bienestar no figura en sus cálculos. d) Dependencia unilateral:  Tú sostienes emocionalmente a alguien que no hace ningún esfuerzo por tu parte. 

Señal: tu rol es ser “contenedor”, no ser persona. 

Relaciones de amistad

El “amigo utilitario”.  Te llama solo para pedir favores, contactos, ayuda económica o emocional. 

Señal: desaparecen cuando tú necesitas algo. 

La amistad basada en el acceso.  Se relacionan contigo por tu prestigio, talento o redes sociales, no por ti. Señal: si pierdes ese recurso, se disuelve la “amistad”. 

La burla constante, disfrazada de humor, convierte tus vulnerabilidades en entretenimiento. Señal: eres medio en su posición dominante en el grupo. 

Relaciones familiares

Padre/madre que exige logros para afirmar su propio ego.  El hijo es instrumento para el narcisismo del progenitor. Señal: el amor es condicional. 

Familia que recurre a ti únicamente como recurso práctico.  Cuidar, resolver, pagar, negociar… pero sin reciprocidad ni reconocimiento. Señal: tu valor es funcional, no personal. 

Hermano que abusa de la lealtad.  Te impone secretos, favores o sacrificios sin darte apoyo moral. 

Señal: se apropia de tu buena voluntad. 

Relaciones laborales

Jefe que te alaba para explotar.  Elogios estratégicos para que aceptes tareas imposibles o sin pago. 

Señal: las palabras sirven a sus propios fines, no a tu desarrollo. 

Colegas que se atribuyen y roban tu trabajo. Utilizan tu esfuerzo para generar su ventaja competitiva. 

Señal: desapareces como autor moral de tu acción. 

Trabajo emocional no reconocido. Te usan como “terapeuta gratuito” del equipo. Señal: exigen tu energía emocional, no tu criterio profesional. 

 Relaciones sociales o de comunidad

Eres el “mediador eterno”. Todos recurren a ti para resolver conflictos que no quieren asumir. Señal: instrumentalizan tu carácter conciliador. 

Líder o institución que exige sacrificios sin cuidado por ti.  Se aprovechan de tu compromiso para sostener estructuras injustas. Señal: tu voluntad se convierte en combustible, no en fin. 

Eres la “voz razonable” que, sin embargo, ignoran cuando molesta.  Te escuchan solo cuando conviene a sus planes. Señal: tu racionalidad está al servicio estratégico de otros. 

Relaciones íntimas de explotación moral 

Quien te confiesa amor pero evita comprometerse.  Busca la calidez afectiva sin responsabilidad moral. Señal: eres una especie de refugio, carnal, nunca un igual. 

Quien requiere de ti validación constante. Usan tu atención como combustible narcisista. 

Señal: tu presencia existe para alimentar la inseguridad ajena. 

Quien juega con tus esperanzas:  promesas vagas, futuros imaginarios, “ya casi”… 

Señal: instrumentalizan tu ilusión como un recurso de control.

AHORA TÚ MISMO TE PERMITES SER USADO (SEGUNDO IMPERATIVO)

Cuando aceptas una relación para no estar solo. Sacrificas tu dignidad por evitar un sentimiento pasajero. 

Cuando legitimas el abuso con justificaciones: “Así es él o así es ella ... pero yo lo manejo.” Racionalizar es autocosificarse. 

Cuando renuncias a tu juicio por agradar. Te conviertes en un medio para mantener la aprobación.  ¿Estoy siendo usado? Pregúntate: ¿Si eliminara el beneficio que le aporto, esa persona seguiría interesada en mí, o desaparecería la relación? Si la relación se disuelve al quitarle la utilidad, entonces no es relación: es instrumentalización. 

Uso de la culpa.  

a) “Después de todo lo que he hecho por ti…” → La persona te obliga a actuar para compensar una deuda emocional infinita. 

b) “Si dices que no, me harás daño” → Te convierte en responsable de su bienestar emocional. 

c) “Sabes que eres el único que me entiende” → Carga sobre ti la obligación de sostenerlo. 

Cómo se usa: activa tu culpa para obtener obediencia. 

Uso del miedo.  

a) “Si me contradices, no sé qué va a pasar” → Amenaza velada te inmoviliza. 

b) “No encontrarías a nadie más que te quiera” → Mina la autoestima para asegurar la dependencia. 

c) “Cuida lo que dices, la gente habla” → Se usa el miedo social para controlarte. 

Cómo se usa: Se administra el temor para que no ejerzas tu autonomía. 

Uso del afecto (amor, cariño) 

a) “Si realmente me amaras, harías esto por mí” → El amor convertido en chantaje emocional. 

b) “Solo tú puedes salvar esta relación” → Te hace responsable de un vínculo que debería ser recíproco.  c) “No necesito nada; solo que estés aquí siempre” → Reclamo de presencia total como prueba de afecto. Cómo se usa: Transforman el amor en moneda de cambio. 

 Uso de la esperanza.   

 a) “Ya casi estoy listo para comprometerme…” → Mantiene tu expectativa viva para seguir obteniendo beneficios. 

 b) “Pronto te reconoceré tu trabajo” → Te tiene en suspenso para que sigas entregando más. 

 c) “Lo nuestro funcionará, dame tiempo” → La esperanza sustituye a la acción real. 

 Cómo se usa: Se alimenta un futuro posible para controlar el presente. 

 Uso de la vergüenza La vergüenza te hace sentir “defectuoso”. 

 a) “Tú sí que no sabes manejar nada” → Te deja inseguro para que dependas del otro. 

 b) “No me hagas quedar mal” → Asocia tu valor a su imagen pública. 

 c) “Mira a los demás… ¿y tú?” → Comparación degradante para obtener la sumisión. 

 Cómo se usa: Te rebajan para hacerte más manejable. 

 Uso del deseo de aprobación Necesitas ser aceptado y ellos lo saben. 

 a) “Eres el único que puede arreglar esto” → Te vuelven imprescindible para explotarte. 

 b) “Qué decepción, esperaba más de ti” → Apuñalan la autoestima para lograr rendimiento. 

 c) “La gente que yo respeto haría lo que digo” → Empuja a actuar para no “perder prestigio”. 

 Cómo se usa: Se manipula tu deseo de ser valorado para guiar tu conducta. 

 Uso de la falsa compasión. A veces, tu mayor virtud se usa contra ti. 

 a) “No tengo a nadie más, no me dejes” → Te hace sentir cruel si pones límites. 

 b) “Sin ti, yo no puedo vivir” → Te responsabiliza de su equilibrio emocional. 

 c) “Estoy tan mal… pero si tú me ayudas…” → La vulnerabilidad se convierte en estrategia. 

 Cómo se usa: La persona finge fragilidad (o la exagera) para no asumir su responsabilidad. 

Homework #9 (CHAPTER 3, ETHICS)

Questions 1-4 are taken from this post.

1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain with one example from your daily life. Think of a good/or bad action coming from a friend (no less than 50 words). 

2. What are moral facts? (in your own words, avoid copying my text).

3. In what sense is Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People a masterpiece? Is this moral knowledge?

4. Why is it that Best Consensus cannot be produced overnight? Is Best Consensus infallible? Explain your answer. 

Questions 5-7 are based on this lecture. 

5. a) What is the difference between morality and etiquette. 

b) Provide an example of each from your own life based on the definitions.  

c) Why is etiquette (LI) so important for Confucius?

6. Morality and law are not the same, in what manner? Again, from your personal experience, bring up an instance when there's a law you consider immoral and wish it would change (or else, something immoral in need of a law.   

7. Why is slavery wrong now in 2024? Why was it not wrong in, say, 424 B.C.?

8. What's Hedonism and the pleasure argument? (Triff lecture)

9- What is "sustainable pleasure" according to Epicurus? (same lecture as above)

10- Define Ethical egoism. What's the difference between genuine (BEST) and apparent interests? Bring an example from your own life.

11- Point to the difference between interest and best interest. Bring an example from real life to make the point.

12- Make a defense of ethical egoism in two points.

13- What does this satement mean? Explain.

In the end, the ethical egoist becomes an altruist of sorts. She is not fooling herself that altruism should erase the expecting good in return. Why not? It reinforces the stereotype of the free rider. 

(Whatever answer is stressed in yellow requires at least 30 words).

FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DEFEND THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS IDEAS — EVEN OFFENSIVE, HATEFUL, AND UNPOPULAR. NOT SPEECH THAT IS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY INCITES VIOLENCE, THREATENS HARM OR DEFAMES OTHERS. 

The following forms of expression do not receive First Amendment protection (in U.S. constitutional law) because they cause or are likely to cause legally cognizable harm: 

Incitement to violence (Unprotected speech)

Actual threats, Unprotected speech) creating fear of bodily harm. 

Defamation, Civil wrong (tort) — false statements harming reputation. 

Slander (subtype of defamation). 

Libel: Written defamation of the public.

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DON'T DEFEND THESE FORMS ABOVE

True threats: At a rally, a speaker points to a nearby shop, tells the crowd “They’re our enemies — smash those windows right now!” and the crowd begins to do so. 

Defamation: “Dr. Smith knowingly falsifies medical records and billed patients for surgeries he never performed,” when the speaker knows it’s untrue and the claim damages Smith’s practice. 

Slander: During a public meeting, a person stands up and says, “Councilwoman Jones stole $50,000 from the city budget,” knowing it’s false, and the accusation harms her career.

Libel: A newspaper prints an article claiming: “Local teacher Karen Liu was fired for sexually abusing students,” when no such thing happened.

In your papers, DO NOT present any of these forms as legitimate characterizations of free speech, nor assume free speech advocates support it. 

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES SUPPORT THESE:

MILL PRINCIPLE

The best remedy for harmful or dangerous ideas is more speech, not suppression —unless the speech crosses into direct harm (like threats or incitement).

CONTENT NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE

The government cannot restrict speech based on dislike of its message, only on legitimate harms (e.g., violence, intimidation, defamation).

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE DEFENDS 

Broad free-speech protection for controversial, offensive, or unpopular ideas — while accepting the traditional carve-outs that directly cause legally recognized harm. This is referred as: 

Civil libertarianism 

Free-speech maximalism (with exceptions)

The classical liberal/free-expression tradition

We defend the right to express ideas — even offensive, hateful, and unpopular ones — but we do not protect speech that is legally actionable because it directly incites violence, threatens harm, or defames others.

We aren’t defending incitement or threats — WE DEFEND the freedom to say things others might strongly disagree with, dislike, find disturbing, or find morally wrong, so long as it does not cross into the domain of actionable harm.

Climate change vs. Climate Catastrophe:

In what follows, I contrast Climate change against Climate Catastrophe:

Climate change: means the acknowledgment of an observable trend: rising global temperature, shifting rainfall patterns, and increasing extreme events. It rests on measured data, long time-series, and a narrow scientific consensus: yes, the climate is warming, and that warming alters ecological and social systems. For example, our modern warming is 1.4 degrees Celsius colder than the 14th-century Medieval Warming.

Climate catastrophe is a rhetorical extrapolation & hyperbole that turns a trend into a baked fact. It assumes imminent collapse, a universal point of no return, and apocalyptic scenarios unsupported by proportionate evidence. It does not stem from data but from maximalist interpretations of data. 

Case for maintaining this critical distinction

A. Epistemological: The risk for climate change is quantifiable, measurable, modelable, and updateable. It depends on accumulated empirical observation (e.g., +1.2 °C since the preindustrial era). 

Climate catastrophe: unquantified, often highly speculative risk. It treats uncertainty as narrative certainty, confusing possible scenarios with inevitable outcomes. Here we have three different fallacies: 

1. The Fallacy of Confusing Possibility with Certainty, also known as "Doomsday fallacy”: It treats an extreme projection—typically a low-probability tail outcome—as the default future. This is very common in common in debates on climate, AI risk, geopolitics. A general reasoning error: taking something that may happen in some scenarios and treating it as something that will happen. It collapses modal categories: “possible → probable → inevitable.” Not good. 

2. The Fallacy of Catastrophic Overgeneralization: It draws universal conclusions from exceptional cases. When applied to risk, it reads an extreme possibility as the only trajectory. Not good. 

3. Misuse of Precautionary Principle. When framed as a policy argument: turning a principle about prudence under uncertainty into a claim of certainty about catastrophic outcomes. Same.

B. Proportionality of Evidence 

Climate change: hard evidence—temperature records, CO₂ levels, ice-mass loss, ocean acidification. 

Climate catastrophe: elevates extreme model projections as if they were the central trajectory. Treats the “worst case” (RCP 8.5) as a guaranteed outcome, even though it is currently considered unlikely as a socio-economic pathway. 

C. Communicative Effect 

Climate change: enables gradual action, rational policy, risk-based adaptation, and mitigation. 

Climate catastrophe: generates paralysis, fatalism, apocalyptic rhetoric. It turns science into prophecy. And when the prophecy fails to materialize on schedule, public trust erodes. 

D. Politics of Language 

Climate change: describes a phenomenon. 

Climate catastrophe: interprets that phenomenon through an emotional frame—cataclysm—without proportional analysis. It hyperbolizes to the point of fusing science with activism. It operates as an aesthetics of fear. 

Conclusion: Distinguishing climate change from climate catastrophe prevents conceptual collapse. 

It allows us to treat global warming as real, measurable, urgent—but not as an apocalyptic inevitability. It guards against rhetorical exaggeration that undermines scientific credibility and drives policy through emotional shock rather than evidence. 

Homework #9, 2025 Tres párrafos del Philosophy Paper

Aquí tienen los tres párrafos de la tarea. Fíjense, lo marcado en amarillo representa los argumentos a medida que se van desarrollando. De nuevo, el párrafo 1 contiene el programa del philosophy paper: Tesis y contratesis, con dos puntos cada uno. 

_______

PARAGRAPH 1

In this paper, I defend the Pro-Choice position.  First, I argue that individuals have a legal right to make decisions about their own bodies, including whether to continue a pregnancy. For pro-choice advocates, bodily autonomy is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom and privacy. Second, I show that forcing the carrying of a pregnancy can cause physical and psychological damage, as well as having negative economic consequences. 

In contrast, Pro-Life advocates disagree. They hold that human life begins at conception and deserves protection from that moment. First, they claim that the fetus has intrinsic moral value, independent of the mother’s choice. In addition, pro-life advocates argue that a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members undermines its moral foundation. Both sides appeal to ethical principles—freedom versus the sanctity of life—yet frame them through different moral priorities. 

_______

A partir de ahora, los párrafos pertenecen a la tesis o contratesis. El párrafo 2 es el párrafo de la tesis. Observen el primer argumento de la tesis: right to make decisions about their bodies. Este argumento va desarrollado y expuesto con claridad, usando un lenguaje claro. Además incluye expertos o lo que llamo "outside sources". Se cita según la convención MLA.

PARAGRAPH 2

Pro-Choice supporters emphasize bodily autonomy as a cornerstone of human rights. The right to control one’s body is protected by legal and moral reasoning alike. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson famously illustrated this in “A Defense of Abortion” (1971), using her violinist analogy to argue that being forced to remain connected to another life violates one’s autonomy, even if that life depends on you. Contemporary sources echo this concern. According to The New York Times, many reproductive-rights advocates view the issue as “not about promoting abortion, but about preserving the ability to make deeply personal medical decisions” (Liptak, Adam. “After Roe’s Fall, Legal Battles Begin.” The New York Times, 26 June 2022). This position frames abortion not as an act against life, but as an act of self-determination within complex personal and social circumstances. 

_______

El párrafo 3 es el párrafo de la contratesis. Observen el primer argumento de la contratesis fue: intrinsic moral value of the fetus. Este argumento va desarrollado, claramente expuesto, usando un lenguaje claro. Además incluye expertos o lo que llamo "outside sources". Se cita según la convención MLA.

PARAGRAPH 3

Pro-Life defenders argue that it is paramount to extend moral considerations to the fetus as a potential 

human being. They hold that life, once begun, possesses inherent worth regardless of dependency or stage of development. Philosopher Don Marquis, in his essay “Why Abortion Is Immoral” (1989), contends that abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future like ours, one containing potential experiences, relationships, and growth. This reasoning sees the act as a moral loss equivalent in kind—if not degree—to ending a postnatal life. Religious and civic groups often reinforce this stance; as reported in The Washington Post, many advocates believe “a consistent ethic of life protects the unborn alongside the elderly and disabled” (Boorstein, Michelle. “Faith Leaders React to Abortion Ruling.” Washington Post, 25 June, 2022). The pro-life argument places moral value on life’s continuity as the foundation of human dignity.

PROS AND CONS TOPICS FOR FINAL PAPER, PHI 2010 HONORS, 2025

 

PROS AND CONS OF AI

CLIMATE CHANGE

SOCIAL MEDIA

FACTORY FARMS

FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH

GUN CONTROL

DEATH PENALTY

Chaque personne est un choix absolu de soi

Para entender el libertarianismo de Sartre tenemos que hablar de identidad, es decir,  de ontología (que es el estudio del ser). 

En su obra maestra El ser y la nada, Sartre presenta lo siguiente:

1. El en-soi: plenitud sin fisura El en-soi (lo que es en sí) es el ser de las cosas. 

Es macizo, compacto, sin falta ni distancia respecto a sí mismo. Una piedra “es lo que es”. No se pregunta por su ser, no tiene interioridad ni proyecto. Representa la positividad pura del ser. 

2. El pour-soi: negatividad encarnada.  El pour-soi (lo que es para sí) es la conciencia. Y aquí Sartre introduce le néant (la nada) como su condición constitutiva. 

La conciencia no es algo, sino una grieta en el ser. Cuando el sujeto dice “yo no soy esto”, o “no quiero ser eso”, introduce una negación: se separa del ser dado, se distancia de sí, abre un hueco ontológico. 

De este modo, la nada no es una entidad, sino el modo de ser del para-sí. 

3. Negación como libertad.  Esa negatividad —le néant— es lo que hace posible la libertad. 

El ser humano puede “no ser” lo que es y “ser” lo que no es. 

En ese poder de negar lo dado radica la raíz del proyecto, del deseo, del sentido. Mientras el en-soi es plenitud sin historia, el pour-soi es falta en movimiento: vive negándose y rehaciéndose. 

El ser es una lucha entre contrarios. Polos opuestos. La libertad es una negatividad ontológica.

1. Libertad como negatividad del pour-soi.  

El pour-soi (la conciencia) no coincide consigo mismo. Siempre se escapa, se desborda. En la lógica clásica, la doble negación también elimina el efecto de la primera: ¬(¬A) ≡ A. Un principio de identidad: negar dos veces equivale a afirmar. Sartre dice en L’Être et le Néant: “El hombre es una nada que se interpone entre lo que es y lo que no es.” 

Esa nada —le néant— es precisamente la libertad. 

Porque al poder decir “no”, el sujeto rompe el determinismo del ser-en-sí. 

Negar es poder distanciarse uno de sí mismo: No ser lo que se es, ni estar condenado a lo que se fue. 

 2. Libertad como condena 

Por eso Sartre afirma: “El hombre está condenado a ser libre” (L'homme est condamné à être libre). 

El ser no puede dejar de elegir. Su ser es pura apertura. 

Eso quiere decir que no existe una esencia previa que determine su existencia. 

Cada decisión es una autonegación de lo dado, un modo de hacerse y rehacerse. 

La libertad no es un privilegio, sino una carga: no podemos refugiarnos en una naturaleza fija, ni en un destino. 

3. La negación hace posible el proyecto 

Gracias a le néant, el ser humano proyecta. Puede decir: “aún no soy eso que quiero ser”. 

Ese intervalo entre el ser y el deber-ser —el vacío que la conciencia introduce en el mundo— es el espacio del deseo, de la acción, del sentido. 

Sin negación no habría futuro, porque no habría distancia entre lo real y lo posible. 

4. La libertad como angustia 

 La negación no solo libera: también desarraiga. Cada vez que elegimos, negamos infinitas alternativas posibles, y asumimos la responsabilidad de haberlas destruido (separado de nosotros). 

Por eso la libertad va unida a la angustia (angoisse): el vértigo ante el vacío que somos.

Philosophy paper (second assignment)

 click here for more information

STRUCTURE OF YOUR 2025 PHILOSOPHY PAPER

Short Philosophy Paper: Thesis/Counter Format Structure 

(6 paragraphs total) 

Paragraph 1 – Both thesis and counter thesis presentation (two short paragraphs). State your thesis (the position you defend) first, and then the counter's thesis. 

Paragraph 2—Now, state your only thesis and present a clear supporting argument. Be direct and focused. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 3 – Counter Presentation: State the opposing view (counter-thesis). Present one argument supporting that opposing position. Keep tone objective—show you understand the other side. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 4 – Thesis Argument Expanded:  Develop your single argument in depth. Address potential objections briefly. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 5 – Counterargument Expanded: Develop the counterargument fully and fairly. Explain how it challenges your thesis. Give it real strength so your later response feels earned. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 6 – Rebuttal and Conclusion:  Directly respond to the counter-argument. Show why your thesis withstands the objection. Conclude with a short reflection on what your position implies.Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Topics for your philosophy paper (2025)

Here are some of the most talked-about topics right now. Each entry is linked to a Wikipedia article. Look at the table on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia entry and find the different angles "FOR" and "AGAINST" any given topic. If you don't see the arguments "against" the topic in the entry, you must do your research (and I'll help). 

NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR PAPER; LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS AND CITE THEM.  

Factory farms and/or Animal welfare

(Generally, it is little appreciated that this topic takes an ecological and human/animal dimension: the link between animal-processed foods, environmental degradation, and vegetarianism, all tied to the still obscure field of animal ethics).

Gun control vs. Second amendment

(Aproblem intersecting Second Amendment rights, civil rights, policy, government interference, mental health, and terrorism).

Social media & culture 

(Privacy issues, information overload, cyberbullying, fake news, social isolation, net addiction, etc).

Climate change 

(Global warming is at the forefront of today's scientific and sociopolitical discourse; many issues here are worth discussing: what is nature? Generational responsibility, presentism, economic growth, etc.

Capital Punishment vs. Abolitionism 

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech 

Online free expression must yield when it causes social harm. Counter: Restricting speech online undermines democratic discourse. Urgent amid misinformation, hate speech, and platform regulation debates. 

AI and Moral ResponsibilityThesis

Artificial intelligence can be morally accountable for its actions. Counter: Only humans, as intentional agents, can bear moral responsibility. Urgent because of autonomous systems, deepfakes, and lethal drones.

Homework #8, Chapter 5 (free will and determinism)

Based on the lecture on Chapter 5

1. What is Hard Determinism (HD from here on)? Explain. 

2. if HD is true, are we responsible for our actions? Explain.

3. How is punishment considered for Hard Determinists?

4. What's Compatibilism? 

5. Explain how Compatibilism reconciles free will and determinism using the idea of alternative possibilities.

6. Is punishment justified for Compatibilists?

7. Read p. 254 from the textbook. Explain how John Locke makes a distinction from a voluntary action and a free action. 

8. What is the benefit of Hierarchical compatibilism over Traditional Compatibilism?

9. Provide a counterargument against Compatibilism.

10. What's libertarianism? Explain the argument from experience.

11. Explain Libet's experiment and how it counters Libertarianism. Click here for more about the experiment.

Explain questions require at least 25 words. 

Homework #6 (Capítulo 5)

 Pincha aquí. 

MACHO VS. "MACHISMO"

La discusión de ayer fue muy interesante. Y me ha hecho pensar. Abajo he tratado de poner mi pensamiento en orden. Agradezco vuestros puntos y espíritu de debate. ¡Eso es filosofía!

Qué es “machismo” 

El discurso contemporáneo actual presenta algo llamado “machismo” como una patología moral del hombre —mal tóxico que debe ser “curado”, “expulsado” del cuerpo individual y social. 

En esta fórmula, el sujeto “machista” (observe mi entrecomillado) aparece como anomalía. Saben que en filosofía debemos definir las cosas para discutirlas. 

De acuerdo al diccionario: ¿Machismo, no viene de macho? 

Y originalmente, la palabra macho significaba ¿qué? Definición: 

Macho y hembra los creó, Génesis 5:2 (Cipriano de Valera) 

Mi tesis es que una cosa es machismo, y otra “machismo”. 

El primero, sin comillas, denota las cualidades del macho sin derogación alguna. 

Macho = hombre. Son sinónimos. ¿Quién inventó eso? Nadie lo sabe. No es importante. Las palabras nos llegan por arte de magia social. 

¿Cuáles son las cualidades de un macho? 

Las cualidades de mi padre y del tuyo, de mi abuelo y del tuyo. Las cualidades del hombre ejemplar. ¿Cuáles son? 

De acuerdo con Aristóteles: responsabilidad, honor, lealtad, valentía, autocontrol, respeto, generosidad, amistad. 

No sé por qué me parece que “machismo” tiene muy poco que ver con el macho. 

Donde macho = hombre 

Lo que quiero decir es que el “machismo” es una especie de derogación de la definición de arriba. 

¿Quién y cuándo se hizo la derogación? 

Desde esa derogación, “machismo” deja de ser una forma de organización social tradicional cultural y se convierte en un “defecto” del carácter. 

Veamos. El diccionario RAE (autoridad en la lengua española) define machismo como 1. “Actitud de prepotencia de los varones respecto de las mujeres” y 2. “Forma de discriminación sexista caracterizada por la prevalencia del varón”. 

La prepotencia frente a una mujer está en contra de los ideales de galantería de nuestra cultura. 

Queda la definición #2:  ¿Qué significa “discriminación sexista”? 

Discriminar significa trato desfavorable. 

¿Y por qué un hombre caballeroso y honorable ha de "desfavorecer" a una mujer? ¿Cuál sería el motivo que lo justificara? 

Desfavorecer a una mujer no es de hombre —ni de macho.

La idea de “machismo” 

La idea de “machismo” se ha desarrollado en los últimos 50 años.  

Machismo tóxico / masculinidad sana —pertenecen al mismo marco disciplinario: definir el género como polos morales y no como posiciones relacionales. 

Aquí veo un problema. Al condenar el “machismo” (visto como la actitud masculina “tóxica”), caemos en el discurso de la lógica binaria que lo engendró: 

pureza/impureza, 

razón/pasión, 

civilización/barbarie. 

¿Para quién lo masculino puede ser síntoma de crisis? 

Propongo que en lugar de “machismo” como una especie de virus que corrompe lo social, puede leerse como el síntoma de una crisis de la masculinidad moderna. 

Con la erosión de la tradición de los siglos XIX y XX —padre, nación, trabajo, fuerza— se han erosionado sin que surjan nuevos modos de ser. Lo tóxico no sería una esencia del machismo, sino la manifestación de una desorientación simbólica en la cual los hombres buscan sentido dentro de estructuras en ruinas. 

El problema no es que ciertos hombres sean “tóxicos”, sino que los modos de subjetivación masculina siguen inscritos en un sistema simbólico que asocia valor, fuerza y dominio con la virilidad. Llamarlo “tóxico” puede aliviar la conciencia moral de algunos, pero no explica el mecanismo histórico que lo reproduce. 

Hoy por hoy, un joven de 25 años casi de la edad de ustedes, no puede sostener aquella figura del “padre proveedor” ni del “hombre de éxito”. Vive ahora entre la nostalgia de una virilidad industrial del siglo XX —el taller, el uniforme, la seguridad del salario— y la impotencia frente a una economía líquida poscapitalista que lo reduce. 

El resentimiento que algunos transforman en agresividad —el llamado “antifeminismo” o “rechazo al progresismo”— no proviene de una esencia “tóxica”, sino de la pérdida de coordenadas simbólicas que daban sentido a la masculinidad. 

El fracaso del modelo paterno 

En sociedades donde la autoridad del padre ha sido minada —por la disolución familiar, el descrédito del Estado, la crisis educativa— muchos jóvenes crecen sin figuras masculinas. El resultado no es automáticamente emancipador. En ausencia de un padre real o simbólico, el joven no encuentra el “tú” al que oponerse para afirmarse. Por tanto, queda suspendido entre la infancia prolongada y la caricatura del poder. Esa falta se sustituye por figuras mediáticas de autoridad viril: influencers, youtubers, streamers, coaches que prometen recuperar “la energía masculina perdida” a través del gimnasio, la disciplina o el dinero. Pseudopadres digitales, reciclajes del viejo patriarcado. 

La sentimentalidad fragmentada 

La educación emocional contemporánea, atravesada por el consumo rápido de vínculos (redes, dating apps), produce una masculinidad emocionalmente analfabeta, incapaz de sostener el afecto más allá del intercambio inmediato. No se trata del macho que “no llora”, sino del joven que no sabe cómo darle sentido a su llanto, cómo integrar la vulnerabilidad sin sentirse degradado. El resultado no es la liberación, sino una soledad performativa, desconectada de la empatía real. 

El vacío simbólico del heroísmo 

Durante décadas, la cultura ofrecía mitologías del hombre como héroe o protector (desde el soldado hasta el deportista). Hoy, esas figuras se perciben como sospechosas o ridículas. Pero no se ha generado aún una narrativa alternativa. En ese vacío emergen parodias de masculinidad heroica: los discursos de autoafirmación extrema, los foros de “incels”, los grupos que mezclan misoginia con victimismo. No buscan dominar tanto como sentirse significativos en un mundo donde el valor se mide en visibilidad y likes. 

La llamada “toxicidad” masculina no es el común denominador de nuestra cultura latina. La gran mayoría de mis estudiantes varones son hombres buenos.

Aquí les dejo un bello poema, El machete, 

de Nicolás Guillén, poeta mulato cubano.

Machete, ¡macho de hierro! 

Machete, macho y varón. 

En el monte y la sabana, 

siempre fuiste el más galán; 

cuando suena tu canción,

canta el alma del barrigón. 

 Machete, ¡macho de hierro! 

¡macho de canto y tambor! 

En tus filos relampaguea 

la ira de mi nación. 

Cuando el amo se levanta para gritarme traidor, 

yo levanto mi machete y le corto la razón. 

Machete, ¡macho de hierro! 

Machete, macho y varón. 

En el monte y la sabana, 

libre nació tu canción.

Lista de Estudiantes Asistentes

María Cetino

José Guizán

Daniela Fonseca

Nicole Leithof

Amarillis Rubido

Ariana Tacher

Samantha Tang

Ricardo Uzcátegui

Augusto Valero

Topics for review midterm exam (2024)

Chapter 1 y Capitulo 6

Chapter 4 

HOMEWORK #7 (PHILOSOPHY OF MIND)

1. a. What is Descartes' conceivability b. & divisibility argument? c.  Taken together, what do they prove regarding the mind (according to Descartes)?

2. Is the mind the soul for Descartes?

3. Mention one counter to Descartes' theory (p. 227)

4. What is the "closure of the physical"? (p. 227)

5. What is epiphenomenalism? 

6. Explain Logical Behaviorism? Which present science is close to this definition?

7. Explain Putnam's Super Spartans thought experiment. What's a counterexample to?   

8. Explain Thomas Nagel's bat experiment. What theory is it a counter to? 

9. What are the characteristics of mental states according to Nagel? 

10. What is functionalism? 

11. Answer Section 4.3 Question #1 and Question #3

12. What is David Lewis' Mad Man thought experiement a counter example to? 

13. What is Allan Touring test for intelligence. What does it mean? (Read p. 236, 237)

14. What is the event known as singularity? Do you believe it possible?  

15. Section 4.5 Question #4. 

 

Paper proposal (first assignment) due october 17

 click here for more information.

this is a good video to continue our discussion on chapter 4 (philosophy of mind)

 click here.

you need good counters to have a good philosophy paper

click here for more information,

Topics for your philosophy paper

 Click here for more information.

Law of unintended consequences

 click here.

Capítulo 4 (Philosophy of Mind)

 Click here for more information. 

La invasión del "fake" research (o por qué debemos considerar lo "fake" como una parte del todo)

 Climate scientist admits to overhyping research to get published (in the Telegraph)

Are you surprised? 😂

Let's do a bit of Philosophy of statistics. 

I remember Professor Barr's adage in my Statistical Analysis class: if you find two compelling reasons for a mistake (outside the research), it's not a mistake. 

What an error in statistics?

Observational error (or Measurement error) is the difference between a measured value of a quantity and its true value. In statistics, an error is not necessarily a "mistake." 

The reason is that variability is an inherent part of the results of measurement processes. 

Measurement errors can be divided into two: random and systematic. 

Random errors are errors in measurement that lead to inconsistent measurable values when repeated measurements of a constant attribute or quantity are taken (errors can get repeated even if looking for proof)

Systematic errors are not determined by chance but are introduced by repeatable processes inherent to the system. 

Put differently, the house would lose if randomness was true.

A systematic error is not determined by chance but by a repeatable process inherent to the system. In gambling parlance, Casino bias is part of the game; otherwise, the House loses! 

Now, is complete randomness REAL? Some think not. 

If not, how do you argue?

HOMEWORK #6 EMPIRICISM & KANT

1. Tell which proposition is synthetic a priori or a posteriori and explain your answer.

a. Every event has a cause. 

b. The sum of the interior angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. 

c. Humans first landed on the Moon in 1969. 

d. Caffeine is a stimulant that increases heart rate in most adults.

2. ¿Why is 7 + 5 = 12 synthetic a priori for Kant? 

3. Try to explain why TIME is a PURE INTUITION for Kant (Hint: Justify why time is not outside in the world).

4. Regarding Locke's primary & secondary qualities, indicate whether it's one or the other. Explain.

a. The extension of a metal rod increases uniformly when heated, as measurable by a ruler independent of any observer's tactile sensation. 

b. The bitterness of quinine in tonic water persists across dilutions, yet its intensity varies based on individual taste buds' sensitivity to molecular interactions. 

c. The figure of a cube maintains six equal faces and twelve edges, verifiable through geometric calculation without reliance on visual perception. 

d. The pitch of a violin string's vibration rises with tension, producing a tonal quality that differs in auditory experience among listeners with varying hearing acuity.

The question below is more difficult. I leave it as a "bonus." 

👇

5. In Berkeley's phenomenalism, physical objects are collections of sensory ideas that exist only when perceived; without perception, they would cease to be. However, God acts as an eternal perceiver to ensure continuity and order in the unobserved world. 

(Yesterday, in class, I argued that Berkeley is not that off in his Phenomenalist argument, having God as the eternal perceiver). Why?

Quantum mechanics reveals that particles and systems exist in superpositions (multiple states simultaneously) until "measured," at which point they appear to collapse into a single definite state. 

Why does this parallel Berkeley's idea that reality is indeterminate without perception?

HINT: Look at the DECOHERENCE THEORY in quantum mechanics. Now, you build the justification.  

6. Now that you know Rationalism, Empiricism, and Kantian theory. What are you?  

why is 7+5 =12 synthetic apriori?

find the answer here.

El empirismo de John Locke

Imagina a John Locke, en la Inglaterra del siglo XVII, un hombre genial, pragmático y muy curioso (ya les dije que era médico y famoso como cirujano), paseando por los jardines frondosos de Oxford o acaso recluido en su estudio rodeado de libros. Harto de las especulaciones abstractas de filósofos como Descartes, que construyen castillos en el aire con ideas innatas y razón pura, Locke decide emprender su propia búsqueda: ¿de dónde viene realmente el conocimiento humano? 

No en sueños demoníacos ni en intuiciones divinas, sino en la tierra firme de la experiencia cotidiana. 

Comienza cuestionando las "ideas innatas" defendidas por Descartes. ¿Será cierto que un niño nace con las verdades grabadas en el alma... ¿Dios o el bien y el mal? Locke concluye que esta no puede ser toda la verdad. No es que la razón cartesiana no tenga sentido. El asunto es que Descartes no le da importancia a la experiencia. Para él, los sentidos son engañosos. 

NO, LA EXPERIENCIA ES FUNDAMENTAL. 

Es entonces que Locke propone en su famoso libro An Essay On Human Understanding que la mente es una tabula rasa (una pizarra en blanco), vacía al nacer, esperando que el mundo la escriba. Todo conocimiento surge de los sentidos: primero, las sensaciones simples: como el calor del sol en la piel o el rojo de una manzana, que imprimen "ideas simples" en la mente. Luego, la reflexión interna, como combinar esas ideas en complejas, forjando conceptos de causa, efecto o sustancia.

Pero Locke no es bobo. Sabe que los sentidos pueden engañar, como un bastón torcido en el agua. Aquí entra su realismo representativo: Los humanos no percibimos el mundo directamente, sino a través de "ideas" que lo representan. Vienen a ser como cuadros en una galería mental. 

Estas ideas provienen de cualidades primarias (sólidez, forma y movimiento) existentes en los objetos mismos y cualidades secundarias (subjetivas, como color o sabor u olor, que dependen de nuestra percepción). 

Tomemos como ejemplo una manzana. Aquí tenemos cualidades primarias: solidez de la manzana, forma: redonda. Y cualidades secundarias: el color rojizo, el sabor agridulce de la manzana, su olor, etc.  

Así, el empirismo se revela como un puente confiable entre el yo y la realidad externa: no hay conocimiento sin experiencia, y la razón solo organiza lo que los sentidos entregan. De esta odisea humilde y observadora, Locke emerge con una filosofía anclada en lo tangible, un antídoto al escepticismo cartesiano, proclamando que el entendimiento humano es un explorador, no un oráculo innato.

La duda que nos lleva a la certeza (de acuerdo a Descartes)

 

Imagina a René Descartes, solo en su habitación iluminada por una vela parpadeante, en una fría noche de invierno en Holanda. Decidido a construir el conocimiento sobre cimientos inquebrantables, adopta el racionalismo puro: solo aceptará como verdadero aquello que resista cualquier duda posible.Comienza su odisea intelectual dudando de todo. ¿Los sentidos? Engañosos, como ilusiones ópticas o sueños vívidos donde cree estar despierto. 

¿Y la realidad externa?

Podría ser una matriz creada por un demonio malvado, manipulando sus percepciones. Incluso las matemáticas simples, como 2+3=5, podrían ser falsas si ese demonio lo engaña en su mente.Pero en medio de esta tormenta de escepticismo, surge un rayo de luz irrefutable. Mientras duda, se da cuenta de que está pensando: dudando, reflexionando, cuestionando. Ese acto de pensar no puede ser ilusorio, porque para ser engañado, debe existir algo que sea engañado. Así, llega a la certeza absoluta: "Pienso, luego existo" (Cogito ergo sum). Es el punto de partida indudable, una verdad clara y distinta que no depende de nada externo, solo de la razón pura. De ahí, reconstruirá su filosofía, como un náufrago que encuentra una roca sólida en el mar de la incertidumbre. 

En la Primera Meditación, invoca el escepticismo radical: duda de los sentidos, que a menudo engañan con ilusiones o sueños indistinguibles de la vigilia.  Pero va más allá, conjurando la figura aterradora de un "genio maligno" (le malin genie) o demonio omnipotente, un ser astuto que podría estar manipulando su mente, haciendo que crea en un mundo externo falso, e incluso en verdades matemáticas aparentes como 2+2=4.

Bajo esta sombra demoníaca, todo se derrumba en la incertidumbre absoluta: ¿y si este engañador supremo lo induce a error en cada pensamiento? Sin embargo, en la Segunda Meditación, emerge un destello invencible. Mientras duda de todo, se percata de que el acto mismo de dudar implica pensar. 

Para que el demonio lo engañe, debe existir un "yo" que sea engañado. Así, irrumpe la certeza luminosa: "Pienso, luego existo" (Cogito ergo sum). Esta verdad no depende de los sentidos ni del mundo externo, ni siquiera del demonio; es una intuición clara y distinta de la razón pura, el archimedeo punto fijo desde el cual Descartes reconstruye su metafísica, demostrando que el demonio, por poderoso que sea, no puede anular la existencia del pensador.

Homework #5 (Epistemology, 2025)

IDEALISM/RATIONALISM

1. ¿What are the general requirements for knowledge?

2. ¿Can you have a true belief without having knowledge? Provide an example. 

3. Briefly answer: ¿Is suspension of belief similar to doubt? ¿Is it preferable to suspend than falsely believe? ¿How can you tell? 

4. From the textbook. 6.2 on Rationalism p. 289.  

5.  Is number five an objective entity for Plato? Explain. 

6. Briefly explain Plato's FORMS?

8. Briefly comment on Descartes' doubt and Descartes' certainty.

From the Textbook, exercise 6.2, page 301. Answer  #1, #2, #4, #5

EMPIRICISM

9. From the textbook, Section 6.3, page 319. Answer questions #1- #4 

(35 words at least per answer)

Homework #4 Epistemology

 click here for more information.

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYPOTHESIS)

THOMAS KUHN 

He explains a scientific revolution as a radical shift in how a scientific community understands and investigates the world. In his landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), he contrasts "normal science" with "revolutionary science". IT TAKES FOUR STEPS.  

 1. Normal Science Most of the time, scientists work within a paradigm: a shared framework of theories, methods, and assumptions that defines legitimate problems and acceptable solutions. Normal science is puzzle-solving—scientists refine theories, run experiments, and accumulate knowledge, but always within the accepted paradigm. 

 2. Crisis Over time, anomalies—observations or problems the paradigm cannot explain—accumulate. If these anomalies persist and become too severe, they trigger a crisis of confidence in the existing framework. 

 3. Scientific Revolution A new paradigm emerges that explains both the old data and the anomalies more effectively. This change is not gradual but discontinuous and radical: the scientific community abandons the old worldview in favor of a new one. Examples: the Copernican revolution (heliocentric astronomy), Newtonian mechanics replacing Aristotelian physics, Einstein’s relativity overturning Newtonian space and time. 

4 . Incommensurability According to Kuhn, old and new paradigms are often incommensurable: they use different concepts, standards, and languages, making direct comparison difficult. Thus, a revolution is not just progress but a redefinition of reality itself within the scientific community.

 IMRE LAKATOS (1922–1974) 

 Developed the idea of “research programmes” as a refinement of Kuhn’s paradigms. Each programme has a “hard core” (fundamental assumptions that are not easily abandoned) and a “protective belt” (auxiliary hypotheses that can be adjusted to handle anomalies). Unlike Kuhn’s abrupt revolutions, Lakatos sees science as competing research programmes where one is judged progressive (predicting novel facts) or degenerative (patching itself defensively). Example: Newtonian mechanics gradually giving way to Einstein’s relativity can be seen as the rise of a progressive programme. 

 PAUL FEYERABEND (1924–1994) 

 Famous for Against Method (1975). He rejected rigid paradigms altogether, advocating epistemological anarchism: “anything goes.” For him, science advances not by fixed paradigms or methods, but by pluralism, creativity, and often by breaking rules. He agreed with Kuhn that scientific revolutions involve radical shifts, but stressed the messy, unpredictable, and political side of them. 

 LARRY LAUDAN (1941–2022) 

Proposed “research traditions” (similar to Kuhn’s paradigms and Lakatos’s programmes). He emphasized the problem-solving effectiveness of a tradition as its measure of success. Instead of incommensurable breaks, Laudan envisioned a more continuous, rational debate between traditions. 

 BRUNO LATOUR 

From the 1980s onward, Latour and others in Sociology/anthropology of science describe paradigm shifts not as purely intellectual but as network reconfigurations involving instruments, institutions, and power. For Latour, a “revolution” is a realignment of both ideas and material practices. 

SO, 

Kuhn introduced paradigms and incommensurability. 

Lakatos systematized it into research programmes. 

Feyerabend radicalized it with epistemological anarchism. 

Laudan softened it into rational research traditions. 

Latour reframed it as network transformations. 

Review for Quiz 2025

 Fallacies

1. Read the following argument: “Of course God exists, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.” a) Identify the fallacy. b) Explain why the reasoning is circular. c) Rewrite the argument in a way that avoids begging the question. 

PETITIO

 2. A student claims in debate: “We shouldn’t take Miguel’s argument about climate change seriously, because he doesn’t even recycle.” a) Identify the fallacy. b) Suggest a more appropriate way to respond to Miguel’s position. 

AD HOM

3. Consider the following statement: “Either you support government surveillance programs, or you don’t care about national security.” a) Identify the fallacy. b) Explain why this argument oversimplifies the situation. c) Propose at least two alternative positions that show the issue is more complex. 

Exercise: A friend says: “No one has ever proved that extraterrestrial life doesn’t exist, so aliens must be real.” a) Identify the fallacy. b) Explain why lack of evidence is not proof. c) Give an example from science where something remained unproven until later, but that didn’t justify believing it existed. 

APPEAL IGNORANCE

5. “Italians are all terrible drivers!” a) Identify the fallacy. b) Suggest what kind of evidence or sample would be necessary to make a stronger generalization. 

HASTY G

Necessary and sufficient conditions

1. “Being divisible by 2 is required for a number to be divisible by 6.” 

 a) Is divisibility by 2 a necessary, sufficient, or neither condition for divisibility by 6? b) Justify carefully: show why divisibility by 2 is required, but also why it doesn’t by itself guarantee divisibility by 6. c) Identify another condition that, combined with divisibility by 2, would be sufficient for divisibility by 6. 

 NEC.

 2.  “Believing in democracy is what makes someone a good citizen.” 

a) Is belief in democracy a necessary, sufficient, or neither condition for good citizenship? b) Analyze why it fails as both necessary (a good citizen may act responsibly without professing democratic belief) and sufficient (belief alone doesn’t guarantee good citizenship without corresponding action). c) Suggest one necessary condition for good citizenship, and one sufficient condition (even if it’s somewhat idealized).

NEITHER

 3.  “Having exactly four sides of equal length and four right angles ensures that a figure is a square.” 

 a) Is this description a necessary, sufficient, or neither condition for being a square? b) Explain why this description is sufficient but not always necessary if we change the context (e.g., in non-Euclidean geometry, or with definitions that require additional properties like being a polygon in a plane). c) Propose another condition that would also be sufficient for a shape to count as a square. 

SUFFICIENT

Mind experiments

For this exercise, I'm providing (in italics, below) a mind experiment based on this example about the American Civil War at the Battle of Gettysburg (1861–1865). I want you to construct a mind experiment to explore whether it was causally possible for events to have turned out differently. 

“In July 1863, the Union Army defeated the Confederates at Gettysburg.” 

1. Now, I introduce a counterfactual. It begins with "Suppose that". It alters one relevant cause, factor, or condition. 

Example: Suppose General Lee had received accurate intelligence about Union troop movements before the battle. 

a) Now explain the causal pathway. Analyze how this altered factor might plausibly have changed the outcome. 

Here's an example: “With accurate intelligence, General Lee might have avoided Pickett’s Charge, preventing Confederate losses and perhaps prolonging the war.” 

2. Now, defend the causal plausibility you provide with three points (a, b, c,):  

a) Show why this is not mere fantasy but a serious causal possibility: Was it physically possible? Historically coherent? Supported by the context of the situation?  

b) What does this teach us about causation, necessity, and contingency in history? 

c) Does it show that the outcome of the Civil War was inevitable, or contingent on small changes?

Here is your historic situation:

The assassination of President Lincoln, by John Wilkes Booth, while attending the play "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., April 14, 1865.

a) Do what I did above: Introduce your counterfactual. Imagine altering one relevant cause, factor or condition. 

b) Defend the causal plausibility you provide

Causal and Logical possibility

1. Consider: "Unicorns exist". LP

a) Is the statement above logically possible? Explain why.

 

b) Given the laws of biology and physics, is it causally possible? Explain. 

c) Suggest what conditions would need to change in our world for it to become causally possible.

2. Examine this claim: “A round square exists.” LI --> CI

a) Is this statement logically impossible? Explain.

b) Is it causally possible? Explain. 

3. Consider: “It rains tomorrow in New York City.” LP CI

a) Is this logically possible? Justify your anwser.  

b) Given the laws of meteorology, Is it causally possible in our world? 

c) Compare this case with one that is logically possible but not causally possible (e.g., “It rains diamonds in New York tomorrow”).

Homework #3 (causation & fallacies)

 click here for more information.

How build a mind experiment

Remember: A thought experiment is a tool philosophers use to test an idea by imagining a scenario, where they test conditions of possibility.  

1. Identify the Concept or Problem.

Start with the philosophical issue you want to test. Example: Is morality relative or universal?

2. Construct a Hypothetical Scenario

Now imagine a situation—often unusual, exaggerated, or impossible—that clarifies the concept.

Example: A traveler visits a culture where lying is considered a virtue (moral relativism).

3. Introduce a Twist or Tension

The power of a thought experiment comes from creating a possible contradiction or conflict that forces us to rethink assumptions.

Example: If lying is moral somewhere else, is morality objective?

4. Ask the Key Question

“If lying is good in their culture, is it still wrong in ours?”

5. Draw Out Implications

If morality can vary, then perhaps it’s not universal.

Criteria of Adequacy of scientific theories (muy importante)

1. Consistency: Lack of internal contradictions.

Examples: 

If demand increases while supply is fixed, prices rise.

In a growing economy, demand usually increases.

Prices in a growing economy will always remain stable.

➡️ Each proposition sounds plausible in isolation. But taken together, the third contradicts the causal relationship between supply, demand, and price in the first.

All species adapt to their environment over time.

The coelacanth species has remained unchanged for millions of years.

The coelacanth has continuously adapted to its environment.

➡️ The inconsistency is subtle: if the species has remained “unchanged,” how can it also have “continuously adapted”?  The tension lies in how “adaptation” and “unchanged” are interpreted.

2. Simplicity: Quality of relying on only a small number of assumptions.

Example: Astronomy (Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism)

Simple model: The planets, including Earth, orbit the Sun in predictable paths.

Assumptions: Only one main principle — the Sun is at the center.

👉 Compared to the older geocentric model (which required dozens of extra assumptions like epicycles and deferents), heliocentrism is simpler because it explains planetary motion with fewer rules.

3. Scope: The number of diverse phenomena observed.

Example: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Scope: Explains a wide range of biological phenomena — the diversity of species, fossil records, antibiotic resistance, similarities in DNA, and adaptations like camouflage or mimicry.

One principle (natural selection) accounts for phenomena from finch beaks in the Galápagos to bacteria evolving in a lab.

4. Conservatism: Quality of fitting well with existing theories.

Example: Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

Conservatism: General relativity fits well with the well-established framework of Newtonian physics in everyday conditions.

Where gravitational fields are weak and speeds are much less than light, Einstein’s equations reduce to Newton’s law of gravitation.

Thus, relativity did not discard Newtonian mechanics but absorbed it as a special case, while extending the theory to explain phenomena like the bending of light near the Sun or the precession of Mercury’s orbit.

👉 This is conservatism in action: a new theory doesn’t overthrow everything before it, but integrates past successes while going further.

5. Fruitfulness: The number of new facts predicted of problems solved.

Example: The Structure of DNA (Watson & Crick, 1953)

Fruitfulness: The double-helix model of DNA was not just a description of molecular structure — it opened the door to new predictions and discoveries.

From it followed four important consequences:

1. How genetic information is copied (DNA replication).

2. How mutations occur.

3. How genetic coding translates into proteins.

4. Techniques like DNA sequencing, genetic engineering, and forensic DNA analysis.

👉 A single theoretical insight (the double helix) led to a cascade of new facts, experiments, and applications across biology, medicine, and technology.

Fallacies (watch out, most of info you get from sources is fallacious)

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Here are some examples:

Begging the Question: The argument's conclusion is used as one of its premises. Basically the proof is assumed.
 

A: He's mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Because he's really angry.

Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen!

Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel when you killed your wife?

Ad hominem (or Against the Person): When someone tries to win an argument by denigrating its presenter (favorite fallacy used by politicians and the media to put down an enemy)

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

"Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine."

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument.

Ex: "The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks."

Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam): It has two forms: The fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Ad ignorantiam wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

"She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up."

"Nobody has conclusively proven that the Yeti doesn't exist, therefore it must exist."

 "I thought I had every reason to think I was doing fine leading the group; no one complained."
 
Hasty Generalization: You are guilty of hasty generalization when jumping into conclusion about all things of a certain type based on evidence that concerns only a few things of that type (favorite argument used by politicians and ideologues).  

"The department of law enforcement in Miami is corrupt. Five police officers in three different departments were involved in drug dealing in 2017" (right answer: Miami has  4,780 police employees, i.e., 5 corrupt officers are 0.16% of the force).  
 
"Men are toxic! It's crystal clear:  They perpetrate over 76% of the violent crime in the US." (right answer: violent men committing violent crimes constitute 6% of the population of males in the US).

Appeal to Authority: A claim is accepted because not because of its merit, but because of the authority (power, fame, etc) of the person saying it.  

"Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it."

"If the Pope says it, it must be true."  

 "Nobody is a better judge than public opinion."

Red Herring: This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. 

Daughter: "I'm so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom." 
Mother: "Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then."

Appeal to Fear: To use threat or harm to advance an argument. Ex: "If we don’t stop petroleum consumption, global warming will increase. Therefore, we need to stop petroleum consumption immediately." 

False Dilemma: It presumes that there are only two alternatives to a given problem, when in fact there are more than two.  

"Either science can explain how she was cured or else, it's a miracle."

"Since there is nothing good on TV tonight, I will just have to get drunk."

"If you are don't accept our climate catastrophe, then you're a denier!"

False Cause: Supposing that two events are connected when in fact they are not. 

"They had a very successful business. Then they decided to adopt a child, and the business went immediately into the red."

Inconsistency: A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims. 

"I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. However, when a person like John Dean can influence our youth , you have to draw a line and say no more."

"This is the truth: truth is subjective."

Etimological fallacy: Believing that the present day meaning of a word of concept should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. 

"So-and-so" (a phrase used in the 19th Century) should not be used anymore. It's very offensive!