Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Friday, October 3, 2025
Thursday, October 2, 2025
Tuesday, September 30, 2025
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Thursday, September 18, 2025
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Thursday, September 11, 2025
Logical and causal possibility (think of mind experiments)
Logical Possiblity:
Something is logically possible if and only if it violates a law of logic.
Here is one logical possibility: "President J. F. Kennedy was not killed by Larry Oswald in Texas on November 22, 1963."
He was indeed killed that day. So, why is it still logically possible? There's no contradiction in assuming Larry Oswald missed his shot or that Kennedy was hurt but survived.
Causal Possibility:
Something is causally possible if it does not violate law of nature.
Law of non-contradiction:
Nothing can have and lack property at the same time.
Examples: "A triangle of four sides," "2 + 2 = 5", "A married bachelor," etc.
Conceivability:
1. If p is conceivable, it is imaginable (imagination is a mental faculty linked to rationality). An example of that is mind experiments in physics and math.
Is Superman logically possible? The first step in the evidence that p is possible is to be able to conceive it. Just that.
We say p is conceivable if its implication can be drawn without it being contradictory, i.e.,
Can Superman be conceived?
Yes, that's why we talk about him and can even watch him in a movie.
Now, Clearly, not everything that is conceivable is possible. For example, Superman, dragons, gremlins, and succubi are all conceivable but not possible.
Why not? They violate laws of nature.
Remember: If p is conceivable, then from 2. It's logically possible.
finally,
3. p is causally possible if it doesn't violate a law of nature.
3. p is causally possible if it doesn't violate a law of nature.
Now, let's talk a little bit about LAWS OF NATURE:
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena; they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.
A law's applicability is limited to circumstances resembling those already observed, and the law may be found to be false when extrapolated.
How do logical possibility (LP) and causal possibility (CP) relate?
If something is logically impossible, it is causally impossible.
If something is causally possible, it is logically possible.
LI → CI
CP → LP
LI → CI
CP → LP
Clearly, LI is sufficient for CI. Is it necessary? It would be if CI cannot exist without LI. Let's pursue this point further.
Something cannot be and not be at the same time.
But time is a causal variable, not a logical one. If time is outside us, then "same time" is sort of cheating for a logical category.
Logic is aprioristic. And yet, Kant has argued that time is not outside. Of course, being a physicist, you will swear that time is outside since you can work with it mathematically. But that doesn't contradict Kant's point (though we don't have time to pursue that here).
¿Qué es un experimento mental? (mind experiment)
DEF: The description of a possible situation in which a concept should apply or a condition should be met if the theory in question is true.
Es decir, un experimento mental es un recurso de la imaginación empleado para investigar la naturaleza de las cosas. La mente es el laboratorio del filósofo. Mind experiments nos ayudan a ver y concebir las condiciones de posibilidad de las cosas.
Varias teorías o posturas filosóficas se fundan en los resultados de experimentos mentales:
el dilema del tranvía, en ética,
la tabla de Carneades, en ética,
la habitación china, en filosofía de la mente,
la tierra gemela, en filosofía del lenguaje,
el cuarto de Mary en filosofía de la mente.
¿Qué es la verdad?
En clase les he dicho que la verdad es complicada. Y lo es, pero eso no significa que la filosofía no haya definido el concepto de verdad.
En general tenemos tres definiciones:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth (la verdad como correspondencia),
A proposition is true by its correspondence with reality.
Ejemplo: Un vertebrado es un animal que tiene un esqueleto con columna vertebral y cráneo, y cuyo sistema nervioso central está formado por la médula espinal y el encéfalo.
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth (la verdad como coherencia con lo que ya se cree).
Truth is what best coheres with our existing knowledge.
Ejemplo: En cosmología, se entiende por Big Bang, o Gran Explosión, al comienzo del universo, es decir, el punto inicial en el que se formó la materia, el espacio y el tiempo.
3. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth (la verdad pragmática).
Truth is, whatever best does the job at hand.
Ejemplo: El cuadro Guernica de Picasso es una obra maestra de la pintura del siglo XX.
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Cause and effect can betray even the smartest amongst us!
When is C a cause of E?
Take this simple example: Pluto's barking causes Dick to wake up.
Take this simple example: Pluto's barking causes Dick to wake up.
We need four steps:
1. The cause must precede the effect,
So, we have:
2. It's nearly impossible for the cause to happen and the effect not to happen. Another way of saying it: if the cause had not happened, the effect would not have happened.
3. The cause makes a difference, (without the cause, there's no effect),
4. There's no common cause, Think of a person suffering from depression. You could frame their depression using the common-cause relationship as well. Depression leads to a lack of motivation AND a lack of appetite.
4. There's no common cause, Think of a person suffering from depression. You could frame their depression using the common-cause relationship as well. Depression leads to a lack of motivation AND a lack of appetite.
So, we have:
1. The barking precedes Dick's waking up,
2. It's nearly impossible for Pluto to bark and Dick not to wake up,
2. It's nearly impossible for Pluto to bark and Dick not to wake up,
3. Without the barking, there's no waking up,
4. Suppose both the barking and waking up are caused by a person jumping Dick's fence and making a noise which causes Pluto to bark and Dick to wake up.
Necessary, sufficient, and contributory causes:
Pluto's barking is a necessary cause of Dick's waking up if the barking precedes the waking, but it doesn't imply the latter will occur, i.e., Dick may not wake up (it's not guaranteed).
Pluto's barking is a sufficient cause of Dick's waking up if the the barking necessarily imply the waking, although another cause may also contribute to Dick's waking (noise coming from the bathroom where Dick's wife was taking a shower). Here the presence of the waking doesn't guarantee the prior occurrence of the barking.
A cause is a contributory cause if it's one among several co-occurrent causes. In general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so.
Reciprocally, a contributory cause is not sufficient for the effect, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if they are sufficient, for your information, most causes are contributory, i.e., there are more than one.
Want one paramount example of contributory causation?
4. Suppose both the barking and waking up are caused by a person jumping Dick's fence and making a noise which causes Pluto to bark and Dick to wake up.
Necessary, sufficient, and contributory causes:
Pluto's barking is a necessary cause of Dick's waking up if the barking precedes the waking, but it doesn't imply the latter will occur, i.e., Dick may not wake up (it's not guaranteed).
Pluto's barking is a sufficient cause of Dick's waking up if the the barking necessarily imply the waking, although another cause may also contribute to Dick's waking (noise coming from the bathroom where Dick's wife was taking a shower). Here the presence of the waking doesn't guarantee the prior occurrence of the barking.
A cause is a contributory cause if it's one among several co-occurrent causes. In general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so.
Reciprocally, a contributory cause is not sufficient for the effect, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if they are sufficient, for your information, most causes are contributory, i.e., there are more than one.
Want one paramount example of contributory causation?
Climate change, with all its contributory causes: sun, orbital variations of the earth, low cloud cover, oceans, albedo effect, man-made C02, etc.
REMEMBER, VERY IMPORTANT...
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
Deductive and Inductive arguments
PREMISE:
A premise is a reason given.
ARGUMENT:
An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion.
An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. Look at this argument:
"Socrates is a man" first premise
"Men are mortal" second premise
________
"Socrates is mortal" conclusion
Now, there are deductive and inductive arguments.
Deductive argument are “truth preserving”, because the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. If VALID, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (even if the premises were false).
"Socrates is a man" (T)
"Men are mortal" (T)
________
"Socrates is mortal" (T)
the above argument is valid. in addition the premises are true. if the argument is VALID and its premises true, the conclusion must be true. we call this kind of argument SOUND.
now let's play a bit with truth values:
"Socrates is a man" (T)
"Men are immortal" (F)
__________
"Socrates is immortal" (F)
the above argument IS VALID, i.e, though the conclusion follows from the premises, though one premise is false. We have a false premise and a false conclusion, yet the above argument is VALID, but UNSOUND
"Socrates is a man" (T)
"Men are immortal" (F)
__________
"Socrates is immortal" (F)
the above argument IS VALID, i.e, though the conclusion follows from the premises, though one premise is false. We have a false premise and a false conclusion, yet the above argument is VALID, but UNSOUND
See that deduction is independent from experience beause the reasoning is self contained in the premises. Remember that the premises could be false and the argument still be valid.
DEDUCTION IS APRIORISTIC. MATHEMATICS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN APRIORISTIC DISCIPLINE.
______________
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS:
An inductive argument establishes a conclusion with a high degree of probability. Here the truth of their premises does not guarantee the truth of their conclusion.
Every windstorm observed so far in this area comes from the north. We can see a big cloud of dust in the distance. So, a new windstorm is probably coming from the north.
Analysis: The above argument is a strong inductive argument. The "so far" in the premise is simple and cautious, and the conclusion uses "probably."
Strong inductive arguments establish the conclusion with high probability IF the premises were
true.
If the argument is not STRONG, then it is WEAK.
THRE ARE THREE KINDS OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS:
Inductive generalization: It goes from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population, or it derives general principles from specific observations. Click here for a good explanation of inductive generalizations.
Analogical Induction: The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things and from this basis, inferring that they also share some further property:
Example:
Athenians and spartans are similar with respect to speaking the same language & being Pantheists
An Athenian has been observed to have further property X
Therefore, a Spartan probably also has property X.
An Athenian has been observed to have further property X
Therefore, a Spartan probably also has property X.
Enumerative Induction: It reasons from particular instances to all instances.
Example: If one observes 100 swans, and all 100 are white, one might infer "All swans are white."
(As you can see, even if the premises are true, it does not entail the conclusion's truth. The conclusion might be true, and probably true, yet it can be false).
Inference to the best explanation IBE:
Phenomenon Q.
E provides the best explanation for Q.
Therefore, it is probable that E is true.
________________
As you can see, a big difference between deduction and induction is that the latter depends from experience.
INDUCTION IS BASICALLY A POSTERIORI.
SO, WE CAN SAY THAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE A POSTERIORI, NEVER ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.
Necessary and sufficient conditions
Necessary conditions:
X is a necessary condition for Y,
if X is not present, Y doesn't happen.
(yet, to say that X is a necessary condition for Y does not mean that X guarantees Y)
Having gasoline in my car (gasoline engine cars) is a necessary condition for my car to start. Yet, having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start. There are many other conditions needed for my car to start.
Having oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. However, having oxygen will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other than oxygen in the atmosphere.
Sufficient conditions:
X is a sufficient condition for Y,
if X is present, Y happens (X guarantees Y)
Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet (not necessary, since the ground could be wet for other reasons).
______
Test yourself:
*Is sunlight a necessary or sufficient condition for the flowers to bloom?
*Is earning a final grade of C a necessary or sufficient condition for passing the course?
*Is being a male a necessary or sufficient condition for being a father?
*Is having AIDS a necessary or sufficient condition for having the HIV virus?
*Is studying for a test a necessary or sufficient condition for passing a test?
*Is completing all the requirements of your degree program a necessary or sufficient condition for earning your degree?
Friday, August 29, 2025
Monday, December 9, 2024
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.
Wednesday, December 4, 2024
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.
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
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).
Monday, November 18, 2024
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.
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
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.
Thursday, November 7, 2024
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 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.
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
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.
Monday, November 4, 2024
Sunday, November 3, 2024
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)
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
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.
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.