Final Exam Format - javygalindo.com• UP2. Most water that is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than bottled water is better water than bottled water. • C. Therefore tap water

Day 3

Announcements: Final Exam & HW• Final Exam Format:

– 60 multiple choice questions (120 pts)

– Two essay questions (50 each)

• Final Exam Essay Questions:

– One question about the Film

– One personal argument question.

• Final Exam Essay Grading Criteria:

– Do you address all parts of the question asked?

– Do you provide claims backed by careful reasoning?

– Do you demonstrate a thorough understanding of the

course material?

The argument as Penn & Teller see it:

P1: Bottled water is cleaner.

– 1/3 violate health standards and contain bacteria,

arsenic, etc. So not cleaner.

P2: Bottled water is safer.

– Bottled water is not regulated as well as tap water.

Less regulators, and in-state bottled water not even

regulated.

P3: Bottled water tastes better.

– Studies show that people prefer taste of tap water.

P4: Bottled water is fresher.

– Bottled water is often not from exotic mountains and

glaciers, but comes from municipal sources in ordinary

cities like LA and towns in Iowa.

How would you critique Penn & Teller’s argument?

Analyzing an Argument

Penn & Teller’s strategy:• Questions the premises for drinking bottled water

over tap.

Issue (can be phrased in different ways):

• “Should we drink tap water instead of bottled

water?”

• “Is tap water better than bottled water?”

Conclusion (given the above phrasing):

• Yes


& Providing a Counter

Deductive Version

Argument (given the 2nd phrasing of the issue above):

• P1. Tap water is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than

bottled water.

• UP2. All water that is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than

bottled water is better water than bottled water.

• C. Therefore tap water is water that is better than bottled

water.

Simplified for Analysis:

• P1. All A are B

• P2. All B are C

• C. All A are C



Inductive Versions

Argument 1 (given the 2nd phrasing of the issue above):

• P1. Tap water is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than bottled

water.

• UP2. Most water that is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than

bottled water is better water than bottled water.

• C. Therefore tap water is water that is better than bottled water.

Argument 2 (given the 2nd phrasing of the issue above):

• P1. Most tap water is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than

bottled water.

• UP2. All water that is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than bottled

water is better water than bottled water.

• C. Therefore tap water is water that is better than bottled water.

Becomes an inductive syllogism. “Most are” argument.



HW

Choose one of the three articles assigned for the

reading this week, then in a 1 to 2 page typed paper,

do the following:

In one paragraph, summarize the main argument the

author presents, identifying the issues, conclusions, and

premises. In a second paragraph critique it: assess the

quality of the argument and propose possible criticisms

or counter arguments.

Option 1: The argument for extreme charity.

Option 2: The argument against free will.

Option 3: The argument for faith.

Written HW #2 due Friday (11:59pm).

Morality Article

Peter Singer (1946 - )

Australian born Princeton Philosophy Professor

Controversial, thought-provoking, practical moral philosopher.

• Main issue(s) in the assigned reading:

1. ?

2. ?

• What is Singer’s conclusion?

1. ?

2. ?

Morality Article

Argument #1: Central Station

About The Film

How many of you think Dora has a moral

responsibility to save the boy?

Morality Article

Argument #1: Central Station

• Singer’s 1st argument:

P1. “We” are like Dora: can save a child by sacrificing our

wealth.

C1. Just as Dora is morally responsible for the boy, we are

responsible for every child who can be saved by our charity.

(i.e. every unnecessary purchase is blood on our hands.)

• What type of argument is this? What’s your response?

• To evaluate inductive analogy, need to compare

similarity of terms.

– Not so similar to our situation:

• We don’t get to know who we’re killing.

• Death is not the result of our actions.

Morality Article

Both are arguments from Analogy.

Morality Article

Argument #2: The Bugatti ArgumentFrom Peter Unger’s 1996 Book: “Living High and Letting Die”

…

Singer shares a better analogy…

Nearly retired Bob.After taking a short walk notices…

Most of Bob’s savings invested here…. His pride and joy! What is he supposed to do?

Better Similarities :• Can’t see child’s face. Don’t know child.• Child not in danger because of your actions…

So is Bob morally responsible for saving the child’s life? Is he murdering the child if he does nothing?

ARGUMENT: Just like it is Bob’s moral responsibility to pull the lever to save a child, it is our moral responsibility to give to charity to save a child…

How would you

evaluate & counter

the argument?

Morality Article



Countering/Critiquing the Argument

Objection #1. Terms are not similar enough.Bob’s actions have “certain” consequences, while our donations have “uncertain” consequences.

Singer’s response : Costs $200 to finance survival of impoverished 2yr-old for 4yrs, through most dangerous years of her life. Estimate includes all misc. expenses.

Morality Article




Objection #2. Terms are not similar enough.Bob is the ONLY one who can save the child, while there are several people in the world besides ourselves who can save children.

Singer’s response : Doesn’t matter!! If other people with their Bugatti’s on the track, with access to a lever to save a child, decide not to save the child, does it make it okay for you not to save the child? “Common Practice” fallacy.

Morality Article




Objection #3. Terms are not similar enough.Bob only faces the scenario once. We would be constantly facing it, and would be continually morally obliged to give.

Singer’s response : That’s the wrong way to look at it. The question of “how much we are obliged to give” can also be asked of Bob: If Bob obliged to pull the lever..- If it results in messing up his hair.- If it results in him getting a scratch.- If it results in him loosing a toenail- Etc… At some point we would say he’s no longer obliged, same with our income. Just like us…

Morality Article

What’s Your Excuse For Not Giving

All You Can Afford to Give?What’s Your Excuse?

It’s a question of morality . How do you define right or just behavior?

Maybe you don’t even have the choice…

Free Will Article

Jerry A. Coyne (1949 - )American Professor of Biology at U of Chicago

• Main issue(s) in the assigned reading:

– Do we have free will?

• What is Conyne’s conclusion?

– No we do not. Free will is a complete illusion.

• Wait! What? – Do you know what this

means?

Free Will Article

The Argument

P1: Free will is the ability to freely and

consciously choose between two or more

options, either on the spot or after deliberation.

P2: Human beings cannot freely or consciously

choose between options.

C: Therefore, human beings do not have free will.

How would you evaluate the argument?

What’s the most obvious criticism or counter

argument to make?

Free Will Article

Defending P2Human beings cannot freely or consciously


P1. The movement and activity of

matter/molecules is determined by cause and

effect chains governed by the laws of physics.

P2. All choice is the result of the activity of

matter/molecules within our brain (meat

computers).

C. Therefore, we never freely choose anything.What happens after this guy jumps on the trampoline?

Free Will Article

Defending P2Human beings cannot freely or consciously


P1. Studies show that the brain makes choices

before we are consciously aware of them.

C. Therefore, we never consciously choose

anything..

Conscious Choice?

Free Will Article


(Mostly denying P2)

Objection #1 – But I feel like I can freely choose!

Coyne’s Response: ?

Objection #2 – But I can change my actions as a result of

new evidence or hearing a good argument!

Coyne’s Response: ?

Coyne also defends against objections to P1, but we won’t

discuss that today…

Free Will Article

So How Can You Still Believe

You Have Free Will?

It may not be a question of whether we have proof that we have free will.

Maybe we should believe on faith alone…

Faith Article (Prof. Long)

• Main issue(s) in the reading assignment?

– Whether or not we are ever justified to believe

something on faith alone (without proof or strong

evidence).

• Conclusion?

– Yes, there are times when we are justified.

• Before we get to the argument…

REASON & FAITHCAN I HAVE A BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE?

William K. Clifford (1845-1879)

British Mathematician & Philosopher

Modernized: Imagine you are a pilot.


William K. Clifford (1845-1879)British Mathematician & Philosopher

Scenario:

Imagine a shipbuilder who says his ship is safe without verifying it. If people die because his ship sinks, wouldn’t he would be morally liable?

Argument #1 (Inductive phrasing):

Just like we would say the ship builder should never have believed on faith alone, we too should never believe on faith alone.

What type of argument is this? How would you critique it?


William K. Clifford (1845-1879)British Mathematician & Philosopher

Scenario:

Imagine a shipbuilder who says his ship is safe without verifying it. If people die because his ship sinks, wouldn’t he would be morally liable?

Argument #2 (Deductive phrasing):

P1. Belief on faith alone can lead to unnecessary, grievous errors.

P2. We should do everything possible to avoid unnecessary, grievous errors.

C. Therefore, we should never believe on faith alone.

How would you critique it?

• We can challenge P2…

• Can challenge the argument: does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises?• Can’t belief with reason and evidence also lead to unnecessary grievous errors?

Long:“Avoiding

Error “

REASON FOR FAITH?

William James (1842-1910)

Professor at Harvard

American Philosopher, Psychologist

He was a Pragmatist & Opposed Clifford

• For practical reasons, sometimes have to have a belief without evidence.

• Says some beliefs based on faith alone are useful to have.

JAMES “WILL TO BELIEVE”

Example: Should I have this brain operation?

Scenario: Imagine the Dr. tells you that you will die. There is an operation that might help, but he’s not sure. It’s just the only option that could.

• When will you know if you should?• After you have the operation.

• A leap of faith is required to “know the truth.”

• Doesn’t seem like anyone can “blame” you for having this faith.

JAMES “WILL TO BELIEVE”

Example: Should I marry this girl/guy?

• When will you ever know if you should?

• After you marry her.

• A leap of faith is required to “know the truth.”

• Faith in the marriage can also help ensure the strength of the marriage – it can help create the truth.

Faith Article

(Prof. Long)

Long’s (James’) Argument:

• P1. Believing on faith alone is sometimes

the only way to find a truth. (Intellectually

undecidable & Genuine Option)

• P2. Finding truth, though we may be led to

error in the process, is sometimes justified.

• C. Therefore, sometimes believing on faith

alone is justified.

HW

Choose one of the three articles assigned for the

reading this week, then in a 1 to 2 page typed paper,

do the following:

In one paragraph, summarize the main argument the

author presents, identifying the issues, conclusions, and

premises. In a second paragraph critique it: assess the

quality of the argument and propose possible criticisms.

Option 1: The argument for extreme charity.

Option 2: The argument against free will.

Option 3: The argument for faith.

Documents

Final Exam Format - javygalindo.com• UP2. Most water that is cleaner, safer, tastes better, etc., than bottled water is better water than bottled water. • C. Therefore tap water