Connection between free will and morality

17. How does Aristotle suggest one work out how to be virtuous?

 10. In the ‘Apology’, why does Socrates think it is important to continue to question people on philosophical issues, even when he is faced with death? 11. Write a short paragraph describing differences between Rationalism and Empiricism. 12. Write a paragraph explaining Descartes’ ‘Method of Doubt’

this is for question 8.SEARLE: proposes his “Chinese Room” argument AGAINST the idea that machines could count as “thinking” in the same way that we humans do. He proposes someone in a room who is translating notes written in Chinese and giving answers in Chines to someone outside the room. But his translations are based only on a code-book he is given which allows him to manipulate the symbols. But he does NOT speak Chinese at all, and thus does not understand the notes, even though as far as we can see, outside the room, he is behaving just like someone who does understand Chinese.

question 7. DETERMINISM: Every event is determined by the prior state of the world, together with the laws of nature: ! Or: “facts about the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail (cause, bring about) every fact in the future” (SEP) If we know all of the initial conditions, plus the laws of nature, then we can predict in advance the outcome. As applied to humans, we can predict behavior since the causes of behavior are all pre-determined, ! So determinism is like the concept of a recipe: once you have all the initial ingredients, plus a recipe, you can determine the outcome, e.g. a cake. Small variations in the initial conditions can lead to a wide variety of outcomes, i.e. different quality cakes: but still each cake depends on its ingredients, initial conditions and recipe.

 question 9: DESCARTES had two arguments for the distinction between the MIND AND BODY: i.e. his DUALISM Med. 2: (INDUBITABLITY ARG FOR DUALISM) Since Descartes can conceive of MIND and BODY as distinct, and he knows them in different ways, e.g. his knowledge of his mind is indubitable, then MIND AND BODY ARE DISTINCT. Med. 6: (INDIVISIBILITY ARG FOR DUALISM) Descartes can conceive of the body being divided into parts, but not the mind, therefore MIND AND BODY ARE DISTINCT. ! According to Descartes, the mind and body, or the mind and BRAIN, although they are two distinct substances, do interact with each other. PROBLEM: the mind is made of mental stuff that is not located in space, and thus not subject to the laws of physics; but the brain is located in space and is subject to the laws of physics (and chemistry and biology etc. – all the laws of material things). So HOW CAN THESE TWO REALLY INTERACT? Med. 6: Descartes asks what kind of thing he is, and claims that he can know with certainty, only that he is a thinking thing. Later, Descartes admits he is not genuinely skeptical about his knowledge of BODY, but he knows body, and the ‘external world’, in a different way to how he knows he has a MIND.

DESCARTES: Meditations 1 & 2: Foundations for knowledge, skepticism, and the method of doubt. Med. 1: Descartes employs his METHOD OF DOUBT to examine which of his beliefs are subject to doubt, and those that are not. He thinks that he can thereby discover certain and secure foundations for human knowledge. ! He first examines knowledge he has gained through his senses, i.e. EMPIRICAL knowledge. But he finds that this knowledge is subject to doubt. He has two arguments for why we should doubt knowledge gained by the senses: ! THE DREAMING ARGUMENT: since we can never tell, when dreaming, that we are dreaming, we could at any other time also be dreaming. Knowledge gained by the senses cannot determine for us if we are dreaming or not since it would be the same either way. ! THE EVIL GENIUS ARGUMENT: It is possible that all of the information we assume to be gained by the senses could simply be transmitted to us by some kind of Evil Genius, who is simply deceiving us that there is an external world causing our sensations. Med. 2: Descartes argues that although his senses can deceive him, he can never be deceived that he does not exist, because as soon as he is able to think, he knows that he must exist. This is Descartes’ famous Cogito Ergo Sum argument: “I  think, therefore I am”. Even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived

DESCARTES is a RATIONALIST, whereas LOCKE is an EMPIRICIST. ! Rationalism holds that the foundation for certain knowledge is gained through REASON not EXPERIENCE, that is through the exercise of knowledge that is gained not through the senses, or through observation, but is gained a priori, before any experience whatsoever. ! So for Descartes, even if you were a ‘disembodied mind’, there is a certain amount of knowledge you could still have: namely that of maths and logic and other a priori truths. ! Empiricism holds the opposite: that the foundation of all knowledge is experience and observation – knowledge gained via the senses. For the empiricist, there is no knowledge to be 5 gained prior to that gained by the senses, and so there is no INNATE knowledge according to them, i.e. knowledge or the ability to gain knowledge before or independently of experience (such as knowledge we have before even being born). ! Locke argued against INNATE KNOWLEDGE: that babies or the mentally  deficient do not seem to have the kind of ability to deductively reason, or to know the a priori truths of mathematics and logic that the rationalist would have us believe. ! Locke argued that all knowledge is gained via the senses: from SIMPLE ideas, which are then combined to make more COMPLEX ideas

 URING: argues that MACHINES may one day imitate MINDS so well that we will not be able to tell the difference between a real MIND or “thinking thing” and a MACHINE. ! THE TURING TEST: he proposes a “test” such that if a person cannot tell the difference between a person and a machine, in the context of a question and answer game, then the machine “passes” the test and can be considered a “thinking thing”. After all, what else do we have to go on, in order to judge of anything that it is “conscious” or “thinking”? We judge it of each other, or of our animals, but all we have to go on is observing them and interacting with them. If a machine could do just as well as a human or at least an animal, then why shouldn’t we say it is conscious, or, at least ‘thinking’?

Aristotle & Virtue Ethics: ! DEONTOLOGICAL theories have it that ethical systems are sets of rules for behavior that ought to be followed regardless of the desires, interests, needs or feelings of the people bound by it. It doesn’t matter, in other words, whether what you do is good for you or not, or even if it is good for anyone else as far as you can see: but it is the moral rule so you must follow it. ! TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES on the other hand, have it that what you do should always be guided by the consequences of your behavior, so that the ends justify the means. The outcome is supposed to be some human good, however that is interpreted, say ‘happiness’, so every thing you do must have that end in mind. These theories first define certain ends as ‘good’ and then set about finding ways to achieve it. Aristotle’s ethical theory is firmly teleological – his view is that aiming to become virtuous will bring with it ‘the good life’, or eudaimonia: the highest human purpose. ! For Aristotle, everything has a purpose; it is the purpose of a thing that makes it what it is. So hammers have a purpose (knocking in nails), seeds have a purpose (growing into plants or trees), animals have a purpose (the tiger’s is to hunt) and so on.   This is Aristotle’s teleological 8 view of the universe. And, indeed, humans have a purpose: to lead a good life. But we must take care in understanding what Aristotle means by the good life, or eudaimonia. It is not merely a life full of pleasure and hedonism. A good life, for Aristotle is a life led by a good person. For Aristotle, a ‘good’ person is one in whom the virtues are very well developed. This kind of person will be not only good to others, but being good will bring happiness with it. For Aristotle, ‘happiness’ is something that comes with being of a particular sort of person; not through pursuing external goals like fame or fortune. Only having a virtuous character can bring happiness.

What is a brain in a vat? The BIV thought-experiment suggests that it is impossible for us to know that what we sense and experience is really as it appears to be. For it could be true that we are simply brains in vats with electrodes connected to our brains, feeding our experiences in via electronic impulses. There may be an argument though: it is a Semantic argument, to do with what we can and cannot refer to using our language. It has been argued that, if we were brains in vats, we could not say that: “I am a brain in a vat”. Do you remember the argument details?

APA

719 words