Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia - Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’ by James Rachel), think about these questions.

• Is there a right to die? Think about the Hippocratic Oath
• What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
• Is there a distinction between killing and letting die?
• Does a doctor do really nothing when he lets his patient die?
• In the case of euthanasia, does a causal difference make moral difference? For example, is there a moral difference if the doctor intervenes directly to kill his patient rather than let the patient die himself?
• Is euthanasia a form of suicide?
• Can we ignore the (un)expressed preference of the patient? Think about Million Dollar baby.
• Would that be a homicide?
• What if the patient cannot express his preference?
• What criteria can be set for identifying an incurable ill?
• Why would not be morally preferable to use palliative care instead of euthanasia?
• What are the grounds to decide about life and death?
• What if the dying is not competent about medical care, or his request of euthanasia is not genuinely voluntary? How could we assess this?
• In what sense life is sacred?
• Why prolonging life should be good (or bad)? Under what conditions?
• Is there any preferable alternative to euthanasia?

Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia - Million Dollar baby

A Powerful Death Request

From Wikipedia - Million Dollar Baby (2004)

"Eventually, she confides to Dunn that she has "seen it all" and asks to be relieved of her suffering. Dunn refuses to help her die, but does speak with his priest, who objects to the idea of euthanasia. Maggie then attempts suicide by biting her tongue multiple times in an attempt to bleed to death. Though hospital staff prevent further suicide attempts, Dunn decides that Maggie's suffering should not continue, and he injects her with an overdose of adrenaline.
Just before administering the injection, Dunn finally tells Maggie the meaning of the nickname by which he has called her; the phrase, Mo Cuishle, is Gaelic for "My darling, my blood."

Tutorial # 10. Applied Ethics. Euthanasia. the Hippocratic Oath

From The Hippocratic Oath

"...I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"

http://www.euthanasia.com/oathtext.html

On how to Improve your essay and... your mark

The most common comments I made on your essays - and that I also sometimes receive on my own essays, are the following:

- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"

Here is the hint:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus, your essay will improve.

If your first essay has not received the mark you expected, don't be discouraged. Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.

Some Tips for your Next Essays. And referencing

Here is some tips for your next essays.


- First, Jim Pryor has an excellent website, where you can find some Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper. They are very useful!

- Second, make clear the structure of your paper right at the beginning.
State the goal of your paper: What is your aim? What are you going to do?
Give a brief outline of how you are going to proceed to make your point: What are you going to do first?; What are you gonna do then? How are all the steps in your argument related?

- Third, try to "delimit your own territory".
Focus! Make small points; be "modest" in your claims. Don't be afraid of using such expressions as "it seems", "it may be the case", "it might be".
Always give reasons! Motivate your claims -

- Forth, polish, polish, polish!
Use short sentences, with very few adjectives, and connect the sentences logically with the right conjunctions.

- Fifth, use relevant references and the right referencing.

Here is some examples for referencing:

For a book:
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: Free Press.

For a joural article:
Thaler, R. H. (1988) "Anomalies: The Ultimatum Game", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, pp. 195–206.

For an article reprinted in a volume:
Cartwright, N. (1983) "Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?", in Curd, M. & Cover, J. A. eds. (1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. London: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 865-877.

For an online article:
Beyer, C. (2007). “Edmund Husserl”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/husserl/.

For an "old" classic - there are a few ways:
Anselm, St., Proslogion, in St. Anselm's Proslogion, M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965

or

Kant, I., 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1781, vols. 3 and 4 of Gesammelte Schriften, de Gruyter & Co., 1969; page references are to the English translation, Critique of Pure Reason,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

or

Kant, I., 1780 (1965), The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, J. Ladd, Trans., Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

- Finally, here is an example for brief quotations in the body of your essay:
"… thus we come to see that ‘”meanings” just ain’t in the head!" (Putnam 1977, p. 704).

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality and Desert. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially George Sher, ‘Effort, Ability, and Personal Desert’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8:4 (1979), pp. 361–376), think about these questions.

• What sorts of economic arrangements are best? Compare capitalism, which advocates private ownership and free markets, and socialism, which advocates collective ownership and central planning. Which one promotes better well-being, rewarding the deserving, protecting liberty?
• A familiar argument in recent social theorizing is that because no one deserves either his native talents or his ability to exert effort, no one can be said to deserve any advantages made possible by his talents or abilities: ‘People do not deserve their natural abilities; therefore, they do not deserve advantages which they achieve with those abilities.’ Is this a plausible view?
• What is equality?
• People differ from each other in many respects. Why should equality be a political goal then?
• In what, if anything, people should be equal?
• Do different people deserve different rewards? Why would a CEO deserve more monetary reward than a philosophy tutor?
• Do we have a natural right on anything? Do we have a natural right on private property?
• Most universities advertise their vacancies stating that they are committed to equality and diversity? Often, on a job ad, one may find the disclaimer “women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply”. What does that mean?
• Would that imply a sort of “inverse discrimination”? That is, if women are underrepresented in a philosophy department, should the hiring committee particularly welcome applications from female candidates? Should women deserve and advantage in such situations?
• Compare the passage by St Matthew and that by Marx. What are the differences? Which one do you find more convincing? Why?
• Would one deserve anything according to his capacities or according to his needs?
• Why does Rawls (see Sher) believe that people do not deserve their character and abilities?
• Are our natural assets really undeserved because they are brought into existence by events independent of anything we ourselves have done?

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality Desert And Marx

Karl Marx 1875

From Critique of the Gotha Programme

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality Desert And St Matthew

From the Gospel according to St Matthew 25, 14 - 30

14 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one - to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately 16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. 17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two. 18 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' 26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? 28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. 29 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. God and Morality. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially Philip L. Quinn, ‘God and Morality’, in Reasons and Responsibility), think about these questions.

• Are there any objective moral facts?
• Or are moral statements true or false only relative to particular cultural standards or personal attitudes of approval and disapproval?
• Can divine commands provide an objective basis for morality?
• Does Christian Ethics amount to the divine command theory?
• What is theological voluntarism?
• What are the main reasons why – according to Quinn – if one is a theist, he should consider the divine command theory as a sound theory?
• In which sense ethics depends on God?
• What is the sense of Dostoevskij’s proclaim that “everything is permitted if there is no God”? Read the passage below from The Brothers Karamazov
• Do you think that there is any “natural moral law”’ Why? Or why not? Try not to focus on cultural differences, but rather on analogies across societies and cultures?
• Accoring to Sartre, in which sense there is no human nature? And how is this related to the death of God? Think about the reading below by Sartre.
• What is the best reason to adopt divine command morality if one is monotheist?
• According to Kierkegaard - quoted in Quinn, what is the difference between erotic love and love of the neighbor?
• What relation, if any, do you find between Kantian categorical imperatives and the Christian “commandment of love”?
• How do we know the will of God?
• If from the Bible, should we take the Bible literally, or give it an interpretation?
• Do you agree that if God commanded homicide, adultery, and theft, then homicide, adultery, and theft would be morally right? Why? Or why not?
• An action is good because God wants it, or God wants a certain action because it is good? This is the Euthyphro Objection. How would you tackle this problem? Think about te episode in the Genesis of the Binding of Isaac
• God as perfectly good is “constrained” to want the good? In which sense? Does this imply that God is not almighty?

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Sartre on God and Morality

The atheist and existentialist writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) accepts that God’s death makes our existence completely absurd (inexplicable) and in his various writings he tries to work out how it might be possible for human beings to live in a superfluous world in which there is no good and bad, no right and wrong, no ultimate meaning and so no reason for anything.

In Existentialism and Human Emotions (1957, pp. 9-16), he writes:

"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."

Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Dostoevskij on God and Morality

Dostoevskij (1821 – 1881) in book XI of The Brothers Karamazov describes Ivan Karamazov's destructive influence on those around him and his descent into madness.
"It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God "everything is permitted." The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting." From Wikipedia

He writes thus:

"I did have an idea of beginning a new life with that money in Moscow or, better still, abroad. I did dream of it, chiefly because 'all things are lawful.' That was quite right what you taught me, for you talked a lot to me about that. For if there's no everlasting God, there's no such thing as virtue, and there's no need of it. You were right there. So that's how I looked at it."
"Did you come to that of yourself?" asked Ivan, with a wry smile.
"With your guidance."
"And now, I suppose, you believe in God, since you are giving back the money?"
"No, I don't believe," whispered Smerdyakov.
"Then why are you giving it back?"
"Leave off... that's enough!" Smerdyakov waved his hand again. "You used to say yourself that everything was lawful, so now why are you so upset, too? You even want to go and give evidence against yourself.... Only there'll be nothing of the sort! You won't go to give evidence," Smerdyakov decided with conviction.

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially Mill on Utilitarianism) think about these qustions.

• What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
• Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? Think about future generations, and Sebastian's thought experiment.
• How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
• Are there any absolute, non-relative, rights for a consequentialist?
• What is, for Mill, the "Greatest-happiness Principle"?
• Mill claims that Kant’s theory is a version of utilitarianism. Why? Do you agree?
• Why, according to Mill, some kinds of pleasure are more desirable than others?
• Is it really ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ (Mill, p. 644)? Why?
• If happiness amounts to the satisfaction of our desires, and some kind of happiness is more desirable than others, how can we try to educate our desires to reach that kind of happiness?
• Do we have “innate” desires?
• How would you calculate the expected utility of an action?
• In your utilitarian calculus, should you take into account also the consequences that would affect animals? For instance, how would you weigh up your pleasure for a burger at McDonalds’ and the pain suffered by that animal?
• How is utility inter-personal comparison possible? Put it in English, how can you compare, for example, the pleasure of a sadist with the suffering of a victim? How can you compare the mental pleasure of watching a football match with the physical pleasure of having sex, or having a nice pizza?
• Is physical pleasure inferior to intellectual pleasure? Recall Mill's view on different knds of happiness.
• I slap a kid because he cursed. To evaluate my action, should you take into account also the consequences that my slap may have on the way he will educate his children?
• If it turned out that hanging an innocent publicly once a month will dramatically reduce crimes, should we hang innocent people?
• Should we impose pleasure to others? For example, If it turned out that putting LSD in water will make people more happy, would you be justified to pour LSD in the aqueducts of Edinburgh?
• What if instead of pursuing actions that promotes happiness, we pursued actions that promotes less pain and suffering? What would be the difference?
• How would a consequentialist argue to explain why it is wrong (or right) to bake a stranger who agrees to be baked? Would it make sense such kind of consequentialist explanation?

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. What We Owe To Future Generations?

Once, my friend Sebastian Koehler came up with this scenario:

"Assume that your house is terrorized by a lot of rats. The only way you could get rid of them, would be to flood your whole house with a deadly gas which kills mammals in seconds (I assume for this case that killing the rats would be permissible).
Assume further that your house is built on a spot were the normal natural laws are crazy in a certain respect: You know that if you will use the poisonous gas this would result in 10 normal human beings spontaniously and instantly being created in your house, who will then immediatelly die from the poisionous gas.
What do you think? Is it permissible to use the poisionous gas?"

Sebastian thinks rather not.
The problem with future generations seems to be analogous: How can it be that non-existent beings can make moral demands on us?

What do you think about it?
In light of consequentialism, do you think we should take into account long-term consequences of our actions, consequences that will affect other people not-yet existent?

Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. The Trolley Problem

Consequentialism is the view that an action is morally right just in case it promotes the good at least as well as any of the other available alternatives.

Now, think about the following pair of scenarios offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:

A runaway trolley rushes towards five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto another set of tracks where it will kill only one person instead of five.
What should you do?

Same scenario as before. A
trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. This time, you are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.
Should you proceed?

…

The Trolley Problem. Video

What should an utilitarian do?

What is the difference that motivates these different moral judgements?

Tutorial # 6. Virtue Ethics. Discussion Questions

In light of the reaings you have done (especially Anscombe and "Virtue Theory" by Greg Pence linked in the previous post), try to think about this questions.

• The question virtue ethics try to answer is: "How should I live?". The answer is: "Flourish by cultivating your virtues!". But what is a virtue? Is it a feature of our character? Is it a disposition to act in a certain way in determinate situations? Is it something more complex?
• How can one cultivate \ educate his or her virtues?
• What is the relation between virtues and emotions? Can we educate our emotions? How can we get our emotions in harmony with our rational recognition of certain reasons for acting so and so in a given situation?
• How can we motivate that certain behaviour and emotions are appropriate in a certain context rather than in others?
• What is the role of the environment in one's attempt to "flourish"? How much do your circumstances (e.g. where you live, your family, your friends, your education, the time when you live etc) affect the posibility of your "flourishing"?
• Do virtues change over time and across cultures? If so, would this undermine virtue ethics? Can we identify universal virtues?
• Being willing to have lots of sexual partners may be regarded as a virtue (e.g. an example of openness) but also as a vice (say, lust) at the same time. Is there a principled way to argue that a certain character is intrinsically virtuous (or vicious)? Are we condemned to relativism?
• Benevolence, Courage, Chastity, Wisdom, Honesty can be considered as examples of virtues. Drunkenness, Caprice, Egoism, Laziness, Lust, Stupidity, Dishonesty as examples of vices. For which reasons are they considered virtues and vices? Is there any particular virtue indispensable for the pursuit of happiness?
• Consider Mandeville's poem. Is vice necessary for a wealthy, and happy society?
• Do virtues presuppose a certain moral view?

Specifically on Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy"

• "Modern Moral Philosophy” argues that virtues are the central concepts needed by moral thought. Do you agree? What is Anscombe’s main reason in support of her claim?
• Do we need a philosophy of psychology to do moral philosophy? Does our psychology need a concept such as duty? How can psychology help us to explain how an unjust man is a bad man?
• For Anscombe Mill is “stupid”, Sidgwick, “vulgar”, Butler “ignorant”, Hume “sophistical”, Kant “absurd”, and the proponent of “hideous fantasy”, while even her beloved Aristotle is sometimes reduced to “babble”. Consider her criticism to Kant. Do you find it convincing? Why?
• Is the notion “morally ought” meaningless, and even "harmful" without a (divine) “law”? When Anscombe says “where one does not think there is a judge or a law, the notion of a verdict may retain its psychological effect, but not its meaning”, is she claiming (with dostoevskij) that if God is dead everything is permitted?
• Mary Geach (Anscombe's daughter) says: "Anscombe wanted people who did not believe in God to stop asking questions like “Is this morally right?”, and to start asking questions like “Is this gluttonous?” or “Is this that kind of injustice which is called murder?”" How does that make difference?
• According to Anscombe, certain things are forbidden, whatever the consequences. Is a notion of duty necessary to justify this claim? And do you agree that certain things are forbidden simpliciter?
• Are there things that the virtuous person simply will not contemplate—he will not even talk about them?
• Regarding this last question, Anscombe's favourite example is procuring the judicial execution of the innocent. She writes (p.17) "But if someone really thinks, in advance, that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration-I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind". Should we argue with "corrupted minds"???

Tutorial # 6. Virtue Ethics. Some Useful (and fun..) References

Some References you may find useful (and fun...)

- A good introduction to Virtue Ethics is Virtue Theory by Gregory Pence, Originally published in Peter Singer, A Companion to Ethics (Blackwell Publishing, 1991).

- An HTML copy of Ascombe (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy", Philosophy, Vol. 33, No. 124 (Jan., 1958), pp. 1-19, is HERE.

- A (bitter) review of Anscombe by Simon Blackburn (Cambridge, Philosophy) is HERE

- A nice reconstruction of the spirited exchange followed from Blackburn's criticisism to Anscombe is Anscombe's Virtues: Simply Wrong? from Brian Leiter's Blog

Tutorial # 6. Virtue Ethics. Virtue and Vices A Moral from Mandeville

From http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_oct2003.htm

By Alex Voorhoeve

"Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) was a doctor and pamphleteer, whose works had a large impact on the course of eighteenth century social philosophy. Mandeville was born and educated in the Dutch Republic. After being implicated in a popular uprising in his native city of Rotterdam, he travelled Europe and settled in London.

Mandeville started a practice as a doctor and soon began to write. In 1705, he published a poem, The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves Turn'd Honest. It tells of a wealthy and powerful beehive whose inhabitants act only in pursuit of gain and esteem. Nevertheless, they espouse an ethic that condemns this behaviour and frequently lament that their society is full of sin. Irritated by their constant complaining, their god decides to make them all virtuous. In a flash, their society comes to a stop: commerce and industry are abandoned, and the bees leave their once flourishing hive and withdraw to live simply in the hollow of a tree. The moral is that virtue can only lead to a poor, ascetic society, whereas the vices are the necessary engines of a wealthy and powerful nation"

Here is the Moral of the poem

by Bernard de Mandeville (1670 – 1733)

The M O R A L.
THEN leave Complaints: Fools only striveTo make a Great an honest Hive. [410]T'enjoy the World's Conveniencies,Be famed in War, yet live in EaseWithout great Vices, is a vainEutopia seated in the Brain.Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live; [415]Whilst we the Benefits receive.Hunger's a dreadful Plague no doubt,Yet who digests or thrives without?Do we not owe the Growth of WineTo the dry, crooked, shabby Vine? [420]Which, whist its shutes neglected stood,Choak'd other Plants, and ran to Wood;But blest us with his Noble Fruit;As soon as it was tied, and cut:So Vice is beneficial found, [425]When it's by Justice lopt and bound;Nay, where the People would be great,As necessary to the State,At Hunger is to make 'em eat.Bare Vertue can't make Nations live [430]In Splendour; they, that would reviveA Golden Age, must be as free,For Acorns, as for Honesty.

If you are curious, you can find all the poem Here

Tutorial # 5. Deontological Ethics. Disucssion Questions

Try to think about these questions in light of "The Good Will & The Categorical Principle" by Immanuel Kant (pp. 625 - 640 On our Feinberg&Landau textbook) .

Another very good reference is the "Deontological Ethics" entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

• What should motivate moral action, according to Kant?
• What does Kant mean by the good will?
• Do you think the good will is something subjective? In what sense?
• Kant writes (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 626): “… in a being that has reason and a will, if the proper end of nature were its preservation, its welfare, in a word its happiness then nature would have hit upon a very bad arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry out its purpose. For all the actions that the creature has to perform for this purpose … would be marked out for it far more accurately by instinct”. Do you agree? Does instinct serves happiness better than reason?
• Kant (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 627) argues that “the true vocation of reason must be to produce a will that is good in itself”. The premises of the argument are three: (I) “Reason is not sufficiently competent to guide the will with regards to its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (II) “Reason is nevertheless given to us as practical faculty, that is, as one that is to influence the will” (III) “Nature has everywhere else gone to work purposively in distributing its capacities”. Assess this argument.
• How do we know that an action is made not only in conformity with duty but also from duty?
• Can love be commanded?
• What is the difference between love as an inclination and love as a principle of action?
• How does the representation of the law determine the will? Is respect for the law a causal relation?
• “You shall not murder”, or “You shall not lie” are examples of categorical imperatives: That is, they are duties that all rational beings ought to respect (recall Kant’s “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”). Now, do you think we ought to respect a categorical imperative no matter what?
• Consider this maxim: “Steal when you are too poor to feed yourself”. Would it pass the universalizability test? Would it be a moral law?
• Does Kant give us a moral theory that we can follow?
• Would the universalizability test solve moral dilemmas? E.g. consider the following. A mental with a gun in her hand ask you where your best friend is because she wants to kill your friend. Should you tell the truth to the mental? Or should you lie in order to protect your friend?
• For Kant the consequences of an action don’t bear on the moral status of the action. Do you agree? Imagine, e.g., a baby-sitter who by acting from duty keeps a baby warm by putting it in the microwave. Do you think that an unintentional bad consequence of an action made from duty don’t bear on the moral status of that action?

Tutorial # 5. Deontological Ethics. Fun - Kant

Some funny stuff about Kant...

A Rant about Kant by Neven Sesardic

Kant Attack Ad

Tutorial # 5. Deontological Ethics. Some Anecdotes on Kant

From Andreas Teuber's webpages:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html


"Years of living frugally, increases in his salary, and honoraria for his publications enabled Kant in 1783 to buy a house on Prinzessinstra and to hire a cook. (A few years previous he had employed as his footman Martin Lampe, a retired Prussian soldier remembered for his dullness). At this time Kant reorganized his daily routine, which changed little for the rest of his life. He subjected himself to the severest regimen to maintain his health, for he was a small, frail man with a delicate constitution. He arose punctually at five o'clock and drank a few cups of tea while he thought about the day's lectures. At seven he went downstairs to the room reserved as his classroom and taught until nine. Then he wrote until lunch, which always began precisely at one o'clock. He looked forward to this meal with keen anticipation, not only because it was the only one he permitted himself but because it was a social event. Since he thought conversation aided digestion, and he was gregarious by nature, there were always from three to nine guests--never fewer than the graces, never more than the muses, he explained. As he did not like to talk shop in his free time, he selected the guests from a variety of occupations--politicians, doctors, lawyers, officers, merchants, students, colleagues, or anyone who happened to be passing through town and wanted to see him. The food was plentiful, the wine flowed freely, the atmosphere was casual, the conversation was stimulating. Women were not invited. This exclusion, coupled with his lifelong bachelorhood, led to speculation that he disliked women. This notion is incorrect. He often said about himself that when he needed a wife he was too poor to feed one, and when he was at last able to feed one he did not need one anymore.
After lunch came the famous walk, which he took every day regardless of the weather. It lasted precisely one hour, and the route rarely varied. He always walked alone, convinced that breathing through the mouth, which conversation necessitates, was unhealthy. This ritual was not without problems during the summer, for perspiration disgusted him; at the slightest indication he would seek out a shady spot and stand perfectly still until he was dry again. He spent the evening reading or writing. At precisely ten o'clock he went to bed. Unlike the rest of the house, the bedroom was never heated, even during frigid weather. The window was never opened, and he refused to keep a candle in the room; if he had to get up during the night he felt his way along a rope running from the bed to the door. When he was ready to fall asleep he always pronounced the name "Cicero" a few times.

In 1802, Kant discharged the man (named Lampe) who had faithfully served him for many years. He proved unable, however, to dismiss Lampe from his mind. The troubled philosopher finally entered a memorandum in his notebook: "Remember," it read, "from now on the name of Lampe must be completely forgotten."

Tutorial # 5. Deontological Ethics. Kant's Ethics. A very short Primer

From http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
Prof. Andreas Teuber's webpage

"In answering the question of what ought to be, Kant says that instead of our actions conforming to the facts--the situations in which we find ourselves or the inclinations we happen to have--they should conform to our principles. These principles are derived from reason. A true moral act, he says, depends on the motive of the action, not on the outcome. The only motive that is good in itself, without qualification, is the good will: that is, the desire to act according to duty. Duty is discovered by reason and is the same for everyone at all places and at all times. He formulates the moral law in his famous categorical imperative: "Handle, so da die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könnte" (Act in such a way that the principle of your will could at any time also become the principle of a universal law). In other words, if an action could not be made universal without contradicting itself, that action is immoral. Kant illustrates this principle with the example of the false promise.

To get himself out of a financial difficulty, a person proposes to borrow some money. He knows that he will never be able to pay the money back, but he also knows that he will not receive the loan unless he promises to repay the lender. Should he, then, falsely promise to pay the money back? A moment's reflection shows that if such an action were made universal--if everyone made false promises-the institution of promising would go out of existence, because no one would accept a promise anymore. Thus the false promise would, if made universal, negate or contradict itself; and self-contradiction is the epitome of irrationality. Immorality, then, is equivalent to irrationality"

Tutorial # 4 Why Be Moral? On Egoism. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done, try to think about this questions.
The materials I have just uploaded are not compulsory, but highly recommended (and brief anyway).

• Does one always act with the exclusive intention of promoting one's own best
  interests?
• What is one’s own interest? Pleasure? Avoiding pain? Something else?
• Is it possible that one does not actually know what his or her best interest is?
• David Hume writes: "Love between the sexes begets a complacency and good-will, very distinct from the gratification of an appetite. Tenderness to their offspring, in all sensible beings, is commonly able alone to counter-balance the strongest motives of self-love, and has no manner of dependance on that affection. What interest can a fond mother have in view, who loses her health by assiduous attendance on her sick child, and afterwards languishes and dies of grief, when freed, by its death, from the slavery of that attendance?" (An Enquiry Concerning The Principles Of Morals - Appendix II. Of Self-love, 1751).
  How could one argue that this mother’s intention is egoistic? Think about Stirner's argument.
• What would you reply to someone who argued that the Saints are egoists, since their acts are solely motivated by the expectation of a reward in a prospective after-life?
• Is egoism a fundamental feature of our psychology?
• What are the emotions underlying self-interest? How do they facilitate (or impede) our egoism?
• To what extent egoism is “innate”? To what extent is “learned”?
• Would egoists have an advantage in evolutionary terms (in terms of survival and reproduction)?
• What is in your opinion the best argument for (or against) psychological egoism? Why?
• Even if we are egoist, would it follow that we ought to be?
• Does rationality require anything other than that we pursue our own interests?
• Do we have a duty to help others?
• What are the differences between psyhological, ethical, and rational egoism?
  

The entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/ by Robert Shaver is a good background to sort out differences between psychological, ethical, and rational egoism.

Tutorial # 4 Why Be Moral? The Homo Economicus

When Does Economic Man dominate Social Behavior? Camerer C, Fehr E. Science 311 47-52 (2006)

This paper elaborates on the neoclassical economic concept of "Homo Economicus".
An "Economic Man" is perfectly rational in an instrumental sense, and is self-interest: He deploys his best endeavors upon accessibe information an capacity of reasoning, so as to maximise individual advantage. However, in the real world there seem to be very few economic men...

Tutorial # 4 Why Be Moral? Stirner on Egoism

From http://tmh.floonet.net/teaho/theego16.html#pp386

Max Stirner (1844)

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum ("The Ego and its Own")

love cuts no better figure than any other passion that I obey blindly. The ambitious man, who is carried away by ambition and remains deaf to every warning that a calm moment begets in him, has let this passion grow up into a despot against whom he abandons all power of dissolution: he has given up himself, because he cannot dissolve himself, and consequently cannot absolve himself from the passion: he is possessed. I love men too -- not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no "commandment of love."

Tutorial # 4 Why Be Moral? Hobbes on Egoism

From Project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/lvthn10.txt

Thomas Hobbes (1651)

Leviathan

The Fourth Law Of Nature, Gratitude

As Justice dependeth on Antecedent Covenant; so does Gratitude depend on Antecedent Grace; that is to say, Antecedent Free-gift: and is the fourth Law of Nature; which may be conceived in this Forme, "That a man which receiveth Benefit from another of meer Grace, Endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will." For no man giveth, but with intention of Good to himselfe; because Gift is Voluntary; and of all Voluntary Acts, the Object is to every man his own Good; of which if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of benevolence, or trust; nor consequently of mutuall help; nor of reconciliation of one man to another; and therefore they are to remain still in the condition of War; which is contrary to the first and Fundamentall Law of Nature, which commandeth men to Seek Peace. The breach of this Law, is called Ingratitude; and hath the same relation to Grace, that Injustice hath to Obligation by Covenant.

Botticelli vs Duchamp

Sandro Botticelli Primavera (1477-1490), Firenze - Uffizi

Marcel Duchamp Fountaine (1917)

-------

Minimal Further Readings - For Essays or Personal Interest

• N. Warburton, Philosophy, The Basics, 2nd ed., Routledge Chpt. 7
• Stanford Encyclopedia: "Art Definition". URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
• Institute of Neuroestethics. URL: http://www.neuroesthetics.org/

Tutorial #3. What is Beauty? What is Art? Disucssion Questions

Think about these questions in light of the lectures and the readings materials provided (Voltaire, and Neuroestethics). Try to give critical answers.

• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?


• When we say something is beautiful, are we recommending to others that they should take delight in it?


• Beauty may be intersubjective, but is it objective? Are there objective standards of beauty?


• Can we argue rationally about whether something is beautiful?


• What does it mean to say that art expresses emotion?


• Do beauty and happiness go together?


• What is the role of the experience of beauty in a good life?


• Is taste a function of education and economics? Or perhaps, is it more a "hard-wired" neurobiological function?


• Is natural beauty ever better than constructed beauty, like in art or music?


• Must art be beautiful to be great art?


• Does placing a work (any work) in a museum makes that work a work-of-art? Contrast Duchamp’s Fountain and Botticelli’s Primavera. They are both in museums. Are they both works of art? Why? Or why not?

Tutorial # 3. What is Beauty? What is Art? Neuroestethics

The Neural correlates of beauty S Zeki and H Kawabata Journal of Neurophysiology (J Neurophysiol 91: 1699-1705, 2004)

We will concern ourselves with the Introduction and the Discussion sections (that is, we can skip the methodological\experimental stuff) -
Try to focus on the philosophical consequences about the nature of beauty that this kind of experiments might have.

ps The pdf article is linked - click on the title.

Tutorial # 3. What is Beauty? What is Art? Voltaire On Beauty

From Project Gutenberg's:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18569/18569-h/18569-h.htm

Voltaire (1764)
Dictionnaire philosophique (Philosophical Dictionary)

"Beauty"

Ask a toad what beauty is, the to kalon? He will answer you that it is his toad wife with two great round eyes issuing from her little head, a wide, flat mouth, a yellow belly, a brown back. Interrogate a Guinea negro, for him beauty is a black oily skin, deep-set eyes, a flat nose. Interrogate the devil; he will tell you that beauty is a pair of horns, four claws and a tail. Consult, lastly, the philosophers, they will answer you with gibberish: they have to have something conforming to the arch-type of beauty in essence, to the to kalon.
One day I was at a tragedy near by a philosopher. "How beautiful that is!" he said. "What do you find beautiful there?" I asked. "It is beautiful," he answered, "because the author has reached his goal." The following day he took some medicine which did him good. "The medicine has reached its goal," I said to him. "What a beautiful medicine!" He grasped that one cannot say a medicine is beautiful, and that to give the name of "beauty" to something, the thing must cause you to admire it and give you pleasure. He agreed that the tragedy had inspired these sentiments in him, and that there was the to kalon, beauty.
We journeyed to England: the same piece, perfectly translated, was played there; it made everybody in the audience yawn. "Ho, ho!" he said, "the to kalon is not the same for the English and the French." After much reflection he came to the conclusion that beauty is often very relative, just as what is decent in Japan is indecent in Rome,[Pg 54] and what is fashionable in Paris, is not fashionable in Pekin; and he saved himself the trouble of composing a long treatise on beauty.
There are actions which the whole world finds beautiful. Two of Cæsar's officers, mortal enemies, send each other a challenge, not as to who shall shed the other's blood with tierce and quarte behind a thicket as with us, but as to who shall best defend the Roman camp, which the Barbarians are about to attack. One of them, having repulsed the enemy, is near succumbing; the other rushes to his aid, saves his life, and completes the victory.
A friend sacrifices his life for his friend; a son for his father.... The Algonquin, the Frenchman, the Chinaman, will all say that that is very beautiful, that these actions give them pleasure, that they admire them.
They will say as much of the great moral maxims, of Zarathustra's—"In doubt if an action be just, abstain..."; of Confucius'—"Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses."
The negro with the round eyes and flat nose, who will not give the name of "beauties" to the ladies of our courts, will without hesitation give it to these actions and these maxims. The wicked man even will recognize the beauty of these virtues which he dare not imitate. The beauty which strikes the senses merely, the imagination, and that which is called "intelligence," is often uncertain therefore. The beauty which speaks to the heart is not that. You will find a host of people who will tell you that they have found nothing beautiful in three-quarters of the Iliad; but nobody will deny that Codrus' devotion to his people was very beautiful, supposing it to be true.
There are many other reasons which determine me not to write a treatise on beauty.

Tutorial # 2. Informal Reasoning. An Exercise

#Try to give a critical evaluation of the following article in light of Thomson (2002)'s Ch.5.
Take notes of the main points, and come to the tutorial with a one-page brief argument of your own either in favour of or against legalising soft drugs- give reasons, give evidence and examples.

Exercise 3 from Thomson (2002) Ch. 5.

Slippery slope of legalising drugs

By
Professor P. A. J. Waddington

The newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats has stirred up a storm by suggesting the legalisation of soft drugs should be reviewed by a Royal Commission.
There is a strong argument for legalisation. It is demonstrable that outlawing these drugs has failed to stem, still less eliminate, their sale. All the indications are that the consumption of illicit drugs is now common-place – especially among the young. So, if we can’t beat it, perhaps we should try regulating it. This, after all was surely the lesson to be learned from the American experiment with Prohibition. Outlawing commodities that people want to buy simply encourages criminals to supply them, leading to gangsterism. It also leads otherwise law-abiding people into the clutches of those with a vested interest in ensuring that they become addicted to harder drugs.
Regulation not only eliminates criminal involvement, it can ensure product standards. When people buy illicit drugs they have no idea how strong the dose
will turn out to be, with the obvious risk of overdosing. And let me remind those who say ‘serves them right’, that the victim might easily be a member of their family. Distribution through legitimate retail outlets means the consumption of these drugs would also be controlled through the informal rules that surround any social activity. Pubs dispense a potentially lethal drug in ways that encourage moderate usage. It is hugely watered down, mixed with non-alcoholic beverages, and regarded as an accompaniment to sociability, rather than an end in itself. These are all more effective controls than the threat of police action. As advocates for the legalisation of cannabis are fond of telling us, the harm that cannabis does is far less than that done by alcohol. They are absolutely correct: the drug problem on university campuses nationwide is that of alcohol – not cannabis or amphetamines. However, this is precisely where I find the argument for legalisation unconvincing. The regulation of alcohol is held up as a model to emulate and Prohibition as a failure to be avoided. It seems strange to claim that a policy has been a ‘success’ when it evidently produces such mayhem. The country that has pursued policies of decriminalising soft drug consumption most avidly is, of course, the Netherlands. It has the highest crime rate in the western world in the recently published International Crime Survey. When my wife and I visited Amsterdam, we took the opportunity of revisiting the youth we never had and threw ourselves on the mercy of the proprietor who sold us a couple of cannabis chocolates. Apart from sending us both soundly and gigglingly to sleep, my experience was that taking dope was very different to consuming alcohol. It was an act of deliberately consuming a drug in order to experience the effect. This is not how I experience the consumption of alcohol, where the effect is almost an incidental by-product of the taste of the wine or beer and conviviality of the circumstances.
The suggestion that the adverse consequences of soft-drug use owes most to the fact that it is outlawed, also seems contrary to experience. In the 1970s and 1980s Scotland suffered particularly from heroin addiction. The path that addicts seem to have taken was via solvent abuse. Now, at that time the supply of solvents was both legal and abundant, and their abuse was not outlawed. Yet solvent abuse seemed to be the slippery slope down which many young people tragically slid into heroin addiction. The ‘slippery slope’ argument is revealing in another sense: advocates of legalisation insist that without the involvement of criminal suppliers cannabis use need not lead to addiction to harder drugs. Implicit in this argument (which some advocates are willing to make quite explicit) is the acceptance that hard drugs should remain illegal. Of course, this raises the whole thorny issue of where the line between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ should be drawn. It is predictable that having legalised cannabis, another campaign would commence to legalise cocaine and heroin.
I don’t know where this leaves us, but mine’s a pint.

(Police Review, 27 August 1999)

Tutorial # 2. Informal Reasoning. Exercising the skills of reasoning

From Anne Thomson (2002) Critical Reasoning, Chapter 5

Summary: Assessing an argument

Analysing

1 Identify conclusion and reasons:
• look for ‘conclusion indicators’,
• look for ‘reason indicators’ and/or
• ask ‘What is the passage trying to get me to accept or believe?’
• ask ‘What reasons/evidence is it using in order to get me to believe this?’

2 Identify unstated assumptions:
• assumptions supporting basic reasons,
• assumptions functioning as additional reasons, assumptions functioning as intermediate conclusions,
• assumptions concerning the meanings of words,
• assumptions about analogous or comparable situations,
• assumptions concerning the appropriateness of a given explanation.

Evaluating

3 Evaluate truth of reasons and assumptions:
• how would you seek further information in order to help you to do this?

4 Assess the reliability of any authorities on whom the reasoning depends.

5 Is there any additional evidence which strengthens or weakens the conclusion?
• anything which may be true?
• anything which you know to be true?

6 Assess the plausibility of any explanation you have identified.

7 Assess the appropriateness of any analogies or comparisons you have identified.

8 Can you draw any conclusions from the passåge? If so, do they suggest that the reasoning in the passage is faulty?

9 Is any of the reasoning in the passage parallel with reasoning which you know to be flawed?

10 Do any of the reasons or assumptions embody a general principle? If so, evaluate it.

11 Is the conclusion well supported by the reasoning? If not, can you state the way in which the move from the reasons to the conclusion is flawed? Use your answers to questions 5 to 10 to help you to do this.

Deduction and Induction

What is an Argument?

An argument is a set of statements. One statement is the conclusion of the argument. The others are the premises. The premises give support to the conclusion.
Deductive arguments and Inductive arguments are two types of logically correct arguments.

#What are the characteristics of a deductive argument?

A Deductive Argument is:

1. Non-Ampliative: In a valid deductive argument, all of the content of the conclusion is already present in the premises.

2. Valid arguments are necessarily truth preserving: If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

3. Valid Arguments are Erosion proof. If new premises are added, the argument remains valid.

4. Deductive validity is an all-or-nothing issue: A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

#What are the characteristics of an inductive argument?

An Inductive argument is:

1. Ampliative: The conclusion has content that goes beyond the content of the premises.

2. Inductive arguments are not necessarily truth preserving: A correct inductive argument may have true premises and a false conclusion.

3. Inductive arguments are not erosion proof: new premises may undermine the argument.

4. Inductie arguments have different degrees of strength. In some inductive arguments the premises support the conclusion more or less strongly than in other inductive arguments.


An Example of Deductive argument

(1) All Italians are beautiful
Matteo is an Italian
________________________
Matteo is beautiful

This argument is a valid deduction. It is nonampliative: when we say that all Italians are beautiful, we also say that Matteo is beautiful, given that he is Italian. It is necessarily truh-preserving: If the premises express something true, the conclusion must also express something true - given that the conclusion doesn't express anything which is not already expressed in the premises. Even if new premises are added, e.g. Ruth is Italian, the argument remains valid. The premises support totally, not up to a certain degree, the conclusion.


An Example of Inductive Argument:

(2) All observed Scots like beer­
=========================
All Scots like beer


This argument is ampliative: The premise is only about the Scots that have been observed so far. The conclusion is about all Scots (also those to be observed). It is not necessarily truth preserving. Possibly, there is, was, orwill be a Scot who dislikes beer. The argument is not erosion proof: it suffices to observe Andy, who is a Scot who dislikes beer, to undermine the argument. The strength of this argument is also a question of degree. If you have observed millions of Scots in different ages of history and places your argument would be stronger than an argument whose premise rely only on the observation of few Scots gathered at the pub one Saturday night.


NOTE

Deductive validity and Inductive correctedness only concern the logical relation between premises and conclusion. They enable us to give an answer to this question:
Does the conclusion of the argument really follow (deductively), or is supported (inductively), from the premises?

A separate issue is: Are the premises of the argument true and worthy of our belief?

A Valid Deduction may have true premises and true conclusion (in this case the deduction is sound):

(3) All humans have a brain.
Ruth is human.
­­­_______________________
Ruth has a brain.

BUT A Valid deduction may also have false premises and true conclusion:

(4) All soccer players are American
Obama is a soccer player­­­
________________________
Obama is American

... and a valid deduction may also have false premises and false conclusion:

(5) All Humans play soccer for Liverpool
Mickey Mouse is human
­­­________________________________
Mickey Mouse play soccer for Liverpool

- When we say that a valid deduction is necessariy truth preserving, we mean that there cannot be a valid deduction with true premises and a false conclusion.

- Instead when we say that an inductive argument is correct we mean that if the premises are true (and relevant to the conclusion), then the conclusion is probable.

Tutorial # I. Philosophy of Religion - Questions for Discussion

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, II-XI, reprinted in
Feinberg and Shafer-Landau, ed., Reason and Responsibility.

See also “Hume on Religion” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10

1. What is the difference between a priori arguments and a posteriori arguments? Give examples.

2. What is the difference between deductive argument and inductive argument? Give examples.

3. What’s wrong, if anything, with an inductive argument by analogy to “proof” that God exists?

4. According to Hume, is there any alternative hypothesis to the existence of a Designer that would explain the “order” we witness in nature?

5. How should we evaluate the weight of competitive hypotheses?

6. If we assume that the inference from effects (the order\”design” of nature) to causes (the existence\nature of God) is valid, what should we conclude about the nature of God? Is he Good, Omniscient, Omnipotent?

7. Is there any matter of fact that could falsify the statement that God exists? Why?

8. If not, is there any matter of reason that could falsify the statement that God exists?

9. Mystical experiences and miracles can be considered evidence for the belief in the existence of God?

10. Is Hume an atheist?

11. Is there contradiction between science and religion?

A Priori and A Posteriori

The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between two different ways of knowing.
"A priori" and "A Posteriori" are also often used to distinguish different types of arguments.

Definition:
- a priori knowledge is independent of experience or experimentation. It is knowledge based on pure reason.

- a posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience or experimentation.

Examples

You know a priori that all bachelors are unmarried; or that cubes have six sides; or that if today is Wednesday then today is not Thursday; that two plus five equals seven, etc.
In all these cases, it suffices that you understand the meaning of the relevant terms for you to gain that knowledge, you don't need to set up an experiment or to observe the world.

You can know a posteriori that some bachelors are beautiful; that Edinburgh is in Scotland; that water is H2O; that pain is correlated to he activation of certain brain areas.
In all these cases, it is not sufficient to sit comfortable in your armchair and reason about the meaning of the relevant terms for you to gain that knowledge. You have to go outside and observe how things are in the world.

The Profession of Philosophers

It is the profession of philosophers to question platitudes that
others accept without thinking twice. A dangerous profession, since philosophers are more easily discredited than platitudes, but a useful one.
For when a good philosopher challenges a platitude, it usually turns out that the platitude was essentially right; but the philosopher has noticed trouble that one who did not
think twice could not have met. In the end the
challenge is answered and the platitude survives, more often
than not. But the philosopher has done the
adherents of the platitude a service: he has made them think twice.

David K. Lewis, Convention (1969)

Introduction to Philosophy Matteo's Tutorials

Hi Folks!

This is the webpage for our tutorials.
I thought it would be handy, and potentially fun, to create a blog -different from WebCt... - where we can have a more direct philosophical exchange.

Philosophy is about arguments, reasoning, discussions, a respectful exchange of ideas!
You are expected to give your contribution during the tutorials.
Don't feel shy or embarassed to talk, or to post a comment (not anonymous!) on the blog.
Always respect the ideas of the others; be ready both to criticize, and to agree with them. In any case try to give reasons in support of your ideas.


The course is called Introduction to Philosophy.
Dr. Natalie Gold is the course organizer.
I am the tutor of Groups:

• 11 Time: Wednesdays 11:10 - 12:00; Place: DHT, Room 9.14.
• 25 Time: Thursdays 09:00. - 09:50; Place: 25 Buccleuch Place, Room G.1.
• 15 Time: Thursdays 11:10 - 12:00; Place: DHT, Room 9.14.

You can reach me as follows

After class.
Email: M.Colombo-2@sms.ed.ac.uk; or s0896774@sms.ed.ac.uk.
For issues of common interest on this weblog - by posting a comment or a question.

Feel free to contact me for any reason.
I am happy to receive proposals for issues, readings, or problems you would like to discuss during the tutorials.

For any Admin problem, contact
Ms. Susan Richards: sue.richards@ed.ac.uk

Do hope you will enjoy our tutorials!