It's appropriate to praise or blame a person if the person is free and not determined. Morally responsible.
When is it appropriate to praise or blame a person for their actions?
A person is morally responsible if he/she can make choices and perform actions freely (freewill).
When is a person morally responsible?
A person is not morally responsible if determinism is true.
When are they not?
Blatchford's argument for saying that we are not responsible for our actions is that a man always acts from temperament, which is environment
What is Blatchford's argument for saying that we are not responsible for out actions?
Blatchford says that freewill is an delusion because conscience does not and cannot tell us what is right and wrong
Why does Blatchford say that free-will is a delusion?
Free will is incompatible with moral knowledge because knowledge controls your will.
Why does he think it is incompatible with moral knowledge?
The Rabbit and the hunter illustrates that he made his decision based on how he feels.
What do the various examples illustrate? Rabbit and the Hunter
The fisherman illustrates that catching fish was cruel so he changed his way and knowledge controlled his will
What do the various examples illustrate? The fisherman
The woman visits the sick child instead because her sense of duty is stronger than her sense of will.
What do the various examples illustrate? The woman and the sick child.
the drinker takes a second cigarette instead of whiskey because he knows its dangerous to drive. He learned it through experience
What do the various examples illustrate? The drinker
The man killed the child because of how he grew up in his environment
What do the various examples illustrate? The child killing tramp.
According to Blatchford, we should not punish people for their crimes because punishment has always failed its purpose. The greater its severity, the more abject its failure.
Should we, accordingto Blatchford, punish people for their crimes?
His solution to the problem of crime and punishment is the purifiers of human hearts, which are love, charity, and reason
What is his solution to the problem of crime and punishment?
Blatchford believes in hard determinism
What does Blatchford believe in?
Hard determinism claims that determinism and free will are incompatible, that free will is an illusion, and that humans are not in fact responsible for what they do in sense that they could have made choices other than they did.
What does hard determinism claim?
To say, "existence precedes essence" means that a thing exists first for a reason, independent of any final goal or purpose.
What does it mean to say, "existence precedes essence."
The starting point is subjective because humans make themselves what they are.
What does it mean to take subjectivity as the starting point?
The difference between subject and object is that subjects (persons; conscious) = existence precedes essence. And objects (things; non-conscious) = essence precedes existence
What is the difference between subject and object?
Objects are nature fixed and the subjects are not because we can't control what happens around us.
Why is the objects nature fixed and the subjects not?
According to Sartre, without God there is no human nature because there is no God to conceive it.
If there is no God, can there be a human nature according to Sartre?
Without God, man cannot have definition because he is nothing.
Without God, can man have a definition prior to his creating himself?
When Sartre says, we are condemned to be free, he means condemned because he did not create himself, yet, in other respect is free because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
What does Sartre mean when he says that we are "condemned to be free"?
Sartre would respond to Blatchford by saying all men are responsible for what they do. There's no way it is determined so we have no excuses.
How would Sartre respond to Blatchford?
Soft-determinism forms a compromise between free-will and determinism because this position holds that even if determinism was true, people ought to be held responsible for the actions they do voluntarily.
How does soft determinism form a compromise between free-will and determinism?
Karma effects our lives because we are what we are on account of our affinity with the past. Karma is a continuity with the past and live action with the future
How does karma affect our lives?
Past life affects your present life, "as eachof us sows, so shall we reap."
How do my past lives affect my present life?
The difference between the whole self and subnormal self is that the whole self is when we are most free, active, and not merely a fragment of it. The subnormal self is when we act according to our conventional/habitual self.
What is the difference between the whole self and the subnormal self?
Karma is analogous to a game of bridge because we are given cards that we did not select. They are traced to past karma, but we are free to make any call as we think fit and lead any suit.
How is karma analogous to a game of bridge?
The teleological argument for God's existence begins with the universe exhibits purpose or order and draw the conclusion that a supreme divine intelligence isresponsible for the order of the universe.
What is the teleological argument for God's existence?
We should always have sufficient evidence for our beliefs because we are held responisible for it.
Why does clifford insist that we should always have sufficient evidence for how beliefs?
The story of the ship builder illustrates this problem by proving that he had acquired his belief by not honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stiffing his doubts.
How does the story of the shipbuilder illustrate this problem?
The story of the alleged cult illustrates this problem by proving that their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.
How does the story of the alleged cult illustrate this problem?
It's "always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone to believe in anything on insufficient evidence" because there's the risk in believing lies.
Why is it "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence"?
A genuine option must be live, forced, and momentous because when it's live, it appeals to your belief. When it's forced, there is no standing place outside the alternative. And when it's momentous, that means the opportunity is unique.
Why must a genuine option be live, forced, and momentous?
James disagrees with Clifford because he believes that, "we must remember that these feelings of our duty about either truth or error are in any case only expressions of our passional life."
Why does James disagree with Clifford where genuine options are concerned?
James believe it is our duty to believe what is most useful because his faith in a decision acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.
In cases where a genuine decision cannot be decided on intellectual grounds along, why does James believe it is our duty to believe what is most useful?
James favors believe truth because he believes that there are worse things than being duped that may happen to a man.
Of the two ways to see our duty in such matters, which does James favor and why?
James says that Clifford believed avoidance of error so you won't have to risk believing in lies.
Which does James say Clifford believed? (believe truth or avoid error)
James uses the "belief in truth" in favor to argue about God by saying, "religion is a live hypothesis which may be true... a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule."
How does James use this to argue in favor of a belief in God (believe truth or avoid error)?
2 distinct sources of all our ideas may be 1) product of mere sensation, or 2)the imagination working in conjunction with sensation.
What are the two distinct sources of all our ideas?
Ideas are memories and imaginings and impressions are sensations.
What is the difference between ideas and impressions?
No, Hume thinks all ideas are an abstraction from impressions.
Does Hume think we can have innate ideas?
Matters of fact are still possible, when the relation of ideas are demonstratively certain (Ex. math)
What is the difference between matters of fact (synthetic ideas) and relation of ideas (analytic ideas)?
It wouldn't imply a contradiction to say that the sun may not rise tomorrow because it implies no more contradiction than the affirmation. It could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.
Why wouldn't it imply a contradiction to say that the sun may not rise tomorrow?
The implications of Hume's theory for scientific truths is that all scientific hypotheses are derived from induction, they can never be proven on the basis of empirical observations.
What are the implications of Hume's theory for scientific truths?
The problem of evil involves the difficulties of harmonizing the existence of evil with the existence of a perfectly good and all-powerful and all-knowing God who created the universe and governs it.
What is the problem of evil?
It provides a challenge to the existence of God by raising severe problems for those who affirm that a perfectly good and powerful God governs the affairs of the universe. It is both the KIND of evil in the world and the AMOUNT of evil that raises problems.
How does the problem of evil provide a challenge to the existence of God?
Some answers to this would be, 1) God allows people to suffer to deflate a man's ego or 2) Theists may claim that evil is a necessary by product of the laws of nature. Therefore it is irrational for God to interfere.
What are some answers to this problem? (problem of evil, challenges God)
A theodicy is a vindiction of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.
What is a theodicy?
None of these are sufficient for knowledge because you can make the correct choice but without actual knowledge. It can be believed by an individual, but still not fall in the knowledge category.
Why are none of the 3 (true justified belief) sufficient for knowledge?