A judge sentences a condemned prisoner to death by hanging.
The judge informs the prisoner that the execution will take place at noon on a weekday within the next seven days, but the exact day will be a surprise to the prisoner.
The prisoner reasons that he cannot be hanged on Friday, because if he is still alive on Thursday afternoon, he would know that Friday is the day of his execution, which contradicts the judge's statement that the execution will be a surprise.
He takes this reasoning further and applies to Thursday as Friday is now ruled out. He cannot be hanged on a Thursday as he will know by Wednesday if he is to be hanged on a Thursday, meaning Thursday cannot be a surprise. This reasoning is applied to all weekdays and therefore the prisoner thinks he cannot be hanged because it won’t meet the condition of a surprised hanging.
Smiling, the prisoner considers himself a free man. However the guard summons him on a Wednesday and to the prisoner’s surprise, he is hanged.
Tags: Logic
There is a village in which a barber is to shave all and only those men that don’t shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself?
Tags: Logic
when we try to make sense of things i.e. whether something is correct, we reason our way to a conclusion. We may look out into the world to find truths or assess things internally in ourselves but how can we know we're actually reasoning right? To check if our reasoning is sound, we can abstract the logic of our premises and conclusions. That is to say, we are checking if the statements we are making that lead to our conclusion, are logically sound.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Dogs are cats
Cats are birds
Therefore dogs are birds
Cats are birds
Birds are mammals
Therefore cats are mammals
Cats are mammals
Tigers are mammals
Therefore Tigers are cats
OR
All roses are flowers
This bouquet contains flowers
Therefore, this bouquet contains roses
Tags: Logic
A group of spelunkers (cave explorers) has just entered an enclosed cave that was extremely hard to traverse into. Contained in this cave is a body of water with a rising tide. The cave explorers now realise they must escape or face certain death. The initial entrance that allowed them to access the cave is now underwater and they must escape through a narrow opening. One man attempts to get through the opening and becomes stuck with no way to free himself. One of the party members has a stick of dynamite that will be able to blast a hole in the opening but will inevitably kill the stuck man. They must either kill him and force and opening or they all drown.
What should the spelunkers do?
Tags: Ethics
Utilitarianism is a principle where it's criteria for virtue lies in actions that maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham thinks that social problems can be remedied if we act according to this principle.For example, free universal healthcare is of benefit to everyone and conforms to the utilitarian theory that it is providing great happiness for as many people as possible. Whereas choosing to steal from everyone yields very little happiness for everyone and great happiness for the thief only.
This idea falls into the ancient theory of Epicureanism that says our actions should aim to maximise pleasure whilst reducing pain. Yet Bentham is emphasising that it's not just about pleasure but attaining justice.
Bentham's theory is founded from the most basic of human needs which is to seek pleasure and avoid pain and becomes the criteria for acting virtuously.
Kant attempts to establish a moral philosophy on how humans should live and how our actions are determined. He says that this can be established through reason. Empiricists such as Hume stated that reason cannot tell us what is right or wrong, it can yield no practical solution; we are a slave to our passions and nothing more.
The theory starts with the question “what is morality?” and “where does morality come from?”. Kant answers that it comes from the “good will” which is a person’s capacity to act out their intentions. So our moral theory begins by looking inwardly at ourselves and doing so by applying the faculty of reason. To put it simply, using reason allows us to ask if an action is good for me and good for others, narrowing down what is a good universal moral theory.
So if our moral theory comes from ourselves, then we have a duty to uphold it, there is nothing external that tells us what our morals should look like (so this excludes the idea of God as the law giver or looking outwards to external events such as making judgments based on consequences).
From this, Kant brings forward that this moral theory must be unconditional i.e. it must be good in every circumstance for every person. So how do we conclude what is a good moral value? Cue the categorical imperative which is as follows:
“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”
Or
“Can my moral principle that I choose to live by, work if everyone else followed it all the time”
For example I believe in the moral principle that everyone should tell the truth. If everyone followed this rule, can any bad come out of this? Are there any contradictions that mean that this principle is no longer good?
There is one other condition to consider when assessing our moral values: that it should not be subjective to the person. You must do away with your personal beliefs, happiness, sympathies, love or hate for others. It must be an objective value.
Kant distinguishes the world as phenomenal and noumenal: the real world that can be understood by conceptualising sense data; In Kant’s terms, we are combining intuitions (sense data) and understanding (reasoning) to form experience. The sense data that we see comes to us like a formless dough. The faculties of our mind are the cookie cutter templates that take this dough and form it into concepts and experience.
The noumenal world is what the world is in itself. The reason we know about the noumenal world is by negation: we recognise the boundary of our knowledge.
Kant agrees with both the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists are right to insist that there cannot be knowledge without sensory experience ("intuition"), but they are wrong to say that the mind is a blank slate, for the rationalists are right to insist that there are a priori concepts supplied by our minds. However, the rationalists are wrong to say that a priori concepts are sufficient by themselves for knowledge of the world. So, knowledge is possible only because of the combination of the two.
Tags: Metaphysics, Epistemology
The sessions listed here are a summary and notes of the subjects discussed in each session