Riassunto esame Introduzione alla Filosofia, prof. Marco Sgarbi

Philosophy

Freedom

Freedom —> good life (in the sense of political freedom, the right to make autonomous choices and the practical ability to act on them independent of coercion by other human beings or institutions) —> extrinsic (the freedom for which we must fight)

Philosophical freedom —> not just the presupposition of the good life but also the logical prerequisite for morality and moral responsibility —> capacity to make choices that are not determined by forces external to us (metaphysical freedom) —> intrinsic (our natural free will)

Existentialist (Fromm, Sartre) —> we try to escape from freedom, we find it too painful and dispersive, sometimes it had destroyed the peaceful harmony of the conformist community

Political freedom

Political freedom —> “free from”, is a reaction against something, and what that something happens to be can be known only in a particular context; is also difficult to establish what freedom is in cases in which there’s no evident oppression, no obvious suffering —> it is clear that they are free from, but is not clear what they are free to do (negative freedom)

VS

Positive freedom —> not a liberation from something, but the capability of doing or having something

Freedom —> gives us a chance of self-improvement

Negative: self as an isolated individual self, then freedom is a liberation from society

Positive: self as a social entity that depends for its very existence on our relationships, then what will count as freedom will necessarily involve our relationships, —> assert yourself positively in the society

Rational and emotional freedom

Rational freedom —> action is most free when it has been carefully planned and thoroughly thought out

Emotional freedom —> being able to express emotion without restriction

Free will problem —> what could it mean to say that a truly free action is one that is wholly undetermined by anything but the pure self, which in turn is not determined by anything else?

Determinism

Determinism: every event in the universe, including every human action, has its natural explanatory causes; given certain earlier conditions, then an event will take place necessarily, according to the laws of nature, and already decided, and not by us.

The more our actions are the results of other forces and not our own doing, the less we need feel responsible for them, and the less we need worry about deciding what to do.

Accordingly we lack metaphysical freedom.

Determinist arguments

• Every event has its explanatory cause
• Every event is predictable if we know enough about earlier conditions
• Every human choice or action is an event
• Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory cause
• Every human choice or action has its explanatory cause
• To have explanatory cause is not to be free
• Therefore, no human choice or action is free

↓

There are no real choices, what I choose is always predetermined.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism: we have free will, we can make real choices. There is a gap in the sequence dictated by causal laws so that, no matter how many causes operate on our decisions, there is always at least a little bit of room within which we are free to make choice.

Indeterminism: not every event has a cause. We can be held properly responsible for our actions and not simply explain them by appealing to certain antecedent conditions.

Pierre-Simon Laplace: if we knew the location and motion of every particle in the universe, he could predict every future state of the universe at every time. Since this knowledge is impossible, we cannot know both the location and the momentum of a subatomic particle.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle:

• We can know the position of a particle, but then we won’t be able to determine its motion
• We can know the motion of a particle, but then we won’t be able to determine its position
• Therefore, we cannot predict its future states

(Then no event is caused or strictly predictable, or determined) —> but what about macro-events?

Objections to the indeterministic argument

1. Determinism is of importance to us primarily as a theory of macroscopic bodies
2. Indeterminism is not the same as freedom —> if an action is uncaused, our choices are ineffective

The role of consciousness

One possibility is that consciousness, unlike physical bodies, is not part of the scheme of determinism —> it’s free.

But the problem is that if our bodies are determined in their movements, then what can consciousness do, even if it’s free? Whatever consciousness decides, it cannot have any possible effect on the movements of our bodies; in other words, it cannot affect our actions.

But then, how do mind and body interact? —> determinism: our thoughts and feelings are caused by the states of our brain and nervous system.

Benjamin Libet: our sense of making free conscious choices is illusory. The electrical charge in the brain (readiness potential) always precedes the action, and it occurs before the subject becomes aware of intending to perform the act.

The action was begun before the consciousness awareness that would be necessary for it to be entirely a “free choice”.

Compatibilism

Compatibilism: determinism + individual responsibility / free will

1. Even if we accept determinism, we can still believe in freedom (we cannot predict people’s actions, so we can be determinist in theory, while believing in free will in practice)
2. Even if we accept determinism, we can still distinguish between those causes that make a person’s action free and those that make it unfree

—> As Aristotle said, an action is unfree if it is performed from external compulsion or out of ignorance. Some other philosophers argue that an action is free if it is caused by reason, for others by consciousness or by the will.

Kant —> determinism is good when applied to knowledge, but not when applied to action. When we are acting we must think of our own acts or will and decision as the sufficient explanatory causes of our actions, and we cannot continue the causal chain backward to consider whether those acts of will are themselves caused. When we act, we must think of ourself as acting freely.

Justice and good society

Good life = good place to live with other people, and our ability to be a good person depends at least in part on those with whom we share our world and the society we live in.

How to live in a world and societies which are not perfect (Utopia)?

The nature of society

We need to live in groups and we need some form of organization.

• Plutocracy (ruled by the rich)
• Meritocracy (ruled by the skilled)
• Theocracy (ruled by God)
• Aristocracy (ruled by the highest caste)
• Monarchy (ruled by one person)
• Oligarchy (ruled by a few)
• Democracy (ruled by everyone)

Legitimate authority —> once rulers were justified by God, now governments are supposed to serve the people, and the legitimacy of a government depends on this.

Anarchy —> state of confusion and social disorder where everyone does what they want.

Free market —> the state must not interfere in economic affairs, regulated by self-interest. But this type of organization leads to:

• High costs of health care
• Little ability to care for the poor, while safeguarding the rich

Justice

Justice:

1. Retributive —> punishment (tribunal court)
2. Distributive —> distribution of goods and responsibilities (salaries, bonuses, education, medical care)

4 concerns of justice:

1. People should get what they need
2. People should give what they can
3. People should be allowed to keep what they have
4. People should get what they deserve

Equality —> people are not equal in every sense, but justice must enhance the principle of equality.

• They are equal before the law
• Equal opportunities (but there’s the undeniable fact that people are from birth unequal in abilities and advantages)

Thus, we can, by virtue of our insistence on equality, be aware of inequalities that exist around us and do what we can to correct them.

Equality of respect: we will view everyone we meet with the vague but immensely meaningful idea that he or she, like ourselves, is a human being with feelings and thoughts.

The origin of justice and the social contract

Justice and the whole of society as well have been produced by a general social agreement, a social contract —> contract with the state and other people to live together according to certain rules that, according to our best calculations, are in everyone’s interest, including our own.

Thus, governments don’t appear by nature and impose themselves on us, because we are in effect the ultimate source of their rules and laws.

Thomas Hobbes: human life before society was just a war of all against all. Men are naturally selfish and they join a social contract in order to protect themselves from the others. In return for our promise not to harm them, they agree not to harm us.

A strong central authority is needed to keep the contract sound.

John Locke: in the state of nature humans were hard-working creatures. They got together to form societies to protect their properties.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: society and justice are the expression of the general will of the people. But in the state of nature we were simple and pacific individuals, happy and healthy —> society is a tragic product of our inventiveness and gullibility and it corrupts us. Society will make us moral, will make us citizens.

Justice beyond our borders

How should members of other societies be treated?

• Patriotism —> but it often leads to war and conflicts; just-war theory tries to establish the circumstances under which it is morally permissible to go to war and what actions are acceptable when war is undertaken (very complicated norms)
• Cosmopolitanism (Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum) —> idea of a global community, international political arrangements that would facilitate the welfare of all human beings, regardless of their nationalities; help people develop their natural capabilities to thrive and provide them the freedom to make use of these capabilities

Rights:

• Contractual (the right to be paid for one’s work, the obligation to pay for what you buy..)
• Legal (the right to drive, the duty to drive under the speed limit)
• Civil (the right and the duty to vote, the right or the duty to speak)
• Human (applied to every human being on earth)

Libertarianism: people are defined as selves by a strong set of natural rights as individuals. They tend to be strongly against taxes and big government and strongly for individual freedoms (ex. Robert Nozick) —> mostly negative rights.

Liberalism: people are defined by a strong set of natural rights, but these rights are positive, in the sense that they are rights to the benefits of society (ex. John Rawls) —> cosmopolitan variant of liberalism, Declaration of Human Rights.

Communitarianism: concept of duty, the self sometimes becomes a function of society rather than an independent entity (ex. Hegel —> refusal of the social contract theory). At its extreme this view sometimes leads to totalitarianism, the whole self is defined by the state.

The rise of feminist philosophy

Since the 1960s and even since the early suffragettes, feminists have sought first and foremost political equality for women.

Simone de Beauvoir: man is taken as the norm and woman is viewed as other.

Kate Millett: the political domination of women by men is evident in every institution, every economic relationship, and every other aspect of life in our society, both currently and throughout history —> patriarchy.

Many feminists hold that the categories of gender (feminine and masculine), unlike the categories of sex (male and female) are created and defined by culture. They are not natural since gendered roles are culturally constructed —> socially imposed roles and behaviors.

Sherry Ortner: the distinction between nature and culture is not itself a natural distinction but a distinction made in language therefore within culture. Nature has often been associated with women while culture with men. In this way, women are deprived of power.

Many feminists had enhanced feminine characteristics as more harmonious, peaceful and civilized than the abstract, more warrior-like virtues of masculine thinking. Therefore, women should have more say in society.

Morality

Morality = set of principles, or rules, that guide us in our actions. Moral rules tell us what to do and what not to do —> it forms the basic structure of every society, defining the limits of what is not only permitted but also expected.

Kant —> the key to morality is duty, what you ought to do in order to reach the good life (ethics = morality + the search for the good life).

Traditional view of morality coming from above

1. Moral laws come from God
2. We learn these laws from our parents
3. Morality itself is above any given individual or individuals, whether it is canonized or not in the laws of society —> it concerns with right and wrong

There’s another conception of ethics and of morals that places primary emphasis not on rules and principles but on questions of character.

Theories of morality tend to fall into a number of precise but overlapping categories.

Duty-defined moralities

Kant: morality is a matter of reason and rationality —> the source and justification of moral principles are ultimately in ourselves (authority internal to us).

This is autonomy = everyone of us is capable of figuring out what is right or wrong on his or her own, without appeal to external authority. This doesn’t mean that morality is subjective, since reason transcends us and it is objective. God doesn’t give us laws.

It is always the rationality of our principles, not the consequences of our action that is morally relevant.

Universalizability = a moral principle is rational if it could be generalized for everyone, everywhere.

We ought to be moral for the sake of being moral (duty).

Consequentialist theories

What is morally consistent are the consequences, not the intention, since a good act, whatever its intentions, is one that has the happiest results.

Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill): goal-oriented moral theory because it places all of its emphasis on the actual consequences of moral rules and principles, and insists that they be justified only by appeal to how happy they make us.

Bentham —> happiness calculus precisely in order to calculate, for any action or policy, what the consequences in terms of pleasure and pain would be.

Mill —> different qualities of pleasure and pain as well as differences in quantity. It is better to be only slightly satisfied with a higher pleasure than to be very satisfied with a lower pleasure.

1. Being moral sometimes prohibits pleasure, but if morality is not just a set of general rules for making people happy then we can expect that there will be some case in which the principle of utility will contradict even the most basic moral values.
2. What is to guarantee that the utility principle will not promote outcomes in which the minority or even one single individual pays dearly for