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 —> “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 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 : every event in the universe, including the more our actions are the results of other forces and not

every human action, has its natural explanatory causes; our own doing, the less we need feel responsible for them,

given certain earlier conditions, then an event will take and the less we need worry about deciding what to do. It is

place necessarily, according to the laws of nature, and already decided, and not by us.

accordingly we lack metaphysical freedom DETERMINIST ARGUMENTS :

- every event has its explanatory cause

-

every event is predictable if we know enough about every human choice or action is an event

-

earlier conditions 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 we have free will, we can make real choices.

There is a gap in the sequence dictated by casual 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 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 very time. Since this knowledge is

impossible, we cannot know both the location and the

momentum of a subatomic particle.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle :

a) we can know the position of a particle, but then we won’t

be able to determine its motion

b) we can know the motion of a particle, but the we won’t be

able to determine its position

c) therefore, we cannot predict its future states

(then no event is caused or strictly predictable, or

determined)—> but what about macro-events?

2 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 ad 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 : 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)

even if we accept determinism, we can still distinguish between those causes that make a person’s

2. 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 casual chain backward to consider whether those acts of will are themselves

caused. When ew 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 depend at least in part on

those with whom we share our world and the society we live

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 persone)

- 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 do what they want.

free market —> the state must not interfere in economic affairs, regulated by self-interest. but this type of

organization lead to :

- high costs of health care

- little ability to care for the poor, while safeguarding the rich

JUSTICE:

retributive —> punishment (tribunal court)

1.

2. distributive —> distribution of goods and responsibilities (salaries, bonuses, education, medical care)

4 concerns of justice:

people should get what they need

1.

2. people should give what they can

people should be allowed to keep what they have

3.

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, cause 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

the 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-Jaques 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 corrupt us. Society will make us moral, will make us citizen.

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 s undertaken

(very complicate 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 ad 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 feminist 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 that 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) PROS CONS

Succes social status + respectability success addicts work hard for security ,

social status, or wealth but end up

working just for the success alone, and

there’s always the real possibility of

failure.

Asceticism simplicity and poverty, freedom from the It is not the good life itself, it’s a kind of

burden of possessions. purification towards the holy life.

It is not the good life itself, it’s a kind of

purification towards the holy life.

Freedom freedom to yield pleasures or to satisfy one can live in the way he wants, but in

ambitions, create worship, retreat from the end you don’t know what is more

society or live as one wishes. It’s a important, if freedom or the way you

means to the good life. decided to live your life.

Religion life of devotion, religious behavior must the good life is something more general

have the primary place in his or her life than any single role (in conflict with

other conception of the good life)

Happiness Aristotle : happiness itself is not a a person can be called happy only on

single activity but the result of a great the basis of his entire lifetime in

many activities —> development, self Aristotle’s view, while for us it makes

realization. In his Ethics , he refused sense to say that a person is happy just

pleasure and success (political for a limited time.

success) as the good life, they are only For us, the good life concerns with inner

means. Happiness meant the good life satisfaction, for the greeks it was a

as a whole, which is wanted for its own public achievement

sake and not for the sake of anything

else.

PROS CONS

Egoism vs Altruism psychological egoism : everyone acts many actions are regulated only by

according to his interests, our egoism.

psychology is such that we cannot help

but act in this way arguments against the view that all

ethical egoism : people ought to act to actions are essentially selfish

satisfy their own interests , and this (psychological egoism)

presupposes that they have a choice there are a lot of actions moved by

1.

about whether to act that way or not. compassion

in acting to get what we want, we

2.

VS also consider other people’s desires

and needs in order to obtain the

altruism : acting for the sake of other approval of others. but this doesn’t

people’s interests (for an obligation to mean that we always act just to get

them, or for taking other people’s approval

interests before one’s own interests) we all have a conscience that

3. makes us acting not just in our own

psychological altruism : people interests.

naturally act for each other’s sakes

ethical altruism : people ought to act morality is action for the sake of

with each other’s interests in mind principle, and safeguard both one’s own

interests and the necessities of others

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MORALITY COMING FROM ABOVE :

moral laws come from God

1.

2. we learn this 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 meal 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 cause 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.

being moral sometimes prohibits pleasure , but if morality

1. is not just a set of general rules for making people happy

then we can expects that there will be some case in

which the principle of utility will contradict even the most

basic moral values.

what is to guarantee that the utility principle will not

2. promote outcomes in which the minority or even one

single individual pays dearly for