Riassunto esame Introduzione alla Filosofia, prof. Marco Sgarbi

INTERPRETATIONS:

we are naturally inclined toward views that take some

1. type of actions to be morally wrong regardless of the

greatest good for the greatest number

we consider it worse to harm someone directly, to do

2. harm, than to harm indirectly by allowing harm to befall

them

virtue ethics Aristotle: what is good and right are those actions that aim

at happiness through virtuous actions (a life filled with

pleasure, but not good) for the week being of the community

—> the best virtue is the one of wisdom

does this mean that morality must be relative ?

1. cultural relativism —> different people around the world in fact hold different values and believe in

different moral codes. This leaves open the question as to which is correct

ethical relativism —> whatever a culture or a society holds about right and wrong is therefore correct,

2. at least for them —> this approach renders meaningless any moral judgements about another culture’s

behavior

we need some standard from which we can affirm one morality and reject another, whether or not it is the

generally accepted morality of the other society

tolerance one of the central values of our multicultural society. We force

ourselves to accept behavior very different from our own .

the refusal of morality Friedrich Nietzsche : “God is dead” , thus leaving traditional

morality devoid of its divine justification .

New society of Ubermenschen , dynamic individuals which

don’t need the false justifications of the Judeo Christian

morality.

Morality is a kind of trick to gain power, a trick not needed by

the strong, but created by the weak, a way for protecting

themselves against the strong.

but then, why should we be moral? how can we justify the

rules of morality for all of us without quashing the individual

creativity that is in the best of us?

Logic

logic —> important for philosophical argument , it deals with good argumentation

WHAT IS CORRECT ?!

DEDUCTION : certain conclusion (but not always TRUE) (from the general to the particular)

1) VS

INDUCTION: probable conclusion (from the particular to the general)

2)

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

syllogism —> fundament of logical deductive argument (there are different types of syllogism)

VALID SYLLOGISM: (major premise)animals are mortal —> (minor premise)humans are animals —>

(conclusion)humans are mortal

it doesn’t matter if the syllogism is true or not, it’s important that it’s valid and logically correct

what’s important to understand if a syllogisms true are the premises

true premises = true conclusion or also a false one

but you can also have false premises and a true conclusion

1) MODUS PONENS —> THE SECOND PREMISE IS NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY TO THE FIRST ONE

(true only in A to B sense, not in B to A sense —> it can be valid only in one sense, not in its contrary )

2) MODUS TOLLENS —> THE FIRST PREMISE IS NECESSARY TO THE SECOND ONE

POSSIBLE FALLACIES IN A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT :

1) the fallacy of affirming the consequence : if P then Q —> Q therefore P

the fallacy of denying the antecedent : if P then Q —> not P, therefore not Q

2)

INDUCTIVE REASONING

from the particular cases to the general case (100 men are black —> all men are black)

the scientific method is inductive (could be strong but it could lead to valid conclusions, not always sure

cause we have lots of cases) —> the most important thing is the sample

you use at the beginning (if you have a large sample it’s more probable that the conclusion is valid and true)

inductive reasoning is’t valid or invalid , could be just stronger or easier

induction is useful to understand the meaning of a large sample of facts —> you need to have experienced

those facts in order to analyze them

it’s not only important the number of the samples, but also the authority of them

CRITICISM —> MOST IMPORTANT THING IN PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT

es. show that the premises are not true to criticize a deductive reasoning

es. use an example that disvalues the previous premises or the samples in an induction

if the argument is consistent , even if strong, philosophy tries to explicate it

“reductio ad absurdo” —> the conclusion deny the premise

- what’s a paradox ? self contradictory tense born by an argument

- something is true just because i can think about that , you don’t need to demonstrate it

- tautology —> the definition is in the conclusion

FALLACY = mistake that occur in arguments and affect their coherence (but they appear to be

good arguments) but even when we accept incorrect premises or ignore relevant facts we commit a fallacy

FORMAL FALLACY —> violates the proper use of inference

INFORMAL FALLACY —> may not break the rules of inference but cheats through ambiguous terminology

and divagation

CIRCULAR REASONING : assuming what we are trying to prove

- BEGINNING THE QUESTION: assuming what we are trying to prove and , so, this is always valid, but

useless. The premise could be true (in this case, we don’t have to prove it) or doubtful (in this case, the

conclusion affirm a doubtful tense, so the argument is useless).

ex. public nudity is immoral because it is just plain wrong

- QUESTION BEGINNING EPITHETS: phrases that prejudice discussion and thus in a sense assume the

very point at issue. they suggest an ad hominem abusive attack, but they are just name-calling and

nothing more.

- COMPLEX QUESTIONS: rhetorical tricks somewhat akin (similar) to question beginning arguments. They

presuppose what has not established with a previous question, the take something for granted without

assuring if it’s true or not.

SEMANTIC FALLACIES : the language is vague or has multiple meanings and deviates from the real

question

- AMBIGUITY : multiplicity of meaning influenced by the context.

- AMPHIBOLY : ambiguity at the level of sentence structure, the ambiguity is created by the assembly of

the words in the tense. This happen when in the same tense occur both universal and existential

quantifiers. this generates ambiguity because the relatives scopes of the quantifiers can be changed.

- VAGUENESS : indistinctness of meaning , as opposed to multiplicity of meaning. Some words in the

tense have no clear meaning, so it’s not understandable the real sense of the tense . We cannot tell if the

premises are true or not, so we can’t accept the argument.

- DOUBLETHINK : extreme version of vagueness, every sentence cancels out the predecessor and

contradicts the successor.

- ACCENT FALLACIES : emphases that generate multiple and misleading interpretations. typical of

newspaper headlines or commercial giveaways. They conduct us to erroneous conclusions.

INDUCTIVE FALLACIES: the probability of an argument’s conclusion is low or at least less then the arguer

supposes

- HASTY GENERALIZATION : fallaciously inferring a conclusion about an entire class of things from

inadequate knowledge of some of its members.

- FAULTY ANALOGY : connect two ore more events which have just a little in common and find a

connection between them that is extremely weak and improbable.

- THE GAMBLER’S FALLACY : x has not occurred recently; x is likely to happen soon. This sort of

reasoning is fallacious in the case that x is more or less independent.

- FALSE CAUSE : a term covering a variety of logical sins. It means to confuse the cause with the effect or

to offer an immediate causal explanation for an event without considering alternatives. Another variant is

the “post hoc”, in which a causal relationship is inferred merely from the temporal proximity of two or

more events. The conclusion of false cause fallacies is that their conclusions are casual claims which are

inadequately supported by their premises.

- SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE : ignoring evidence bearing negatively on an inductively inferring conclusion.

It is possible even if the argument probability is quite high or even if the arguer didn't overestimate the

conclusion.

FORMAL FALLACIES : we misapply a valid rule of inference or follow a rule which is demonstrably invalid .

The important thing is to ascertain that both the rule on which the reasoning is based and the argument itself

are invalid. To show that the argument itself is invalid we can find a counterexample

- FALLACY OF DIVISION AND COMPOSITION : whereas in composition invalidly impute characteristics of

the parts to the whole , in division we invalidly impute characteristics of the whole to the parts. Ex. W has

property F; p1…p10 are parts of W; p1 …p10, have property F.

- FALLACY OF FALSE PREMISES : mistake of just sort the name suggest. Arguments that commits this

fallacy may be valid, but are never sound. one common instance is the “false dichotomy”: we make the

false assumption that only one of a number of alternatives holds.

- SLIPPERY SLOPE : it occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction ,

suggesting that a single step in the wrong direction will result in a disastrous or otherwise undesirable

outcome. But we’re not always sure of the truth of the premises, so we can’t accept these kind of

arguments uncritically.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: the premises have no bearing upon its conclusion (non sequiturus) and

involves distractive elements which deviate the attention from the real question

- AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS : they try to discredit a claim or proposal by attacking its proponent instead

of providing for a real solution or a discussion. there are five types : they attack age, character, family,

gender, ethnicity, social or economic status, personality, appearance, dress , behavior, or professional /

political/ religious affiliations. The implication is that there is no reason to take the person’ views seriously.

ex. Jones advocates fluoridation of the city water supply

Jones isa convicted thief

We should not fluoridate the city water supply

3. TU QUOQUE ARGUMENTS: refute a claim by attacking the proponent background or his general

attitude towards something / someone

ex. Jones believes we should abstain from liquor

Jones is an habitual drunkard

We should not abstain from liquor

4. VESTED INTERESTS ARGUMENTS: accuse the proponent of having desire to gain something towards

his argumentation

ex. Jones supports fluoridation bill pending in Congress

He does so because he owns a major fluoridation firm

We should not support this bill

5. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: attempt to discredit a claim by attacking not the claim’s proponent but the

company he keeps

ex. Jones advocates fluoridation of the city water supply

Jones spends much of his free time hanging around with known criminals

We should not fluoridate the city water supply

- STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS : attempt to refute a claim by confusing it with a less plausible claim and then

attacking that less plausible cla