nyCn2mWJ

1PHIL 100 Exam 2 Questions
21. What is theological determinism? Show how the three assumptions lead to the conclusion that it is not within an agent’s power to act other than she does. Explain why Smith’s believing is different from Yahweh’s.
3	Theological determinism is the belief in that all events are predestined or fated to happen based on the omniscience of a deity. Theological determinism is based on three assumptions: A particular type of God exists and is essentially omniscient, the God is everlasting and eternal, and the foreknowledge assumption. In philosophy, the God that is described in theological determinism is given the name Yahweh. Based on the first assumption, Yahweh is essentially omniscient, meaning that once Yahweh is proven not to be omniscient, he would cease to exist; however, based on theological determinism, Yahweh is also everlasting and eternal, supporting the fact that Yahweh must exist. Because Yahweh is everlasting, he has existed for all time, in other words, Yahweh is timeless. This means that Yahweh does not exist in time. Because Yahweh is also the God who created space, meaning that before space was even created, Yahweh existed, then Yahweh must also not occupy space itself.
4In the foreknowledge assumption, Yahweh is given the ability to create justified beliefs, which in turn determines what will happen. Smith’s believing is different from Yahweh’s in that whatever Smith believes does not determine what his neighbor, Jones, would do. On the other hand, whatever Yahweh thinks always becomes true. If Yahweh held a belief that did not come true, in other words, if Yahweh held a false belief, he would cease to exist because his definition of being an omniscient God would be contradicted. 
52. The most accepted form of determinism is causal determinism, as argued for by Holbach. Trace his argument. If we don’t have free will, why is it that we think we do? Explain Holbach’s response.
6	Holbach believes that the root of everybody’s motives is the impulses man receives from the objects surrounding him; however, before these impulses influence our motives, our brain automatically labels and identifies what to do based on primal urges. For example, man would often avoid poison based on the innate urge to avoid things that could lead to our death. Holbach claims that as man continues to live in his environment, his environment begins to shape his thinking, causing certain things to become desirable and other things to become repulsive. One example can be how society and the government shapes its citizens to look down upon crime. 
7Holbach believes that like set of dominoes, the environment shapes our physical organs, which affects our mind and our brain, which shape our various beliefs and desires, which influences our strongest desire/will, which chooses our actions. This belief that everything is a result from another thing that caused it is called causal determinism, which Holbach believes best explains how man does not have free will.  If man was to work backwards and found the cause of what causes everything, man would eventually realize that he does not have free will. Unfortunately, the environment and everything that affects us is too complex, as man experiences new and various things everyday, preventing man from identifying what made man who they are. Because man cannot precisely pinpoint what affected them and made them who they are, man believes that there is no cause to their actions and believes that they have free will.
8Various philosophers also came up with other definitions of free will, but Holbach was able to contradict each of their definitions. One philosopher claimed that free will was the ability to make a choice; however, Holbach claimed that the motive to decide a certain choice was actually determined by an innate impulse that we cannot control. Another philosopher believed that free will was the absence of constraint or obstacles; however, Holbach pointed out that even if man has no physical constraints, they still could have mental constraints and specific ways of thinking that were determined by uncontrollable factors. Finally, a third definition of free will was the absence of necessity. To this definition, Holbach agrees that it is true, however, the absence of necessity would become a paradox in itself, in that the definition of necessity is that it must exist. In other words, because certain things are necessary and must exist, like the laws of nature, the presence of possibility is impossible.
9
103. The Introduction to Part Four of our text puts forth the Dilemma of Determinism. Give and explain this dilemma. What appears to be at stake if people can’t be held morally responsible? How is Ayer’s compatibilism a response to this dilemma? Explain.
11The Dilemma of Determinism has been a subject of much debate among philosophers. It essentially means to try and figure out where moral responsibility lands within determinism. It follows a series of assumptions. First, if determinism is true then we cannot be held morally responsible. That is, if our actions are caused by something other than ourselves we cannot be blamed for them. Moral responsibility flows up the causal chain. For example, if someone pushed me into a vase and it broke, the fault would lie with the person that pushed me.
12        	The next assumption is that if indeterminism is true then we similarly cannot be held morally responsible. This suggests that if everything is a random occurrence then there is no one to take any blame for his or her actions. For example, if a group of friends went hiking and a tree branch fell and killed a member, no one would call it a murder, rather they would call it an accident. Since we cannot pin moral responsibility on a tree that cannot even think, the fault of the death would be with no one.
13        	However, since one of these two premises must be true, and both end up with the same conclusion, either way we are left with no moral responsibility and we have a lot to lose if that is the case. For starters, our justice system would be meaningless since the entire system is dedicated to finding whom moral responsibility for our actions lie with. Without moral responsibility, there is nothing to find. Similarly, our ethics system would crumble as well. Since its purpose is to find what we ought to do, if we have no control over our actions then it serves no purpose. Feelings of guilt, pride, and dignity leave us as well since these feelings only occur as a result of us feeling we deserve something, or if some action on our part merits these feelings, but if our actions are outside our control, we do not stand to gain of the benefits that come as a result.
14        	In response to this dilemma, Ayer puts forth his theory of compatibilism. It essentially argues that determinism and free will, and by extension moral responsibility, can coincide. As far as Ayer is concerned, so long as the causal chain leading to our actions can be explained, it is “sufficient for the postulate of determinism”. Just as well, as long as we act free of the influence of any form of constraint then we are considered to be acting freely. And since both cases are not mutually exclusive, Ayer argues that we can retain our sense of moral responsibility in spite of determinism holding true.
154. Ayer makes a distinction between logical necessity and causal necessity. Explain this difference. Would Holbach agree or disagree with this explanation of “causation?” How about Chisholm? Defend your response for each.
16Ayer claims that causal necessity states that cause and effect connection isn’t a logical connection and logical necessity is based on deductive reasoning. Logical necessity is true by definition. For example, parallel lines cannot interact, and we do not need to test this because we already know it’s true, by a priori. If we negate the claim, we would get a contradiction. However, by logical necessity, it is impossible to prove the claim wrong. For example, if we say all fathers are men, and we try to negate the claim by saying that it is not the case that all fathers are men, then we would use logical necessity to determine that our defense does not make sense. Causal necessity is a posteriori and it comes from experience. Causal necessity is not 100% guaranteed. For example, you are allergic to poison oak and you had an allergic reaction, but you cannot be certain to what caused it. You cannot know what the cause is by looking at the effect. There is a connection, but it doesn’t let us anticipate the prior cause. 
175. Chisholm explains the difference between two kinds of cause and argues that this distinction is key to the argument for human freedom. Explain this distinction and his argument. How would Holbach respond to this proposed distinction? Explain.
18Two kinds of Causes
19●	Immanent causation
20â—‹	When an agent acts + nothing caused the agent to act => dualist (Mind & Matter)
21â– 	Reflexes
22■	The laws of nature DON’T necessitate- they incline
23â– 	Man in Tahiti example
24●	Man is able to resist temptation/inclination
25●	Transuent Causation
26â—‹	One event causes another event (dominoes)
27
286. If it turns out that I can use causal laws to predict your behavior with 100% accuracy, what does that mean as far as your free will goes? How would Holbach Respond? Ayer? Chisholm? Explain for each whether predictability entails determinism.
29If there are causal laws that predict one’s actions before it even happens, then there is no actual free will. Holbach agrees with this and states that the laws of nature are unbreakable. Free will does not mean that there is a choice nor is there an absence of restraint. Ayer claims that causal laws are patterns of law to predict the future. By using causal laws, we can determine what’s going to happen, based on our past experience. An X-type of event will always be followed by a Y-type of event. Ayer believes that these events are not 100% guaranteed, but so far, it has been working. Chisholm does not agree and believes that there is free will. The predicted event is never guaranteed for sure. One might act under transeunt causation, but that does not mean that he/she cannot act under immanent. Under immanent causation, one has the choice to do what they want to. There is no cause for one to act the way they do, but it is on their own free will. Chisholm states that the laws of nature do not necessitate, they incline.
307. In class, Ball presented the mind/body problem (from Descartes). Trace this argument and explain what a materialist, idealist and dualist are in relation to this argument. Ball also provided  two pieces of data that seem to support materialism. Explain at least one of these demonstrating why it seems to supports materialism and why it seems to cause problems for both dualism and idealism.
31	The mind/body problem as put forth by Descartes illustrates the confusion as to how the mind and body interact with one another. The first premise of this problem is that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing, that is, it takes up no space whatsoever. The second premise is that the body is an extended thing. Third is that extended and non-extended things cannot interact with one another, therefore, the mind and body cannot interact.
32        	In response to this issue, three groups have taken differing stances on the subject. First are materialists, they believe that there is only physical substance in existence and if we proceed with Descartes definition of substance, namely that substance is dependent only on itself for its own existence, we find that materialists attack the first premise of the problem. They argue that the mind only exists as a result of our physical brain’s complexity.
33        	The second group is the idealists. Their namesake stems from the fact they believe there is no physical substance in the world, rather that all physical objects are merely collections of ideas. And since ideas cannot exist independently, they believe there must be a mind thinking of all things, sometimes referred to as a God, to keep things in existence. Therefore, their stance directly opposes that of materialists, that there is only mental substance in existence, and that a mind results in the existence of the body.
34        	Lastly, we have dualists. Instead of attacking any premise, they defend premises 1 and 2 simultaneously. They argue that that there are two substances in this world, both physical and mental. But this duality does create issues for them. A piece of evidence given that suggests otherwise is the correlation table. Here, the neurological complexity is weighed against the behavioral complexity of animals. With a worm, their neurological complexity is fairly low and we also find their behavior to follow suit. They seem to sort of just dig around aimlessly. Further down the table, we have dogs. Their brains are much more complex and similarly so is their behavior. They pursue pleasure, have a sense of self, and care for their young. At the bottom, we have human beings whose neurological and behavioral complexity surpasses any animal. This positive correlation suggests that the physical neurology of a being greatly impacts its mental behavioral capacity.
35        	This evidence points toward materialism and creates problems for the dualist. Since the dualist proposes there are two substances, they should be able to exist independently of each other or rather, that the mind can exist without a brain. But contrary to that, the evidence shows that our mental capacity is somehow dependent on the brain itself.