PHIL1011 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Compatibilism, Quasi

49 views2 pages

rubywildebeest888

16 Jun 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Lecture 5

• Freedom is doing something that you want to do.

• Free when you act on your own desires

• Compatibilist: you can have free will, even is determinism is true

• What makes a desire genuinely yours? Some things can be told why you

have desires, past experience.

Harry Frankfert, 2 kinds of desires

- First order desires: ordinary desires

- Second order desires: desires about what desires you have, the desires to

have certain desires, or desire not to have desires second order desires,

- Second order desire cant make you do anything, no one ever acts on a

second desire, but they influence the first order desire

Act unfreely if the second order desire is clashing with the first order desire

Desire not to desire not to kill people. (You want to not want to kill people)

=third order desire.

Qualitative Identity: if they are exactly similar, but not in the same place

Numerical Identity: if they are exactly the same thing

The Physical Identity Theory

• Theory of what it takes to be the same person across time

The Sole Identity Theory

• They don’t share physical attributes, but the soul is numerical identical

The soul is a bare fact of identity

What matters is being physically qualitative similar

Physical Continuity theory: unbroken chain of physical similarity. Ancestral of

physical similarity, relation that holds between any numbers of links

Genuine memory of Identity

• If you physically experienced it yourself

• Quasi memory + it happened to you

find more resources at oneclass.com

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Some things can be told why you have desires, past experience. Second order desires: desires about what desires you have, the desires to have certain desires, or desire not to have desires second order desires, Second order desire cant make you do anything, no one ever acts on a second desire, but they influence the first order desire. Act unfreely if the second order desire is clashing with the first order desire. Desire not to desire not to kill people. (you want to not want to kill people) Qualitative identity: if they are exactly similar, but not in the same place. Numerical identity: if they are exactly the same thing. The physical identity theory: theory of what it takes to be the same person across time. The sole identity theory: they don"t share physical attributes, but the soul is numerical identical. The soul is a bare fact of identity. Physical continuity theory: unbroken chain of physical similarity.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHIL1011 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Compatibilism, Quasi

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL1011 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Divine Command Theory, Secular Ethics, Theism

PHIL 201 Chapter Notes - Chapter 10: Harry Frankfurt, Compatibilism, Chocolate Cake

PHL201H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Compatibilism, Lectern

Related Questions