Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UBC (10,000)
PHIL (200)

PHIL 102 Lecture Notes - Modus Tollens, Modus Ponens, Chemical Warfare

Course Code
PHIL 102
Dominic Mc Iver Lopes

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
1. method
2. george and jim
3. integrity
one person’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens
modus ponens:
if p then q ! ! eg. if alex is born in canada then alex is canadian
p!!!alex is born in canada
so q!!!so alex is canadian
modus tollens:
if p then q
not q!!!alex isn’t canadian
so not p! ! so alex wasn’t born in canada
modus ponens:
if C then K! ! if C (consequentialism is true) then K (it’s sometimes right to kill)
so K
modus tollens:
if C then K
not K!!!it’s never right to kill
so not C! ! so consequentialism isn’t true
-this is not common ground between a consequentialist and a critic
-these are two different ways of arguing so they don’t work with each other
-shows what’s at stake
-these examples are oversimplifications
Williams paper
-he is a bad chemist and can’t find a job to support his kids and wife
-an old colleague offers him a job developing chemical warfare
-george is morally against chemical warfare
-if he doesn’t take the job, another, better chemist will take the job and will work harder
at it
-in Africa, comes along 10 people that will be shot by soldiers
-these 10 people are innocent and are to be made an example of
-the soldiers say that if Jim shoots one person, the rest could go free
-these 10 people and other villagers are begging him to do it
-a hardline consequentialist would say that George should take the job and Jim should
shoot the person
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version