Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSC (30,000)
Philosophy (1,000)
Lecture

LEc 2.docx


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLC99H3
Professor
Ronaldde Sousa

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
LEc 2 arguments’ S&O; types of ethics 1/12/2012 9:11:00 AM
Summary of last lecture
Trolley and cannibals
Ways of thinking: why?
o Comparison with scie and religion
Religion: sacred / ph is universal abut skeptical
Sci: rigour , but ph is no agreed method
Soundness
o Premises are true, and the argument is deductive
Validity ad invalidity
Be forced to be free: don’t believe in anything you were told to do
o If you conform, then you are rebellious and vice versa
Read slowly , and spend time in savour
o Everyweek, to do turn itto make a summary
exact , explanatory and critical of what you read
today
more a bout argument :
natural realistic fallacy : take the fact from the life, and use it to
decide what is good and bad –thi sis called the ‘fact –value gap’
argumets
never ‘ture or false’
sets of propositions, which can be ture or false
they can only be valid( if deductive), or sound
to remember ost arguments are not deductive in reality
objective and sunjective point of view
o when you are arugenting with someone, it’s not good th o tell
them that they are complelty wrong, cause no one is
persuaded to believe in sth this is the sunjective part of
argeument
o if you stop right away, this is not a persuading sth the
objective part
o subjective is not sufficiently good enough to make a good
argument has to have the objective part too
o if you omit to take the subjective side, you may not secure
the persuading somte to believe

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

o if you omit the objective side, then you can have the pratical
purpse, but not a legitamatily good arguemtn good for get
the voting
o there I’s no such thing as compelling arguemntn
to say it’s valid, ??
o you are the judge about what you believe in!!
o
o some traps about argument
you are tempted to believe in the argument ( A , B --
>C), when you believ ein the conclusion
assessing probbiliti is tricky
probability of A on B, and B on A
base-rate fallacy ! the 20%
naturalistic fallacy
fallacy: a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument
also called ‘fact-value’ argument : what is fact, and what is value
o not to confuse: what has value, what you ought to do
to donate to charity( value) , but there’s no true
statement about how much you donate it’s just a nice
way
but for ‘naturalisitic’—you can take ‘what is value’ equal
to ‘what ought to be ‘
many of the facts out there in the world, are most ly noggd good,
has no good value
o most of the values are not realistez
o collect all the exampmples in thew wole, won’t be sufficient
enough to decide hat is good,
everyone think so,
it just make me sick to think so are excuses not to
think
what is commandanded in the bible is true
--all these premises ppl hold in their mind is
actualy truethe reson why so many fallacy in life
questions about ‘why?’—the eight sorts of reasons
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version