1.1: What is Philosophy?

Learning objectives:
Understand the point of Platos Myth of the Cave
Be able to explain the importance of the philosophical perspectives of women and non-Western
cultures
Philosophy begins with wonder; we wonder about why we are here, and whether God exists,
among other things. This wondering begins early in our lives. The word philosophy comes from
two Greek roots, philein, to love, andsophia, meaning wisdom. Philosophy is the love of wisdom.
Philosophy does not end with wonder; it begins there. Its aim is to enable us to seek our our own
answers to the questions we asked in wonder. Philosophy encourages us to examine our beliefs, to
see if there are good reasons to hold them. The goal of philosophy is thus autonomy; the freedom
to decide for yourself what to believe using your own reasoning abilities.
Reading: a simplified version of Platos Myth of the Cave
Platos parable of the Myth of the Cave is important because it explains much about the nature of
philosophy. It explains that, unlike a lot of academic subjects, philosophy is an activity;
philosophical theories are the products of this activity. It is important to do philosophy. It also
explains, second, that philosophy is hard work. The philosophical journey sometimes leads in
directions that society does not support. It is also hard because it requires that we think critically,
and to examine critically views that we have always accepted. This parable also shows that the aim
of philosophy is freedom, freeing us from our uncritical acceptance of the beliefs that we share with
those around us. Philosophy also examines our most basic assumptionssomething that is
suggested by its name of love of wisdom. This view of philosophy was endorsed by Perictione, a
woman philosopher who we think lived around the time of Plato, and who thought that philosophy
was the search for the understanding of why we and the universe are here.
Philosophy can be defined as the activity of critically and carefully examining the reasons behind
the most fundamental assumptions of our human lives.
The Diversity of Philosophy
The search for wisdom is of concern to people of both sexes and all races, so it is a mistake to
believe that it is the province of western males. This volume will include both feminist and
multicultural approaches to philosophy.

1.2: The Traditional Divisions of Philosophy

Learning objective:
To be able to define epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, and explain the kinds of questions
each asks.
Another way of understanding philosophy is to look at the kind of questions that it asks.
Philosophical topics have traditionally been divided into three categories which address questions
concerned with knowledge, reality, and values. The fields of philosophy that explore these issues
are termed epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
Epistemology means the study of knowledge. Among the problems discussed here are those
concerning the structure, reliability, and extent of our knowledge, the meaning of truth, logic, and a
variety of linguistic concerns, as well as the foundation of knowledge. Gail Stenstad argues that
male approaches to knowledge assume that there is only one truth, and contrasts this approach to
knowledge, which she calls theoretical thinking, with feminist anarchic thinking.
Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate characteristics of reality or existence. These include
questions concerning the existence of God, the destiny of the universe, and the immortality of the
soul. One of the core questions in metaphysics is that of whether everything in the universe is
determined, or are humans able freely to choose for themselves? One important view on this issue
is determinism, the view that all things and all humans are unfree because everything that occurs
happens in accordance with regular patterns or laws, a view held by Paul Henri dHolbach. A
contrasting view is held by Viktor Frankl, whose experience as a prisoner of the Nazis led him to
believe that people have the freedom to make of themselves the sort of people they want to be.

1
Some eastern philosophers have argued that people can be both free and determined, drawing on
the idea of karma to support their views.
Ethics is the study of morality. It includes questions about virtue and obligation, what moral
principles we should adopt, and questions related to practical issues such as abortion, the merits of
capitalism vs. communism, and capital punishment.
Other philosophical inquiries
There is also a wide range of philosophical inquiries known as The philosophy of.., or philosophy
and., such as the philosophy of science, the philosophy and art, and philosophy and the
meaning of life. The list of topics about which we can philosophize is endless!

1.3: A Philosopher in Action: Socrates

Learning objective:
To understand how Socrates relentless questioning exemplifies the quest for philosophical
wisdom.
The best way to understand the nature of philosophy is to consider a philosopher in action:
Socrates. Socrates was preceded by the pre-Socratics who questioned religious authority and tried
to provide non-religious accounts of nature. Socrates was born in 469BC in Athens, Greece. He
questioned powerful people who claimed to know about such issues as justice or virtue, exposing
the emptiness of the opinions they held. Much of what we know about Socrates comes to us from
the Dialogues, written by Socrates disciple, Plato. The first of these Dialogues(The Euthyphro, The
Apology, and Crito) are faithful to Socrates views.
Reading: The Euthyphro
In this reading Socrates brings logic and reason to bear on the issues that he and Euthyphro are
discussing, and his method reveals that Euthyphro does not really understand what he is talking
abouthere, the relationship between God (or the gods) and morality.
Reading: The Republic
In this reading Thrasymacus view that justice consists of obeying the rules of society, and that
these rules always benefit the most powerful. But Socrates shows that this view of justice is
simplistic and nave.
Reading: The Apology
Socrates relentless questioning infuriated some people in Athens, and he was brought to trial; here,
Plato summarizes the speech that Socrates makes in his own defense.
Reading: Crito
Here, Socrates discusses with his friend Crito the question of whether we have an obligation to
obey the law.

1.4: The Value of Philosophy

Learning objectives:
To be able to explain how philosophical wisdom is related to self-actualization and Buddhist
freedom
To understand the importance of examining our philosophical assumptions about men and women
The Myth of the Cave provided one answer to the question of what value philosophy has: that
through it we achieve freedom.
The Buddha: Freedom from the Wheel of Existence
The Buddhist philosophical tradition has suggested that philosophy is the key to a more profound
type of freedom, holding that one we understand the true nature of the universe we will be freed
from the otherwise unending wheel of birth, suffering, death, and rebirth.
Maslow: Actualizing needs

2
When people talk of getting along, they are often referring to satisfying their maintenance needs,
those that people must satisfy to maintain themselves as human beings. Some modern
psychologists such as Abraham Maslow hold that humans also have actualizing needs, which are
associated with self-expression, self-fulfillment, and creativity. Philosophy can help by promoting the
ideal of self-actualization and hence help to meet the need for this. This can be achieved through
enabling people to express themselves, or to become more self-aware. It can also allow people to
be more flexible, for self-actualized people are more resilient in the face of disorder. A fourth
characteristic of self-actualized people is that they are generally creative. Finally, self-actualized
people have clearer, better thought-out value systems in morality, the arts, politics, and so on.
Philosophers have also shared this psychological insight about self-actualization, although they
have expressed it differently. Aristotle, for example, held that happiness was the goal of all human
beings, where this is found by developing the abilities that satisfy our higher-order needs once our
maintenance needs have been satisfied. For Aristotle, happiness is an activity of reason; this
means developing our intellect, and our practical reasonour ability to express our emotions and
desires in a way that enables us to meet our basic needs.
Other Benefits of Philosophy
Philosophy helps deepen our awareness, and exposes us to the history of thought. It also helps us
refine our powers of analysis.
Philosophy: A Male Bias?
Recently, some feminists have questioned whether philosophy has any value to women. Janice
Moulton, for example, points out that most philosophers use an adversarial method of inquiry, while
Genevieve Lloyd notes that men have dominated philosophy from the beginning. Lloyd, though,
holds that philosophy is useful to challenge the mistaken assumptions about men and women that
past male philosophers have given us.
The Price of Philosophy
Part of the price of philosophy is long, painstaking study, and the possibility of unmasking cherished
assumptions as mistaken.

3
2.1: Why Does Your View of Human Nature Matter?
Learning objectives:
To be able to define human nature and psychological egoism
To explain how our views of human nature influence our relationships with other people, society,
and the universe
The most basic question in philosophy is: What kind of being am I? The answer to this question
about human nature will affect how you see others and how you live.
Psychologists have considered the question of whether humans are self-interested, or whether
unselfish considerations can motivate. Sigmund Freud, for example, held that humans are
essentially selfish and aggressivea view that was also endorsed earlier by the English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes. This view was also endorsed by Moritz Schlick, who argued for
psychological egoismthe theory that humans can only act out of self-interest.
If you believe that humans are self-interested, this will affect how you interact with others. It will also
affect how you think society should be organized; would a self-interested society be better arranged
along socialist or capitalist lines, for example? And it will affect how you interact with the universe; if
people are material beings only, then you might think that death is the end of existence. If you do
not believe this, then you might think that the material universe is a preparation for a spiritual life in
another world and universe.
2.2: What is Human Nature?
Learning objectives:
To describe and critically valuate the rationalistic and Judeo-Christian views of human nature.
To explain how Darwinism, existentialism, and feminism have challenged these views.
Many people believe that there is life after death. Such accounts ask us to make some fundamental
assumptions. First, they ask us to assume that human beings have a self, and that this self is
different in form to the body. This is the Traditional Western view of human natureand not
everyone accepts it.
The Traditional Rationalistic View
The most influential version of the traditional view sees humans primarily as thinkers capable of
reasoning. This view is represented in the work of Plato, who believed that humans consisted of
appetite, reason, and a spirited element. Reason seeks what is good and right, the spirited element
seeks to assert itself, and appetite involves desires. For Plato, the purpose and destiny of the soul
is to be free of its body and ascend to heaven where it will be united with Formseternal and
perfect ideals. For Plato, humans can control their appetites and their aggression through the use of
reason; they are not ruled by self-interested desires. But the ability to exercise control in this way
depends on ones past choices; if a person gives in to his non-rational nature he will lose the ability
to control it. For Aristotle, too, reason was also the highest power of humansalthough while Plato
held that the truth about human nature involved knowledge of another world of reality, Aristotle held
that it only required knowledge of this world.
The Human Purpose
Aristotle emphasized that humans have a purpose, as do all living things. For Aristotle, as Plato, the
use of reason is the purpose of human nature.
The Immaterial and Immortal Soul
Plato emphasized the spiritual aspect of human nature. In the dialogue the Phaedo, Plato has
Socrates argue that the selfthe soulis immaterial and so is immortal. This is because, Plato
held, we are engaged in activities that a physical body cannot carry on.
Implications of the Traditional Rationalistic View

4
Aristotle claimed that if one group of persons was less rational than another they would be less than
human, and could justifiably be enslaved by those who were more rational. If so, couldnt any form
of exploitation be justified on these grounds? So, this view has significant implications. It has also
influence another version of the Traditional view: The Judeo-Christian view of human nature.
Traditional Judeo-Christian View of Human Nature
According to the Christian tradition, humans are made in the image of God. The abilities to love and
to knowwill and intellectare the defining characteristics of humans in the Judeo-Christian view.
These are open to all, regardless of their level of rationality. For the Christian, the way to union with
God is through emulating Jesus of Nazareth, in whom we find expression of the highest virtue: love.
This view also fosters the idea of a moral self that can choose good or evil. This view is not, though,
a denial of the rationalistic view; indeed, the early Christian St. Augustine agreed that the human
self is rational, and that humans have an immaterial and an immortal soul. St. Augustine also
emphasized the nature of the will, which is our ability to choose between good or evil. The Christian
view also agrees that humans have a purpose.
Implications of the Judeo-Christian Tradition
Perhaps the most disturbing implication of this view is its assumptions of cultural superiority, for if its
view of human nature is correct, could it be used to justify dismantling cultures that are not in accord
with it?
The Darwinian Challenge
Charles Darwin proposed two key ideas: That animals and plants are sometimes born by chance
with features that are different from those of their parents that they can pass on to their offspring
(variations), and that because animals produce more offspring than can survive they must
continuously compete with each other to stay alive. Darwin pointed out that sometimes the random
variations that an animal is born with can give it an advantage in the struggle for survival; animals
with such variations are likely to pass them along to their offspring, while those without them are
weeded out. This process can make animals gradually change into new species. This also applies
to humans, who must too have evolved.
Implications for the Traditional View
Darwins views render the human ability to reason no different in kind than other properties of
animals. They also undercut the view that humans are designed and have a purpose.
Reactions to Darwin
Many have responded to Darwin. Most controversially, some have argued that his theory lacks
definitive proof, and there is fossil evidence that is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Third,
some attack his claim that there is no fundamental difference between the cognitive abilities of
humans and of non-human animals.
The Existentialist Challenge
Existentialism holds that humans are whatever they make themselves to be. For Jean-Paul Sartre,
humans are condemned to be free; they cannot rely on God, for He does not exist, nor on society to
justify their actions. The consciousness of this freedom causes anguish; the most anguishing
thought of all is that we are responsible for ourselves. When we claim that something external to us
is the cause of what we are we act in bad faith, which occurs when we pretend that we are not
free.
This provides a profound challenge to the Traditional View; if it is correct, there is no such thing as a
universal human nature.
The Feminist Challenge
Many feminists challenge that the Traditional view of human nature is sexistit discriminates
against women. Plato assumed that the soul and reason should rule over the body and its desires
and emotions, while Aristotle claimed that women do not share fully in reason. The view that women
are subordinate to men was echoed by Augustine.

5
Is this objection correctare sexist views essential to the Traditional view? One response might be
to claim that women are just as rational as men. Another might be to reject the view that reason is
superior.

2.3: The Mind-Body Problem: How Do Mind and Body Relate?

Learning objectives:
Be able to say why dualism is so influential a view, and why it leads to the mind-body problem.
Explain and critically evaluate the way materialism, identity theory, behaviorism, functionalism, and
the computer view of human nature each try to solve the mind-body problem.
To most of us it is obvious that we have a mind and a body. But, the minds subjective
consciousness is puzzling. Moreover, those who accept that the mind and the body are distinct are
faced with a problem; how can a non-physical object interact with a physical one? Other people
hold that only the physical exists.
The Dualist View of Human Nature
Rene Descartes held that the mind and the body were distinct, since we can conceive of the mind
existing without the body. On this view, humans are made up of two substances. But this view faces
the problem of how an immaterial mind can move a physical body, and how can a physical body
affect an immaterial mind? Descartes held that since mind and body obviously interact there must
be a point of contact between them; the pineal gland. Not everyone accepted this, Gottfried Leibniz
held that the mind and body dont really interact at all, but only appear to, while Malebranche held
that God synchronizes their apparent interactions.
The Materialist View of Human nature
Hobbes noted that the problem with dualism was that it held that there are two things in human
nature. But, let us say that there is only one: the material body. The operations of the mind will then
be explained in terms of the workings of the body. This view that processes such as thought and life
are just physical or chemical processes is often called reductionism: the idea that we can
completely understand one kind of reality in terms of another kind. It is, however, not clear how
physical phenomena can produce mental phenomena.
The Mind/Brain Identity Theory of Human Nature
One kind of contemporary materialist view is the identity theory of the mind: that states of
consciousness are identical with states of the brain. This view is held by J.J.C. Smart. But this might
run into problems quickly. Brain states are publically observable, but mental states are not.
Moreover, a mental experience has no location, no color, and no shape. So, how can brain sates
and conscious states be the same, since they are such very different things?
The Behaviorist View of Human Nature
Behaviorism is the view that mental activities can be explained in terms of behavior. For example,
Gilbert Ryle held that mental activities could be explained in terms of the activities that they are
associated with. Thus, to say that John knows that a chair is near is to say that he will behave in
certain ways, such as sitting in it. But Hilary Putnam has argued that it is easy to come up with
examples that show that behaviorism is wrong, such as when one acts as though one is in pain;
one is not actually in pain, despite showing the appropriate behavior.
The Functionalist View of Human Nature
Another view of human nature is functionalism. This holds that we should explain mental activities
and mental states in terms of perceptual inputs and behavioral outputs. Mental states and activities
refer only to the functions they serve in the processes that connect our sensory inputs to our
behavioral outputs. Functionalism allows that mental states can explain other mental states; a
persons intention, for example, can be explained in terms of her desires and beliefs. The intention
is then something that plays the role of linking the sensory stimulation to the desire to perform a
certain action in light of it.
But the functionalist seems to leave something out; the inner conscious states that we are aware of.
The Computer View of Human Nature

6
Functionalism has led some philosophers to believe that the human brain is a kind of computer.
Some have also argued that when computers can process inputs and outputs like the human brain
does, they will be able to think. Alan Turing held that if a computer was so powerful that we could
not tell the difference between its answers and those of a human being, the computer has a mind.
John Searle opposes this view of human nature, holding that humans have consciousness that
computers lack. But Searle is not a dualist; he believes that humans are merely physical creatures;
although the mental states that the physical states produce are not reducible to physical things.
Eliminative Materialism
Many philosophers believe that only matter existsand, given the difficulties faced by the monistic
views outlined here, eliminative materialists hold that we should eliminate our belief in the existence
of consciousness.
The New Dualism
New dualists hold not that there are two different kinds of substances in the universe, but that there
are two different kinds of properties. These dualists hold that consciousness is not a physica feature
of the world, but a nonmaterial property of it.

2.4: Is There an Enduring Self?

Learning objectives:
Explain why an enduring self is so important for us and how it leads to the problem of personal
identity
Explain why it is so difficult to deal with the problem by appealing to the body, the soul, the
memory, or the no-self view.
The Traditional Western view assumes that you are the same person today as you were earlier in
your life; it assumes that humans are selves that endure through time.
But we also sometimes say that a person has changed over time; if, for example her personality
changed as a result of brain damage, or she suffers from Alzheimers disease.
But, even aside from such cases, we need to know how it is that we can say that we are the same
person throughout life. This is the problem of personal identity.
Maybe what makes you the same person across time is the persistence of your body. But, if this is
the case we could never become new persons as a result of brain injury. Moreover, if this is what
important then you could not survive your death. Finally, if brains were transplanted between
people, wouldnt we want to say that the brain, and not the body, carried the self?
The Soul as an Enduring Self
The Traditional Western view holds that in each living human body is a soul; this is me. Descartes
held this view, holding that it was the continuity of his thinking mind that made him remain the same
person as often as he exists. But, how do we know that a persons mind continues to be the same
over time?
Memory as the Source of the Enduring Self
John Locke held that Descartes was mistaken, for if one soul migrated to another body and lost the
memories that it formally had we would not say the person whose soul it was continued to exist.
From this, Locke concludes that what makes a person endure over time is memory. But in response
to this Thomas Reid argued that lockes view produced contradictions. For example, Tom at age 20
remembers being Tom at age 10, and so is the same person, Tom at age 30 remembers being Tom
at age 20, but not being Tom at age 10. Thus, Tom at age 30 is both the same person as the person
who was Tom at age 10, and is not the same person who was Tom at age 10! Also, what if I cannot
remember everything that I did?
The No-Self View
Some views of human nature deny the existence of a self. Central to Buddhist thought is the idea
that all things are composite and transient, and so nothing abides permanently as an individual. The
self, like everything else, is in a constant state of flux and disintegration; it is transient. As a
permanent entity, then, the self does not exist.

7
David Hume had a very similar view. He held that we cannot claim that there is an inner self
because all we experience is a constant stream of sensations, and no determinate self.
These views do have problems, for it is not clear why we should be concerned with our future
interests if they are correct.

2.5: Are We Independent and Self-Sufficient Individuals?

Learning objectives:
Describe the idea of an independent and self-sufficient self and explain why it is important to us.
Compare how Aristotle, Hegel, and Taylor challenge the idea
It seems obvious that parents should teach their children to be independent and self-sufficient, and
shun conformity. People should also be true to themselves, and be free to live their own lives.
The Atomistic Self
These views are all based on the view of the self as atomistic, independent of others, and self-
sufficient. For Descartes, for example, the real me is interior, and exist independently of others.
Similarly, Kant held that the core of the real self is the ability to choose the moral laws and moral
principles by which one should live ones life.
The Relational Self
Charles Taylor suggests that there is another way of viewing the self; that who I am depends on my
relationships; I need others to define who I am. Aristotle also claimed that humans are social
animals, while Hegel argued that I cannot be who I am apart from my relationships to others; a free
and independent person is one who can choose what course his life will take, and we cannot
develop this capacity unless others recognize and affirm our self-mastery.
Power and Hegels View
The key idea, for Hegel, is that who you are ultimately depends on your relationships with others.
The implications of this are profound; that we create strong and weak persons, for example, by the
qualities we are willing to recognize in others.
Culture and Self-Identity
Every person has a culture; Hegel argued that a persons culture is the mirror through which society
shows the person who and what she is.
Search for the Real Self
Who is right, then? On the one hand we seem to be only what others make us. On the other hand,
we seem to be independent selves with basic qualities that we are born with. Which are we? The
choice here is important!

8
3.1: What is Real?
Learning objective:
To understand why our assumptions about what is real are vitally important
Metaphysics is the attempt to answer the question: What is real? You might think that reality just
consists in physical objects. But what do we say about goodness, justice, or God? Or economic
forces?
Identifying what is real is important. If we say that something is real, then we are saying that it has
importance, actuality, and power.
Metaphysical Questions of Reality
Metaphysical questions about reality are among some of the most significant we can ask, as they
are tied to what is important for us, what we need to pay attention to. We need to determine
whether matter is all that there is, or whether there is some kind of reality besides matter.
The Search for Reality
Perhaps we can never say what reality is, as the question might be meaningless. If so, perhaps we
cannot say with certainty which aspects of the universe around us are real.
3.2: Reality: Material or Nonmaterial?
Leaning objectives:
To know what materialism is and why consciousness is difficult for materialism to explain.
To know what idealism is and why some philosophers have objected to it.
St Augustine did not find it difficult to believe that spirits are real. Augustine believed that God
placed in the universe every possible kind of creature. Where are humans in Augustines universe?
They are somewhere in the middle of the hierarchical structure that he posited, as they have both
material bodies, and so are on the lower end of the hierarchy, but spiritual souls, making us part of
the higher spiritual world. But does this account make sense in the modern world?
Materialism: Reality as Matter
Materialism is the view that matter is the ultimate constituent of reality. Both eastern and Western
philosophers have accepted this view.
Eastern Materialism: The Charvaka Philosophers of India.
These philosophers ridiculed the spiritualism of their countryman, and were referred to as Lokyata,
which means those who go the worldly way. They believed that we gained knowledge of the world
around us only from sense perception, with other possible sources of knowledge, such as inductive
(generalizing about what we observe) or deductive reasoning (the appeal to general statements to
reach a logical conclusion), being invalid. Since all that we know wis what we perceive through our
senses, and what we perceive is material, then all that we can know is material.
Western Materialism.
Democritus believed that reality could be explained in terms of matter, with the smallest pieces
being atoms. People lost interest in Democritean materialism as they were more interested in
working out how to lead a good and happy life. But a growing interest in the scientific method in the
seventeenth century led people back to being interested in materialism. Hobbes, for example,
thought that our mental states were states of our material brains.
Objections to Materialism
The basic objection to materialism lies in its difficulty in accounting for human consciousness.
Conciousness is always intensional, and it is subjective. It also has no apparent location, mass, or
volume. So, if materialism is to be acceptable it must reduce consciousness to physical states. But
it seems that consciousness has features that cannot be reduced.

9
In addition to this, it seems that the elementary particles from which the universe is composed are
not matter as traditionally conceived, but more like energy, or fields, or probability waves. To some
extent materialists have adjusted to these findings by revising hat they conceive of as matter. But
Werner Heisenberg in the 1930s held that we cannot tell whether a particle has a definite location
until it interacts with an observer. This seems to show that on its most basic level the world is
intertwined with the mind.
Idealism: Reality as Nonmatter
Modern atomic theory has pushed some philosophers to claim that reality is more than matter. And
some have held that we live in a purely nonmaterial world: the universe is only mind and idea.
The Development of Western Idealism
Idealism is the view that reality is comprised only of minds and their ideas. This view is as old as the
ancient Greek Pythagoras, and was formalized by Plato, who held that the individual entities that
we perceive around us are merely shadows of reality This fit in well with the views of Augustine,
who held that the only enduring world was the spiritual, the world without matter. But the founder of
modern idealism is George Berkeley, who claimed that the conscious mind and its ideas are the
only reality. Berkeley argued that our experience of the external world consists of the sensations of
our senses. So, all that exists are the sensations and the ideas that we experience and the minds
that experience them.
It is useful to distinguish between subjective and objective idealism, as Berkeleys views has
elements of both. Berkeley held that things are mind-dependent; this is the subjective element of his
view. But Berkeley held that not all of the contents of our minds are the same; some are within our
control, and some are not. Those that are not are uniform and consistent; this consistency comes
from God, for Berkeley. This second aspect of Berkeleys idealism is its objective aspect, for now
certain parts of reality are independent of ones mind.
Eastern Idealism
Indian philosophy has housed many idealist philosophers, such as Vasubandhu, whose views were
in many ways similar to Berkeleys. Vasubandhu held that we only perceive sensations in our
minds, and that only minds exist.
Objections to Idealism
Do idealists commit the fallacy of anthropomorphism, projecting a human faculty onto the
nonhuman universe?
Objections to Subjective Idealism
It might be that subjective idealists fail to distinguish between my perception of a thing and the thing
itself. Why should we believe that perceptible things are mere collections of perceptible qualities?
Why not just distinguish between perceptions and their objects? Subjective idealism doesnt really
answer the question of how things are so much as it dissolves it.
Objections to Objective Idealism
Do we need an explanation, such as God, for the continuity of (e.g.) the classroom? Also, why
believe that Gods mind is intelligible to us? How can we distinguish between our perceptions and
Gods perceptions?

3.3: Reality in Pragmatism

Learning objective:
To understand and be able critically to evaluate pragmatisms approach to philosophy, its method
for determining hat reality is, and Jamess views on sub-universes
To some, the debate between idealists and materialists is pointless as it does not have any practical
implications. Underlying this is the assumption that our beliefs are only meaningful to the extent that
they have consequencesan assumption that is the basis of pragmatism.
Pragmatism is a movement that started with the work of Charles S. Pierce and William James.
Pragmatism looks away from first principles, and towards consequences and facts.
Pragmatisms Approach to Philosophy

10
Pragmatism is humanistic; it is an instrument to address personal and social problems. John Dewey
argued that philosophy arose from peoples struggles to deal with social and moral problems. Two
observations follow from this. First, we cannot understand a philosophy without an awareness of the
social forces that produced it. Second, any philosophy is only useful so far as it helps people to
resolve their problems.
The Pragmatic Method
This is a way to discover what our ideas mean by studying their consequences in actual
experience: the test of an idea is its capacity to solve the particular problems that it addresses.
When applied to metaphysical questions the pragmatic method indicates certain criteria for
determining whats real. According to James, we determine if an object is real by its relation to our
emotional and active life; whatever excites our interest is real. Thus, since different people can be
interested in different things people can recognize a number of different sub-universes or real
worlds. Each of us selects the worlds that are most meaningful to us, and these are our reality.
Objections to Pragmatism
Is we know only our experiences, how can we maintain the pragmatic belief in an objective physical
world? Are pragmatists correct to hold that the mind nad its ideas are only instruments for the
pursuit of our interests? And does pragmatism really erase the distinction between the mind and the
universe?

3.4: Reality and Logical Positivism

Learning objectives:
Explain why logical positivists such as Ayer hold that metaphysical claims about reality are
meaningless
Explain why critics have said the logical positivists are wrong
Logical positivism holds that all metaphysical attempts to understand reality should be rejected.
One of the most influential of the logical positivists was A.J. Ayer. Ayer held that there can only be
two kinds of meaningful statements: tautologies, or relations of ideas, and empirical hypotheses,
or statements of fact. If a statement is neither one of these, then Ayer held that it was
meaningless. As such, logical positivists hold that most metaphysical statements, as well as most
ethical, aesthetic, and theological statements, are meaningless, although they do express emotion.
Objections to Logical Positivism
One of the basic objections to the views of the logical positivists is that their criteria of meaning is an
unproved assumption. Moreover, if we apply the positivists criteria of meaning to positivism itself, it
would turn out to be meaningless! This is because the criterion of meaning is neither a tautology nor
a statement of fact.

3.5: Antirealism: the Heir of Pragmatism and Idealism

Learning objectives:
To explain what realism and antirealism are and why antirealists say that there is no reality
independent of our language and concepts.
To explain why feminist object to antirealism and how realists like Searle have tried to prove
realism
An antirealist view is one that rejects the idea that there is an external reality independent of our
own minds; antirealists hold that the worlds or world we inhabit depends in part on our minds. The
opposite of antirealism is realism, which holds that some realm of objects exists independently of
our minds.
Proponents of Antirealism
Nelson Goodman argued that we make reality by choosing a particular way of describing, seeing, or
drawing boundaries around things, and that humans live in a multitude of different worlds; Hilary
Putnam makes a similar argument. This view is important to several feminist philosophers. Dale
Spender has argued that it explains why the world that women are ordinarily forced to accept is so

11
sexist, since the words used to describe womenand hence make this worldare so demeaning.
The views of such antirealists are sometimes called postmodern as they reject the modern view that
there is only reality.
Objections to Antirealism
If all worlds are equally valid, isnt the sexist world as valid as non-sexist ones? And how can the
antirealist claim that sexism is objectively real, if there is no objective reality? But maybe the
feminist could say that sexism exists in her world, to respond to this charge. John Searle argues
that even though antirealists might be right that there are different ways of describing the world
there is still one underlying reality. Searle believes that it is possible to prove that the real world
exists. If idealists are correct, claims Searle, then we would only know our own ideas. But we talk
about the same things to each other, and so we must be talking about the same external reality.

3.6: Encountering Reality: Phenomenology and Existentialism

Learning objectives:
To understand what bracketing the whole world is and why this leads to the view that
consciousness if the ultimate reality
To describe what being is for Heidegger and Sartre
To understand why critics have objected to phenomenology and existentialism
Many people have thought that the previous attempts to understand reality are too distant from our
concrete existence. But there is nothing abstract about being; this is what is real. This approach is
found in phenomenology and existentialism.
These views focus on the human condition as an outlook on what reality is, and claim that we shall
never understand reality as long as we try to explain it objectively, and so we should try to focus on
reality as it is subjectively revealed by the human condition.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology is the study of what appears to consciousness. This approach was founded by
Edmund Husserl, who was motivated by what he saw as the relativism of his age which he saw as
being encouraged by the belief that the scientific method was the only way of knowing reality. He
claimed that to deny the existence of objective truth was to involve oneself in a contradiction, for
such a denial was a claim about objective truth. He also believed that relativism led to undesirable
social consequences. In his early works he argued that to understand something we have to trace it
back to the experience in which we first became directly aware of it, and then describe what our
consciousness of it was like. Husserl claimed that the natural standpoint towards the world was to
assume that it is simply there, whether or not we pay attention to it. Husserl wants us to bracket
this fact-world, and to make no use of it, and hence concentrate on our inner consciousness. This
bracketing will lead us to discover important truths that otherwise would elude us. What remains
after such bracketing is consciousness, and so ultimate reality consists of consciousness; that
which involves both an act of intending and the intended object. This, Husserl claimed, would reveal
a sphere of beingconsciousnessthat is ultimate, in that it presents itself with complete certainty
and clarity within our experience even when we bracket everything out.
Heidegger
Martin Heidegger was influenced by Husserl and made the question of being his primary approach
to reality. Heidegger focused on understanding our being in the world. Being is not a thing; it is the
isness of things rather than their whatness. Heidegger thought it was important to understand
the human kind of being, Dasein; being human is being there in the world. For Heidegger, reality is
a temporal and finite process of becoming who we are, a view that is similar to some Buddhist
views. It is also similar in part to the views of Soren Kierkegaard.
Existentialism
Existentialism, like phenomenology, is a reaction to the idea that an objective knowledge of the
human can be found by applying the scientific method. What interests existentialists is the
subjectivity of the human individual and her responsibility for who she is. Existentialists find self-

12
definition in the passionate commitment to action; they also typically believe that the human
condition gives way to angst.
Kieregaard
The energizing force behind Kierkegaards philosophy was the need for certainty. Like Huserl, he
was seeking clarity, but the clarity of an objective abstract knowledge; he wanted clarity about what
he was to do. He also believed that reality should be understood from the subjective perspective of
the self who chooses and acts. He also focused on decision and commitment, and, finally, was
religiousan aspect not shared by all existentialists.
Kierkegaard held that to be human was to make free, anxiety-filled choices, where what we choose
is not as important as how we choose. We should choose passionately, with energy and
consciousness of the significance of our choices. Our anxiety stems from our realization that we are
free to jump into the nothingness of an unknown future; an anxiety that is especially pressing when
we have to choose to trust to trust in God or not while knowing there is no proof that He exists. For
Kierkegaard, then, the freely choosing self is the fundamental reality.
Sartre
The chief proponent of existentialism was Sartre, who did not believe that belief in God was
possible. There are, for Sartre, no absolutes, and so we simply exist; our essence is ours for the
making. Sartre argues that there are two kinds of being in our consciousness, being for-itselfthat
is, consciousness itselfand being in-itself, the objects of which we are conscious. Being for-itself
is nothing until it makes itself be something, while consciousness in-itself cannot choose and so
cannot make itself anything other than what it already is. As such, for Sartre persons are only
insofar as they act., with how we choose to act determining our reality.
Objections to Phenomenology and Existentialism
Critics of Husserl have asked whether things are self-given when we bracket; bracketing seems
more to be a way of framing things that the provision of certainty.
Sartre held that to be human was to make ourselves by adopting a project, and that if we do not
then we are simply persons who are not persons, a for-itself whose being is in the mode of an in-
itself. This is an assertion of what Sartre claims is a logical truth. But it is not clear that this is so.
Moreover, Sartre seems to view freedom as being all or nothing, but it could be a matter of degree.

3.7: Is Freedom Real?

Learning objective:
To explain and evaluate determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism
Do people act freely and responsibly, or are all of their actions determined for them by things
outside their control?
Determinism
Determinism is the view that every event has prior conditions that cause it, and so each event is at
least theoretically predictable if we know all of its prior conditions and the laws governing such
conditions. Determinists argue that human actions are also determined in this way. Moreover,
determinists hold that humans are therefore not free and responsible. If determinism is true, then,
punishment would make little sense.
Libertarianism
Sartre argues that we are indeed free. Humans, he claims, can conceive and be moved to act by a
future that does not yet existthis is, he says, the ability to apprehend non-being. Sartre is thus a
libertarian, one who believes that humans have control over what they do and are free to choose to
act other than the way that they do. Other nondeterminists hold that scientific theories such as
quantum mechanics imply that the future is not causally determined.
But not everyone accepts these libertarian arguments. Determinists hold that Sartre makes choices
mysterious and inexplicable, while appeals to quantum mechanics are beside the point since we
are interested in human behavior, not the actions of subatomic particles.
Compatibilism

13
Compatibilists hold that causal determinism is compatible with freedom. They believe this because
they redefine freedom such that a person is free if she is not impeded by external restraints.
Compatibilists recognize moral responsibility, even though they agree that a persons actions are
predetermined.
Kant, however, holds that we should see ourselves as being both free and determined. We can
think of ourselves as part of the world governed by scientific laws, and also as conscious beings
who act in the world.

3.8: Is Time Real?

Learning objective:
To know the difference between objective and subjective time and why some philosophers have
argued that subjective time is not real and others that objective time is not real.
The discussion of determinism and freedom assumes that we understand causality. But do we?
Time and Human Life
Time sometimes seems like a river that flows. But, its nature is not obvious.
Augustine: Only the Present Moment is Real
Augustine came to the conclusion that in a sense time does not exist, for the present instant is the
only thing that is real. The rest does not exist. But there is a distinction to be drawn for Augustine
from time from our perspective, as a flow, and time as God would view it, as a fixed series or line of
events. The first way of viewing time is the subjective view, or A-series; the second, the objective
view, or B-series.
McTaggert: Subjective Time is Not Real
McTaggert claimed that if time did flow as it was supposed to on the subjective view of time then the
same moment would be past, present, and future. But these are incompatible with each other. And
so this view of time in inherently contradictory. Moreover, he argued that since time required
change, and only the A-series view of time had this, time must not be real, for this view of time is
false.
Most philosophers agree that the subjective view of time is not real. But they reject his claim that the
B-series is not real. J.J.C. Smart, for example, argues that we should only talk of when things
happen in objective time and avoid words like past, present, and future.
Kant: Time is a Mental Construct
Kant claimed that time was just a construct of the human mind. He argued that our sense
experiences are just a jumble until our minds impose order on them, and that the same is true of our
experience of time. According to Kant, space and time are the two basic systems that the mind uses
to organize this flow of changing sensations. Space and time are thus mental maps that the mind
uses. But, we can imagine time continuing in our minds without any sensations occurring in that
time. So, the mind constructs time prior to sensations. Time, then, is just a mental construct.
But many scientists have claimed that time exists in objects; such time is objective time.
Bergson: Only Subjective Time is real
Henri Bergson claimed that objective time was just a construct, and that what we directly
experience within ourselves is the flow of time. Bergson calls this experience the intuition of
duration. Real time for Bergson is thus subjective time.
But do we really have an intuition of time?

14
4.1: The Significance of Religion
Learning objectives:
To understand the importance of the choice between belief and unbelief
To define religion and distinguish it from religious belief, religious experience, and theology
There is perhaps no greater influence on ones view of oneself and ones destiny than the choice
between belief and unbelief; believers often see themselves as humans transcending nature, while
nonbelievers hold that nature is all there is. The basic question of this chapter is: How reasonable is
religion?
Defining Religion
What is religion? Not all religions have a belief in God, and some have few if any official beliefs.
Some have institutionalized ritual, others little ritual. Some religions focus on commitment, others do
not. Ninian Smart suggests that religions have six dimensions: doctrine; experience of, or emphasis
on, events in which the believer feels the presence of the supernatural; myth; ritual; morality;
organization. In this chapter we will concentrate on doctrine and experience.
Religious Belief, Religious Experience, and Theology
Religious experience refers to experience of the supernatural; religious belief refers to the doctrines
of a religion about the universe. Theology differs from both; it is the rational study of God.
4.2: Does God Exist?
Learning objectives:
Explain and critically evaluate the ontological, cosmological, and design arguments for the
existence of God.
Explain what pantheism and panentheism are, and why these alternatives to traditional
monotheism were developed.
Theism is the belief in a personal God who is creator of the world and present in its processes and
with whom we might come into contact. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one such God.
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God deduced from the nature of
Gods being, which was first outlined by Saint Anselm in his Proslogion. In brief, Anselm held that
God was the greatest being we can conceive, but if He was just an idea we could conceive of
something greatera God that actually existed. Hence, God must exist.
Kant objected to this argument on the grounds that the claim that the claim that if there is a perfect
being then a perfect being exists, while true, does not show that there is a perfect being. Rather, by
positing that such a being exists we do not add anything to it, as Anselm thought, but merely
change its relationship to other things.
The Cosmological Argument
Aquinas offered five proofs for the existence of God; we will examine two here. They are
cosmological proofs as they deal with the nature of the cosmos. Aquinas begins with the
observation that things in the universe are moving, and that this movement must have been begun
by a First Mover, which must be unlike anything else in the Universe: this is what we mean by
God. Aquinas second cosmological argument starts by noting that things in the universe are
caused, and this chain of causation must start somewhere: with a being who is uncaused. This
being is God.
Objections to Aquinas
One objection to Aquinas is drawn from Newtons laws of motion which show that is not interfered
with a moving object will keep moving on its own indefinitely. But Aquinas could say that his
argument is supposed to apply to the initiation of movement. Another objection is that this argument
does not show the existence of the Christian God; Aquinas could accept this, and note that it just

15
limits the scope of his argument to do so. Another objection is that Aquinas merely assumes that
there could not have been an infinite regressbut why make this assumption? However, if the Big
Bang theory is correct, there was a starting point. But this does not show that God started it. Hume
challenged Aquinas argument by holding that the chain of causes could be accounted for fully by
giving an account of each link within it. Another objection is that we could hold that God was
caused. Aquinas could respond by holding that everything in the universe has a cause, but that God
is not within it.
The Design Argument
This is also known as the teleological argument. The classic example of this argument was offered
by William Paley, who argued that just as the design of a watch implied the existence of a
watchmaker, so the design found in natural organisms (especially the eye) implied the existence of
a Divine Agency.
Objections to the Design Argument
Paleys argument is an argument by analogy, and so it depends on the analogy being precise. The
argument assumes that complex order can only be produced by an intelligent being. But order
could be produced by mechanisms that are not intelligent. Another powerful objection arose from
Darwins theory of evolution, which could explain even the design of the eye. But some believers
hold that natural selection is the process that the Creator uses to design and produce life. However,
critics of this view note that the process of natural selection is not intelligently directed, but random.
Paleys Defenders
William A. Dembski argues that the complexity of living organisms can only be explained by the
admission of intelligent design, as anything with specified complexity has to be produced by an
intelligent beingand genes have specified complexity that, he argues, is produced by an
intelligence. Similarly, Paul Davies argues that the laws of the universe seems to have been
designed to make sure that human life could have evolved in it.
Theistic Alternatives to Traditional Monotheism
There are several criticisms of the traditional conception of God. If he is all-knowing, does he know
the futureand if so, are we really free? How can something timeless and unchanging become
incarnate in a world of change? These and other problems have led some to seek alternative
understandings of what God is and how He relates to the universe.
Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything: this is a view of God that
Spinoza accepted. But it is not clear how God could be constituted of the finite, incomplete, and
changing things we see around us in nature.
Augustine argued that evil existed because evil was a lack, and since anything that was not God
lacked something anything that was not God must necessarily lack some good.This view holds that
God contains all contrasts. But it is not clear how God could contain a fusion of opposites in this
way.

4.3: Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Problem of Evil

Learning objectives:
To know the difference between atheism and agnosticism
To evaluate the claim that evil shows that an all-good God does not exist
The objections just raised have led many to hold that the belief in a traditional God is not
reasonable.
Atheism
Atheism denies the major claims of all varieties of theism. Many agree that the scientific method is
the best approach to gain reliable knowledge of the world around us. Many atheists are attracted to
utilitarianism, which focuses on the maximization of happiness. The central feature of atheism is the
view that there are good reasons to believe that God does not exist.
The Problem of Evil

16
How is evil compatible with an all-powerful Creator? Hume, in the voice of the character Philo,
argues that the experience of the world argues against the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful,
all-good being.
Theistic Response
Augustine argued that evil existed because evil was a lack, and since anything that was not God
lacked something anything that was not God must necessarily lack some good. But why does God
allow such absences of good? Another response is to claim that human freedom is the cause of
evil. But this does not account for natural disasters. John Hick argues that a world in which beings
can mature as free and responsible beings must include real dangers and sorrows, and so since
the development of humans into such beings is desirable the world must contain dangers and
sorrows.
Agnosticism
Agnostics, such as Thomas Huxley, say that they dont know whether or not God exists.
Why We Believe: Freud
Why do so many people believe in God if it is unclear whether He exists? Freud suggests that
people believe because they have an infantile need to believe that someone is looking after them.
But it is not clear that there is any way of proving this claim.
Why We Believe: Kants View
Kant believed that because the world is unjust we should pursue one that is just, and this obliges us
to believe in a God who can bring about such a world. But, although we might believe that God
exists, we cannot know that he does for the reasons Kant offers.

4.4: Traditional Religious Belief and Experience

Learning objectives:
Understand and evaluate Jamess view that our passional nature should choose what to believe
when an option is living, forced, and momentous.
Understand what mystical religious experiences are and the philosophical problems such
experiences raise.
Religious Belief
Even if the existence of God is not an issue for a person, the question of whether to believe in a
divine dimension might beis the universe something sacred, something divine? The answer to the
question of whether we can know God exists is inconclusive, but the question of choosing to believe
in a divine dimension is not.
The Will to Believe
William James confronted this issue. He held that under certain conditions it is both rational and
moral to believe in something without adequate evidence for the beliefsuch would be the case
when we are faced with an option that is living, forced, and momentous, for such options cannot by
their nature be decided on intellectual grounds, and so when they arise we can choose on the basis
of our interests, emotions, desires, and so on. Such an option is the option of whether to adopt a
religious belief.
Critics of Jamess View
One critic of James, W.K. Clifford, held that we should never believe anything without sufficient
evidence for the belief.
Personal Experience of the Divine
Many people who believe in God do so, they claim, because they have experienced a religious
dimension of reality.
Mysticism
Mysticism is the direct experience of a religious dimension of reality that we can know only when we
give up our individual selves and achieve union with an ultimate reality.

17
Numinous Experience
The mystical consciousness of the holy is termed numinous experience in philosophy of religion.
One aspect of such an experience is that of infinite dependence; another is that of mystery, while a
third is that of terror. A fourth aspect is bliss.
However, the claim that people have direct experiences of the divine can be questioned.

4.5: Nontraditional Religious Experience

Learning objectives:
To understand and evaluate Kierkegaards view that only subjective thinking and not objective
thinking can know the truth about God, and Tillichs view that God cannot be proved but only
experienced.
To understand and evaluate the feminist claim that traditional concepts of God are sexist.
To understand that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism focus more on religious experience
and practice than on rational analysis.
Radical theologians perceive God not as a being but as an aspect of reality; the roots of this can be
traced to such thinkers as Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard was revolted by the pillars of the Christian community as he believed that their actions
lacked passion.
Central to Kierkegaards thought is his distinction between objective and subjective thinking. The
objective thinker adopts the position of an observer, while the subjective thinker is passionately
involved with truth, and is preoccupied with questions of life and death. He asserts that not all of
lifes concerns are within the purview of objective thinkingincluding religion. For Kierkegaard, God
cannot be known, as he is not subject to objective thinking. As such, Kierkegaard discussed the
leap of faiththe decision to commit to a relationship with God that goes beyond rational analysis.
Tillich
Tillich, an existentialist, contends that God is not a being but being itself; God is the ground of
being, with depth being what the word God means. For Tillich, to be religious is to have an
ultimate concern. But not only is Tillich not easy to understand, it is not clear that he is addressing
what we have always recognized as God.
Feminist Theology
Many feminists challenge the traditional Western concept of God, with one of their most important
objections being that God is portrayed as being male and is associated with practices that are
oppressive to women. For example, many major religions still refuse to ordain women priests. Mary
Daly, for example, argues that men have used God to justify and maintain their power over women.
Rather than trying to reform traditional religion, Daly holds that feminists who seek a religious
dimension in their lives should instead find meaning in the Goddess.
But many feminists object to Dalys thinking as they object to her claims that the male features of
the traditional Western religions are as essential to them as she claims they are.
Eastern Religious Traditions
Hinduism
Hinduism is very diverse, and there are no English equivalents for many Indian terms. The literary
source of Hindu teaching is the Bhagavad-Gita. One concept common to Hinduism is the oneness
of reality, which the mind can never fully grasp or words express. Also common to Hinduism are four
primary values: wealth, pleasure, duty, and enlightenment, of which the highest is enlightenment.
There are also seven other characteristics common to all Indian thought: an emphasis on the
spiritual, the realization that our philosophy nd our life are enmeshed, the preoccupation with the
inner life, the emphasis on the nonmaterial onness of creation, the acceptance of direct awareness
as the only way to understand what is real, a healthy respect for tradition, and the recognition of the
complementary nature of all systems of belief.

18
Buddhism
Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, who preached the Four Noble Truths:
the first is concerned with the suffering that we experience in living, the second is concerned with
the cause of this suffering, a commitment to the world of things or illusions, the third concerns
release or liberation, and the fourth describes the eightfold path, the moral doctrine whereby self-
frustration is ended.
Zen Buddhism
This has been especially attractive to Westerners. Zen considers a preoccupation with words and
concepts to be an empty substitute for experience, and upholds the direct experience of reality.
Emancipation involves actual experience, where the ideal of Zen is to seize reality without the
interference of any kind of agency: the direct holding of reality in this way is the awakening of
transcendental wisdom.
Differences between East and West
There are several differences between Eastern and Western thought. First, Eastern thinkers have
not been as concerned with debating Gods existence as Western thinkers have, and they have not
been as concerned to outline a moral law that it is our duty to obey. Also, while Western thought has
been aimed at aligning us with our Creator, eastern thought has been aimed at grounding us in
what is real.

19
5.1: Why is Knowledge a Problem?
Learning objectives:
To explain how the controversy over recovered memories shows the importance of understanding
what knowledge is.
Discuss why it is important to understand the sources of reliable knowledge
Your ideas about who you are depend on what you think you know. In fact, nothing is more
important to understanding yourself than knowledge about your past. This is why it is so important
to know if people who believe that they have recovered memories really doan issue that is
extremely controversial. This, and other controversial issues, shows us the importance of looking
carefully at the issues of truth and knowledge.
Acquiring Reliable Knowledge: Reason and the Senses
Rationalism is the view that knowledge can only be obtained by relying on reason without the aid of
the senses. Empiricism is the view that knowledge can only be obtained through sense perception.
The Place of Memory
Can memory be a source of knowledge? Memory is the ability to bring facts or past experiences
into present consciousness. There are different kinds of memory: habit memory concerns our ability
to remember how to do something, while personal memory is our ability to bring to consciousness a
representation of events that we personally experienced. Finally, factual memory is our memory of
facts. But is memory a source of knowledge? It seems not, since it does not give us any new
knowledge, but only recalls that which we had already.
5.2: Is Reason the Source of Our Knowledge?
Learning objective:
Explain and critically evaluate the rationalist argument that reason is the source of knowledge and
that some knowledge is innate.
Rationalism is the view that reason is capable of arriving at some knowledge without the aid of
sensory perception. Because the knowledge gained by reason does not depend of sense
experience, it is a priori knowledge. Rationalists do not think that all knowledge is gained by reason,
but that our most fundamental knowledge is. Eastern philosophy has given us some views that
appear to be rationalist, such as that of Shankara, who believed that ultimate reality is real, the
world is false, and the self is not different from ultimate reality. He also developed the idea of
sublation, whereby an error about reality is corrected when it is contradicted by a different but more
correct understanding of reality. The key point for Shankara is that thinking is the source of
knowledge about ultimate reality.
Descartes: Doubt and Reason
Descartes methodological starting point was skepticism. Descartes hoped that mathematical
methods of reasoning could help him find stable foundations for knowledge. He examined all of his
beliefs and rejected any that he could doubt, including those that came from his sense perceptions,
as these could be products of the machinations of an all-powerful demon. Descartes reasoned that
even if he was being deceived about everything else he could not be deceived into thinking he was
thinking. And, if he was thinking, he must exist.
But what is thinking? Descartes holds that we know what things are by an intuition or perception of
the mind, where such perceptions can be confused or clear and distinct. Only the clear and distinct
ideas can provide genuine knowledge. So, for Descartes, the mind or reason is the ultimate basis of
knowledge.
Innate Ideas
But how does the mind arrive at knowledge without the senses? Descartes used the notion of
innate ideas to answer this. These are ideas that the mind has since birth. Most rationalists believe
that the principles of logic and math are innate. Plato, for example, argued this in the Meno.

20
Leibniz: Innate Ideas Are Tendencies
Leibniz held that we are not born with fully formed truths in our minds, as Descartes held, but only
with tendencies.
Jainism
Jainists hold that even before we perceive an object with our senses we have knowledge of that
object in our minds. This is explained, claim the Jainists, because our mind is present everywhere,
and so it knows everything, even though we are unaware through most of our lives of this
knowledge.

5.3: Can the Senses Account for All Our Knowledge?

Learning objectives:
Understand and critically evaluate the empiricist view that sense experience is the only source of
knowledge.
Understand why this claim led to Humes skeptical view that we cannot know whether our ideas
about reality are accurate.
In reaction to rationalism empiricists hold that all of our knowledge comes from our senses; true
knowledge is a posteriori. Eastern as well as Western philosophers have adopted empiricism: the
philosophers of the Nyaya School and the Charvaka philosophers were empiricists.
Locke and Empiricism
Locke was the first to attack rationalism. He compared the mind to a blank slatea tabula rasa
and held that it is furnished through experience.
But although this might seem like common sense things in reality can be different from how we
perceive them to be. Two responses can be made to this. (1) Claim that there is no difference
between how things are and how we perceive them, or (2) hold that experience must be
distinguished from the thing itself. (1) faces difficulties because it claims that the universe is made
up of sense experiences. In (2) we need to establish when our perceptions fit with reality.
Locke argued for (2). He distinguished between external objects and the ideas they cause in us,
holding that we perceive directly only our ideas.
Primary and Secondary Qualities
Locke claimed that our ideas are accurate representations of things in the external world. But, how?
Locke claimed that objects have inherent qualities within them: primary qualities. These are
generally qualities that can be measured, like size, shape, and mass. There are also qualities that
are not in the object itself, but are powers in them to cause sensations in us. Color and smell, for
example, are not in colorful or smelly objects; the object merely has the power to cause responses
in us. We know things, then, as our ideas of primary qualities resemble the primary qualities of
things in the world.
Critical Realists
During the early C20th a group of philosophers composed Essays in Critical Realism. They
accepted most of what Locke claimed, believing that sense data provides accurate contact with
primary qualities. They believed that three things were involved in perception: (1) a perceiver; (2)
the object consisting of primary qualities; (3) sense data.
Problems with Locke
Yet how can we be sure that our sense data informs us about the external world. Locke believes
that something must cause our sense data. But how can Locke be sure/ Also, how do we know that
our senses resemble reality accurately?
Berkeley and Subjectivism
George Berkeley agreed that ideas originate in sense experience; he also believed that secondary
qualities are subjective. But he thought that primary qualities were subjective, also. For Berkeley,
only minds and their ideas exist. In saying that an idea exists, we say that it is being perceived by
some mind: To be is to be perceived. Berkeley is sometimes termed a subjectivist. Carried to an

21
extreme, his thinking can be solipsistic; the position that only I exist and everything else is a
creation of my own mind. But Berkeley did not hold this. To avid this excess he relied on the view
that God was the outside source for our ideas. But how do we know that God exists?
Hume and Skepticism
Hume pushed Lockes empiricism to an extreme. He began by holding that all of the contents of our
minds can be reduced to those given by the senses and experience; perceptions. These can be
either impressions (directly from the senses) or ideas (from some earlier sense impression). From
this, Hume held that there could be no genuine knowledge without sense impressions.
Causality as Habit
Hume used this principle to prove that many of our usual ideas are meaningless, such as our
common idea of causality. This is because we can never actually see the connection between the
two objects that are supposed to be causally related. So, causality is nothing more than an
expectation in our mindand an unjustified one, for we should not assume that the future will
resemble the past.
Can We Know an External World Exists?
Humes view suggests that the external world does not exist, for we only know our sense
impressions. Humes theory ends in skepticism, for he concludes that we can never know if our
ideas about the external world are accurate or even whether there is an external world. We cannot
know if God exists, or causality.

5.4: Kant: Does the Knowing Mind Shape the World?

Learning objectives:
Explain how Kants theory of knowledge combines rationalism and empiricism
Explain how Kant showed that we can know the synthetic a priori statements of mathematics and
natural science
Critically evaluate Kants claim that Humes skepticism is mistaken because the mind organizes its
sensations into the world we know.
Kant was concerned to address Humes skepticism. Kants new view is called transcendental
idealism, and holds that the world that appears to be around us is a world that our mind constructs
by arranging the sensations that comes from the senses into the patterns that themind provides.
Humes Challenge
Kant accepted that experience was the only basis for real knowledge. But he added that reason, or
the mind, contributed something also. He noted that while our senses reveal the qualities of objects
they dont reveal the relationships among them. So, the mind has to be the source of this
knowledge.
The Basic Issue
Kant feared that Humes arguments had destroyed science. He agreed with Hume that in some
fields we reach conclusions that go beyond the evidence of our senses. In mathematics and natural
science, for example, we find universal statements being made. These, Kant held, are synthetic a
priori statements. A synthetic statement is a statement that gives us information about the world,
while a priori statements are necessary and universal statements. These are contrasted with a
posteriori statements that we can establish only by observation.
Space, Time, and Mathematics
Kant set out to show that synthetic a priori statements are justified. He accepted Humes view of the
senses, but held that our mind organizes the sensations they give us by making them seems as
though they were located in space outside us. Kant held that we could not think of objects as
outside us unless we already knew what space is because outside refers to space. Kant claimed
that time was also a structure in the mind, as the mind makes it seem to us that the objects around
us exist in time.
Causality and the Unity of the Mind

22
Kant also needed to show that we have reason to believe that the causal laws of science that the
mind establishes must hold everywhere in the universe we see. Kant held that to transform
sensations into objects that change the mind has to receive the sensations as they stream by, that it
has to remember each one as it vanishes, and that it has to be conscious that they are sensations
of the same object. The mind can do this if it endures through time, as a single unified awareness: a
transcendental unity of apperception. Because the mind is a unified awareness it requires unity in
what it perceives, so it connects the perceptions it receives into a unified whole. So, it must impose
cause and effect relationships onto the world.
If Kant is right, then the world around us is one we have constructed. Kant called this world the
phenomenal world.
Romantic Philosophers
The Romantics were fascinated by the strange and exotic, and tended to elevate feeling and
emotion above reason. Many believed with Kant that we shape and create the world around us, but
they did not believe that the categories that we use to do so are based on reason, or that they are
universal. Wilhelm von Humboldt, for example, held that the world that we see around us is
constructed according to the categories of our language, a view that was also endorsed by the
anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Constructivist Theories and Recovered Memories
Theories like Kants are sometimes called constructivist theories as they hold that the world around
us is constructed. A number of psychologists have developed constructivist theories, including
George Kelly, Ernst von Glaserfeld, and Humberto and Maturana. They hold that human beings
construct the world that they know on the basis of meanings and expectations they have acquired
through their lives; several sociologists have also developed similar theories, including Kenneth
Gergen and Peter Berger.
However, such constructivists do not need to claim that constructed memories provide real
knowledge, because, for Kant, knowledge can only be of the world in which objects are related to
each other. Real events must be causally related to each other.
Some have objected to Kants view on the grounds that knowledge must be of things independent
of us. We also have the problem of whether there is a distinction between what we experience and
reality.

5.5: Does Science give us Knowledge?

Learning objectives:
To understand the strengths and weaknesses of inductionism, the hypothetical method, and
Kuhns philosophy of science.
To explain how each is related to empiricism, rationalism, and Kant.
To understand how each helps us to distinguish science from pseudoscience.
Many people today hold that science is the most reliable source of knowledge.
Inductive Reasoning and Simplicity
One influential view of the relationship between scientific theories and sensory observations is
inductionism. This holds that the primary tool of science is inductive reasoningreasoning to
general probable laws from particular sensory observations. John Stuart Mill laid out what he
termed canons, or methods of induction: the accumulation of particular observations, generalization
from these, and repeated confirmation.
But inductionism has its critics. One problem is that every generalization has to go beyond the
observation on which it is based, and so a large number of generalizations are compatible with the
observations secured. One way to determine which is to be accepted is by choosing the simplest
but this is a rationalist, not an empiricist, criterion. Moreover, it seems that almost no scientific
theory is just a generalization from a few facts, for theories are not established by induction alone.
The Hypothetical Method and Falsifiability

23
Others have claimed that the distinguishing mark of scientific theories is their reliance on the
hypothetical method. Scientific advance is made when people make educated hypothesesa
contribution of reason apart from the senses. The most influential proponent of this view has been
Karl Popper, who held that such hypotheses must be falsifiable through observation.
Paradigms and Revolutions in Science
Thomas Kuhn recognized that scientific theories are often held onto even if evidence does not
accord with them. He argued that science does not move forward gradually, but progresses through
a series of revolutions, which occur when too many observations accumulate that do not fit with
current theory.
Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience
Scientific method, then includes elements from rationalism and empiricism, relies on induction,
proceeds by the formulation of hypotheses, requires falsifiable theories, and ones that are widely
accepted by scientists. A scientific theory must be in accurate agreement with observations, it must
be consistent with other theories, it must have consequences that extend beyond the phenomena
that it is concerned with, it must relate phenomena that were thought to be disconnected, it must be
as simple as possible, and it must be fruitful.
These features are not shared by pseudoscientific theories.

24
6.1: Knowledge, Truth, and Justification
Learning objectives:
To understand the definition of knowledge as justified true belief
To explain what justification is and how foundationalism and coherentism approach justification
There are three ways of looking at truth. The pragmatic theory says that our beliefs are true when
they get us what we want. The coherence theory says that a belief is true when it fits with our other
beliefs and meanings. The correspondence theory says that a belief is true when it corresponds
with what is out there in the world.
Knowledge as Justified True Belief
To say that you know something is to say that you believe it. To say that you know something
implies that your belief is justified, and that it is true.
But knowledge is more than justified true belief, since Gettier examples show that someone can
have a justified true belief and yet this falls short of being knowledge.
Justification
Justification and truth are not necessarily the same; something could be justified and not true, for
example. But they are related, as justification should point to truth. The concept justified is a
normative one, with some philosophers holding that people have an obligation not to believe things
that are not justified.
When are we justified in believing something? That depends on the kind of belief in question.
Propositions can be categorized as a prior or empirical. They can also be categorized as basic or
non-basic. A basic belief is one that we know is true without having to infer it from other beliefs,
while nonbasic beliefs are inferred from other beliefs.
Foundationalism
The difference between basic and nonbasic beliefs is important. Foundationalists believe that the
justification of all nonbasic beliefs depends on our basic beliefs; that basic beliefs are the foundation
of nonbasic ones. Descartes, for example, held that the most basic belief is I think, therefore I am,
and that this could be used to justify all nonbasic beliefs such as the belief that I am thinking and
the belief that God exists. Other philosophers have argued that basic beliefs are those that describe
what appears to us.
Other philosophers have objected to the idea of basic beliefs. Wilfrid Sellars argued that all our
beliefs depend on other beliefs drawn from our culture and society, and so there are no basic
beliefs.
Coherentism
Persons like Sellars argue that although there are no basic beliefs our beliefs do not have to rest on
unjustified beliefs. Instead, our beliefs can justify each other in a kind of circle of mutual support.
The view is that our beliefs are justified if they cohere with each other.
6.2: What is Truth?
We might think that truth is relative; what is true in relation to one person is not true in relation to
another. We might also think that there is no such thing as the truth.
Correspondence Theory
The most popular theory of truth is the correspondence theory, which holds that truth is the
agreement between a proposition and some fact in the real world.
Russells Correspondence Theory
Russell holds that a belief is true when it corresponds with a fact, and that an adequate theory of
truth must allow for the possibility that there will be some falsehoods. Russell holds that when we
believe something we relate things, and if the relationship among the terms in a statement

25
corresponds to the relationship between them in the world then the statement is true. But a
correspondence theory need not be as complex as this; it could simply hold that beliefs are made
true by the way things are in the real world. J. L. Austin, for example, offered a correspondence
theory that rejected Russells account. Austin says that we can use a language to talk to each other
only if there are rules that connect our words to the things we are talking about. Statements refer to
states of affairs in the real world, and we have rules that tell us what they refer to. Finally, when we
make a statement by uttering a sentence, the statement is true if it refers to the kind of state of
affairs that the sentence describes.
Challenges to the Correspondence Theory
But this theory has problems. It assumes that we can determine when our beliefs match an external
world, but this is not obvious. It is also not clear what a fact is; to which fact is a true proposition
supposed to correspond? It seems that facts are true propositions are one and the same, and
hence no genuine correspondence is possible. But correspondence theorists argue that there are
significant differences between facts and propositions, such that even if facts can only be identified
by true propositions this does not mean that facts just are true propositions. Similarly, it is not clear
what is meant by the word corresponds. And there is also the problem of negative statements; to
what fact does the negative statement No unicorns exist correspond?
Tarskis Definition of Truth
Alfred Tarski developed an interesting and important version of the correspondence theory that
does not refer to facts or correspondence. For Tarski, For any language L, any sentence in
language L, and any statement that states the conditions that made S true in language L: the
sentence S in language L is true if and only if p. But this definition seems circular, even though it
tells us what truth is and it tells us that truth depends on conditions in the real world. But Tarskis
account tells us in one language (English) what truth means in another language, so although he
sues the notion of truth in English language to define what p is he uses p to define what truth is in
any language other than English.
Coherence Theory
According to the coherence theory, a belief is true if it coheres with other beliefs that we regard as
true. A main proponent of this view is Brand Blanshard; this view is also adopted by eastern
philosophers, such as Shankara, while several members of the Yogacara school of Buddhism have
accepted a form of coherentism.
But is the systemic coherence of a group of beliefs a guarantee of its truth? Moreover, such an
approach to truth seems to rely on correspondence. After all, if a judgment is conherent, it must
cohere with another judgmentbut what of the first judgment? If it is first, it cannot cohere with
anything, and so its truth must be verified by determining whether it reports a fact.
Pragmatic Theory
The pragmatists hold that a statement is true if people can use it to achieve results that satisfy their
interests.
Pragmatism
The classic version of the pragmatic theory of truth was put forward by William James in
his Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. According to James, the truth of a
statement depends on the practical difference that it makes in our lives.
Modern Pragmatism
Contemporary pragmatists approach truth differently from William James, arguing that we should
forget about defining truth and get on with living in open-minded, democratic communities. Richard
Rorty, for example, holds that truth is whatever has passed a societys procedures of justification.
The modern pragmatists wants us to hold that when someone says something is true they are
merely commending it as something that it is good to believes.
Criticisms of Pragmatism
Pragmatism seems to reduce epistemology to psychology. What we were justifiedin believing
yesterday might be false today. Although pragmatists hold that their approach to epistemology is
more useful than its rivals any claim about usefulness seems to rely on subjective evaluation.

26
Indeed, couldnt we say that an account of truth was more useful when true did not simply mean
useful?
Does Truth Matter?
The coherence and pragmatic views of truth are relativists, but they are not relativists about what
truth is. If we reject objectivity in this way then every groups accepted claims are equally true
including those of, for example, racist groups. Given this, choosing between different views of truth
is not an exercise with no practical import.
Reconciling the Theories of Truth
Can we reconcile these three theories? Could we say that each tells us just part of what the truth
is? We could hold that the correspondence theory applies to the empirical realm, the coherence
theory to the realm of logical, necessary, or systemic truth, and the pragmatic approach to truth as it
is applied to value judgments.
Deflating Truth
But maybe we should reject all of these theories as truth doesnt refer to anything important at all;
that when we say that a statement is true we are only saying what the statement itself says.

6.3: Does Science Give Us Truth?

Learning objective:
To explain the strengths and weaknesses of the instrumental, realist, and conceptual relativist
views of science and their relation to the pragmatic, correspondence, and coherence theories of
truth.
What does it mean to say that the standard theory of matter is true? And is it true?
The Instrumentalist View
Many scientists would say that the standard view of matter is true. But what does it mean to say that
theoretical entities like quarks and electrons exist? It might be that the theory is true because it
enables us to make successful predictions. But does this prove that the view is true? Maybe we just
assume that this theory is true because this assumption allows us to use it to predict what will
happen. This is an instrumentalist view of scientific theories, which is similar to the pragmatic theory
of truth.
The Realist View
The realist view is a version of the correspondence theory of truth. According to this view scientific
theories are true or false. The aim of science on this view is to discover what the structure of the
universe is; to provide true explanations of the world around us.
The Conceptual Relativist View
A third view of science shares features with the correspondence theory of truth. The proponents of
this view think that a scientific theory that is true is merely a theory that a group of scientists accept.
On this view, the beliefs that make up the conceptual framework of the group in question are true by
definition. Conceptual relativists reject the realist and the instrumentalist views because they believe
that these views mistakenly hold that we can check the real world independently on our theories.
But, say the relativists, observations are always theory laden, and so never can be independently
checked.

6.4: Can Interpretations to True?

Learning objectives:
To understand why truth matters when interpreting texts
To relate the correspondence, pragmatic and coherence views of truth to Aquinass,
Wittgensteins, and Gadamars views of true interpretation.
We often need to interpret the words of others around us. But when are such interpretations true?
Hermenutics is the study of the interpretation of words and actions.
Symbolic Interpretation and Intention

27
How can a believer know if her interpretation of the Bible is correct? We might say, with Thomas
Aquinas, that a text could have many spiritual interpretations that could all be true, with the Church
deciding which are true and which are false. But this doesnt really solve the problem, for how is the
Church supposed to determine this?
Martin Luther rejected this idea, holding that there was only one correct interpretation, which was
the literal meaning.
Wittgenstein and the Ideal Clear Language
The idea of an unambiguous language that could be interpreted in only one way was first suggested
by Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz never completed his formulation of such a language, but Ludwig
Wittgenstein claimed to have provided the basics for one in his Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus.
Wittgenstein claimed that reality consists of facts, and the propositions of an ideal language will
provide pictures of these facts; a proposition will thus be true when it has the same kind of structure
as the fact that it pictures. Wittgenstein thus embraced a correspondence theory of truth. But as he
got older he believed that his whole approach to language was wrong; he argued that it was a
mistake to believe that language can serve a single purpose and express a single meaning. We
must instead acknowledge that language can be used for many different purposes or games. This
view has clear implications for hermeneutics, including the idea that there is no clear language and
the idea that the meaning of words is not fixed.
Gadamer and Prejudice
Gadamer argued that when a person tries to interpret someone elses words she must rely on her
own experiences and culture. We can try to understand and correct our prejudices, but we can
never completely overcome them. As such, people in different cultures interpret texts differently, and
so a text can has as many true meanings as there are cultures. However, texts are not static; rather,
we have to have a dialogue with the text, claimed Gadamer. As such, he seems to have a
coherence view of truth.
But not everyone agrees; some people have charged that Gadamer has confused the meaning of a
text with its significance.

28
7.1: What is Ethics?
Learning objective:
To understand what it means to say that ethics is the study of morality.
Moral issues are an inescapable part of who we are. We all face moral questions, and must make
public decisions, as a society, that have ethical dimensions. How can we be guided here? We could
just be told what to do, or we could work to decide for ourselves what our values should be. To
decide the latter is to decide to philosophize.
Ethics is the study of morality. Morality consists of the standards that an individual or a group has
about what is right and what is wrong. Usually, moral standards apply to issues that we believe are
important. Ethics begins when we reflect on our moral standards to see if they are reasonable.
7.2: Is Ethics Relative?
Learning objective:
To understand and critically evaluate the theory of ethical relativism.
Many people have been impressed by how different societies have different moralities. Does this
mean that ethics is relative? To understand this question we must first understand ethical
absolutism. This is the view that there is only one correct morality. Ethical relativism denies this,
insisting that morality is relative to ones society. Ethical relativism is not cultural relativism, the view
that different societies believe in different moralities: this is simply a sociological fact.
Many people have held that an act is right iff their society believes it to be right. But its not clear
that this view can be defended. Is there any univocal view on abortion in US society, for example?
Moreover, simply because everyone else believes that something is right it does not follow that I
should believe that it is right. Furthermore, if this view is correct we could not criticize socially-held
views as immoral. It is also does not follow from the fact that there is disagreement over morality
that morality is therefore relative. And it seems unlikely that there are no moral standards that apply
everywhere, since some seem needed for a society to survive.
Even though we should not endorse relativism, we can still endorse the tolerant attitude that it
seems to encourage us to take.
7.3: Do Consequences Make an Action Right?
Learning objective:
Explain, evaluate, and apply the theories of ethical egoism, act utilitarianism, and rule
utilitarianism.
A consequentialist theory measures the morality of an action by its nonmoral consequences; it
considers the ratio of good to evil that it produces.
Egoism
Some ethicists believe that in considering actions we should consider only the consequences to
ourselves; these are egoists. Ethical egoism holds that we act morally when we act in a way that
best promotes our interests. But what is in ones interest? If one thinks that this just means
pleasure, then one will Modern philosophers distinguish between three kinds of love; philia
(brotherly love), eros (erotic love) and agape (freely given love). be a hedonistbut not necessarily
an egoist. Hedonism is the view that only pleasure is worth having for its own sake. But not all
egoists hold this, for they identify the good not with pleasure but with knowledge, power, or rational
self-interestor even self-realization.
Problems of Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism has many problems. First, it seems unable to resolve interpersonal conflicts of
interest, which it seems moral theories should do. It also undermines the moral point of view, the
impartial attitude of one who seeks to see all sides of an issue. However, it is not clear that the

29
moral point of view is a realistic goal to aim at, since no one can be completely rational or
disinterested.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism holds that the standard of morality is the promotion of everyones best interests. As
formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill this view holds that only pleasure or happiness
has intrinsic value. More modern utilitarians hold that other things besides happiness have value,
such as power or beauty. Here, in this text, we consider only traditional utilitarianism, and so use
good to mean pleasure.
Bentham held that happiness could be calculated using a hedonistic calculus, which determined
how much pleasure an act produced according to criteria such as the intensity of the pleasure, how
long it lasts, how certain it is to occur, and how likely it is to produce additional pleasure.
Bentham seemed to endorse act utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism contends that we should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. This view could endorse actions such as sentencing an innocent man to death if
this would produce the most amount of pleasure.
Rule Utilitarianism
Many ethicists note that this above problem is generated by focusing on acts rather than general
rules. So, instead of focusing on acts we should try to find those rules that will have the best
consequences if they are followed. But it is not clear that we can work out which rules will have the
best consequences. Moreover, it seems that rules will have exceptions if they are to produce the
best consequencesbut then these exceptions will lead us back to the same problem as is faced
by act utilitarianism.
Some Implications of Utilitarianism
One implication of utilitarianism is that virtually any actionincluding any sexual action, such as
adulterycan be morally permissible provided that it will result in the greatest amount of pleasure.
But we might think that this approachwhich will condone adulteryis too permissive. Moreover,
perhaps even utilitarians would reject this view, since they focus on the long-term social
consequences of acts, and acts such as adultery might have adverse consequences in the long
run.

7.4: Do Rules Define Morality?

Learning objective:
Explain, evaluate, and apply divine command theories, natural law theory, Kantian ethics, and
Buddhist ethics.
A nonconsequentialist theory maintains that the morality of an action depends on factors other than
the consequences.
Divine Command Theory
The divine command theory is a nonconsequentialist theory that says we should always do the will
of God.
Scriptural Divine Command Theory
A divine command theory says that we should obey the will of God because it is the will of God.
Gods laws are universally binding. But there are weaknesses in this approach. First, different
scriptures exist; how do we know which to follow? Moreover, how can be sure that God exists? And
why does God command one thing rather than another? If He commands something because it is
right, then the theory is circular as it holds that an act is right because God commands it. Moreover,
if something is right because God commands it then anything that God commands is right
including, for example, cruelty.
Natural Law Ethics

30
Natural Law ethics holds that people should live according to nature. The Stoics held a view of this
sort. This is related to divine command theory through the idea that God made human nature. So, if
one lives in accord with human nature one will be doing the will of God. The classical proponent of
this idea is Thomas Aquinas, who held that God imposed on humans certain natural laws through
the natural inclinations that humans have, the most important of which is the inclination to reason.
For example, for Aquinas suicide is immoral as persons have a natural inclination to preserve their
lives. If there are conflicts between ones inclinations the, held Aquinas, what matters is ones
intended action.
Natural law avoids many of the problems associated with divine command ethics. But it still has
problemswhy, for example, are we morally required to pursue our natural inclinations? Moreover,
although Aquinas uses the principle of double effect in cases where there are conflicts between
fundamental goods can we really limit our intentions to the pursuit of the good alone?
Implications of Divine Command Ethics
Natural law ethics has implications for sexual activity. A sexual activity is unnatural and immoral if it
cannot result in pregnancy. Hence, contraception and homosexuality are immoral on this view. But
cant sex serve purposes other than procreation? However, there are other natural law approaches
to sex, which hold that a sex act is wrong only if it destroys a concrete human goodso rape is
wrong, but not homosexuality.
Kants Categorical Imperative
Kant held that a person should choose for himself the moral rules that he should follow. This was,
for Kant, a persons autonomy of the will, which he contrasted with heteronomyhaving
something else direct ones actions.
The Good Will
For Kant, the good will is our ability to choose what we will do. A morally good will is exercised when
a person does something because he believes that it is the morally right thing to do. This means
that a person performs an action because he believes that it is the action that everyone should
perform. For Kant, we can see if an act meets this condition by seeing if it is possible to will to live in
a world in which everyone acts as I am proposing to do. If I am not willing to live in such a world,
then the maxim of the act that I am considering is not one that I should act on.
The Categorical Imperative
Kant thus believes that there is one fundamental moral principle, which he calls the categorical
imperative. This states that we should only perform an action if we are willing to have the maxim
governing our action become universal law. Note that this approach to ethics is not based on
consequences, but on the logical relationship between the particular form of the maxim in question
and its universalized counterpart.
A Second Version of the Categorical Imperative
Although there is only one categorical imperative, Kant believed that we could state it in various
ways. Kant believed that we should act always to treat rational humanity as an end in itself and
never as a mere means. So, we should not use people as objects, but allow them to decide for
themselves if they wish to engage with our projects.
Conflicts
Kant does not give us any obvious way to resolve conflicts of duty.
Some Implications of Kantian Ethics
Kants ethics imply that it is wrong to use people, and this has clear implications for sexual
morality. However, for some this means that Kant is too permissive, for it seems that he would not
object to adultery if everyone consented to it.
Buddhist Ethics
Buddhist ethics is not a divine command ethics as Buddhists do not believe in a god that issues
commands. The Buddhist emphasis on ethical behavior can be generalized in two ways. First,
voluntary actions are important because they determine our destiny according to karma. Second,

31
ethics is considered the parent of wisdom in that reflection on an actions wholesomeness or
otherwise leads to mental discipline.
Basic to Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths, discussed in Chapter 4. The Buddhist standards of
morality must be conducive to the attainment of nirvana and the realization of the Four Noble
Truths. The ethical ideal is that of a self-reliant person who has attained personal enlightenment.
The Buddhist code of morality can be summed up as Cease to do evil, with this being the
foundation for the five main precepts that Buddhists should follow. Unlike Western rules, however,
these should be viewed more as invitations to action, rather than as proscriptions. Second, the
Buddhist emphasis is on the individual; evil is avoided to secure personal enlightenment. Third,
Buddhist morality is based in metaphysics; conducting our lives morally is an expeditious way to
experience reality. Fourth, Buddhism encourages us to dig into our own experiences. The Buddhist
also holds that a life of pleasure will lead to boredom and interfere with the healthy functioning of
the individual.

7.5: Is Ethics Based on Character?

Learning objectives:
Explain, evaluate, and use virtue ethics
Explain and evaluate the role that the virtue of caring has in a feminist ethic
The ethical theories discussed so far focus on principles or rules. But this seems to overlook an
important aspect of ethics: virtue, or character. The moral life is not just about acting on rules, but
becoming a good person. This is the approach adopted by virtue ethicists.
Aristotles Theory of Virtue
In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle claimed that human beings can be happy only if they fulfill their
basic human purpose, or functionto act with reason. For Aristotle, we should use reason to control
our appetites, to make sure that they neither go to excess nor fall short. For Aristotle, then, a virtue
is the ability to be reasonable in our actions, desires, and emotions, and to act with moderation. We
acquire virtue by habituation, until it becomes easy and pleasant for us. Thus, when we judge
behavior we should look at the type of character that it tends to produce. Judged in this way, we can
condemn morally adultery, since it tends to be done by persons who are disloyal, intemperate, and
selfish.
Love and Friendship
Aristotle held that the ability to love and befriend others was an important aspect of living morally.
True friendship, for Aristotle, was based on persons mutual recognition of the goodness of each
other. For Aristotle, love is central to friendship, but he writes little of it.
Modern philosophers distinguish between three kinds of love; philia (brotherly love), eros (erotic
love) and agape (freely given love). But what is love itself? On one view it is a relationship in which
one person sees good in another and responds by doing good to that person, trying to be with that
person, and so on. But critics of this relationship view of love hold that it leaves out the fact that love
is an emotion. Others hold that this emotion view of love leaves out the feature that to love is to
form a bond with another person. A fourth theory of love holds that love is a response to the
goodness of the loved one. Perhaps, though, each of these theories sheds light on a different
aspect of love.
Male and Female Ethics?
Recently several female philosophers have claimed that men and women have different moralities,
holding that men focus on ethics of principles, while females focus on the issues that virtue ethics
emphasize.
Carol Gilligan
The psychologist Carol Gilligan was one of the first women to suggest that men and women
approach ethics differently, arguing against the view of Lawrence Kohlberg, who held that women,
on average, are less morally developed than men are. Kohlberg argued that persons moral views
develop in stages, with the most advanced stage being the postconventional level of moral thinking.
Kohlberg reported that more men than women made it to the postconventional level of

32
development. Gilligan responded by arguing that Kohlberg had developed his stages of moral
development by studying mostly men, and so he only described, she claimed, how mens morality
develops. Gilligan argued that women see themselves as persons in relationships, and when they
encounter moral issues they are concerned with maintaining these relationships and avoiding
harming people. So, they end up in Kohlbergs conventional level of morality as that is the only one
that takes relationships into account.
Gilligan argued that the moral development of women is marked by progress toward a more
adequate way of caring for herself and others. As such, there is a way of looking at morality that is
more characteristic of women. But this does not mean that this approach to ethics is inferior to that
of men. Rather, we need the virtues of caring and responsibility to ensure that society does not
become a collection of isolated individuals.
Nel Noddings
Noddings has gone further than Gilligan, arguing that the focus on caring is superior to the focus on
principles, arguing that ethics is about individual relationships, not about abstract issues of justice
and rights.
Criticisms
Is it good that women focus on caring while men focus on impersonal rules and principles? It might
be that Gilligan and Noddings are encouraging a traditional view of women, while they discourage
men from becoming involved in caring activities that could enrich their lives and those of others.
Moreover, it might be that an ethic of care is too narrow to include all of our moral concerns, such as
how our actions affect persons distant from us.
Conclusions
The virtue ethics approach emphasizes character traits, and reminds us of the importance of
community. It also reminds us of the importance of ideals of character, and encourages us to look
closely at our moral lives. But it is not without difficulties. It does not seem to answer the sort of
moral questions that most people ask.

7.6: Can Ethics Resolve Moral Quandaries?

Learning objective:
To apply ethical theories to moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia.
How should we use these theories in our own lives?
Abortion
Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy before a live birth. Although abortion is legal in the
United States, the moral question still remains. Many moral arguments in support of the moral
rightness of abortion start with the view that the fetus is not a person. But critics respond that many
other humans, such as the mentally impaired, lack the traits associated with personhood tooyet
they clearly have a right to life.
A Kantian Approach
If we adopt a Kantian approach we might conclude that abortion is generally immoral, since we
should do to others what we are glad was done to us, such as not aborting us.
A Utilitarian Approach
Utilitarians hold that that action that has the best consequences is the moral one. Hence,
sometimes since abortion has the best consequences it is morally justified.
Virtue Theorys Approach
From the perspective of virtue theory, abortion does not seem to be a morally upright decision since
it produces a moral character that is careless, irresponsible, and dishonest.
Comparing Approaches
These different theories have different outcomes. They thus cannot decide the issue for you; it is up
to you to decide which carries the most weight.

33
Euthanasia
This term refers to day to any action that knowingly results in the death of a person suffering from a
painful and incurable disease, as long as the action is carried out to be merciful. Is such an act
morally acceptable?
Natural Law: Pro and Con
A natural law approach could hold that life is a fundamental human good whose inviolable value we
can recover by reflecting on our natural inclinations. Since euthanasia destroys this human good, it
is immoral. But the natural law approach does not show why we have a moral obligation to follow
our natural inclinations.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism could favor active euthanasia if such would relieve suffering. But doesnt this approach
ignore the broader implications of euthanasia, such as its effects on surviving friends and family
members and on physicians commitment to saving life?
A Kantian Approach
A Kantian might endorse euthanasia in certain situations, if we would be willing to implement a pro-
euthanasia rule universally, for example, under certain conditions.
Comparing Views
The moral theories we have discussed do not agree on euthanasia. But this does not mean that
they are useless. Rather, it shows that they call our attention to different aspects of the issue that
we should consider when we come to address these issues ourselves.

7.7: Ethics and Moral Responsibility

Learning objectives
Determine when a person is morally responsible for her actions
Understand what determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism imply about moral responsibility
We might judge that a certain action is wrong. But it is another question to ask whether a person
was responsible for that act.
Excusability and Moral Responsibility
Under certain conditions we excuse people who have done morally wrong acts. This might occur if
they acted in excusable ignorance, if they acted under constraint, if there were circumstances
beyond their control that led them to act as they did, or if they had no opportunity to do the right
thing in the circumstances.
Ignorance
We excuse people when we dont believe they were aware of the consequences of their actions or if
they could not have known how to prevent those consequences. However, we do not excuse if the
ignorance was deliberate.
Constraints
We excuse people if we believe that they could not help do what they did; if theyw ere subject to
either external or internal constraints.
Uncontrollable Circumstances
When we believe that the circumstances that lead up to an act are beyond a persons control we
generally excuse the behavior.
Lack of Ability or Opportunity
We ordinarily excuse actions when we think that people lack the opportunity to do the right act.
Causality and Moral Responsibility
Many people believe that all human actions are causally determined, and so only one course of
action can occur; that which actually did.

34
Is moral responsibility possible in a determined universe? There are three main positions here.
According to determinists, free choice is illusory, and so there is no moral responsibility.
Libertarianism holds that humans are exceptions to the rigid laws of nature, and hence are
responsible agents. Compatibilists hold that humans are determined, but that they are free insofar
as there are no physical restraints that prevent them from acting.

35
8.1: What is Social and Political Philosophy?
Learning objective:
To understand the kind of questions social and political philosophy tries to answer
What are the legitimate functions of government? What is the source of the authority that the
government wields over us? Is it just that the government should play this role in our lives? What is
the proper relationship between the individual and society?
When we use the term the state in political and social philosophy we are referring to a politically
organized body of people who occupy a definite territory and whose political organization has
sovereign authority within that territory. In social and political philosophy we focus on three related
issues. We consider how the authority of the state is justified. We consider the question of justice.
And we consider the nature of law, freedom, human rights, and just war theory.
Social philosophy is the study of society; political philosophy is a subdivision of this that looks at the
role of the state or government in society.
8.2: What Justifies the State?
Learning objectives:
To explain how the theories of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls justify the authority of the
state
Critically examine these theories
The state has a legal power to define the public interest and enforce its definition. One way it does
this is through taxation, including taxing people for things from which they will never benefit and with
which they might disagree. What justifies this and other powers that the state has? One view is that
the states authority is justified as persons give up certain rights and liberties to the state which in
turn guarantees them certain liberties. The modern versions of this viewpoint are captured in social
contract theory.
Hobbes and the War of All against All
Thomas Hobbes was the founder of modern political philosophy, basing his views on scientific
materialism. In Leviathan Hobbes portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures who have two
needs: survival and personal gain. For Hobbes, the authority of the state is justified because the
citizens have agreed to accept its authority.
Locke and Natural Moral Law
Locke thought that humans were essentially moral beings who ought to obey natural moral laws.
Humans establish governments because three things are missing in the state of nature: a firm
interpretation of the natural moral laws, unbiased judges, and a power capable of enforcing justice.
Locke believed that governments should leave people free to live and pursue whatever forms of life
they wished. Locke had an influence on the Declaration of Independence.
Rousseau and the General Will
Contract theory led to the views of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that if people are to
act morally they must live under laws that they freely accept. His emphasis was on personal moral
autonomy. The question for Rousseau was how persons came to be bound by the chains of state
authority. Rousseau argued that a person is free and autonomous only if he obeys those laws that
he himself chooses. So, state authority must be something that is freely chosen. The individual
does this when he joins with others and agrees to be under the direction of the general will. Thus, in
obeying the state the individual obeys himself and hence acts freely. The general will is not the
same as the will of all, where persons have a unanimous feeling, but when each member of a group
aims at the common good. So, since all aim at the common good there is consensus, even when
there is disagreement on particular issues.
Contemporary Social Contract: Rawls

36
Hume pointed out that there never was a social contract; that this is a fiction. Rawls agrees with
Hume. But he said that this did not matter. Social contract theory enables us to figure out what kind
of government we should have by imagining that we are starting from scratch. Rawls says that we
should set aside what leads us to favor ourselves over others, such as our personal attributes. This
government would have authority because it is one that we would consent to.
The Communitarian Critique
Communitarianism is the view that the actual community in which we live should be at the center of
our analysis of society. It emphasizes the social nature of human beings. The problem with social
contract theory, communitarians argue, is that it focuses on persons as individuals and ignores their
social nature. It also assumes that government is artificial, when it is more like a natural outgrowth
of our tendency to associate. This view was echoed by Hegel, who held that humans can only
develop their freedom within the state, as this in the arena in which they can develop their abilities.
Aristotle was another communitarian who believed that the state was natural. Unlike social contract
theories, they do not believe that people are fully formed prior to a state, and they also believe that
cultural practices within a community are the sources of individuals identities. As such, then, they
believe that the state should nourish cultural traditions and not be neutral.
But is it true that the state is natural? And should all cultural traditions be supported?
Social Contract and Women
At the heart of social contract theory is the idea that authority over adults depends on their consent.
The Traditional View
But this raises the question of why men should have authority over women who have not consented
to this. Moreover, it is problematic that many social contract theorists hold that only men contract
into the state.
Public and Private Spheres
This failure is perhaps related to the view that private matters, such as family matters, have nothing
to do with public matters, such as matters of politics. But many have recently pointed out that this
distinction is the source of many of the political and economic inequalities that women are subject
to, as women have traditionally take on much of the domestic work and hence according to this
distinction are excluded from economic and political power.

8.3: What is Justice?

Learning objectives:
To explain what a just society is if justice is based on merit, equality, social utility, need and ability,
or liberty
To critically valuate each of these views of justice.
What is justice? Justice deals with both distribution and retribution. How should wealth, goods,
privilege, and power be distributed? One way of approaching questions of distributive justice is to
start with what is called formal justice, the requirement that we treat similar people similarly. But
when should we consider people to be similar? We should consider people to be similar on the
basis of their features that are relevant to the treatment that is in question. There are also
substantive principles of justice that pick out relevant differences among people, such as who
arrived first in line.
Justice as Merit
In Platos view justice was associated with merit in the sense that individuals are treated according
to their talents and accomplishments. Aristotle shared this view, and defended slavery because he
thought that natural slaves merited their treatment.
Justice as Equality
What does a commitment to equality mean? Strict equality means equal shares; a view known as
strict egalitarianism. But this has problems. In the classroom it would lead to the teacher teaching to
the nonexistent average student, pitching the class too low for the brightest and too high for the less
bright. The problem is that people are not equal, and so we might need to take their differences into

37
account when engaged in distribution. Perhaps a solution is to distinguish between political equality,
when people have an equal right to participate in a political process, and economic equality, which
could mean either equality of income or wealth or equality of opportunity. But could there be
differences among people that show that they should not have political equalitysuch as their
felony convictions?
Justice as Social Utility
One view of justice is that justice is what promotes social welfare, a viewed endorsed by John
Stuart Mill. Since this view is an extension of Mills utilitarianism it invites the same objections, such
as that it could lead to endorsing slavery. Moreover, individual and public interests could clash, with
the majority benefitting at the expense of the minority.
Justice Based on Need and Ability
Socialism is one of the major political philosophies of the modern world. This view can be
summarized as the view that burdens should be distributed to peoples abilities, and benefits should
be distributed according to needsa view made famous by Karl Marx. This, Marx argues, was
because people will realize their potential through work that exercises their abilities, and that the
benefits that such work produces should be used to increase human well-being.
But on this view there would be no relationship between how hard a person works and the degree
of compensation that he receives. There would thus be little incentive to work hard. Moreover,
people would not be able to choose to goods that they wanted but would have to accept those that
met their needs.
Justice Based on Liberty
Liberalism is another major modern political philosophy. There are two conflicting camps here.
Justice in Welfare Liberalism
Rawls holds that people would choose three principles from behind the veil of ignorance: the
principle of equal liberty, that each should have the most extensive liberty compatible with a like
liberty for all, and the principle of equal opportunity, that desirable positions should be open to all
who are qualified, and the difference principle, the view that inequalities are justified if they work to
the advantage of the least well off.
Justice in Classical Liberalism
Nozick argued that Rawls offered a patterned theory of economic justice that holds that goods
should be distributed according to a certain formula. Nozick holds that such a theory will also
require the use of force or coercion, and so justice is instead respecting peoples free choices. As
such, on a classical liberal view benefits and burdens are distributed justly when society allows
every individual the freedom to do what he chooses, the freedom to keep what he makes for himself
or what others choose to give him, and the freedom to keep what he makes or give it to those
whom he chooses.
Nozick holds that using the better off to aid the worst off is unjust as it uses people as means. He
also claims that Rawls focus on the least advantaged is not impartial. Finally, he objects to Rawls
view that people are not entitled to what they own. But maybe Nozick overlooks the fact that Rawls
is working to address inequalities.

8.4: Limits on the State

Learning objective:
Critically understand how the authority of the state is limited by the theory of civil disobedience, the
right to freedom, human rights, and just war theory
What limits are there on the authority of the state? Do citizens have the duty to obey unjust laws, for
example, or not?
Law and Morality
By law we mean a body of rules that is imposed by a political authority. The Western legal system
has a hierarchy of laws, with town laws being under state laws. Both the Jewish and Christian

38
traditions hold that state law is under Gods law, a view presented by Saint Augustine, echoing the
Stoic view that law should reflect moral imperatives.
It is possible to distinguish several kinds of law: eternal law, which are Gods decrees for the
universe, natural law, which are rules of conduct, and human law. This view holds that human law is
not a law unless it is moral. Against this, the positivists argue that a law is a real law if it has the
correct pedigree, whether or not it is just or unjust.
Drawing on the natural law tradition many people have justified civil disobedience on the grounds
that people have the right to disobey unjust laws. But who is to decide when a law is unjust? And
how is such disobedience to be effected? Some hold that it should be done nonviolently, while
others hold that this would be ineffective.
Freedom
Mill offered a defense of freedom in his On Liberty. Mill believed that governments and society
should leave people free to live as they like provided that they are not harming anyone. This
concern grew out of Mills worry about the tyranny of the majority, the view that the majority would
persecute and suppress ways of living that it disliked. Against this tyranny Mill proposed the Harm
principle, which held that the only reason or which a persons liberty of action should be interfered
with was to prevent harm to others, provided that the person in question was a mature adult. Mill
supported this view by holding that it would lead to the greatest happiness.
But its not clear what counts as harm. Does offense count, or not? Moreover, what if a person
uses drugs, but doesnt harm anyone else? Can we act to prevent this, or not? Maybe we have a
greater responsibility towards each other than Mill recognized.
Human Rights
Many people believe that the law should show respect for basic human rights, which can be
understood as justified entitlements against others, and which are correlated with duties. There are
two main types of rightslegal rights, and moral rights, or human rights. Legal rights depend on the
law, whereas moral rights are justified by moral principles, and are much more significant that their
legal counterparts.
Some philosophers divide moral rights into positive and negative rights. Negative rights are rights
that protect freedoms of various kinds, while positive rights are rights that guarantee certain goods.
One of the most influential defenders of human rights has been Immanuel Kant. Kant held that
every person is an end in himself, and has an intrinsic value. Because of this all persons have
positive as well as negative rights. However, some philosophers interpret the idea of human dignity
differently, holding that persons only have negative rights as a result of its possessionalthough
most philosophers agree with Kant on this issue.
War and Terrorism
Are there limits to what the state can do to other states or their citizens?
Political Realism
Political realism, or realpolitik, is the view that there are no limits on what one nation can do to
another in pursuit of its own interests. This view was offered by Thomas Hobbes, who held that this
was so because there was no international government to make nations behave justly. If this view is
accepted, then there is no room for morality in international relations.
But there are objections to this view. First, all human acts can be judged by the standards of
morality. Second, there are international bodies to make nations behave justly, such as the United
Nations.
Pacifism
There are two forms of pacifism: absolute pacifism, which holds that war is always wrong, and
conditional pacifism, which holds that it is generally wrong. Some support absolute pacifism on
religious grounds, others on utilitarian grounds or deontological arguments. Against this some argue
that there are some things that are so valuable that we are justified in using war to protect them.
Others have noted that absolute pacifism implies that it would be wrong to use violence in self-
defense, or to defend another innocent victim.

39
Some pacifists reject absolute pacifism and turn to its conditional counterpart, which holds that in
rare situations war is justified.
Just War Theory
Just war theory rejects both the realist claim and the claim of the absolute pacifist. Just war
theorists hold that war is justified if it is declared by a legitimate authority, made for a just cause,
and done with right intentions. In addition to these core claims, it is also held that a just war will be
engaged in as a last resort, if there is real and certain danger, and if there is a reasonable possibility
of success, and if the end for which it is fought is proportional to the injuries that it will lead to.
These seven conditions are the conditions for justice when approaching war there are
supplemented by two further conditions for how persons should conduct themselves while in war;
that the means used should be proportionate to the end to be achieved, and that noncombatants
are immune from harm.
The theory of just war is not peculiar to the West; Sikism, for example, produced a view known as
Dharam Yudh or war in defense of righteousness.
Just war theory has been subject to criticism. Pacifists argue that it is often used as an excuse to go
to war, while others argue that its criteria for a just war are too vague. It is also argued that modern
weaponry has made the theory obsolete since it is now impossible to distinguish between
combatants and noncombatants. However, it still remains the most accepted view for entering and
waging war, and many of its provisions have been included into international laws that define and
punish war crimes.
Terrorism
Terrorism can be defined as the tactic of intentionally targeting noncombatants with violence for
political purposes.
The political realist would hold that a state should do everything that it could to protect its citizens
from terrorists, using any means necessary. The pacifist, however, would condemn the use of
violence to respond to terrorism. Just war theory also condemns terrorism as it is not typically state
supported, and is sometimes undertaken for an unjust cause. Most importantly, the terrorist singles
out noncombatants. But even though the just war theorist would condemn terrorism she would not
approve of all forms of violence to eliminate terrorists threats, since she would hold that the
response to terrorism should satisfy all nine of the criteria for a just war. Just war theory, for
example, condemns torture. Terrorism, however, has been defended on the grounds that when the
government of one country oppresses the citizens of another the citizens of the first country are not
innocent, and hence killing them is legitimate.

40
9.1: Does Life Have Meaning?
Learning objectives:
To interpret the question whether life has meaning and explain why it is important
Indicate why some argue that the question itself is meaningless
Does life have meaning? People often ask this when death enters their lives, and we wonder what
the point of life is. But for others, the question arises when death is not near, but when they become
convinced that life has no meaning.
What Does the Question Mean?
Some philosophers hold that this question has no meaningfor example, this is the position of the
logical positivists. But most people today believe that the logical positivists are mistaken. In
particular many people reject the view that questions are meaningless if they cannot be resolved by
sense perception, for many social, religious, and moral questions seem to make good sense but
cannot be resolved through the senses. But if the question is meaningful, what does it mean? One
way is to understand it as asking if my life is related to something bigger that gives it value.
9.2: The Theistic Response to Meaning
Learning objective:
To describe how some have found the meaning of life in a divine reality, and critically evaluate this
view.
One way people answer this question is in terms of their relationship to God. The theistic response
holds that human life has meaning because humans are part of a larger plan devised by God. The
purpose of human beings is to know God and to be united with Him. This is just one theistic
response; others, like Hinduism, assert the doctrine of rebirth and karma and holds out the goal of
absorption into Brahman.
The theist response raises many questions. It must depend on the belief that God exists. But this is
difficult to prove, as we saw in Chapter 4. Second, this view posits humans as having a purpose
that is assigned to them. But this is to view humans as objects, or things. Third, it does not follow
from the claim that my life has a purpose that it thereby has meaning.
9.3: Meaning and Human Progress
Learning objective:
To describe how some have found the meaning of life in human progress and evaluate this view
Some philosophers have suggested that contributing to human progress can give meaning to
human life. Georg Hegel, for example, held that history showed progress, moving towards a better
world. Karl Marx also thought that history showed progress, where the most perfect future world
would be one without economic classes. Others have suggested that as scientific knowledge
progresses life has meaning for the scientist insofar as she contributes to such progress.
But does history really show progress? And is it does, it must have a goal, and that goal must be
valuable. But why should we believe that a classless society is worth seeking? And maybe, as
Fukuyama has argued, we have reached the end of history.
9.4: The Nihilist Rejection of Meaning
Learning objective
Describe the nihilist response to the question of whether life has meaning and explain how nihilists
have argued for their response; critically evaluate the nihilist view.
Many have argued that life has no meaning. Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, argued for this view
on the grounds that there is no overall plan to which we can contribute.
9.5: Meaning as a Self-Chosen Commitment

41
Learning objective:
To explain the idea of subjective meaning as something created by the individual and why some
have held this view; critically evaluate this view
Some philosophers have argued that the nihilist response is mistaken, for a persons life can have
meaning if the person chooses goals that give direction to her life, and believes that they are worth
pursuing. Such an approach was adopted by Kierkegaard, who described three lifestyles: the
aesthetic, he ethical, and the religious. By our choice of one of these lives we determine the
meaning of life for ourselves. Sartre agreed with Kierkegaard that the meaning of life is the result of
choice, although unlike Kierkegaard, Sartre was an atheist.
But, if Sartre is right and choice confers meaning, doesnt this mean that there is nothing more
valuable than anything else before a choice is made? And, if so, how are we to make this choice?

42
43