Glossary of Basic Problems of Philosophy Exam I

Start Studying! Add Cards ↓

What is Socrates concerned with about escaping?
Whether escaping would be moral or immoral.
What are the three ways in which the law hasn't wronged Socrates?
The substantive criminal law, the procedures, and the punishment of death are all okay.
What is the highest concern for Socrates?
How is morality related to self-interest?
Morality is in self-interest (prudential).
What is Socrates' fundamental premise?
One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.
What distinctions does Socrates make between the body and soul? Where does that lead?
Body and soul are separate; after death, soul will continue; soul will be rewarded or punished based on actions here; and the welfare of the soul is more important than the welfare of the body. Wrong acts harm the souls of wrongdoers. A person is worse off doing a wrong than suffering a wrong, and a wrongdoer is better off being punished than escaping.
What are the three distinctions to consider about wrongs?
Doing a wrong, suffering a wrong, and allowing a wrong.
Is the conclusion that Socrates should remain in jail based on sound arguments?
1. He's been wronged by men not laws.
2. He doesn't think punishment of death is excessive.
3. He makes distinction between body and soul.
4. He makes distinction between doing and suffering a wrong.
5. For a wrongdoer, punishment is better than not.
What are the three initial questions to ask about the promise between Socrates and laws?
1. Is the promise uni- or bilateral?
2. How far did Socrates promise to go?
3. What is the promise, if any, of the law to Socrates?
What three things should the theory of legal obligation address?
1. States have the right to issue commands.
2. Subjects have a duty to obey law.
3. States have the right to issue punishment for disobedience.
What four reasons does Socrates give for not escaping?
Filial, gratitude (benefits received), promissory obligation, and hurt or injury to law.
What questions arise from the filial duties reason?
What are the duties of children to their parents? Is there a duty of obedience to one's parents? Does it ever lapse? Is there a duty to obey all content? What if command is morally wrong? Are there parental rights to punish for disobedience?
What are the different kinds of children?
toddlers- don't have duties, don't have mental capacity
post-toddlers/pre-adolescents- duty of blind obedience
adolescents- some duty of obedience, but not blind, duty to obey if satisfactory moral obligation offered
Why doesn't Socrates think obedience should be blind (as in post-toddler)?
1. One should never do a wrong.
2. In post-toddler, one has duty of blind obedience.
3. Laws can be unjust.
What does the adolescent case present us with?
Duty to obey or persuade.
What are the cases that obey or persuade presents?
If law is just and doesn't require you to do or suffer a wrong, obey. If law is unjust and requires you to do a wrong, disobey as an attempt to persuade. If law is unjust and requires you to suffer a wrong, obey while trying to persuade.
What are the three tenets of Socrates' theory as we've spun it out?
1. Never do a wrong.
2. Never suffer a wrong unless avoiding it would involve doing a wrong.
3. Never allow a wrong unless avoiding it would involve doing a wrong.
What are the two factors we need to consider when determining whether a promise creates an obligation?
Circumstances of promise and content of promise.
What circumstances does Socrates say surrounded his promise?
His promise was informed, deliberate, and voluntary.
How does Hume disagree with Socrates' promissory obligation argument?
Hume says that many people do not make deliberate or voluntary political promises. For a promise to be deliberate, it has to be undertaken knowingly. The promise isn't voluntary (man in ship).
What does Locke believe is the sole basis for political obligation?
Consent. He grants that most people aren't aware of having made a promise. He also says that promises create obligation only when voluntarily undertaken.
Who is where on the spectrum of voluntariness?
Socrates- voluntary
Hume's man on ship- involuntary
What is Hume's stance on consent?
Consent is a basis, but it's not the sole basis. If it were the sole basis, lots of people wouldn't have political obligation.
How do Socrates and Hume agree on voluntariness?
Hume says political obligation does not have to be voluntary, which Socrates agrees with in his filial duties argument.
How does time fit in with Hume?
Hume believes that usurping governments can gain legitimacy over time.
What are Hume's points about the consent theory?
1. Few people have deliberately promised to obey.
2. Many people are not free to immigrate.
3. If consent were the soul basis for political obligation, few people would have political obligation.
4. Political obligation need not be voluntarily undertaken.
5. People do not believe their consent is required.
6. Appeal to promise is not necessary.
What does Hume appeal to instead of consent?
How do promise and utility relate?
One keeps a promise because it is useful to. One obeys a law because one has promised. One can obey a law because it is useful.
What are some things relating to the content of promises?
One should fulfill just agreements. The morality of the action precludes the promise to do the action.
How does escaping and obeying or persuading tie together?
Escaping is neither obeying nor persuading.
What is Socrates' stance on abiding by punishments to morally wrong laws?
Socrates believes you promised to undergo punishments, even undeserved ones.
What is Hume's stance on the bilateral nature of the promise?
Hume says there is a bilateral promise, and the laws must uphold the deal. (Conduct fair trials?)
What's Socrates' argument for obeying court orders?
Not obeying would lead to chaos.
What's Hume's argument for obeying court orders?
Not obeying would not be useful.
What two distinctions need to be made in the promise/punishment case?
1. Any person who, though innocent, has been convicted, has the right to disregard the court order imposing punishment on him.
2. Any person, even if he is in fact guilty, has the right to disregard the court order imposing punishment on him.
How does abuse fit into the punishment question?
If either just or unjust people don't comply, chaos will ensue.
Why can't the state keep punishing those who disobey? (the two distinctions)
1. One can assert the right not to comply with the punishments.
2. One can actually avoid punishment.
What analogy tears apart the gratitude argument?
Flat tire analogy shows how gratitude doesn't support the three political conditions.
What do speeding tickets and disobedience of court orders reveal about the injury to law argument?
The results of disobedience to law may vary based on which law is disobeyed.
What are Locke's three arguments for religious toleration?
1. Church and state have fundamentally different purposes.
2. Nature of belief, role of belief in religion.
3. Tolerance leads to civil peace; intolerance leads to civil dissension.
What is the purpose of states?
civil interests
What is the purpose of churches?
to promote salvation
What is not the purpose of states?
1. to gain salvation for its members
2. to protect adults from harming themselves
3. to punish sin, as such
4. to decide what is truth
What are four crucial ideas about the nature of belief and the role of belief in religion?
1. Salvation requires belief. (There is only one true religion. Salvation requires belief in that one true religion. Salvation requires actions based on that religion.)
2. Belief is not a matter of choice.
3. Belief cannot be compelled by outward force. (It is caused by light and evidence.)
4. Even if belief could be compelled, it wouldn't help promote salvation.
Even if belief could be compelled, why wouldn't it help promote salvation?
There's no reason to think that more people would belief if magistrate used force. Magistrate could have wrong religion. Salvation would become arbitrary. (Not right that magistrate could lead others to damnation.)
What two main ideas can be derived from Locke concerning the extent of the magistrate's authority?
1. It is absurd for the law to command something that a person cannot possibly fulfill.
2. Legislation shouldn't be self-defeating (create hypocrites).
Concerning the extent of the magistrate's authority, what distinctions does Locke make between religious practices?
There are outward forms of worship (rites, cermonies) and articles of faith.
Describe the two types of articles of faith.
Speculative articles of faith require certain beliefs. Practical articles of faith require certain beliefs and actions.
According to Locke, does the magistrate have authority over rites and ceremonies?
Why doesn't a magistrate have authority over rites and ceremonies?
A church is a voluntary society that chooses its rules for itself. If a magistrate required a church to do something contrary to its beliefs, it would be sinning, which would be self-defeating. There often isn't a genuine state interest.
What qualification does Locke make concerning the magistrate not being involved in rites and ceremonies?
Hands off, unless something horrible is going on.
What are the two ways to read Locke's magisterial authority extent over churches?
narrow and broad readings
What is the definition of the narrow reading?
religious exemption if affordable
What is the definition of the broad reading?
no religious exemptions
What principle does Locke accept that favors no religious exemptions?
parity principle
What is the parity principle?
If something is legal in a secular context, it should be legal in a religious context. If something is illegal in a secular context, it should be illegal in a religious context.
What are the three stances when it comes to religious exemptions to state laws?
1. Religious exemptions should always be granted.
2. Religious exemptions should sometimes be granted.
3. Religious exemptions should never be granted.
What is the response to the religious exemptions should always be granted argument?
This is a non-starter. Think about infant sacrifice.
What three arguments could Locke raise in the exemptions discussion?
1. Always grant exemptions is untenable.
2. No exemptions position maintains neutrality, which is a good thing. (between secular and religious, old and new religions)
3. Sometimes granting exemptions has some major problems.
What are the main problems of the sometimes granting exemptions position?
1. definition
2. abuse
3. seepage or spillover
4. unfairness
5. endorsement
What does the definition problem lay out?
If you are going to give religious exemptions, you have to define what a religion is. This is difficult to do.
What does the abuse problem lay out?
Non-religious organizations will try to cheat the system by claiming to be religious. (new religions issue, are the headaches worth it?)
What does the seepage or spillover problem lay out?
If religious organizations are granted exemptions from certain laws, those laws will be more difficult to enforce in the non-religious setting. (alcohol, medical marijuana, worth headaches?)
What does the unfairness problem lay out?
Granting exemptions to religious organizations might be unfair to non-religious organizations. Is discrimination between religious and non-religious unfair (dinner vs. salvation)?
How can some exemptions being unfair be turned back on no exemptions to be unfair?
Law might discriminate between two religions.
What does the endorsement problem lay out?
Granting exemptions to certain religions might be viewed as state endorsement.
How does appearance of impropriety remain with endorsement problem?
Even if the state is deciding upon exemptions regardless of religious merits, the appearance of endorsement still remains.
How is religion different than anything else?
People value it very much.
Why does Locke think that the magistrate does not have authority over speculative articles of faith?
Belief is not voluntary. The most that the threat of force could do is get hypocritical professions, which would be self-defeating. Mere belief doesn't harm civil interests.
How do Locke's views on outward forms of worship and practical articles of faith relate?
religious exemptions should not be granted in either case
What does Locke say to do if your civil and religious duties conflict?
Locke says to put God first. (Salvation is most important.)
What are the two cases of civil and religious duties conflicting?
1. Magistrate is not going beyond the scope of his authority (not ultra vires). Citizen should obey religious duty, but undergo civil punishment.
2. Magistrate is going beyond the scope of his authority (ultra vires). Citizen should obey religious duty. Civil punishment?
What articles don't the magistrates have to tolerate?
1. opinions contrary to society
2. churches which claim special civil rights for their members
3. those who teach intolerance
4. churches who recognize a second political authority
5. atheists
Why doesn't a magistrate have to tolerate opinions contrary to society?
Imagine a religion that requires its members to beat up members of other faiths.
What are the questions raised by magistrates not having to tolerate those who teach intolerance?
Do churches have a duty to teach toleration? Would there be too much state interference in church affairs?
What might the states do in this teaching intolerance situation?
States might require churches to teach a civil duty of tolerance.
What are the points of agreement between Locke and Proast?
1. There's one true religion.
2. Salvation requires belief in one true religion.
3. Force alone cannot result in belief.
Where does Proast differ from Locke?
Force can indirectly produce belief.
How can force indirectly product belief?
Forceful exposure to evidence, the consideration of which can cause belief.
Why does Proast think Locke's alternative to force is inadequate?
Treaty and admonition don't always work because there are certain irrational causes of belief.
What are three ways that force can backfire?
1. Force can undermine religion's credibility.
2. Force can strengthen opposing religion's credibility.
3. Force can encourage hypocrisy.
How much force does Proast think is the appropriate amount?
the amount necessary to require a person of ordinary discretion to reconsider his religious beliefs
What is Proast's most striking point?
It is rational for people to confer on the magistrate the authority to use force to promote religion even though it is more likely than not the magistrate will use force on behalf of the false religion.
What are three crucial points for Proast in conferring this coercive authority?
1. A lot is at stake when it comes to religion.
2. When left to ourselves, to our own devices, we aren't particularly good at making rational decisions.
3. The potential payoff, namely eternal salvation, outweighs the potential costs.
What are the two sorts of costs and benefits?
this worldly and other worldly
Is Proast saying that magistrates should decide which religious beliefs their subjects should hold?
No. Proast wants to put people in positions where they can make more rational decisions. This will be the result of the magistrate having coercive power.
What are the two possibilities for magistrates when it comes to religion?
1. Magistrate has no authority to use force to make people reconsider their religious beliefs.
2. Magistrate has (and exercises) that authority.
How does Proast address magistrates not having the force?
If we don’t give the magistrate this authority, we are going to avoid some this worldly costs, but we forego the potential for other worldly gain for salvation (which is the greatest good).
What are the distinctions, then, when the magistrate uses force?
1. Magistrate uses force on behalf of true religion.
2. Magistrate uses force on behalf of false religion.
What are the various groups of people that the magistrate can use force on?
1. believer in true religion
2. believer in false religion
3. agnostic, atheist, etc.
What happens in true magistrate, true believer case?
What happens in true magistrate, false believer converted case?
What happens in true magistrate, false believer not converted case?
What happens in false magistrate, false believer converted case?
What happens in false magistrate, false believer not converted case?
What happens in false magistrate, true believer case?
Proast says SISO.
Why doesn't Proast think true believer will convert to false religion?
1. penalties for non-compliance are moderate
2. due consideration
What is the due consideration argument?
1. If one were to give due consideration to a true religion, he would see that it is true.
2. If one were to give due consideration to a false religion, he would see that it is false.
What cases does Thompson give for a true believer converting to a false religion?
1. One who isn't very strong in his true faith is exposed to persuasive arguments for false.
2. An atheist is taken in by false religion. Later, he can't be taken in by true religion.

Add Cards

You must Login or Register to add cards