Philosophy 102

Which of the following is not a subfield of philosophy?

Epistemology addresses questions about

When is a belief that P true?

Person A justifiably believes that the Canadian government should legalise marijuana, whereas person B justifiably believes that the Canadian government should not legalise marijuana. From this disagreement, we can conclude that:

Very often, the kinds of questions asked in philosophy

An argument is deductively valid just in case

An argument is sound just in case

If the conspiracy theories are true, Neil Armstrong never really landed on the moon. Indeed, Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon because the conspiracy theories are, in fact, true.

If the conspiracy theories are true, Neil Armstrong never really landed on the moon. But all conspiracy theories are false. So, Neil Armstrong did, in fact, land on the moon.

"All grukes are toves, and all toves are outgrabes. So, there is at least a gruke that is an outgrabe." This argument is (N.B. "Grukes", "toves", and "outgrabes" are not words in English; they are nonsensical. Still, you should be in a position to answer this question.) *NB This argument is invalid, although I intended it to be valid. So you get a mark if you answered one of these. But it is invalid since the conclusion entails the existence of something, while the premises do not. This argument is (N.B. "Grukes", "toves", and "outgrabes" are not words in English; they are nonsensical. Still, you should be in a position to answer this question.)

"If Keanu Reeves is a good actor, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Of course, I'm not a monkey's uncle: Keanu Reeves is not a good actor." This argument is

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good." The conclusion of the above passage is that

Consider the following claims: (1) My closet is full of old ski boots. (2) My closet is full of old things. Which of the two is stronger, in the strict logical sense?

According to the principle of charity,

(1) Bob Dylan wrote "Visions of Johanna". (2) America's most important singer/songwriter wrote "Visions of Johanna". Which of the two is stronger, in the strict logical sense?

One commits the fallacy of equivocation when

"Begging the question" names an argumentative fallacy, according to which

"Abortion is morally wrong because a fetus is a human being, and killing human beings is morally wrong". This argument

"Vegans will tell you that you should stop eating meat. But most vegans are idiots. We should keep eating meat." This argument

Locate yourself on this map. (N.B. This question is a freebie: You get a mark for simply trying.)

Moral or ethical relativism is the view according to which

According to the anthropological argument, what best explains the fact that different cultures have different moral codes is that

The moral codes of some cultures contain basic and fundamental moral norms that conflict with the basic and fundamental moral norms that make up the moral code of different cultures, and these conflicts are widespread. This thesis is called

Jack promised his mother to mow the lawn first thing Sunday morning. So, Jack has a pro tanto duty to mow the lawn first thing Sunday morning. Diane, Jack's sister, made no such promise. So, Diane does not have a duty to mow the lawn first thing Sunday morning. What is the most plausible explanation for this difference in what Jack and Diane ought to do?

According to the moral absolutism

How has the view that different cultures have different moral codes been described in lecture?

Which of the following claim does not best describe ethical relativism?

According to James Rachels, the cultural differences argument for ethical relativism is

Which of the following claims, according to Rachels, could someone not truly utter if ethical relativism were true?

One consequence of taking ethical relativism seriously is that

What should be concluded from the fact that different cultures have different moral codes?

What could explain the fact that different cultures have different moral codes?

According to Gilbert Harman's brand of moral relativism

According to Harman, inner judgments

According to internalism about reasons

What is not considered to be part of an agent's subjective motivational set?

Suppose Juliana is a member of a community that has implicitly agreed to sacrifice each family's first-born baby in order to honour the flying spaghetti monster. If Harman's brand of moral relativism is true, which of the following claims could we not truly utter?

What primary reason does Harman offer to support his version of moral relativism?

If Harman's version of moral relativism is true, can we evaluate the moralities of different cultures or society?

You get a mark simply for answering this question. You get an additional mark if you answer it correctly. Suppose you find yourself in a strange island inhabited by knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. Suppose further that you stumble upon two inhabitants, Jones and Smith, but don’t know whether they’re knights or knaves. It is extremely important that you find out what they are, since only knights can help you find your way back home. So you ask them to reveal their identity. Jones states: "I and Smith are not the same". Smith replies: "There is exactly one knight among us". What are Jones and Smith?

What is the trolley problem?

Which trolley case provides a counterexample to the principle that killing is worse than letting die?

According to J.J. Thomson, it is permissible to kill one person in order to save five people only if

According to the principle of alternate possibilities, a person is morally responsible for what she has done

According to H. Frankfurt, what is a reason to think that the principle of alternate possibilities is true?

Which of the following is a necessary condition for coercion?

Jones decides for reasons of his own to rig the state lottery. Then, someone threatens Jones with a very harsh penalty (so harsh that any reasonable person would submit to the threat), unless he rigs the state lottery. But Jones is not a reasonable man. Once he has decided to do something, he does it. And so Jones rigs the state lottery. Is Jones coerced into rigging the state lottery?

Which of the cases discussed in the in-class survey is supposed to be a counterexample to the principle of alternate possibilities?

Which of the following principles does Frankfurt believe is not susceptible to Frankfurt-style counterexamples?

According to the free will thesis

Soft determinism is the view that

According to Van Inwagen the following principle is not susceptible to Frankfurt-style counterexamples:

According to Van Inwagen, the following condition(s) need(s) to be met for an example to constitute a counterexample to PPP:

According to the control condition

Which of the following criteria is not specifically a criterion of agent-regret?

What, according to Williams, can we not correctly say of Gauguin’s decision of leaving his family to pursue a career as a painter if i) – Gauguin fails to become a successful painter, and ii) – this failure his due to extrinsic factors (e.g. getting into an incapacitating accident on his way to Tahiti)?

Which of the following is not a kind of luck discussed by T. Nagel?

According to Nagel, Williams sidesteps the main question of moral luck. Rather than showing that morality is not immune to luck, Williams shows that

According to Nagel, the solution to the problem of moral luck is to

Suppose you find yourself on a strange island inhabited by knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. You meet three inhabitants: Peggy, Joe and Zippy. Peggy claims, “I am a knight or Joe is a knave.” Joe tells you, “I know that Peggy is a knight and that Zippy is a knave.” Zippy says, “I and Joe are different.” What are Peggy, Joe, and Zippy?

Very roughly, the nonidentity problem consists in

What are nonidentity cases?

Which of the following schemata is not part of the set of claims that generates the nonidentity problem?

How can one go about solving the nonidentity problem?

According to Smolkin, how does Schwartz’s solve the nonidentity problem?

According to Smolkin, how does Parfit solve the nonidentity problem?

How does Smolkin attempt to solve the nonidentity problem?

What is one thing Smolkin claims that needs to be avoided in providing a rights-based solution to the nonidentity problem?

Given two different population rates, suppose population A contains 100 people, each living a life that’s well worth living (e.g. each life contains 10 unit of happiness). Population B contains twice as many people, each also living a life that’s well worth living, although slightly less that the lives in population A (e.g. each life contains 8 units of happiness). According to the Average Principle

Given two different population rates, suppose population A contains 100 people, each living a life that’s well worth living (e.g. each life contains 10 unit of happiness). Population B contains the same amount of people, each also living a life that’s well worth living, although slightly less that the lives in population A (e.g. each life contains 8 units of happiness). According to the Total Principle

What is the repugnant conclusion?

How does Parfit suggest we avoid the repugnant conclusion?

What insight brought forth by Rachels could be used as a way to reject the repugnant conclusion?

Which is the following relations is most plausibly not transitive?

What is the prisoner’s dilemma intended to show?

What choice dominates in the prisoner’s dilemma?

Which two principles of decision theory seem to give conflicting answers to the game described in Newcomb’s problem?

If one adopts the dominance principle when reasoning about what to do in the game described in Newcomb’s problem, what will such a person decide to do?

Suppose you find yourself on a strange island inhabited by knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. You meet three inhabitants: Smith, Jones and Pita. Smith claims, “I am a knight or Pita is a knave.” Jones says, “Of I and Pita, exactly one is a knight.” Pita tells you that Jones is a knave. Can you determine what are Smith, Jones, and Pita? Briefly explain your reasoning.

Suppose you find yourself in a strange island inhabited by knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. You meet three inhabitants: Jones, Smith, and Brown. Jones says “all three of us are knaves”. Smith says “Exactly one of us three is a knight”. Can you determine what Jones, Smith, and Brown are?