ami_sc/class_notes
ami_sc/class_notes
1
0
Fork 0
Code

Update Philosophy notes

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Emilio Soriano Chavez 2024-01-01 14:21:11 -06:00
parent a16438f74d
commit cf55da14fa
4 changed files with 488 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

101
05 - Summer 2020/Introduction to Philosophy/006 - Ethics II.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
> ### 006 - Ethics II
> Class Notes
> Emilio Soriano Chávez
> ***
> <span style="color:#9b59b6">Introduction to Philosophy</span>
> Summer 2020
- **Kantian Ethics (Deontology):**
- Kantian Ethics are one kind of deontological ethical theory.
- Utilitarianism say that all that matters is who an action affects and if the total group happiness increases.
- Utilitarians do not think that you should pick the action that makes everybody happiest.
- In many cases, the action may make some people unhappy.
- Total group happiness should be the greatest.
- Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarianism.
- Kantians say that all that is morally relevant is what goes in to producing an action.
- This includes reasons, intentions, and principles of action.
- **Claim:** Every time you act, you act for a reason, or on the basis of a "principle of action.
- Example - Deciding to watch the lecture for **some reason** (a principle of action). This may be to get good grades and do well int he class.
- Reasons may differ between people. Some others may just enjoy doing philosophy.
- Kantians say that, to figure whether your action is moral or immoral, we test the reason/principle of action.
- Utilitarians say to look after the action is performed, but Kantians say that what is morally relevant is to what goes in to produce the action (the reasons).
- How do we test our reasons?
- **Categorical Imperative:** "Test" to see if our action is moral or immoral. Comes in two versions:
- **Version 1:** Act only according to those principles of action that you could will to be a universal law of nature.
- Only act on those principles that you can universalize.
- Rationally assent at the same time that you're performing an action that others also can act on those principles.
- You cannot act on special reasons only for yourself.
- The reasons that you act on must be those which everyone else could also act on the same reasons.
- **Version 2:** Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as merely as means to your own ends.
- Ends - Your goals. The things you value. (What you want)
- Means - Method or ways to achieve your ends. (What you use to get what you want)
- You can never use a person as a mere mean.
- Ends are sources of value, so treat others as sources of value.
- Kant though both versions were equivalent.
- They say the same thing, so they both should agree.
- If a reason passes version 1 it better past version 2.
- **The Bar Case:**
- Apply Version 1:
- You can never universalize killing.
- Your reason - It is okay to kill the person because he is bothering me.
- It is inconsistent to think - It is okay for me to kill you and it is okay for you to kill me.
- Killing only goes one way, it is asymmetrical.
- It would be acting on reasons only for yourself.
- This is why killing would be immoral.
- This would be treating yourself as special. "I can act on this reasons but you cannot".
- It would be immoral to kill the bar patron.
- Apply Version 2:
- If you kill someone you treat them as "mere means".
- What you really care about is for the person to stop annoying everyone.
- This would be treating the person as a mean, not as an end in themselves.
- You are no treating him as a source of value.
- Kantians say it is wrong to kill the bar patron, and also that it is never morally permissible to kill someone.
- Kantian ethics are absolutists. It is never okay to kill, to steal, etc.
- This is different to utilitarianism.
- This is because every time you kill, you would be treating them as mere means.
- Universalization procedure is not sensitive here. Changing the situation does not change whether you could universalize the reason.
- In utilitarianism, changing the situation changes the overall happiness for the group, so the answer may change, but Kantians cannot.
- **Breaking and Entering Case:**
- Killing the intruder would be immoral.
- The intruder also has moral worth.
- If you kill them it would be treating them as a mere mean, because what you really care about is your family's welfare.
- Kant was a theist. For Kant, it would be never okay to kill. We are not morally justified to kill someone.
- Morality is the most important thing. You cannot save the moral law by breaking the moral law.
- Two wrongs do not make a right.
- Your moral duty is to not kill anyone.
- It could be that Kantian ethics is wrong.
- **Cheating Case:**
- Should you cheat on a test.
- It is never okay to cheat.
- If you cheat off of another student, you are merely using them as a mere mean.
- It is okay for me to cheat on you, but you have to do the work.
- A world were everyone can cheat from anyone else is impossible. This cannot universalize.
- **Stealing Case:**
- If you steal from someone you are using them as a mere mean.
- It is never okay to steal.
- **Objections:**
- **Generality:**
- What if the reason is to generate as much happiness s possible.
- This looks universalizable.
- If your reasons are too general, they look like they can easily pass the categorical imperative.
- If you use general reasons, they too easily pass.
- **Agent-Neutral Intuitions:**
- **Hiring Case:** Hiring for a position where your cousin applies and a random stranger applies.
- Kant would say to hire your cousin because you have special duties to your family.
- Nepotism - You should not give extra consideration to your family member.
- **Horrible Consequence:**
- **Dangerous Dan Example:** You are at home, you hear a knock on your door and it is your friend. Your friend just runs in, does not say anything and hides inside your house. Minutes later, dangerous Dan knocks on your door and says, "hey are you hiding my friend in your house?". You have a choice, either tell Dan the truth or lie.
- Kant would say it is always wrong to lie.
- You would be using them as mere means.
- You are manipulating a person for your own ends.
- You cannot lie.
- Dan would kill your friend.

100
05 - Summer 2020/Introduction to Philosophy/007 - Ethics III.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
> ### 007 - Ethics III
> Class Notes
> Emilio Soriano Chávez
> ***
> <span style="color:#9b59b6">Introduction to Philosophy</span>
> Summer 2020
- **<span style="color:#1ea6d6">Utilitarianism:</span>** It is the consequences (regarding happiness and suffering) for the group that determine whether an action is moral.
- The moral action may not be the one that makes everyone happy, but the one that gives the maximum happiness for the group.
- **<span style="color:#345ce8">Kantian Ethics:</span>** For an action to be moral, its intentions, reasons, or principles of action must pass the Categorical Imperative.
- Has nothing to do with the consequences.
- Only reasons are morally relevant.
- **<span style="color:#985ad2">Virtue Ethics:</span>**
- **Basic Idea:** An action is going to be moral if it comes from a virtuous person.
- What is it to be a virtuous person?
- Has a stable character.
- Someone who acts in non-accidental ways.
- A person that acts similarly when in different situations.
- Actions are being determined by mechanisms internal to the individual.
- **Example:** Aristotelians would say this is about finding a moral exemplar (an example of moral excellence).
- The way to get good at something is to find an expert and do what they do, follow them, observe them.
- Be an apprentice to someone who is already excellent in that craft.
- At first you are not going to know why they do what they do.
- Over time, you will learn how to act in those ways.
- Uses rationality to choose the "golden mean" among the virtues.
- A person that chooses actions that exemplify the virtues.
- Use rationality to find the appropriate balance.
- Every virtue can admit of excess or deficiency.
- A virtuous action is the proper balance between excess and deficiency.
- The "golden mean" is the appropriate distance between excess and deficiency.
- **Example:**
- A person who never fights. The person is **coward**, (deficient).
- A person that fights for any reason. This person is **reckless** (excessive).
- **Courage** is the appropriate balance between excess and deficiency. It is the appropriate distance.
- This is the appropriate distance, but not the half of anything.
- The exact balance might be slightly situational. There can be variation depending on the person.
- **Example:**
- If you never give any of your money, you are **stingy** (deficient).
- If you give all of your money away, you are **wasteful** (excess).
- To act virtuously, you need to find the middle territory between these, which is to be **generous**.
- Moral actions are those that the virtuous person chooses.
- Being a good person.
- Moral actions are done by good people.
- We cannot give a decisive rule to figure what is moral in a particular case.
- The virtuous person will know what to do.
- In reality, many details need to be accounted for.
- You cannot specify in advance what to do.
- The virtuous person, with all the training, will know what to do, but is hard to give a recombination.
- Virtues - Loyalty, honesty, fairness, etc.
- Describe the action in terms of the possible virtues it exemplifies.
- **The Bar Case:**
- Unfortunately, few of us are the "virtuous person".
- Not kind, not civil, not friendly, not patient, not compassionate.
- May be courageous, because it requires certain risk, a fight.
- It seems like it is not virtuous. 
- Hard to know for sure.
- This is not because of the size of the list.
- **Breaking and Entering Case:**
- Not kind, not civil (not being a good member of society), not patient, not friendly, not compassionate to kill a stranger.
- It is courageous, loyal (commitment to family members), fair (Could be?), self-reliant, and dependable.
- It is really hard to know.
- Is it ever okay to kill someone? (Hard to know)
- Is virtue ethics an absolutist moral theory? (Probably not)
- Allows for small situational factors to matter.
- **Objections:**
- Virtue is compatible with evil.
- **Mafia Case:**
- Looks like the mafia has some virtues to adhere to.
- You can still adhere to the virtues but do horrendous things.
- **Clashing Virtues:**
- Unclear of the advice that Virtue Ethics gives.
- Your best friends asks if you like their shoes. You do not. Conflicting virtues. Honesty and kindness are both virtues.
- It is unclear how to exemplify virtues.
- **Relativism about the Virtues:**
- How do we know that these are the virtues?
- Virtue has something to do with goodness.
- We want to know why are these the virtues and not other things?
- May be incomplete.
- How do we know this is not local prejudice? (Ancient Greece vs other cultures)
- There is no such thing as character.
- From experimental psychology.
- If you put humans in various circumstances, you can get them to act in different ways, against their core character.
- Stanford Prison Experiment
- **The Trolley Problem:**
- Applied example.
- Separates Ethical Theories.
- You are walking home after school and you see train tracks and hear a train coming. There are five people on the train tracks, and they are facing away from the train. They cannot hear or see that the train is approaching. You know that if you do not do something, they are gonna get run over and killed by the train. You do not have time to call anyone. You look and you see a switch on the ground. If you pull the switch, the train will be diverted to a sidetrack, but one person is on the side track, and they will be killed. You have two choices:
- 1 - Pull the lever.
- 2 - Do nothing.
- **According to Utilitarianism:** You should pull the lever. There would be more suffering if five die. Choose the action that causes the least amount of suffering.
- **According to Kantian Ethics:** You should do nothing. If you pull the lever you would be using the person as a mere mean. You cannot do that. It is just bad luck, but to be moral, you cannot break the moral law to save the moral law (two wrongs do not make a right).
- **According to Virtue Ethics:** Is it compassionate, courageous, fair? The virtuous person will know what to do. It is unclear.

135
05 - Summer 2020/Introduction to Philosophy/008 - Political Philosophy I.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
> ### 008 - Political Philosophy I
> Class Notes
> Emilio Soriano Chávez
> ***
> <span style="color:#9b59b6">Introduction to Philosophy</span>
> Summer 2020
- Politics is getting people to vote one way or another, but is not political philosophy.
- Political philosophy covers topics relevant to politics.
- Freedom
- Justice
- Equality
- Fairness
- Politicians almost never talk about the philosophy.
- Politicians usually do not give good arguments. They do not necessarily care about the truth.
- It might be that they believe they are right.
- Being political is being a member of a group of people.
- We are all political.
- We have to figure how to organize our lives.
- **Political Freedom:**
- Metaphysical Freedom - Free will (not political freedom)
- Political freedom talks about something to do with restrictions enacted by governments in some form.
- When do other people have the right to tell you what to do?
- When young, your parents tell you what to do.
- Usually accepted.
- When in class.
- Professor tells you what to do in some ways.
- Usually seems fair.
- The issue is authority and freedom.
- Many different ways to think about freedom.
- Not a _right_ way.
- Would a world with no laws be more free?
- We would be able to pursue things we really wanted.
- Maybe we would do some bad stuff and we would spend most of our time trying to be not caught up in the bad stuff, instead of doing what we wanted to do.
- **Freedom:**
- Almost everyone thinks freedom is valuable.
- There is a disagreement between conceptions of freedom.
- Different shades of political philosophy.
- Liberalism - Classical liberal tradition. John Locke. Libertarians.
- **Subjective vs Objective Freedom:**
- Subjective Notion - You are free if you believe it.
- What if an addict or brainwashed person thinks they are free?
- They may think they are free, but their thoughts have been controlled by someone else.
- In a subjective notion they would still be free.
- Objective Notion - Whether you are free depends on something else besides whether you believe you are free.
- May have to do with no interference conditions.
- Outside influences.
- **Freedom and Consent:**
- Can you consent to give up your freedom?
- Can you rationally consent?
- Would you be free if you did this?
- Consent View - If you freely choose to give up freedom, it is not a restriction on your freedom.
- We can choose to give up various freedoms.
- Example - In a class, we are not free to plagiarize, etc. There are restrictions on our behavior, but we freely choose to enter here.
- Should we still think that we are free? We are more _unfree_ in the future, but in the consent view, we are still free.
- **Republican Liberty:**
- Not the political party, but the idea of a republic.
- _People are free in case no one has the power to dominate or unjustly restrict their freedom._
- Not about using restrictive authority, simply whether there is restrictive authority at all.
- Example - A slave could never be free in this account, even if no restrictive actions were taken or if they agree to enter into slavery.
- This differs with consent view. In it, we can give all of our freedom. The slave would still be free. 
- On the Republican Liberty view, the slave would not be free because restrictive authority is still there, even if it is not viewed.
- **Private and Public Freedom:**
- A person is free if they are able to have a meaningful opportunity to participate with others in shaping the laws that govern them.
- Even if at the end of a governing process some individuals lost their freedoms, they would still be free under this view, because they participated in shaping the law.
- They participation did not potentially give them what they wanted, but they still participated, so they are still free.
- What if the majority voted to take away some freedoms?
- Benjamin Constant said:
- Our view of freedom may have changed over the centuries.
- "Ancient Liberty" (Greeks): Freedom was simply freedom to participate in making public decisions.
- "Modern Liberty": The right to particular freedoms, like freedom of speech, to associate, to gather, etc.
- **More Definitions:**
- **Freedom in Negative or Positive Sense:**
- Negative Liberty - Freedom From
- From government intervention.
- Someone who wanted to promote negative liberty would want fewer government restrictions.
- Positive Liberty - Freedom To
- Freedom to do productive things.
- Example - Tom Hanks on Cast Away: Lots of negative liberty. No one is around telling you what to do. But at the same time, there is not much positive liberty, because he cannot do much. Climb trees, live in the sand, etc.
- Which is more important?
- In many cases, there are trade offs.
- Should the government only promote negative liberty or only positive liberty? (or some mix)
- What mix?
- If you do not have an education, you are not going to have a lot of positive liberty. If you are uneducated, you cannot do too much.
- A 5 year old cannot do much because he does not know much.
- Public education is a way to promote freedom (freedom to).
- Educated citizens can do more stuff and pursue their own goals.
- Maybe governments should make sure that we have a public education, but this results in increasing taxes. This will reduce negative liberty on some rich people, because the government puts restrictions on what you can do with your money.
- We now use tax money to make sure buildings have ramps and elevators for the disabled. This promotes positive liberty, because for disabled people this expands their freedom, but again, we have to pay for it.
- Is not your fault if you are poor or disabled.
- A rich person might say, "i did not make the person poor or disabled, so why should I have to pay for their taxes, why should the government restrict my money".
- This is a HUGE debate.
- How different conceptions of freedom shape laws and policies?
- **Paternalism:** From the word _father_:
- **Principle of Paternalism:** Laws may appropriately limit liberties in order to prevent these people from doing things that are bad for them, even when this things would be harmless to others.
- Example - Forcing someone to enter in drug rehabilitation.
- Your parents restrict liberties because they do not want you to do bad things that could harm you.
- Example - Seatbelt and Helmet Laws
- Saving lives.
- Some people may say the government should not tell them what to do with their lives.
- **The Harm Principle:**
- _The only legitimate reason to limit a person's freedom is to prevent harm to others._
- Example - The Marijuana Argument:
- Some people argue marijuana should be free, because it doe snot harm others and hence you should not restrict a persons liberty.
- But what is harm?
- Making fun of someone?
- Anti-bullying policies?
- It is complicated to say what counts as harm.
- Thomas Jefferson - Claims injuries are not subjective. Is not whether a person feels if they were harmed. Financial or bodily.
- In bullying, many of us think there is some line. Calling a person, making a joke (probably not), harassing them every day (probably yes). Tough to know where the line is.
- Intentional vs. Unintentional Harm and Direct vs. Indirect Harm.
- **Moralism:**
- Degree to which governments should enact certain kinds of precise moral codes.
- **Principle of Moralism:** It is legitimate to limit a person's liberty in order to prevent them from doing things that are morally wrong, even when their actions are harmless.
- Examples:
- In some states, no buying alcohol on Sunday.
- This was because of Church doctrines.
- Moral reasons, but not because of causing harm.
- Interracial Marriage:
- Many states used to have laws to forbid it.
- Loving v Virginia, 1967
- The Supreme Court said they have no good reason to ban it.
- This is an example of moralism.
- People have different moral values.
- It is oppressive and unjust to use force of law to impose moral values on others.
- Conflict with freedom of religion.
- Not all sects agree with each other.

152
05 - Summer 2020/Introduction to Philosophy/009 - Political Philosophy II.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
> ### 009 - Political Philosophy II
> Class Notes
> Emilio Soriano Chávez
> ***
> <span style="color:#9b59b6">Introduction to Philosophy</span>
> Summer 2020
- **<span style="color:#1ea6d6">Equality:</span>**
- Thomas Jefferson, in the _Declaration of Independence_
- "... all men are created equal".
- At the time, slavery existed and women could not vote.
- How do we interpret the claim?
- Most people would say equality is a good thing.
- What is the relationship with political ideas?
- What is equality?
- What does an equal society look like?
- Is equality always good?
- **<span style="color:#345ce8">Egalitarian:</span>** Political ideals that recommend equality.
- **<span style="color:#640cb6">Thoughts against Equality:</span>**
- Should we make people exactly equal?
- **<span style="color:#345ce8">Procrustes Example:</span>**
- Ancient Greek myth.
- People were lined up on a bed.
- If they did not fit exactly either their head or their feet were lopped off so that everyone was equal.
- **<span style="#b40058">Idea:</span>** If we try to fit everyone into the same mold, this may be undesirable.
- Can you treat everyone the same, and badly?
- Just because something is equal does not mean everyone is well taken care of.
- WC Fields Quote - "I treat everyone equally, I hate everyone".
- Laws prohibiting sleeping under bridges. It applies to everyone, but it only affects the very poor. This may not be a good thing.
- Equality vs Liberty:
- Sometimes at odds.
- **<span style="color:#ff0000">Example:</span>** If there were no laws (maximal negative liberty), over time some may get an education, but some not. Eventually, people could be very _unequal_.
- Some would say that redistributing wealth to fix this would be unfair.
- This may reduce liberties of some people, forcing them to pay taxes.
- **<span style="color:#ff6500">Unequal Treatment and Discrimination:</span>**
- **<span style="color:#7fde5e">Example of Inequality:</span>** In the 50s and 60s in the south, due to segregation, black and white children had different quality schooling.
- Voting Literacy Tests
- The clear intent was to discriminate.
- Black and white children, when they grew up, would have a different performance on the tests.
- Education not offered to everyone.
- Example of _unjust inequality_. This systematically denied the right to vote to many black Americans.
- Example of _what not to do._
- **<span style="color:#28abd9">Acceptable and Unacceptable Discrimination:</span>**
- Example - In class, the professor discriminates because he does not treat everyone equally with respect to grades, as everyone gets a different final grade.
- This is based on our own answers.
- It would be unjust if the professor discriminated based on skin color, origin, etc.
- Most people agree this is not okay.
- Why?
- Differences are irrelevant unless we can show that there are good reasons for them to be relevant.
- Not a good reason for skin color, but good reason for answer quality.
- **<span style="color:#486ced">Equality as a Baseline:</span>**
- **<span style="color:#5b00b2">Formal Principle of Equality:</span>** People should be treated as equal unless there are good reasons to justify unequal treatment.
- <span style="color:#bc47d7">We need to specify which reasons are good. (Formal Principle)</span>
- **<span style="color:#bb44d5">Possibilities:</span>**
- **<span style="color:#ba0e61">Resource Egalitarianism:</span>** Everyone should start off with the same share of resources.
- Example - All runners starting at the same time, at the same starting line.
- "Competition in Society".
- **<span style="color:#ff0202">Objections/Concerns:</span>**
- **<span style="color:#ff6805">Individuals with Disabilities:</span>**
- They may need more resources.
- Not their fault.
- **<span style="color:#59ce31">Luck Egalitarian Principle:</span>** Differences in people situations should not be the result of something that is not their fault.
- Individuals should not be faulted for their disabilities.
- **<span style="color:#1ea6d6">"Slavery" of the Talented:</span>**
- Those with special talents may be able to achieve more, to no credit for themselves.
- Someone that is naturally excellent at something.
- Not their fault.
- Would it be fair to make them share their talents with the public?
- If the person makes a lot of money.
- Tax them and force them to share their talents.
- Inverse of the person with disabilities.
- **<span style="color:#5979ee">Expensive Tastes:</span>**
- Taste can vary.
- Expensive vs inexpensive.
- We can start with the same resources, but not be equally well off.
- Someone who suffers in some way if they do not have expensive clothes / food. 
- With the same resources, they would not be equally well as others.
- Maybe these tastes are cultivated.
- **<span style="color:#5d03b3">Response:</span>**
- **<span style="color:#9b00bd">Wealth Egalitarianism:</span>** Resources should be distributed so that each person's expected welfare is equal.
- Maybe because of differences we should think on welfare and not resources.
- **Equality of Opportunity:**
- Everyone should have the same opportunity as others to achieve her aims or acquire goods and resources.
- **Opportunity:** A chance to get something if you work for it.
- We should try to make the chances equal?
- Would require to accommodate disability and rectify discrimination.
- What does this require?
- In reality, outcomes create opportunities.
- If your parents have more resources, you have more opportunities.
- Parents can enroll their child in many lessons, tutors, etc.
- This will open more opportunities.
- With money you have more things.
- This would probably mean to distribute resources in an equal way.
- **Inequalities in the Real World:**
- People think that the top 20% own 60% of the wealth.
- Americans underestimate wealth/asset inequality in the US.
- Actually, the top 20% actually owns 85% of all wealth in the US.
- The top 1% owns 42% of all US wealth.
- Motivates whether we need to do something to make things more equal.
- People are more likely to call police on a black person than a white person.
- Suggests unequal treatment.
- Equal resumes with women's names got about 10% less salary offers.
- Happens at universities.
- All they had was different names.
- American Dream - If you work hard you can achieve your goals.
- Americans underestimate how easy it is to jump from one class to another.
- Harder to move from poor to not poor.
- These facts motivate our thinking to do something about equality.
- **Sufficientarianism:**
- _What matters is that people should not lack adequate opportunities or wealth._
- Everyone needs to start with sufficient amount of resources, but may not be equal.
- The government gives everyone $10,000 regardless of whether you are working.
- You can have basic food, healthcare, etc.
- Inequalities can still cause problems even if everyone has enough.
- Super rich people may be able to sway public opinion in anti-democratic ways.
- Rich people buy endless ads, buy newspapers.
- Sway public opinion against democracy.
- **Complex Equality:**
- Different goods having different kinds of power.
- Even if one dominant good is equal (money), other goods (like social status) can become unequal.
- Example - Communist Russia
- Everyone gets the same salary, no matter what you do.
- You can get other goods (deals) because you have certain social status.
- You may make one good equal, but other goods may take more power.
- We need to make sure one good does not dominate all spheres of influence.
- Example - Money buying access to justice.
- **Race, Gender, and the Social Construction of Inequality:**
- If we redistributed resources, would it be enough?
- We taxed in the right way so everyone was equal.
- There would still be stereotypes and discrimination.
- Example - A brother and a sister might grow up together with the same financial resources, but might have different opportunities in life and at home.
- Suppose the father teaches the son something, but the girl is excluded.
- This ends with different opportunities in life.
- Should governments try to shape our concepts of race and gender?
- In a way to not discriminate.
- Maybe not, because governments should not tell you what to think.
- It seems like the government has an ideal it wants to achieve.
- **Affirmative Action:**
- Idea - Race and gender should never be considered in hiring or admission.
- Idea - We need to compensate for past barriers that some have faced and others have not.
- Past discrimination.
- Compensate for this.
- A black child's parents could be millionaires.
- More sophisticated procedures can take various factors into account.