Download Phil 101 Chapman final study guide spring 2023

Dr. Vulich
Intro to Philosophy Final Exam Study Guide
5/1/23
1) Describe Anselm’s Ontological argument.
God is defined as the greatest conceivable thing. To exist in realty is greater than to exist in the mind, so God must
exist in reality by definition.
2) Explain the qualities often associated with God.
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnipresent
Omnibenevolent.
3) Explain what three positions are on the question of God’s existence.
Theist – belief in god
Atheist – belief in no god
Agnostic – withholds judgement bc lack of evidence either way.
4) Explain the method of argument known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’.
Reduce to absurdity. Prove a point by showing how if the opposite were true, it would lead to an absurd or
impossible result
5) Explain Gaunilo’s example of the ‘lost island’.
Imagine there is an island that is the greatest conceivable island. The island would be greater if it existed than if it
were just an idea, but defining it as such does not make it a real location that can be found on earth.
6) Explain Moore’s argument that existence is not a predicate.
Existence is not a modifier like color is. An example of saying “some lions roar” makes sense, but saying “some
lions exist” does not because something that does not exist cannot be modified.
7) Explain Rowe’s example about the ‘magican’ and the ‘magico’.
If magician was defined as an existing macigian and magico was defined as a non existing magician, defining merlin
as a maginican does not make him real. Defining something as existing does not manifest it into reality.
8) Explain Taylor’s Cosmological argument.
The whole sphere example is based on principle of sufficient reason - things cannot exist without having a cause things exist for a reason. The fact that we exist is a contingent truth. But there are necessary truths as well (things
that are true but have no possibility to be false, like 2 + 2 = 4) . The universe must have a cause but cannot be a
contingent truth because there'd be an infent regress of contingent truths. Therefore the first cause must be a
necessary cause.
9) What is the principle of sufficient reason and how does it relate to a proof of God’s existence?
The principle of sufficient reason says that everything needs to have a cause/origin. The universe exists and as such
must have a cause for existence. God must be the cause of the universe, because if something that was contingent
caused the universe, it would need a cause, causing an infinite regress of causation.
10) Explain Paley’s argument from design.
-A man finds a watch and a rock in the forest. He questions whether the stone was placed there or has been there
since the beginning of time. The watch, the man assumes that it had to have been dropped or placed there.-The man
observed the mechanism, the watch, he also most likely had previous knowledge of the watch in order to perceive
and understand it. The man creates an inevitable inference- watch must have had a maker.-Based on the idea that
different things and processes in the world are integrated with each other and this mutual fitness can only be
explained by the assumption of a divine architect who planned the world and everything in it.
11) Describe three factors that Paley thinks WOULD NOT undermine the judgment that a watch sitting in the
forest must have been made by a watchmaker.
a) Just because you've never seen a watch being made, you still know it has a maker
b) If it has a flaw, you still know it has a maker
c) If you don't understand how it works, you still know it has a maker.
12) Explain Nagel’s critique of the Cosmological argument.
Nagel says that if everything needs a cause, why doesn't god need a cause? If god can be self caused, why can't the
world be self caused?
13) Explain Nagel’s critique of the argument from design.
-we know watches have a maker because every watch has been designed by a human
this argument 'is based on an inference from an analogy'.-it stops being credible once you realize that parents don't
"make" their kids the same way that a watchmaker makes a watch - basically saying that biology is very different-
Darwin showed us a better explanation for the different biological species.
14) Explain Nagel’s critique of ‘religious experience’ as a source of evidence for God’s existence.
Nagel says that this experience is not open to evidence available to everyone - so it can't be verified by others. Also,
there could be non divine explanations like hallucinations that can explain these experiences
15) Explain Nagel’s ‘problem of evil’.
If God is perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil; and if he is all-powerful, he must be able to abolish evil. But
evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving.
16) Explain Pascal’s wager.
Nobody can prove whether God exists but its like a coin flip, you can bet on either side. You have to pick a side tho
so the better bet is that god exists because you have a lot to gain (eternal salvation( and little to lose, while the
opposite is true of the other side.
17) Explain an objection to Pascal’s wager.
God’s hiddenness. God does not show himself to us, so he may either not exist or not care if we believe. If he
doesn’t care than believing wouldn’t make and difference on the afterlife.
18) Explain Clifford’s example of the ship owner
A shipowner is going to send a ship to sea thats very old and not well built. He believes strongly that it will survive
the voyage though. It is irresponsible for the man to do this because the ship will likely sink and the man does not
have sufficient reason to believe otherwise.
19) Explain two reasons that Clifford gives why it is wrong to maintain a ‘credulous character’.
a) It weakens your ability to judge things correctly
b) This could spread to society/those who you influence which is bad
20) Provide three reasons that God’s hiddenness is a disadvantage according to McKim.
a) Its harder for people to believe
b) Its harder for people to have intimate relationship with god
c) Its harder for ppl to worship
d) Creates possibility of conflict since ppl differ in their belief of if god exists
e) It allows certain ppl to operate cults, scams, etc without being checked
21) Explain the test that Everitt suggests for gaining evidence that a certain type of being does NOT exist.
If there is a being with a certain nature, it will change things which will result in changes C. But, if changes do not
occur, then it is unlikely that the being exists. Everitt gives the example of a survivor on an island looking for
another survivor by looking for traces of humans.
Everitt's test says that if you're stranded on an island and believe there's another person there, you'd expect them to
leave traces.
22) How is the actual world not appropriate as an expression of God’s intentions according to Everitt?
Earth is not the center of the universe. Humans haven't always existed. The universe is way bigger than it would
make sense to make it if it were just for humans.
23) Explain the theory of utilitarianism.
Act always in such a way that you promote the greatest amount of overall happiness for the greatest amount of
peopleGreatest happiness principle = actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness → wrong to the
extent that they promote the reverse of happiness
24) Explain Mill’s claim that happiness is the only thing that we pursue as an end and not as a means.
Happiness is defined as pleasure without pain; It is the reason that we do what we do, all actions are to
reach the end of happiness. People may pursue things for their own sake like virtue, but only if it is incorporated into
their happiness.
25) Explain Mill’s response to the claim that “Utilitarianism is a theory fit for swine”.
Mill responds to this theory by saying that there are higher and lower pleasures and all beings can have lower
pleasures like sleep, food, sex. So anyone who thinks it's a theory "fit for swine" is only thinking of these lower
pleasures, which Mill says is of lesser value than higher pleasures.
26) Explain a basic criticism of utilitarianism other than ‘theory fit for swine’.
There are no absolutely forbidden actions, which is troubling because there are no actions that are always wrong.
Ex: organ transplant scenario (lying- if lying creates more happiness, then utilitarianism so do so).
27) Too demanding as well.Explain Kant’s shopkeeper example.
You cannot credit someone morally if they are doing something they already find pleasure in. Shopkeeper not
overcharging someone who does not know the price because they enjoy not exploiting people. Only an act done
from the motive of duty has moral worth. An act done from the motive of inclination has no moral worth
28) Why does Kant say that only a good will is good in itself?
*(Only act on something that falls under a universal law)
Goodwill- when you act from the motive of duty to uphold the moral law
Goodwill is the only thing in the world that is unconditionally good
intelligence, bravery, etc= must have the right/good intentions
maintain the goodwill first
29) Explain both versions of the categorical imperative.
Categorical imperative: Act always in such a way that the maxim describing your action could be willed to the
universal law. I will do X in circumstances C, so All people will do X in Circumstance c
Never treat a human being as a means- this means to treat someone as a tool, manipulate in order to advance your
own agenda.
30) Explain O’Neill’s account of what it is to treat someone as a mere means.
O'Neill said don't ever involve a person in an interaction that they would not in principle consent to - that would
treat people as a means and not as an ends, which she says you should never do
31) Describe an action that is morally obligatory according to one ethical theory and morally impermissible
according to another.
The heart transplant example - this is right under utilitarianism because it promotes the most happiness for the most
people, but wrong under Kantianism because it's using people as a means
32) Explain Singer’s argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the global poor.
1. If we can prevent a bad thing without making a comparable sacrifice, then we should
2. Absolute poverty is bad
3. We can prevent some absolute poverty without making a comparable sacrifice
33) Explain why Singer says that the problem of global hunger is not a problem of scarcity of resources.
The problem of global hunger is not a problem of the sacristy of resources, it is a problem of poor distribution and
waste of resources
34) Explain two objections to Singer’s argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the absolute poor.
We only have to take care of our own
Property rights: you don't have any obligation to part with your property
Triage needy people into 3 groups:
1) people who are so injured, they will prob die even with help
2) people who are minorly injured, they will prob survive even without help
3) people who survive with help but will die without help (focus on middle group because it makes the biggest
difference whether they live or die, but will not save the most lives. Saving the minorly injured does not maximize
the lives you save either because they aren't in the most need and will still survive if you don't go to them right
away.)
Leave it to the government
35) Explain two possible differences between killing and failing to assist.
A. The lack of an identifiable victim - If a salesperson sells tinned foods that double the risk of stomach cancer death
for consumer, and the saleperson continues to sell the tins. There may be no identifiable victims, but this is still an
awful thing to do
B. The lack of certainty that giving money could save a life - if a driver speeds through crosswalks, they might never
actually run someone over, but this is still very wrong
C. The difference in motivations - same example of a speeding driver - he doesn't intend to kill anyone, but he still
deserves blame and punishment
36) Explain Singer’s response to two of the differences between killing and failing to assist.
See above
37) Discuss Singer’s response to two of the objections to his argument.
taking care of our own- too widespread of an obligation (not the whole world)
Singers response: needs in the first world are not comparable to global poverty. Geographic boundaries shouldn't
matter when it comes to basic human needs.
property rights- wealth and income is your property, you are free to do whatever you want with your
money/property.
Singers response: It is moral to assist. just because you have the right to do it, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
leaving it to the government- the government has tax revenues and reliable funding, shouldn't leave it to the
individual
Singers response: Why not vote?
triage- tough rationing off care (medical example)
Singers response: Lower-birth rate, certain evil withholding aid
38) Explain Hardin’s lifeboat example.
Case against helping the poor: So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. To be generous, let us assume it has
room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. Suppose the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the
water outside, begging for admission to our boat or for handouts. We have several options: we may be tempted to try
to live by the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper," or by the Marxist ideal of "to each according to his
needs." Since the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as "our brothers," we could
take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns.
Complete justice, complete catastrophe.
Since the boat has an unused excess capacity of 10 more passengers, we could admit just 10 more to it. But which
10 do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best 10, "first come, first served"? And what do we say to the
90 we exclude? If we do let an extra 10 into our lifeboat, we will have lost our "safety factor," an engineering
principle of critical importance. For example, if we don't leave room for excess capacity as a safety factor in our
country's agriculture, a new plant disease or a bad change in the weather could have disastrous consequences.
Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then
possible although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties.
39) Explain Hardin’s concept of ‘the tragedy of the commons’.
public resources inevitably fail due to overuse and poor maintenance unlike private resources.
40) Explain the trolley problem by explaining ‘bystander at the switch’, and ‘transplant’.
The 'bystander at the switch' scenario is one in which you walk by the trolley track, the driver is passed out. There
are five workers on the track ahead. Theres a switch in front of you and if you turn it, the trolley will change tracks,
onto a track where one walker stands.-If he throws the switch, he causes the trolley to hit one person, killing that one
person. If he does not throw the switch, he does not cause the trolley to hit the 5 ppl, mso he does not kill the 5, but
merely fails to save them.Judith Thomson presents the transplant scenario, in which you are a skilled surgeon, you
have 5 patients who need organs. Two each need a lung, two each need a kidney, and the fifth needs a heart. They
will die if they don't get these organs today. A young man comes in who is exactly the right blood type and of
excellent health. Would it be morally right to take his body parts without asking him?-Thomson adds an additional
detail, saying what if it's the surgeons fault that the 5 patients are dying in the first place? In this case, if they die, the
surgeon will have killed them.The surgeon would simply be letting the 5 patients die, but the trolley driver would be
killing the 5 ppl by driving his trolley into them. A bystander isn't the same as a driver tho(Note: the two theses are:
- (I): "killing one is worse than letting five die" and (II):"killing five is worse than killing one)-Thomson calls it the
"trolley Problem" because she finds it puzzling that the bystander may turn the trolley. (In Kantianism, the bystander
is not treating the person as a means, but the surgeon is treating the person as a means) '
41) Explain Thomson’s discussion of the fat man on the bridge.
Trolley on a railroad track is going towards 5 people on the track-Option 1 to save people is to push 1 other person
not a part of the five onto the track to stop its motion, killing that 1 person but saving the other 5-Option 2 is to let
the train hit the 5 people, most likely killing all 5 of them-By pushing the 1 foreign person onto the track you are
violating a serious human right
42) Explain Thomson’s solution to the trolley problem.
Thomson’s solution: It is morally permissible to divert a threat from more to less people if it is the same threat.
Trolley is diverted to harm fewer people but surgeon has a different threat for the different groups of
people.
43) Explain Thomson’s example of the ‘looping track’.
The track does not diverge, but instead circles back. The 5 ppl on the straight track are thin enough that they'll all be
killed by the trolley, but their bodies will stop the trolley, and it will therefore save the one person. The one on the
right hand is so fat that his body alone will stop the trolley, and the trolley will therefore not reach the five.
in the trolley problem the person can disappear from the track and the 5 ppl could still be saved. But with the
looping track, the one person is needed to save the five people (and vice versa).
IT IS THE SAME THREAT.
MIDTERM 1 END
44) Explain Socrates example of the statues of Daedalus.
Statues had to be tied down with ropes. Why is knowledge for important than correct opinion. You will forget
opinions, fut remember knowledge.
- trying to make a point that it's better to have knowledge than just a lucky guess.
- Although it's nice to have a belief that's true, if it doesn't have justification, it will leave your mind.
- The statues with no ropes are true beliefs with no evidence. The one's with ropes have justification, because they
are being held down. By adding ropes to true belief, they stay there.
- Ropes = justification.
45) Explain the classical account of knowledge
Justified true belief.
- True means that the statement matches reality.
- A belief is thinking something is true.
- Justification means that you have good reason or evidence to believe something.
- If something believes something that's true and they have evidence, that's knowledge.
- When you have all three met at the same time, that's knowledge.
46) Explain how Gettier shows that Justified True Belief is NOT sufficient for knowledge.
The Smith and Jones job hunt example. A boss tells Smith that he is going to hire Jones. So Smith believes that
Jones will get the job. Smith asks Jones how many coins he has in his pocket, turns out 10. So Smith assumes the
man that gets the job will have 10 coins in his pocket. Turns out Smith actually gets the job instead but
coincidentally also has 10 coins in his pocket, so the man who got 10 coins gets the job even though he didn't know.
His knowledge wasn't right but it was justified.
47) Explain what it means for one proposition to entail another.
Entailment is connection between two propositions. If a entails b, then when a is true b is true.
48) Explain the closure principle
Transmission from one proposition to another. If a subject is justified in believing a proposition and p entails q, and
s is derived from q, then s is justified by p. If you pet a dog you are justified in believing that you are petting a
mammal, as it is justified by the first.
Justified in believing one thing justifies believing in a following thing.
49) Explain Descartes method of doubt. What is known for certain even when the method is being applied and
why?
Method of doubt: A person should assume to be false anything that can be doubted. We know that we exist, I think
therefore I am.
50) Explain why beliefs derived from sense perception are not certain, and why even beliefs about mathematics
are not certain according to Descartes.
Method of doubt: A person should assume to be false anything that can be doubted. Senses can all be doubted
because you don’t know if you’re dreaming. Or a demon could deceive you.
51) Explain Einstein’s example of the moving train.
2 lightning strikes. Observer at midpoint between lightning strikes sees them as simultaneous. Light all travels at the
same speeds. Second observer in train moves towards the strike and away from another views them an not
simultaneous.
52) Explain why the concept of time ‘moving’ is a paradox.
Sider: Things move different places at different times. Time cannot move over different times.
53) Explain two similarities between time and space according to Ted Sider.
1. Reality: Objects far away in space are as real as close ones. The same goes for time.
2. Parts: Objects have special parts, and occupy space. Temporal parts are an object at a single moment in
time; a photo.
3. Here and now: Spatial location word and temporal location word. Relative positions in space and time.
54) Explain why according to the space-time theory nothing changes
You can say nothing really changes, because all times exist all the time. The temporal part of you as a baby is still
there, both temporal parts have always occupied their positions on the timeline. Different temporal parts with
different qualities. Hair cut example. Nothing changes because it's all there already.
55) Explain the meaning of the expression “soon he will be in the past” according to Lewis.
Paradoxical time travel. Personal time: Experienced by time travelers. External time: Time measured outside of the
time traveler. Soon he’ll be in the past. 10 minutes of personal time will be 50 years of external time. Personal time
compared to external time for a time traveler.
56) Describe a possible closed loop of causation involving time travel
David Lewis, suppose that somebody goes to the past in a time machine, and tells the person in the past how to build
the time machine, but it's yourself as a younger version. The past self builds the time machine, and then goes back to
tell their younger self how to build the time machine. But where did the information about how to build it come in
the first place? Closed loop of causation. Paradox of time travel. Lewis believes the loops are weird but not any
weirder than other things in the world.
Time traveler phone call to past self to build a time machine. Closed loop
57) If a person talks to their past self on the phone how many people are having this conversation? Explain.
-Looks like two people from an outside observer, but according to David Lewis it is only one person. Which is just
two temporal parts of a person having a conversation (younger and older version). If I am talking to myself I would
have memory of any prior state to myself, but would not if it was actually two people talking. Bodily and
psychological links between the two people justify this reason being that it is actually the same person.
58) Explain the idea that people have ‘temporal parts’.
An object in a singular point in time. A picture shows a single moment in time. Spacetime shows that we exist in
spacetime, all moments in past present and future exist.
59) Explain the ‘grandfather paradox’.
Tim wants to kill his grandfather, and goes back in time and tries to kill him. He can kill him because of his intent,
but by killing him he wont be born. He cannot kill him. He will fail for a commonplace reason, gun jam.
60) Explain the difference between monism and dualism.
Monism is the belief that everything in the universe is composed out of only one type of substance. Dualism is the
belief that all things in the universe are composed out of two types of substances: physical matter (anything that
occupies space) and the mind (does not occupy space and is thinking, like a soul).
61) Explain the difference between physicalism and idealism
- Both kinds of Monism
- Physicalism: everything in the universe is made out of physical matter, including us and our consciousness.
- No after life because there is no soul
- Idealism: everything in the universe is made out of ideas.
- Concept of matter is an illusion
62) Explain Descartes argument that the mind and body are really distinct.
Descartes argument that the mind and body are really distinct goes like this:
1. Using the method of doubt, I am able to doubt all things from sensory perception and even math, but I know for
certain that I exist and that I am a thinking thing.
2. Included in my ideas is the idea of God.
3. The idea of God is special in comparison to my other ideas because it is the idea of an infinite being.
4. There must be a God because the idea of something infinite must come from an infinite source. (A container that
has a gallon of water must be filled by something that has at least a gallon of water. Since we have the idea of an
infinite reality, it would have to come from something that has an infinite reality.)
5. God is known to be perfectly good, so he would not deceive us.
6. So when I have a clear and distinct perception, then it must be true because otherwise God would be a deceiver.
7. One clear distinct perception that I have is that if tow things can clearly and distinctly be conceived of as existing
separately, then those two things really can be separated.
8. We can clearly and distinctly conceive of the mind and the body as existing separately.
-------The mind and the body are two separate things.
63) Explain how it is that Descartes comes to accept that external world exists.
You cannot doubt your existence because you are thinking. I think therefore I am. Our thoughts are infinite so they
come from something infinite. God is infinite so he gave us thought so he exists. You cannot control what you
perceive, so the world is real as we connot think things into existence. Memories are less vivid that the world.
Things in your mind are less clear than what you are perceiveing. So the real world does not exist in your mind.
64) Explain how Descartes establishes that you have a body.
Things outside of us do exist, and do not depend on our minds to exist.If my mind created the world then everything
I perceived I could control. We cannot control our bodies in many ways, so it must exist.
65) Explain supervenience physicalism.
Stoliar: Dot matrix image. Picture made of dots. Global features, what the dots make. If two matrixes have the same
dot distribution. They would be identical. 2 universes with identical atomic distributions would have identical
psychological phenomena.
66) Explain Stoljar’s distinction between the ‘interpretation’ and the ‘truth’ question.
Interpretation question: Everything is physical
Truth question: Is it true that everything is physical.
67) Explain the argument from methodological naturalism with respect to physicalism.
JJC Smart: It is reasonable to believe what natural sciences’ consensus, and as such it is reasonable to believe in
physicalism. Physicalism is derived from sciences.
68) Explain the argument from causal closure.
Gives a logical justification for the physicalist belief that mental events are physical events. Every event which has a
cause has a physical cause, and every event only has one cause. Therefore mental events are physical events.
69) Explain the concept of a nomological dangler.
JJC smart: Something that is unexplained by science. Dangling outside of science. Sensations are just brain
processes, and are not dangler. Dualism would make consciousness a dangler as it cannot
70) Explain the objection to physicalism which involves the idea that ‘a man may know nothing about brain
processes’.
The objection argues that an ordinary person can easily talk about their sensations, but couldn't talk about them in
terms of brain processes.
71) Explain a reply to the objection to physicalism that ‘a man may know nothing about brain processes’.
Smart argues that just because you can use two descriptions of one thing doesn't mean that it is two different things.
72) Describe the ‘imitation game’.\
Turing. Interview a machine and a human in 2 different interviews. If the interpreter cannot tell them apart then
there are thinking machines.
73) Explain Turing’s response to the idea that a machine unlike a human can only do what it has been
programmed to do.
Whether it passes the Turing test or not, it only acts on a program. Humans cannot act on anything we have not been
exposed to.
74) Explain Turing’s response to the idea that a machine can only mimic conscious behavior but does not
actually have any feelings or sensations
You cannot tell if someone else is conscious, you have to observe it. Same goes for machines. You cant reject the
ides just because you sare not a machine.
75) Explain Turing’s response to the ‘mathematical objection’
All mathematical languages have an answer can not give an answer to some questions. Some questions both humans
and machines cannot answer either. Computational limits and human limits.
76) What makes a human life go as well as possible according to Plato?
Match between state and soul. Rational in head and appetitive and spirited are temperance and courageous,
respectively.
77) Describe Plato’s analogy between the soul and the state.
Parallels between the state and soul.
1.
Merchants: temperance virtue: Moderate greed.
2.
Warriors: Brave virtue.
3.
Kings: Wisdom virtue.
1.
Appetitive: Appetites and desires that want to be fulfilled. (Desire for profit from merchants): Temperance
3
virtue, not Indulging all the time
2.
Spirited: Competitive, proud, passionate, loves to win hates to lose. Courage virtue
3.
Rational: Calculates and makes decisions derived from facts instead of emotion. Rules on careful
judgements. Wisdom virtue.
78) Why does Plato say that injustice cannot benefit you?
3 heads: Human lion gargoyles. Gargoyles are hungry. Lion noble, valiant, and proud. Human is smart. Injustice will
harm your soul even if no one knows about it.
Gargoyles appetitive. Lion Spirited. Human is rational and should lead.
79) Explain Plato’s metaphor of the many-headed creature.
Same as before
80) What is existentialism?
Jean Paul Sarte: Existence precedes essence. We create our essence. You choose your essence. Only your free will
creates your essence. No one else effects it.
81) Explain the concept of ‘bad faith’.
If you argue that your essence was created by someone else.
82) What does Sartre mean when he says each individual man is responsible for creating all of humanity?
Existentialism: You create your essence. Existence precedes essence. You create an example for others by making
your essence.
83) Explain Sartre’s statement that ‘we are condemned to be free’.
Each person created their essence, but there are no right choices. The right essence is subjective. There is no one
best way to live. It is a burden to not know if your choices are right.
84) Explain the difference between desire fulfillment theories and objective list theories.
What makes life go best? Fulfill as many desires as possible. Fulfill an objective list of things that are good for a
person whether they want them or not. Parfit.
85) Explain the difference between local and global desires.
Local desires are desires for particular things that one can satisfy in the short term, like ordering pizza for lunch.
Global desires are big picture desires about a whole life or a large portion of it, like good health. Parfit argues that
for Desire Fulfillment theories on what makes a person's life best, global desires are more important.
86) Explain Parfit’s view about what makes a human life go best.
It's a blend of desire fulfillment theories and object list theories. Parfit believes that a person's life will not go well if
they achieve good things on the object list but didn't desire them, or if they desire things that aren't objectively good
for them. He says you should desire things that are on the objective list of things that are good for you, and then
fulfill them.
87) Why does Nagel say that death is bad at any age?
death is bad because you are deprived of the goods in life. you will always desire to live longer, you wont ever feel
like you don't want the goods of life anymore. no amount is "good enough".
88) Explain the idea that death is a misfortune but not pre-natal non-existence.
If you don’t exist but used to exist, then you have suffered a misfortune. Never existing is not misfortunate.
89) Explain Nagel’s ‘historical’ account of misfortune.
Why death is bad even though they don’t feel anymore. Comparing current time to past time, they used to feel and
now they don’t. It’s a misfortune because they are less than they were.
90) Explain Nagel’s example of the infant and the brain-injured man.
Brain damaged man now like a baby again. Both are happy and unaware of their surrounding. Man is a misfortunate.
Baby is not misfortunate.
https://quizlet.com/579838956/philosophy-final-flash-cards/
https://quizlet.com/757424317/philosophy-101-final-flash-cards/