Philosophy Questions: Know The Major Philosophical Objection

Philosophy Questions1 Know The Major Philosophical Objections To Rel

1. Know the major philosophical objections to relying on Divine Command Theory. 2. How might one respond to the claim we are all hardwired to be egoists? Use examples in your explanation. 3. What are some of the main problems for utilitarianism in general? 4. Give a detailed explanation of Rawl's "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and what it was designed to show. 5. What was the argument made in the reading that the Bible does not appear to promote Cartesian dualism, despite it being the most popular view among Christians today? What view of the mind and body do the authors of your textbook claim the Bible actually promotes? 6. Use Gilbert Ryle's notion of a "category mistake" to critique the idea that the "mind" is anything more than just the sum total of the various mental properties we already talk about, such as thoughts and feelings and sensations. 7. Explain the idea that technology may not give you more choices, just different choices, using two examples not given in the lecture. 8. What did Max mean by making the claim that this could also be characterized as the age of missing information? Illustrate with two of your own examples.

Paper For Above instruction

Philosophy investigates the fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, morality, and mind. Several influential philosophical theories and critiques challenge the ways individuals understand morality and human nature. This essay will explore some of the major objections to Divine Command Theory, debates surrounding human nature and egoism, problems inherent in utilitarianism, John Rawls’ "veil of ignorance", interpretations of biblical perspectives on mind-body dualism, Gilbert Ryle’s critique of the Cartesian mind, the implications of technology on choice, and the concept of missing information as discussed by Max.

Objections to Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory (DCT) asserts that morality is grounded in the commands of a divine being. Its primary philosophical objections concern independence and objectivity. Critics argue that DCT implies that moral goodness depends on God's decrees, which could be arbitrary; if God had declared murder to be right, then murder would be moral (Euthyphro dilemma). This raises questions about the moral arbitrariness of divine commands and whether morality is truly independent of divine decree, thus challenging the objectivity of ethics. Furthermore, DCT struggles to explain moral disagreements among believers and non-believers, as moral standards seem to depend solely on divine will, making morality appear as a matter of obedience rather than rational assessment (Plantinga, 2011).

The Hardwired Egoist Claim and Responses

The claim that humans are hardwired to be egoists posits that natural selection has favored self-interest as the dominant trait in human evolution. One example supporting this is the evolutionary drive for survival, which incentivizes individuals to prioritize their own safety and well-being. Critics argue, however, that humans also exhibit altruism, suggesting that moral behaviors are not solely egoistic. A response to this claim involves emphasizing social and cultural evolution, which promote cooperation and altruism as adaptive strategies, evidenced by reciprocal altruism observed in many animal species (Trivers, 1971). For example, humans often sacrifice personal gain for family or community benefit, indicating that morality and altruism can be innate or at least socially constructed extensions beyond egoism.

Problems for Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, which advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness or pleasure, faces several significant problems. One is the measurement problem; quantifying happiness or suffering across individuals is inherently subjective and difficult to compare. Another issue is that utilitarianism can justify morally questionable actions if they produce a net increase in happiness, such as sacrificing an innocent person for the greater good—a dilemma illustrated by the "trolley problem" (Smart & Williams, 1973). Additionally, utilitarianism sometimes neglects justice and individual rights, focusing solely on aggregate welfare rather than individual dignity (Scanlon, 1998). These challenges undermine the theory’s practicality and ethical robustness.

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance

John Rawls’ "veil of ignorance" is a hypothetical scenario designed to determine fair principles for social justice. Participants are asked to choose principles of justice without knowing their own social status, abilities, or personal biases. This ignorance ensures impartiality, encouraging the selection of rules that protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable. Rawls intended this thought experiment to demonstrate that just principles are those one would select from an equal starting position, leading to fairness and equality in society (Rawls, 1971). The veil of ignorance thus underscores the importance of fairness over personal advantage in societal arrangements.

Biblical Perspectives on Mind-Body Dualism

The common interpretation among Christians is that the Bible does not explicitly endorse Cartesian dualism, the view that mind and body are separate substances. Instead, textual analysis suggests the Bible promotes a view where the mind or soul is deeply intertwined with the body, emphasizing holism. For instance, passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 reflect an integrated view of body, soul, and spirit, implying that the biblical view is more aligned with a form of physicalism or holistic anthropology (Guthrie, 1990). The authors argue that the biblical perspective sees humans as unified beings rather than mind and body as distinct entities.

Ryle’s Category Mistake and the Concept of the Mind

Gilbert Ryle’s notion of a "category mistake" criticizes Cartesian dualism by pointing out that viewing the mind as a separate substance is a conceptual error. Ryle argued that talking about the mind as an "inner" thing separate from behavior is akin to misclassifying the category of entities we use to describe mental phenomena. Instead, mental states should be understood as dispositions or tendencies expressed through observable behaviors and language—thoughts and feelings are not separate "things" but part of the fabric of human activity (Ryle, 1949). This critique supports a more behaviorist or physicalist understanding of mental processes.

Technology and Choice: Giving Different, Not More

While technology often expands our options, it may predominantly offer different choices rather than more choices. For instance, social media platforms provide new ways to connect but may also lead to choices that reinforce existing social bubbles, limiting genuine diversity of interaction. Similarly, online shopping offers convenience and variety but often narrows consumer exposure to selective information algorithms that shape preferences, reducing the diversity of what consumers might have otherwise encountered in physically diverse marketplaces. These examples suggest technology changes the landscape of choice but does not necessarily increase the total breadth of options in meaningful ways.

Max’s View on Missing Information

Max described the current age as one characterized by missing information—a situation where the availability of data is incomplete, leading to decisions based on partial understanding. This can be seen in the realm of health, where patients often lack comprehensive knowledge about treatment risks. Another example involves environmental policy, where policymakers may lack complete data on ecological impacts, resulting in suboptimal or misguided decisions. Max’s claim underscores that despite technological advances, the proliferation of information does not guarantee completeness, which remains a challenge in effectively managing societal and personal decisions.

Conclusion

These philosophical inquiries reveal complex issues surrounding morality, human nature, knowledge, and technology. Objections to Divine Command Theory challenge the foundations of moral objectivism; discussions of egoism and altruism reflect human tendencies and societal influences; problems in utilitarianism expose practical limitations; and Rawls’ thought experiment offers a fair approach to justice. Biblical interpretation and Ryle’s critique emphasize careful analysis of mental concepts, while considerations of technology and information highlight modern societal challenges. Collectively, these debates deepen our understanding of human existence and moral reasoning in contemporary philosophy.

References

• Guthrie, D. (1990). Christian Doctrine. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Plantinga, A. (2011). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.
• Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
• Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Routledge.
• Guthrie, D. (1990). Christian Doctrine. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Plantinga, A. (2011). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.