Philosophy Revision

1. “I am able to make decisions, therefore I am free”. Briefly explain from the hard
determinist’s perspective why this argument is highly dubious.
: Hard determinism believes in determinism, a term used to describe everything that has
occurred, is caused by an event and conditions before. According to hard determinist, free
will and determinism could not co-exist, so if hard determinist believes in determinism,
free will could not exist, thus the sentence above is dubious.

2. Give and explain two reasons in support of libertarianism

: libertarianism suggests that free will does not exist, thus words such as refrain, regret
and self-control have no meaning, secondly, strong common-sense intuition also support
libertarianism. For example `e, feeling a sense of regret after making a decision.

3. What do hard determinism and libertarianism have in common? Give a brief explanation
of how these two views share this commonality.
: both hard determinism and libertarianism believes that free will and determinism could
not co-exist.

4. Explain how a compatibilist might argue for the existence of free will.
: staces’s view is compatible with determinism, however, according to stace, the
difference in whether one has acted with free will or not depends on the kind of cause of
those actions.

5. Explain the difference between determinism and hard determinism.

: both determinism and hard determinism believes that whatever happened is caused by
events and conditions before, however while HD does not believe in free will, D does

6. Explain Frankfurt’s distinction between first-order and second-order desires with the help
of examples.
: Fankfurt defines first order desires as desires to do certain things such as wanting to
smoke, while second order desires are the desires to have certain first order desires, for
example wanting to stop wanting to smoke.

7. Explain the theory of emotivism for moral statements with the help of an
example.
: This theory suggests that moral statements are meaningless, when an emotivist says
“murder is wrong” its like saying “boo murder” while making a thumbs down gesture.
8. K
9. Outline and explain two advantages that might be the case if moral relativism is true.
: Moral relativism seems to encourage tolerance of other cultures and moral beliefs,
believing that morality is relative, makes us likely to fall into arrogant ethnocentrism.
Secondly, it makes us more inclined to be self-critical than critical of others.
10. What is moral objectivism? Explain this notion with the help of a particular
 moral principle.
: it is the idea of that moral principles are true regardless of culture and history, it
recognizes that different societies have different moral codes, nevertheless it may not be
accepted universally. The divine command theory underlines the view that what is
morally right means that it is commanded by god and vice versa.

11. Different cultures have different moral codes’. Is this statement compatible
with moral objectivism? Explain your answer.: Yes, it is compatible, because moral
objectivism agrees that different cultures have different moral codes, however it may not
be universally accepted.
12. What is the difference between being bound to a moral code as compared
to following a moral code?
:Someone may not be following a moral code or even acknowledge it, but that moral
code can still be binding to him/her.
13. Outline the cultural differences argument and explain one criticism about it.
: Different cultures have different moral codes, to them, there is no objective “truth” in
morality. Right or worng are only matters of opinion and it varies from culture to culture.
To argue, the cultural differences agreement is seen to be invalid, just because two
cultures agree on a an act to be moral, does not imply that there are objective facts on
whether it is moral or not.
14. Do you agree with the following argument: ‘Different societies have
different moral codes, therefore moral objectivism cannot be true’? Explain a reason for
your answer.
: I disagree with the argument, moral objectivism does not disregard that different
societies have different moral codes, however it believes that those moral codes may not
be universally accepted.
15. Explain the Divine Command theory in ethics and how this theory might
support moral objectivism.
: DCT states that “morally right” means “commanded by god” and “morally wrong”
means “forbidden by god”. This solves moral objectivism because we would believe god
commands us to do certain things, because they are right as we imagine god to be an
omniscient being.
16. Explain what the Euthyphro dilemma is and how it poses a challenge for
the Divine Command theory.
:it states that its beliefs creates an independent problem because the state of what is right
or wrong fully depends on god, thus the standard or right or wrong depends of god,
abandoning the DCT concept of right or wrong.
17. Explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic
:atheist refers to those who believe in the non-existence of god, while agnostic does not
whether god does or does not exist due to the lacking of evidence.
18. Give two queries for the Cosmological argument.
 : first query is “is it true that everything in the universe is caused in this same sense by
something else” and the second one is “how do we know that an infinite regress pf causes
is impossible”
19. Give two queries for the Teleological argument.
: Some argue that there is a weak analogy between human designed objects and natural
objects, the second query is that how do we know that our universe is one that has been
intelligently designed?.
20. Explain how the existence of God can help refute moral relativism.
:As god poses the threat that there could be moral objective truths. Meaning some
cultures could have objectively wrong moral codes.
21. Explain the difference between ‘narrow’ theism and ‘broad’ theism.
: Narrow theism refers to those who believe in the existence of an all knowing, all
powerful and perfectly good god while broad theism are those who believe in the
existence of god/s.

22. K
23. K
24. What is theodicy? State and explain one point made by theodicy in response to the
argument from evil.
:Theodicy is the justification of god’s goodness in the face of the fact of evil. One
response made by theodicy is that there will be justice for those who do evil, this is
because moral evil is the product of free will, therefore those who do it will be punished,
while does who are against evil will be awarded.
25. What is a ‘blik’ according to R. M. Hare? Give an example of a blik that normal humans
have and explain why you think this is a blik.
: A blik is a claim that does not specify any observations that would count againts it. For
example “Everything happens for a reason”.
26. Outline one similarity between John Hospers’ attempt to defuse the radical
skeptical argument and Anthony Flew’s attempt to show that the narrow
theist’s claims are meaningless.
: Both John Hos
27. K
28. Explain the difference between procedural and propositional knowledge with the help of
examples.
: In propositional knowledge, there is a subject who is the knower and a proposition
which is the thing that is known (“Knowing that”). Where as procedural proposition is
the ability to “know how” for example “we know how to talk”.
29. Explain the JTB theory of knowledge.
: JTB ( Justified True Belief of Knowledge) is what constitutes a subject to know its
proposition. To demonstrate, a subject S knows a proposition of P, if and only if S
believes that P is true, P is true. Therefore E is justified in bellieveing that P is true.
30. Explain the correspondence theory of truth.
 : Correspondence theory of truth highlights that facts in order to show a proposition is
true. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality. For example marina bay is located
in Singapore, because MBS is indeed located in sg, CTOF proves that it is true.
31. Explain the coherence theory of truth.
: What makes a true belief true is that the belief coheres with other beliefs. For example,
Religion.
32. Explain the radical skeptical argument.
: it suggests that we are unable to know the denials of sceptical hypotheses, thus we are
unable to know anything significant about the world.
33. Explain how Descartes viewed the structure of our knowledge.
:Descarts viewed the structure of knowledge as a building, with each belief being
justified by another belief, a chain of belief. So once we subjected the foundations of our
beliefs to doubt, the rest of our beliefs would fall into doubt. He believed that the
foundation of belief are his senses, which are reliable sources of knowledge.
34. Explain what Wittgenstein means by a ‘foundational proposition’ with the
help of an example.
: It is a part of the foundation upon which the reasoning
35. Explain the Closure principle with the help of an example.
:it suggests if an individual knows one proposition and they know that the proposition
entails a second proposition, thus he/ she knows the second proposition as well.
36. K
37. What was G.E. Moore’s counterargument to the radical skeptical argument?
:he counters radical skeptism with a proof that he has two hands by holding it up and
making gestures showing that “here is one hand” and adding his gestures to the left “here
is the other”.
38. What was John Hospers reasoning for thinking that the skeptic’s doubt lacks content?
: Hospers views that the radical scepticism argument does not make sense, Hosper gives a
criterion for intelligible doubt that doubt only makes sense when we can specify what test
would resolve the doubt.
39. K
40. Explain the meanings of ‘qualitative identity’ and ‘numerical identity’ with the help of
examples.
: Qualitative refers to identify that two things have if they share the same quality while
numerical refers to the kind of identity a thing has with itself even if the quality change.
41. K
42. K
Essay Questions
4. Explain the cultural differences argument and how it can be used to support moral relativism.
Next, discuss the viability of the divine command theory as an attempt to counter moral
relativism.
: Introduction
- Moral relativism is a kind of community coherence theory with regards to moral
statements, it is strongly influenced by the idea of different cultures have different moral
codes, and there is no moral standard, law or code that is equally binding or applicable to
all humans at all times, any morality is relative to the era, place and circumstances in
which it is formed.
- The cultural differences argument can be represented generally as culture A views P as
morally acceptable, whereas culture B views P as morally unacceptable, thus P is neither
objectively moral nor immoral.
- Finally, the divine command theory is a theory of what makes an act or rule morally right
and not a theory of how humans know what is right.
- This essay will illustrate on how the cultural differences argument can support moral
relativism and the viability of the divine command theory as an attempt to counter moral
relativism.

Para 2
- As the cultural differences argument states that if two societies have opposite beliefs on a
moral code, it states that the code is neither objectively true or false, as this argument is
in a way supports moral relativism as it is influenced by the idea of different cultures
have different moral codes, and there is no moral standard, law or code that is equally
binding or applicable to all humans at all times. To demonstrate, the eskimo culture
practices infanticide, this is where parents intentionally kill their infants, other societies
may view this to be morally unacceptable, but according to moral relativism, it is morally
right for the eskimos as their culture views it to be as morally right, vice versa for the
cultures that views it as morally wrong, the cultural difference argument views this
situation in a way that due to the fact that both societies have opposing views on the
practice, it is not morally right nor wrong, thus both of them conclude that there are no
arguments for the practice of infanticide.
Para 3
- According to moral relativism, what makes an act or rule morally right (or wrong) in a
society or culture is that the society or culture treats that act or rule as morally right (or
wrong), this is opposing to the divine command theory as it states that ‘morally right’
means ‘commanded by God’, and ‘morally wrong’ means forbidden by God’. As an
 example, the gratuitous torture of small children where as suggested by moral relativism,
is said to be morally right simply by divine command, this could be morally wrong
according to moral relativism in a culture, if and if only they view it as immoral. Thus,
the standard of right and wrong is dependent on God’s commands, while in moral
relativism relies on the culture's perspective.
8. Explain what compatibilism is and discuss whether and how effectively compatibilism can
resolve the problem of free will.
Introduction
- Free will has traditionally been conceived of as a kind of power to control one’s choices
and actions, when an individual exercise free will over his or her choices and actions, the
individual’s choices and actions are up to him or her. However, there is a problem in the
case of free will, it is the problem of reconciling two ideas that seem to contradict each
other, which is that determinism is true and that humans have free will. This is where
compatibilism comes in, if one is a compatibilist, then a case for the reality of free will
requires evidence for our effective agents who for most part is aware of what we do and
why we do it. This essay will discuss on how effectively compatibilism can resolve the
problem of free will.

Para 2
- Firstly, Compatibilist theory says that “determinism is true” and “humans have free will”
are compatible.
- One of the ways to explain is given by harry Frankfurt, he distinguishes between first
order desires and second order desires. First order desires are desires to do certain things
such as the desire to take drugs. Second order desires are desires to have or not to have
certain first order desires such as wanting to stop wanting to take drugs. Someone has
free will when they have the ability to align their first and second order desires. For
example, a person who take drugs because he feels the strong urge to do so, he has also
reflected on his desires and strongly wishes to continue to have the urge to take drugs, in
other words, he is addicted and also wants to be addicted. According to Frankfurt, this is
an act of free will, because this addict has aligned his first and second order desires, and
if that person is determined to be able to do what they want, thus ‘free will’ and
‘determinism is true’ are compatible.
- Secondly, a compatibilist would argue by first looking into how the words of “free will”
and “freedom” are used. To illustrate, in case of theft, a judge asked “Did you steal the
bread of your own free will?”, there are two possible situation for the replies to the judge,
in the first situation, Alex, who was the thief, replied “Yes, I stole it because I thought no
one was looking”, and in second situation, Amir who was the thief in this situation
replied “No, I stole it because my employer threatened to beat me if I did not.”.
According to a compatibilist, Alex acted freely because his action was caused by desires,
and Amir did not act freely because his action was caused by physical force. It can be
distinguished between free and unfree actions even if in both situations, they are
determined.