Philo1 Reviewer (From Ma’am)
 major proponent: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of
Utilitarianism
 talks of the "greatest happiness principle"- an
action is right in so far as it promotes happiness,
wrong as it promotes the reverse of happiness
(Utilitarianism, Ch. 2)
 a consequentialist theory in so far as it puts
valuation on the end result of the act
 happiness- pleasure and the absence of pain;
unhappiness- pain and the absence of pleasure
 why happiness? Because the ultimate aim is the
good, and seemingly, pleasure, which extends to
happiness, must have some attributes of the good.
I. Jeremy Bentham
 proposed a numerical- based evaluation of
pleasure
 he is a political reformer; the reason he came up
with this position is due to his belief that the
masses' happiness should be promoted as well.
 heavily influenced by Thomas Hobbes (Egoist)
and David Hume (Empiricist)
II. Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Purity
4. Certainty
5. Propinquity
6. Extent
7. Fecundity
 This was criticised as it didn't distinguish higher
(rational/ intellectual) pleasures from lower
(appetitive) ones
 Instrumental vs intrinsic good- some actions are
wrong regardless of the consequences
 Classified position as act utilitarianism (short-
term; valuation of correctness lies on the action
itself and its immediate consequences)
III. John Stuart Mill
 proposed quality over quantity (intellectual
pleasures over sensual pleasures)
 modified the theory into its classical form,
"greatest good for the greatest number of people"
 people should seek what gives them the highest
pleasures
 identifies with rule utilitarianism (long- term;
valuation of correctness lies on whether the rule
being followed produce higher aggregated
pleasure)
Deontology (Kantian Ethics)
the Metaphysics of Morals)
o German philosopher, well known rationalist
o Believed that every human being is equipped
with built-in faculties which enables them to
deliberate actions (as well as learn stuff)
o These very faculties enable us to think
rationally, hence an action is reasonable by
virtue of it being "formulated" using these
faculties for deliberation
I. Kantian Deontology
 Talks about human contract, not human behavior
 Rationality
o Comes with rights and obligations
o Hence we are expected to do certain acts as
we are entitled to claim/ actualize certain
rights
o These are what people ought to do given that
they are all rational
 Duty-based
o These duties appeal to us instinctively (along
with our ability to learn stuff)
 Free will
o People are endowed free will, but since they
are rational, it is expected that they incline
their free will towards the good
 Good will
o The only good thing; performed through habit
 For Kant, since the outcome of events poses
uncertainties, we can only rely on one's motives
 Goodwill, or goodness, is embedded on us
naturally. Duties to perform good deed should
spring from our intention (motivation) and not
desires
 Act in accord to duty vs act from duty alone:
1. I will do X because it is my duty to do so-
WRONG
2. I will do X.- RIGHT (difference lies on the
reason why you are doing such did; the
former expresses actor as mere follower
instead of an autonomous, rational one)
II. Imperatives
 Commands
 Categorical Imperatives vs Hypothetical
Imperatives
o Categorical Imperatives
 Set of prevailing commands that people
adhere to by virtue of them being rational
creatures alone. This only acknowledges
goodwill as the only good.
o Hypothetical Imperatives
  Set of commands or conditions actualized
instrumentally; meaning, this is done in
order to achieve something else.
III. Universal Maxims
1. Universal Law Formula
 Act only on that maxim wherein you can at
the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
2. Humanity Formula
 Act so as to treat people always as ends in
themselves and never as means only.
3. Autonomy Formula
 Every being must act as if they are legislators
and not just mere followers of the universal
law.
Virtue Ethics
 One of the three major approaches to normative
thinking (the other two being consequentialism
and deontology)
 Reasoning appeals to virtues
I. Preliminaries
 Derived from the Ancient Greek writings of Plato
and more particularly Aristotle.
 Re- emerged in 1950’s through Elizabeth
Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy”
 Virtue ethics vs. virtue theory- virtue theory can
also be Kantian or utilitarian; pertains to an
account of virtue within one of the other
approaches.
II. Virtue, Practical Wisdom and Eudaimonia
 Virtue
o A character trait; cannot be attributed on
a basis of a single instance
o Normally is more complex for it concerns
a wide range of factors such as emotions,
choices, values and sensibilities, among
others
o Example: Honesty
 Is a person who practices honest
dealings and does not cheat
honest? Not necessarily; for
honesty cannot be simply
contained this way.
 There could be other self-
motivating factors other than “To
do otherwise would be dishonest”.
 How about lying? Technically, an
honest person abhors lying, but
knows when to or not to commit
it. (phronesis)
 There is in a away a multi-
dimensional consideration: an
honest person is someone who
chooses honest friends, teaches
her children to become honest,
disapproves of dishonesty and is
hurt when someone dear
performs acts of dishonesty.
o Possessing a virtue is a matter of degree,
for most people can be described as
fairly virtuous… rather than being
described as dishonest, for those people
might have certain “blind spots”.
o The fully virtuous does what he needs to
do without encountering any inner
struggle or deliberation to achieve a
desire; the strength of the will
(continence) must subdue it.
 Phronesis
o Practical wisdom; one must not let one’s
values override him completely to the
extent of being impractical
o Can be best described by Aristotle’s
doctrine of the Golden Mean.
o Hamartanein
 Literally translates to "to miss the
mark", the Greeks ' term for
sin/crime. This term runs parallel
with Aristotle's humanistic
approach in ethics.
 Example: Generosity
 Stinginess (Vice) -> Generosity
(Virtue) -> Extravagance (Vice)
 Basically, practical wisdom is that
knowledge which enables one to
actualize one’s good intentions
correctly.
o Two Aspects:
 Comes only with the experience of
life
 Capacity to take into account the
importance of individual features
of a situation as the only relevant
ones.
 Eudaimonia
o Human flourishing
o “Well-being”, the telos or goal of a human
being
o A “value-laden” concept of happiness.
 The good life as defined by:
o Eudaimonism
 The eudaimon life; virtues are
 what enable the human to achieve
eudaimon; they benefit their
possessors.
o Pluralism
 The morally meritorious life; one
that is responsive to the demands
of the world
o Perfectionism
 Naturalism; good life is lived by
someone who is good; virtues
make their possessors good as a
human being
III. Objections to Virtue Ethics
1. The application problem
o Virtue ethics does not provide a singular
moral code, hence its inability to prescribe
action- guidance.
o Virtue ethicists denied the claim of
deontologists and consequentialist alike that
it is the task of ethical theory to provide a
universal moral code that would enable even
the non- virtuous to abide. However, that
seemingly is the case, for it prescribes that
one be a virtuous person without outlining
what one has to do.
o Their answer: a great deal of specific action
guidance could be found in rules employing the
virtue and vice terms (Anscombe, Hursthouse
1991).
2. The charge of cultural relativity
o Different cultures subscribe to different
virtues, hence an application of the notion of
ethical relativism.
o Their answer: such is also the case with the
other two theories; besides, although the
understandings of virtues are relative, the
virtues themselves are not. (Nussbaum 1988)
3. The conflict problem
o Extending the second problem, what would
virtue ethics prescribe in instances of virtue
clashes?
o Their answer: either practice practical
wisdom or leave it as irresolvable.
4. The justification problem
o How does one justify the grounds of his
ethical belief?
o Their answer: None as of the moment, as
they insist that their claims are not founded
on some external factors. However, the
modern views tend to take its justification
from Rawls’ coherentist approach.
5. The egotism objection
o When do we know that an agent is indeed
acting out of virtues sake, or if he is just
gratifying himself?
o Their answer: then the agent is not going to
achieve eudaimonia, because just exercising
the virtues does not attain it.
6. There are no virtues
o “Situational” social psychology rebuts the
existence of claims such as character traits
which are the foundation of virtues.
o Their answer: regardless, we are not
focusing solely on one virtue, but an
aggregate of it (multi- track disposition).
Deductive and Inductive Logic
I. Deductive Argument
 From general argument to specific.
 Example: If I live inside UP Diliman Campus,
therefore, I live in Quezon City. [Presupposes that
you know that UP Diliman is within Quezon City].
 Advantages: Stronger between the two; supports
valid arguments
 Disadvantages: Doesn't contribute new
knowledge.
II. Inductive Argument
 From specific to general
 Example: Samples from culture A shows distinct
growth after receiving substance B. Therefore,
population A will show distinct growth after
receiving substance B. [Generalizing results for
one sample as binding to the entire population].
 Advantages: Used in discovering new things
about the world (science)
 Disadvantages: Can be proven false if one
falsifying instance occur.
III. Terms to remember
 Vague
 Ambiguous
 Sound
 Valid
IV. Square of Oppositions
 Sentences
o Grammatical English forms following
proper punctuation and syntax.
 Statements
o Sentences with one corresponding truth
 value. the subject or predicate (or both) is manipulated;
 Examples: yet the resulting statement carries the same
context.
Sentence: A table is brown.
ConvErsIon
A. All tables are brown.  Applicable for E and I (A proposition are also
E. No tables are brown. permitted, but with limitations)
I. Some tables are brown.  Examples:
O. Some tables are not brown. o A -> I (ex. All dogs are mammals -> Some
mammals are dogs)
o E -> E (ex. No fishes are pirates -> No
pirates are fishes)
o I -> I (ex. Some lamps are posts ->
Some posts are lamps)
 General form
o S -> P
P -> S

ObvErsIOn
 Applicable for all (including A, but there's no A in
"Obversion" :( )
 Examples:
1. Contradiction: If one is true, then the other one o A -> E (ex. All books are informative
must be false. -> No books are not informative.)
If one is false, then the other one is true. o E -> A (ex. No umbrellas are paper-
2. Contrary: Both can be false at the same time, but made -> All umbrellas are non-paper
cannot be true. made)
3. Subcontrary: Both can be true at the same time, o I -> O (ex. Some profs are lazy ->
but cannot be false. Some profs are not non-lazy)
4. Subalternation: If the universal is true, then the o O -> I (ex. Some fans are not light ->
existential must also be true. Some fans are non-light).
If the existential is true, we  General Form: (Universals)
cannot say anything about the universal. o S -> P
~S -> ~P
 If: A is true, E is false  General Form: (Particulars)
 If: E is true; A is false o S -> P
 If: I is true; O is false S -> ~ (~P)
 If: O is true; I is false
ContrApOsition
Notice that the values did not come arbitrarily. We  Applicable for A and O only
can trace it via the square of oppositions:  Examples:
o A-> A (ex. All swivel chairs are soft -> All
A (True) E (False) nonsoft stuff are non- swivel chairs)
su o O-> O (ex. Some rooms are not green
b -> Some non green stuff are not
al nonrooms)
te  (Or: Some non green stuff are
contradiction rooms)
I (True)rn O (False) and vice versa.  General Form: (A)
o S->P
*(~)P -> (~)S
V. Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition *Depending on how you understand
 Conserves truth value of the statement "non"
 Rephrases the statement in such a way that either  General Form: (O)
 o S -> ~P
(~)P -> ~ (~)S  Example:
Truth Tables o (P˄R) ↄ Q
~Q
~ - negation (not) R
˅ - disjunction (or) ~P
˄ - conjunction (and)
Ↄ - conditional (if, then) {[(P˄R) ↄ Q] ˄ (~Q) ˄ R} ↄ ~P
≡- biconditional (if and only if)
P R Q ~ ~ P˄ (P˄R [(P˄R)ↄQ {[(P˄R)ↄQ
P Q R )ↄQ ] ^ (~Q) ] ^ (~Q) ^
P ~P ^R R} ↄ ~P
T T T F F T T F T
T F
F T T T F F T F T
F T
T F T F F F T F T
P Q P˄Q
F F T T F F T F T
T T T
T T F F T T F F T
F T F F T F T T F T T T
T F F T F F F T F T F T
F F F F F F T T F T F T

P Q P˅Q Long computation, but this is valid. You may check for
T T T yourself.
F T T
T F T Simpler one:
F F F
P Q PↄQ P ˅ ~R
~R__
T T T ~P
F T T
T F F [(P ˅ ~R) ˄ ~R] ↄ ~P
F F T
P ~R P˅ (P ˅ ~R) ˄ ~P [(P ˅ ~R) ˄ ~R] ↄ
~R ~R ~P
P Q P≡Q T T T T F F
T T T F T T T T T
F T F T F T F F T
T F F F F F F T T
F F T
There is an instance where the end result is false,
I. Creating Truth Tables therefore the argument is invalid.
 The purpose of creating truth tables is to
determine validity/ strength of an argument. We II. Falsification
say that an argument is valid if all values  On instances when truth tables are too long, we
may opt to use falsification method instead. The
derived from manipulating all possible
rationale behind this is that we assume that the
combination of variables and truth values in an
argument is false and we prove it to be one. If we
argument yields true in all cases. cannot, then the argument is unfalsifiable,
 Formula= 2n; where n is the number of variables meaning, it is valid.
 Example: Another example:
o (S ↄ T) ˄ (R ↄ U)
S˅R P˅S
T˅U S
~P
{[(S ͻ T)˄(R ↄ U)] ˄ (S˅R)} ↄ ( T˅U)
[(P ˅ S) ^ S] ↄ ~P
First, we assume that this is false. Since the general
form is that of a conditional, we follow the false- FIRST, we assume that it is false:
yielding conditional form T ↄ F
[(P ˅ S) ^ S] ↄ ~P
{[(S ͻ T)˄(R ↄ U)] ˄ (S˅R)} ↄ ( T˅U) T F F
T F F
*Notice that I am aligning values under main We may now derive the value of some variables:
operations for each
[(P ˅ S) ^ S] ↄ ~P
Now, we may operate accordingly: T T F FT

{[(S ͻ T)˄(R ↄ U)] ˄ (S˅R)} ↄ ( T˅U) Continuing:

F F T F FFF
[(P ˅ S) ^ S] ↄ ~P
*We have assigned truth values to T and U in TTT TTF FT
accordance to our assumption that the conclusion is
false. We have exhausted the possible combination which
will yield the argument invalid. Notice that there are
{[(S ͻ T)˄(R ↄ U)] ˄ (S˅R)} ↄ ( T˅U) no inconsistencies on the designation of truth values.
FTFTFTF T F T F FF F F
The argument therefore is INVALID.
*Moving on to the inner equation, we assign truth
values to correspond and to remain consistent to
what was given Rules of Inferences
 These are rules proven to be valid and are thus
However, we can see that there is an inconsistency in used to establish validity of other (longer)
our equation: arguments.

{[(S ͻ T)˄(R ↄ U)] ˄ (S˅R)} ↄ ( T˅U) 1. Modus Ponens (MP)

FTFTFTF T FTF F FFF  AͻB
A
Should be (S ˅ R) B
TTT
2. Modus Tollens (MT)
Highlighted portion needs to be true; however,  AᴐB
deriving from our operations, both variables (S and ~B
R) are false. Hence, there is an inconsistency. ~A

The argument therefore is VALID. 3. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

 AͻB
Remember: If there are inconsistencies in the  BͻC
statement, it is VALID. If there are none, you are  AͻC
successful in proving that the statement is INVALID.
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
 A˅B
~A (or ~B)
B (or A)
 6. T 1, 4 MP
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD) 7. T ˅ V 5 Add
 (E ↄ F) ˄ (G ↄ H)  1. H ˅ J
 E˅G 2. K ˅ J
 F˅H 3. ~J
H˄K
6. Absorption (Abs.) 4. H 1,3 DS
 PↄQ 5. K 2,3 DS
P ͻ (P ˄ Q) 6. H ˄ K 4,5 Conj

B. Simplification (Simp)  1. (M ˅ O) ↄ N
 I˄J  2. P ˄ ~N
I (or J)  ~M
 3. ~N 2 Simp
8. Conjunction (Conj)  4. ~ (M˅O) 1,3 MT
 K  5. ~M ˄ ~O 4 DMT
L  6. ~M 5 Simp
K^L

9. Addition (Add) Fallacies

 M
M˅N (you may refer to your classmates' handouts
regarding this. Below musings are just supplemental)

Plus: How do we know if a fallacy is an appeal to incorrect

De Morgan's Theorem (DMT)
~ (P ˅ R) = ~P ˄ ~R
~ (P ˄ R) = ~P ˅ ~R
authority, ad hominem, or ad baculum?
Ex. We should listen to our parents when they say
that being too close to the TV while watching is bad
for your eyesight.

*Notice here that no motives are given; however, we

Proving may differentiate among the three as per below:
 1. (A ͻ B) ˄ (C ↄ D)
2. A ˅ C 1. Appeal to incorrect authority- "...because they are
3. ~B dermatologist and dermatologist are doctors, too."
D
4. B ˅ D 1,2 CD 2. Ad hominem A. - "...because they are our parents
5. D 3,4 DS and they love us." character
B. - "...because they are our parents
 1. (S ˄ R) ͻ (T ˄ U) and they have responsibility to buy us glasses if our
2. ~ T ˅ ~U visions become impaired." Circumstance
3. S
~R 3. Ad baculum- "...because we'll have trouble if we
4. ~ (T˄U) 2 DMT oppose our parents."
5. ~ (S˄R) 1,4 MT
6. ~S ˅ ~R 5 DMT
7. ~R 1,3 DS

 1. S ↄ T
2. ~S ͻ U
3. ~U
T˅V
4. ~ ~S 2,3 MT
5. S (4 double negation)