Chapter 3: Perspective

& Philosophical
Foundations of
Humanity, Philosophy,
Religion & God
Philosophy of Philosophy of
Reasoning Politics and
Society

Philosophy of Philosophy of
Morality Education
 PHILOSOPHY OF
REASONING
Reporter:
Meliza N. Abucay
Reasoning is the set of processes that
enables us to go beyond the
information given, especially when the
world around us does not always give
us complete information.
Reasoning is the process of thinking
about something in a rational way in
order to form a conclusion or
judgment.
Look at the three images in sequence as
presented above.
1. What do you think is the scenario in each
image?
2. What assumptions did you make, based on the
information given?
3. Explain your reasoning. In other words, explain
how you arrived at your answer to these
discussion prompts.
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge
and make better decisions. For example, you may have
overheard someone engaged in a discussion say, “Look, be
reasonable.” When people make this comment, they are usually
asking others to:
• be open to changing their minds;
• avoid bias;
• think logically;
• dig deeper for the truth, whether they like that truth or not;
and/or
• set aside narrow-mindedness, superstitions, magical thinking,
and impulsiveness.
Philosophical reasoning then, at its root, is
about engaging in discourse - one that asks
the participants to argue a point, a thought,
an issue, with logic. You will need to learn
how to discuss philosophical questions the
way philosophers do, as presented in, “How
to Argue,” a video created by Crash Course.
Parts of an Argument
What constitutes an argument?
Well, as simple and yet as odd as this may sound, arguments are
composed of sentences. In fact, they are made up of a particular
type of sentence, known as a proposition. A proposition is a
declarative sentence - or statement - that has a truth value. To be
more precise, a proposition is a sentence that expresses facts
that can be either true or false. For example, “Today is Tuesday”
or, “It is very hot today.” Now, it could be Tuesday, so this
statement would therefore be perfectly true. No one would argue
with it. This statement, then, is NOT a proposition.
Typically, most of the propositions in an argument state
facts or provide information which supports
the claim being made. These propositions are known as
premises - a proposition serving as a reason for a
conclusion. The following statement is an example of
this: "Since the housing market is depressed and interest
rates are low, it's a good time to buy a home."
The claim being made is known as the conclusion of the
argument - a proposition that is supported or entailed by
a set of premises.
Arguments always have one conclusion, but the number
of premises can vary quite a bit.
Types of Arguments
Philosophers distinguish between two broad
methods of arguing: deductive and inductive.
The deductive method moves from the more
general to the specific, whereas the inductive
method moves from a specific case to a more
general conclusion.
 Deductive Arguments
Deductive arguments are supposed to be
watertight. For a deductive argument to be
a good one (to be valid) it must be
absolutely impossible for both its premises
to be true and its conclusion to be false.
With a good deductive argument, that
simply cannot happen; the truth of the
premises entails the truth of the conclusion.
The classical example of a deductively
valid argument is:
1.All men are mortal.
2.Socrates is a man, therefore...
3.Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both 1 and 2
are true and 3 is false, so this argument is
deductively valid.
Inductive Arguments
Inductive arguments needn’t be as
rigorous as deductive arguments in order to
be good arguments.
An example of a strong inductive argument
would be:
1.The sun has not exploded for all its
existence. therefore...
2.The sun will not explode tomorrow.
We are not 100% certain that the
conclusion is true, but it is more than likely,
based on past outcomes, that the
conclusion is true.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Let’s imagine the following scenario:
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings
Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Each of them cares more about
their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever
prosecutor makes the following offer to each. “You may choose to confess or
remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent, I will drop
all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your
accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while
you remain silent, she (or he) will go free while you do the time. If you both
confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole.
If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms
possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the
jailer before my return tomorrow morning.
You are Tanya - what do you do?
Steps:
1.Explain what you chose to do - and your reasons
for this decision.
a) How did you validate your reasoning?
b) What premises did you put forth?
c) What claims were made?
d) Were your arguments deductive or inductive?
Logical Fallacies - What They Are, and How to Avoid Them
Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning.
For example, say people try to argue with you and base their positions on a
bad piece of reasoning - not information, but reasoning - in other
words, how they assert their position, or try to persuade you to come around
to their way of thinking.
For example: There is a huge Math midterm exam in two days. You are
concerned that you are going to fail and mess up your overall average - an
average that you need to maintain to get into the college you want. While
you are walking through the cafeteria, wondering how to rearrange your
schedule so you can get maximum prep time, someone from class whom
you barely know calls you over to a table. Turns out that particular someone
got a copy of the mid-term and offers you a copy.
Now, leave alone the ethical issue here. You decline, saying that
you don’t think it is right. This person then argues with you and
wants to know what the big deal is - says to you, “Look, everyone
else is doing it, so it's not like it’s really cheating if we all have the
same edge.”
That is an example of bad reasoning. That classmate is using
what is known as “the bandwagon fallacy” or “authority of the
many.” She or he is trying to persuade you that if an idea is
popular, or if many people believe it is right, then it must be right.
So logical fallacies are not about the content of the argument -
we will cover that later - they are about the reasoning that
individuals use to justify why they think that they are right.
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Fallacies can be categorized as either formal or informal.
Formal Fallacies
Earlier in this activity, we stated that deductive
arguments are supposed to be “watertight” -
meaning that the argument is unable to be
disputed or questioned. Therefore, any
deductive argument that fails this standard is
technically flawed and is thus incorrect. Such
an argument is committing a logical error and
is a deductive fallacy.
Informal Fallacies
Good inductive arguments lend support to
their conclusions, but even if their premises
are true then that doesn’t establish with 100%
certainty that their conclusions are true. This
means that all inductive arguments, even the
good ones, are deductively flawed. So, to
distinguish between a “good” or “bad”
argument, we speak more in terms of “strong”
and “weak.” So an informal fallacy has more to
do with whether the critical thinking behind
an argument was “weak” or “strong.”
 Philosophy of
Morality
Reporter: Rhea Joyce L. Abalorio
 What is meant by “morality”
• It refers to a code of • It deals with humans and
conduct that is accepted how they relate to others
by anyone who meets and the world around
certain intellectual and them. It deals with how
volitional conditions, we treat one another so
including the condition of as to promote what is
being rational. good and right.
Morality is determined by
four areas:

1. Religion. Morality is
2. Nature. By the relation
determined by the
between human being
relation between human
and nature.
being and supernatural
being.
Morality is determined by
four areas:
3. Individuality. By the 4. Society. By the relation
relation the individuals between human being
has to him or herself. and society.
 Where does morality came from

Instinctual and Emotional Traits

Empathy
Guilt and conscience
Shame (and concern for reputation)
Disgust
Outrage and inequity aversion
Where does morality came from

Cognitive Capacities

Self-control
Reasoning/rational intelligence
 Where does morality came from

Instinctual and Emotional Traits

Empathy
Guilt and conscience
Shame (and concern for reputation)
Disgust
Outrage and inequity aversion
 Where does morality came from
Enlightened self-interest and
reciprocity

Social factors shaping morality center on

cooperation. Cooperation is strongly
influenced by self-interest and reciprocity.
Three major kinds of moral theory
1. Consequentialism
(Classic Utilitarianism)

Classical utilitarians are

consequentialist with a particular
theory of the good: the good is
happiness, where happiness is simply
the experience of pleasure and the
absence of pain. This theory of the
good, which identifies happiness with
pleasure, is called hedonism.
 1. Consequentialism
(Classic Utilitarianism)

● For consequentialism,
the moral rightness or
wrongness of an act
depends on the
consequences it
produces.
 1. Consequentialism
(Classic Utilitarianism)

● For consequentialism,
the moral rightness or
wrongness of an act ● Benefit and harm can be
depends on the characterized in more than
consequences it one way; they are defined in
produces. terms of
happiness/unhappiness and
pleasure/pain.
 1. Consequentialism
(Classic Utilitarianism)

● Utilitarians’ concern
is how to increase net
utility. Their moral
“the morally right action is
theory is based on the
the action that produces
principle of utility the most good” (Driver
which states that 2014).
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)

• One of the distinctive

features of Kant’s
ethics is that it
focuses on duties,
defined by right and
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
wrong.
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)

• Right and wrong are distinct

from good and bad in that
they directly prescribe Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

actions: right actions are • First, Kant believes

ones we ought to do (are
that morality must
morally required to do) and
wrong actions we ought not be rational.
to do (are morally forbidden
from doing).
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)

● He models his
morality on science, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

which seeks to ● Similarly, morality

discover universal will be a system of
laws that govern the universal rules that
natural world. govern action.
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)

● Kant distinguishes
two types of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

imperatives: ● A hypothetical
hypothetical and imperative is a
categorical contingent
imperatives. command.
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
● It’s conditional on a
person’s wants, needs,
● For example, the
or desires and normally
advice, “If you want to
comes in the following
do well on a test, then
form: “If you want/need
you should study a lot”
A, then you ought to do
would be a hypothetical
B.
imperative.
 2. Deontology
(Deontological Theory)
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
● A categorical
imperative, instead of
● Examples of categorical
taking an if-then form,
imperatives would be
is an absolute
“You shouldn’t kill,”
command, such as,
“You ought to help
“Do A,” or “You ought
those in need,” or
to do A. “Don’t steal.”
 3. Virtue-based Theory
• Modern virtue ethics takes
its inspiration from the
Aristotelian understanding
of character and virtue.
Aristotelian character is,
importantly, about a state of
being. It’s about having the
appropriate inner states. Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe (1919-
2001)
 3. Virtue-based Theory Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)
• Another distinguishing
feature of virtue
ethics is that
• The character trait of
character traits are
kindness, would be
stable, fixed, and expected to be
reliable dispositions. possessed
consistently.
 3. Virtue-based Theory Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• Moral education and

development is a
major part of virtue
stages, relies on the
ethics. Moral
availability of good
development, at least
role models.
in its early
 3. Virtue-based Theory
Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• The virtuous agent acts as a role

model and the student of virtue
emulates his or her example.
Initially this is a process of
habituating oneself in right action.
 3. Virtue-based Theory
Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• Virtue is not itself a habit.

Habituation is merely an aid to
the development of virtue, but
true virtue requires choice,
understanding, and knowledge.
 3. Virtue-based Theory
Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• Virtue is not itself a habit.

Habituation is merely an aid to
the development of virtue, but
true virtue requires choice,
understanding, and knowledge.
 3. Virtue-based Theory Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• Virtue “lies in a mean”

because the right
response to each response to different
situation is neither too situations and different
much nor too little. agents. The virtues are
Virtue is the appropriate associated with feelings.
 3. Virtue-based Theory
Gertrude Elizabeth
Margaret Anscombe
(1919-2001)

• Virtue “lies in a mean”

because the right
response to each response to different
situation is neither too situations and different
much nor too little. agents. The virtues are
Virtue is the appropriate associated with feelings.
 Challenges to Relativism
Morality
• Descriptive relativism:
Egoism People of different cultures
follow different norms and
• Psychological egoism: have different conceptions of
Human actions are the good.
motivated by their self- • Ethical relativism: What
interests. makes an act morally right
• Ethical egoism: One and wrong or something
should only promote morally good or bad
one’s own interests, or it depends on the cultural
is alright for everyone context in which the question
to do so. is raised.
 Challenges to Moral Nihilism
Morality
• Ethical claims are
Moral Skepticism either fictitious
(according to error
• No one has any moral theories) or neither true
knowledge. nor false.
• It holds that we are • They are not
never justified in answerable to any
believing that, and reality.
never know whether, • There is no such thing
moral claims are true. called “morality”.
We think Morally
because We Find the Truth
We Feel Good Epistemic
(Intrapsychic functionalism: Plato,
functionalism: Freud) Kohlberg, and the
Rationalists
We want to Succeed socially
Social-functionalism:
Darwin
 Why I be Moral?
Socrates’ might respond
1. Socrates will say truly just people would act morally because
they love justice.
2. We have created ‘justice’ only because we are afraid of
suffering.
3. Unjust people find it hard to live with themselves because, they
have to live with a bad person, which makes them unhappy.
 Why I be Moral?
Aristotle might respond
(Nicomachean Ethics)
1. Plato maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of
ethics.
2. Happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of
moral thought and conduct.
3. Virtues (aretê: 'excellence') are the requisite skills and
dispositions needed to attain it
 Why I be Moral?
Aristotle might respond
(Nicomachean Ethics)
1. Happiness is the highest good and the end at which all our
activities ultimately aim. As such, it is the supreme good.
2. The difficulty is that people don’t agree on what makes for a
happy or good life, so the purpose of the Ethics is to find an
answer to this question.
3. Virtue is a matter of having the appropriate attitude toward
pain and pleasure
 Why I be Moral?
Immanuel Kant might respond
1. The supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality
that he called the “Categorical Imperative”.
2. To do something moral because it makes you feel good or
because you hope to gain something from it
3. The good will is the source of value, and without it, nothing
would have any real worth.
 Why I be Moral?
Francis Herbert Bradley
might respond
1. The aim of ethics is the realization of self.
2. The question should be asked along the lines of “What I am
to do or be?” or “What is the ideal I seek to realize?”
3. Willing and acting in accordance with an ideal is a moral end.
 Why I be Moral?
Dharma as a Moral Value
1. That which leads to the attainment of Abhyudaya (prosperity in this
world) and Nihsreyasa (total cessation of pain and attainment of
eternal bliss hereafter) is Dharma.

2. Dharma is not for developing intelligence; it is for developing

character.

3. When compared with all knowledge, good conduct is considered to

be superior; because Dharma is based on acharas. When man
abides by acharadharma, his life is prolonged.
Philosopher’s for Morality

For John Rawls,

Morality is
“prescriptive judgments of
justice, rights, and welfare
pertaining to how people ought
to relate to each other”.
Philosopher’s for Morality

Arthur Schopenhauer
on Morality
• The assumption that animals are without
rights and the illusion that our treatment of
them has no moral significance is a
positively outrageous example of Western
crudity and barbarity.
• Universal compassion is the only guarantee
of morality.
Philosopher’s for Morality

Friedrich Nietzsche on
Morality
• Nietzsche argued that there were two
fundamental types of morality:
• Master morality values pride and
power.
• Slave morality values kindness,
empathy, and sympathy.
Philosopher’s for Morality

Indian Philosophy and

Tradition
• The basic nature of man are religious
and spiritual, goodness and welfare,
universality and fraternity, spiritual
integrity, moral uprightness,
benevolence, unselfishness under all
circumstances.
Philosopher’s for Morality

Indian Philosophy and

Tradition
• Mahāvākyas – “The Great Sayings
• Prajn a
͂ nām Brahman. (The intelligence is
Divine),
• Ayamātmā Brahman (The soul is Divine),
• Aham Brahmāsmi (I am Divine), • and
Tattvamṃasi.
Philosopher’s for Morality

Darma as a Moral Value

• Mahāvākyas – “The Great Sayings

• Prajn a
͂ nām Brahman. (The intelligence is
Divine),
• Ayamātmā Brahman (The soul is Divine),
• Aham Brahmāsmi (I am Divine), • and
Tattvamṃasi.
Morality quotes
by Philosophers
PHILOSOPHY IN
POLITICS AND
SOCIETY
Reporter: Andrew Navarro
 What is Politics?

‘ Man in Nature is a
political Animal’

Aristotle
 Defining Politics
• The word ‘politics ‘ is derived from polis, meaning
literally ‘city state ‘.

• Politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of

the polis

• People are said to be ‘in politics’ when they hold

public office,or to be entering politics’when seek to
do so.
 Defining Politics
• The word ‘politics ‘ is derived from polis, meaning
literally ‘city state ‘.

• Politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of

the polis

• People are said to be ‘in politics’ when they hold

public office,or to be entering politics’when seek to
do so.
 Political Philosophy

It is the serious search for comprehensive

▪ Politics isor
knowledge linked to theabout
wisdom phenomena ofthings
political conflict. and
cooperation.

Political Philosophy can be defined as philosophical reflection on

how to best arrange our collective life- our political institutions and
our social practices, such as our economic system and our pattern of
family life. (David Miller)
 Problems dealt in Political Philosophy
01 HUMAN
PURSUIT OF POWER
CONFLICT

04 02

MORAL STATE
FOUNDATIONS OF 03 ITS NATURE,
LEGITIMACY,LIBERTY,EQ PURPOSE,AND LIMITS
UALITY ,JUSTICE AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
 DIMENSION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Perspective or normative Dimension
The aspect of philosophy that prescribes
how things ought to be
The need of knowledge concerning
principles of evaluation that enable us to
construct and apply a standard to judge
politics.
 DIMENSION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Descriptive Dimension
The aspect of philosophy that describe
how things are
The six issues require a comprehensive
knowledge of the facts about human
nature and human social relationship
 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
• It begins with the assumption that such public
questions as obedience to the law, the best possible
government, or the justice of public policies are in
need of justification
• It is possible only in word where ends collide –Sir
Isiah Berlin
• It is an attempt to truly know both the nature of
political things and the right to the good political
order-Leo Strauss
The problem: Its Diagnosis and Prescription
 Sources of Political Conflict: Differences

GENDER SOCIAL STATUS

ECONOMIC INTEREST
RELIGION
 CONFLICT
Many of the great or epic political philosophers have pursued their
Inquiries as a result of profound social conflict and decay

Their political philosophies and

Comprehensive visions.

Are like pearls : They are not produced

without an irritant (Tomas Spragens)
 CONFLICT
Contemporary political philosophies have resulted from

• The Nazi Holocaust

• Crisis of liberal democracy

• Emergence of bureaucratic state

• Globalization

• Gender inequality
• Terrorism
 Conflict

Philosopical approch Historical Approach to

to politics politics

Help us to seek knowledge of Most useful in helping us

the real complexity of human
needs, aspirations and
relationships
understand the irritants-that
contributed to political
philosophers desire to write
texts with comprehensive
visions
 Philosphy and Diagnosis
Political Philosophers provide a comprehensive vision of the political when
they raise questions and provide often tentative answers about the most
important factors that cause:

• Conflict
• Disorder
• Corruption
• Violence
• Terrorism
• Exploitation
 Philosophy and
Diagnosis
Hobbes examine human passion
Plato on differences as the basis
for justice
Machiavelli focuses on human deception
and its relevance to successful political
leadership
Marx addresses the role that economic
inequality and class conflict play in
forming political system
 Philosphy and Diagnosis
Political Philosophers are not satisfied in simply describing public disorder
or discontent ;

They seek to diagnose the cause of human conflict

To Leo Strauss :
Human beings will never create a society free of contradictions –perhaps even
including contradictory norms
 In Summary

Political philosophy has factual (descriptive),diagnosis

(causal) and evaluative (prespective dimensions)
 Society noun
1.companionship or association with one’s fellows friendly or intimate
2. A voluntary association of individual for common ends ,specifically an
organized group working together or periodically meeting because of
common
Interests,beliefs or profession
3.An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have
developed organized patterns of relationship through interaction with one
another.
- a community ,nation or broad grouping of people having common
traditions ,institutions and collective activities and interests.
 Oppression noun
1. a. unjust or or cruel exercise of authority or power
b.Something that oppresses especially in being an
Unjust or excessive exercise of power

2. a sense of being weighed down in body or mind.

 What we think: Society
When looking at society as American Society ,
with government and laws, that it is oppressive.
However most people are willing to give up some
Of their rights as a means of protection-
Greg Bartley
 What we think: Society
Society is a system of oppression in some ways but I think it an
over exaggeration to say that it is ‘nothing more than that ,People
are social by nature ,we want to be loved,accepted, to belong….so
we can create divisions between us so that we have a place to call
our own,we set standards for ourselves in order to meet our
personal needs then judge wo do not conform .But like children
who are dependent on parents ,we need the support of our created
societies .

-Jamie Chase
 What we think: Society
I feel no matter what kind of government you have,there will
always be someone dictating your mannerisms /life .Don’t do this,
don’t do that .Its never going to end.Society is and will always be
oppressive in that way.But if that is the noun,we can really call it
oppression?

-Manuel Alonzo
 What we think: Society
I feel no matter what kind of government you have,there will
always be someone dictating your mannerisms /life .Don’t do this,
don’t do that .Its never going to end.Society is and will always be
oppressive in that way.But if that is the noun,we can really call it
oppression?

-Manuel Alonzo
 What others think: Society
-’The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought’-
Emma Goldman

‘ Man seeketh in society comfort, use , and protection – Francis Bacon

‘To cut himself off thought from all of is relationship of race,and country
And citizenship get rid of all of those interest
prejudices,likings,superstitions,generated
 What others think: Society
‘To cut himself off thought from all of his relationship of race,and country
And citizenship- get rid of all of those interest, prejudices, likings,
superstitions, generated in him by the life of his own society and his own
time –to look on all of the changes societies have undergone and are
undergoing, without reference to nationality, or creed or personal welfare;
Is what average man cannot do at all, and what the exceptional man can
do very imperfectly ‘

Herbert Spencer
Thank
you!