Philosophy Asking Questions Seeking Answers 1St Edition Stephen Stich All Chapter

Philosophy - Asking questions seeking
answers 1st Edition Stephen Stich

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/philosophy-asking-questions-seeking-answers-1st-edi
tion-stephen-stich/
PHILOSOPHY
Asking Questions - Seeking Answers
STEPHEN STICH
THOMAS DONALUDSON
OXFORD
UNIVERSITYPRESS
Philosophy
Asking Questions—Seeking Answers
Philosophy
SLEPHEN STICH
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
TOM DONALDSON
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
New York Oxford

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.It furthers the
University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© 2019 by Oxford University Press
Fortitles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education

Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the
latest information about pricing and alternate formats.
All rights reserved. Nopart of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, withoutthe prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,bylicense, or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must notcirculate this work in any other form

and you must imposethis same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names:Stich, Stephen P., author.
Title: Philosophy: asking questions -seeking answers / written by Stephen
Stich and Thomas Donaldson.
Description: 1 [edition]. | New York : Oxford University Press, 2018.|
Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018016169 | ISBN 9780199329960 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH:Philosophy -Introductions.
Classification: LCC BD21 .S773 2018 | DDC 100—dc23 LCrecord available
at heeps://Iccn.loc.gov/2018016169
9876543210
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
CONTENTS
eee ee
Preface xi
CHAPTER1 WhatIs Philosophy? 1

Philosophy Is Everywhere 1
See Se
WhatIs a Philosophical Question? 2

The Philosophical Method 4
Philosophy and Science 5
WhyBother? 6
Discussion Question 6
Notes 6
CHAPTER 2 What Are Arguments, and How Should We

Evaluate Them? 7
Li Introduction 7
Premises and Conclusions 8
Pe RPNAWAYWHN
Evaluating Arguments 11
Deductive Validity 12
Induction and Abduction 13
Multistep Arguments 16
Evaluating Multistep Arguments 18
Some Arguments to Evaluate 21
Answers to Problems 23
What to Lookat Next 26
Glossary 27
Notes 28
vi CONTENTS
CHAPTER3 Does God Exist? 29

1. Introduction 29
‘The First Cause Argument 31
SNARK AYWN
Some Questions about the First Cause Argument 35
Leibniz's Cosmological Argument 36
The Design Argument 38
Criticisms of the Design Argument 41
Anselm's Ontological Argument 46
What, If Anything, Is Wrong with Anselm's Ontological
Argument? 49
9. A Pragmatic Case for Theism? 50
10. Conclusion 53
Glossary 53
Comprehension Questions 54
Discussion Questions 55
What to Look at Next 57
Notes 58
CHAPTER4 Why Does God Leave Usto Suffer? 59

. Introduction 59
SNARAWN
Three Logical Puzzles for Theists 60

Introducing the Problem of Evil 62
‘Three Inadequate Responses 64
Rethinking the Nature of God 66
Theodicy 67
Skeptical Theism 70
. Conclusion 71
Glossary 72
Notes 75
CHAPTER5 Can We Be Completely Certain of Anything? 77

1. Introduction 77
. Descartes’s Project 77
AwWsA WN
Certainty Is Hardto Find 79

Achieving Certainty 83
Vivid and Clear Perception 85
Descartes’s Theism, and His Solution to the Evil Demon
Problem 86
7. The Cartesian Circle 88
Contents vii
8. Descartes’s Legacy 89
9. Conclusion 91
Glossary 91
Notes 95
CHAPTER6 Can We Trust Our Senses? 97

1. Rationalism and Empiricism 97
Indirect Realism 98
NARARYN
Primary and Secondary Qualities 101

Do Material Objects Really Exist? 105
Berkeley's Idealism 106
Direct Realism 112
. Conclusion 113
Glossary 114
Notes 119
CHAPTER7 ¥WilltheSun Rise Tomorrow? 121

1. Introduction 121
Making Predictions 122
NAW YH
Hume's Problem 124

Karl Popper 127
Peter Strawson 130
Epistemically Basic Beliefs 132
. Beyond Enumerative Induction 134
Glossary 136
Notes 139
CHAPTERS WhatIs Knowledge? 141

1. Introduction 141
2. Three Kinds of Knowledge 141
3. Analyzing Propositional Knowledge: The Easy
Part—Beliefand Truth 142
Vili CoNTENTS
4. Analyzing Propositional Knowledge: The Hard

Part—Justification 143
Foundationalism 145
POnawy
Coherentism 148
Internalism and Externalism 150
Fallibilism and Skepticism 152
Gettier Cases—A Challengeto the Justified True Belief
Account of Knowledge 154
Glossary 155
Whatto Look at Next 159
Notes 159
CHAPTER 9 Do We Have Free Will? 161

1. What Is Determinism? 161
2. Hard Determinism 163
3. Soft Determinism 166
4. Libertarianism 170
Glossary 174
Notes 177
CHAPTER 10 HowIs Your Mind Related to Your Body? 179

Introduction 179
DAWAYWN SE
Cartesian Dualism 182

Philosophical Behaviorism 187
‘The Mind-Brain Identity Theory 193
Functionalism 197
. Backto Dualism? 203
Glossary 204
Notes 211
CHAPTER 11 Will You Be the Same Person in Ten Years? Could

You Survive Death? 213
1. The Philosophical Issue and Its Practical Importance 213
2. The Soul Theory 217
Contents ix
3. Problems for Soul Theory 219

4. Memory Theories 221
5. Personal Identity and the Brain 233
Glossary 235
Notes 242
CHAPTER12 Are There Objective Truths about Right and

Wrong? 243
1. Introduction 243
Objective Truth 244
NAW YH
The Divine Command Theory 246

Cultural Relativism 249
Subjectivism and Expressivism 253
The Qualified Attitude Theory 256
. Conclusion 258
Glossary 259
Notes 266
CHAPTER13 WhatReally Matters? 267

1. Introduction 267
2. Hedonism 268
3. Sartre 271
4. Susan Wolf on Meaningfulness 276
5. Conclusion 280
Glossary 281
Notes 285
CHAPTER14 What Should We Do? (PartI) 287

1. Act Consequentialism and Act Utilitarianism 287
2. Objections to Act Utilitarianism 292
3. Rule Consequentialism and Rule
Utilitarianism 295
4. Kant’s Universalization Test 298
Xx CoNnTENTS
5. Kant’s Humanity Formula 301

6. Comparing Kantianism and Consequentialism 303
Glossary 304
Notes 308
CHAPTER 15 What Should We Do? (Part II) 309

1. Introduction 309
2. Is It Morally Wrong to Go to the Opera While People
Are Starving? 310
3. Vegetarianism 315
4. Is Abortion Morally Wrong? 319
Glossary 327
Notes 332
Appendix A: Reading and Writing Tips 334

Seven Tips on Reading Philosophy 334
Eighteen Tips for Writing Philosophy Papers 336
Appendix B: The Truth about Philosophy Majors 342
Careers 342
Salaries 346
Meaning 348
Notes 348
Resources 349
Glossary 350
Credits 367
Index 369
PREFACE
eee
Whois this book for?

If you knowlittle or nothing about philosophy, and you wantto learn,
this is the book for you. Wewill introduce someof the biggest questions
in the subject; we keep it simple, and westart at the beginning.
Which philosophical topics do you cover?

You should check out our table of contents for a detailed answer, but
briefly:
« In the first chapter, we talk about what philosophyis.
¢ In the second chapter, we give you sometips on howto analyze
arguments.
« The third and fourth chapters are about God.
¢ Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 are about epistemology: a branch of
philosophytraditionally defined as the theory of knowledge.
¢ Chapters 9, 10, and 11 are about what kind of a thing youare.
Are you a purely physical thing, or do you have a nonphysical
component—a mind or soul? Do you havefree will? Could you
survive death?
¢ Chapters 12, 13, 14 are aboutethics.
xi
xii PREFACE
That’s a lot to cover in a small book.

Well, yes, but we have to admit that there are many philosophicaltopics
not covered in this book. There's not much aboutthe history of philoso-
phy. There's no political philosophyeither.
And the bookis incomplete in another way. Both of us were trained
in the Western philosophical tradition. This is a tradition that originated
in Europe and which has been strongly influenced by the Abrahamic
religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This book is really about
Western philosophy.If you wantto learn about other philosophical tra-
ditions, you should consider picking up one or moreof these books:
¢ Bryan W. Van Norden:Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy
¢ MarkSiderits: Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction
¢ J. N. Mohanty:Classical Indian Philosophy
¢ Lee M. Brown:African Philosophy: New and Traditional
Perspectives
¢ Kwasi Wiredu: A Companion to African Philosophy
¢ Susana Nuccetelli, Ofelia Schutte, and Otavio Bueno: A
Companion to Latin American Philosophy
¢ Eliot Deutsch and Ron Bontekoe: A Companion to World
Philosophies
Can an I ski
skip thee chapters
chapters that
that d don't interest me?
The chapters of this book are largely independent. You can read them in
any order, and you can omit chapters that don’tinterest you.
This stuff is interesting. WhatI else should lookat?

We make recommendationsfor further reading at the end of each chap-
ter. We recommend some movies too. And you mightlike to go to this
book’s website, www.oup.com/us/stich for links to podcasts, videos, and
so on.
How did you cometo write this book?

Somebookstake a long timeto create. This one has taken a very long
time. The story of how this book cameto be begins whenthe older of
the two authors, Stephen Stich, was assigned to teach the Introduction
to Philosophy lecture course shortly after he began his teaching career
Preface xiii
at the University of Michigan,fifty years ago. It was a daunting assign-

ment since Stich had never taken an Introduction to Philosophy course
as an undergraduate. Nor had heever taken a big lecture course in phi-
losophy. The Michigan Intro course was very big—almost 400 students
taught in a huge lecture hall with both a mainfloor and a balcony. After
checking out the lecture hall, Stich wasterrified. He spent an entire
summerdoing nothing but preparing notesfor Intro to Philosophylec-
tures. His goal was to present students with the best case to be madefor
both sides on a range of hotly debated issues that are central to Western
philosophy.
WhenStich stepped out onto the stage on the first day of class, mi-
crophonein hand, he waspetrified. But about ten minutes into the lec-
ture, he paused to take a sip of water and thought to himself, “Hey, this
is fun!” He's been teaching an Introduction to Philosophy course almost
every year since 1968,andit is still fun. Every year, the course evolves
a bit, expanding material that went well in the previous few years and
dropping material that didn’t. What doesn't changeis the goal of focus-
ing on central issues in Western philosophy, presenting the best case for
both sides of every issue considered, and challenging students to make
up their own minds.
In 2010, Tom Donaldson,then a PhD studentat Rutgers University,
was a teaching assistant in Stich’s course. At one of the weekly meet-
ings with the course TAs, Stich noted that the course notes, which had
migrated to PowerPoint slides over the years, might be the basis for a
course textbook, but he doubted he would ever have enough time to
write the textbook on his own. Donaldson said he would beinterested
in working on that project. And that’s when the work on this book
began in earnest.
We metwith Robert Miller, ourterrific editor at Oxford University
Press, and planned to have the volume completed in about two years.
But lots of stuff slowed us down. Donaldson spent two yearsas a Junior
Fellow at Harvard, and then launched his teaching career at Stanford.
Stich was organizing large international research teams to study how
philosophical concepts varied across cultures. Chapters were written,
critiqued, and rewritten. Two years stretched to eight. Throughout
this long process, our goal has remained the same: to write a bookthat
would offer studentsa lively and sophisticated introduction to some of
the most important issues in Western philosophy, presenting both sides
xiv PREFACE
and encouraging students to make up their own minds about which side
has the strongercase.
Is there anyone that you wantto thank?

Lots of people have helped. Robert Miller and the staff at Oxford
University Press have been a constant source of good advice, encour-
agement, and patience. Robert also arranged for earlier drafts to be
critiqued by more than a dozen colleagues who teach the Introduc-
tion to Philosophy course at a wide range of colleges and universities.
Since their reports were anonymous, we can't thank these colleagues by
name, but their invaluable feedback has led to many improvements in
the book.
Our greatest debt is to the thousands of undergraduate students
whohavetaken Stich’s Introduction to Philosophy course overthelast
fifty years and to the dozens of graduate students who were teaching
assistants in the course. They offered, and continue to offer, the best
feedback on how to make the problems of philosophyclear, engaging,
and fun. The four most recent teaching assistants, Christopher Hauser,
Olivia Odoffin, David Rose, and Michael Schapira, deserve special
thanks since they used an earlier version of the material in this book
and gave us a steady stream of useful suggestions on how to make the
bookbetter.
Wewould also like to thank Tae Shin Lee for his advice on Chapter1,
Jorah Dannenbergfor his help with Chapter 14, Tessa Donaldsonfor her
advice on Chapter 3, and Meena Krishnamurthyfor helping us find the
right quotation from Martin LutherKingJr. Jennifer Wang and Thomas
Icard gave us helpful comments on manyparts of the book.
Stephen Stich
Tom Donaldson
Student and Instructor Resources

The Oxford University Press Ancillary Resource Center (ARC) (www
.oup-arc.com) houses a wealth of Instructor Resources, including an
Instructor’s Manual with chapter summaries, essay/ discussion ques-
tions, suggested Weblinks, and a glossary of key terms from thetext; a
Computerized Test Bank with multiple-choice and true/false questions
Preface xv
per chapter(also available as a traditional “pencil-and-paper” Test Bank

in the Instructor’s Manual); and PowerPoint lecture outlines.
The Oxford University Press Ancillary Resource Center (ARC)
(www.oup-arc.com) also contains study materials for students, includ-
ing practice quizzes with multiple-choice and true/false questions taken
from the Test Bank, essay/discussion questions, chapter summaries, a
glossary of key terms from the text, and suggested Weblinks.
All instructor and student resources are also available as car-
tridges for Learning Management Systems. For more information,
please contact your Oxford University Press Sales Representative at
1-800-280-0280.
THE TIME LINE OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
Philosophers Discussed Some Important Historical

in This Volume Figures & Events
THE ANCIENT PERIOD
Socrates (c. 470-399 sce) Athenians defeat Persians at Marathon

Democritus (c. 460-370 ace) (490 sce)
Plato (c. 428-348 sce) Alexander the Great (356-323 sce)
Aristotle (384—322 sce) Julius Caesar (100—44 sce)
Epicurus (341-270 sce) Jesus Christ (c. 4 sce—30/33 ce)
Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem
(70 ce)
THE MIDDLE AGES
Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) Fall of the Roman Empire (476)

(354-430) Muhammad(57 1-632)
Anselm (c. 1033-1109) Norman conquest of England (1066)
Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274) The Black Death (1346-1353)
FROM THE RENAISSA NCE TO THE PRESENT
René Descartes (1596-1650) Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (1618-1680) Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Christopher Columbus “discovers”
John Locke (1632-1704) America (1492)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
George Berkeley (1685-1753) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Voltaire (1694-1778) Rembrandtvan Rijn (1606-1669)
Thomas Reid (1710-1796) Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
David Hume (1711-1776) Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)
William Paley (1743-1805) American Revolution (1775-1783)
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) French Revolution (1789-1791)
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
William James (1842-1910) Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Queen Victoria (1819-1901)
G. E. Moore (1873-1958) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844—1900)
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) SigmundFreud (1856-1939)
Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) American Civil War (1861-1865)
Karl Popper (1902-1994) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945)
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) Mao Zedong (1893-1976)
Elizabeth Anscombe (1919-2001) World War | (1914-1918)
Peter Strawson (1919-2006) Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 -1968)
Alvin Plantinga (1932-) World War Il (1939-1945)
DerekParfit (1942—2017) Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
Peter Singer (1946-) (1945)
Susan Wolf (1952-) Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong
Kwame Anthony Appiah (1954—) walks on the moon (1969)
Terrorist attack destroys World Trade
Center (2001)
Philosophy

The Death ofSocrates, painted by Jacques-Louis David in 1787. Socrates, thoughhe is
aboutto die,is still teaching. Plato sits at the foot of the bed.
CHAPTER1
eee ee
WhatIs Philosophy?
1. Philosophy Is Everywhere
Many people think that philosophy is an esoteric subject. Admittedly,
professional philosophers in universities do sometimes devote them-
selves to abstruse questions. We have colleagues who've devoted many
years to figuring out exactly how “a” and “the” differ in meaning, and
we have friends whostay up late at night discussing whether God could
change the lawsoflogic.
But, in fact, philosophical questions often come up in everydaylife.
Think about the familiar question of whetherit is okay to buy andeat
meat. This is a philosophical question, and it quickly leads to others. As
well see in chapter 15, some vegetarians argue that you should not buy
meatbecauseit is wrongto inflict pain on animals. Meat eaters might reply
that it is okay to buy meat from humanefarmsorthatit is okay to buy the
meat of animals incapable of experiencing pain—oysters, for example.
Let’s think about that last claim for a moment. How canwetell
whether oysters experience pain? You might think that we can figure
out whether oysters experience pain by investigating their nervoussys-
tems. But to do this, wed have to understand the relation between con-
scious mental states (such as pain) and the nervous system—andthisis
a notoriously difficult philosophical problem. We'll discuss the topic in
chapter 10.
2 PuiLosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
Some Christians argue that it is okay to eat meat on the basis of

certain passages from the book of Genesis, including this one:
God blessed Noah andhis sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the Earth. The fear and dread of youshall rest on
every animal of the Earth, and onevery bird of the air, on everything
that creeps on the ground, and onall the fish of the sea; into your
hand they are delivered. Every moving thing thatlives shall be food
for you; and justas I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”
Ofcourse, this argument won't convince vegetarians who aren't Jewish

or Christian, and even someJews and Christians question this approach
to scripture.
In a few minutes of conversation, we've already come across some
deep and important philosophical questions:
« Is it okay to eat meat?
« Howis consciousnessrelated to the nervous system?
¢ Does Godexist?
« Is the Bible a good source of information about God’s wishes?
These are not esoteric questions. You may not think about such ques-
tions every day, but everyone has to confront philosophical questions
from timeto time.
2. WhatIs a Philosophical Question?

It might strike you that the list of philosophical questions we present
havelittle in common. Whyareall these classified as philosophical ques-
tions? Whatis a philosophical question?
According to a popular story, when G. E. Moore (a prominent
British philosopherof the early twentieth century) was asked whatphi-
losophyis, he simply pointed to his bookshelf and said that philosophy
is “what all these booksare about.” We sympathize:it is far from easy to
say whatall the different philosophical questions have in common.But
we will try to give you a more informative answer than Moore.
Part of the answer, we think, is that much of philosophy concerns
“normative” questions—thatis, questions about right and wrong, good
and bad. This includes questions about how weshould live (“Is it okay
to eat meat?”), what constitutes good reasoning (“Whatare the limita-
tions of the scientific method?”), and how society should be structured
(“Should it be compulsory to vote?”).
WhatIs Philosophy? 3
A list of philosophical questions

+ Is it possible to travel backward in time?
+ Is it good to be patriotic? Whatare the differences,if any,
betweenpatriotism and nationalism?
+ Why does God permit so muchsuffering?
+ Whatis the difference between knowledge and opinion?
+ Whatis the scientific method? Can we usethe scientific
methodin ethics?
+ Could a digital computer have consciousness?
* God is sometimessaid to be “all powerful.” But what does that
mean?
* How can wedistinguish true experts from charlatans?
+ Do you have a nonphysical soul, which will persist after your
death?
* Do you havefree will?
+ Whatis art?
- When,if ever,is it okay to lie?
* Can we knowanything for certain?
- In social science, to what extent should we assume that people
makechoicesrationally?
+ What limits are there,if any, to the right to free speech?
+ Is it good to havefaith?If so, whatis faith?
+ Whoshould beallowedto vote in elections?
+ What are numbers?
Anotherpart of the answeris that philosophers spend a lot of time

questioning our most basic assumptions. For example,it is a central princi-
ple of Christian thought that God exists and that the Bible is a good source
of information about him. Philosophers question these assumptions.
This last choice of example is perhaps misleading because it might
suggest that philosophyis an antireligious activity. In fact, it is not only
religious assumptionsthat are challenged by philosophers. Philosophers
also scrutinize the basic assumptions of science, politics, art... every-
thing. Which may explain why philosophy has sometimes been regarded
as a subversive activity. Indeed, the ancient Greek thinker Socrates
(c. 470-399 sce), who is sometimes regardedas the founder of the West-
ern philosophical tradition, was condemnedto death for “corrupting the
youth.” In a Socratic spirit, we hope that this book will corrupt you.
4 PutLosopuy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
3. The Philosophical Method

Philosophers attempt to state their views clearly and precisely, and they
give explicit arguments fortheir claims.
We should explain what we mean when wesaythat philosophers
attempt to state their views clearly and precisely. In 1948, philosophers
Frederick Coppleston and Bertrand Russell debated the existence of
God. Their discussion beganlikethis:
COPPLESTON: As weare going to discuss the existence of God,
it might perhaps be as well to come to someprovisional
agreement as to what we understand by the term “God.”I
presume that we mean a supreme personal Being—distinct
from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree—
provisionally at least—to accept this statement as the mean-
ing of the term “God”?
RUSSELL: Yes, I accept this definition.
COPPLESTON: Well, my positionis the affirmative position that
such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be
proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your
position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would
you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
RUSSELL: No,I should notsay that: my position is agnostic.’
Notice that the two philosophersaren't contentjust to say that Cop-

pleston believes God exists while Russell doesn’t. They articulate their
disagreement more precisely than that. They agree on what they mean
by “God,and theyclarify that Coppleston believes God’s existence “can
be proved philosophically,” while Russell's position is agnostic—thatis,
Russell doesn't believe God exists, but he doesn't think that God’s nonex-
istence can be proven.’ What do we mean whenwesaythat philosophers
attempt to give explicit argumentsfor their claims? Wewill talk about ar-
guments and howto evaluate them in the next chapter. For now,sufficeit
to say that philosophers don't like to defend their views merely by appeal
to authority or tradition. As we've said, one of the goals of philosophy
is to scrutinize received wisdoms;it defeats the point of the exercise to
assumethat the existing authorities have figuredit all out already.
This is not to say that appeals to authority are alwaysfallacious. On
the contrary, it is often perfectly appropriate to gather information from
experts. Our pointis that, in a philosophical context, our goal is to present
arguments for our views without simply leaning upon existing authorities.
WhatIs Philosophy? 5
For example, suppose that you're thinking about how thestate

should be structured. You might find it helpful to read through clas-
sics like The Federalist Papers; however, in philosophical work you're
expected to present arguments for your claims, and “Hamilton said so”
or “Madisonsaid so” wontcutit.
It is perhaps for this reason that philosophers don't usually get in-
volved in the interpretation of sacred texts. This is part of what separates
philosophy from theology andreligious studies.
4. Philosophy and Science

It is sometimes suggested that philosophy is not needed anymore, be-
cause science has taken over. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
don't mince their words:
How doesthe universe behave? Whatis the nature of reality? Where
did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? ... Tradi-
tionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science,
particularly physics. Scientists have becomethe bearers of the torch
of discovery in our quest for knowledge.*
Hawking and Mlodinoware right about onething:it is important
whenthinking about philosophical questions to keep up-to-date with
relevant workin the sciences. It would be a big mistake, for example,to
write about which animals can experience pain without drawing upon
the work of psychologists, zoologists, neuroscientists, and so on. But it
won'tsurprise you to learn that we reject Hawking’s claim that philoso-
phy is dead. Ourreason is simple: there are many philosophical ques-
tions currently unaddressed in the scientific literature. No matter how
much time you spend reading zoology and neuroscience journals, you
won'tfind an answerto the question of whetherit’s morally okay to eat
fish. Psychology and computer science journals won't tell you whether
it’s possible for a digital computer to be conscious. Psychology journals
contain important discoveries about human decision-making, but the
question of whether we havefree willis left unanswered.
In saying this, we don’t mean to imply that philosophical questions
can't ultimately be answered using scientific methods. Many philoso-
phers have madeit their goalto find ways of applying scientific methods
in new domains, and we applaudthese efforts. All we're saying is that
there are many philosophical questions which are currently outside the
scopeof the sciencesas they are usually delimited.
6 PuiLtosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
5. Why Bother?
Students in their first philosophy class (especially those for whom the
class is compulsory!) often ask why they should bother with philosophy.
Ouransweris that philosophyis inevitable. We all have to think about
howto live, and so weare forced to think about normative questionsat
onetime or another. What's more, we nowlivein pluralist societies; that
is, we live with people whose worldviewsdiffer greatly from our own.
Whenwe meet such people and try to understand our differences, we
are forced to discuss our basic assumptions—andthis is philosophy.
So even though philosophical questions don’t come up every day,
we're all forced to confront them sometimes. We hopethis book helps you
to think about philosophical questions and to reach your own conclusions.
And evenif you aren't able to reach your own conclusions, we think
you can benefit from the time spent thinking the issues through. In such
cases, philosophy shows you something important aboutthe limitations
of your knowledge. What's more, even if you can’t find the right answer
to a philosophical question, you maystill be able to achieve a deeper
understanding of other people's views about the topic. And the better
weunderstand each other’s views, the better we understand each other.
Discussion Question
1. Lookat the list of philosophical questions with a friend. Do the two
ofyou disagree about the answerto a question?If you find a disagree-
ment, can you articulate it precisely? Then, how well can you give an
argument supporting your view?
Notes
1. Gen. 9:1-3 (NRSV).
2. You maybeableto find partsof this discussion online. Fora full transcript,
look in Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (London: Routledge,
2004), 125-152.
3. Russell and Coppleston could perhaps have beenstill more precise about
their disagreement. Their claim that Godis “supreme”is, we think, slightly
obscure. We suspect that when Coppleston says that Godis “supreme,” he
meant that Godis all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly morally good—
butit’s hard to be completely sure.
4, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York:
Bantam Books, 2010), 1.
CHAPTER; 2
eee
What Are Arguments, and How

Should We Evaluate Them?
1. Introduction
You probably know people who have profoundly different worldviews
from you and profoundly different views about howto lead a good life.
Perhaps you disagree whether there is a god, whetherit’s okay to eat
meat, or whether morality is objective. Philosophy is a conversation
about questions like these; a conversation between people with very
different personal convictions. In philosophy, evocations of personal
feelings are usually oflittle value because people's feelings about philo-
sophical questions differ so greatly. Appeals to authority and tradition
are not much better: one person's revered authority is another person's
discredited blowhard.
So whatis to be done? The short answeris that philosopherspresent
arguments for their views.
Sometimes, the word “argument”is used to mean dispute or debate
or quarrel. That's not what we mean. An argument,in our sense,is an at-
temptto justify some conclusion by rational means. Here is an example:
The quality of government in a country correlates positively with
voter turnout: the greater the voter turnout, the better the govern-
ment. Therefore, low voter turnout causes bad government. So if
youreeligible and you fail to vote, you make the government worse.
What’s more, democracy can only persist if enough people turn out
8 PuiLosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
to vote; therefore, if you're eligible to vote and you don't do so, you
imperil democracyitself. It follows that if you're eligible to vote,it’s
morally wrong for younot to doso.
The conclusion of this argumentis that if a person is eligible to vote,

then it’s morally wrongfor her not to do so. If you are unconvinced, you
should be able to articulate where exactly you think the argumentfails.
And perhaps you should back up yourclaims by presenting arguments
of your own... and so the conversation that is philosophy continues.
In this chapter, we discuss the structure of arguments, and we talk
about how to evaluate arguments.It will help to use simple examples;
indeed, some of our examples may seem rather goofy. But please don't
be put off: there's nothing goofy about the techniques we describe in
this chapter. We're describing the methods of the world’s foremost
philosophers.
2. Premises and Conclusions

Hereis the simplest argument you'll find in this book:
Noelephant is a reptile. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore, Jumbo is
nota reptile.
The conclusion of this argumentis that Jumbo is not a reptile. The other
two statements are premises—these are statements that the writer as-
sumes while making her case for the conclusion. The premises are the
starting points of the argument. Sometimesit’s helpful to write an argu-
mentin this form, with a horizontal line separating the premises from
the conclusion:
Noelephantis a reptile.
Jumbois an elephant.
Jumbois not reptile.
The advantage of presenting arguments this wayis that it makes it ex-
plicit what the conclusion of the argument is and what the premises are
Here is another example:
Fido didn’t comein throughthecatflap:it’s tiny, and Fidois a large dog.
In this case the writer assumes that the cat flap is tiny and that Fidois
a large dog; these are his premises. He infers that Fido could not have
comein throughthecatflap; this is his conclusion.
What Are Arguments, and How Should We Evaluate Them? 9
Thecatflapis tiny.
Fidois a large dog.
Fido didn't comein throughthecatflap.
Sometimes a writer will add extraneous comments to an argument:

One of you ate the cookies, for Pete's sake! Since you all deny it—
whichis infuriating—one of you must be lying. (Why do we have to
do this every week?)
The argumentin this passageis this:

Oneof you ate the cookies.
Each of you denies having eaten the cookies.
Oneofyouis lying.
“For Pete's sake,” “whichis infuriating,” and “Why do wehaveto dothis

>> «
every week?”are not parts of the argument; they are mereasides.

Sometimes a writer will explicitly identify her conclusion and
premises. Very often, however, it takes some effort on the part of the
readerto find them. There are certain giveaway words and phrases often
used to mark the conclusion of an argument. For example:
therefore hence
consequently te)
in conclusion thus
it follows that necessarily
then weinfer that
implies that
Consider for example this argument:
If taxes are not increased, the budget deficit will become verylarge.
Weshould notlet the budget get out of control. Thus, taxes should be
raised.
The word “thus” indicates that “taxes should be raised” is the conclu-
sion. The other two sentences are premises.
Another way of marking the conclusion of an argumentis to use the
verb “must.” For example:
Jonathan must be home becausehiscaris in the driveway.
The conclusion of this short argument is that Jonathan is home; the

premise is that Jonathan’ caris in the driveway.
10 PuiLrosopuy: ASKING QuUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
There are also certain giveaway words andphrasesin English that a

writer can use to indicate that some statement is a premise:
I suppose that it is assumed that
since because
for as
on the groundsthat for the following reason
follows from the fact that given that
may be inferred from the fact that
Consider for example this argument:
Alan must have burnt the bagel because there is smoke in the kitchen.
The word “because” indicates that “there is smokein the kitchen”is a

premise. “Alan burnt the bagel”is the conclusion.
Sometimesa writer will not use giveaway expressions. For example:
John stole the laptop. It was either John or Ashni, and Ashni would
neversteal.
There are no giveaway wordshere, so we just have to apply common

sense to figure out what's the conclusion of the argument and what the
premisesare.
It was either John or Ashni whostole the laptop.
Ashni would neversteal.
Johnstole the laptop.
Look at these arguments. In each case, identify the premises and the
conclusion:
(a) Tom was at the party, for sure. He must have been drinking
because everybody at the party was drinking.
(b) Everyone wholives in Snooty Towersis stuck up. Mehdilivesin
Snooty Towers. Therefore, Mehdiis a snob.
(c) You should stop dating James. He swears at strangers in the
street, he never leaves a tip when he goesto a restaurant, and
his breath smells.
(d) The walking stick won't be very useful to Li Na: the stick is
rather short, and sheis verytall.
(e) Along holiday would be better for both of us, so we should go
forit!
3. Evaluating Arguments
Whenevaluating an argument,it is important to think about two ques-
tions. First: Are the premises of this argument true? Second: Assuming
that the premises are true, to what extent do they support the conclu-
sion? Here is an example:
Diet soda drinkers are morelikely to be obese than people who do not
drink diet soda.
Drinking diet soda causes obesity.
There is some evidencethat the premise of this argumentis true,at least

in the United States.' Nevertheless, we don't think that this is a good ar-
gument. As the cliché goes, “correlation doesn't imply causation”: even
if it is true that there is a correlation between diet soda drinking and
obesity, it doesn't follow that drinking diet soda causes obesity. Afterall,
it might be the other way around: perhapsthe correlation exists because
people who put on weight respond by drinking diet soda.
In saying that this is a bad argument, we are not denying the truth
of its conclusion. Some public health experts have argued that drink-
ing diet soda causes obesity, and we do not dispute their claim. We
claim only that this argument, as it stands, doeslittle to support their
position. This illustrates an important point: a bad argument can nev-
ertheless have a true conclusion. Don't confuse the question “Is this a
good argument?” with the question “Do you agree with this writer's
conclusions?”
Have a look at these arguments. In each case, consider the two
crucial questions: Are the premises of this argument true? and Do the
premises of the argument, if true, support the conclusion?
(f) Any person born in the United States is eligible for US
citizenship.
Tom Cruise is a UScitizen.
Tom Cruise was born in the United States.
(g) Every octopusis a cephalopod.
No cephalopod hasa spine.
No octopushasa spine.
(h) Extraterrestrial life has never been observed.
Thereis no extraterrestrial life in our galaxy.
12 PuirosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
Aristotle (384-322 sce) made seminal contributions to the theory oflogic.
4. Deductive Validity
Here is another argument for you to evaluate. Think about it before
reading on:
The population of Kenyais less than 70 million.
The population of Nigeria is more than 150 million.
The population of Nigeria is more than the population of Kenya.
Evenif you don't knowwhetherthe premises ofthis argumentaretrue,

you shouldbe able to see that if the premises are true, then the conclu-
sion must be true as well. If the premises are true, this guarantees the
truth of the conclusion. The argument is, to use the jargon, deductively
valid (orjust “valid” for short).
Here are some more examples:
Lou ownsa dog, and he ownsa cat.

Lou ownsa dog.
Everyoneat the party is married.

John is at the party.
John is married.
Ashni is married to Jo.

Jo is married to Ashni.
In every case, it is guaranteed that if the premises are true, the conclu-
sion mustbe true as well.
This is an argumentthat is not valid:
Desiree eats sushi for lunch every day.
Desireelikes the taste of sushi.
This argumentis not valid becausethe truth of the premise doesn't guar-
antee the truth of the conclusion. Evenif it's true that Desiree eats sushi
for lunch every day, it might nevertheless be false that shelikes the taste
of sushi—perhapsshe only eats sushi because her doctor advisedit.
An argument is said to be “sound”if it is valid and has true
premises.
Take a look at these arguments. Which are valid?
(i) Mei is either at the store or at home.
Mei is not at home.
Mei is at the store.
(j) Tikiis a bird.
Tiki can fly.
(k) Everyone who can run 100 meters in less than eleven seconds
is on the team.
Ella is on the team.
Ella can run 100 metersin less than eleven seconds.
5. Induction and Abduction

Deductively valid arguments are important, especially in mathematics.
But argumentsthat are not valid can be very persuasive too.
14 Puirosopny: ASKING QuUESTIONS— SEEKING ANSWERS
Supposethat you are a zoologist studying a newly discovered type

of bird (the “snocker bird,” let’s say). You do this by making observa-
tions of some sample of snocker birds and drawing conclusions about
snockerbirds in general. For example, you might argue the following:
All the snocker birds in my sample have green heads.
All snocker birds have green heads.
Is this argument convincing? This depends on the sample. If your ar-

gument is to be convincing, you need a large enough sample:it is not
enough to observe only two or three snocker birds. Your sample must
also be varied: you should observe both male and female snocker birds;
you should observe snockerbirds of different ages; you should observe
snockerbirds from different places and at different times of the year;
and so on. Assuming that your sampleis sufficiently large and varied,
however, the argumentis persuasive.
Even so, the argument about the snocker birds isn’t deductively
valid. Even if you studied a large and varied sample of snocker birds,
all of which were observed to have green heads, it remains possible
(though perhapsunlikely) that some snockerbirds outside the sample
do not have green heads. This illustrates the point that notall persuasive
arguments are deductively valid.
The argumentaboutthe snockerbirds is an example ofenumerative
induction (or induction for short). In an inductive argument, youstart
by identifying somepattern in cases that have been studied; you suggest
on this basis that the pattern will extend to othercases as well.
Here are some further examples:
Every cake I have bought from Tina's Café has beenstale.
Most of the cakes sold at Tina’s Café arestale.
So far, no emperor penguin has been seen to lay more than one egg
in a year.
Emperor penguins lay no more than oneeggin year.
I've met several ofJohn’s friends, and they haveall been soccerenthusiasts.
Sean is John’sfriend.
Sean is a soccer enthusiast.
Every dog I have ownedhasbeen badly behaved.

The next dog I own will be badly behaved.
Wewill further discuss enumerative induction in chapter 7. In that

chapter, we focus on cases in which induction is used to makea predic-
tion based onpast observations. For example, in New York City, every
year so far it has been true that on averageit is hotter in July than in
February. And so, by induction, we anticipate that next year in New
York, July will be on average hotter than February.
Nowlet’s talk about abduction. When onegives an abductive argu-
ment, one starts with a numberof observations, and one puts forward
an explanation for the observations. If one judges that the proffered ex-
planation is a good explanation and better than anyavailable alterna-
tives, one cautiously infers that the explanationis correct.
Let's look at an example. Suppose that you wake up one morning
andfind, to your surprise, that on the kitchen table there is a used bowl,
an open carton of milk, and an open boxofcereal. It occurs to you that
this might be because your roommateoverslept, had breakfast, and then
rushed out of the house, not having enough timeto clean up.
If this strikes you as morecredible than any other explanation, you
are likely to conclude that your explanationis correct:
There is a used bowl, an open carton of milk, and an open box of

cereal on the kitchentable.
My roommateoverslept.
This sort of argumentis often called inference to the best explanation,

for obvious reasons.
Many philosophers believe that scientific theories are commonly
supported by abduction. Newton's theory of gravitation is a plausible
example. Newtonstarted with a collection of observations: observations
of the motions of cannonballs, the planets, the moon,the tides, and so
on. He found that he could explain all of these observations using his
theory of gravitation. Since this was better than any other explanation
available at the time, the theory was accepted.
(1) Give two more examples of enumerative induction.

(m) Give one more example of abduction.
(n) Give another example of the use of abduction in the sciences.
16 PuirosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
6. Multistep Arguments
Havea look at these two arguments:
All frogs are amphibians. Fernandois an amphibian.
Fernando is a frog. All amphibiansare vertebrates.
Fernandois an amphibian. Fernandois a vertebrate.
Notice that the conclusion ofthe left-hand argumentis the same as one
of the premises of the right-hand argument. You might wantto join
these two arguments together to make one longer argument.
Multistep argumentslike this are hard to presentclearly. One wayis
to number the statements and use marginal comments to explain how
the statements are related:
(1) All frogs are amphibians. (Premise)
(2) Fernandois frog. (Premise)
(3) Fernandois an amphibian. (From 1, 2)
(4) All amphibiansare vertebrates. (Premise)
(5) Fernandois a vertebrate. (From 3, 4)
Here is another multistep argument:
If it was the taxi driver who murdered the drummer, there would have
been blood ontheseats of the taxi. But there was no bloodin thetaxi.
It was either the taxi driver or the roadie who murdered the drummer.
Since it can’t have been thetaxi driver, it must have been the roadie.
It is clear that the final conclusion of this argumentis that the roadie mur-
dered the drummer. The writer reaches this conclusion by saying that the
murdererwaseitherthe taxi driver or the roadie, butit wasnt the taxi driver:
It was either the taxi driver or the roadie who murdered the drummer.
The taxi driver didn’t murder the drummer.
The roadie murdered the drummer.
The writer backs up the second premise of this argument with another
argument:
If it was the taxi driver who murdered the drummer, there would have
been blood on the seats of the taxi.
There was no bloodin thetaxi.
The taxi driver did not murder the drummer.
Putting the two parts of the argumenttogether, we get:
(1) Ifit was the taxi driver who murdered the (Premise)
drummer, there would have been blood
on theseats of the taxi.
(2) ‘There was no bloodin the taxi. (Premise)
(3) ‘The taxi driver didn’t murder the drummer. (From 1, 2)
(4) It was either the taxi driver or the roadie (Premise)
that murdered the drummer.
(5) ‘The roadie murdered the drummer. (From 3, 4)
Nowlet’s at look at an argument that is more complex and philosophi-

cally interesting. You may recognize this passage from the beginning
of the chapter. (Note that “voter turnout” is the percentage ofeligible
voters whocast a ballot in an election.)
The quality of governmentin a country correlates positively with voter

turnout: the greater the voter turnout, the better the government.
Therefore, low voter turnout causes bad government. So if you'reeli-
gible, and you fail to vote, you make the government worse. What's
more, democracy can only persist if enough people vote; therefore,
if you're eligible to vote and you don’t do so, you imperil democracy
itself. It followsthatif you're eligible to vote,it’s morally wrong for you
not to do so.
The writer’s conclusion is, “if you're eligible to vote, it’s morally wrong
for you not to do so.’ She provides two reasonsfor accepting this con-
clusion:first, she argues, “if you're eligible, and you fail to vote, you
make the government worse.” Second, she argues, “if you're eligible to
vote and you don't do so, you imperil democracyitself” So part of the
argumentis this:
If youre eligible and youfail to vote, you make the government worse.
If you're eligible to vote and you don't, you imperil democracyitself.
If youre eligible to vote, it's morally wrong for you not to doso.
The author backs up her contention that those who choose not to vote
“make the government worse” by saying that low voter turnout causes
bad government. She infers this latter claim from the observation that
countries with greater voter turnout have better government.
18 PuiLrosopHy: ASKING QuUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
The author backs up her contention that those who choose notto
vote “imperil democracyitself” by claiming that “democracy canpersist
only if enough people vote.”
Puttingall this together, the argumentis as follows:
(1) The quality of governmentin a country (Premise)
correlates positively with voter turnout.
(2) Low voter turnout causes bad government. (From 1)
(3) If you're eligible and you fail to vote, you (From 2)
make the governmentworse.
(4) Democracycan only persist if enough (Premise)
people vote.
(5) If you're eligible to vote and youdont do (From 4)
so, you imperil democracyitself.
(6) If you're eligible to vote, it’s morally wrong (From 3, 5)
for you not to do so.
Here are some multistep arguments for you to analyze.
(0) All the guys in TA are rude. John is in TA, so he’s rude too. You
shouldnt invite rude people to your parties, so John shouldn't
be invited.
(p) Joe is often mean to me,so either he loves me or he hates me.
I've done nothing to make him dislike me, so he loves me.
(q) Mr. Singh is at least fifty years old, since he was born in the
1950s. So he must be older than Min.
(r) Four, nine, sixteen, twenty-five, thirty-six, and forty-nine all
have an odd numberoffactors. So all square numbers have an
odd numberoffactors. Now 2,401 is square, so it has an odd
numberoffactors.
(s) I only have ten dollars to spend. The starters at The Snail cost
more than that, so that’s out. I shouldn't take Amie to The Rose
either, because they don't serve vegetarian food. Those are the
only two restaurants open. So we should stay in tonight.
7. Evaluating Multistep Arguments

Whenyou evaluate an argument,it’s often a good idea to write out the
argumentas a series of numberedstatementsfirst. That way, if youcriti-
cize the argument, then you can be precise in yourcriticism: you can
say exactly where you think the argument goes wrong. To see howthis
works, let’s take a look again at the argument about the supposed duty
to vote from thelast section.
(1) ‘The quality of governmentin a country (Premise)

correlates positively with the voter turnout.
(2) Low voter turnout causes bad government. (From 1)
(3) Ifyourre eligible and youfail to vote, you (From 2)
make the government worse.
(4) Democracy can onlypersist if enough (Premise)
people vote.
(5) Ifyour're eligible to vote and you don't, you (From 4)
imperil democracyitself.
(6) Ifyourre eligible to vote,it’s morally wrong (From 3, 5)
for you notto.
To evaluate the argument, we examineall six statements in turn.
1. To evaluate premise (1) properly, we would need to do someseri-

ous empirical research. We have no idea whatthe result of this
research would be: we don't know whether premise (1) is true.
. The inference from (1) to (2) is questionable. Suppose for the
momentthat the quality of government does indeed correlate
positively with voter turnout. This might be because low voter
turnout causes bad government—butthis isn't clearly the correct
explanation. Perhaps it works the other way around: whengov-
ernmentis bad, this causes disillusioned voters to stay at home
on the day ofthe election.
. The inference from (2) to (3) is also questionable, which you can
see by way of analogy. It may well be that, other things being
equal, an increase in the numberofcars on the road causes an
increase in the numberoftraffic accidents. It doesn't follow that
each individual driver causes an increase in the numberoftraffic
accidents.
. We are inclined to think that (4) is true: if voter turnout were
persistently below somethreshold in some country, the country
could not continue to function as a democracy. However,it is not
at all clear how manypeople are “enough”—thatis,it’s not clear
how many need to vote to ensure democracy continues.
20 PuHiLrosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS—SEEKING ANSWERS
5. We don't think that (5) follows from (4). An eligible voter might
reasonably protest, “in my country,it’s clear that ‘enough’ people
will vote, evenif I do not. So if I choose not to vote, I do not im-
peril democracy.”
. The inference from (3) and (5) to (6) may seem strong, but we
have a caveat to add. Suppose that, on election day, you failed
to vote because you were doing some other important thing:
perhaps you were putting out a fire or performing surgery. In
this case, it seems, you were not obliged to vote. So perhaps the
conclusion of the argument ought to be more nuanced:If you're
eligible to vote, it’s morally wrong for you notto do so, unless you
have something more important to do on the dayoftheelection.
Nowfor a second example:
I assume that God exists. Then he is all-knowing, and he existed
before you were born. Being all-knowing, before you were born God
knew everything that would happen in yourlife. He could foresee your
every action and every decision. It follows that your whole life was
predetermined, and so noneof your choices has been genuinely free.
Thus, you don't havefree will.
Weencourage youto have a go at evaluating this argument before look-

ing at our evaluation.
This is our analysis of this argument:
(1) God exists. (Premise)
(2) Godis all-knowing. (From 1)
(3) God existed before you were born. (From 1)
(4) Before you were born God kneweverything (From 2, 3)
that would happenin yourlife.
(5) It follows that your wholelife was (From 4)
predetermined.
(6) None of your choices has been genuinely free. (From 5)
(7) You don't havefree will. (From 6)
Now wecan evaluate the argument. Once again, we do this by going

through the steps one by one.
1. We won't say much about (1) here. We discuss the existence of
God in chapters 3 and 4.
2. It has often been assumedin the past that Godis all-knowingif

he exists. Nevertheless, we could reject the inference from (1) to
(2). We could endorse a revisionary version of theism, according
to which Godis not all-knowing.
3. The inference from (1) to (3) is more difficult to reject. It’s hard
to believe that God exists, but that he only came into existence
during yourlifetime.
4. An obvious definition of “all-knowing” is this: an omniscient
being is a being who knowseverything. Given this definition,(4)
does seem to follow from (2) and (3). But we could reject this
inference by insisting on a different definition of “all-knowing.”
Perhapsto be all-knowing is to know everything whichit is pos-
sible to know. On this definition, it’s not so obvious that (4) fol-
lows from (2) and (3).
5. If we accept (4) but reject (5), we'll end up with a view on which
God knewall our actions in advance, but even so, those actions
werent predetermined. It’s difficult to know whetherthis posi-
tion is coherent: we'd need to think very carefully about what
“predetermine” meansto figure this out.
6. As we discuss in chapter 9, some philosophers (compatibilists)
think that our having free will is compatible with determinism.
Perhaps we could adopta similar view, and say that our actions
are free despite being predetermined. So the inference from (5)
to (6) is not beyond dispute.
7. The inference from (6) to (7) looks solid. If there’s a mistake in
the argument,it isn't here.
8. Some Arguments to Evaluate

(t) Weather forecasts for the coming week or so are moreorless
accurate, but longer range weather forecasts are untrustworthy.
Also, the longer the rangeof the forecast, the less trustworthyit
is. When climate scientists make predictions about global tem-
peratures over the next few decades,they are,in effect, issuing
very long-term weatherforecasts. So these predictions are not
to be taken seriously.
(u) We all knowthat it is very difficult to lead a completely mo-
nogamouslife. Even in the case of couples whoare devoted to
monogamy, so-called cheating is very common. Nevertheless,
22 PuHiLtosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS— SEEKING ANSWERS
most people continue to believe that monogamy should be

our goal. I think that this is wrong.It is a mistake, I think, to
live monogamously. Monogamyis rare in the animal king-
dom. What’s more, noneof the species mostclosely related to
humans are monogamous. This shows that monogamyis un-
natural. Our problemis notthat wefail to live up to the ideal of
monogamy; our problem is that we make this our ideal in the
first place.
(v) A given quantity of money is worth moreto a poor person than
to a rich person. (For example, for a rich person, $1,000 is a
weekend in New York; for a poor person, $1,000 is the differ-
ence between going hungry and having enoughto eat.) This
means that if a quantity of money is taken from a rich person
and transferred to a poor person,the loss of welfare to the rich
person is smaller than the gain in welfare to the poor person.
This meansthat a redistributive system of tax and benefits in-
creases the average welfare level in society. The government's
goal should be to increase the average level of welfare in soci-
ety. And so the government should maintain a redistributive
system of tax and benefits.
(w) Even among protagonists of a free market society, there are
some whoclaim that markets are ‘morally neutral: This allega-
tion constitutes a dangerous concession to the enemies offree-
dom.... In fact the judgement is comprehensively mistaken.
Markets are not morally neutral. They both presuppose and
generate virtue.... Moral action presupposes choice. Virtue
entails an opportunity for vice foregone. ... Thus morality is
possible only in conditions of liberty. Without personal au-
tonomy, I can do neither good norevil. The free market is an
essential componentof the socialstructure of liberty, and ipso
facto ... an indispensable componentofthe social structure of
virtue.... Markets are thus neither morally negative... nor
even... morally neutral. They are, on the contrary, resound-
ingly and constitutively positive in their moral implications
and effects... markets are one of the several indispensable
preconditions of liberty, and as such are preconditions to any
genuinely moral action. In the medium term,if not in the short
term, no market, no freedom, no virtue. QED.’
9. Answers to Problems
Question (a)
Everyoneat the party wasdrinking.
Tom was at the party.
Tom wasdrinking.
Question (b)
Everyone who lives in Snooty Towersis stuck up.
Mehdilives in Snooty Towers.
Mehdiis a snob.
Question (c)
James swearsat strangers in the street.
James neverleaves a tip when hegoes to a restaurant.
James's breath smells.
Youshould stop dating James.
Question (d)
The walking stick is short.
Li Nais verytall.
The walking stick won't fit Li Na.
Question(e)
A long holiday would be better for both ofus.
Weshould havea longholiday.
Question (f)
Thefirst premise of this argumentis not quite true: there are excep-
tions to the principle that any person born in the United States is
eligible for US citizenship. However, the larger problem with this ar-
gumentis that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Question (g)
The premises of this argument are true, and the conclusion does
indeed follow from the premises.
24 PuiLrosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS— SEEKING ANSWERS
Question (h)
Wetake the premise of this argumentto be true. There is room fordis-
pute about the extent to which the premise supports the conclusion.
For whatit’s worth, we don't find the argument very convincing.It
doesn't seem unlikely that there are bacteria-like organisms on some
distant planet in our galaxy that we are currently unable to observe.
Question(i)
The argumentis valid.
Question(j)
The argument is notvalid.
Question (k)
The argumentis notvalid.
Question (0)
(1) All the guys in TA are rude. (Premise)
(2) Johnisin TA. (Premise)
(3) John is rude. (From 1, 2)
(4) You shouldn't invite rude people to (Premise)
your parties.
(5) You shouldn't invite John to yourparty. (From 3, 4)
Question (p)
(1) Joe is often mean to me. (Premise)
(2) Either Joe loves me or Joe hates me. (From 1)
(3) I’ve done nothing to makeJoe dislike me. (Premise)
(4) Joeloves me. (From 2,3)
Question (q)
(1) Mr. Singh was born in the 1950s. (Premise)
(2) Mr. Singhisat least fifty years old. (From 1)
(3) Mr. Singhis older than Min. (From 2)
Question (r)
(1) Four, nine, sixteen, twenty-five, thirty-six, (Premise)
and forty-nineall have an odd number
of factors.
(2) All square numbers have an odd number (From 1)

of factors.
(3) 2,401 is square. (Premise)
(4) 2,401 has an odd numberoffactors. (From 2, 3)
Question (s)
(1) I only have ten dollars to spend. (Premise)
(2) The starters at The Snail cost more than (Premise)
ten dollars.
(3) I shouldn't take Amie to The Snail. (From 1, 2)
(4) The Rose doesn't serve vegetarian dishes. (Premise)
(5) I shouldn't take Amie to The Rose. (From 4)
(6) The only two restaurants open are (Premise)
The Snail and The Rose.
(7) We should stay in tonight. (From 3, 5, 6)
Question(t)
Weather forecasts made more than a week in advanceare untrustworthy.
The longer the rangeof a forecast, the less trustworthyitis.
Whenclimate scientists make predictions about global temperatures
over the next few decades, they are in effect issuing very long-term
weatherforecasts.
Therefore:
Climate scientists’ predictions about global temperatures over the
next few decadesare not to be taken seriously.
Question (u)
(1) Monogamyis rare in the animal kingdom. (Premise)
(2) None of the species most closely related (Premise)
to humans are monogamous.
(3) It is unnatural to live monogamously. (From 1, 2)
(4) It is a mistake to make monogamyourideal. (From 3)
Question (v)
(1) A given quantity of money is worth more (Premise)
to a poor person thanto a rich person.
26 PuHiLtosopHy: ASKING QUESTIONS— SEEKING ANSWERS
(2) If moneyis taken from a rich person and (From 1)

transferred to a poorperson,the loss of
welfare to the rich person is smaller than
the gain in welfare to the poor person.
(3) A redistributive system of tax and (From 2)
benefits increases the average level of
welfare in society.
(4) ‘The government's goal should be to (Premise)
increase the averagelevel of welfare
in society.
(5) The government should maintain a (From 3, 4)
redistributive system of tax and benefits.
Question (w)
(1) An actionis virtuous only if, in doing (Premise)
that action, the agent forwent the
opportunity to do someother,
vicious, action.
(2) Virtuous action is possible only in (From 1)
“conditionsofliberty.”
(3) Only in a market economyare wein (Premise)
conditionsofliberty.
(4) Virtuous action is possible only in a (From 2,3)
market economy.
(5) Markets presuppose and generatevirtue. (From 4)
Whatto Look at Next

There are many good booksavailable on the analysis and evaluation of
arguments. Often this field is called “informal logic.” Walter Sinnott-
Armstrong and Robert Fogelin’s Understanding Arguments: An Intro-
duction to Informal Logic is excellent; so is Richard Feldman’s Reason
and Argument. Anthony Weston’ A Rulebook for Arguments is also
excellent, though it is more about creating your own arguments than
evaluating the arguments of other people. But we stress that learning
to evaluate arguments is rather like learning to swim: reading is not
enough; you have to practice. When you come across an argument,
think of it as an opportunity to develop your analytical skills. Think as
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"We are a people of peaceful traders—shopkeepers, our rivals
of the Continent affirm—and are consequently at war on only
eight points of the globe, with forces which in the aggregate
only just exceed sixty thousand men. There are thirty-five
thousand on the Indian Frontier fighting the clansmen of the
Northern Himalayas, who, according to the Afridi sub-officers
interrogated by Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, are all eager to
enter our service; twenty-five thousand about to defeat the
Khalifa at Omdurman; a thousand doing sentry duty in Crete;
four hundred putting down an outbreak in Mekran; three hundred
crushing a mutiny in Uganda; and some hundreds more restoring
order in Lagos, Borneo, and Basutoland. All these troops,
though of different nationalities—Englishmen, Sikhs, Ghoorkas,
Rajpoots, Malays, Egyptians, Soudanese, Haussas, and Wagandas—
are under British officers, are paid from funds under British
control, and are engaged in the self-same work, that of
solidifying the 'Pax Britannica,' so that a commercial
civilisation may have a fair chance to grow."
The Spectator (London), February 5, 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February).

Resentment shown to China for rejection of a loan,
through Russian influence.
Chinese agreement not to alienate the Yang-tsze region
and to open internal waters to steam navigation.
See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February-May).

Native revolt in the Sierra Leone Protectorate.

SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (March-April).
Unsuccessful opposition to Russian lease of Port Arthur
and Talienwan from China.
Compensatory British lease of Wei-hai Wei.

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (April-August).

Further exactions from China.
Lease of territory opposite Hong Kong, etc.

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (May).

Death of Mr. Gladstone.
After a long and painful illness, the great statesman and

leader of the Liberal party in England, William Ewart
Gladstone, died on the 19th of May. His death drew tributes in
Parliament from his political opponents which exalted him quite
to the height of great distinction that those who followed him
would claim. It was said by Lord Salisbury that "the most
distinguished political name of the century had been withdrawn
from the roll of Englishmen." Mr. Balfour described him as
"the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly
that the world had yet seen": and expressed the belief that
"they would never again have in that assembly any man who
could reproduce what Mr. Gladstone was to his contemporaries."
Lord Rosebery paid an eloquent tribute to the dead statesman.

"This country." he said, "this nation, loves brave men. Mr.
Gladstone was the bravest of the brave. There was no cause so
hopeless that he was afraid to undertake it; there was no
amount of opposition that would cowe him when once he had
undertaken it. My lords, Mr. Gladstone always expressed a hope
that there might be an interval left to him between the end of
his political and of his natural life. That period was given
to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the
sphere of politics. Those four years have been with him a
special preparation for his death, but have they not also been
a preparation for his death with the nation at large?
{210}
Had he died in the plenitude of his power as Prime Minister,
would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced
Opposition to allow to pass to him, without a word of dissent,
the honours which are now universally conceded? Hushed for the
moment are the voices of criticism, hushed are the controversies
in which he took part; hushed for the moment is the very sound
of party faction. I venture to think that this is a notable
fact in our history. It was not so with the elder Pitt. It was
not so with the younger Pitt. It was not so with the elder
Pitt, in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivalled services,
and of his enfeebled old age. It was not so with the younger
Pitt, in spite of his long control of the country and his
absolute and absorbed devotion to the State. I think that we
should remember this as creditable not merely to the man, but
to the nation." With the consent of Mrs. Gladstone and family,
a public funeral was voted by Parliament, and the remains of the
great leader were laid, with simple but impressive ceremonies,
in Westminster Abbey, on the 28th of May.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (June).

The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

SUGAR BOUNTIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July).

The Local Government Act for Ireland.

IRELAND: A. D. 1898 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July-December).
In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (September-November).-

The Nile question with France.
Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.

EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (December).

Imperial Penny Postage.
On Christmas Day, 1898, the Imperial penny postage came into

operation,—i. e., it became possible to send for a penny a
letter not above half an ounce in weight to all places in the
British Empire, except the Australasian Colonies and the Cape.
"Thousands of small orders and business transactions and
millions of questions and answers will fly round the world at
a penny which were too heavily weighted at two-pence
halfpenny. The political effect of the fact that it will not
now be necessary to think whether an address is outside the
United Kingdom, but only whether it is inside the British
Empire, will be by no means insignificant. If people will only
let the Empire alone we shall ultimately weave out of many
varied strands—some thick, some thin—a rope to join the
Motherland and the Daughter States which none will be able to
break. Not an unimportant thread in the hawser will
be,—letters for a penny wherever the Union Jack is flown."
The Spectator (London),

December 31, 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899.
Joint High Commission for settlement of pending questions
between the United States and Canada.

CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June).

Convention with France defining West African and
Sudan possessions.

NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899.
Dealings with anti-missionary demonstrations in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (January).

Agreement with Egypt, establishing the Anglo-Egyptian
Condominium in the Sudan.

EGYPT: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (March-April).

Agreement with Russia concerning railway interests in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1899 (MARCH-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-June).

The Bloemfontein Conference with President Kruger.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-July).

Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

PEACE CONFERENCE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (June-October).

Arbitration and settlement of the Venezuela boundary question.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

Passage of the London Government Act.

LONDON: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (July-September).

Discussion of proposed amendments to the Franchise Law
of the South African Republic.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1899 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August).

The Board of Education Act.
An Act of Parliament which became law on the 9th of August,

1899, and operative on the 1st of April, 1900, created a
national Board of Education, "charged with the superintendence
of matters relating to education in England and Wales," and
taking the place of the Committee of the Privy Council on
Education, by which that function had previously been
performed. The Act provided that the Board "shall consist of a
President, and of the Lord President of the Council (unless he
is appointed President of the Board), Her Majesty's Principal
Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury, and the Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer. … The
President of the Board shall be appointed by Her Majesty, and
shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure." The Act
provided further for the creation by Her Majesty in Council of
"a Consultative Committee consisting, as to not less than
two-thirds, of persons qualified to represent the views of
Universities and other bodies interested in education, for the
purpose of—(a) framing, with the approval of the Board of
Education, regulations for a register of teachers, … with an
entry in respect to each teacher showing the date of his
registration, and giving a brief record of his qualifications
and experience; and (b) advising the Board of Education on any
matter referred to the committee by the Board."
62 & 63 Victoria, chapter 33.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August).

Instructions to the Governor of Jamaica.
See (in this volume) JAMAICA: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (September-October).

Preparations for war in South Africa.
The Boer Ultimatum.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE FREE STATE):
A. D. 1899 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (October-November).

Opening circumstances of the war in South Africa.
Want of preparation.
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November).

Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).
{211}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November).

Withdrawal from the Samoan Islands, with compensations in the
Tonga and Solomon Islands and in Africa.

SAMOAN ISLANDS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900.
Renewed investigation of the Old-Age Pension question.
On the initiative of the government, a fresh investigation of

the question of old-age pensions was opened in 1899 by a
select committee of the House of Commons, under the
chairmanship of Mr. Chaplin. The report of the Committee, made
in the following year, suggested the following plan: Any
person, aged 65, whether man or woman, who satisfied the
pension authority that he or she"
(1) Is a British subject;
(2) Is 65 years of age;
(3) Has not within the last 20 years been convicted of an

offence and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment
without the option of a fine;
(4) Has not received poor relief, other than medical relief,
unless under circumstances of a wholly exceptional character,
during twenty years prior to the application for a pension;
(5) Is resident within the district of the pension authority;
(6) Has not an income from any source of more than 10s. a
week; and
(7) Has endeavoured to the best of his ability, by his

industry or by the exercise of reasonable providence, to make
provision for himself and those immediately dependent on
him—"should receive a certificate to that effect and be
entitled to a pension. The amount of pension to be from 5s. to
7s. a week.
As a means of ascertaining approximately the number of persons

in the United Kingdom who would be pensionable under this
scheme, a test census was taken in certain districts made as
representative as possible by the inclusion of various kinds
of population. In each of the selected areas in Great Britain
a house-to-house visitation was made with a view of
ascertaining how many of the aged would satisfy the conditions
of the scheme. In Ireland a similar census had to be abandoned
as impracticable because "the officials, although they
proceeded courteously, were received with abuse"; but the Poor
Law inspectors framed some rough estimates after consultation
with local authorities. Altogether the inquiry in Great
Britain extended to a population of rather over half a million
persons. From facts thus obtained the following estimate of
the cost of the proposed pensioning project was deduced:
Estimated number of persons

over 65 years of age in 1901
2,016,000
Deduct:
1. For those whose incomes exceed 10s. a week
741,000
2. For paupers
515,000
3. For aliens, criminals, and lunatics
32,000
4. For inability to comply with thrift test
72,700
Total deductions
1,360,700
Estimated number of pensionable persons

655,000
Estimated cost (the average pension being

taken at 6s. a week)
£9,976,000
Add administrative expenses (3 per cent.)
£299,000
Total estimated cost.

£10,275,000
In round figures.
£10,300,000
The Committee estimated, still further, that the cost would

rise to £15,650,000 by 1921. No legislative action was taken
on the report.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900 (October-January).
Troops from Canada for the South African War.

CANADA: A. D. 1899-1900.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
The Newfoundland French Shore question.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
Industrial combinations.

TRUSTS: IN ENGLAND.
Naval strength.

NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (January-March).

The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

Compulsory education.
A bill introduced in Parliament by a private member,

unsupported by the government, providing that the earliest
date at which a child should be permitted to leave school
should be raised from 11 to 12 years, was passed, only one
member of the Cabinet voting for it.

Negotiation of a convention with the United States relative
to the projected Interoceanic Canal.

CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (March).

Overtures of peace from the Boer Presidents.
Reply of Lord Salisbury.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1900 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (May).

Annexation of Orange Free State by right of conquest.

SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE): A. D. 1900 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (June-December).

Co-operation with the Powers in China.

CHINA.

Passage of the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,"
federating the Australian Colonies.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900;
and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September).
Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September-October).

Dissolution of Parliament.
Election of a new Parliament.
Victory for the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.
By royal proclamation, September 17, the existing Parliament

was dissolved and order given for the issue of writs calling a
new Parliament, the elections for which were held in October,
concluding on the 24th of that month. The state of parties in
the House of Commons resulting from the election was as
follows: Conservatives, 334, Liberal Unionists, 68; total
supporters of the Unionist Ministry, 402. Liberals and Labor
members, 186, Nationalists (Irish), 82; total opposition, 268.
Unionist majority, 134, against 128 in the preceding
Parliament. The issues in the election were those growing out
of the South African War. Although most of the Liberals upheld
the war, and the annexation of the South African republics,
they sharply criticised the prior dealings of the Colonial
Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, with the Transvaal Boers, and the
general conduct of the war. A number of the leading Liberals
were uncompromising in condemnation of the war, of the policy
which caused it, and of the proposed extinction of Boer
independence. The sentiment of the country was shown by the
election to be strongly against all questioning of the
righteousness of the war or of the use to be made of victory
in it.
{212}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October).

Anglo-German agreement concerning policy in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October).

Annexation of the Transvaal.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (November-December).

The Fourth Ministry of Lord Salisbury.
Brief session of Parliament.
For the fourth time, Lord Salisbury was called to the lead in
government, and formed his Ministry anew, making considerable
changes. He relieved himself of the conduct of Foreign Affairs
(which was transferred to the Marquis of Lansdowne), and took,
with the office of Prime Minister, that of Lord Privy Seal. Mr.
Brodrick, who had been an Under Secretary, succeeded Lord
Lansdowne as Secretary of State for War. Mr. Balfour continued
to be First Lord of the Treasury, and Leader of the House; Mr.
Chamberlain remained in the Colonial Office. Mr. Goschen
retired.
Parliament met on the 6th of December, for the purpose set

forth in a remarkably brief "Queen's Speech," as follows: "My
Lords, and Gentlemen, It has become necessary to make further
provision for the expenses incurred by the operations of my
armies in South Africa and China. I have summoned you to hold
a Special Session in order that you may give your sanction to
the enactments required for this purpose. I will not enter
upon other public matters requiring your attention until the
ordinary meeting of Parliament in the spring." The estimates
of the War Office called for £16,000,000, and it was voted
after a few days of debate, in which the causes and conduct of
the war were criticised and defended by the two parties, and,
on the 15th, Parliament was prorogued to the 14th of February,
1901, by the Queen's command.

Fall of stones at Stonehenge.

STONEHENGE.

Parliamentary statements of the number of men employed in the
South African War, and the number dead and disabled.
In the House of Commons, December 11, Mr. Brodrick, Secretary

of State for War, moved a vote of £16,000,000, required for
the current year, to meet additional expenditure in South
Africa and China. In the course of his remarks, explanatory of
the need for this supplementary supply, he made the following
statement: "When the war broke out we had in South Africa in
round figures 10,000 men, all Regular troops. We have in the
14 months' which have since elapsed sent from this country and
landed in South Africa 175,000 Regular soldiers, a number which
exceeds by far any number which any Minister from this bench
or any gentleman sitting behind these benches or in front of
them ever suggested that this country ought to be in a
position to ship to any part of the world, and a number far in
excess of that which during any period that I have sat in the
house any member of the House, except an official, would have
been willing to believe that the War Office could find to
dispose of. But they are not the only troops. We have called
on them, I will not say to the extreme limit of our power,
but, at all events, with an unsparing hand. But you have in
addition, as this return will show, some 40,000 Volunteers of
various descriptions from the United Kingdom—40,000 including
the Imperial Yeomanry, whose service is spoken of by every
officer under whom they have served with such satisfaction; 30
Militia regiments, who are also Volunteers, since their term
of service was only for the United Kingdom and who have gone
abroad at great personal sacrifice to themselves; and the
volunteer companies who have joined the Regular battalions.
You have also got 40,000 colonial troops, to a large extent,
no doubt, men raised in the colonies affected, and as
everybody knows to a still larger extent consisting of men who
have gone for a year from Australia, Canada, and other
places."
Sir William Harcourt replied to Mr. Brodrick, not in

opposition to the motion, but in criticism of the conduct of
the war. Referring to a return submitted by the War Office, he
analyzed its showing of facts, thus: "Now just let us look at
this table. By some accident it only gives the rank and file
and non-commissioned officers. It is a very terrible return,
and I think it is worthy of the attention of the men who
delight in war, of whom, I am afraid, there are unhappily not
a few. I have made a short analysis of the paper. It shows
that the garrison at the Cape before the war was 9,600.
Reinforcements of 6,300 men were sent out in October last year
and from India 5,600, which with the former garrison made up
21,000 in all when the war broke out. Up to August, that is,
after the last estimate for 1900, according to this table
267,000 men had been in arms in South Africa—that is without
the officers. Therefore I will call it 270,000 men in round
numbers. I think the right honourable gentleman made a mistake
when he said that the colonial troops were more numerous from
beyond the seas than they were in the Cape. This return shows
that the men raised in South Africa were 30,000, and, apart
from them, the colonials from beyond the seas were 11,000.
According to the last return there were 210,000 men in South
Africa. You will observe there is a balance of some 60,000 or
70,000 men. What has become of those men? You would find from
this return, one would suppose, that a good many of these have
returned safe and sound to England. No, Sir; the men who have
returned to England according to this paper, not invalids, are
7,500 and to the colonies 3,000 more. That makes 10,000 men,
or with the officers about 11,000 men. But since July you have
sent out 13,000 men to South Africa, more, in fact, than you
have been bringing home, and yet you have only 210,000 men
there. Now, Sir, how is this accounted for? First of all you
have the heading, 'killed or died of wounds,' 11,000 men. You
have 'wounded,' 13,000, you have 'in hospital in South
Africa,' 12,000, and you have 'returned to England, sick,
wounded, or died on passage,' 36,000 men. That is the balance.
Seventy thousand men have been killed, wounded, or disabled,
or have died in this war. And now what is the prospect that is
held before us with this force, once 270,000 men, and now
210,000, in South Africa? Lord Roberts has declared that the
war is over, yet you hold out to us no prospect of diminishing
the force you have in South Africa of 210,000 men."
{213}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (January).

Death of Queen Victoria.
The following notice, which appeared in the "Court Circular,"

on the 18th of January, dated from the winter residence of the
Queen at Osborne House, in the Isle of Wight, seems to have
been the first intimation to the country of its sovereign's
failing health: "The Queen has not lately been in her usual
health and is unable for the present to take her customary
drives. The Queen during the past year has had a great strain
upon her powers, which has rather told upon her Majesty's
nervous system. It has, therefore, been thought advisable by
her Majesty's physicians that the Queen should be kept
perfectly quiet in the house and should abstain for the
present from transacting business." It was subsequently found,
as stated in an "authoritative account" by the "British
Medical Journal," and the "Lancet," that "the Queen's health
for the past 12 months had been failing, with symptoms mainly
of a dyspeptic kind, accompanied by impaired general
nutrition, periods of insomnia, and later by occasional slight
and transitory attacks of aphasia, the latter suggesting that
the cerebral vessels had become damaged, although her
Majesty's general arterial system showed remarkably few signs
of age. … The dyspepsia which tended to lower her Majesty's
original robust constitution was especially marked during her
last visit to Balmoral. It was there that the Queen first
manifested distinct symptoms of brain fatigue and lost notably
in weight. These symptoms continued at Windsor, where in November
and December, 1900, slight aphasic symptoms were first
observed, always of an ephemeral kind, and unattended by any
motor paralysis. … A few days before the final illness
transient but recurring symptoms of apathy and somnolence,
with aphasic indications and increasing feebleness, gave great
uneasiness to her physician." Before the publication of the
cautious announcement quoted above, the symptoms had become
too grave to leave any doubt as to the near approach of death.
It came on Tuesday, the 22d of January, at half past six
o'clock in the evening, the dying Queen being then surrounded
by a large number of her many children, grandchildren and
great grandchildren, whom she recognized, it is said, within a
few moments of the end. The eldest of the Queen's children,
the Empress Frederick, was kept from her mother's side a this
last hour by serious illness of her own; but the Emperor
William, of Germany (son of the Empress Frederick and eldest
grandson of Queen Victoria) had hastened to the scene and
showed a filial affection which touched English hearts.
On Friday, the first day of February, the remains of the Queen

were borne from the island where she died to Portsmouth, between
long lines of battle-ships and cruisers—British, German,
French, Italian, Japanese, Belgian and Portuguese. The scene
of the funeral voyage was impressively described by a
correspondent of the New York "Sun," as follows: "Nature was
never kindlier. The smiling waters of the Solent were as calm
as on a summer's morning. It was 'Queen's weather' to the very
last. The cavalcade which wended slowly through the narrow
lane, green even in midwinter, down through the streets of the
little town of Cowes to the Trinity pier was a funeral
procession such as the world had never seen before. Kings and
princes, a Queen and princesses, walked humbly between black
lines of mourning islanders, escorting the coffin of the dead
sovereign. Then followed a sight far more notable and more
impressive, indeed, than the great tribute the great capital
of the empire will pay to-morrow. It was the transit of the
funeral yacht across the waters between lines of steel which
are England's bulwarks against the world. Battleship after
battleship thundered its grief, band after band wailed its
dirge and crew after crew bowed low their heads as the pigmy
yacht swept past, bearing no passengers save an admiral on the
bridge and four red-coated guards at the corners of the
simple, glowing white bier resting amidships. It was a picture
neither a painter's brush nor an orator's eloquence could
reproduce. … The boat slowly glided on in the mellow light of
the afternoon sun, herself almost golden in hue, sharply
contrasting with the black warships. The ears also were
assailed in strange contrast, the sad strains of Beethoven's
funeral march floating over the water being punctuated by the
roar of minute guns from each ship. Somehow it was not
incongruous and one felt that it was all a great and majestic
tribute to a reign which was an era and to a sovereign to whom
the world pays its highest honors."
On the following day the remains were conveyed by railway from

Portsmouth to London, carried in solemn procession through the
streets of the capital, and thence by railway to Windsor,
where the last rites were performed on Monday, the 4th. The
Queen was then laid to rest, by the side of her husband, in
the mausoleum which she had built at Frogmore.
Of the sincerity with which Queen Victoria had been loved by

her own people and respected and admired by the world at
large, and of the genuineness of sorrow that was manifested
everywhere at her death, there can be no doubt. To the
impressiveness of the ending of an unexampled period of
history there was added a true sense of loss, from the
disappearance of a greatly important personage, whose high
example had been pure and whose large influence had been good.
Among all the tributes to the Queen that were called out by
her death none seem so significant and so fully drawn from
knowledge of what she was in her regal character, as the words
that were spoken by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, at
the meeting of Parliament on the Friday following her death.
"My lords." he said, "the late Queen had so many titles to our
admiration that it would occupy an enormous time to glance at
them even perfunctorily; but that on which I think your
lordships should most reflect, and which will chiefly attach
to her character in history, is that, being a constitutional
monarch with restricted powers, she reigned by sheer force of
character, by the lovableness of her disposition, over the
hearts of her subjects, and exercised an influence in moulding
their character and destiny which she could not have done more
if she had bad the most despotic power. She has been a great
instance of government by example, by esteem, by love; and it
will never be forgotten how much she has done for the
elevation of her people, not by the exercise of any
prerogative, not by the giving of any commands, but by the
simple recognition and contemplation of the brilliant
qualities which she has exhibited in her exalted position. My
lords, it may be, perhaps, proper that those who, like noble
lords opposite and myself, have had the opportunity of seeing
the close workings of her character in the discharge of her
duties as Sovereign, should take this opportunity of
testifying to the great admiration she inspired and the great
force which her distinguishing characteristics exercised over
all who came near her.
{214}
The position of a Constitutional Sovereign is not an easy one.
Duties have to be reconciled which sometimes seem far apart.

Philosophy Asking Questions Seeking Answers 1St Edition Stephen Stich All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy Asking Questions Seeking Answers 1St Edition Stephen Stich All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy - Asking questions seeking

answers 1st Edition Stephen Stich

New York Oxford

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© 2019 by Oxford University Press

Fortitles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education

All rights reserved. Nopart of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval

You must notcirculate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

CHAPTER1 WhatIs Philosophy? 1

WhatIs a Philosophical Question? 2

CHAPTER 2 What Are Arguments, and How Should We

CHAPTER3 Does God Exist? 29

CHAPTER4 Why Does God Leave Usto Suffer? 59

Three Logical Puzzles for Theists 60

CHAPTER5 Can We Be Completely Certain of Anything? 77

Certainty Is Hardto Find 79

CHAPTER6 Can We Trust Our Senses? 97

Primary and Secondary Qualities 101

CHAPTER7 ¥WilltheSun Rise Tomorrow? 121

Hume's Problem 124

CHAPTERS WhatIs Knowledge? 141

4. Analyzing Propositional Knowledge: The Hard

CHAPTER 9 Do We Have Free Will? 161

CHAPTER 10 HowIs Your Mind Related to Your Body? 179

Cartesian Dualism 182

CHAPTER 11 Will You Be the Same Person in Ten Years? Could

3. Problems for Soul Theory 219

CHAPTER12 Are There Objective Truths about Right and

The Divine Command Theory 246

CHAPTER13 WhatReally Matters? 267

CHAPTER14 What Should We Do? (PartI) 287

5. Kant’s Humanity Formula 301

CHAPTER 15 What Should We Do? (Part II) 309

Appendix A: Reading and Writing Tips 334

Whois this book for?

Which philosophical topics do you cover?

That’s a lot to cover in a small book.

This stuff is interesting. WhatI else should lookat?

How did you cometo write this book?

at the University of Michigan,fifty years ago. It was a daunting assign-

Is there anyone that you wantto thank?

Student and Instructor Resources

per chapter(also available as a traditional “pencil-and-paper” Test Bank

Philosophers Discussed Some Important Historical

THE ANCIENT PERIOD

Socrates (c. 470-399 sce) Athenians defeat Persians at Marathon

THE MIDDLE AGES

Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) Fall of the Roman Empire (476)

FROM THE RENAISSA NCE TO THE PRESENT

René Descartes (1596-1650) Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Asking Questions—Seeking Answers

Some Christians argue that it is okay to eat meat on the basis of

Ofcourse, this argument won't convince vegetarians who aren't Jewish

2. WhatIs a Philosophical Question?

A list of philosophical questions

Anotherpart of the answeris that philosophers spend a lot of time

3. The Philosophical Method

Notice that the two philosophersaren't contentjust to say that Cop-

For example, suppose that you're thinking about how thestate

4. Philosophy and Science

What Are Arguments, and How

The conclusion of this argumentis that if a person is eligible to vote,