Question: What is a proposition? What are the various kinds of propositions?

Answer: Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that something is the
case or it asserts that something is not the case. We may affirm a proposition, or deny it—but every
proposition gives us some information. Therefore, every proposition is either true or false. This quality of
being true or false is called the truth value of a proposition. For example, the truth value of the proposition
‘Delhi is the capital of India’ is true, while the truth value of ‘Bangalore is the capital of India’ is false. (Define
Proposition.) (What is meant by the truth value of a proposition?) Every proposition has a truth value.
However, there are many propositions about whose truth we are uncertain. “There is life on some other
planet in our galaxy,” for example, is a proposition that, so far as we now know, may be true or may be false.
Its truth value is unknown, but this proposition, like every proposition, must be either true or false.

To express a proposition, we always need a sentence in some language, but the proposition we assert is not
identical to that sentence. Two different sentences, consisting of different words differently arranged, may
have the same meaning and may be used to assert the very same proposition. For example, “BJP won the
election” and “The election was won by BJP.” The states of affairs described by the first sentence is the same
as that of the second sentence.

Another difference between a sentence and a proposition is that a sentence is a linguistic entity belonging
to a specific language, whereas propositions are logical entities having no specific relation to any particular
language. For example, the two sentences ‘It is raining’ and ‘Barish ho rahi hai’ are in different languages,
but they have a single meaning and therefore express the same proposition.

Last but not the least, all sentences do not express propositions. For example, an interrogative sentence
asserts nothing, and therefore it is not a proposition. Only declarative sentences express propositions, and
are true or false. In fact, propositions are often defined as the contents of declarative sentences. A
proposition is simply the meaning of a declarative sentence. (How is a proposition different from a
sentence?)

There are many types of propositions, depending on what basis they are being categorized. For example,
there are affirmative propositions (A cat is an animal) and negative propositions (A dog is not an insect),
and there are universal propositions (All girls are females) and particular propositions (Some boys are
athletes). However, one of the main classifications of propositions is one the basis of how they are
composed. On this basis, there are two types of propositions:

A) Simple Propositions: A simple proposition is a statement containing no connectives. In other

words, a proposition is considered simple if it cannot be broken up into sub-propositions. A simple
proposition has only one subject and one predicate.
Examples: Love is happiness.
Tigers are carnivores. (Define Simple Proposition.)

B) Compound Propositions: When two or more simple propositions are combined into a single
proposition, we get a compound proposition.
Example: She is graceful but cannot act. (Define Compound Proposition.)

This compound proposition is a combination of two simple propositions – ‘She is graceful,’ and
‘She cannot act.’ These simple propositions are connected by a conjunction ‘but’.

The word ‘but’ in the above example is called a logical connective. Other logical connectives include
‘and,’ ‘if…then,’ etc. (Name any two logical connectives.)

Other examples:
o He went to the hospital and met the doctor.
o Either he is honest or dishonest.
o If Rahul comes home, then you must cook khichdi.
Question: What is an argument? What are its types? / Distinguish between Deductive and
Inductive Arguments.
Answer: Argument is a technical term in logic. Here it does not necessarily mean disagreement
or controversy. In logic, argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which one is
claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support for the truth of that
one. When we reason about any matter, we produce arguments to support our conclusions.
(Define Argument.)
Arguments are constructed with propositions as building blocks. The conclusion of an argument
is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument. These
other propositions, which provide support for the conclusion, are the premises of the argument.
Thus, in an argument we affirm one proposition on the basis of other propositions. (Define
Premise/ Conclusion. Write a short note on Argument.)
Every argument claims that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion. However,
there are two different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus
there are two different classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive.
In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This
means that if all the premises in the argument are true, then the conclusion has to be true. In such
an argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Here is an example:
All Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates was a Greek. (premise)
Therefore, Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
Here it can be seen that if the premises are true, then it simply isn’t possible for the conclusion to
be false. A deductive argument does not guarantee that its premises are true. However, it does
guarantee that if the premises are true, there is no way for the conclusion to be false. (Define
Deductive Argument.)
The categories of validity and invalidity apply to deductive arguments. In a valid deductive
argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is necessary and its falsity is
impossible. The kind of support that valid deductive arguments give to their conclusions is not a
matter of degree; it is ‘all or nothing.’ That is why deductive arguments give us certainty, although
they tell us nothing new. This is because all the information contained in the conclusion is already
contained in the premises.
Deductive reasoning is often used in mathematics where we make conclusions about a specific
case according to more general principles or rules. (Write a short note on Deductive
Argument.)
In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises supports the truth of the conclusion. However,
it does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. This means that even if all the premises of the
argument are true, the conclusion may still be false. Here the link between the premises and the
conclusion is based on probability, so that if the premises are true, then it can be said that the
conclusion is true with a degree of probability. In other words, the conclusion follows probably
from the premises. Here is an example:
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Therefore, Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false.
(Define Inductive Argument.)
Validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are either strong
or weak. Ina strong inductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is
merely likely and its falsity is merely unlikely. The kind of support that strong inductive
arguments provide their conclusions is a matter of degree; it is ‘more or less.’ That is why
inductive arguments are always uncertain to some degree, although they provide us with lots of
new information. This is because the conclusion of an inductive argument contains information
not contained in the premises.
Inductive reasoning is often used in empirical sciences, such as physics, biology, psychology, and
sociology. In these sciences, there is data, and inductive reasoning is used to draw conclusions
from the data. (Write a short note on Deductive Argument.)
From the above, it must be noted that the difference between deductive and inductive arguments
is not the difference between good and bad reasoning, but between two ways to support the truth
of the conclusion of an argument.
The following table brings out the chief differences between deductive and inductive arguments
more clearly:

Deductive Argument Inductive Argument

Every mammal has a heart.
All horses are mammals.
Therefore, every horse has a heart.
1. If all the premises are true in a valid
argument, the conclusion must be true.
2. All of the information in the conclusion is
already contained, at least implicitly, in the
premises. Therefore, deductive arguments do
not give us any new information.
3. Deductive arguments are either valid or
invalid.
4. Premises, taken together with the negation of
the conclusion, imply a contradiction.
Every horse that has ever been observed has had
a heart.
Therefore, every horse has a heart.
1. If all the premises are true in a good inductive
argument, the conclusion is possibly true.
2. The conclusion contains information not
present, even implicitly, in the premises.
Therefore, inductive arguments provide us with
new ideas and expand our knowledge about the
world.
3. Inductive arguments are either strong or
weak.
4. Premises, taken together with the negation of
the conclusion, do not imply a contradiction.
Question: What is meant by truth and validity?

Answer: Truth is the characteristic of those propositions that assert what really is the case. When
I assert that India is the seventh largest country in the world, I assert what really is the case, i.e.,
what is true. If I had claimed that India is the largest country in the world my assertion would not
be in accord with the real world; therefore, it would be false. (Define Truth.)

An argument is valid when it succeeds in linking its conclusion to its premises with logical
necessity. Its validity refers to the relation between its propositions—between the set of
propositions that serve as the premises and the one proposition that serves as the conclusion of
that argument. If the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises, we say that the
argument is valid. Otherwise, it is invalid. (Define Validity.)

Following is the example of a valid argument:

Money is more valuable than good looks.

Freedom is more valuable than money.
Therefore, freedom is more valuable than good looks.

Here if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.

Here is the example of an invalid argument:

Courage is more important than honesty.
Kindness is more important than honesty.

Therefore, courage and kindness are equally important.

Here the premises do not imply the conclusion. Even if the premises are true, the conclusion is
false.

Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements; validity and invalidity
are attributes of arguments. Validity can never apply to any single proposition by itself, because
the needed relation cannot possibly be found within any one proposition. A single statement that
serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the statement that serves as its conclusion may
be false. This conclusion might have been validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion (or any
single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense. (Why does the concept of Validity not
apply to propositions?)

Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single propositions, the concept of truth cannot
apply to arguments. Of the several propositions in an argument, some (or all) may be true and
some (or all) may be false. However, the argument as a whole is neither true nor false.
Propositions, which are statements about the world, may be true or false; arguments, which
consist of inferences from one set of propositions to other propositions, may be valid or invalid.
(Why does the concept of Truth not apply to arguments?)

I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.
Therefore, all whales have lungs.

II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises and a false conclusion:

All four-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have exactly four legs.
Therefore, all spiders have wings.

III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are true, and their
conclusions are true as well:

If I owned all the gold in the world, then I would be wealthy.

I do not own all the gold in the world.
Therefore, I am not wealthy.

IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in the world, then Bill Gates would be wealthy.
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in the world.
Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All dogs are fishes.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All dogs have wings.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.
Therefore, all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions
(Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI). Hence it is
clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine the validity
or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee
the truth of its conclusion. (Give one example of a valid argument with true propositions/ an
invalid argument with true propositions/ a valid argument with false propositions etc.)

Truth and validity are combined in the concept of soundness. When an argument is valid and all
of its premises are true, it is called a sound argument. (Define Sound Argument.) Following is
an example of a sound argument:

All mammals feed milk to their young.

All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans feed milk to their young.

The above is a valid argument, and all of its premises are true.

Soundness is the highest praise for an argument. It is reserved for arguments which we regard as
perfect. (Write a short note on Sound Argument.)
Question: Define Realism, and give its kinds and characteristics.
Answer: In modern philosophy, the term realism is applied to the doctrine that ordinary objects
of sense perception, such as tables and chairs, have an existence independent of their being
perceived. The basic idea of realism is that the kinds of thing which exist are independent of us
and the way in which we find out about them. Thus, whatever we perceive is real, truly out there
in the world. It’s not an illusion. On a realist analysis, the sentence 'Snow is white' is true if and
only if the substance snow has the property of whiteness; whiteness exists independently of our
thought and talk, just as snow does. (Define Realism.)
There are many types of realism. The commonsense version of realism, also known as naive
realism, holds that the things perceived by the senses are exactly what they appear to be. Naïve
realism claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. The naive
realist view is that objects have properties, such as texture, smell, taste and color, that are usually
perceived absolutely correctly. We perceive them as they really are. This is epistemological
realism. Then there is moral realism as well, wherein moral values are considered real or
‘objective’, having an existence independent of human feelings and attitudes. Mathematical
realism claims that numbers exist independently of mind, which discovers rather than creates
them. (Write a short note on Realism. / What are the various types of Realism?)
The main characteristics of Realism are as follows:
• Objects exist independently of the perceiver: There are two general aspects to realism
about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties. First, there is a
claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist; the following facts also
exist: the table's being square, the rock's being made of granite, and the moon's being
spherical and yellow. The second aspect of realism about the everyday world of
macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence. The fact that the moon
exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about
the matter.
• Common Sense Philosophy: Realism is most people’s common-sense view of the world.
We use our senses to gather information about real objects that are around us. Those
objects are really out there, and they have physical properties that we can sense – they
reflect light for us to see, or they emit odour particles for us to smell. Most people find it
natural to be realists with respect to physical facts: for example, how many planets there
are in the solar system does not depend on how many we think there are, or would like
there to be, or how we investigate them.
• Opposition to Idealism: Realism is often contrasted with idealism. The idealists state
that reality, as we perceive it, is a mental construct. In the epistemological sense this
means that one cannot know the existence of things beyond the realm of the intellect.
Contrarily, the realists hold that reality has an absolute existence independent from our
thoughts and ideas, Thus the realists and idealists disagree on whether the objects around
us are “real” (outside our minds, in the world), or whether they are simply ideas. This
distinction can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena:
other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural
numbers), moral categories, the physical world, etc. (Write a short note on the
difference between realism and idealism.)
Question: Discuss the meaning, kinds and characteristics of Idealism.

Answer: In philosophy, idealism is any doctrine that holds that reality, or reality as we know it, is
fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or immaterial. Any philosophy which gives primary
importance to the ideal or spiritual characteristics in its account of human existence may be termed
‘idealist.’ It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that
abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or that whatever exists is
known in ways that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas. (Define Idealism.)

Following are the chief kinds of Idealism:

• Platonic Idealism: According to Plato, there exists a perfect world of what he calls Forms and
Ideas, and the objects of our world are merely shadows of those forms. The knowledge of these
forms is available only to the mind and not through the senses.
• Subjective Idealism: According to George Berkeley, objects only have existence insofar as we
perceive them. The properties of objects have no existence independent of the minds
perceiving them.
• Objective Idealism: According to this theory, all of reality is based on the perception of a
single Mind—usually identified with God—which then communicates its perception to the
minds of everyone else. There is no time, space, or other reality outside of the perception of
this one Mind.
• Transcendental Idealism: According to Transcendental Idealism, developed by Kant,
external objects or an external reality may exist, but we do not have access to the true,
essential nature of reality or objects. All we have is our perception of them, which means that
all we can know are the mental constructs created by our minds.

Characteristics of Idealism:

• The primacy of mind over matter: Idealism holds that the clue to the ultimate nature of
things is the states and processes of our minds, not material bodies or physical forces. Mind is
primary and higher in comparison to matter.
• Rational knowledge is the only true knowledge: We can truly claim to know only our own
minds, as our thoughts and mental states are the only things to which we have direct access.
Thus, the knowledge of the mind is the only true and relevant knowledge. Hence the idealists
prefer rational sciences over empirical sciences.
• Knowledge is conceptual in nature: The idealists believe that objects have no existence
apart from the concepts applied to them. The object and its qualities are not independent of
the knowledge of the object; rather the latter influences the former. It is not through
perception of the object that knowledge is obtained primarily, but through the medium of
concepts or ideas.
• Inadequacy of Scientific Approach: The idealists do not challenge or deny the importance
of science, but they do not accept its mechanical explanation of the universe. For them,
material facts alone do not constitute a sufficient explanation of the universe. Rather, the
universe is to be understood in terms of the ideals of truth, goodness and beauty. Thus, the
idealists favour a value-oriented explanation of universe instead of the mechanical.
• The centrality of human beings: The idealists are humanists, which means that they put
man at the centre of the universe and give primacy to human interests and values over others.
Man is distinct and superior to other creatures and he expresses his superiority by means of
ideas and ideals. It is in man that the idealistic element of the universe finds its purest
expression.
Question: Discuss the meaning and characteristics of Materialism.

Answer: In common use, the word "materialist" refers to a person for whom collecting material goods
is an important priority, or who primarily pursues wealth and luxury. Philosophically speaking,
however, materialism is a metaphysical doctrine. It is the idea that everything is either made only of
matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature. (Define Materialism.)
Materialists disagree on the proper definition of matter, but generally accept that something is
material if it has physical properties: size, shape, colour, electrical charge, spatial and temporal
location, etc. (Define Matter.)

A materialist therefore believes that matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all processes
and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. Most forms of materialism
either reject the existence of anything non-physical, such as spirit, soul etc., or give it a secondary or
dependent place in relation to material stuff. (Write a short note on Materialism.)

Materialism became part of mainstream philosophy, when science rather than religion became the
main source of knowledge of the world. Owing to the triumphs of science in the 19th and 20th Century,
(especially Charles Darwin's work in evolution and advances in atomic theory, neuroscience and
computer technology), a majority of philosophers today would probably identify themselves as
materialists of one kind or another.

The following are the main characteristics of Materialism:

• Matter is superior to mind: The materialists believe that mental processes are
manifestations of material forces and mind is also a refined form of matter. Both are governed
by the same mechanical laws. However, in contrast to idealism, materialism believes in the
primacy of matter and not mind, which means that matter exists before mind and that matter
creates and determines mind, and not vice versa.
• Materialism and Determinism: Determinism in philosophy is the theory that all events are
completely determined by previously existing causes. Because materialists only accept the
existence or primacy of material things, they also only accept the existence or primacy of
material explanations for events. Whatever happens in the world, it must be explained and
explainable by material causes. Materialism thus tends towards determinism: because there
are material causes for every event, then every event follows necessarily from its causes.
• Material and mechanical explanation of reality: Materialism as a philosophy is held by
those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no role of spirit
or consciousness. Individuals who hold to this belief see the universe as a huge device held
together by pieces of matter functioning according to naturalistic laws. The world consists
entirely of basic material units called atoms, which are imperceptibly small. In addition to
atoms, there is empty space which allows for the movement of these atoms. These objects
interact in the empty space – due to external forces and possibly also due to gravitational
attraction – to form molecules. The properties of individual molecules and their distribution
and arrangement give rise to various qualities we see in the natural world such as mass,
hardness, viscosity, fluidity, colour, taste, and heat conductivity, among others.
• Relationship with the Sciences: Materialism is closely associated and aligned with the
natural sciences. Modern science involves the study of the material world around us, learning
about material events, and theorizing about their material causes. Scientists are materialists
because they only study the material world, although they may personally believe in non-
material entities.
Question: What is meant by Rationalism? Discuss its various characteristics.
Answer: The term rationalism (from the Latin ratio, “reason”) refers to the position that reason
has priority over other ways of acquiring knowledge, or, more strongly, that it is the unique path
to knowledge. Rationalism is most often encountered as a view in epistemology, where it is
traditionally contrasted with empiricism, the view that the sense experience provides the
primary basis for knowledge. (Define Rationalism.) Rationalism is particularly associated with
certain philosophers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the most important being
René Descartes, Benedict de Spinoza, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. All of these give priority to
knowledge derived from reason over knowledge derived from the senses. These philosophers are
also attracted to mathematics as a model for knowledge in general. But these common views are
developed in quite different ways, leading to a variety of rationalist doctrines. (Write a short
note on rationalism.)

Following are the various characteristics of Rationalism:

• First, a rationalist might argue that we possess at least some innate knowledge. We are
not born with minds like blank slates. Rather, even before we experience the world there
are some things that we know. We at least possess some basic instincts; similarly, we also
possess some innate concepts, such as the ability for language.
• Second, a rationalist might believe that there are some truths that, though not known
innately, can be worked out independently of experience of the world. These might be
truths of logic or mathematics, or ethical truths. We can know the answers to
mathematical sums, and the difference between right and wrong, for example, without
having to base that knowledge in experience.
• Third, a rationalist might hold that there are some truths that, though based partly in
experience, cannot be derived from experience alone. Aesthetic truths, and truths about
causation, are two examples of truths of this kind. Two people may observe the same
painting or statue, yet reach contradictory views regarding its beauty or ugliness. This
shows that aesthetic judgments are not presented to us by our senses, but rather are
overlaid onto experience by reason. Similarly, we do not observe causation between two
events, we merely see one event followed by another; it is the mind, not the senses, that
provide us with the idea that the former event causes the latter.
• Fourth, the rationalists stress on the need for a mathematical method to investigate the
truth of things. They strive to model philosophy on mathematics, and, in particular,
geometry. This means that the rationalists begin with definitions and self-evident axioms
and proceed onwards to build a philosophical system of knowledge that is both certain
and complete.
• Last but not the least, the fundamental principle of rationalism is that the world is
intelligible. This means that everything that happens in the world happens in an orderly,
lawful, rational manner, which the mind can comprehend, provided it sticks to certain
rules of right reasoning.

Sometimes rationalism is charged with neglecting or undervaluing experience, but this is a false
presentation of rationalism. All the great rationalists were actively engaged in mathematics and
science of their day. Far from neglecting experience, the rationalists had, in general, a
sophisticated understanding of the role of experience and experimentation in the acquisition and
development of knowledge. Thus, when it is said that the rationalists held that experience cannot
serve as the foundation for knowledge, it does not imply a neglect of experience by them. It only
implies that for them, reason has priority over experience in this regard.
Question: Discuss the meaning and characteristics of Empiricism.
Answer: The term empiricism is derived from the ancient Greek word empeiria, meaning
“experience.” Empiricism is a philosophical school holding that knowledge can only be (or is
primarily) gained from sensory experience. (Define Empiricism.) Empiricism is often contrasted
with rationalism in epistemology. Rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and logic in
discovering the nature of the world, while empiricism instead emphasizes the use of the senses.
In Western philosophy, empiricism became particularly popular during the 1600's and 1700's.
Some of the most important empiricists of that time included John Locke and David Hume.
Following are the chief characteristics of Empiricism:
• It emphasizes the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of
ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is one based on experience.
Thus, sense perception is the main source of knowledge. Empiricists support their
philosophy by describing situations in which a person’s lack of sense experience stops her
from fully understanding something. For example, how can you explain the flavour of a
pineapple to someone who has never tasted one?
a) Empiricists claim that all ideas that a mind can entertain have been formed through some
type of experience. All ideas of human mind can be divided into two parts: 1) simple, and
2) complex. Simple ideas are based only on perception, like color, size, shape, etc. Complex
ideas are formed when simple ideas are combined.
b) There is nothing that is more certain and indubitable than our immediate sensations. Our
senses may deceive us about the world, but it seems impossible to deny that we are
actually having sense experiences. I cannot doubt the existence of the sensations which
present themselves to me. My own sensations are certain regardless of doubts about their
origin. I cannot change my mind about them. For example, I am having a sensation of a
certain sort such as a headache. To ask me ‘How do you know you are having a headache?’
is a silly question.
c) Most empiricists also discount the notion of innate ideas or innatism (the idea that the
mind is born with ideas or knowledge at birth). They argue that ideas are only acquired
through experience, and not innately. Empiricists reject the concept of innate knowledge
because there is no total agreement about what the supposedly innate principles might
be. lf we were all born knowing some ethical principle, for example, 'We should keep our
promises', then everyone would recognise this as a fundamental principle. But there is no
such general agreement. The children also do not immediately recognise the principle as
one that is binding on them; rather the principle is one that has to be taught and learnt.
The same is true for any principle you care to examine, moral or otherwise. Furthermore,
we would expect the supposedly innate principles to be more evident in children than in
adults because children are less affected by local customs and have had less experience of
the world. The innate principles should be clearly recognisable in them. But this is not the
case.
d) The empiricist emphasis on evidence, especially as discovered in experiments, makes
empiricism very important for science. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method
that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world
rather than resting solely on reasoning. Empirical research, including experiments and
validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method. Hence, science is considered
to be methodologically empirical in nature.
Question: Discuss what is meant by Scepticism?
Answer: The term Scepticism is derived from the Greek verb "skeptomai" which means "to look
carefully, to inquire." In everyday usage, Scepticism refers to an attitude of doubt, either in
general or toward a particular object, or to any doubting or questioning state of mind. Doubt is a
useful tool in philosophy, helping to establish what is certain, and what is not. Some degree of
scepticism is necessary for any philosophical enquiry, until you have a convincing argument or
evidence that something is true beyond reasonable doubt. (Define Scepticism.) In philosophy,
scepticism is often directed at areas, such as morality (scepticism about the existence of objective
moral laws), religion (scepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (scepticism about the
possibility of knowledge, or of certainty). It is the opposite of dogmatism, the idea that established
beliefs are not to be challenged or doubted. (Write a short note on scepticism.)
All philosophical scepticism is ultimately epistemological; that is, it is based on views about the
scope and validity of human knowledge. The sceptics point out that because our only way of
getting information about the world outside us is through our senses, there may be parts of reality
that are forever hidden from us. For example, a blind person can smell flowers, feel the warmth
of the sun, and hear the rain, but can’t see the moon or stars, and so can’t have any direct first-
hand knowledge of their existence. Our knowledge of reality is limited to what we can directly
perceive, or to what we can infer based on what we can directly perceive (such as unobserved
galaxies or electrons). But there may be much more to reality than we are capable of knowing in
this way.
Common-sense scepticism is a natural and healthy form of scepticism that most of us employ on
a daily basis. In this version, we question claims that are rightly questionable—like a corrupt
politician’s promises—but do not subject normal beliefs or common-sense beliefs to continuous
doubt. Philosophical versions of scepticism are much more radical in nature. In general, they
either accept only some claims about some areas of knowledge or reject all claims about all areas
of knowledge. In other words, some sceptics maintain that it is possible to know some things at
least while others hold that absolute knowledge of anything is impossible. Accordingly, the
former can be classified as Mitigated sceptics and the latter as Universal sceptics. (What is the
difference between common-sense scepticism and philosophical scepticism?)
Mitigated or local scepticism involves being sceptical about particular areas of knowledge. A
person may believe that lots of things can be known and proven true, but then have one or more
subject areas where they are a sceptic. For example, rationalists could be viewed as sceptical
about the possibility of empirical knowledge while not being sceptical with regard to a priori
knowledge, and empiricists could be seen as sceptical about the possibility of a priori knowledge
but not so with regard to empirical knowledge. (Define Mitigated Scepticism.)
Then there is universal or global scepticism which is sceptical about the possibility of any
knowledge at all. It involves the belief that nothing can be known with certainty. The universal
sceptic insists that we should question everything, trusting nothing: perception, memory, even
methods of reasoning – anything that can be doubted must be suspended from our minds and
considered 'guilty until proven innocent'. For universal sceptics, it does not matter if a person is
making a physical or a metaphysical claim. Their scepticism is applied to all realms of human
knowledge. (Define Global Scepticism.)
Question: Discuss the Divine Command Theory of Ethics.
Answer: Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is dependent upon God, and that the
morally right action is the one that God commands or requires. The theory asserts that what is
moral is determined by God's commands and a person is moral if he follows God's commands.
The specific content of these divine commands varies according to the particular religion. An
example of divine command theory, according to theists, is that God commands humans not to
steal. Thus, it is the moral duty of humans to refrain from stealing. Thus, what makes something
morally right is that God commands it, and what makes something morally wrong is that God
forbids it. (Define Divine Command Theory.)
For divine command theorists, morality is independent of what any individual thinks or likes and
what any society happens to sanction. God establishes moral laws. Those laws are eternally true
and are universally binding on all people, regardless of whether everyone obeys them. This means
that the Divine Command theory is an absolutist theory. Any act that goes against what God has
commanded is classed as wrong, whatever the situation or circumstance is. The reason is that
God is considered all-good and has told us what we should do and should not do through various
scriptures or various prophets. This implies that the Divine Command theory is a non-
consequentialist theory of ethics. In ethics, non-consequentialism is the theory that consequences
do not, and should not, be the criteria for judging actions or people as moral or immoral. And this
is exactly what the Divine Command theory says: Whatever the situation be, if we do what God
commands, then we do the right thing; if we disobey God’s commands, then, no matter what the
consequences, we do wrong. (How is Divine Command theory a non-consequentialist
theory?)
The Divine Command theory is one of the oldest and most popular theories of ethics. Followers
of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have accepted the
importance of God's commands in establishing morality. However, it has several weaknesses,
some of which are discussed as follows:
a) There are a number of different sacred scriptures. Which one expresses what God commands?
It is true that many things are similar in different scriptures. For example, both Judaism and Islam
say that God commands us to respect our parents. But they differ in many specific details
regarding what God commands. How are we to know which of these scriptures is right? Which
one should we follow?
b) Can we be sure that God even exists? There is a lack of scientific or rational foundation for the
existence of any sort of supernatural being or beings including God. And without God’s existence,
the whole theory collapses. Even if one could prove conclusively the existence of the supernatural,
how could one prove that any supernatural being is morally trustworthy?
c) Even if we accept the existence of a supernatural being and His commandments, how could we
be sure that we are interpreting them correctly? There are different interpretations of the Koran,
the Bible, and scriptures of other religions and these often conflict with each other. How are we
to know which interpretation is the correct one?
d) Last but not the least, what help do these scriptural commands offer to the unbeliever and the
atheist? If morality is following God’s commands, does it mean that the unbeliever can have no
morality?
(Give some weaknesses/shortcomings of the Divine Command theory.)
Question: Discuss the concept of Egoism in ethics. / Discuss the concept of Ethical Egoism.
Answer: The term “egoism” derives from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. In philosophy,
egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own
action. Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. (Define Egoism.)
Psychological egoism is the descriptive version of egoism. It describes human nature as being
wholly self-centered and self-motivated. It asserts that people always act in their own interests,
and, it is not possible for them to act otherwise, even though they may disguise their motivation
with references to helping others or doing their duty. It is a purely descriptive theory that claims
to describe a basic fact about human nature. (Define Psychological Egoism.)
Ethical egoism is the normative version of egoism. It is the view that people ought to pursue their
own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests. We act
morally when we act in a way that best promotes our own long-term interests. So, an action is
morally right if it produces more good and fewer bad consequences for me than any other action
I could perform in its place. It is thus a normative theory because it is concerned with how people
ought to behave. (Define Ethical Egoism.)
The difference between ethical and psychological egoism is simply that ethical egoism makes a
claim about how people should behave while psychological egoism makes a claim about how they
actually behave. Ethical egoism holds that people ought to act out of self-interest, but
psychological egoism holds that people always act out of self-interest, whether they ought to or
not. (What is the difference between Psychological and Ethical Egoism?)
Ethical egoism can take three possible forms:
1. Individual ethical egoism, which states that everyone ought to act in my self-interest.
2. Personal ethical egoism, which states that I ought to act in my own self-interest, but makes no
claims about what anyone else ought to do.
3. Universal ethical egoism, which states that everyone ought to act in his or her own best self-
interest, regardless of the interests of others.
Out of these, the first two apply only to one individual. This is a real drawback because we think
of morality as something applicable to all human beings. Thus, they are not realistic ethical
principles at all. Only the universal ethical egoist position is a real ethical position as it is
universalizable, meaning that it can be laid down for humanity in general as a moral principle.
(What are the various types of ethical egoism?)
Ethical egoism has been criticized by many philosophers on the grounds that it is inconsistent
with “the moral point of view.” According to these philosophers, any theory of ethics must
evaluate people’s actions from the moral point of view. By the “moral point of view,” they mean
the point of view of someone who is impartial, that is, who is not biased in favour of one individual
or group over another. Ethical egoism, is clearly not consistent with the moral point of view
because it claims that you should be partial to your own interests.
Another criticism is that ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving
conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty
waste into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both parties
actively pursue what they want. In this situation, this does not suggest any sort of resolution or
commonsense compromise. (What are the drawbacks of ethical egoism?)
Question: Discuss the concept of Relativism in ethics.
Answer: Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine
whether something is right or wrong. Moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative
concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion,
social context, culture or a number of other factors. (Define relativism.)
Take the example of culture. Each society has a culture and moral standards are part of that
culture. When a person is raised within the culture of a society, she “internalizes” that culture
along with its moral standards. That is, she comes to perceive and value what her culture tells her
she should perceive and value. A form of behaviour is morally right for that person if and only if
the moral standards of her culture say it is morally right.
Moral relativists hold that there is more than one valid system of morality. Studies of both
primitive and modern cultures reveal an extreme variation in customs, manners, taboos,
religions, moralities, daily habits, and attitudes from culture to culture. This existence of
widespread moral diversity throughout history, between cultures and even within cultures, has
led some philosophers to argue that morality is not absolute, but rather that there might be many
valid moral systems: that morality is relative.
There are many kinds of relativism. One of them is called descriptive relativism, according to
which the moral standards people subscribe to are different from culture to culture. However,
descriptive relativism is not an ethical doctrine. It says merely that people in different cultures
have different beliefs about what is morally right and wrong. It says nothing about what is morally
right and morally wrong.
The idea that what a culture believes is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong for
people in that culture is known as cultural relativism, and it is a popular idea in modern times.
Many tend to think, for example, that whether or not you should drink is entirely determined by
whether or not your culture thinks you should drink. Cultural relativists sometimes also advocate
being accepting toward the practices of other cultures. However, it would be inconsistent for a
cultural relativist to advocate being accepting toward another culture’s practice if her or his own
culture thought that practice was wrong.
Another relativist doctrine is known as individual relativism, according to which what is right or
wrong is what each individual believes is right or wrong. If you hold this view, then you would
have to say that nobody ever acts wrongly, if he or she is doing what he or she thinks is right.
(What are the different types of relativism?)
Despite its widespread acceptance, moral relativism is a deeply problematic ethical view. For one
thing, the fact that different cultures or groups disagree isn’t enough to support the idea that there
is no objective moral truth. Groups, like people, can get things wrong. Another problem is that the
fact that people disagree actually seems incompatible with relativism. Suppose I claim that female
infanticide is wrong, and you claim that it is sometimes morally permissible. If relativism is
correct, then when we are faithfully reporting the dominant views in our respective cultures, both
of our statements are true, and so we aren’t really disagreeing after all.
(What are the shortcomings of relativism?)
Question: Discuss the Correspondence Theory of truth.
Answer: The correspondence theory of truth defines truth as that which corresponds to reality.
In other words, true propositions are required to fit with, or line up with, what we find in the
world. The following proposition is an example: “Tina is wearing a blue sweater.” The
correspondence theory of truth would judge this proposition by one simple question: Is it the case
that Tina is wearing a blue sweater? If, in fact, Tina is currently wearing a blue sweater, then the
proposition “Tina is wearing a blue sweater” is true. (Define Correspondence theory of truth.)
What makes this proposition true is the fact that the proposition corresponds to a real state of
affairs in the world. If it had not been the case that Tina was wearing a blue sweater, then this
proposition would be false. Thus, in a correspondence theory of truth, truth is defined as that
which fits with reality itself. There is a real world whose existence does not depend on our beliefs,
thoughts, or perceptions. This independent world or reality contains facts. And a belief,
statement, or proposition is true when what it states corresponds with a fact in this real
independent world. (Write a short note on the Correspondence theory of truth.)
The correspondence theory has been the dominant theory of truth for well over two thousand
years. Even in the ancient world, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have advocated this theory.
While speaking about the nature of true and false beliefs, for example, Plato says, “A false belief
will be a matter of believing things that are contrary to those which are.” Writing in medieval
times, Thomas Aquinas says the following in his book On Truth: “A judgment is said to be true
when it conforms to the external reality.” Additionally, this perspective has been adopted by the
vast majority of philosophers and thinkers throughout the modern period and is still the
dominant view today. For most people, the intuitive appeal of the correspondence theory seems
so strong and established by common sense that it is absurd to think any differently. (Write a
short note on the history of Correspondence theory of truth.)

Nevertheless, some philosophers have offered criticisms of the correspondence theory of truth.
One important objection is that the correspondence theory assumes that our beliefs correspond
to or match a reality that is external to ourselves. However, we know only what our senses
perceive, and we don’t know anything about the world beyond our senses. Since we know only
what our senses tell us, how can we ever get beyond them to check whether what they tell us
“corresponds” to what the real world is like? How can we compare our beliefs, which are based
on what we perceive, to a world we cannot perceive? So, if the correspondence theory says truth
depends on a reality we cannot know, then doesn’t it put truth out of our reach?

Secondly, there is the problem of negative and hypothetical propositions. To what fact or state of
affairs does the negative proposition “No unicorns exist” correspond? Does it correspond to some
sort of negative fact? And what about hypothetical propositions like “If it rains, then the ground
gets wet”? Are there supposed to be hypothetical facts to which hypothetical propositions
correspond? And if there are negative and hypothetical facts, which is counter to common sense,
what are they like? (Give one criticism of the correspondence theory of truth.) (What are the
criticisms of the correspondence theory of truth?)
Question: Discuss the Coherence Theory of truth.
Answer: According to the coherence theory of truth, a belief is true if it “coheres” with a group of
accepted beliefs that also “cohere” with each other. Truth is not correspondence between a belief
and a fact in the real world. Instead, truth is coherence between a belief and other beliefs. (Define
the Coherence theory of truth.) But what does “coherence” mean? In the coherence theory of
truth, coherence refers to the relationship among beliefs when they are consistent with each
other and support each other. Beliefs are consistent with each other when they can both be true
at the same time. And they support each other when one makes the other more probable. For
example, the belief that it is raining and the belief that the sky is cloudy are consistent beliefs.
Moreover, the belief that it is raining supports the belief that the sky is cloudy. Thus, these two
beliefs cohere with each other.
The metaphor of a web is often used to illustrate how the coherence theory works. In a web, for
example, there are many points of intersection where one strand crosses over another strand of
the web. Due to the overlap of these strands, the web itself is strengthened and is able to function.
According to coherentists, a person’s belief system is similar to this web. Each point in the web
represents a particular belief held by the individual. If a particular belief fits within the larger web
of beliefs and is consistent with them, then the belief is said to be true. Thus, what is most
important for the coherence model of truth is that beliefs must relate to each other in a consistent
and harmonious fashion. (Write a short note on the Coherence theory of Truth.)

Coherence theory of truth is mostly applicable to areas of knowledge that are not accessible to
personal observation. Two such areas are (1) claims relating to the past (history), which is never
available for observation, and (2) all contemporary events that we cannot personally witness.
This applies to practically all the information we get via television, Internet, newspapers, and
magazines. A very large percentage of the events that “make news” takes place too far away for
us to observe, so we test them by making them cohere with the facts we already know.

Coherence also plays a role in establishing the truth of empirical propositions. If for example
someone claims to have seen a shark in Wular lake in Kashmir, you might reason that this has to
be false because sharks live in salt water and Wular lake is a fresh-water lake. This example shows
that coherence is an effective test of truth, so that we do not have to waste time checking up on
every wild belief we come across. (What are the applications of the Coherence theory of
truth?)

There are many criticisms of the Coherence theory. The most important of them is that coherence
with other beliefs does not guarantee the truth of a statement. We can think of all kinds of stories
to tell which are consistent with each other but are still objectively false. For example, consider
the stories of Sindbad from the Arabian Nights. In this story, there are huge whales on which tress
have grown, birds bigger than elephants and humans that are transformed into birds. The stories
themselves are consistent with each other internally. Yet, there is a problem. No matter how
consistent and coherent the stories might be, the fact is, trees do not grow on whales, birds are
not bigger than elephants and humans do not transform into birds. Therefore, it looks like
coherence is an insufficient way of defining truth, because it is possible for stories and beliefs to
be consistent while being objectively false. (Give one criticism of the Coherence theory of
truth. / What are the shortcomings of the coherence theory of truth?)
Question: Discuss the Pragmatic Theory of truth.
Answer: The Pragmatic Theory of Truth is a product of Pragmatism, an American philosophy
which developed during the early and mid-twentieth century. The pioneers of pragmatism were
Charles S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. In general, pragmatists rejected the traditional
philosophical idea that there is such a thing as fixed, absolute truth. Instead, they saw truth as
dynamic and changing, subjective and relative. (Define Pragmatism.) (Name any two
pragmatist philosophers.)
According to the pragmatic theory of truth, a proposition is true if it is useful or works in practice.
The truth of an idea or judgment depends on “the practical difference it makes” in our lives. We
should accept a belief if it has progressive, harmonious, and satisfactory consequences. For this,
beliefs have to be tested, investigated, and used by a community for a long period of time. If they
continue to lead to useful consequences, we should accept them as true. (Define the Pragmatic
theory of truth.) For example, believing in our scientific theories has enabled us to make great
technological progress. Believing in the ideas of democracy has made our lives with one another
and our society more harmonious. Believing in the existence of God has made our daily lives more
peaceful and satisfactory. So, we accept all these beliefs as true. (Write a short note on the
Pragmatic theory of truth.)
Thus, the pragmatic theory of truth is the practitioner’s theory of truth. It is most concerned with
‘practical consequences’, not theoretical ones. It substitutes the question “is it true?” with “does
it work?” or “is it useful with regard to my goals?” For example, the statement ‘Britain is bigger
than America’ is false, not because it fails to correspond to a fact, but because one will fail to do
anything like plan a journey or make a decent map if one takes it to be true. In our daily lives,
many of us are pragmatic without knowing it — for instance, when we are learning to cook, we
don’t necessarily have to study the theory of food science in order to know how to use a particular
ingredient in some recipe. We use it, taste it — and if it works, we accept it, and move on. (“The
Pragmatic theory of truth is a practical theory of truth.” Comment.)
The Pragmatic theory of truth has its own weaknesses and shortcomings. Firstly, just because a
particular idea or belief may work for a person, or bring about a positive outcome, does not mean
that the idea or belief is true. Sometimes it happens that actions based on true beliefs lead to
disaster, while false beliefs produce beneficial results. For example, imagine a little boy who is
afraid of the dark and creates an imaginary big brother who sleeps in his room and keeps the
monsters away. Even though this imaginary brother is fictional, the belief in him helps the boy
deal with his fear of darkness. Because this particular belief works for the boy, it should, according
to pragmatist criteria for truth, be considered true. However, it is clearly false despite its utility.
Secondly, it may be useful for someone to believe a proposition but also useful for someone else
to disbelieve it. For example, many people, in order to avoid hopelessness in their lives, need to
believe that there is a God who keeps a watchful eye on everyone. According to the Pragmatic
Theory, that belief becomes true. However, it may not be useful for other persons to believe in
the same thing. They would be crushed if they believed that there is a god who keeps a watchful
eye on everyone. For these people, according to the pragmatic theory, this belief would become
false. In this way, the Pragmatic theory leads to a violation of the law of non-contradiction which
says that something cannot be true and false at the same time.
(What are the weaknesses of the Pragmatic theory of truth?)