Week Two - Plato on knowledge of moral values Flashcards
Evaluating Arguments
An argument is valid if its premise(s) implies its conclusion. If the premise(s) were true, then the conclusion would be true.
Validity and Soundness
• A valid argument is truth preserving
• An argument is sound if it is valid and its premise(s) are true.
• The conclusion of a sound argument is, necessarily, true
No OUGHT from IS:
- Descriptions don’t entail prescriptions. No observation shows how the world should be.
- David Hume (Treatise of Human Nature ):
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shou’d be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.”
• An inference in which an OUGHT is drawn from an IS is a “Naturalistic Fallacy” (Moore, Principia Ethica)
Philosophical Heuristics (cf. Hajek, Philosophy tool kit)
1) No OUGHT from IS
2) See the word “the” in neon lights
3) Run through the contrast class of each key term to reveal the logical form of various concepts
- to detect false dichotomies
- to correct for our confirmation and congruence biases
4) Look for counterexamples (check for extreme cases)
5) Watch out for self-referential paradoxes and infinite regress.
6) Show that the negation of a claim leads to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).
7) Show a claim to “prove” too much.
8) Use (judiciously) analogical reasoning.
Are moral judgements either true or false? If yes = OBJECTIVISM
Can science explain moral value/ If yes = NATURALISM
Objectivism’s central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans’ metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
Plato’s Republic
Why read it?
1/ It is immensely readable - it’s a living conversation which develops some very important ideas
2/ The content of the book - why should we bother to be good? What’s in it for us?
3/ Thought-provoking book - what is justice? He gives an astonishing answer, framing an answer around how you should structure the different parts of your minds so you can become a just person prior to acting.
Consists of 3 parts:
Books 1 to 5: Construction of the ideal commonwealth, the rulers must be philosophers
Books 5 to 6: Define the world philosopher
Books 7 to 10: Merits and defects of actual constitutions
Nominal purpose of the Republic is to define justice.
Plato’s utopia:
Citizens divided into 3 classes: common people, soldier and the guardians.
The guardians have political power and there are fewer of them. Chosen by the legislature and then hereditary. There can be promotion/demotion to/from the common people (exceptional people).
Plato is concerned mainly with the guardians and they are a class apart. Firstly education:
Divided into 2 parts - music (culture) and gymnastics (athletics).
Culture is devoted in turning men into gentlemen. Only authorised stories are allowed (not Homer). Decorum demands that there should never be loud laughter. We must encourage temperance (abstinence from alcoholic drink). No stories recognising evil-doers as happy and vice versa.
Is it always better to be just than unjust? That is the central question of Plato’s Republic. Writing in c380BC, Plato applied this question both to the individual and the city-state, considering earlier and current forms of government in Athens and potential forms, in which the ideal city might be ruled by philosophers.
The Republic is a dialogue between Socrates and his companions, featuring:
1/ The allegory of the cave
2/ Ideas about immortality of the soul
3/ The value of poetry to society
4/ Democracy’s vulnerability to a clever demagogue seeking tyranny.
In Our Time - Plato’s Republic
Plato imagines a perfectly just city would be like, and applies lessons from that to the individual soul. If the soul is best ruled by reason, then the city is best ruled by philosophers.
He was writing at the time when Athens was a direct democracy - an independent city state - where citizens = free men.
Every citizen could attend the Assembly and vote. There were many obligations placed on citizens.
Socrates was known to be a difficult critic of Athenian ideas and status quo.
He death is a symbol of what democracy can do to philosophy. His indictment was on 2 counts:
1/ Corrupting the youth of Athens (morally corrupting)
2/ Introducing Gods that the cities didn’t believe in
Plato blamed democracy for the death of Socrates.
Socrates (SO) vs Thrasymachus (TH)
TH = Sophist, travelling professional teacher of rhetoric and philosophy
Debating ‘what is justice?’ they have dismissed the idea that justice is truth or returning what you borrowed.
TH - justice is simply the interest of the stronger i.e. whoever is ruling. They make laws cynically in their own interest. If you obey, you’re simply a serf.
Socrates says but ruling is a skill. They look to the interests of the subjects.
TH retorts that rulers are like shepherds and fatten up their flock to get a better price in the market.
TH says justice is simply serving your own interests as ruthlessly and effectively as possible. Justice is a mug’s game for naive simpletons. The real justice is to be unjust. Injustice pays. TH might be just a disillusioned moralist in terms of the ‘state of the world’.
TH thinks that to thrive you must be in power over others and have material wealth, whereas Socrates believes this is a very narrow conception of what the good life is.
The challenge is to see that no matter how successful the unjust might person might be, the just person will always be better off.
Socrates says that if you can call a state ‘just’, then you can call an individual ‘just’ and that you mean the same thing.
When you consider the internal structure of both an individual soul and a city, Plato thinks we should consider each having 3 functional parts:
City = 3 different roles that classes of citizens play Individual = Types of desire such as for what is good, pleasant or noble
In both he says the correct arrangement is one where all of them are doing their own job under the guidance of the governing/reasoning part.
The rulers of the state are analogous to reason in the psyche. What legitimises them and compels them to rule is they have knowledge. They are philosopher-rulers.
The philosophers-rulers and their auxiliaries (executive military/police) form the guardian class.
The guardian class live this extraordinary life:
Live apart in camp communes
Not allowed to own any property
They cannot touch gold or silver
They are not allowed nuclear families
Babies are taken away from guardian mothers at birth
In the guardian class, nobody knows who a blood relative is..
