AQA A2 Philosophy

240 Pages·2015·8.21 MB·English

by  Dan Cardinal

Acknowledgements
The Publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material.
Text credits: pp.6 , 49 , 50 , 62 , 339 : Peter Singer: from Unsanctifying Human Life , ed. H. Kuhse (John Wiley and Sons, 2002);
pp.25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 48 , 58 , 181 , 182 , 281 , 338 , 343 : John Stuart Mill: from Utilitarianism , ed. Mary Warnock
(HarperCollins, 1972); p.54 : Press Association: from ‘Blunkett tells of joy at Shipman death’ from The Guardian (The Guardian, 16th
January 2004); p.62 : Peter Singer: from ‘Great apes deserve life, liberty and the prohibition of torture’ from The Guardian (The
Guardian, 27th May 2006); p.111 : Ethan Coen and Joel Coen: from the film from Miller’s Crossing (20th Century Fox, 1990); p.164
: Matt McCormick: from ‘Is it wrong to play violent video games?’ from Ethics and Information Technology, Volume 3 Issue 4
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001); pp.177 , 201 , 203 , 291 , 345 : A.J. Ayer: from Language, Trust and Logic (Penguin, 1990);
pp.183 , 189 , 190 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 343 : George Edward Moore: from Principia Ethica (Forgotten Books, 2015); pp.207 , 208 ,
210 , 346 : R.M. Hare: from The Language of Morals (Oxford, 1963); pp.242 , 346 , 348 : David Chalmers: from ‘Consciousness
and its place in nature’, as quoted in from The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind , eds. S. Stitch and T. Warfield (John Wiley and
Sons, 2003); pp.247 , 278 , 349 –50 : F. Jackson: from ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia’ from The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 127
(Oxford Journals, April 1982); pp.329 , 335 , 336 : Paul Churchland: from ‘Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes’
from The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 78, No.2 (Journal of Philosophy, February 1981); pp.296 , 299 , 347 , 350 –1 : Gilbert Ryle:
from The Concept of Mind (Penguin, 2000); pp.302 , 306 , 308 , 316 , 352 –3 : J.C. Smart and Hilary Putnam: as quoted in from
Philosophy of Mind: A Guide and Anthology , ed. John Heil (Oxford University Press, 2003); pp.313 , 353 –4 : Ned Block: as
quoted in Perception and Cognition (University of Minnesota Press, 1978).
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked, the Publishers will be pleased to
make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.
Although every effort has been made to ensure that website addresses are correct at time of going to press, Hodder Education cannot be
held responsible for the content of any website mentioned in this book. It is sometimes possible to find a relocated web page by typing in
the address of the home page for a website in the URL window of your browser.
Hachette UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products and made from wood grown in sustainable
forests. The logging and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.
Orders: please contact Bookpoint Ltd, 130 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4SB. Telephone: [phone]. Fax: +44
(0)1235 400454. Email [email protected] Lines are open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Saturday, with a 24-hour message
answering service. You can also order through our website: www.hoddereducation.co.uk
© Daniel Cardinal, Gerald Jones, Jeremy Hayward 2015
First published in 2015 by Hodder Education,
An Hachette UK Company
Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ
www.hoddereducation.co.uk
Impression number 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Year 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or held within any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or under licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Further
details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited, Saffron House, 6–
10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Cover photo © Vectorfactory/iStockphoto.com
Illustrations by Peter Lubach, Barking Dog Art, Tony Randell and Richard Duszczak
Typeset in Chaparral Pro Light 11/13pt by Aptara, Inc.
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978 1471 85285 5
eISBN 978 1471 85256 5
Contents
Introduction
Section 1: Ethics
1.1 Ethical theories: How do we decide what it is morally right to do?
1.1.1 Utilitarianism
Applying utilitarianism
1.1.2 Kantian deontological ethics
Applying Kantian ethics
1.1.3 Aristotle’s virtue ethics
Applying Aristotelian ethics
1.2 Ethical language: What is the status of ethical language?
1.2.1 Cognitivism
1.2.2 Non-cognitivism
Section 2: Philosophy of Mind
2.1 Dualism: the mind is distinct from the physical
2.1.1 The indivisibility argument for substance dualism
2.1.2 The conceivability argument for substance dualism
2.1.3 The ‘philosophical zombies’ argument for property dualism
2.1.4 The knowledge/Mary argument for property dualism
2.1.5 The issues of causal interaction for versions of dualism
2.1.6 The problem of other minds and the threat of solipsism
2.2 Materialism: the mind is not ontologically distinct from the physical
2.2.1 Analytical behaviourism
2.2.2 The mind–brain identity theory
2.2.3 Functionalism
2.2.4 Eliminative materialism
Section 3: Anthology extracts
Section 1: Ethics
Section 2: Philosophy of Mind
Glossary
Section 1: Ethics
Section 2: Philosophy of Mind
Notes
Index
Introduction
For the first part of the A-level, you will have studied Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion . For the second part our attention turns
to two of the biggest philosophical questions: what is the right thing to do? and what is my mind made of? These, and other questions, will
be explored in the units of Ethics and Philosophy of Mind .
Descartes’ Meditations underpinned many areas of the AS course and it is also a seminal text in the Philosophy of Mind . His
contribution to the field of ethics is less significant, although Descartes was pivotal in shaping the intellectual climate in which ethics could be
discussed from a human, rather than divine, perspective.
Descartes’ writing represented an important change in the intellectual history of western society, marking the ‘epistemological turn’,
where questions of method started to take priority over metaphysical assumptions and religious beliefs. The Meditations embodies this
desire to break from the past and start an enquiry from first principles. Although Descartes articulated this new philosophy, he was not
alone; others were also breaking from the past and applying reason to the world. The progress of this new approach was most noticeable
in the field of science (or natural philosophy as it was then called). Galileo, who was under house arrest at the time Descartes was writing,
had started to explore the universe using a new technology (the telescope) and made many important discoveries. This scientific advance
was continued by a range of other thinkers, including Descartes, and took a massive leap forward in the writing of Isaac Newton – whose
theories and formulae appeared to unlock the secrets of the universe.
The works of Descartes and Newton are often taken to mark the beginning of the age of enlightenment . This was a time of great
optimism about the potential for human reason. It was triggered by Descartes’ attempt to start the quest for knowledge from a human
perspective, and also by Newton showing just what was possible when human reason was applied to the world.
Although Descartes wrote little on ethics, the writings of Kant and the Utilitarians, explored in this book, are perfect examples of
enlightenment philosophy. In different ways they both use reason to bring order and meaning to the vast and complex arena of human
morality and develop systems of ethics that are grounded in the human condition (rather than religion).
In the philosophy of mind Descartes’ ideas are still discussed today. He articulated the theory of Cartesian dualism (Cartesian means
‘of Descartes’). Dualism separates the world in two: there is the physical world, which has mathematical properties such as size, shape and
so on, and there is the immaterial world, the world of the soul/mind, which does not exist in space. Of course, beliefs in the existence of a
spiritual realm are not new, they are among the oldest recorded and are still held by billions of religious believes today. Descartes,
however, was the first to give a clear account of the distinction between the two worlds. Descartes’ dualism also helped to make the
developments of science more acceptable to the religious authorities of the day. The physical, material world could be discovered and
understood by the human mind, but the immaterial world of the soul/mind was out of the reach of the scientists and so could remain the
domain of religion.
This dualist approach was widely accepted in Descartes’ day and its legacy continues to influence contemporary philosophy of mind.
However, during in the last 100 years, as science has discovered more about the brain, the idea of a mind existing as part of another realm
has appeared increasingly hard to defend. But amidst all the progress in neuroscience, the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness still remains.
We feel and experience a wide range of thoughts and sensations which just don’t seen to be physical in nature. How is this possible? Why
is this necessary? Why aren’t our brains just like efficient calculators helping us to survive, but without having any conscious experiences?
This hard problem of consciousness is very much alive today, and, until consciousness can be satisfactorily explained physically, it seems
dualism will still be taken seriously.
Using the book
This book is divided in two sections, matching the two units of the A2 specification. We have tried to follow the specification as closely as
possible in setting out the different sections of the book. The A-level course is accompanied by a number of key texts, many of which are
available online. To aid your understanding we engage with these texts frequently through the book and also provide an anthology section
which contains important passages. Scattered throughout the book are activities and more involved ‘ Experimenting with ideas ’
sections. These are designed to help stimulate thought and provide an opportunity to apply the ideas to a range of case studies/scenarios. It
is through this process of application and reflection that philosophy becomes not just something you read about, but something you live and
feel. We hope you enjoy the book.
Key to features
Activity
A practical task to help you to understand the arguments or concepts under investigation.
Experimenting with ideas
Plays around with some of the concepts discussed; looks at them from different angles.
Criticism
Highlights and evaluates the issues raised by an argument or a concept.
Quotation
A direct quotation from a key thinker.
Learn more
Introduces related ideas or arguments that aren’t required by the A-Level specification, but which provides useful material.
Anthology extracts
When you see the Anthology icon in the margin of the book then you should refer to the relevant extract in the Anthology extracts section
at the end of the book.
Glossary
Words or phrases that appear in bold are key terms and ideas that are explained in the Glossary at the end of the book.
Section 1: Ethics
1.1 Ethical theories: How do we decide what it is morally
right to do?
Introduction
We all want to do the right thing, surely? Don’t we? Well, maybe you do, maybe you don’t. The problem is, though, what is the right
thing to do? Don’t steal , don’t lie , eat your greens , don’t speak back , be honest , clean behind your ears and so on. There is no
shortage of advice for what the right thing might be from parents, friends, teachers, preachers, politicians and celebrities (among others).
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores what the right thing to do might be and this section will explore several ethical systems
that attempt this project. In ordinary language, and in many textbooks, the word morality is sometimes used instead of ethics . Indeed, in
the world of philosophy, ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy . The distinction between morality and ethics is not very clear, nor is
it very important. The term morality tends to be associated more with an individual’s beliefs about right and wrong, whereas ethics is more
associated with systems that articulate right and wrong. However, this distinction is not universally held and often the two terms are used
synonymously. We will also use the terms interchangeably.
As a topic to study, ethics is not just of ‘philosophical’ relevance; it also has a clear, practical application. There are times in everyone’s
life when they face big ethical dilemmas : should you put your ageing mother in a care home? Should you lend a large sum of money to a
friend in need? Other ethical dilemmas may be encountered on a more regular basis: should I buy free range eggs? Should I recycle? It can
be argued that ethical dilemmas surround us at every moment, although we may not be consciously aware of them. Should I study a bit
harder? Should I speak to Zach after what he said? Should I look at this picture of a semi-naked person? What should I do with my life?
Studying ethics should shine some light on these and other questions. At the very least it should help to clarify your thinking.
Ethics and the self: The scope of morality
Experimenting with ideas: The wipe-out
Imagine humanity has succumbed to a deadly virus and you are the only person left in the world. You survived because you were alone
on a remote desert island at the time, as part of a soul-searching retreat. Does this new situation change the ethical world you inhabit?
You might still face lots of dilemmas in your life: should I sleep in a cave, or on the beach tonight? Should I keep myself fit? Should I have
one more coconut before bedtime? Tough choices! However, would these count as moral dilemmas?
Imagine you are the last person on earth.
Would you have any clear cut ethical dilemmas?
Would there be anything morally wrong with just following your desires all the time?
Could you do anything morally wrong?
Is morality a human invention?
Do the terms good and bad only have meaning in a society?
There are monkeys on the island. Would you kill and eat them?
It is not easy to answer these questions without already having an account of what an ethical action is. Maybe it is possible to do wrong as
the last surviving human: perhaps self-harm? Blaspheming? Having nasty thoughts? Hurting the animals? Some would argue that you still
face the key decision about how you ought to live your life. Yes, you want to eat nice food and stay alive, but what would you ultimately
aim for? Pleasure? Self-improvement? Trying to help the animals? and so on. Morality in the widest sense includes this big question of what
you should pursue in life. If this fundamental decision is a moral one, this, in turn, makes most actions morally relevant.
Ethics and others
Experimenting with ideas: The wipe-out revisited
Imagine that after two years of living alone on the island, with no one but Ruffles your faithful parrot to talk to, a large boat arrives
carrying four people. These people were at sea when the virus struck and have survived all this time on the ship’s resources. They are
severely malnourished and are pleased to be on dry land. They are also insistent that you have to kill all the birds on the island, as they
can spread the deadly virus.
Would you welcome these people?
Would you have any ethical dilemmas going forward?
Would there be anything morally wrong with just following your desires all the time now?
Could you do anything morally wrong?
Would you be willing to kill Ruffles, your parrot?
Most people would suggest that with the arrival of more people, your ethical universe expanded. This is to be expected as ethics, in the
narrower sense, can be seen as how we should interact with others. These new people on the island have desires too and these may
conflict with yours. You may have to modify your behaviour.
Character and virtue
After two years alone, your behaviour would no doubt be different from how it was before the virus struck. Your table manners may have
lapsed a bit. You may not take much pride in your physical appearance. Your conversation may be very limited. Growing up in civilisation,
through training, education and habit, you would have acquired certain ways of behaving. Some of these might be good ( virtues ), some
might be less good ( vices). However, it is likely that many of these habits have changed since you have been alone. Another feature of the
strangers arriving on the island is that you may have to redevelop some characteristics (or acquire them if you never had them to begin with)
in order to interact well. You may have to make yourself polite or a better listener leadership skills on consideration for others. Now that
the strangers are here, being a ‘good person’ on the island may involve developing, or redeveloping some important virtues.
Three levels of ethical discussion
Some of the questions we asked above probe different aspects of ethics. Traditionally these are divided into three areas. One area
explores what makes for morally good and bad behaviour in general. What are the underlying reasons why we might call an action a good
one? This area is known as normative ethics . A second area applies the answers from the first area to very specific moral dilemmas .
This area is known as applied ethics . A third area takes a step back from the discussions above and, instead, focuses the attention on
moral discussion itself, asking questions such as: is morality a human construction ? Do moral words have meanings ? This area is
known as meta-ethics .
ACTIVITY
Revisit the questions in the ‘wipe-out’ scenarios on page 2 .
Which questions belong to the area of normative ethics, which to applied ethics and which to meta-ethics?
This section explores all three areas of ethical thought. The first chapters examine some of the big normative theories of ethics –
utilitarianism , Kantian ethics and virtue ethics . The last part of each of these chapters applies these theories to a series of specific
topics and dilemmas (applied ethics). The final part explores some of the key questions of meta-ethics.
Normative ethics – different approaches
The bulk of this section is devoted to examining three key ethical theories. These theories differ in several ways, but a key distinction is that
they focus on different aspects of what might make an action a moral one. Some actions in life clearly belong in the moral arena (stealing
or lying, etc.), whereas others don’t appear to have any moral relevance (scratching your ear or staring at the extra full stop at the
end of this sentence ). So what makes an action a moral one (good or bad), as opposed to a morally neutral one (neither good nor bad)?
Experimenting with ideas
For each of the ten scenarios below:
a) Decide if it is morally relevant (good or bad), or morally neutral.
b) For those that are morally relevant, decide what makes the scenario a moral one.
c) For those that are morally neutral, decide what makes it neutral.
1 A deer is caught in a forest fire caused by a freak lightning strike and is burnt to death.
2 A killer whale toys with a seal that it has half killed – batting it into the air with its tail and catching it with its teeth. It takes 20 minutes
before the seal finally dies. The whale leaves it to rot on the ocean floor.
3 You deliberately step on someone’s toe in a lift but pretend it was an accident.
4 You accidentally poison your neighbour’s dog.
5 You beat your friend in an ant-killing competition (with a winning combination of bleach and boiling water).
6 You persistently bullied a classmate at school.
7 You successfully pass the ball to members of your team 15 times in a 1–1 draw at a friendly local hockey match.
8 An orphanage is set up to help victims in a war-torn country.
9 You stop to help a blind man cross the road but fail to notice the unstoppable juggernaut that injures you both.
10 An evil scientist releases a new bio-chemical into the water supply of a large city intending to kill millions. However, this agent, when
diluted, turns out to be a harmless cure for cancer and countless lives are saved.
Many would label scenarios 1 and 2 as morally neutral, as neither event was caused by a moral agent – a being with sufficient awareness
to carry out moral actions. In this way we do not hold very young children, or those with severe brain damage, morally responsible for their
actions – as they are not moral agents. Scenarios 3 and 4 explore the idea of intentions. Not only do you need an agent, but most would
claim that to make an act a moral one, the agent must have intended to do the act. Situations 5 and 6 seem to have agents with intentions,
but the question of morality may hinge on what you classify as a moral patient (that is, a thing capable of being at the end of moral actions).
For some, this would not include ants. Scenarios 7 and 8 involve intentional agents and patients, but explore the idea that the consequences
of an action may dictate whether it is moral or not. Scenario 8 involves helping the suffering, whereas scenario 7 doesn’t seem to have any
morally relevant consequences. Finally, scenarios 9 and 10 involve intentional agents, patients and relevant consequences but explore the
idea that the motive (the nature of the intention) is the key factor.
Overall, the key features that seem to make an action a moral one are:
• Agency
• Intentions/motives
• Consequences
• Moral patients
Each of the three theories of normative ethics examined in this chapter puts a different emphasis on these features:
• Utilitarianism claims that the consequence of an action is the important element. Only the consequences determine the moral worth of an
action (i.e. whether it was good or bad).
• For Kant, motive is the key. Only actions carried out for the right motive have moral worth; the consequences are irrelevant.
• For virtue ethics, it is the agent and their character that is key. As we briefly explored in the virus scenario, having new people come to
the island may require you to (re)develop virtues in order to be a good person. For virtue ethics, the character of the person/agent is the
key, not specific actions.
Intuitions
Each of the theories we explore will tell us what is good or bad, however you will already have your own thoughts on these issues. We all
have moral intuitions. The status of these intuitions is itself an area of philosophical discussion (which we will not go into) and these intuitions
will play an important part in the examination of the theories that follow. We should not expect an ethical theory to match your intuitions
exactly , but if a theory claims that certain actions are good, whereas you completely disagree, then this presents a problem. Do you ditch
your intuitions and go with the theory? Or should you try to modify the theory to better match your intuitions? A theory that strays too far
from intuitions will never have appeal, but a theory that resembles them too closely can be seen as supporting the status quo, rather than
aiming for a better world. Probably the most significant ethical philosopher alive today is the Australian, Peter Singer. His claims frequently
challenge people’s intuitions, but he makes no apology for this:
If we have a soundly based moral theory we ought to be prepared to accept its implications even if they force us to change our
moral view on major issues. Once this point is forgotten, moral philosophy loses its capacity to generate radical criticism of
prevailing moral standards, and serves only to preserve the status quo. 1
Singer
Moral dilemmas
Before exploring any of the three ethical theories, read the scenarios in the Activities below and make a note of what your intuitions tell you.
Note, we will return to these scenarios after exploring each theory and you can compare the results to your intuitions. Maybe your ideas
will change as a result, or maybe you will reject each theory as not matching up to your own moral ideals.
Crime and punishment
Ethics has a close association with crime and punishment. The morality of a society is often reflected in what is classed as a criminal
offence, and the law slowly changes to reflect the evolving moral climate (often lagging behind). For example, homosexual sex was
punishable by death in the UK 150 years ago, but now has the same legal status as heterosexual sex. However, the symmetry between
morality and law is not perfect, in part because:
• Not everything considered immoral is illegal (e.g. having an affair ).
• Some things may be considered immoral only because they are illegal (e.g. smoking marijuana , which some people may not think of
as immoral in itself).
• Individual morality may clash with the law (e.g. conscientious objectors ) and some are prepared to break the law to change it (e.g.
the suffragettes ).
The lack of perfect symmetry between law and morality raises the possibility of unjust laws and also the question of whether it is ever
morally right to break the law. However, criminal laws alone would achieve very little if they were not accompanied by some sort of
punishment. Punishment involves doing something that the person being punished doesn’t want; something they find physically or
emotionally painful. How can we justify doing hurtful things to people in this way?
Theories of justification are traditionally divided into those that look back wards in their reasoning (most closely associated with the idea of
punishment as retribution or ‘pay back’), and those that look forward . Justifications based around making the future better include:
• deterrence (it stops the person repeating, or others committing the crime)
• prevention (preventing crime by keeping someone locked up)
• restoration (giving money back to the victim)
• reform (to prevent that person repeating again).
The ultimate punishment is the death penalty, which many feel is immoral. Arguments for the death penalty can be constructed using most
of the justificatory principles above (apart from reform!), but is it ever morally right to kill a person in the name of the law?