Critical Thinking 1

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

6. Apply decision-making patterns that result in problem-solving.

7. Recognize bias and fallacies in messages from mass media and other sources.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

6

Unit VIII Lesson Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Unit VIII Assignment:

7

Unit VIII Lesson Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Unit VIII Assignment

Reading Assignment Chapter 13: Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation Chapter 14: Develop As an Ethical Reasoner

Unit Lesson Ethical Life Ethics is the study of the good life. There are two components of this study.

1. What does it mean to live a good life in the realm of human activity, thought, and action? 2. What does it mean to have a good life? What do I desire, and how can I bring that

ultimately good life about in my own life? The responses to these aspects of life are numerous throughout the history of philosophy. Some philosophers have focused on the actual aspects of life that relate to these questions and how you can attain a high level of ethicality. Others have attempted to ground ethics in something universal that would make demands on all humans. Finally, some have taken up a specific ethical viewpoint and then used that viewpoint to analyze the goodness or badness of ethical issues in various fields of study and social life. Most ethical philosophers believe that there is, or are, universal ethical principles that make demands on all humans. This is extremely important and it is where we will begin. It is common folk wisdom that there are no universal ethical standards. It is puzzling for many philosophers to hear students claim that there are “no universal truths” or that you cannot judge the practices of another culture because “what they do is right for them.” Hopefully as you have engaged this course you have been exposed to the fallacious nature of this thinking. If you were to consistently hold this position, it could lead to horrible outcomes for the individual. What is more, it is often impossible for those students to avoid their own ethical universals when they feel they have been treated unfairly or violently.

UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE

Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

For example, if you were to be robbed at gunpoint, and you were an ethical relativist, you would not be able to fundamentally justify calling the police for help. Of course, you might say that it was his ethical truth to rely on the police when someone tries to rob another person. However, the person doing the robbing would be making the ethical claim that it is acceptable to steal from others using violent means. The pure relativist would have to say that the ethical truth for the thief has just as much reality and import as the truth of the person being robbed. Should the person being robbed then not call the police because robbery is truth for the robber? Almost all humans feel a deep sense of violation and injustice when they undergo a traumatic robbery. They call the police and express their disgust at the actions of the perpetrator. All it takes is a gun in your face and ideas about ethical relativism fly out the window. Let’s look at another example. Most people in our nation consider the historical treatment of ethnic minorities in this country as horrific and wrong. From the decimation of Native American groups to the importation of Africans and their subsequent slavery, most people would claim that this history has been one of fear, exploitation, violation, and violence. In making these claims, you are saying that these actions were wrong. In his article on cultural relativism, James Rachels points out that the relativist would have to look at this history and claim that all these actions were morally acceptable back then and now things are just different. You cannot say that things are better today, because that would involve having some universal standard by which one could judge the rightness and wrongness of society. However, acts such as the bombing of a Birmingham church that ended in the deaths of four African American girls incite a deep revulsion in us as we think about what our country was like and the hatred that was so socially rampant. Images of dogs biting youths and videos of firemen spraying protestors with hoses show us how far we have come. Of course there is still repression in our system that needs to be overcome. Conversely, in the realm of rights, we can definitely say that we have made some progress in the way that we treat people in our nation. However, the relativist cannot say that this is progress. In fact, the relativist would have to say that the person who bombed that church and murdered those girls was just acting out his own ethical truth. By the way, the person suspected of the bombing was charged only with possession of dynamite, and this charge was later dropped after an investigation by the FBI. It seems absolutely unjust that this man got away with such an atrocious act, and the fact that those who were sworn to protect the community found that he had done nothing wrong creates an even greater sense of the immorality that existed in the system at this time. If you are still not convinced that ethical fundamental principles exist or need examination, then you can stop reading at this point. For those who are interested in the philosophical responses to the problem of morality, let’s look at some ways that philosophers have responded to the question of the good life. Socrates/Plato Most people have at least heard of Socrates and Plato. Actually, Socrates was the teacher of Plato and we have nothing that was written by Socrates. All that we know about Socrates was recorded in dialogues that his pupil Plato compiled over the course of his career. Socrates appears as a character in these dialogues and usually confronts others and questions them about fundamental concepts such as love, justice, truth, holiness, piety, knowledge, and moderation. Socrates usually runs into other people in the dialogues and starts up a conversation with these people. Inevitably some slippery concept emerges and Socrates (Plato) asks the other person to define the concept. Socrates finds the definition inadequate and usually presents a logical refutation of the definition that the other person has supplied. They go back and forth for a while (sometimes like 200 pages) and attempt to provide universal, solid definitions for the concepts in question. Plato is thought to have recorded some actual dialogues that Socrates had with others, and most people believe that the Apology is an accurate account of Socrates’s trial. However, Plato also used Socrates as a “mouthpiece” for Plato’s own ideas. That means that Plato presented some of his own philosophical ideas through the character of Socrates. Some themes that emerge out of the dialogues can indicate Socrates’s/Plato’s conception of the good life. Socrates claims that the unexamined life is not worth living. Wisdom and the continual pursuit of knowledge can lead you into the realm of higher being for Plato. This world is a corrupted model based on the ideal realm of the forms. The ideal realm is a world in which you would have pure knowledge of ideal forms of the conceptual objects that exist on earth. You should strive to understand the concepts that you use, and part of the process of the good life is engaging in intellectual analysis of these concepts. Socrates did not care much for material wealth or adventures. He claims to have only left Athens for military service, so he did not travel much. Instead, he spent a lot of time wandering around Athens engaging others in philosophical discussions. In the Apology, Socrates claims that he should receive free meals as his punishment for all the service that he provided Athens. He claims that he neglected his business affairs because he cared more about the states of Athenian souls.

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

The good life for Socrates was one in which a person sought wisdom and critically evaluated his or her presuppositions in order to come into knowledge of the truth. This truth seems to lie in another realm that is distinct from the earth. You cannot trust the sensible world to provide the truth. Instead, you seek a vision of the Good in the ideal realm of the forms. Aristotle Aristotle wrote about everything from nature and logic to metaphysics and ethics. Here we will talk about his most well-known ethical work called Nicomachean Ethics. In this work, Aristotle outlines his own response to the question of the good life. Aristotle claims that all human actions seek some good. All humans desire one thing in all their actions, and that thing is happiness. Happiness here is a translation of the Greek word eudaimonia, and should be thought of more as “human flourishing” rather than happiness. Aristotle says that all human actions try to bring about a state of human flourishing. So, do not think of someone eating a lollipop and saying, “Wow I am so happy right now…” as being an example of Aristotle’s concept of human happiness. Instead, humans become happiest when they are maximizing their arête (this word is often translated as virtue). The word arête is better thought of as “becoming what you are.” We all have an idea of what we are in our deepest being. Most of us believe that there are untapped potentials and abilities that are in us and we seek to unlock those potentials. Maximizing those potentials is something that is extremely difficult to do, but Aristotle claims that the good life is doing exactly that. Aristotle splits up the virtues into the moral and intellectual virtues. In the realm of the moral virtues (those in the realm of action) Aristotle claims that we must choose the intermediate between the extremes of excess (too much) and defect (too little). The virtuous act lies in a mean between the two extremes, and the mean can differ depending on the person, situation, and temporal context. For example, one of the moral virtues that Aristotle speaks of is courage. The courage that is needed for someone fighting in a war will be qualitativ ely different from that of someone who has been asked to kill a snake in the compost pile. However, both of these events would require courage. Courage is the mean that lies between the extremes of too much courage (foolhardiness) and too little courage (cowardice). Someone who is not afraid of anything is foolhardy, and you can find numerous examples of this excess on Youtube or Ebaumsworld. However, if you jump on the couch and start screaming because there is a Daddy Long Legs spider walking across the floor, you are showing too little courage (cowardice). For Aristotle, one must choose the right amount of courage, in the right place, at the right time, in the right way, with reference to the right objects, and in relation to the right people. Some of the moral virtues that Aristotle mentions are generosity, courage, friendship, magnanimity, proper pride, and sense of humor. Maximizing moral virtue for Aristotle involves finding the mean between the extremes and continually practicing virtuous acts until they become habitual. In addition to the moral virtues, Aristotle also claims that people must maximize their intellectual virtues. Aristotle splits up the mind into multiple parts, but we will focus on the duality of the human mind in relation to the practical and the theoretical. Aristotle claims that the good of the practical side of the mind is prudence (phronesis). Prudence is the ability to bring about the good in your own life. It involves dealing with concrete objects and situations and making decisions that lead to an ultimately flourishing life. For example, those who were prudent before the economic downturn did not commit themselves beyond what they could handle financially. They were able to live within their means and were able to circumvent the lack of flourishing that became part of many people’s lives. The other side of the mind is the theoretical aspect of the mind and Aristotle claims that the good of this side is wisdom (sophia). Wisdom is knowledge of fundamental principles that are grasped through that part of the mind that is unchanging. In order to properly flourish in the realm of the mind, you must have “street smarts” as well as “theoretical knowledge.” It is not enough to just have street smarts or theory; you must have both in order to maximize the virtue of your mind.

Too Little Virtue Too Much

Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

So, Aristotle tells us that the good life is the maximization of our actions in the realm of moral virtue, as well as the maximization of the intellect both practically and theoretically. The good life is becoming what we know we are and unlocking those potentials that we see in ourselves. Stoicism When a stoic confronts his or her world, he or she sees the good life being one in which he or she has let go of all emotional bonds and attachments. This might seem heartless at first. However, the goal of releasing oneself from emotional attachments is to avoid the pains that necessarily arise when we lose those objects. Epictetus was a Roman slave in the second century who outlined Stoic doctrine in multiple writings. He claims that one should not think of family as loved ones, but merely as strangers. That way, when they die, you will not be disturbed. One should live simply and eat meagerly. People should not go to games (here the gladiatorial games, but we could translate that to sporting events today), and if they do go, they should not show much emotion. One should refrain from using vile language. One should live justly, prudently, and honorably. One should keep death in focus, that way one will not get upset when someone spills wine on the carpet. Thinking about your own death makes it hard to get upset about the little things. Epictetus tells us to do these things so that we will not be subjected to the emotional pains of existence. When we care too much about the world we open our lives up to suffering. The good life for the Stoic is release from those emotional attachments so that he or she can live comfortably and peacefully. Epicureanism/Hedonism Hedonism is the idea that the good life is one that maximizes pleasure. Epicurus gets a bad name because he was affiliated with this idea. However, people would much rather listen to simple statements about hedonism than study Epicurus so let’s turn our attention to what Epicurus actually says about pleasure and the goal of life. First, you must understand what Epicurus means by pleasure. In his “Letter to Menoeceus”, Epicurus claims that pleasure is freedom from pain in the body and trouble in the mind. This sounds a lot more stable than those who claim that Epicurean hedonism is life based around sexuality, drunkenness, and rock n’ roll. In fact, Epicurus’s own ideas about pleasure align much more with Stoic ideas than with those who misrepresent those ideas today. Epicurus claims that death is the end of all sensation. Epicurus believed that when people die, their consciousness turns off and they enter a state of non- consciousness (dark, dreamless sleep). Because death is the absolute end of rational and physical existence, Epicurus claims that we need not fear death. Think of a night of dark, dreamless sleep and you have the perfect image of what the afterlife will be. Freedom from the fear of death is one step in freeing the mind from its own troubles. Epicurus claims that you can promote pleasure by eating a simple diet, having practical wisdom (prudence), causing trouble to no one, living honorably, living justly, retiring from the world, having good friends, and harmonizing with things that you cannot control. You can see that Epicurus gets a bad name from those who do not read him. The pleasures that he promotes are more in line with religious and Stoic conceptions of the good life. The good life for Epicurus was freedom from pain in the body and trouble in the mind and you achieved this through simple pleasures. Kantian Deontology Immanuel Kant sought to ground ethics in something universal that would make demands on all people at all times. Kant’s goal in his ethical philosophy was to establish the fundamental principle of morality. Kant believed that so long as morality lacked this principle, it was open to perversions and misrepresentations. Kant also believed that when people mixed the pure moral law with concrete examples of morality or social customs, they were not doing ethical philosophy but merely doing anthropology. Kant’s philosophy is called deontology, which means duty-based ethical philosophy. According to Kant, you have a duty to abide by the moral law. The moral law exists prior to experience (Kant calls this form of human knowledge a priori knowledge). It naturally arises out of the will of the human and the law itself makes demands on that human will. What is this law? Kant calls this law the categorical imperative, and he provides at least three formulations of the categorical imperative in his work The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality. Here are some ways that Kant puts the universal law into language.

1. I ought only to act in such a way that I could will the rule of my action universally.

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

2. I ought only to act according to laws that I could make universal laws of nature. 3. I ought always to treat others as ends, never as means. 4. I ought only to act according to rules that I would make if I were the law- maker of the Kingdom of

Ends. Kant claims that these are all verbal examples of the universal law that resides in the human. What do all these claims mean? Let’s look at three. What does it mean to treat someone as an end and not as a means? Well, that basically means that we can never use people. To treat someone as an end is to recognize that the person has inherent dignity, and that you must promote the person’s own ends (desires) over your own. You cannot merely use another human being. People use each other for sex, rides to the airport, emotional support, and help with moving, rides to work, help with homework, or whatever it might be. When we go to others because we know they will provide for us without any regard to their feelings or own desires, and we merely go to them for no other reason than that we know they will do what we ask, we are using them as means. Kant claims that this is always unacceptable. You must think of your actions in terms of how you will be promoting the desires and goals of your friends, and even those with whom you are not friends. Now, can you still ask a friend for a ride to the airport? Of course you can. However, there is a way to do it that recognizes the friend as an end (perhaps giving gas money, writing a thank you note, or taking the friend out to dinner) rather than as merely a way to get to the airport. Whenever we use people, we are going against the moral law that Kant believes lies in all of us. Let’s look at one now. When Kant says that we should act in such a way that we could will the rule of our actions universally, he is saying that we can only do things that we would permit all people to do in all instances and times. For example, let’s suppose that you were thinking about cheating on a test. You could formulate a rule that would apply to this experience. You could say something like, “It is universally acceptable to cheat on tests.” Kant says that we can test the acceptability of our acts by seeing if we can universalize the rules of our actions. What would happen in a world where cheating on exams was universalized? Well, you can imagine that teachers would take some strict measures to try to prevent this cheating. Perhaps teachers would begin giving individual exams and would stand above each student as he or she wrote the exams. This is one of hundreds of potential outcomes of this policy, but you can imagine what a difficult and uncomfortable situation it would be if each student had to take the exam by him or herself and was overlooked by the tense gaze of the professor the entire time (something that appeals neither to the professor nor the student). It would be impossible to universalize the idea that you should be allowed to cheat on an exam. Therefore, according to Kant, you cannot perform this act. Notice at the same time that when you cheat, you treat others as means to your own end of a better grade. You treat your fellow students and teacher with a lack of respect as well. For Kant, ethics is the result of a universal principle that arises from the human will. This principle is called the categorical imperative. It is the duty of the human to act according to this principle. Kantian deontology also focuses on respect between humans and the recognition that the other human has a worth beyond price. The good life for Kant is harmony of the will with the categorical imperative in a life that does not deviate from abiding by the universal law. Utilitarianism The final ethical theory that we will examine here is called utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill presents a thorough account of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a value- maximizing theory that claims that an act is good when it promotes the greatest amount of something of value. Utilitarianism is also called consequentialism because it focuses on the outcomes of actions in determining the best act. Mill claims that the good that utilitarianism promotes is happiness. What is happiness? Mill claims that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Therefore, according to Mill’s greatest happiness principle, an act is right when it maximizes happiness or minimizes pain for the greatest number of people; an act is wrong when it maximizes pain or minimizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Before we think that Mill is reducing us to a bunch of animalistic pleasure seekers, we must see what Mill says about pleasure. Mill claims that there are various qualities of pleasures, just as there are various quantities of pleasures. Quantity of pleasure refers to the amount. Six hours of reading Aristotle is better than four hours of reading Aristotle, because you are able to read it for a longer period of time. However, qualities of pleasures differ between various types of pleasures. Mill recognizes that humans are not animals that will be satisfied with full bellies and lots of sex. Instead, the higher quality pleasures include the intellectual, moral, and artistic pleasures. Humans like to see other humans do virtuous acts, and we often experience pleasure when we know we have acted virtuously. In addition, no one would trade a diploma or your knowledge for a week,

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 6

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

month, year, or lifetime at Disney World. This is because we value the intellectual pleasures over those of mere enjoyment. Finally, few would prefer a night of good sex over 30 years of an intimate and loving relationship (although people often act the other way when they are unfaithful). Mill claims that when you are able to promote the higher quality pleasures in your own life, that person will experience the best type of life. It is difficult to come to love virtue, wisdom, and beauty, but if we can, there is a whole new world of experience and enjoyment that are possible for the human. Mill also claims that we should promote these goods in the lives of others as well. If you have an ethical choice, you must think of all the factors involved in the choice and choose the option that promotes overall happiness for the greatest number. The best types of happiness are those of the higher quality pleasures over the base pleasures. According to Mill, acting in the world in this way will lead to equality, flourishing, and the elimination of poverty and disease. Conclusion We have outlined some theories about what it means to live a good life. This is the most important question that we all face. How can we live a good life? This question has multiple answers and often changes throughout the course of our lives. This question haunts us when we do not make decisions that align with what we know we are. This question looms when we make decisions about our careers, our families, our friends, and the way we interact in our worlds. All the responses above (and many more for that matter) are answers to this question. This course has been focused on the question of the good life and how we can make decisions that lead to our ultimately flourishing existence. You are encouraged to think about this question often, to evaluate your life in terms of what you want, and to live in such a way that you are open to change and willing to adapt according to principles that promote not only your own conception of the good life, but also the good lives of your friends, neighbors, coworkers, and strangers. We have all been given specific social and identity realities. We can only work and interact in what we have been given. Try not to get bogged down in changing the WORLD, and instead, focus on your own little world and the ways that you can make those worlds better. Remember that critical thinking is a method of evaluating life and decisions that will hopefully lead to a better existence. It takes years of practice, but hopefully you all feel that you have an understanding of the foundations of this mode of thought. Keep reminding yourselves of those principles and fix your eyes on the fallacies and deceptions that are inherent parts of the human mind. This is the way to understand truth and to make those decisions that will lead to the good life.

Learning Activities (Nongraded) Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions contact your instructor for further guidance and information. To gain further knowledge of the material, including key terms, please view this HTML presentation. This will summarize and reinforce the information from these chapters in your textbook. Click here to access the lesson presentation for Unit VIII.