EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES

Transcription

1 1 EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES Exercises Below, you ll find exercises grouped into topical categories. You don t need to do all of the exercises. Simply select some topics that are of interest to you and practice analyzing and evaluating arguments until you feel comfortable enough to progress to the next chapter. Enjoy! Evaluating if then sentences 1) Suppose Brenda says, If Ellen is going to become a successful physicist then she ll need to go to a very good school. Suppose Ann responds to this claim by saying, It isn t true that if Ellen is going to become a successful physicist then she ll need to go to a very good school. She could go to only a moderately good school and still become a successful physicist. Is this a relevant objection to Brenda s claim? Why or why not? 2) Suppose Brenda says, If Ellen is going to become a successful physicist then she ll need to go to a very good school. Suppose Ann responds to this claim by saying, It isn t true that if Ellen is going to become a successful physicist then she ll need to go to a very good school. After all, no matter how good the school is, you re not guaranteed of success. Is this a relevant objection to Brenda s claim? Why or why not? 3) Suppose that your friend buys a used car at Smilin Sam s Car Corral. No money down! your friend brags, I just signed this contract. You read the contract, which says. If there are no problems with this car within the first 30 days, the buyer will pay $1500 to Smilin Sam s within a month after assuming possession of the vehicle. Less than a two weeks after your friend drives the car from the lot, the transmission has gone out, the breaks have failed, and the motor s blown up. So what? Your friend says, Since I had my problems within the first 30 days, I don t have to pay for the car. It says so in the contract. Is your friend right? Thought Experiments Evaluating if then sentences is intimately connected to the philosophical method of thought experiments because some of the most interesting claims, and many philosophical ones, are conditional in nature. For example, the theory of utilitarianism (or rather, a very simplified version of it), maintains that if an action produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people then it s ethically good. Philosophers often attempt to disprove such theories by telling a story in which the front part of the conditional is true and the back part of the conditional is false. These stories are called thought experiments. There are a quite a few thought experiments to show that utilitarianism isn t right, at least not in the simple form mentioned above. One of the most famous is the Case of Sam. It goes like this:

2 2 Imagine a nice, unassuming fellow named Sam. Sam has a low-skill job, no friends to speak of, no pets, and only one relative: a senile aunt who doesn t recognize him. Nonetheless, dutiful nephew that he is, Sam visits his aunt in the hospital every Tuesday at 3:00. Now it so happens that at 2:45 one Tuesday afternoon, there s accident on the highway and five people are rushed to the emergency room at the hospital where Sam s aunt resides. One of these people is a scientist who s working, with great success, on a cure for cancer. Another is a diplomat on the cusp of negotiating a peace treaty that only she can see carried to completion. A third is a farmer about to engineer a crop that can end world hunger. A fourth is a volunteer literacy tutor lifting inner city youth out of poverty. The fifth is me. All of these very important people need organ transplants within an hour, and there are no organs available. Well no organs except for the ones inside Sam, who just happens to be a universal organ donor and who just happens to have walked into the hospital as you, the chief of surgery, attend to your mortally injured patients. So now, two questions. First, would killing Sam and transplanting his organs produce the most happiness for the greatest number of people? Yes, to be brutally honest, it probably would. Second, would killing Sam and transplanting his organs be the ethically right thing to do? Would you, as the chief of surgery, be reaching for your scalpel? No. Probably not. And that, many people say, is the problem with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism claims that if an action produces the most happiness for the most people then that action is ethically good. The Case of Sam demonstrates how an action can maximize happiness (front part true) but still be ethically bad (back part false). The fact that the situation described in Case of Sam is very unlikely doesn t matter. All we need to show is that putative connection between maximizing happiness and moral rightness doesn t hold, and the Case of Sam does that very nicely. Now, just for fun, let s consider the if then sentence we ve just developed: If we should try to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people then it s okay to kill one relatively insignificant person in order to save five very significant people. For each of the following objections, determine if it would be relevant to showing the sentence false, then rest the mouse over each one to see if you re right. 1) It isn t okay to kill one relatively insignificant person. 2) Nobody is insignificant, and even if someone is insignificant, there s no good way to decide who s significant and who s insignificant. 3) We shouldn t try to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. After all, doing that would lead to the legalization of drugs and stuff. 4) We can t make everybody happy.

3 3 5) Even though we should try to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, we shouldn t kill one relatively insignificant person. 6) Killing one person in order to save five others wouldn t produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Graduation Exams 1) It s a sad situation, really, but more and more people are beginning to grasp the undeniable truth: we need high school graduation exams. After all, since teachers are inflating grades, grades no longer indicate what a student knows. There needs to be some indication of what a student knows, though, because colleges and universities need this information, inasmuch as they need to determine whom to admit. 2) Isn t enough pressure put on students today? Lots of students in high school have part-time jobs in order to save money for college. Many of them are in extra-curricular activities like basketball in the hope that this might help them earn scholarships. And now, in addition to all this, some people are arguing for high-school graduation exams. Let s think about the wisdom of instituting these tests. In view of the fact that standardized tests invariably measure how well students take tests in addition to measuring what they know, high-school graduation exams will penalize students who don t test well. But students who don t test well shouldn t be penalized since the ability to do well on standardized tests isn t an intrinsically important academic skill. That s why there shouldn t be high-school graduation exams. General Degree Requirements 1) Have you heard the news? Some people actually want to increase the General Degree Requirements. What a bunch of morons! If that s a good idea, I ll eat my hat! I mean, just think about it for a minute. If the General Degree Requirements are increased, won t it take longer to graduate? It doesn t take a genius to figure that out! And if it takes longer to graduate, students will have to pay more tuition. Clearly then, if the GDRs are increased, students will be forced to fork out more cash. But do you know anyone who can afford to spend more on school? I sure don t! Increasing the GDRs will just result in more people dropping out of school. Good plan! Extra Terrestrial Life

4 4 1) I believe that there is extra-terrestrial life which surpasses us because I watched a lot of science fiction movies as a kid and because I m very imaginative. I ve noticed that most people who don t believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life are closed-minded and overly pragmatic. Skeptics tend to have a real I-won t-believe-it-until-i-see-it attitude, but I ve never been that way. 2) The number galaxies in the universe is unimaginable and so it s reasonable to assume that many of the these galaxies contain stars which are like our sun in that they have orbital planets able to support life. Given the fact that the universe is very old, some of these planets have probably supported life longer than the earth has. Naturally, a longer biotic history would enable evolution to progress to a greater extent. That s why I believe that there is extra-terrestrial life which surpasses us. Smoking 1) There shouldn t be smoking and no-smoking sections in restaurants. After all, this segregates smokers, and since segregation is a form of punishment, these sections effectively punish smokers. But in view of the facts that smoking is an addiction and that we shouldn t punish people for their addictions, we shouldn t punish smokers. 2) It should go without saying that there should be special smoking sections in restaurants, even though some people argue that such sections inappropriately punish smokers. What a bunch of nonsense! Clearly, there should be smoking and no-smoking sections because since second-hand smoke is a health risk, nonsmokers have a right to eat in a smoke-free environment. Obviously, though, the only way nonsmokers can eat in a smoke-free environment is to have special smoking and no-smoking sections because if there weren t such sections nonsmokers at one table would be forced to breath the smoke produced at an adjoining table. Philosophy Majors 1) Philosophy majors are offered at most four-year institutions, and although the course selection varies slightly from school to school, virtually all majors require some classes in the history of philosophy, ethics, and formal logic. 2) Sandra is a philosophy major because her mother wanted her to major in business, and Sandra s always been rebellious. Furthermore, no philosophy classes are offered before nine in the morning.

5 5 3) Everybody should take at least one philosophy class because philosophy helps people to think and communicate clearly and because these skills are essential in any occupation. Faith 1) There are different kinds of faith. There s the kind of faith we have in the effectiveness of something, as when we say that we have faith that our car will run or that the bridge won t fall down. This kind of faith may be partially supported by rational considerations. There s another kind of faith that we have in the truth of things, as when we claim to have faith that God exists. This kind of faith seems to presuppose a lack of evidence or rational support. 2) Some people think that we shouldn t form beliefs on the basis of good arguments but that we should rely on faith instead. I know that these people are wrong, though. There are good arguments to show that we should form beliefs on the basis of good arguments instead of on the basis of something like faith, and since we should accept what these arguments show, we should form beliefs on the basis of good arguments rather than faith. 3) I believe in God because I was raised that way. I can t remember a time when I didn t believe in God. My parents were very good about instilling a strong faith in all of their children, a faith that would pull them through the tough times and which can only be weakened by futilely questioning God s existence. I m grateful to my parents for this great gift. Limitations on Knowledge 1) Human powers of observation and reason have evolved to serve our survival needs. Since our survival needs only require us to understand and react to medium-sized things moving at moderate speeds through space interpreted in a Euclidean way, it follows that our observational and rational capacities are limited to this domain. There is no reason to suppose that reality is similarly limited though, and so there s no reason to suppose that our observational and rational capacities are sufficient to enable us to understand the world as it really is. The Problem of Induction

6 6 1) Science depends upon predictability, or upon the fact that the world will continue to work in much the same way that it always has. How can we be certain that the future will be like the past, though? Well, it s obvious. The future always has been like the past, and since things will continue to work the way they ve worked before, if the future has always been like the past then we can expect the future to continue to be like the past. Therefore, the future will continue to be like the past. William James 1) As a matter of psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic sort are usually authoritative to those who have them. They have been there, and know. It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. If the mystical truth that comes to a man proves to be a force that he can live by, what mandate have we of the majority to order him to live in another way? We can throw him into a prison or a madhouse, but we cannot change his mind - we commonly attach it only the more stubbornly to its beliefs. It mocks our utmost efforts, as a matter of fact, and in point of logic it absolutely escapes our jurisdiction. Our own more rational beliefs are based on evidence exactly similar in nature to that which mystics quote for theirs. Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but mystical experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for those who have them as any sensations ever were for us. The records show that even though the five senses be in abeyance in them, they are absolutely sensational in their epistemological [e.g. belief-producing, D.W.] quality, if I may be pardoned for the barbarous expression - that is, they are face to face presentations of what seems immediately to exist. (William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience.) Existence of God 1) I don t understand how anyone can seriously believe that God doesn t exist. Can t they read? The Bible actually says that God exists, and since the Bible is the word of God, everything it says must be true. 2) God doesn t exist because if he did then there would be no evil or suffering in the world since an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god would have prevented it. But look around! Every day, people and animals get sick or harmed in accidents, natural disasters or acts of hostility and so clearly, the world is full of suffering and evil. Philosophy of Mind

7 7 1) It s clear that one s mind isn t identical with one s brain, because if it were identical with one s brain then one could know as much about one s brain as one knows about one s mind, but one obviously knows much more about one s mind than one knows about one s brain. 2) Our minds must be physical because a nonphysical substance can t interact with a physical substance and it s clear that our minds do interact with the physical world. When we see a red object, for instance, the light is reflected off of the object and into our eyes, where it induces a certain pattern of stimulation in our optic nerves. This stimulation then sets up certain reactions in the visual center our of brains, and as a result of these reactions, we, that is to say our minds, know that a red object is before us. 3) We can perceive the color of an object in our visual field because such objects absorb all light rays except for those of a specific frequency. A red object, for instance, absorbs the light waves for all colors except red, which it reflects. The reflected red light waves enter our eyes, produce certain reactions on the rods and cones on our retinas, and signal our brain, through means of the optic nerve, that a red object is before us. Ghosts 1) Ghosts are the alleged spirits of the dead which are thought to haunt the place of their deaths, the location of their bodies, or a location to which the deceased individuals bore some strong emotional attachment in life. The presence of ghost is supposedly signaled by a sharp drop in air temperature, although some people report seeing a ghost without experiencing the tell-tale chill. 2) Jean believes in ghosts because when she was a child her older sister used to frighten her with scary stories every night. Through this process, Jean was taught to vividly imagine specters hiding underneath her bed and ghouls crouching in her closet, and the resultant overwhelming fear has prevented her from ever disentangling fantasy from reality. 3) Ghosts don t exist. They are supposed to be the spirits of dead, but science has shown us that the mind, that part of us which has been identified as our spirit is nothing more than the product of incredibly complex brain activity. But since brain activity ceases upon death, so does the individual s mind or spirit. There is simply nothing left of us to haunt old houses and cemeteries.

8 8 Free Will 1) It s obvious that human beings have free-will. If we didn t have free-will then we d be able to predict each other s behavior, but we clearly can t predict what other people will do since we re often surprised by each other s behavior. 2) Antisocial behavior is a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain since it can be treated effectively by the introduction of pharmaceutics and since pharmaceutics alter brain chemistry. Clearly, though, we shouldn t punish people for their chemical imbalances and so we shouldn t punish people for antisocial behavior. Cultural Relativism 1) The Eskimos practiced female infanticide because males were the primary food providers in their culture. Hunting is a dangerous sport, however, and many more men died in adulthood than did women. If female infanticide had not been practiced, the food-consuming female population would have exceed the food-producing male population. 2) Different cultures have different moral codes. But if ethics were objective then all cultures would agree about what s right and wrong. This goes to show that ethics aren t objective. 3) Cultural relativism is more than the descriptive claim that cultures do, in fact, have different opinions about what s right and wrong. It s the normative claim that there is no more to ethics than cultural convention, that cultures in effect determine what s ethical and unethical. Censorship 1) Anthony Comstock, born in 1844 in New Canaan Connecticut, was instrumental in securing rigid anti-obscenity laws on both the state and national level. As a champion of censorship, he organized the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and was responsible for the destruction of 160 tons of literature and pictures. 2) When I was a child, my parents exposed me to a variety of new ideas. Both my mother and my father kept a lot of books in the house on a variety of subjects. Some of

9 9 these books contained so-called dirty pictures, but none of the books were ever kept from me. I was allowed to watch whatever I wanted to see on television as well. That s why I m a staunch opponent of censorship to this day. 3) Censorship isn t the evil that it s often made out to be because nothing we do routinely could possibly be bad and because we censor all the time. After all, we routinely withhold facts from small children. 4) Lady Chatterley's Lover, by D. H. Lawrence, was censored in England because it gave an explicit account of the sexual relations between a married woman and her gamekeeper. The novel had to be privately published in ) I think that book burning is a very bad thing because it suppresses ideas and because suppression of ideas is deadly to the effective functioning of a democracy. After all, if a democracy is to be effective, the voters need to be informed. Drugs 1) Do you know how much money the United States spends each year waging the War on Drugs? It s an astronomically high figure. And for what? To enforce the drug laws? We shouldn t have laws against drug use to begin with! After all, if an activity doesn t harm other people then it shouldn t be against the law and since drug use only harms the drug user, it doesn t harm other people. 2) Of course it s true that the United States spends a lot of money on the war on drugs, but we shouldn t allow that to lead us to repeal drug laws. After all, when people are using drugs they can t make their own decisions since drugs keep people from thinking clearly. And because we need laws to protect people who can t make their own decisions, this means that we should have laws against drug use. Euthanasia 1) Acts are ethically good insofar as they tend to maximize happiness and minimize suffering because human beings are motivated only by the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain and because if people are motivated only by the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain then acts are ethically good insofar as they tend to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Therefore, since euthanasia sometimes maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering, euthanasia is sometimes ethical.

10 10 2) It s easy to start thinking that euthanasia is justified, but it isn t. This is because euthanasia is a type of murder since euthanasia involves ending the life of someone outside the context of war or capital punishment, and since anything that ends the life of someone outside the context of war or capital punishment is murder. But murder is always wrong since it s against the Ten Commandments. Values Education 1) Many factors go into making value judgments, such as the amount of happiness which will be generated by an action and the extent to which the action corresponds to various duties. This means that the process of making value assessments embodies a complex skill, and since skills can and should be taught, the process of making value assessments should be taught in school. 2) It s absurd to maintain that we should teach values in school. After all, the purpose of a public education is to prepare students for a career and so we should only teach things which will help students get or keep the job of their choice. Values serve neither purpose. Real-Life 1) Find an argument that s written in one page or less. Don t worry about how complicated the argument is, how good it is, or whether or not you can diagram it. Just find an argument. What is the ultimate conclusion of this argument? What is one premise in the argument? Does the argument have a subconclusion? If so, what is one premise in support of that subconclusion? Does the argument have dependent reasons? If so, what are they? What is the conclusion that stems from them? Construction 1) Consider the following argument 1. All freshmen should live in residence halls. 2. Living in residence halls helps students adjust to college. 3. Living in residence halls enables students to network with other students. 3 A 2 B 1

11 11 Strengthen inference A by supplying a dependent reason 4, and strengthen B by supplying a dependent reason 5, thereby completing the following diagram. 1. All freshmen should live in residence halls. 2. Living in residence halls helps students adjust to college. 3. Living in residence halls enables students to network with other students A B 1 2) Write a passage containing the above argument. Make sure that all of your sentences are complete, write vertically, and repeat ideas if necessary. Note every inference with an inference indicator expression. 3) Consider the argument diagram you constructed in Chapter 2 and strengthen one of your inferences by adding a dependent reason. 4) Write up the argument you diagrammed in the previous exercise. Make sure all of your sentences are complete, write vertically, and repeat ideas if necessary. Questions 1) Consider the following argument: If God exists then there would be no suffering, but there is suffering. Therefore, God doesn t exist. Some people are inclined to say that we shouldn t divide the first sentence around the but because the ideas if God exists then there would be no suffering and there is suffering contradict each other. What do you think about that? 2) Tests for Dependent Reasons Example 5 presented us with the following argument: Take a minute to consider the death penalty. Do you think we should have it? It seems to me as though if we have the death penalty then we ll be able to prevent murders from committing their crimes again and it certainly seems to me that we want to prevent murders from committing their crimes again. That s why I think we should have the death penalty for murderers.

12 12 1. We should have the death penalty for murderers. 2. If we have the death penalty then we ll be able to prevent murders from committing their crimes again. 3. We want to prevent murders from committing their crimes again We used the Inference / Eraser Test, the Try It Out Test, and the Means to and End Test to understand that 2 and 3 were dependent reasons in support of 1. Could we have used the Ophthalmology Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Puzzle Piece Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Normative Conclusion Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Comparative Conclusion Test? If so, how? 3) Tests for Dependent Reasons Example 7 presented us with the following argument: Either we have the death penalty for murder or we flout the most fundamental principle of retributive justice, and although no moral person revels in taking someone s life, this principle should be preserved. It follows that we should have the death penalty. 1. We should have the death penalty. 2. Either we have the death penalty for murder or we flout the most fundamental principle of retributive justice. 3. This principle (i.e. the most fundamental principle of retributive justice) should be preserved We used the Try It Out Test and the Normative Conclusion Test to understand that 2 and 3 were dependent reasons in support of 1. Could we have used the Ophthalmology Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Indicator / Eraser Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Puzzle Piece Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Comparative Conclusion Test? If so, how? Could we have used the Means to an End Test? If so, how? Activities

13 13 1) Normative Conclusions and Hume David Hume ( ) is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the eighteenth century. The following quotation is from his A Treatise of Human Nature (specifically, Book III: Of Morals, Part I: Of virtue and vice in general, Section I: Moral distinctions not deriv'd from reason, paragraph 25.) In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning when of a sudden I am supris d 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 observ d and explain d; 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 the others, which are entirely different from it. If Hume is right, a normative claim involving ( this new relation ) cannot be correctly inferred from purely descriptive claims ( others, which are entirely different from it ). Suppose, for instance, that I advance the following argument against plagiarism: Plagiarism involves claiming someone else s work as one s own. (Descriptive Claim) Plagiarism is morally wrong. (Normative Claim) Hume notes that this inference is weak. Surely someone could know what plagiarism is without thinking that it s wrong. In order to repair this inference, we need to add a premise to the effect that it s wrong to claim some else s work as one s own a normative claim. Plagiarism involves claiming someone else s work as one s own. (Descriptive Claim) Claiming someone else s work as one s own is morally wrong. (Normative Claim) Plagiarism is morally wrong. (Normative Claim)

14 14 Only if someone believes the descriptive premise and the normative premise will she be brought by this argument to believe that plagiarism is wrong. Do you see what this means? It means that we can t convince anyone of any ethical claim unless they already agree with us about other ethical claim. Ethical arguments aren t necessarily circular, but the ethical realm is what we might call logically closed. If you aren t already in the set of those who share certain ethical beliefs, you can t be argued into the set. It s interesting to speculate about what this means for the role of logic in ethics. Over the next week or so, find arguments that have normative conclusions. For each argument, determine what normative premise the argument invokes. If members of the argument s audience don t accept this normative premise, what would you advise the author of the argument to do? 2) Counterexamples: Anselm and Guanillo Anselm St. Anselm ( ) provides us, in Chapter 2 of his Proslogion, with a classic statement of an ontological argument for God s existence. of God alone. There are a variety of ontological arguments for God s existence, but the feature that they all share, the feature that makes them ontological arguments, is their attempt to prove the existence of God from the idea Read through Anselm s classic version of the ontological argument, paying special attention to the bits I highlight, and we ll talk about it below. Chapter 2: That God Really Exists Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said,

15 15 "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality. This is a very tight and abstract bit of reasoning, but we have all the tools needed to diagram it. Of course, we haven t seen an argument remotely approximating this one in complexity, so I would not expect you to be able to diagram this on your own. Just try to follow it as I reproduce the relevant portion of Anselm s text and add my analysis. [W]e believe you [God] are something greater than which cannot be thought.thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality. 1. God exists both in thought and in reality. (That is to say, God isn't just an idea of ours. God really exists.) 2. God is that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined. (In other words, just as by Santa Claus we understand a jolly old elf who bring presents at Christmas, by God we understand a being so great that we can t even imagine any being greater.) 3. That-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists in thought. (This just means that we have some idea of such a being, that this being exists as an idea in our mind, at least.)

16 16 4. We understand what that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined means. (We do understand it a bit. We know that no imaginable being could be greater than such a being, for instance.) 5. Whatever is understood exists in thought. (We have some idea of whatever we understand; these things exist "in our mind" if nowhere else.) 6. That-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined cannot exist only in thought. (Something than which we can't imagine anything better can't just be an idea in our minds.) 7. If that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists only in thought it could also be imagined to existing in reality as well, which is greater. (If something than which we can't imagine anything better existed only in our minds, we could imagine one existing in reality, which is better.) 8. If that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists in thought alone, then that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be imagined. (If the thing we can't imagine anything better than existed only as an idea in our mind then we'd be able to imagine something better than it.) 9. That circumstance (i.e. that-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined turning out to be that than which something greater actually can be imagined) is obviously impossible. (By definition, it's impossible for us to imagine something better than the thing we can't imagine anything better than.) 10. That-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists both in thought and in reality. (The thing we can't imagine anything better than isn't just an idea; it's a real thing.) This is a strange and fascinating argument. It has the air of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Intuitively, it seems as though there s something wrong with this argument, but if we follow it along, step by step, assessing all the premises and inferences, it s very hard to see what, if anything, is amiss. When we find ourselves in such a predicament, one of two things must be happening: 1) Either we re simply prejudiced against an otherwise good argument and need to change our mind about it, or 2) there is something wrong with the argument and we just can t put our finger on it.

17 17 The tricky part is figuring out which, exactly, it is. Gaunilo As we ve seen, the ontological argument is mystifying because it s difficult for us to tell if our intuitive discomfort is misplaced, and the argument is actually good, or if the argument is actually bad and harboring a bad premise or inference somewhere. The monk Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anslem s, demonstrated that the fault lies with the argument, not with our intuitions, and he does so by constructing one of the most famous counterexamples of all time! Here it is: For example, they say there is in the ocean somewhere an island which, due to the difficulty (or rather the impossibility) of finding what does not actually exist, is called "the lost island." And they say that this island has all manner of riches and delights, even more of them than the Isles of the Blest, and having no owner or inhabitant it is superior in the abundance of its riches to all other lands which are inhabited by men. If someone should tell me that such is the case, I will find it easy to understand what he says, since there is nothing difficult about it. But suppose he then adds, as if he were stating a logical consequence, "Well then, you can no longer doubt that this island more excellent than all other lands really exists somewhere, since you do not doubt that it is in your mind; and since it is more excellent to exist not only in the mind but in reality as well, this island must necessarily exist, because if it didn't, any other island really existing would be more excellent than it, and thus that island now thought of by you as more excellent will not be such." If, I say, someone tries to convince me though this argument that the island really exists and there should be no more doubt about it, I will either think he is joking or I will have a hard time deciding who is the bigger fool, me if I believe him or him if he thinks he has proved its existence without having first convinced me that this excellence is something undoubtedly existing in reality and not just something false or uncertain existing in my mind. See how this is a counterexample to Anselm s ontological argument? Essentially, he replaced God with lost island, like so: 1. God The lost island exists both in thought and in reality. 2. God The lost island is that an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined. 3. That An island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists in thought. 4. We understand what that an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined means. 5. Whatever is understood exists in thought. 6. That An island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined cannot exist only in thought. 7. If that an island -than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists only in thought it could also be imagined to existing in reality as well, which is greater.

18 18 8. If that an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists in thought alone, then that an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined turns out to be that an island than which something an island greater actually can be imagined. 9. That circumstance (i.e. that an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined turning out to be that an island than which something an island greater actually can be imagined) is obviously impossible. 10. That an island-than-which-greater-cannot-be-imagined exists both in thought and in reality Get it? Gaunilo s point is that we know that there isn t any such thing as the Lost Island. That means that the conclusion of the Lost Island Argument is false, and since no good argument can have a false conclusion, the Lost Island argument must be bad. But because the Lost Island Argument has the same general structure as the Ontological Argument, there must be something wrong with the Ontological Argument as well. In short, Gaunilo had proven that the fault doesn t lie with the people who aren t convinced by the argument; the fault lies somewhere in the argument itself. 3) Cure Worse than the Disease Fallacy We ve learned about means / ends reasoning of the following type: We have an end E. Means M would get us to end E. We should pursue means M. And we ve learned that this inference always depends upon the hidden assumption that doing M is better, or at least no worse, than living without E. Whenever the costs of

19 19 undertaking a particular means to an end outweigh the costs of not achieving that end, then we shouldn t do it. The failure to recognize that the means are sometimes worse than failing to achieve the end is the Cure that s worse than the Disease fallacy. Invent or find at least three examples of this fallacy.