Nk b Version

8/16/2019 Nk b Version

1/21

Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

THESIS XII

A Philosophical Review

Volume 22 • Number 1

© May, 2016

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Matt Silliman

The Is-Ought Non-Problem 1

David Kenneth Braden-Johnson

The Problem with the Is-Ought Non-Problem

e!l" to Silliman #

$erol %etru&ella

Must Ought Imply Can?

e!l" to 'ranas (

%aul )nodim

Utilitarian Dilemmas in the Literature of

!apegoats 1*

Brett Belcastro

"easoning an# Intelligen!e 1+

Matt Lu&

On the $ormulation of u!!essful Ad Baculum

%rguments 1,

J Stanle" .a/e

$rien#s 1(

The Is-Ought Non-Problem

Matt Silliman

0ith famous and characteristic iron" 2umelam!oons a !articular form of reasoning:

&In e'ery system of morality( whi!h I ha'e hitherto

met with( I ha'e always remar)*#( that the author

pro!ee#s for some time in the or#inary way ofreasoning( an# establishes the being of a +o#( or

ma)es obser'ations !on!erning human affairs,

when of a su##en I am surpri*# to fin#( thatinstea# of the usual !opulations of propositions( is(

an# is not( I meet with no proposition that is not

!onne!te# with an ought( or an ought not. This!hange is imper!eptible( but is( howe'er( of the last


2/21

3hesis 455: A %hiloso!hical evie6 Ma" *718 9 'ol ** 9 )

!onse/uen!e. $or as this ought( or ought not(

e0presses some new relation or affirmation( 1tis

ne!essary that it shou*# be obser'*# an#e0plain*#, an# at the same time that a reason

shou*# be gi'en( for what seems altogetherin!on!ei'able( how this new relation !an be a#e#u!tion from others( whi!h are entirely

#ifferent from it.2 3% Treatise of 4uman Nature(

5). III( pt. 6( se!t. 67

5 6ill offer a brace of arguments to suggest that6hile formall" !roblematic in certain highl"artificial or abstract eam!les such reasoning is;uite natural and inter!reted 6ith a modicumof charit" seldom if ever fallacious in itself3a/en together 5 thin/ these arguments give usgood grounds for not 6orr"ing much about2ume


3/21


grounds that =at least 6hen a matter isconse;uential to humans the e!istemological !rocess b" 6hich 6e determine the salience orrelevance of facts is itself imbued 6ith at least

some moral normativit" %erha!s develo!ingthe %"thagorean 3heorem 6as an e!istemicall" !ure !rocess but as soon as 6e em!lo" it todesign a building 6hich might =if ourcalculations are careless colla!se and inuresomeone moral significance has entered theroom

5 argue then that determination of salience is anormative !rocess in the relevant sense andirreducibl" so A full s!elling-out of the criteria b" 6hich 6e select among !ossible facts !lausibl" "ields robust =if tacit !remisese!ressing normativit" E ought -statements that6ill not go a6a" and 6ithout 6hich theargument itself is !ointless f course if an" of the o!erative terms are of the t"!e in m" firsteam!le =eg: motheraltogether inconceivable@ =though5 am not certain that 6ord means !recisel" 6hathe thin/s it does:

1 3his roc/ is crumbl"* =therefore 0e ought not to climb on thisroc/

3his argument might seem to 2ume to re;uiresome tacit !remises =to the effect that crumbl"roc/ can be dangerous that one ought not ta/eunnecessar" ris/s etc But no one in a contet6here this 6ould be a normal thing to sa"6ould fail to understand the reasoning on offer3here are of course man" other !otential !remises 6hich are evidentl" not germane Ethat the sun is F# million miles a6a" foream!le E but ;uite a fe6 others nearer to handabout 6hich it is not so eas" to sa" 3he fact

that m" mother has an eaggerated fear ofinuries from falling in res!onse !erha!s to achildhood trauma and thus that she 6ill beecessivel" 6orried about m" ta/ing ris/s 6ith

this crumbl" roc/ ma" or ma" not be a relevantfact in m" calculation of 6hat 5 ought to do inthis circumstance 2o6 heavil" should 5 6eightthe fact of m" mother


4/21


enough 5 contend ho6ever that due to theirreducibl" normative !rocess of determiningthe salience of !remises selected from anindefinitel" large !ool of !otentiall" salient

facts the re;uisite normative bac/groundalread" tacitl" infects the !remises of an"interesting argument

3o illustrate b" analog" consider earl"-modernclaims of scientific research to be free of etra-scientific values Biologists for eam!le !resented themselves as sim!l" stud"ing the6orld of life that 6as before them ans6eringthe ;uestions that nature !osed =>carving natureat its oints@ a carnivorous image from %latoan" interesting

argument@ each assumes = pa!e 2ume the ver"unbridgeable ga! he ho!es to traverse orignore1

1 I take the issue to be that we cannot derive a non-

vacuous, action-directing normative conclusion

from any set of purely descriptive (that is, non-

moral, non-normative) claims. The qualification

4


5/21


5n addition there is a !ermanent tension at theheart of Silliman


6/21


A1interesting@ contet asessentiall" normative and =b seeing thelogi!al fun!tioning of premises in an argument as essentiall" normative At times Sillimanseems to be suggesting both "et in the contetof >non-fallaciousl" #eri'ing ought-statementsfrom is-statements@ 6e rightl" concern

2. But, if H were true, C would be a matter of

course,

3. hence. There is reason to suspect that H is true.

(p. 231).

Most commentators agree that, in affirming the

consequent, abduction resists successfulformalization. I’ll leave it to the reader to solve

these and other riddles of abduction and to apply

the results to Silliman’s examples.No period of

capitalize “s.” (see Plutynsky for a list of worries

attending the formalization and justification of

abduction).

6


7/21


ourselves eclusivel" 6ith the latter+ Hurthermore the normativit" of =a is logicall"distinct from =b 3o see this is so 6e needonl" reflect momentaril" on the ver" eam!le

Silliman !rovides of the =>e!istemicall" !ure@develo!ment of the =no doubt interesting andsubstantive %"thagorean 3heorem 3he t"!icalnormative e!istemic im!eratives that determinethe salience or relevance of facts =be careful bes"stematic avoid contradiction etc thatgovern argument construction and direct ourin;uiries have no bearing on the normativit" ofthe argument or its com!onents 3hat is noamount of selectivit" focus bias salience oran" other !ur!ortedl" normative characteristicof the !rocess of argument formation has an"

4 Silliman at least momentarily appears to

agree: “By the definition of deduction,

nothing can emerge in the conclusion that

was not already contained in the premises,

so unless there are at least tacitly normative

elements in the premises, a normative

conclusion will be invalid.” Serving as a

clear example of the “permanent tension” I

note above, he prefaces this Humean

insight with this contradictory assertion:

“on [Hume’s] account, no genuine (i.e.,

deductive) reasoning process can get us

from purely descriptive premises to

prescriptive conclusions. I argue to the

contrary,even in the case of deduction, at least

in real-world reasoning….” (emphases

mine). Notice that the final proviso

regarding “real world reasoning,” inunderscoring either the tacit normativity of

premises or the processes of argument

construction which, in his words, “imbues”

reasoning with irreducible normativity,

does not violate but actually presupposes

Hume’s position on the is-ought gap.

determinative im!act on the normativit" of theargument 5ndeed Silliman seems to admit asmuch as he claims that normativit" associated6ith the theorem enters the inferential scene

onl" as 6e apply it 6ith the !ro!er care ofcourse 6hen >designing a building@ 3hat 6egenerall" care about the safet" of homes isundeniable as is the value 6e !lace onconsistenc" and deductive certaint" 6hen 6eclaim that for an" right triangle the s;uare ofthe h"!otenuse is e;ual to the sum of thes;uares of the other t6o sides, 3hat 6e oughtto be careful 6hen arguing that the contetuala!!lication of arguments in science andelse6here can be for good or ill or that ingeneral 6e care about the content an# construction an# a!!lication of our argumentsare all e;uall" obvious

%utting aside these e;uivocations have 6e an"reason to su!!ose that the normativit" ofargument construction !roduces or amounts to anormativit" of content =reflected in at least one !remise that might serve to bridge theinferential ga! bet6een is and oughtG Sillimanoffers but one brief eam!le:

A*1 3his roc/ is crumbl"* 3herefore 6e ought not to climb on this

roc/

2e suggests that to an" clear-headed readerthe choice of !remise 1 has been directed b"some interested !art" and so des!ite alla!!earances to the contrar" is not a >!ure fact@5ts im!urit" bes!ea/s its =tacit normativit"

5 And not, as the newly embrained yet still

incompetent scarecrow in the The Wizard

of Oz would have it: "The sum of the

square roots of any two sides of an

isosceles triangle is equal to the square root

of the remaining side."7


8/21


)ote that 6hat Silliman claims is true not of the !remise but the argument as a 6holeunderstood as a /ind of cr"!tic h"!otheticalim!erative =>5f "ou 6ant to remain safe "ou

ought not to climb on unsafe roc/sN@ Let usagree that !remise 1 either is or is not a >!urefact@ 5f it is notOif it tacitl" contains someelement of normativit"Othen 2umetacit normativit"@ of the !remises =there isnone but on the unstate# rationality ofchoosing an effective means to one5s-ught@ Dictum@

ynthese( 689( 6.

8


9/21


Johnson D K =1FF, >3he ught-5s Question:Discovering the Modern in %ostmodernism@ In/uiry:Criti!al Thin)ing %!ross the Dis!iplines( 69( 9.%eirce C =1FFP The ;ssential Peir!e: ele!te#

Philosophi!al %eirce Idition

%roect Bloomington: 5ndiana niversit" %ress%lut"ns/" An"a =*711 >Hour %roblems of Abduction:A Brief 2istor"@ 4OPO: The ournal of the

International o!iety for the 4istory of Philosophy of

!ien!e( 6%rior A ) =1F87 >3he Autonom" of Ithics@

%ustralasian ournal of Philosophy( @A

David Kenneth Braden-Johnson teaches philosophy at

MCLA

Must Ought Iml! "#n$ A Response to Vranas

Gerol Petruzella

Intro%u&tion

5s moralit" too demanding - Rre;uiring us to dothings that 6e literall" cannot do things that go be"ond our abilitiesRG %eter 'ranas finds thisclaim Rhard to s6allo6R ='ranas 1F( and sodefends a version of the ought-im!lies-can

!rinci!le 5C against several obectionsincluding arguments based u!on !utativecounteream!les as 6ell as conce!tualarguments'ranas does ecellent 6or/ in buildingdefinitional clarit" into his treatment of theissue 2e articulates 5C as s"nchronic andtime-indeed since its elements =obligationsabilities o!!ortunities are an anal"sis 6hichseems right to me 2e offers a clear deductiveargument su!!orting 5C:

(P1) bligations Rcorres!ondR to reasonsfor action: 5f an agent has an obligation to then the agent has a reason to

(P2) easons for action Rcorres!ondR to !otential actions: 5f an agent has a reason to then -ing is a !otential action of the agent

(P') %otential actions Rcorres!ondR to

abilit" !lus o!!ortunit": 5f -ing is a !otential action of an agent then the agent can

3hus:

(OI") bligations Rcorres!ondR to abilit" !lus o!!ortunit": 5f an agent =S at a giventime t has an =obective pro tanto obligationto then the agent =at that time can =iehas both the abilit" and the o!!ortunit" to

'ranas also does much good 6or/ in Rclearingthe fieldR deftl" undercutting several !ur!ortedgrounds for attac/ing 5C - legal arguments=1FF !s"chological arguments aboutobligations to feel =1(+ arguments based u!onnatural-language confusions of the sense ofRoughtR =1(P eotic h"!otheticals involvingmoral luc/ =1(F and arguments 6hich fail toreali&e that the grounds for reecting 5C arealso grounds for reecting the ought-im!lies-logicall"-!ossible !rinci!le =1P(

Hor all his rigor in defining and addressing the !roblem ho6ever 'ranas does not a!!l" thesame standard of linguistic !recision to acrucial relation in his core argument -Rcorres!onding toR 5n his !rimar" e!ressionof the argument =1(1-1(* he a!!ears to defineRcorres!ondenceR in terms of deductiveentailment =as e!ressed in if-then statementsTCom!are %latoUs difficult" 6ith mete!hein to !arta/e ofV 5 believe this leads 'ranas intodifficulties 6hich his article leavesunaddressed and 6hich leave the door o!en for continued criti;ue of 5C

After identif"ing 'ranasUs argumentative fla6 56ill offer an argument against 5C 6hich relieson a sim!le real-6orld counteream!le ratherthan eotic thought e!eriment scenariosinvolving brain6ave monitors morall"confused )a&is su!erhuman t"!ists orstrangling canaries

9


10/21


r#n#ss Error

B" im!licitl" defining Rcorres!onding toR as

logical entailment 'ranas necessaril" commitshimself to the deductive conse;uences of his !remises as stated nfortunatel" thiscommitment ma/es his accounts of !otentialreasons for action and abilit" too restrictive toaccount for certain real-6orld counteream!les

S!ecificall" 5 6ant to ta/e a closer loo/ at'ranasU =%* 'ranas himself recogni&es this !remise as a li/el" locus of contention =1(# but believes that he has mustered sufficientargumentative merit to defend it 5 disagree

Hirst letUs e!ress =%* formall" for !ur!oses of clarit" 3he !remise

=%* easons for action Rcorres!ondR to !otential actions: 5f an agent has a reason to

then -ing is a !otential action of the agent

can be sim!lified to

5f then %

or

All are %

f course then the logicall" e;uivalent formsare e;uall" true:

Contra!ositive: All non-% are non-bverse: )o are non-%

Some Mor#l Intuitions

)o6 letUs consider t6o intuitions regardingmoral agenc" and human !otential A commonthough unstated intuition ma" be that

=$1 3he sco!e of human action is no

greater than the sco!e of human !otential=or All A are %

3his seems !lausible Surel" it 6ould be

nonsensical to claim that human acts couldsomeho6 etend be"ond humansU o6nca!acities

0e also !resume that

=$* 3he sco!e of moral res!onsibilit"etends to at least some !onse/uen!es ofhuman action =or Some C are

3hat is 6e can !ro!erl" ascribe moralres!onsibilit" to not onl" the immediate acts6hich human agents !erform but also =in atleast some cases to the conse;uences of thoseacts !articularl" 6hen the agent actsintentionall" and 6ith fore/no6ledge of thoseconse;uences

)o6 6hat is interesting about =$1 is that it isfalse or at least in need of clarification 2umanagents are in man" cases ca!able of engineeringcausal chains leveraging ordinar" humanca!acities or !otentials to cause Rsu!erhumanReffects Hor eam!le 5 have the =ordinar"human ca!acit" to brea/ a small glass vial b"dro!!ing it to the !avement on a )e6 .or/ Cit"side6al/ de!ending u!on the contents of thatvial m" action =6hich again itself falls 6ell6ithin the sco!e of ordinar" human !otentialhas the direct effect of /illing billions ofhumans an effect 6hich far eceeds ordinar"human !otential but for 6hich nevertheless 5am morall" res!onsible

=$* !rom!ts us to reali&e that it is not ust that5 am morall" res!onsible =and blame6orth" for the act of dro!!ing the vial 5 am also morall"res!onsible for the conse;uent deaths of billions even though it is not 6ithin m" human !otential to /ill billions 0e live in a 6orld6here humans in the aggregate can act to cause

10


11/21


tremendous morall" significant effects butgiven our technologies such !ossibilities arisenot ust in the aggregate but for the individualagent 3he !ush of a button can launch a

nuclear firestorm a com!uter /e"stro/e candisable communications net6or/s for entirenations and so on 0hile human !otential islimited 6e have the creative ca!acit" to !laceourselves into causal relations 6ith effects6hich are effectivel" unlimited At the ver"least an" ade;uate account of moralres!onsibilit" must be !re!ared to accountsomeho6 for human moral res!onsibilit" foreffects 6hich sur!ass human !otential actions !articularl" 6hen those actions are ta/enintentionall" and 6ith fore/no6ledge of theconse;uencesLetUs no6 com!are these intuitions 6ith'ranasUs =%* and its logical conse;uencesAgain =%* states that Rif an agent has a reasonto then -ing is a !otential action of theagentR 6hich 6e have e!ressed formall" asRAll are %R 5f 6e un!ac/ the contra!ositiveof this statement into natural language similarto 'ranasUs 6e see that 'ranas is necessaril"also committed to the claim that

=%*-C R5f -ing is not a !otential action ofan agent then the agent does not have a reasonto R

2o6 does this stac/ u! 6ith our earlierdiscussionG5t seems that =%*-C !resumes some version of=$1 that is that there is some necessar"conce!tual alignment bet6een the sco!e of !otential action and the sco!e of human choice-ma/ing

r#n#ss *esonses to +gents ,e&oming

In#&it#te%

5n +** =1(F 'ranas addresses the scenario in6hich a man ma/es himself unable to fulfill amoral obligation to be in Boston at Fam to get

married b" boarding an air!lane else6here atP:#7am 3o maintain his claim that 5C holdstrue 'ranas claims that 6hile it is RnaturalR tosa" that the man is blame6orth" for failing to

sho6 u! strictl" s!ea/ing the man is not blame6orth" for violating his obligation tosho6 u! but rather for violating Rthe obligationto avoid doing an"thing that 6ould ma/e himfail to sho6 u!R 3his is a curiousl" convolutedand a# ho! e!lanation of the involvedobligations

5n a similar vein in +*+ =1P* 'ranas bitesthe bullet and acce!ts that 5C does entail that !eo!le can sometimes get rid of un6antedobligations 6ith the Rcom!ensator"Runderstanding that to ma/e it more !alatablethere are RresidualR obligations that=necessaril"G arise Such residual obligationsare such as to Rma/e u! forR the failure to meetthe earlier obligation but 6ithin the ne6l"-constrained ca!acities of the agent - beingobliged to a!ologi&e for having not sho6n u!for the 6edding

5n general 'ranasUs attem!t in +* to accountfor situations in 6hich an agent becomes unableto fulfill an obligation falls short ofcom!leteness as he ac/no6ledges:

B%#mitte#ly this #oes not establish that no

!ases e0ist in whi!h the obligation persistsafter the inability sets in( but it #oes shift the

bur#en of proof to those who woul# insist that

su!h !ases e0ist.B 36A7

5 am ha!!" to ta/e u! that burden 5n thefollo6ing section 5 describe a realistic case in6hich a moral obligation !ersists after theagentUs inabilit" sets in 5 argue therefore thatsince such a case does eist it is an effectivecounteream!le to 5C

The Drunen Pilot S&en#rio

11


12/21


Aero Hlight #11 also /no6n as the Kvevladisaster 6as a crash in 1F81 6hich resulted inthe deaths of *, !eo!le on board a domestic !assenger flight in Hinland =0i/i!edia

5nvestigation found that the air!lane had beenair6orth" but auto!sies revealed that theca!tain Lars 2attinen had a blood alcoholcontent of 7*7 6hile his co!ilot %aavo 2almehad a blood alcohol content of 71,8 5t isreasonable to ascribe the crash and deaths tothe !ilotUs and co-!ilotUs intoication

Let us imagine a similar case - 6ell 6ithin therealm of realistic !ossibilit"8 - 6hich allo6s usto shar!en the focus of certain relevant featuresto consider the moral im!lications of ourcurrent discussion

Catha" %acific Airlines schedules a 1,-hournonsto! flight bet6een San Hrancisco and 2ongKong 3he vast maorit" of the flight !ath isover the o!en 6aters of the %acific cean 3he !ilot and co!ilot begin the flight as full";ualified and com!etent moral agents ta/ingoff from San Hrancisco 6ith a full !assengermanifest

6 See, e.g. the case of David Hans Arntson,

charged with flying two Alaska Airlines

flights under the influence of alcohol in

2014

(http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la

-me-ln-pilot-charged-drunkenly-flying-

alaska-airlines-20160121-story.html); or the

as-yet unidentified American Airlines pilot

stopped on the tarmac from flying underthe influence of alcohol this year after

failing a Breathalyzer test

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n

ationworld/midwest/ct-american-airlines-

pilot-arrested-breathalyzer-20160327-

story.html).

At time 37 the beginning of the flight the !ilotand co!ilot both have a moral obligation to fl"the air!lane safel" and the" both have theabilit" to fulfill that obligation 2o6ever at

time 31 about 8 hours into the flight both the !ilot and the co!ilot decide to drin/ large;uantities of alcoholic beverages such that the"are both !h"siologicall" im!aired 3he bloodalcohol content of both individuals eceeds71, the CDC describes the !redictable effectsof this level of BAC as Rsubstantial im!airmentin vehicle control attention to driving tas/ andin necessar" visual and auditor" information !rocessingR=htt!:666cdcgovmotorvehiclesafet"im!air edWdrivingbachtml Let us sti!ulate that the !h"siological effects of the alcohol on both !ilot and co!ilot are the !redictable effects

B" time 3* about ( hours into the flight 6esti!ulate that the !ilot and co!ilot have both become !h"siologicall" unable to fulfill theobligation to fl" the air!lane safel" 3he !ilotremains conscious but dee!l" im!aired theco!ilot !asses out 0e further sti!ulate that noother individual on board the air!lane has an"greater abilit" to fl" the air!lane safel" 0e can bring this about in an" number of 6a"s: !erha!s the !assengers are all minors or !h"sicall" or mentall" disabled or !erha!s intheir drun/en state the !ilot and co!ilot haveloc/ed themselves in the coc/!it and bro/en theloc/ mechanism Heel free to fill in 6hateverdetails "ou li/e 3he !lane carries sufficientfuel to com!lete the flight under normalcircumstances ho6ever there is not sufficientfuel to allo6 the !ilot to sta" in the air until hecan sober u!

The .e! /uestion

At time 3* does the !ilot have a =currentmoral obligation to fl" the air!lane safel"G'ranas 6ould sa" no since e0 hypothesi he nolonger has the abilit" to do so 2e might sa"

12


13/21


that he has some RresidualR obligation insteadBut in this situation 6hat !ossible residualobligation is available to !erformG 3he abilit"to land the !lane safel" is the same abilit" as

that necessar" to fl" the !lane safel" and so the !ilot cannot Rfall bac/R to an obligation to !erform an emergenc" landing 0e havesti!ulated e0 hypothesi that no other availablemoral agent can fl" the !lane an" more safel"and so he cannot have the obligation to RhandoverR the controls to a more ca!able individual3o sim!l" ste! out of the coc/!it and leave the !lane on auto!ilot 6ill if an"thing be moreli/el" to cause harm and so this course ofaction cannot be a residual moral obligation Eunli/e a drun/ driver the !ilot cannot ust >sto!driving@ %erha!s 'ranas 6ould maintain thatthe onl" remaining moral obligation the !iloto6es to the !assengers is to offer a heartfelta!olog"

%erha!s follo6ing his strateg" in dealing 6iththe 6edding scenario 'ranas might claim that6hile it is RnaturalR to sa" that the !ilot is blame6orth" for failing to fl" safel" strictl"s!ea/ing he is not blame6orth" for violatinghis =!ast obligation to fl" safel" but rather forviolating Rthe obligation to a'oi# doingan"thing that 6ould ma/e him fail to fl"safel"R So !erha!s at 3* the !ilot is morall"cul!able for having failed to avoid ma/inghimself inca!able but is not cul!able for failingto fl" safel" 2o6 realistic is this 6or/aroundG

Let


14/21


Note to Readers

Thesis II: % Philosophi!al "e'iew is !ublished biannuall" asan o!en forum !romoting res!ectful !hiloso!hical echangesamong students facult" alumni and the !ublic Submissionsreflect a diversit" of disci!linar" !ers!ectives !hiloso!hicala!!roaches and to!ics 3hose ne6 to the disci!line arees!eciall" encouraged to !artici!ate

Address all corres!ondence to:

Dr David K Braden-Johnson Iditor

Thesis II: % Philosophi!al "e'iew

De!artment of %hiloso!h" 5DS and Modern Languages

Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

)orth Adams Massachusetts 71*+(

Imail: dohnsonXmclaedu

Associate Iditor: Dr Matthe6 Silliman

Imail: msillimanXmclaedu

A third source of strangeness is that a !ersistentand ongoing !rocess of huge moralconse;uence =life or death of individuals can be morall" driverless


15/21


o Sego#ts

Paul Nnodim

The sego#t roblem

5


16/21


!ermit gross ine;ualities if such acts !roducethe best conse;uences for the maorit" of the !eo!le Some of these detractors cite fictional6or/s such as rsula Le $uin3he nes

0ho 0al/ed A6a" from melas@ Idgar Allan%oe


17/21


6ere starving to death )o6 the cabin bo"ichard %ar/er 6ho 6as an or!han had fallenill 3he other cre6men cons!ired against !oorichard murdered him ate his flesh and dran/

his blood As the" cre6 6as antici!ating 6homnet to /ill for food a !assing boat found andrescued them !on their return to Ingland themen 6ent on trial for murder 36o of themserved minor sentences 6hile one even 6al/eda6a" free1* As Sandel notes the strongestargument for the defense 6as a utilitarian one:>? given the dire circumstances it 6asnecessar" to /ill one !erson in order to savethree 2ad no one been /illed and eaten all four 6ould li/el" have died %ar/er 6ea/ened andill 6as the logical candidate since he 6ouldsoon have died an"6a" ? he had node!endents 2is death de!rived no one ofsu!!ort and left no grieving 6ife or children@1#

"on&lusion

3he central idea of these stories is founded on acertain su!!osition 5f 6e 6ere offered a 6orldin 6hich the maorit" is /e!t enduringl" ha!!"on the condition that the" den" some innocentciti&ens their inalienable rights 6ould it not bean offensive conductG Critics of classicalutilitarianism dra6 on such etremesu!!ositions to chide the s"stem But 6ouldn


18/21


6ith reasoning and inference as 6hen %atric/2urle" defines logic as >the organi&ed bod" of/no6ledge or science that evaluatesarguments@ =* 5f an inference re!resents the

movement from !remises to conclusion then ita!!ears !ossible to !rovide a com!rehensivedefinition of argumentation 6ithout referenceto reasoning at all

5s it necessar" that an intelligence is also areasoning agentG A !oc/et calculator follo6s as"stem of logic arranges electrical signals tomodel a set of beliefs and ma/es inferences to !roduce the out!ut of its e;uations 6hat is tosto! an observer from sa"ing that the calculatoris !ro!erl" intelligent and on those grounds toconsider it for moral statusG

Logicians such as 3erence %arsons describe>reasoning structures@ =# s!aces 6ithin 6hichinferences occur 3his structure follo6s theevolution of inferences from one to the netli/e the !oints that form a geometric line Hor%arsons reasoning is the series of relationshi!s6hich inferences have to each other and at alltimes a reasoning agent is located at some !ointon the line of inference 3his is similar to$ilbert 2armanUs assertion that reasoning is>the !rocess of modif"ing antecedent beliefsand intentions@ =+ A !oc/et calculator thoughca!able of using inferences to !roduce out!utis not ca!able of cogni&ing its inferences onl"of re!eating them: * ` * + ` * 8 ` * P ?

An im!lication of %arsonsU criteria is that amore so!histicated calculator could occu!" theline of inference 3he distinction is bet6een acalculator 6hich onl" acce!ts in!ut and one6hich !ossesses a !roect 6hich recogni&es itsinferences as ste!s in a 6ider se;uence to6ardsthe achievement of a valuable end A com!uter6hich is ca!able of !rogramming itself =, andthereb" demonstrating its agenc" and !roectcloses the ga! bet6een itself and entities 6ithmoral status 5f there is no better reason to den"

com!uters normative value than that the" areinorganic then the ;uestion of !ersonhoodobtains to digital constructs %arsonsU and2armanUs definition of reasoning therefore has

a direct im!lication on the conditions ofsentience and o!ens the !ossibilit" of an ethics6hich must ta/e an artificial intelligenceseriousl"

)otes

Silliman Matthe6 Sentience and Sensibilit" Las'egas: %armenides *7782urle" %atric/ J A Concise 5ntroduction to LogicBelmont: 0ads6orth3homson Learning *778=# %arsons 3erence >0hat 5s an ArgumentG@ The

ournal of Philosophy 1FF8: F#+ 18+-1P,

=+ 2arman $ilbert >%ractical easoning@ The "e'iewof Metaphysi!s 1F(8: *F# +#1-+8#=, Dre"fus 2ubert L


19/21


danger and =iv the abilit" to easil" avoid harm3he arguer5f "outell the boss 5 missed 6or/ "esterda" 5 6ill losem" ob Hurthermore m" famil" 6ill gohungr"@ it 6ould ;ualif" as an a!!eal to !it"18 3his is another form of insufficient evidence because it involves a!!ealing to emotions5nstead of a!!ealing to fear it a!!eals to guilt1(

5f a# ba!ulum arguments are to be successfulthe" must a!!eal emotionall" to the audience b" delivering a threat Hor threats to beeffective the" must identif" 6ith !s"chologicaldiscomfort and an un6anted outcome againstthe interest of the audience 3he threat !resentsthe audience 6ith a choice to either engage ornot engage in the behavior the arguer 6antsthem to 3his decision to com!l" 6ith thearguera rational reaction to anobectivel" identified eternal danger that ma"induce a !erson to flee or attac/ in self-defense@1P Based on this definition 5 6ouldli/e to address the conce!t of danger 6ith thesame conce!ts in this definition for one fearsthe !ossibilit" of danger Danger necessaril"involves !erceived outcomes based on rational behavioral-reactions !roimit" to the audienceand the degree to 6hich one 6ould engage inself-defensive strategies to avoid it

3he !resence of danger !oses a threat to self-sustainment andor some !art to eistence oreistence as a 6hole Danger is the threato!erating on the threat and the" are de!endenton !erce!tion and emotional reactions %faureferences Aristotleemotions are !ermeated b" reason@ in his essa"1F 5f onee!eriences an event 6here danger is !roimalchances are that the" 6ould not 6ish toe!erience that same event again for 6hen onefaces the !ossibilit" of danger one !erceives itas a threat and e!eriences !s"chologicaldiscomfort 0hen tal/ing about danger and itsinfluence on the audience it is im!ortant to

18 “American Psychological Association –

Glossary of Psychological Terms.” APA.

APA, 2002. Web. 27 March 2016:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary

19 Pfau, M. W. “Who’s Afraid of Fear

Appeals? Contingency, Courage, and

Deliberation in Rhetorical Theory and

Practice.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40.2

(2007): 216-237.19


20/21


identif" 6hat 5 am tal/ing about 5 refer to thisobect 6hich !resents danger as the fear-obectHear-obects introduce danger to the audience3hese fear-obect are an"thing =events !ersons

etc 6hich the audience !erceives to bedangerous 0hen the audience is confronted6ith danger one tailors their behaviors in orderto avoid !resu!!osed conse;uences 6hich thedanger underscores

2arm is the !ermanent loss of some as!ect ofone


21/21


5nvite the strangers in%rovide some 6armth to !assers b"And sustenance to rooted trees

0hat 6armth could come from definitionsG0hat strength 6hen social roots are shearedB" concrete slabs0hen flags eclude and !ush a6a"G

3he 5ndian Summer sunBee6els our social roots0ith colored 6armth and s"nergistic life

5t covers o

Nk b Version

Documents

Transcript of Nk b Version