Philosophy in Practice by Adam Morton

Second Edition - Adam Morton

Adam Morton's Course - Sample Tests

Test 1 - Feb 3

You should check your wrong answers against these. If you still think your answer is right after reading my explanation of what I counted as the correct answer then think out your defense of your answer and come to see me. You might persuade me!

1) All people with conventional beliefs believe the same things.
False. One reason is in question 2: people in different places and times take different things to be obvious. Another is that even in one society two people can each accept most of the same authorities for their beliefs and yet disagree on some important things. For example they might agree with each other and with most people around them about politics and health and child raising but disagree about religion.

2) A conventional belief in one society can be an unconventional belief in another society.
True. No one had problems with this.

3) Authorities for belief are never wrong.
False. Different religious authorities, for example, say different things, and they can't all be right.

4) Perception is an authority for many beliefs.
True. Though many of our beliefs do not come from perception, many do.

5) When two people disagree they can always resolve their disagreement.
False. There is room for discussion here, though. Some philosophers have thought that there is a way of resolving all disagreements by finding an infallible source of beliefs. But they haven't found it yet!

6) When two people disagree they have a better chance of resolving their disagreement if they can find an authority for beliefs that they both accept.
True. No one had problems with this.

7) A danger of skepticism is that it may make it harder to believe something that is useful for your life.
True. In principle a philosophical skeptic can doubt the reasons for beliefs while holding onto the beliefs, but this takes effort, and so there is a danger of disbelieving useful things, even if we can guard against the danger.

8) An advantage of skepticism is that it gives some protection against believing something.
False just because others believe it. True. No one had problems with this.

9) Philosophical doubt means disbelieving even the most widely held beliefs.
False. Philosophical doubt means questioning the reasons for beliefs, and this need not mean disbelieving them.

10) Philosophical doubt means questioning the reasons for holding beliefs.
True. No one had problems with this.

11) One can be sure that something is the right action in some situation, without being sure why it is the right action.
True. Think of the examples we discussed on Jan 22. Even if you think you know why the right actions are right in these cases, surely you are more confident of what is right than of why it is right.

12) If you don't know why an action is right you shouldn't do it.
False. If this were true then whenever we ask a basic question in ethics we will be paralyzed, unable to do the right thing.

13) If you have faith you don't need logic.
False, for the reason in 14): faith gives you general principles, and you need to do some reasoning to get them to connect with real cases. If your reasoning is crazy, then faith won't do you much good. (This needn't be a point against religious faith. Perhaps God gave us the capacity for logic so that we could make use of faith.)

14) If you have faith in a source of beliefs you need logical inference to apply that source to particular situations.
True, because faith usually tells you general things, like "don't kill" or "antibiotics are useless against viruses", and you need to know what to do in a particular case.

15) A moral skeptic is always cynical about moral matters.
False. See 1.13 of P in P. A moral skeptic can have sincere moral convictions while doubting that she can produce good reasons for those convictions.

16) A philosophical skeptic is sure that other people have false beliefs.
False. A philosophical skeptic is sure that people don't have good reasons for their beliefs. (Like everyone else, a philosophical skeptic is likely to have disagreements with others, and so to think that the others have false beliefs. But this isn't because she's a skeptic.)

17) All beliefs are equally true.
False. Consider beliefs that contradict one another: if I believe that there is life on Mars and you believe that there is no life on Mars, then both our beliefs cannot be true.
(two questions deleted here - they were on the test by mistake.)

In each the following three arguments underline the conclusion, whether or not you think the argument really supports it. (2 points for each right answer.)

This was the hardest part of the test for some people. You have to ask yourself "what is this trying to persuade me of?". Or alternatively "if I asked to be taken through this step by step, where would we start and where would we end up?"

20) Professional athletes are overpaid. For everyone ought to be paid in proportion to the amount of training they have devoted to their profession, and the amount of effort they put into it. But pro athletes have less training than many other professions, and they don't work harder than the rest of us.
The conclusion is what the argument is trying to persuade you of. Here we asked to accept that payment ought to be proportional to training and effort, and then it is claimed that athletes don't have a lot of payment and training. Then, if we accept that, we are pushed towards accepting that athletes are overpaid.

21) You might think that the hot summers we have had lately are conclusive proof that the world’s climate is getting warmer. But this may not in fact be the case: the climate may not be changing at all. For a sequence of hot summers can be the result of chance, like throwing a die and its coming down six four times in a row.
The first sentence sets up the issue. The last sentence gives a reason for the second. So the second is the conclusion.

22) A worthwhile course should either teach you something useful or allow you to understand something interesting. Philosophy makes you doubt most of the useful things you thought you knew, and the resulting confusion makes it harder to understand anything. So philosophy courses are a waste of time. Philosophy is not the only subject that we should abolish.
We can do this one by elimination. No reason is given for the first sentence. Nor for the second, but it gives a reason for the third (as the 'so' indicates.) The last sentence is just added on as an extra claim, and not supported.

Beside each of the following four arguments mark either V for valid or I for invalid (not valid). (2 points for each right answer)

23) All cats eat mice
All mice can fly
Therefore all cats can fly
Invalid. If it looks valid it is because it looks like "all cats eat mice; all mice are mammals; therefore all cats eat mammals." But it is really very different. Imagine a world in which all cats eat mice and all mice can fly: to get that world from ours we only have to add wings to mice. Does that force us to add wings to cats also?

24) All cats eat mice
All mice can fly
Therefore all cats eat flying things
Valid. I am assuming that "all cats eat flying things" means "all cats eat flying things that can fly, among other things". SO we could re-word it as "All cats eat mice; all mice are flying things; so all cats eat flying things."

26) Some cats eat mice
Therefore some mice are eaten by cats
Valid. If the premise is true then there is some cat that eats some mouse. So that mouse is eaten by some cat. So some mice are eaten by cats.

27) All cats are either black or white
This animal is orange
Therefore this animal is not a cat
Valid. If this animal is orange then it isn't black and it isn't white, so it can't be a cat, assuming the first premise is true.

28) All cats are either black or white
This animal is black
Therefore this animal is a cat
Invalid. Suppose that there are only two cats in the world, one black and one white, plus a black dog. Suppose this animal is a dog.

Test 2 - Feb 19

For each question circle the best answer.

For each question there was one "obviously" wrong answer and one sort of ok answer and one best answer. A problem grading the test was that some people consistently chose the sort of ok answer, and it felt wrong to give them no marks because they were clearly on the right track. The marking scheme took this into account, and also had a special provision for questions 1 and 3, where the sort of ok answer got a half mark. The most common grade was a B+, with many B's and A-s.
Again, if on reading the explanation you disagree, think about it and then try to convince me. I'll listen.

1) Proofs are more powerful than other arguments because
- you can challenge the premises of other arguments but a proof has premises that are not easily doubted best answer
- proofs are mathematical and mathematics is never wrong But bad mathematics can be wrong
- arguments can be valid or invalid but proofs are always valid Well, people sometimes do use "proof" so that only valid proofs are proofs. But one also speaks of fallacious proofs.

2) A good argument for the existence of God.
- must convince all atheists that they are wrong Of course not. Suppose God exists and we have a sound proof of his existence. Some atheist might still be so illogical she couldn't understand the proof.
- ought to start with premises that have some plausibility and conclude that a being exists that has many of the qualities believers ascribe to God best answer
- ought to start with premises that have some plausibility and conclude that the universe had a cause But this would count the big bang as God, or count a proof that an evil spirit caused the universe as a proof of God

3) There are many philosophers who are not convinced by the first mover argument for the existence of God because
- their minds have been blinded by sin This may be true, but the unmoved philosophers have other reasons too
- it raises hard questions about time and infinity, and it is not obvious what the answers to these questions are best answer
- time could be finite in extent although there are infinitely many moments in time I mentioned this one in class, but I'm sure that many more philosophers have doubts about the argument for various other reasons connected with time and infinity

4) The argument from design assumes
- that the universe is the result of divine providence No, that is what it is trying to show, not what it assumes
- that the universe shows a specific kind of complexity best answer
- that the universe has a designer Again, that is something is trying to show, not what it assumes

5) Your situation may be like that of a person described by an extreme skeptical scenario or fantasy because
- you may really be ten years old No
- you cannot prove that there is not an evil demon messing around with your thinking Well, that is one special skeptical scenario, but when you think "I might be the victim of such a situation" you are thinking of more possible delusions than this
- you may have very basic false beliefs which no evidence is going to refute best answer

6) Descartes’ main aim in the Meditations is
- to prove that he exists Proving his existence is a step along the way, not his main aim
- to set his beliefs on a firm foundation best answer
- to prove moral rationalism Not to prove moral rationalism

7) Descartes’ uses his argument “I think, therefore I am”
- to dispel his fear that he might not exist he didn't have this fear, except inasmuch as some deception might make his beliefs false
- to prove the existence of God No. After proving his existence he needs to prove that God exists, but his existence isn't the main part of his argument for God
to find a belief that is not undermined by the possibility of a deceiving spirit best answer

8) Descartes thinks that all his beliefs will be true
- as long as he never accepts anything without adequate reasons best answer
- as long as he rejects everything that is part of normal unscientific thinking But he might find some good reason for something that happened to part of unscientific thinking (like the existence of God, or of the moon for that matter, or the belief that butterflies have wings
- as long as he trusts in God But if he trusts in God and then reasons badly he will get false beliefs. God won't help him that much

9) Moral rationalism is often based on a principle of impartiality.
- because it is fair the principle isn't fair, though actions based on it may be
- because it looks like a true principle that we can know by use of reason best answer
- because Jesus, Confucius, and several modern philosophers have all defended the principle but they might be wrong!

10) Plato thinks that he can prove what an ideal society would be like
- by making mathematical calculations he thinks he can make proofs, but they would be philosophical not mathematical
- by describing an ideal person the ideal society tells Plato what the ideal person would be like, rather than the other way round
- by imagining societies and then thinking hard about their good and bad qualities best answer

11) A basic difference between moral relativism and moral rationalism is
- that m rationalists think there can be an ideal state and m relativists think that all states are equally good m relativism can think that in some society there can be a state which doesn't meet the moral standards of that society
- that m relativists think and m rationalists deny that you can change your ideas about right and wrong m rationalists think you can prove what is right, and so when you follow the proof your ideas change
- that m rationalists think and m relativists deny that some moral principles can be known to be true for all times and places best answer

12) It is an argument against moral relativism that
- what is legal in one country is illegal in another if anything this would be an argument for m relativism
- we can judge whether the principles people in a culture live by are fair or unfair best answer
- we should tolerate other cultures if anything this would be an argument for m relativism

Test 3 - March 11

This was a hard test to mark in that if I gave all questions equal weight then many people would have done badly. In fact, some of the qeustions were very tricky. So I marked the test out of 13 , in effect counting questions 3, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20 as 'extra' questions that could raise someone's mark but not lower it. Then the result was that many people did very well.

Mark each of the statements below as True or False

1) Naïve utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of pleasure or the least amount of pain to all people. True

2) Naïve utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of pleasure or the least amount of pain to the person doing the action. False: it's not just the person doing the action, but everyone, equally, that matters for utilitarianism

3) Kantian ethics says that we should look at the consequences of an action and see if everyone could accept those consequences. False: what matters is not whether everyone could accept them but whether everyone could act on them without undermining their purposes.

4) Utilitarianism sometimes recommends an action that is contrary to commonsense morality. True

5) Kantian ethics sometimes recommends an action that seems absurd. True: for example refusing to lie to save someone's life.

6) Utilitarianism says that there are ways you must never act. False: it is Kantian ethics that says that. Utilitarianism says that any rule might be broken if the consequences of following it were bad enough.

7) The categorical imperative amounts to saying that in each situation you should find a rule that everyone could stick to all the time, and follow it whatever the consequences. True

8) The categorical imperative amounts to saying that in each situation you should find a rule that you could stick to all the time. False: what matters is whether everyone could stick to it.

9) An extreme Kantian will refrain from killing even to prevent herself killing more people later because killing is something you should never inflict on anyone. False: she will refrain, but not for this reason.

10) An extreme Kantian will refrain from killing even to prevent herself killing more people later because 'do not kill' is a rule one should never break. True

11) Empiricism claims that we can tell by perception what is true. False: often you have to start with perception and then do some reasoning. ("Tell by" is somewhat ambiguous, a reason I didn't count answers on this question against anyone.)

12) Empiricism claims that the ultimate evidence for all our beliefs is how things seem to us. True: the most basic perceptual evidence is reports like "it looks like ..."

13) Empiricism is supported by the fact that a belief can be more certain than any single item of evidence it is based on. False: empiricism is undermined by this fact, since it shows that our most certain beliefs may not be our beliefs about our perceptions

14) If a hypothesis is false the evidence cannot support it. False: think of the fair coin that comes down heads seven times in a row. Those seven heads support the false hypothesis 'the coin is biased'.

15) If you think a coin is fair then no amount of evidence can persuade you otherwise. False: if you are completely convinced the coin is fair, then evidence will not change your view, but you can think it is fair while allowing that it might be biased, and then a long enough row of heads or tails will change your opinion.

16) If some evidence is likely, assuming a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is supported by that evidence. True

17) Materialism about mind and body is the view that everything in the mind is caused by something in the brain. False: everything in the mind could be caused by something in the brain even if there were an immaterial soul connected to the brain but getting input from it

18) Dualism about mind and body is the view that there is a soul. False: if there is a soul then dualism is true, but dualism can be true without there being a soul

19) Epiphenomenalism is the view that the body causes changes in the mind but the mind does not cause changes in the body. True

20) Epiphenomenalism is the view that the mind causes changes in the body but the body does not cause changes in the mind. False: look back at the notes from the class. (Just about everyone got these last two wrong.)