September 12, 2001 The Problem of Evil Last time we considered the ontological argument for the existence of God. If the argument is cogent, then we have reason to be rational theists, i.e., to maintain that there are justifying reasons for belief in God's existence. Today we're going to consider an argument for atheism which purports to show that theism is incoherent, i.e., that theism entails a contradiction. If the argument works, then the only option available to the theist would be irrational theism: belief in God's existence in spite of justifying reasons supporting

第六节语音的发展变化 一、语流音变 语流中的一个音,由于受到前后音或者说话快慢、高低、强弱等因素的影响而在发音上产生某种变化,这种变化就叫语流音变。 (一)同化 语流中两个邻近的不同的音,其中一个受到另一个影响而变得跟它相同或相近,叫同化

Prof. Sally Haslanger December 2, 2001 Kantian Ethics (and more on famine) So far we've looked at egoist and utilitarian approaches to ethics. The main objection we considered to egoism was that it failed to accommodate the common sense idea that morality involves a kind of impartiality, at the very least it seems that

Particularism and virtue ethics I. Universalism and Particularism We've considered before some basic questions that we would expect a moral theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought\as a moral

Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Phonology Chapter 3 Morphology Chapter 4 Syntax Chapter 5 Semantics Chapter 6 Pragmatics Chapter 7 Language Change Chapter 8 Language and society Chapter 9 Language and culture Chapter 10 Language acquisition Chapter 11 Second Language Acquisition

December 10. 2001 (Meta-Ethical Subjectivism(or Non-cognitivism) For the past couple of weeks we have been focusing on the following questions i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform? ii)What makes an action right or wrong? What about the action determines its moral status? Our third question has received less attention

November 21, 2001 Ethical Egoism Here are three questions (of course there are others)we might want an ethical theory to answer for us: i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understandir the\ought\ as moral \ought\)? ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? ii)How do we know what is right and wrong? Remember that according to relativism, whether an action is right or wrong

November 29, 2001 Duty and Famine: Singer Last time we considered Mill's version of Utilitarianism, called Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism characterized by what he calls \the greatest-happiness principle\: You ought always to act so as to maximize happiness, i.e., the right act is the act that results in the greatest amount of happiness overall. The \greatest-happiness principle\, however, just states one version of Utilitarianism. Other versions of

Utilitarianism Last time we considered three questions one might ask an ethical theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought as a moral ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? 111) How do we know what is right and wrong? There are a variety of strategies for answering(iii). One might hold e. g. that moral truths are revealed by god and

Moral Luck One of the important themes in the freewill debate is the idea that freedom is necessary for moral responsibility. In effect, if hard determinism is the correct view, then we should not hold ourselves or others morally responsible. Libertarians, in particular, seem to hold that in order to be responsible for an act, we must be its \sole author. Here is the principle at issue: Control Principle: You are only responsible for what you have control over. If you steal an axe from my garage and use it to break into a gas station, there's no point in holding me responsible, I didn't