110 F 23 argument assignment 1
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Michigan *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
110
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by AgentWorldRam46
Samantha Fox Philosophy 110: Argument Assignment #1 1.
You’re wondering whether you might have fallen prey to motivated reasoning. You do a bit of reflection on your reasons for belief and it feels like you’re being fair and unbiased. Why should you expect that this is how that check would feel, no matter if your reasoning is motivated? a.
Reference the following concepts (covered in the readings from Manley’s Reason Better
) in your explanation: •
the nature of System 1 processing •
bias blindspot The reflection feels like this because of both the nature of system 1 processing and the bias blind spot. System 1 processes are not transparent and are automatic, almost all of the time we aren’t aware that our system 1 is making the decisions that it is. System 1 is also subject to some systematic biases, which also could influence why it feels like you’re fair and unbiased. The bias blind spot is the tendency to see yourself as less biased than others and to easily identify biases in peers but not in yourself. The bias blind spot explains why you think that your reasoning is unbiased because system 1 is the system that acts according to biases, and this is not transparent. In other words, since system 1 is subject to more bias and its processes are not conscious, you won’t think that you are acting biased, because as far as you can think of, you aren’t. b.
Biased opponent effect comes about in part due to introspection illusion. Explain how introspection illusion leads not only to biased opponent effect, but often also to uncharitable assumptions about our opponent’s motivations. Introspection illusion is a cognitive bias that occurs when people believe they have access to the true motives and thought processes behind their own actions and behaviors, but they attribute external or situational factors to others' actions. This can lead to biased opponent effect when we perceive our own views, beliefs, and arguments as more reasonable and well-
informed than those of our opponents. Our system 1 processing causes us to largely overestimate how much we understand our beliefs in comparison to how much our opponent understands their beliefs. When we are inappropriately overconfident in ourselves, we can begin to perceive our own arguments as superior and make our opponent’s thoughts look flawed in comparison. Introspection illusion can lead to uncharitable assumptions about our opponent's motivations because when people disagree with one another, they tend to assume that their own motivations are totally rational because they believe they have a deep understanding of their own inner workings (this is how the bias blind spot works). Fundamental attribution error can also apply to why we make uncharitable assumptions about others’ motivations; this phenomenon explains why we unconsciously associate negative things to bad character in others but not in ourselves when we do the same exact thing. Together, these biases can unconsciously shape our judgments and interactions with opponents, resulting in both the biased opponent effect and uncharitable assumptions about our opponents.
c.
Ravi grew up in a household of committed vegans and finds the smell of meat revolting. Laura grew up in a family of enthusiastic gun supporters. First, explain the relationship between motivated reasoning and Suspicious Unexpected Sets. Next, give examples of two potential additional beliefs (views, stances, positions, etc.) of Ravi’s and Laura’s that might appear to be SUS! When many of our beliefs align and fit together really well, they are SUS. These sets of beliefs are actually shaped by motivated reasoning and not just curiosity. We can hold a certain belief, and once we make it clear to ourselves that this is our position, we become motivated to find other supporting information. The additional supporting considerations we find are the beliefs that contribute to Suspicious Unexpected Sets. Ravi’s additional beliefs 1. Ravi holds an extreme position on environmental conservation, and he believes that all non-
vegan products should be boycotted. 2. Ravi believes in the ethical treatment of all living creatures and is a member of various animal-rights organizations. Laura’s additional beliefs 1. Laura believes in minimal taxation and government regulation 2. Laura believes that high school teachers should have guns in their classrooms. 2.
Good arguments have two components: a strong logical structure and premises that are actually true. Consider the following argument. As it stands, it does not have a strong logical structure – even if we assume the premises are true, it doesn’t give us good reason to believe the conclusion: P1. Heroin is a drug. P2. Selling and using heroin is illegal. C. So heroin use is immoral. a.
What premise could you add to make the argument deductively valid(when we assume the premises are true, it guarantees the truth of the conclusion)? Reconstruct the argument with this additional premise. P1. Heroin is a drug. P2. Selling and using heroin is illegal. P3. Breaking the law is morally wrong. C. So heroin use is immoral. b.
Now evaluate the argument, taking into account both elements of good arguments. What can you notice about how each element trades off against the other?
The two elements of a good argument are that is has good logical structure and has true premises. When applying these two criteria to this specific argument, I see that the logical structure has improved much with the addition of the third premise. This premise serves as a bridge between the first two premises and the conclusion, strengthening the logical structure. This argument is now deductively valid, meaning that the truth of the premises guarantees that the conclusion is true. The second element of a good argument is that the premises are true. In the revised argument, the first premise is true, as heroin is in fact classified as a drug. The premise “selling and using heroin is illegal” is also generally true, as heroin is illegal in most countries around the world. The third premise, “breaking the law is morally wrong” is a claim whose truth depends on the ethical perspectives of the interpreter; therefore, it is up for debate whether or not this premise is actually a fact. The addition of the third premise is where the tradeoff between these two elements presents itself. This premise significantly strengthens the logical structure of the argument, it links the previous two premises to the conclusion. However, the truth of this premise is up for debate, it cannot be said that this premise is a concrete fact. This is because differing ethical perspectives will influence whether one takes this premise to be true or false. 3.
Psychological egoism is the claim that, as a descriptive matter of fact, each person exclusively pursues their own self-interest. In his chapter on Psychological Egoism, Rachels considers two kinds of arguments for the view. The first argument is based on the thought that i. “people always do what they want to do”. The second is based on the thought that ii. “people always do what makes them feel good”. For this question, I want you to a.
Represent the arguments in i. and ii. (You can do this by putting them into standard argument form with premises and a conclusion, or just by listing the reasons and conclusion with bullet-points. Just make sure you include the reasons and the conclusion and arrange them so that it shows how the reasons are supposed to generate support for the conclusion. Hint: remember that these are arguments for the conclusion that psychological egoism is true
!) Argument i: 1: People always do what they want to do 2: Wanting to pursue their own self-interest is innate in human nature Conclusion: Therefore, people exclusively pursue their own self-interest, which supports the theory of psychological egoism. Argument ii: 1: people always do what makes them feel good 2: Pursuing their own self-interest typically makes people feel good
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Conclusion: Therefore, people pursue their own self-interest, supporting psychological egoism. b.
Explain the two objections Rachels gives to argument i. Include in your answer the distinction he makes between whether
an action is based on a desire and the particular
content
of the desire that action is based on. One objection that Rachels gives to the argument is that “there are things that we do, not because we want to, but because we feel that we ought to”. What he means by this is that the things we do aren’t always because we want to do them, sometimes we feel pressured to keep our promises and please others. The second objection is “the mere fact that you act on your own desires does not mean that you are looking out for yourself; it all depends on what
you desire”. He explains this objection by talking about altruistic behavior, saying that if somebody wants to help others, even if doing so harms themselves, they are acting altruistically. He claims that if you only care about yourself, you are acting out of self-interest, but if you want others to be happy then you are not acting selfishly. He then makes a distinction between whether an action is based on a desire and the particular content of the desire by mentioning that the true issue lies on what kind of desire is acted on. If your true desire is to help somebody else, then your motive is altruistic, not self-interest. c.
Explain Rachels’ objection to argument ii. Include in your answer a description of what Rachels identifies as the “general lesson” having to do with the importance of distinguishing the object of desire
from the by-products of action
. Rachels’ objection to the argument that “people always do what makes them feel good” is that sometimes in regard to our actions, we may not have self-interested motives when engaging in altruistic behavior. He gave the example of if he were to see a child drowning, he would have more of a desire to help the child than to make himself not feel guilty. The general lesson that he says is to be learned here relates to the nature of desire. He says that we all want certain things, and having these things will give us satisfaction (a by-product of action), but what we desire is often not the satisfaction (by-products of action) that comes along with obtaining the object of desire. d.
Psychological Egoism is often claimed to be “unfalsifiable”. Why is this and why might it seem problematic for an empirical theory to be unfalsifiable? Make sure to reference the Psychological Egoist’s strategy of reinterpreting motives
in your answer. Psychological egoism is often criticized for being "unfalsifiable," which means that it is challenging to test or prove false through empirical evidence. If an empirical theory is unfalsifiable, it can’t be up for debate and can’t be interpreted differently by people. The problems with psychological egoism are further exposed when Rachels mentions the strategy of reinterpreting motives. He explains that sometimes at first we think people are doing something altruistically, however upon further investigation, we come to think that they have more self-entered motives.
4.
Ethical egoism is the view that each person ought
to exclusively pursue their own self-
interests. You’re in a debate with Bob, a self-professed ethical egoist. He claims that it’s wrong to donate money to the Malaria Consortium, an organization which administers monthly doses of antimalarial drugs to children. He says that stepping into someone else’s country and administering aid for them is arrogant and degrading: people know what’s best for themselves and it’s likelier to be an unhelpful intrusion that does more harm than good. Give two objections to Bob’s argument: a.
For the first, respond to the content of Bob’s worry. Do you think he’s right to see a Malaria Consortium donation as arrogant or degrading? While it is important to respect individual autonomy, calling donations arrogant or degrading ignores the fact that the Malaria Consortium donation recipients may lack the resources to make proper choices about their health. These donations can greatly improve their wellbeing, so I don’t think that it is right for Bob to see the donation as arrogant or degrading. b.
For the second, explain to Bob why he doesn’t actually seem to be an ethical egoist at all! Ethical egoism insinuates that individuals ought to exclusively pursue their self-interests, yet Bob’s objection and disapproval to helping others in need contradicts this principle. True ethical egoists wouldn't oppose actions that benefit others if they align with that person’s self-interest, so if the people who donate feel satisfaction from doing so and are intrinsically motivated to donate, they are following ethical egoism. Bob’s disapproval of this demonstrates how he is not a true ethical egoist.