Introduction to

Philosophy
PHI1302
MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY
 The word philosophy is derived from the Greek words philia
(love) and sophia (wisdom) and means “the love of wisdom.”
 Pythagoras was said to have been the first man to call himself
a philosopher; in fact, the world is indebted to him for the
word philosopher.
 Before that time the wise men had called themselves sages,
which was interpreted to mean those who know.
 Pythagoras was more modest. He coined the word
philosopher, which he defined as one who is attempting to find
out. According to him, men and women of the world could be
classified into 3 groups:
 1. those that love pleasure
 2. those that love activity and
 3. those that love wisdom.
Philosophy is the root of all knowledge. It is
considered as mother of all sciences.
 As already mentioned philosophy is the love of
wisdom. Man is a rational animal.
 Desire for knowledge arises from this rational
nature of man.
Philosophy is an attempt to satisfy this very
reasonable desire.
 Philosophy signifies a natural and necessary urge
in human-beings to know themselves and world in
which they live, move and have their being
 The basic problems of philosophy have been same.
 A general characteristic of these problems is that they are
concerned with general and universal questions and not
with the questions of particular nature.
 In this sense the philosophical problems are different from
scientific problems which have their origin in particular
questions.
 Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various
sciences and human experience into some kind of consistent
world view. Philosophers wish to see life, not with the
specialized slant of the scientist or the businessperson or
the artist, but with the overall view of someone cognizant of
life as a totality

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental
problems, such as those connected with
existence,
knowledge,
values,
reason,
mind, and
language.
Philosophy is the rational attempt to formulate,
understand, and answer fundamental questions.
NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY
A genuine philosophical attitude is searching and
critical; it is open-minded and tolerant—willing to
look at all sides of an issue without prejudice.
To philosophize is not merely to read and know
philosophy; there are skills of argumentation to
be mastered, techniques of analysis to be
employed, and a body of material to be
appropriated such that we become able to think
philosophically.
Philosophers are reflective/thoughtful and
critical.
IMPORTANCE OF PHILOSOPHY
 The study of Philosophy enables us to think carefully and clearly
about important issues.
 In studying Philosophy, we learn to take a step back from our
everyday thinking and to explore the deeper, bigger question which
underpins our thought.
 The focus in the study of Philosophy is to learn not what to believe, but
how to think.
 Studying philosophy sharpens your analytical abilities, enabling you
to identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in any position.
 It hones your ability to construct and articulate cogent arguments
of your own.
 It prompts you to work across disciplinary boundaries and to think
flexibly and creatively about problems which do not present
immediate solutions.
 Because philosophy is an activity as much a body of knowledge, it also
develops your ability to think and work independently
BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
Historically, philosophical concerns have
been treated under these broad categories:
1. Logic
2. Metaphysics
3. Epistemology
4. Ethics/Moral Philosophy
5. Aesthetics
Logic

Logic is the systematic study of the rules for the

correct use of these supporting reasons, rules we
can use to distinguish good arguments from bad
ones.
Most of the great philosophers from Aristotle to
the present have been convinced that logic
permeates/spread all other branches of philosophy.
The ability to test arguments for logical
consistency, understand the logical consequences
of certain assumptions, and distinguish the kind of
evidence a philosopher is using are essential for
“doing” philosophy
METAPHYSICS
 Another traditional branch of Philosophy traditionally known as
metaphysics.
 For Aristotle, the term metaphysics meant “first philosophy,” discussion of
the most universal principles; later the term came to mean
“comprehensive thinking about the nature of things.”
 It means, usually, the study or theory of reality.
 The question of metaphysics is:
 what is reality?
 What is real?
 Can ultimate reality be grasped by five senses, or is it supernatural or
transcendent?
 Metaphysics undoubtedly is the branch of philosophy that the modern
student finds most difficult to grasp.
 Metaphysics attempts to offer a comprehensive view of all that exists.
 It is concerned with such problems as the relation of mind to matter, the
nature of change, the meaning of “freedom,” the existence of God, and the
belief in personal immortality
EPISTEMOLOGY
 The technical term for the theory of knowledge is epistemology,
which comes from the Greek word episteme, meaning
“knowledge.”
 In general, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies
the sources, nature, and validity of knowledge.
 There are three central questions in this field:
 (1) What are the sources of knowledge? Where does genuine
knowledge come from or how do we know? This is the question
of origins.
 (2) What is the nature of knowledge? Is there a real world
outside the mind, and if so can we know it? This is the question
of appearance versus reality.
 (3) Is our knowledge valid?
 How do we distinguish truth from error? This is the
question of the tests of truth, of verification.
EPISTEMOLOGY
 Traditionally, most of those who have offered answers to these
questions can be placed in one of two schools of thought—
rationalism or empiricism.
 The rationalists hold that human reason alone can discover
the basic principles of the universe.
 The empiricists claim that all knowledge is ultimately derived
from sense experience and, thus, that our knowledge is limited
to what can be experienced.
 It should be clear that there is a necessary relation between
metaphysics and epistemology.
 Our conception of reality depends on our understanding of
what can be known.
 Conversely, our theory of knowledge depends on our
understanding of ourselves in relation to the whole of reality
AESTHETICS
Concerns the theory of art and beauty.
Questions of art and beauty are considered to be part of
the realm of values because many philosophical problems
in aesthetics involve critical judgments.
There are wide differences of opinion as to what objects
call forth the aesthetic response, and what beauty really is.
Our concepts of beauty may differ not because of the
nature of beauty itself, but because of varying degrees of
preparation in discerning beauty.
Therefore, if we cannot perceive beauty in objects that
others find beautiful, it may be wise to withhold judgment
until we are capable ourselves of making a competent
analysis of the aesthetic experience.
Ethics/Moral Philosophy
In its general and simple usage, ethics refers
to a code or set of principles by which people
live.
It may refer to a code or set of principles
which regulate or guide the conduct of people
or a certain group of people.
Philosophically, ethics is the theoretical study
of how men ought to behave, or how they
ought to conduct themselves.
 Ethics also deals with the question of how
we out to live or “what is good life for men?”
• For Louis Pojman, ethics/moral philosophy
seeks to establish principles of right behavior
that may serve as action guides for
individuals and groups.
• It investigates which values and virtues are
paramount to a worth-while life or society.
• Moral precepts or rules concern norms;
roughly speaking, they concern not what is,
but what ought to be.
Ethics is grounded in reason and human experience
and not revelation or religion.
 Although morality can provide the basis for laws, it
is not equivalent to it. For example, ethics may judge
that some laws are immoral without denying that
they are valid laws.
 For example, laws may permit slavery, spousal
abuse, racial discrimination, or sexual
discrimination, but these are immoral practices.
In addition, some aspects of morality are not covered
by the law. Eg we deem lying to be immoral although
there is no general law against lying.
 Ethics is prescriptive which means it is action guiding. It is a
form of social control.
 Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three
general subject areas: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and
applied ethics.
 Meta-ethics investigates where our ethical principles come
from, and what they mean.
 Questions in meta-ethics include, “ What does it mean to say
that something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and whether such claims
correspond to facts about the world, and how we know or
manage to talk or think about such facts, if there are any.
 Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
expressions of our individual emotions? Examples, why is
killing wrong?, why should I be truthful?
Normative ethics is concerned with developing
theories that determine which human actions are
right and wrong.
Normative ethics takes on a more practical task,
which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate
right and wrong conduct.
This may involve articulating the good habits that
we should acquire, the duties that we should
follow, or the consequences of our behavior on
others.
 Examples include Duty ethics, consequentialist
ethics, virtue ethics, etc
Finally, applied/practical ethics
involvesethically examining specific
controversial issues in specific disciplines
such as medicine, business, media, and so on.
Discussed include issues such as abortion,
infanticide, animal rights,
environmental concerns, whistle blowing, HIV
at the workplace, bribery etc.
Ethical Relativism and ethical objectivism
Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no
absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally
right or wrong varies from person to person
(subjectivism) or from society to society (cultural
relativism).
Ethical subjectivism/personal/individual relativism is
the view that moral judgments are about the feelings
of the person making the judgment
 what I mean when I say that an action is right or
that a man is good is that the thought of that man or
action evokes in me, personally, at this moment, a
feeling of approval.
I have my ethical views, and you have yours; neither
my views nor yours are better or more correct.
I may believe that a particular war was unjust, and
you may believe it was just.
 Someone else may believe that all war is wrong.
According to this form of relativism, because no
objective right or wrong exists, no particular war can
be said to be really just or unjust, right or wrong, nor
can all wars.
 We each have our individual histories that explain
how we have come to hold our particular views or
attitudes.
`
 Cultural Relativism is the claim that ethical practices differ
among cultures, and what is considered right in one culture
may be considered wrong in another.
 The implication of cultural relativism is that no one society is
superior to another; they are merely different.
 It holds that ethical values vary from society to society and
that the basis for moral judgments lies in these social or
cultural views.
 For an individual to decide and do what is right, he or she
must look to the norms of the society.
 People in a society may, in fact, believe that their views are the
correct moral views.
 However, a cultural relativist holds that no society’s views are
better than any other in a transcultural sense.
In ethical objectivism moral values and
virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on
anything outside of them.
SUMMARY
Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the
moral rightness and wrongness of actions
varies from society to society and that there
are no absolute universal moral standards
binding on all men at all times.
Cultural relativism holds that what is considered morally
right and wrong varies from society to society, so that there
are no universal moral standards held by all societies.
 Whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a
certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which
he or she belongs.
 Therefore, there are no absolute or objective moral
standards that apply to all people everywhere and at all
times.
Morality does not exist in a vacuum; rather, what is
considered morally right or wrong must be seen in a
context, depending on the goals, wants, beliefs, history, and
environment of the society in question.
Subjectivism holds that morality depends not
on the society but rather on the individual.
"Morality is in the eye of the beholder.“
This form of moral subjectivism makes
morality a very useless concept, for, on its
premises, little or no interpersonal criticism
or judgment is logically possible.
In ethical objectivism as already defined,
moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not
dependent on anything outside of them.
Moral objectivism can be defended by appealing to
the doctrine of natural law, which holds that morality
is a function of human nature, meaning that reason
can discover valid moral principles by looking at the
nature of humanity and society.
Humanity's function is to exhibit rationality in all its
forms: contemplation, deliberation, and action.
For Aquinas, reason's deliberative processes
discover the natural laws.
They are universal rules, or "ordinances of reason for
the common good, promulgated by him who has the
care of the community“.
Ethical/Moral Theories: Egoism and
Altruism
NB: Ethical/moral theories guide our actions and
moral judgements or moral evaluations.
What is the place of self-regard, self-interest, or self-
love in the moral life?
Is everything we do really done out of the motive of
self-interest, so that morality is necessarily egoistic?
 Or is egoism really diametrically opposed to true
morality?
 Is altruism possible, and, if so, is it rational? These
are the questions we shall discuss in this lecture.
In defining egoism a distinction is made between
psychological and ethical egoism.
Psychological Egoism.(NB: not an ethical theory) This is
the doctrine that we always do that act that we perceive
to be in our own best self-interest.
That is, we have no choice but to be selfish (Thomas
Hobbes, David Hume).
We cannot be motivated by anything other than what we
believe will promote our interests.
Psychological egoism (PE) purports to be a description of
human nature.
It claims that we cannot do other than act from self-
interested motivation, so that altruism - the theory that
we can and should sometimes act in favour of others'
interests - is simply invalid because it's impossible.
 Psychological egoism is not itself an ethical theory.
 It is a psychological theory about human nature or the nature
of motivation, but as such it seems to imply ethical egoism,
the doctrine that it is morally right always to seek one's own
self-interest.
 The argument might be set down like this:
 1. Everyone always seeks to maximize one's own self-interest.
(PE)
 2. If one cannot do an act, one has no obligation to do that
act.
 3. Altruistic acts involve putting other peoples' interests
ahead of our own.
 4. But altruism contradicts human nature (PE, or premise 1)
and so is impossible.
Ethical Egoism. This is the view that
everyone ought always to do those acts that
will best serve his or her own best self-
interest, even when it conflicts with the
interests of others.
It is the theory that everyone ought always to
serve his or her own self-interest. “What is it
for me?”
 That is, everyone ought to do what will
maximize one's own expected utility or bring
about one's own happiness, even when it
means harming others.
 REFUTATIONS OF EGOISM
 The Inconsistent Outcomes Argument
 Brian Medlin argues that ethical egoism cannot be true because
it fails to meet a necessary condition of morality, that of being a
guide to action. He claims that it will be like advising people to do
inconsistent things based on incompatible desires. His argument
goes like this:
 1. Moral principles must be universal and categorical.
 2. I must universalize my egoist desire to come out on top over
Tom, Dick, and Harry.
 3. But I must also prescribe Tom's egoist desire to come out on
top over Dick, Harry, and me (and so on).
 4. Therefore I have prescribed incompatible outcomes and have
not provided a way of adjudicating conflicts of desire. In effect, I
have said nothing
The Publicity Argument
 In order for something to be a moral theory
it seems necessary that its moral principles
be publicized.
Unless principles are put forth as universal
prescriptions that are accessible to the
public, they cannot serve as guides to action
or as aids in resolving conflicts of interest.
But on the other hand, it is not in the egoist's
self-interest to publicize them.
Egoists would rather that the rest of us be
 The Paradox of Egoism
 Could the egoist ever be in love or experience deep friendship?
 Suppose the egoist discovers that in the pursuit of the happiness
goal, deep friendship is in his best interest. Can he become a
friend? What is necessary to deep friendship?

 A true friend is one who is not always preoccupied about his own
interest in the relationship but who forgets about himself
altogether, at least sometimes, in order to serve or enhance the
other person's interest.

 It is an altruistic disposition, the very opposite of egoism. So the

paradox of egoism is that in order to reach the goal of egoism one
must give up egoism and become (to some extent) an altruist, the
very antithesis of egoism
The Argument from Counterintuitive Consequences
 Egoism is counterintuitive
 Helping others at one's own expense is not only not
required, it is morally wrong.
 Whenever I do not have good evidence that my helping you
will end up to my advantage, I must refrain from helping you.
The Good Samaritan was, by this logic, morally wrong in
helping the injured victim and not collecting payment for his
troubles.
 It is certainly hard to see why the egoist should be
concerned about environmental matters if he or she is
profiting from polluting the environment
This is not how human beings think and behave.
TELEOLOGICAL OR
CONSEQUENTIALIST MORAL
THEORIES
Teleological (or consequentialist) moral
theories locate moral goodness in the
consequences of our behaviour and not the
behaviour itself.
So from the teleological/consequentialist
point of view, human behaviour is neither
right nor wrong in and of itself.
What matters is what might happen as a
consequence of those actions in any given
context.
 Thus, it is the consequences that make our
 In summary according to consequentialism, correct moral
conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an
action’s consequences.
 Consequentialist normative principles require that we first
tally both the good and bad consequences of an action.
 Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences.
 If the good consequences are greater, then the action is
morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the
action is morally improper.
 Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological
theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end
result of the action is the sole determining factor of its
morality.
Utilitarianism
The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number

Utilitarianism has a long history but it was made

prominent by English social reformers Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873).
 There are two main features of utilitarianism: the
consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect)
and the utility principle (or its hedonic aspect).
The consequentialist principle states that the
rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the
goodness or badness of the results that flow from it.
 It is the end, not the means, that counts; the end
justifies the means.
The hedonic principle states that the only thing that is
good in itself is some specific type of state (e.g., pleasure).
 Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good
and pain as the only evil.
To quote Bentham, the first one to systematize classical
utilitarianism, "Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
 It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as
well as what we shall do."
An act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than
pain or prevents pain, and an act is wrong if it either
brings about more pain than pleasure or prevents
pleasure from occurring
Acts are considered good, right, and/or moral in so far as
they lead to pleasurable consequences; and bad, wrong,
or immoral if they lead to painful consequences.
 good=pleasure and bad=pain
Bentham invented a scheme for measuring pleasure and
pain that he called the hedonic calculus: The quantitative
score for any pleasure or pain experience is obtained by
summing the seven aspects of a pleasurable or painful
experience: its intensity, duration, certainty, nearness,
fruitfulness, purity, and extent.
Adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each
possible act and then comparing the scores would enable
us to decide which act to perform.
intensity, which is simply how intense the pleasure of
an act will be,
 duration: how long the pleasure will last,
 certainty: if we can guarantee that pleasure will arise
from the action,
 fecundity: The probability that the action will be
followed by sensations of the same kind.
 propinquity: Nearness or remoteness. How long will it
take for the pleasure of the action to take effect.
 purity: The probability that it will not be followed by
sensations of the opposite kind.
 extent: how many people will be affected
 Problems of Hedonism

 The fundamental problem of hedonism is reducing well-

being to pleasure, which is just one aspect of a person’s life,
instead of assessing various valued life aspects both internal
and external to the person.
 Secondly, hedonism is generally criticized for its view that
nothing can matter prudentially to an individual except the
quality of their experience.
 However, this goes against our common beliefs, because we
also need consider the source, process and consequences
(both current and future) of an experience.
 Our conscience tells us that a pleasurable experience that
results from, say, raping a minor is wrong.
It seems too complicated in its artificial
hedonic calculus.
The calculus is encumbered with too many
variables and has problems assigning scores
to the variables.
 For instance, what score do we give a cool
drink on a hot day or a warm shower on a
cool day?
Bentham's version of utilitarianism was, even
in his own day, referred to as the "pig-
philosophy," since a pig enjoying his life
Bentham's successor, John Stuart Mill, sought
to distinguish happiness from mere sensual
pleasure.
His version of utilitarianism - eudaimonistic
(from the Greek eudaimonia, meaning
"happiness") utilitarianism - defines
happiness in terms of certain types of higher-
order pleasures or satisfactions, such as
intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments,
as well as in terms of minimal suffering.
There are therefore two types of pleasures: the
lower, or elementary (e.g., eating, drinking, sexuality,
resting, and sensuous titillation), and the higher
(e.g., intellectuality, creativity, and spirituality).
Though the lower pleasures are more intensely
gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged
in.
The spiritual, or achieved, pleasures tend to be more
protracted, continuous, and gradual.
Mill argues that the higher, or more refined,
pleasures are superior to the lower ones: A being of
higher faculties requires more to make him happy.
But, one may object, how do we know that it really is
better to have these higher pleasures?
TWO TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM
There are two classical types of utilitarianism: act-
and rule-utilitarianism.
The act utilitarian only considers only the results or
consequences of the single act.
Act utilitarians argue that we should apply the
utilitarian principle to individual acts and not to
classers of similar actions.
Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual
actions.
For Rule utilitarians the principle of utility is
used to evaluate rules and is not applied
directly to individual actions.
Once the rules, compliance with these rules
provides the standard for evaluating
individual actions.
Rule-utilitarianism is defined this way:
 An act is right if and only if it is required by
a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules
whose acceptance would lead to greater
utility for society than any available
Deontological Ethics
According to deontological ethics it is the nature of the
act as such that determines its moral status
 If consequentialism invites us to consider the
consequences of the act, deontological ethics invites us
to consider the act without pondering its consequences.
The word ‘deontology’ comes from the Greek words
deon, duty, and logos, science.
 The best-known representative of deontological ethics
is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
According to deontological ethics, some types of actions
are prohibited, or obligatory, irrespective of their
consequences.
Kant believed that an act has moral worth
only if it is done with a right intention or
motive.
It is to act “out of duty,”
 He referred to this as having a “good will.”
Kant writes that the only thing that is
unconditionally good is a good will.
According to Kant, we must not only act out
of a right motivation but also do the right
thing.
We must also do what is right with the right
We must do the right thing it because it is right.
We know what is right through what Kant called the
categorical imperative.
Kant thought that there exists one very general
‘perfect’ duty which is absolute, categorical and
such that reason alone dictates it to any rational
human being.
He speaks of this duty as the categorical
imperative.
Categorical imperatives are categorical because
they tell us what we ought to do no matter what,
and under all conditions.
The categorical imperative describes the basic moral
principle by which we determine what we ought and
ought not to do.
It is Kant’s test for right and wrong.
It has three formulations.
1. The first formulation: Act only on that maxim
that you can will as a universal law.
Explanation: whatever I consider doing, it must be
something that I can consistently will or accept that
all others do.
I should not do what I am not able to will that
everyone do
2. The Second formulation: Always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or that of another,
never simply as a means but always at the same
time as an end.
Explanation: Kant believes that we should treat persons
as having value in themselves and not just as having
instrumental value.
We should not simply use others or let ourselves be
used.
It is appropriate to use things for our ends, but it is not
appropriate to use persons as though they were things
purely at our disposal and without wills of their own.
3. Third formulation: Act according to
maxims of a universally legislating
member of a possible kingdom of ends.
Explanation: our rationality makes us alike
as persons, and together we form a
community of persons.
He calls the community of rational persons a
kingdom of ends—that is, a kingdom in which
all persons are authors as well as subjects of
the moral law.
Thus, we ask whether the action we are
EVALUATING KANT’S MORAL THEORY
There is much that is appealing in Kant’s
moral philosophy, particularly its central
aspects—its focus on motives, its emphasis on
fairness, its aim of consistency, and its basic
idea of treating persons as autonomous and
morally equal beings.
On the other hand the theory is somehow
rigid and sometimes harsh.
VIRTUE ETHICS
A virtue can be defined as an excellent trait of
character.
Virtue ethics, stresses the importance of
developing good character traits, such as
benevolence, prudence etc.
Virtue ethics says that it is important not only to do
the right thing, but also to have the requisite
dispositions, motivations, and emotions in being
good and doing right.
The virtues are excellences of character, trained
behavioral dispositions that result in habitual acts.
 Traditionally, they have been divided into
two types: moral and non-moral virtues.
1. Moral virtues include: honesty,
benevolence, non-malevolence, fairness,
kindness, gratitude, and so forth
 2. Non-moral virtues include: courage,
optimism, rationality, self-control, patience,
endurance, industry, cleanliness, wit, and so
forth.
It is important that normally we are not even
tempted to steal, lie, or cheat and that
normally we enjoy doing good because we are
good.
Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest
normative traditions.
Plato emphasized four virtues in particular,
which were later called cardinal virtues:
wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.
 In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue
theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character
traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and
vanity.
 Virtue theorists provide us with lists of those traits of
character that are virtues.
 There is no unanimity among virtue ethicists about the items
that belong to the list.
 Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean between
more extreme character traits – between two vices. Eg:
 Stinginess generosity extravagance
 Cowardice courage recklessness/foolhardy
 Virtue is the golden mean (the balance between the two
vices).
Evaluation
 Virtue ethics has a problem of application: It doesn't tell us
what to do in particular instances in which we most need
direction.
 It provides no guidance on how to resolve an ethical dilemma.
 Susan Wolf has argued that moral saints are unattractive
because they lack the "ability to enjoy the enjoyable in life"
and are so "very, very nice" that they must be "dull-witted or
humourless or bland”. Their lives are "strangely barren
 What habits and emotions are genuine or proper virtues?
How do you know which ones these are? Who is the virtuous
person? Suppose you ask me, "What is the right thing to do?"
I answer, "Do what the virtuous person would do." But you
counter, "Who is the virtuous person?" To which I reply, "The
man who does the right thing." The reasoning is circular.