Philosophy Answers

20. All whales are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all animals are whales.
a) fallacy of four terms b) illicit major c) illicit minor d) undistributed middle
21. All terriers are dogs.
But all terriers are mammals.
Therefore, some mammals are dogs.
a) Figure 1, AAI b) figure 3, AII c) figure 3, AAI d) figure 1, AII
22. Every cobra is a snake.
But no worm is a cobra.
Therefore, no worm is a snake.
a) Valid, Figure 2, AEE b) invalid, illicit major c) valid, figure 1, AEE d) invalid, undistributed middle
23. Some drinks are poisonous.
But all juices are drinks.
Therefore, some juices are poisonous.
a) Valid, Figure 1, IAI b) invalid, illicit minor c) valid, figure 1, OAO d) invalid, undistributed middle
24. What fallacy is committed in the syllogism "All mothers are female.
But some students are female.
Therefore, some students are mothers.
a) illicit minor
b) undistributed middle.
c)fallacy of four terms
d) illicit major

Hume suggests, that instead of selves in the world there might be bundles of perceptions, i.e., a concentration of mental experiences without any specific essence. Do you agree with Hume?

Duty to Die? (Euthanasia)
Suppose that you are adamantly against the view that anyone ever has a “duty to die,” no matter how much care/resources it would take to keep someone alive, or the quality of life it is possible for that person to achieve using those resources. Suppose we were to get Universal Health Care in this country, such that every citizen has access to a pool of money that all able pay into. How would this affect your position on the duty to die of someone who is unable to pay, out of their own pocket, for the preservation of their life. Explain what factors you would consider, taking utilitarian approach (pleasure minus pain, intensity, duration, fruitfulness, likelihood).

Women’s and men’s sexual behavior is judged differently in most societies. That is, women are often condemned for sexual behavior that is tolerated, or even admired, in men. For example, women and men are judged inequitably on the number of partners they have or the conditions under which they choose to engage in sexual behavior. In extreme cases, the genitals of young African women are sometimes sewn shut to guarantee virginity (and other reasons). Can this inequity in social response to women and men be grounded in a Utilitarian argument? A Kantian argument?

Heidegger's claimed that "Being-in-the-world is the formal expressions of Dasein's essential state." What do you think does it mean? If you are the said dasein in the same essential state, how would you experience of being-in-the-world with the other entities as well as with the other daseins like you?

What is the significance of knowing our environment?

5. Suppose that you discover that your child suffers from some minor genetic defects that can now be treated quite safely and easily. Would you take care of it? Suppose that this technology becomes quite common in the future, even for things which are not necessarily “defects.” And suppose that the majority of the people are taking advantage of it, such as stronger immune system, increased memory capacities and so on. If you choose not to go through the procedure (yourself as well as your children), then possibly you or your child might be at a social disadvantage (competing against “genetically enhanced” individuals). Would you still refuse the treatment? Why or why not?

4. If you believe that freedom, being able to relate to others with the sense of responsible fellowship, having integrity, having a sense of self (or soul), are all essential aspects of “being human,” or “being a person,” and if an artificial being can possess all of these features, would you consider such a being to be “human” as well? Or a “person?” How important is it that human beings must be natural beings? Could such an artificial being NOT be a creation by God? Does this make any difference? If so, what, if not, why?

3. No matter what the advancement of technology, do you think that there is something special about being human that can never be replaced? If so, what do you think that might be? Would it make any difference that even those special things you thought of are later shown to be replaceable? Do you think religion has anything to do with the specialness of humans? What if God made humans so special as to be able to create artificial intelligence and eventually replace what it means to be human? If this may be so, would it make any sense for us to say or not say that “we are playing God,” in terms of genetic engineering and other such nature-altering technologies? Could it be that such technologies are entirely compatible with religious beliefs?

2. Again in the future several hundred years. The robotics technology is so good that most of the dangerous, hard, or otherwise undesirable labor that human beings do not want to do can be replaced by robot workers. Suppose they are as good as human workers, but they are robots. Would it be “wrong” in any way to treat them as slaves? Suppose some of the work they had to do required some intelligence, and the same intelligence made them say, “we no longer wish to do this work, because we have determined that it is risky for our continuing existence.” Would it be right to force them to do the work against their “will?” Do they have freedom?