General Education

All undergraduate students (except for some transfer students) at Niagara University are required to take three philosophy courses. These courses are an important point of the liberal arts education in the Catholic and Vincentian tradition that Niagara University provides.  

The first two courses students take are Philosophy 105: Introduction to Philosophy; and Philosophy 206: Ethics.  

As part of the overall general education requirements of Niagara, these courses are to accomplish the following goals:

  • Teach students how to think critically and independently.
  • Teach students new ways of approaching ethical issues.
  • Teach students about the intellectual and religious foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition.
  • Teach students about the relationship of faith and reason, in general, as well as the philosophical and religious basis of Catholic values.

The department gives its faculty the opportunity to teach a range of topics in Phi 105 and Phi 206. Each member of the department has a different area of specialization and a unique approach to philosophy. Students will benefit from hearing different perspectives from various faculty. Furthermore, the department encourages students to take their philosophy classes from three different faculty members.

However, to ensure some consistency from section to section, the department requires that there are some common terms and topics that are covered in each section. Students should take special care to learn these terms (listed below) since they will be used from one class to another. If a student has any questions about these topics, she or he may speak with the department chair or any member of the department.

Topics to be Covered in Sections of PHI 105: Introduction to Philosophy

St. Thomas Aquinas

  • Faith and Reason: Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 1, Art 1-5, 8. We are not overly concerned with a detailed account of Aquinas's theory but moreso that a discussion of the relation between faith and reason occur in the classroom.
  • The Five Proofs for God: Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 2, Art 3.

Logic Assessment Topics

Basic Logic Concepts, Department of Philosophy, Niagara University, August 15, 2011

Below are some fundamentals of logic that the Niagara University philosophy department would like all students in Introduction to Philosophy to learn. This is not intended for use in teaching students–it is far too terse for that. It is only to ensure that the terms are understood in a sufficiently similar way by all who teach them. The expressions in bold are the terms that the philosophy department requires.

1 Basics

  • A proposition is a fundamental bearer of truth or falsity. (Propositions can be expressed by “statements”, “sentences”, “beliefs”, and so on, so we derivatively say those things are true or false, too.)
  • An argument consists of a proposition intended to be shown true (the conclusion), plus one or more propositions intended to give truth-related reason for that conclusion (the premise(s)).
  • A conclusion is the proposition in an argument that is intended to be shown true.
  • A premise is a proposition in an argument intended to help give truth-related
    reason for the conclusion.
  • An argument is valid just in case it is impossible for the premises to be true and
    the conclusion false.
  • An argument is sound just in case it is valid and its premises are true.
  • An inductive argument is strong to the extent the truth of the premises would
    make the truth of the conclusion probable.
  • An inductive argument is cogent just in case it is strong and has true premises.
  • An argument is deductive if and only if it is intended to be valid.
  • An argument is inductive if and only if it is intended to be strong.

2 Formal logic

Note: In what follows, the variables ‘p’, ‘q’, and ‘r’ stand for propositions. The horizontal line separates the premises from the conclusion (and can be read “therefore”). The order of the premises does not matter in any of these forms.

2.1 Valid formal arguments

Some classic valid forms of argument:

1. Affirming the antecedent (also called “modus ponens”):
If p, then q.
p.
q.

2. Denying the consequent (also called “modus tollens”):
If p, then q.
Not q.
Not p.

3. Disjunctive syllogism (also called “denying the disjunct”):
p or q. p or q.
Not p. Not q.
q. p.

2.2 Invalid formal arguments

1. Denying the antecedent:
If p, then q.
Not p.
Not q.

2. Affirming the consequent:
If p, then q.
q.
p.

3 Inductive logic

3.1 Inductive forms

  • analogy Using relevant similarities between two things to conclude that they probably share a further property as well.
  • authority Accepting a claim based on the consensus of experts with respect to that claim (at least, when not possessing special evidence to the contrary).
  • causation Concluding that one event was probably the cause of another based on appropriate correlations.
  • generalization Attributing a property to an entire group based on a representative sample of that group.
  • reductio ad absurdum Concluding that a proposition must be false because, if it were true, it would imply another that is deemed unacceptably improbable. (When a logical contradiction is shown to follow validly, this is a deductive form of reasoning.)

3.2 Informal fallacies

  • ad hominem (against the person) Responding to another’s argument not on its own merits, but according to the character of the person presenting it.
  • argument from weak authority Appealing to a weak or inappropriate authority in order to establish a conclusion.
  • argument from ignorance Claiming a proposition is true because it hasn’t definitively been shown false, or false because it hasn’t definitively been shown true.
  • begging the question Using a (usually disguised) version of the conclusion as a premise.
  • equivocation Using a word in two different senses where the argument requires that it be used to mean the same thing throughout.
  • false cause Assuming a causal relation between merely correlated events.
  • false dilemma Presenting two possibilities as the only alternatives when in fact there are more.
  • genetic fallacy Concluding a belief is true or false based on its cause rather than its justification. (Thus as the department understands it, wishful thinking and appeal to tradition count as genetic fallacies.)
  • hasty generalization Attributing a property to an entire group based on an unrepresentative sample.
  • slippery slope Supposing without good reason that an agent’s small step in some direction will inevitably commit the agent to going an extreme distance in that direction.
  • straw man Providing a terrible argument on behalf of an opposing position, or mischaracterizing that position, and then exposing that argument or mischaracterized position as terrible.
  • weak analogy Using irrelevant similarities between two things to establish the probability of a separate similarity.

Topics to be Covered in Sections of PHI 206: Ethics

As part of its continuing effort to clearly define goals and student learning outcomes in its classes, the Philosophy Department has articulated the following set of topics that it would like covered in all sections of PHI 206. The topics are divided into four major branches of ethical theory.

In order to help students think about ethics and values in a critical and reflective way, the Philosophy Department requires students to be familiar with four schools of ethics. Specifically, the department asks that students be familiar with a number of key terms associated with these schools.

Students may use the following definitions as a guide for studying for the common Ethics final exam. Students should be aware, however, that the common exam goes beyond what is covered in these definitions. Students are expected to pay attention to the discussions of these topics in class. If students are unsure of what a term means or the associated arguments related to a term, they should ask for help from the instructor.

I.   Consequentialism

This is a system of principle-based ethics that evaluates the moral worth of actions by focusing on the results or consequences of those actions. Generally speaking, consequentialism does not consider the motives of a person’s actions to be relevant to the moral evaluation of that action, just the end results.

A. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist ethics that uses happiness as the desirable consequence for a moral action. While there have been defenders of this view since ancient Greece, the current school of utilitarianism was founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and defended by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

B. The Greatest Happiness Principle

Also known as the Greatest Utility Principle, this is the basis for evaluating the moral worth of actions according to utilitarians. John Stuart Mill defines the term this way: “The creed which accepts the foundation of morals ‘utility’ or the ‘greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure (7).”

By "promote happiness," Mill implies that the overall happiness of everyone involved needs to be considered equally. Hence, a more common way of stating the Greatest Happiness Principle is “Do the greatest good for the greatest number.”

C. The Distinction Between Higher and Lower Pleasures

A major source of difficulty in utilitarianism is defining the term "pleasure."   Jeremy Bentham had a hedonistic view of pleasure that defined pleasure on the basis of   the physical stimulus produced by certain activities. John Stuart Mill revised Bentham’s view by making a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mill argues that to make a human happy, as opposed to an animal, one needs a higher sort of pleasure that is preferable to lower, physical pleasures. Mill argues that when applying the Greatest Happiness Principle, this distinction between higher pleasures and lower pleasures ought to be taken into account (See Utilitarianism, 7-12).

D. Act Utilitarianism versus Rule Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism applies the Greatest Happiness Principle to every action individually. Hence, in each situation, the amount of happiness produced must be evaluated separately in each situation. Act utilitarianism may be vulnerable to the criticism that it endorses acts that would appear intuitively to be gross violations of human rights and justice. In certain circumstances, it might endorse sacrificing an innocent person to increase overall happiness.

Rule Utilitarianism tries to avoid this criticism by saying that there are rules that ought to be followed in every situation in order to produce the most pleasure overall. These rules would protect things such as human rights. So, while in a particular circumstance, the sacrifice of an innocent person would promote pleasure, adopting the general rule, "one should never sacrifice an innocent person," would produce the most pleasure overall.  

II. Deontology

A system of principle-based ethics that finds actions to be right or wrong on the basis of moral considerations apart from consequences. Generally speaking, deontology focuses on the intentions behind actions. The word "deontology" comes from the Greek words "Deon-," meaning "duty or obligation," and "-ology," meaning "science."

A. The Categorical Imperative

While there are many schools of deontology, the most influential one was developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He evaluates the moral worth of an action based upon the principle called “The Categorical Imperative.”  

The principle is an "imperative" because it is a command or an "ought."   It is "categorical" because it is based on pure reason. A "hypothetical imperative" is an imperative that is based on some desired goal or outcome in the world. Since there are no goals in the world that can be demonstrated to be fully universal, "hypothetical imperatives" cannot be universal. The "categorical imperative," on the other hand, is universal because it is not based on any outcome in the world but is true on the strength of its own rationality (See Groundwork 26-29).

B. Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative based on universalization of one’s maxim

Kant defines the fundamental formulation of the categorical imperative in this way: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (30).”

C. Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative based on human beings as ends in themselves

A popular formulation of the categorical imperative. Kant writes: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means (36).”

D. Kant’s distinction between duty and inclination


For Kant, for an action to have moral worth, it must come from duty. Inclination, which would be an emotional desire to act in a certain way, can never be truly universal because it is not based on reason but experience. If one acts from a pure duty to obey the categorical imperative, one can act with necessity. In this way, a will can become a will that is good in itself, rather than be good simply relative to the world around it.

To use Kant’s example, for a shopkeeper to be moral, he must charge fair prices not because he has an inclination to improve business or an inclination to be nice but because the categorical imperative commands it (See Grounding 8-12).

III.   Virtue Ethics

This is a system of character-based ethics that evaluates the moral worth of a person on the basis of how much virtue her or his character has. There are many systems of virtue ethics. The most influential system was developed by Aristotle (384 BCE — 322 BCE).

A. The role of natural function in Aristotle’s ethics


Aristotle holds that everything has a design or a function. Something fulfills its function when it operates well and is focused on its proper object. In performing this function, it achieves eudaimonia that is usually translated as happiness. While Aristotle thinks eudaimonia (happiness) is connected to pleasure, pleasure does not define it. Rather, eudaimonia is the activity of performing one’s function well. By understanding one’s function, then, one can understand how to have an excellent character (See Nicomachean Ethics Book I, Chp 7 1097a15 - 1098b8 and   Book X, Chp 5 1175a21 - 1176a29).

B. Happiness as the life of virtue


Eudaimonia (happiness) depends on performing one’s function well. To do this, one must develop arete (virtue). Arete in Greek means "virtue in the sense of excellence." Aristotle identifies two types of virtue based on two parts of the soul: ethical virtue which is based on the appetitive part of the soul and intellectual virtue which is based on the rational part of the soul.

C. The ‘Golden Mean’

Ethical virtues are states where one desires the right amount of something rather than too much or too little. Someone who has the right amount of generosity, for example, desires to give the right amount to the right person at the right time in the right way. The person who desires to give too much has the vice of extravagance. The person who desires to give too little is stingy (See Nichomachean Ethics 1106b35 — 1107a8).

Ethical virtues are developed through habituation. Through this process, one identifies the vice she or he has. Then, she or he performs acts that cause one to develop the habit of desiring the right amount (See Nichomachean Ethics Book II Chp 1-4 1103a15 — 1105b18).

D. Practical wisdom (Phronesis/Prudence)

An important intellectual virtue (arete) for Aristotle is phronesis, which may be translated as practical wisdom or prudence. It is the ability to use reason to solve practical problems. Aristotle distinguishes phronesis from techne (art or craft) that involves achieving a practical result using a particular method. Someone with phronesis does not simply apply a method but can use critical thinking to find the best solution in any situation (See Nichomachean Ethics 1103a 4-10 and 1140a - 1140b30).

IV.   Natural Law Theory

This is a principle-based ethics that derives moral laws from the order of nature. While there are many natural law theorists, the most influential version of the theory was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who drew heavily on Aristotle’s notion of natural function.

A. Practical Rationality and the Natural Law

Aquinas defines “law” generally as an ordinance of reason, ordered toward the common good, made by the one charged with care of the community, and promulgated. He identifies the “Eternal Law” as the rational plan according to which all things in creation are subject. Nonrational beings in nature are merely determined by the eternal law; for example, bodies are subject to the law of gravity. As rational beings, however, humans are unique in at least two important ways. First, they are able to understand the way in which the law determines things. Aquinas calls the capacity for this understanding “Speculative reason,” as it describes the way things actually are. Second, humans are able to seek out their proper ends or “goods.” Thus, as speculative reason deals with truths of the way things are, “Practical Reason” is the capacity to determine the goods humans ought to pursue. As beings endowed with practical reason, they are subjects of “Natural Law,” which are the proper ends for which humans, by their nature, are directed. The natural law, therefore, is composed of the principles that humans ought to follow based on their nature, which they are able to discover by way of their practical rationality.

B. Basic Human Goods


Aquinas’ natural law theory is founded on the primary precept of practical reason, which he claims is self-evident. It states, “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” (ST II.2 Q. 94, Art. 2) Practical reason can discover the goods more specifically by an investigation into human nature. In this sense, Aquinas’ perspective is Aristotelian in that it rests on a conception of the good life for human beings. Aquinas argues that we can determine what a good life consists of by examining the things to which we have natural inclinations: “Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.” (ST II.2 Q. 94, Art. 2). Aquinas goes on to list some of the things to which we are naturally inclined. Among them are health and our own preservation, reproduction and care of offspring, and finally inclinations associated with reason such as the inclination towards knowledge of the truth and God, and the inclination to live in society.

Contemporary natural law theories often formulate the notion of a good life by articulating “Basic Human Goods.” The lists vary according to different authors, but generally they include: life and health, family, friendship, work and play, aesthetic experience, knowledge and integrity. (Gomez-Lobo). A good life for a human being will involve some combination of these goods, although different individuals will prioritize them in different ways. Natural law theorists typically claim that these goods are incommensurable. That is, these goods have no common measure to which they can be compared or weighed against. As such, there is no means by which we could say that a certain amount of one particular good such as friendship is “equal” to some amount of a different good such knowledge. This makes natural law theory differ fundamentally from utilitarianism, which states that the common measure of all things good is happiness.

 

Finally, since natural law theorists believe that each of these basic human goods is to be sought after, evil actions are those that are contrary to them. Thus, any action that intentionally aims at the destruction of a basic human good is morally impermissible. This is the case even if the good being destroyed is for the sake of some other good as its end result.


C. Principle of Double Effect

Many actions that aim at the promotion of one human good may negatively affect others. The Principle of Double Effect is a way of determining how to act when an action has a desired good effect but in order to achieve that effect a bad effect also results. The principle holds that it is wrong to think that the ends ever justify the means. However, if the undesirable effect is truly a secondary effect and unintended, it is justifiable if the good of the primary effect outweigh the secondary effect.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia defines the Principle of Double Effect this way (cited in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Principle of Double Effect http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/):

  1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
  2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
  3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
  4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect (p. 1021).

Bibliography

  • Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics.   Translated by Martin Oswald.   Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Third Edition.   Translated by James W. Ellington.   Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
  • Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Second Edition.   Edited by Georgo Sher.   Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Principle of Double Effect,” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/