ETHICS AND MORALITY

Part 1 What is the nature of ethical knowledge?

Is ethical knowledge or knowledge or "right" and "wrong" aposteriori knowledge or apriori knowledge? We use the terms "right" and "good" or "moral" and "immoral" frequently. By our use of those words we are referring to behavior that is either to be pursued or to be rejected. But the question emerges from our consideration of the ethical as to exactly what the nature of ethical knowledge is. Again, we are not asking what is right or wrong but how do we determine what the essential nature "rightness" or "wrongness" is. Is ethical knowledge derived from experience or aposteriori knowledge or is ethical knowledge innate or apriori knowledge? It seems that it is not as though I can see in the act of stealing, for example, the wrongness of the act. Therefore, the moral quality of an action is not found in the sensory character of an action. Consequently, it appears that ethical knowledge is more similar to apriori knowledge or non-sensory knowledge. However, it should also be stated that there seems to be a unique character to ethical knowledge. In this sense ethical knowledge is a very puzzling knowledge.


Part 2 J. L. Mackie and Ethical Knowledge

There are those such as J. L. Mackie who argued that ethical knowledge is to be considered "non natural" or not natural knowledge. Mackie contended that ethical statements are "queer" or "odd" or "peculiar" statements. Therefore ethical statements should be questioned. For instance, what is goodness? Is "goodness" a property at all? Why do we have to suppose that there are moral facts or moral truths at all? He argued that maybe we shouldn't think of moral statements in this fashion at all. Previously we argued that "truth" should be determined by what is termed "correspondence theory." That is, truth corresponds to something in the external world. But how can correspondence theory be applied to ethical truth or ethical knowledge? For example if truth is determined by correspondence to the external world, to what in the external world does ethical truth correspond? What kind of external state of affairs is it? Where is the correspondence between ethical facts and the external world? Determining this is truly problematic.

This position has led to a view, which attempts to side step the issue of correspondence theory in relation to ethical knowledge. The theory is called Non factualism or Ethical Emotivism. It proposes that ethical statements do not express facts at all. But what do they do? Emotivism argues that ethical statements or utterances are nothing more than the expression of emotions. The theory of ethical Emotivism was advocated by the logical positivists. It is also called the "Boo/Hurrah" ethical theory. According to this viewpoint, ethical statements are nothing more than disguised nonsense and correspond to nothing external. When I see someone steal I say, "Boo" or "that's terrible." It is the expression of an emotion of disapproval. M speech act expresses that emotion. "Boo" does not express an actual fact according to this theory. There are mo moral properties or truths in ethical Emotivism. Ethics is to be equated with a feeling or a desire.

What is the advantage of this theory of ethical knowledge? First it avoids the search for moral "facts." It deals with moral language. Second, ethical Emotivism also gives a more accurate account of the reality of moral statements. Ethical Emotivism does acknowledge that emotions play a part in moral statements, though perhaps it goes to far in this. But positively speaking, ethical Emotivism affirms that morality is truly about emotions and that this is an escapable component of ethical talk.

On the other hand there is "Cognitivism" which stands in contradistinction to "Non Cognitivism" of which ethical Emotivism is a type. Cognitivism argues that there is actually something factual to be considered at the heart of a moral statement or the claim to moral knowledge.

In addition, there is descriptivism and prescriptivism. Descriptive ethical statements are those, which simply describe a moral state of affairs. Prescriptivism on the other hand says that moral language prescribes or orders a moral course of action. For example, to say, "Stealing is wrong" is the same as to say, "Don't steal." In other words we are determining an "ought" from an "is." When I say something is wrong, I am therefore according to prescriptivism implying that I ought not to do it and conversely with regard to that which is right.


Part 3 Moral Statements as Imperatives

Consider for example the statement, "Love thy neighbor." This Christian ethical mandate is stated in the imperatival form. It is a command. This has been seized on by the non-Cognitivist as saying that this proves that moral statements are covert imperatives. However, the opposing view or the Cognitivist view, contends that moral inquiry is the same as any other inquiry. When we make a moral statement, we are simply trying to find out the facts as we do with such disciplines as mathematics, psychology, or physics. We are thinking an issue through and arriving at what we thick the moral truth is or what the moral facts are. In this sense ethical statements and ethical knowledge takes on a metaphysical dimension it seems. For example, suppose I say, "Abortion is wrong in the seventh month of pregnancy." Cognitivists propose that I investigate the issue, think the issue through and then reach this conclusion.


Part 4 Cognitivism and Moral Realism

Cognitivism or Moral Realism contends that I do not investigate a moral question with my senses. In this sense ethical knowledge is apriori. I am to think my way through the ethical dilemma with which I am confronted. But the question is by what faculty do I come to know ethical facts and possess ethical knowledge? Bertrand Russell argues in his work "Problems in Philosophy" that ethical knowledge is a type of apriori knowledge. I other words, when I know that murder is wrong, I have apriori knowledge that murder is wrong as with a mathematical formula such as 2+2=4. This is the same type of knowledge as analytic knowledge. Ethics then becomes as solid as mathematics and consequently there is nothing dubious about ethical knowledge.
Bertrand Russell in problems of philosophy book apriori knowledge is a type of apriori knowledge.


Part 5 Evaluating Cognitivism and Non Cognitivism

Non-cognitivism leads to moral relativism. If all there is emotion is moral discourse, then morality may vary from individual to individual or from context to context. Murder may be wrong in one context according to one individual, but murder is right in a different context according to different individuals. Cognitivist view moral facts as actual moral facts on the other hand and there are therefore no danger of relativism. Emotivist or Non Cognitivist would argue that murder is wrong simply because of a bad emotion or desire, which we have about murder. Cognitivist would argue on the other hand that murder is wrong based on the reality of it.


Part 6 Ethics and God

Many believe that morality is only binding if God is behind it. However is this actually true. If God is the foundation according to some individuals then we can avoid moral relativism. Indeed some would argue that this is the only way to avoid moral relativism. In short, God is indispensable to morality. For example, what makes stealing wrong? These would say that stealing is wrong because God says it is wrong. This is a very tempting idea but the question exists as to whether this is a legitimate deduction or not. Socrates himself in Plato's Dialogue entitled Euthyphro refuted it. In the work Socrates is wandering around Athens and he is discussing with his interlocutors how to define the good and the holy. Euthyphro contends that he has the answer. The holy and the good is what the gods love while the bad is what the gods deplored or hate. It is a very simple idea. It is summed up on Christian terminology in divine command theory. God commands an action that makes that action right. God prohibits an action, which makes that action wrong. Socrates then asks Euthyphro as to whether he thinks something is actually wrong because the gods decree that it is wrong to which Euthyphro responds in the affirmative. Socrates then points out the problem with the conclusion. If right is right because the God say that it is right then right and wrong are arbitrary. Consequently, the gods could have decreed otherwise and we could have lived in a sort of topsy-turvy world, although it would not be actually topsy-turvy since we would not know otherwise. The question centers upon the following dilemma: is something wrong because the gods say it is wrong or do the gods decree something as wrong because it is wrong in and of itself? Socrates is saying that we surely do not want morality to be arbitrary or to depend upon God's stipulation. In Socrates conclusion, God is not the basis of morality but God is the one who respects morality. It is an interesting observation. The important consequence of this reality lies in the proposition that even if there is no god, therefore it does not detract from morality. Even if there is no god then morality stands. To lose God is not to lose morality. God is not the foundation for moral beliefs. This addresses the issue that people worry about. Even if there is a God, on the other hand, he is not the basis for morality.

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

Part 1 Where Does Knowledge Come From?

We have considered some basic concepts such as belief, truth, justification, knowledge and rationality. We can now begin to apply these concepts in considering some big philosophical questions. The first question that we will devote ourselves to is the question of epistemology or "Where does our knowledge come from?" This is a question concerning theories of knowledge. There are two schools of thought about this: Empiricism and Rationalism.


Part 2 The Empiricists

John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume proposed the empiricist position. They are usually called the British Empiricists of the 17th century. The empiricists maintained that all knowledge derives from sensory experience. We see, touch, hear, taste, and smell the external world. We then extract all of our concepts and knowledge from this sensory perception. There is no other source of knowledge than the deliverances of stimuli upon the senses of the senses and the senses are our only route to truth.

We might be inclined to say that we get knowledge from our teachers as sources or from testimonies. But this is not the question we are interested in. We are concerned with where did the original person get the knowledge from or where did knowledge originate? Where did this knowledge come from in the beginning? The empiricists said you could trace the chain all the way back to sensory experience. They held that all knowledge derives from sensory experience and nowhere else.

The empiricists thought of a knowing consciousness confronted by the external world providing information and this information impinges on consciousness and as a result certain things are known.

For example, where does the concept of red come from? I experience red and that is imposed upon me and I recognize it in the future based on a mental image, which turns into a mental belief. I combine red with a fire engine and I derive all of this from my sensory experiences.

This is what empiricism says about knowledge. It should be pointed out that empiricism was intended to undermine the claims of religion. Religion argued for revelation as a source of knowledge. The empiricists wanted to undermine this idea since the monarchy used this revelation knowledge to further their agenda's, such as the divine right of kings. They desired to limit the source of knowledge to sensory experience.


Part 3 The Rationalists

On the other hand there were the rationalists. The main two of the rationalists were Descartes and Leibniz. Spinoza is sometimes included among the rationalists but it is questionable as to whether he actually believed completely as the rationalists did. The rationalists acknowledged that some knowledge actually derives from experience. They did not completely dismiss experience but proposed that only some knowledge derives from experience. For instance, logic, math and philosophical knowledge were regarded as innate to the individual. Obviously, science, geography and certain other types of knowledge originate from experience.

But the question emerges as to where the innate knowledge comes from?

Someone may counter that we learn mathematics from experience. But this is not true in the sense in which we are concerned in this discussion. We are concerned with where the knowledge originally comes from where did the original person gain the knowledge of mathematics? Second, when I acquire knowledge in that way, understand that I come to see that things are true myself. In other words, I then verify that knowledge for myself. I don't know certain things such as mathematics only because the teacher said it to me, but because I can see that it is true for myself.

From where is this knowledge derived?


Part 4 Mathematics

The rationalists argue that there is another source of knowledge beyond empiricism or sensory experience. This source of knowledge is reason, rationality or as Kant argued pure reason and this is a difficult idea for us to grasp. We can find out things according to this theory simply by thinking about it. The rationalists argued that the human has reason or rationality and that its operations are familiar to each of us.

For example, if I know what the number 2 is and what plus is then I can come to know that 2 plus 2 equals 5. The same thing can be done with the number 3. Once I know the concepts I can discover the progression of numbers. I know the number series is then infinite and this kind of knowledge, at least according to the rationalists, is not derived from experience but from my reason and I can then deduce from that point forward.

This is a very different type of knowledge than that advocated by the empiricists.

In the last discussion we addressed the topic of logic. I asked you to consider the laws of logic. We then addressed the manner in which these laws are true. By so doing, we are using the faculty of pure reason and doing so without the benefit of empirical observation. To utilize experience would be to ask you to step out and see the stripe on the road or the dog in the next room as verification. The rationalists argued that there are certain types of knowledge which exist prior to this verification.

For example, suppose we are thinking about a bachelor. I say to you, "All bachelors are unmarried males." You look at me in a funny sort of way and ask, "Who in the world would deny that? A bachelor by definition is an unmarried male." You would be correct. Now suppose I said to you, "Bachelors tend to be unhappy." You can counter this statement. This is not always the case. But you can't counter the statement, "All bachelors are unmarried males." This is what is termed an "analytic truth." The same can be done with other statement such as all triangles have three sides or a vixen is female. We do not have to observe these things in order to know that they are true. They are true by definition.


Part 5 Apriori and Aposteriori Knowledge

Now we should introduce the term "apriori knowledge." This is knowledge not based on experience. It is knowledge that is gained or held prior to experience. This is why it is "prior" knowledge. In addition, the term "aposteriori knowledge" refers to knowledge that is based on experience. It is knowledge that is gained after experience. This is why it is referred to as "posteriori" or "after" experience.


Part 6 Kant's Solution

Immanuel Kant finally brought together the two schools of knowledge. He determined that it was not an either/or but a both/and proposition. He argued that knowledge is both innate and gained from experience. In a sense Kant was arguing that the external stimulates us and the mind or brain is hardwired to receive the information which the external world imposes upon us.

Suppose that I have a bottle of water in front of me. The bottle stimulates my eye, the eye stimulate my brain with the experience of the bottle of water and there is the image of the bottle impinging upon me. The external object has a causal impact on me and I know to know various things by experience and the brain possesses built in categories which enable me to process this external data or stimuli. I may not know exactly how the brain converts these neural impulses into consciousness but I know that there is a connection between the external world and my internal knowledge.

LOGIC

Part 1 Logical Reasoning

Logical Reasoning addresses the transition from one belief to another and the study of this portion of philosophy seems somewhat dry; however logical reasoning actually matters and therefore requires that we have clarification on the topic. There are a number of important concepts associated with logical reasoning.


Part 2 Validity

It is important to know that validity is different from the consideration of truth. Validity concerns the issue of one's argument. An argument is either valid or invalid whereas truth is either true or false. We speak of the validity of moves or transitions from one premise to another. Good reasoning must be valid. Good beliefs ought to be true. This is an important distinction.


Part 3 Premises and Conclusion

The most basic distinction made in logic centers upon the Premises of the argument and the Conclusion of the argument that is based upon the Premises. The beginning of the argument consists of the premise and the conclusion of the argument or the end point of the argument is the conclusion. The conclusion of the argument will be inferred from the premises of the argument. Validity has to do with whether the conclusion legitimately derives or validly derives from the premises.


Part 4 Example

Consider for example the most common of arguments proposed by Aristotle that says, "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is a mortal." In this argument we have premise one, premise two and the conclusion that is based upon the two previous premises or perhaps we should say is inferred from those premises. We could summarize the argument as follows: If it is the case that all men are mortal and if it is the case that Socrates is a man, then it is to be inferred that Socrates as a man is mortal. Socrates must be and cannot fail to be mortal. This is said to be a valid argument. Since the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

Consider another example. If we said, "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is a philosopher" this would constitute an invalid argument. Or if we said, "Some men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is a mortal" this conclusion would also be invalid. Consider also another symbolic approach to the same Aristotelian syllogism. Consider that "All f's are g. x is an f. Therefore x is a g." In this example we have simply used the letters f and g to stand for being a man and being mortal. Consider another example. "All cats purr. Tabby is a cat. Therefore Tabby purrs." This example is true. This example helps us to establish the general form of argumentation and helps us to consider whether an argument is either valid or invalid.


Part 5 Universal Instantiation

Logical reasoning also employs the concept of universal instantiation. But what is meant by the designation. The designation indicates that if everything is f then any particular thing must also be an f. It is really very simple. For example, "If everything is a particular physical object, then any particular thing must be a particular physical object." This is called universal instantiation. These types of universal propositions move from a general to a specific instance. What we are interested in is not whether the premises are true, but if the premise is true and if the conclusion the fore is derived from or inferred from the premise. Obviously everything is not physical but this is beside the point with the statement. This is not what we are debating or considering at this point. We are simply looking for a valid argument in which the conclusion is legitimately derived from the premise or premises.


Part 6 Existential Generalization

Another concept employed in logical reasoning is existential generalization. But again what is meant by this designation? The terms refer to the taking of a general statement and then inferring a conclusion from that statement. For example, if a Socrates is a man then something is a man. This means that we take a particular statement and infer an existent statement that is generally true.

Both of these categories should seem to be self-evident rules of inference. We should listen to these statement and simply respond, "Yes and your point is . . . . " These inferences are not even remotely disputable. They are obvious or self-evident. If we follow the rules of logic then we cannot go wrong. If the premises are correct then the conclusion will also be correct.

For example, I can say, "Show is white and grass is green." I can infer from that that all snow is white and all grass is green. It is straightforward.

It is important to understand the inescapability of logical laws. However, consider Descartes. He was interested in what could be doubted. He doubted an enormous amount of possibilities. He argued that we couldn't doubt the self and he also argued that we couldn't doubt the laws of logic. In fact, the laws of logic are immune to doubt for Descartes as is the self or the cogito, I think therefore I am.

To some this sounds very dogmatic but it is nonetheless the case. One thing to notice about the indisputability of logic is that to true to doubt this is to use logical principles to move in the direction of doubt and this is inherently a contradiction. The rules of logic are the inescapable rules of logic that govern reasoning.
To some ears this sounds very dogmatic but it is nonetheless the case. One thing to

But it is also not only true that logic applies to reason, but logic applies in relation to the world itself. We talk of the laws of logic as applied to the world. This world must obey the laws of logic. Perhaps we are inclined to ask how this can be the case. Surely things can vary between worlds. What is logical in this world is not necessarily logical in another world. But this is a contradiction. There are three traditional worlds of logic.


Part 7 The Law of Identity:

The law of identity argues that everything is identical to itself. Read that statement very closely. In fact, the statement should strike us as common or banal. Whatever is a certain thing is always that particular or certain thing. While this seems to be trivial it is a law that cannot be rejected. It sets a limit to thought. You cannot conceive of an object that fails to be identical to it. To do so would be a perplexing reality. The law sets a limit to thought and tells us what is within the realm of intelligibility.


Part 8 The Law of Excluded Identity:

This law is also called Leibniz law. Leibniz was the great 17th century philosopher who developed the law. He proposed that if things are identical they have all of their properties in common. There are in reality two versions of the law. The other version of the law says that if two objects have all qualities in common they are identical. This is not our concern at this point. Here we are considering the idea that if things are identical they must be exactly alike in properties. If a is b then a must have the properties of b. Whatever a has then b must also have. If you can show otherwise you show that a is not b. This again is a self-evident truth.


Part 9 Marilyn Monroe and Norma Jean Baker

Consider for example Marilyn Monroe and Norman Jean Baker. Marilyn Monroe was her screen name. Norma Jean Baker was her birth name. Leibniz says whatever is true of one is also true of the other since these two designations refer to the same person. Marilyn Monroe is identical to Norma Jean Baker. Whatever is true of one is also true of the other. If Marilyn is in "Some Like It Hot" then also Norma was in "Some Like It Hot." She may not have been called Norma but she was nonetheless the same person. If Marilyn Monroe went to High School at a particular location, then Norma Jean Baker also went to High School at that same location. Again, this is a self-evident truth.


Part 10 The Law of the Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle contends that everything has a given property or it lacks that property. Either an object is red or the object is not red. A blue object is not red. Every object either is or is not red. Every proposition is either true or it is false. It cannot be both true and false. Everything is either a man or not a man. Everything is either a physical object or not a physical object. Again, this also is a very trivial but nonetheless significant principle.


Part 11 Vagueness

What about borderline circumstances? Isn't there a middle ground? We might say, "Everything is either a child or not a child." But what about an adolescent? This is a legitimate point but it still does not compromise the law of excluded middle. We can simply reframe the statement to say everything is not definitely red or is definitely red. This does not compromise the heart of the principle.


Part 12 The Law of Non Contradiction

The law of non-contradiction says that nothing can have a property and not have a property at the same time. Nothing can be red and not be red at the same time. Nothing can be a man and not be a man at the same time. These properties contradict one another. No proposition can be both true and false at the same time.

Remember that the law of the excluded middle says that every proposition is either true or false. This law however says that nothing can be true and false at the same time. Reality depends upon the law of non-contradiction. For example, if show is white ben be both true and false then what use is the premise and reasoning would completely break down. It is actually inconceivable that something could be red and not be red at the same time for an additional example.

These are the self-evident laws of logic. But why are these laws important? These laws are important because of the spirit of our times that says that everything is up for grabs. We live in an age when we believe that everything is revisable or that everything is fallible. In other words, what we believe now can change in the future. But the fact is that not everything is up for change and the laws of logic are a prime example. They do not depend upon our minds and they are the bedrock of all thought and possibly all reality. The laws of logic are immune from the doubt of the skeptic and they have to do with the fundamental nature of rationality itself.


Part 13 Modus Potens

One additional topic merits our attention. It is known as the rule of inference or the Modus Potens. It essentially says that if we know p and know that p is then q then we know q. For example, if you know that it is raining and if it is raining that the ground is wet you can therefore infer that the ground is wet outside. In short, q follows from p. We use this approach frequently. We say, "I will persuade you to accept p and then that p is q and then q. We are simply attempting to get the other person to accept something which follows from an already held to belief.

TRUTH

Part 1: What is "Truth?"

What does the idea of truth actually amount to? What is it for a belief to be true?

Remember that we are not now asking what things are true. We are asking about the nature of Truth. The philosophical question to which we are devoting this material concerns the composition of Truth. What type of theory of Truth should we endorse? What are the elements of Truth?

There are three basic theories concerning the nature of Truth: Coherence Theory, Pragmatic Theory and correspondence Theory.


Part 2: Truth and Coherence Theory

According to Coherence Theory a belief is true it if coheres with the persons other beliefs. In other words a belief is true if it fits in with the other beliefs that a person endorses or holds. In defense of this view we have to think about things and compare a belief with other beliefs that we endorse. For example, someone may ask if wind surfing is a dangerous activity. From observation we might conclude that it is, but the person who practices wind surfing may not think it to be so dangerous. This leads to inevitable problems not the least of which is what appears to be true for one person is not true for another person. In short, this theory leads to the conclusion that this is true for you but not true for me. The Coherence Theory arrives at the conclusion of relativity.

But there is another problem with the theory as well. It leaves out the world or the external world in a crucial way. A belief is true if it is consistent with a range of beliefs according to Coherence Theory. But this definition eclipses the external world. It argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to other beliefs which one holds but it also neglects the realities of the external world. The question emerges as to what makes one's entire web of beliefs true or what makes the things which one endorses to be true in the first place. The fact is that we can have a set of very coherent beliefs that are all false. These beliefs can essentially be illusory. Some have proposed this with regard to the existence of God. One can have a set of beliefs concerning the existence of God which is all-neat and tidy but which is predicated upon illusion. The converse could also be said regarding the failure to believe in God since atheism or agnosticism can also consist of a very tidy set of beliefs. We can further illustrate this with regard to the topic of ordinary literary fiction. A fictional story can consist of a very coherent narrative which is extremely impressive but which is all predicated upon falsity.


Part 3: Truth and Pragmatic Theory

Pragmatic theory is the same thing as utility or usefulness. At first glance this approach to the topic of truth has a ring of truth to it. For example, if I believe that if I will jump off of a tall building gravity will inure me then the pragmatism of that truth helps to preserve my existence. Pragmatics has a place. The pragmatist however is saying that if I endorse a belief I then will not be hurt. He is saying that truth relied upon increases our well-being. Conversely, he is also saying that falsity lacks usefulness. Truth will lead to success and truth is the same thing as successful belief. This approach emerged in America with William James and it has its appeal. It is a very practical approach. It brings truth down from the Platonic heavens and makes truth to be practical and relevant. The particular truth that this theory is advancing is the idea that when we believe something to be true it is then always useful and beneficial. However the fact is that this is a questionable conclusion.

For example, suppose that i live in a country that is a despotic tyranny. Believing what the government tells me is better for me than believing what is actually true. Therein exists the conflict. If you go along with the government then you will flourish thought you might not be guided by actual truth. However, if you believe otherwise you will be persecuted, imprisoned and possible even die as a result. Truth therefore may not always be advantageous.

In addition, there is another problem with the theory. Pragmatic theory contends that you can will and adopt a belief that is useful.

But there is also a third problem. The theory puts the cart before the horse. Pragmatic theory contends that the truth depends on the usefulness rather than the usefulness depending on the truth. Perhaps this is the most blatant of the errors of Pragmatic Theory. Put differently, pragmatic theory contends that what determines truth is the usefulness of the truth rather than its actual truth or validity.


Part 4: Truth and Correspondence theory

Every common sense person intuitively believes this theory. It says for a belief to be true is for it to represent how things really are in the world outside having us. If I believe that Paris is in France then it is based on the fact that there are two things outside of me, the city and the country, which I can validate. The same is true of the statement "the rain is coming down outside." I can investigate and determine if the statement corresponds to the facts outside in the external world. Further, suppose I have a belief that all snow is white. I can determine that this is true because it corresponds to the facts of the external world. There is an external reality upon which I can base my facts so to speak. There must be a correspondence between what I hold to be true and the external world.

Whether i know that my beliefs are true is another question. What this is addressing is how i can know my beliefs to be true. The question of truth is the question of how I can find the truth of my beliefs.


Part 5: Problems with Correspondence theory

If I say that truth is a correspondence relationship between truth and fact this does inevitably lead to some problems however. For example, what is this "correspondence?" Philosophers have proposed questions such as, "What is this correspondence? Is it mapping? Is it mirroring? What kind of mirror is it if it is so? How does this correspondence work? How can physical things be isomorphic to mental things in my mind?"

Correspondence theory however has an advantage over the other theories in that it brings the external world into the correspondence of truth. It brings the external world in directly to my consideration of truth. In short, truth depends on reality. The American Philosopher Quine is famous for asserting, "Nothing is true but reality says it so." Correspondence theory affirms Quine's assertion.


Part 6: Truth and Objectivity

But the question emerges as to whether truth is objective. The fact is that truth does depend on something independent of us. That snow is white depends on the snow that is outside of me. That it is raining outside depends on the rain, which is outside of me.

Some wonder how truth can be objective. They argue that something can be true for you and not for me. Consequently, they regard truth as relative. Something is true in the east but not in the west. Something is true in one culture but not in another culture. Something is true in one context but not in another context. This is the relativist and the subjectivist way of thinking. But the fact is that this is simply erroneous. What you think is true is not made to be true just because you believe it to be true. For example, I can believe that dogs purr or that cats bark, but believing such no matter how fervently I believe does not correspond to the external world around me. In short, the external world of reality establishes truth.


Part 7: Truth, Objectivity and Intolerance

The question then emerges as to whether or not the belief in the objectivity of truth inevitably leads to intolerance toward others who do not regard truth, as do we. This is a natural question. Intolerance is indeed a dangerous thing. Tolerance is not supposing believe that everything that anybody believes is true. This is not tolerance.

Suppose for instance that a society is formed which contends that the earth is flat. The external world does not support this belief and quite to the contrary denies this belief. However, this society is not to be persecuted, jailed or imprisoned. Tolerance, therefore, has nothing to do with whether or not a person's belief is true. Tolerance has to do with issues of civility and integrity and sometimes even pity and compassion.

KNOWLEDGE

Part 1: Knowledge as Justified True Belief

Let's consider the question, "What is knowledge?" It is important to understand from the outset what is intended by the specific question. With this question we are not concerning ourselves with the question, "What do I know?" Rather we are concerned with a conceptual analysis of the nature of knowledge. We need to break the concept of "knowledge" into parts in order to understand the essence or the very nature of knowledge.

This is how the discipline of philosophy approaches the issue of knowledge. It asks, "What are the conceptual constituents of knowledge?" and consequently we need to pin down some philosophical terminology at this point. As we will see in one moment the conceptual elements of knowledge consist of justified true belief. But before proceeding to these elements there are two preliminary elements or concepts that we must consider. These are Necessary and Sufficient Conditions.


Part 2: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

There are two types of conditions that are central in this instance to arriving at an adequate understanding of the nature of knowledge. First we must understand necessary conditions and secondly sufficient conditions. Necessary conditions are those conditions that must be satisfied for me to be capable of saying that I know something to be true. Sufficient conditions are those conditions which when satisfied will provide enough knowledge for me to be capable of saying that I have knowledge. With these definitions in mind, we move now to the three parts or constituents of knowledge.


Part 3: Justified True Belief

Knowledge is said by philosophers to consist of "true justified belief." In other words these three parts or constituents are central to the nature of knowledge. If someone has knowledge of something then his or her knowledge should be true, should be justified, and should be believed. Let's examine these a bit more closely.

Belief: This is the most obvious element of knowledge. For example someone must believe that the Battle of Hastings took place in Paris, France in 1056. This is a necessary condition. However, it should be noted that belief is not sufficient in and of itself for justifying knowledge. Just because I believe something does not make it true. I can believe that an elephant is in the corner, but this believe regardless of how sincerely I hold it, does not make this to be true.

There are instances of someone endorsing a belief or possessing a belief that is false. It should also be said that a person couldn't know something that is false. This is inherently a contradiction. For something to be known it must be true. This is a necessary condition.

In addition, a person must be justified in their belief. Knowledge cannot be accidentally true, as we shall see later in our consideration of the nature of knowledge. Suppose I state that I am going to win the lottery tomorrow and this in fact turns out to be true. Did I know that I would really win the lottery tomorrow? Not at all. I just guessed that I would win. I have to have a justification for my belief if I am to have knowledge of something. These are the three necessary conditions for knowledge.

In summary, this is a philosophical conceptual analysis of the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is made up of these three components: justified true belief. Now let's take another step.


Part 4: Skepticism and Justified True Belief

Skepticism focuses on the justification for knowledge and argues that this justification is not "watertight." For example consider the statement that there is a bottle of water in front of you. Skepticism counters that there may be other explanations. For example, you may be dreaming that there is a bottle of water in front of you and this isn't a very good justification to say that the external world validates a belief. So skepticism attempts to turn the conclusion upside down and concludes that there is a gap between justification and truth.

There are three important components to knowledge. Knowledge consists of justified true belief. Regarding "belief" philososphers do not restrict this "belief" to the consideration of religious or political belief. Rather I can believe there is a bottle in front of me or I can believe that I was playing tennis this afternoon. These are commitments to truth and it is important to understand that beliefs cannot be willed. If I hear bad news and I will that things be otherwise that still doesn't change the truth of what has occurred.

It should be acknowledged, however, that there is a slight qualification to this. There is such a thing as wishful thinking Some individuals can wish themselves into beliefs which are not rationally entitled. Remember that beliefs must come to us passively from the world. I cannot just decide to have a belief. Beliefs at can sometime aim at the truth but they can also sometimes miss the mark. For example, I can believe that the battle of Hastings was fought in Paris, France in 1055 but that would be erroneous and therefore not knowledge since the battle was fought in 1056. The belief must aim at the truth and many beliefs may still be false.

In addition, there must be justification. Why do I believe something to be true? I have to have a justified belief for that to be true. I cannot have a belief for no reason at all. I must have a justification for my belief. I have to have a reason or reasons for my belief. Thereby I am capable of justifying my beliefs. If then someone gives me better reasons for another belief or for a different belief then I must give myself to that belief. In essence, we must also be open to counter arguments. We must be open to arguments and to reasons.


Part 5: Causal Connections: Problem 1

A person can satisfy all of the conditions and still not have knowledge however. Plato found that there is a loophole in this analysis of the nature of knowledge. For example, suppose that my brother is about to visit me at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. He always visits me at this same time. You hear the doorbell ring and then after having answered the door come to me to tell me that my brother has arrived.

As a result I believe that my brother is at the door. You are a reliable person and have always proven yourself to be a reliable person and you have never led me astray when you tell me something so consequently I believe you. But suppose that you are actually lying to me. You are trying to deceive me and my brother is not at the door though you have actually told me that he is at the door. So far there is no problem with the analysis. But here is the wrinkle in the argument.

Suppose my brother is actually at the door when you are telling me the lie. You thought he wasn't coming and you were lying, but he suddenly showed up while you were telling me he was there. You thought he wasn't coming and you were lying but now he is there at the door.

Now let's review the situation. I have a belief and this belief is now true. So I know that my brother is at the door. Is that really true? Do I really "know" that my brother is at the door? The belief that my brother is at the door is justified and it is true and it is a belief. All of the constituents have been met. But you were lying to me. The entire scenario is based upon deception. Consequently, I do not have knowledge, but I am simply "lucky." It is an accident that my brother is at the door. Truth, justification and belief are not sufficient for knowledge.


Part 6: Causal Connections: Problem 2

Suppose I see you arrive at work each day in a Porsche. I conclude that you, my friend, own a Porsche. It is a justified belief since I see you arrive at work in the Porsche each day. Suppose that this is true in a way however that I do not expect. My friend does not own the Porsche that he drives into the parking lot each morning. He borrowed that Porsche from his friend who is very wealthy.

You might say that belief that he owned a Porsche was a false belief, but herein lays the wrinkle. Suppose the friend doesn't own that particular Porsche but he owns a different Porsche which is an old wreck and which is worth very little and that he keeps in his garage at home and he also never drives it. So the belief is true but not in the way I expect it to be true and his owning the Porsche is unrelated to why I believed he owned a Porsche. I believed it but I did not know it to be true. Once again this was an accident. Again the concept of knowledge is not satisfied because of the flawed connection between the justification and the belief that I endorse.

These realities led philosophers to mend the theory of knowledge. You can analyze a concept in what seems to be an appropriate and reliable manner but it still may be incorrect. In order for a belief to be knowledge it can't be accidentally true. There must be some sort of connection between justification and the truth. Without this connection we do not have a reliable account of knowledge. Returning to our scenarios the Porsche my coworker owns plays no role in knowledge in my knowledge of his owning a Porsche. The Porsche he actually owns doesn't cause me to have the belief. So you might think there is a missing causal connection between the two things and in reality there is no causal connection between the two. In the example of the brother there is once again a missing causal connection. The causal connection is not between the Porsche in the garage and the brother at the door. Rather the causal connection is between the individual giving the report and me. In either case the criteria for knowledge is not satisfied.


Part 7: Causal Connections: Problem 3

The fact that makes the belief true must also be true. This is what we have learned from the two previous examples.

Let's look at another of the example that will bring new light to the role of this causal connection and knowledge. Suppose I am driving through the country. I see haystacks, trees, sheep, and barns. I form various beliefs about these objects. These are rational beliefs and all is as it should be. They I do into a part of the country in which everything is take. It is sort of like a film set. There are fake trees, fake sheep and fake barns. They are all two-dimensional facades. I think that there is a tree; a sheep, a barn but all of these are false representations. They appear to be real but they are not real at all. It just so happens that I then drive by a real barn, however. I say to myself, "There is a real barn." But the fact is that I have gotten this right by sheer accident. I do not actually know that this is a real barn because I have actually thought that each of the other barns, sheep and haystacks are also real. This is knowledge that I have by accident. I have gotten it right but not based upon anything other than accident. Consequently, this isolated case does not constitute real or actual knowledge thought it possesses the qualities of justified true belief.

Again the concept of the causal connection is central to having true knowledge.