PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION SUMMER WORK
Have a read through the information provided below. Once done, answer the four question at
the bottom to hand in on your first lesson at the beginning of the year.
The Teleological Argument
The word 'Telos' is Greek for purpose. The Teleological argument thus argues that the
universe is being directed towards a telos, an end purpose, and the a posteriori evidence of
an apparent intelligent design in the world implies the existence of an intelligent designer,
God. This is why this argument is also sometimes referred to as the ‘Design Argument’.
Paley’s Design Argument
A famous argument for design was given by William Paley in his Natural Theology, Ch. 1-3.
He argues that if I found a stone lying in a field, and wondered how it came to be there, I
might rightly think that, for all I knew, it had always been there. However, if I found a watch
lying on the ground, I wouldn’t feel the same answer was satisfactory. Examining it closely, I
would infer it had a designer.
Now we know that watches have designers. But what is it about a watch itself that leads us
to think it must have a designer? Paley spends a considerable time exploring this inference,
and whether it is valid in the case of the watch. For example, would it undermine the
inference if the watch sometimes went wrong, or if I’d never seen a watch being made? He
is trying to identify exactly what it is about a watch that allows us to infer a designer. After all,
in the case of a watch, this does seem a good inference. Watches don’t just ‘happen’. What
properties of a watch are direct evidence of design?
Paley identifies the property of having an organization of parts put together for a purpose as
crucial. It is from this that we infer the watch has a designer – even if we know nothing about
watchmakers. He then argues that we can make exactly the same argument in the case of
natural things that exhibit that property.
Problems to research:
1. How might evolution cause a problem for Paley’s design argument?
2. Why might the existence of evil cause a problem for the design argument?
3. Research any of David Hume’s criticisms and explain one of them in your own words.
4. Finally, do you think that the Design argument is a good argument? Explain why/why not
in no more than 500 words
ETHICS SUMMER WORK
Have a read through the information provided below. Once done, answer the four question at
the bottom to hand in on your first lesson at the beginning of the year.
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms
of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends
on their effects. The most important classical utilitarians are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Their theory has had a major impact both on philosophical
work in moral theory and on approaches to economic, political, and social policy. Although
utilitarianism has always had many critics, there are many 21st century thinkers that support
it.
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the
amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the
amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems
that consist of commands that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
or supernatural beings (i.e. classic religious traditions.). Instead, utilitarians think that what
makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps nonhuman) beings.
Jeremy Bentham was a hedonist. According to hedonism, the only thing that is good in itself
is pleasure (or happiness). Bentham came up with the Principle of utility that stated that “the
greatest happiness for the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong”. Hedonists do
not deny that many different kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom,
and many other things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable
only because they play a role in producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and happiness,
however, are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because
they produce some further valuable thing. Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food,
friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because it produces pain, suffering, and
unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness are intrinsically bad, i.e. bad in
themselves and not because they produce some further bad thing.
Why might utilitarianism fail to be useful in the following situations?
1. A group of 10 people wanted to beat up one person
2. You have one spare ticket to Thorpe Park. Two friends both say it would make them very
happy to go.
3. You try to make a friend happy by giving them chocolate. You don’t know it but it turns
out they are allergic.
4. Finally, having thought about the above situations, do you think that utilitarianism is a
good ethical theory? Explain why/why not in no more than 500 words