Philosophy Question?

Question

Hi there folks, today my professor has issued everyone in our class individual question for us to answer, however I need help answering my because I can't come up with anything so I decide to ask here and see if I can get some much needed help? So here is my question:

Is there a fact of the matter as to whether philosophic claims are true or false? (Some examples include God does or does not exist, no actions are free, abortion is immoral, you ought not to believe in evolution) Why or why not? Answer the question as a whole.

Answer 1

2+2 is true, everything else is relative.

Answer 2

Usually if there is a fact of the matter, then it's no longer a philosophic question.

Most of these example questions hinge upon the definition of the terms in the question.

For example, depending on how "god" is defined there might be some definitions that would fail a fact of the matter test and therefore it could be said that a god so defined can not possibly exist. Square circles can not exist. An all good, all powerful god can't exist in a universe in which bad also exists.

Free actions... well actions can either be caused or random. In either case they don't qualify as free... so it can be said there are no free actions.

Abortion is it immoral... well that depends on how you define immoral. Abortion does not violate the Monolaw, so it isn't immoral.

You ought not believe in evolution... that depends on how you define what you ought to believe or not.

I hope this helps you ponder this question.

Answer 3

1. Either you've typed in the question slightly incorrectly or your professor needs some remedial English lessons.

2. Do not confuse the questions of
a. Is there an answer and
b. Can we get to the answer

For example another person answering your question has said that there is no answer to the "God question" as there is no proof either way. Look :God either exists or He does not. Whether you believe it makes no difference, whether you can prove it makes no difference. If He exists he exists whether you believe/can prove/argue for His existence or not. So there IS an answer to this first one, it may be an unattainable answer but there is an answer.

From that one would think that your other questions must have answers, whether or not we can get to them. However they all three make assumptions that have to be true for the question to make sense. On the "God" question we know that beings do and don't exist - so the question makes sense. If I were to ask you "is a banana pigmentally erudite?" you would object that the question itself made no sense as neither of us can clearly say what "pigmentally erudite" means. There are similar difficulties involved in the freedom of actions, moral laws and belief in evolution.

I, personally, would have severe difficulties agreeing that there was a answer to the freedom of actions question. I just can't formulate what "freedon of action" means, it sounds to much like "pigmentally erudite" to me.

I do think there are moral laws - so a debate about whether abortion is against them can be productive. If there are moral laws then it will almost certainly have something to say about abortion.

Whether it would say anything about "ought not to believe in evolution" I don't know. Evolution may be wrong or may be right, but it is a seperate question about whether we have a moral obligation to believe one way or the other.

(BTW if you plagarise this too much your professor will ask you about why you can't formulate a meaning for "freedom of action" - and you will be ***cked. You'll be ok if you preface any remark on the point with "some bloke on the internet said!)

Answer 4

The fact of the matter is that philosophic claims are just that "claims" ie, opinions, theories and therefore not facts. Since they are not facts they can not be inherently true or false. It's a matter of opinion. I believe God exists, but there is no concrete proof. I have faith that He exists. I believe abortion is murder, but I went to a catholic high school where we watched films about what happens to aborted fetuses & it was heartbreaking. Plus, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, however someone who was not raised in any religious faith and is not aware of the graphic horrific details of abortion or who doesn't believe that life begins at conception would not see anything wrong with it. Is something immoral if you don't believe it to be wrong? I don't believe in evolution but many do. There is no proof of how the world came into being so it's all conjecture (big bang, evolution or creator). When there are two sides to an argument you can not consider either side to be a "fact" though each side may argue convincingly that it is "fact" but there are no "facts" in philosophy. In math, science, geography perhaps. Philosophy, no.

Answer 5

You have to decide on what is fact and what is opinion. Some questions belong in the relm of philosophy, and others don't. The question of whether abortion is moral or immoral is opinion subject to the vageries of individual and cultural outlooks. The belief in evolution question does not even belong in this argument. Evolution, is a scientific observation, not a belief system, and is not subject to philosophical or religious scrutiny. The 'no actions are free' statement is a good philosophical issue... Philosophy is an outlook on life based on premises. It's important to ask one's self if your premises are indeed fact, or part of a belief system...

Answer 6

Well, whether or not G-d exists is a matter of faith, not provable for most people. Free will is another debatable matter, as is whether abortion is immoral, though in some sense the two are different - one involving determining morality and one the existence of free will. Evolution seems pretty provable through observation, though obviously one can't prove evolution vs. creations as described in Genesis.

Answer 7

Sounds like a question about Universality, or absolute truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

I'd start here about information on it, you can find a lot of material out there, and by the way if every truth in the world was relative, that ideal would in fact be a truth, so you'd have to throw the theory out.

Answer 8

No, there's too many pros and cons associated with philosophic claims and no concrete proof, philosophic claims are mostly intangible proofs, i.e. God does exist--I know that he does but have never seen Him and have no tangible proof; thus, to the atheist, I have no proof.