• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Considering creatures by the name of Hard Cases, we are to assume that their perceptual beliefs are involuntary in the "hard way" where they do not retain intellectual authority over what they believe.

Extracts from this document...


Prompt: Considering creatures by the name of Hard Cases, we are to assume that their perceptual beliefs are involuntary in the "hard way" where they do not retain intellectual authority over what they believe. When we see a red table and lack an appropriate defeater, we are justified in believing that the table is red. Then the Hard Cases see a red table, they have the same perceptual experience we do and also lack an appropriate defeater. So they too are justified in believing that the table is red. Their beliefs are involuntary in the "hard way," however, so, according to deontological accounts of justification, they are not justified. Seemingly, deontological accounts of justification are mistaken. The deontological objection would have to reply to this seeming fallacy and establish grounds for having epistemic justified belief, that is, having a justified belief based on the body of evidence shown. It can be shown, however, that this very principle may be applied to a metaphysical transcendental examination of the evidence that is presented to properly assess how the Hard Cases are not truly justified in believing anything. In short, the Hard Cases can be shown to not be considering the full scope of evidence about the world that we see and cannot be considered as having justified true beliefs. Note: The discussion shall include notes on Strawson and Searle, for it is their view that I think of when examining this particular case. There will be reference to computing devices as resembling Hard Cases for both clearly have no particular method to achieve intellectual control and have no way of being held accountable for what they "think." They are then not justified in believing what they do and the deontological principle is preserved. The case as presented: 1. The Hard Cases are justified in believing that p and their belief that p is of the "hard involuntary" nature. ...read more.


I can, however, say that I saw a pen at X time on Y date in an A fashion. However, I cannot say that I saw the pen the way that Peter Markie, Ph.D. has seen it because I am not you. We cannot have the same sensory experience and evidence because both of these are modified and described in terms of how we individually experience things. If we are not having the exact same experience, then we cannot have the exact same evidence. Evidentiary claims found their basis on experiential claims. One cannot be justified in the belief that there is evidence for a pen in front us without going through the proper experience to make such a claim. So, in this fashion, even though we are two different people, the above tautology applies to our situation because we seemingly have nothing to refute the world that we live in. We are in voluntary control of our intellectual processes and as such, our freedom allows us to say that we may have the same experience, but the evidence would be equivalent, not the same. Since our perceptual stance isn't good enough to distinguish between the two, we can get away with saying that our evidence is the same. Since this is apparent, it is of even more importance to note that Hard Cases may go through this exact same process that you and I may go through. A Hard Case and I may both see a chair and we could go through the preceding argument again. In this case, there is a distinct difference. The Hard Cases are not like us. They have no likeness to compare to us because we are beings that have the ability to discern whether or not we have voluntary or involuntary control of our intellectual processes. This is part of our description of mental processes. We surely can tell whether or not one is in capacity to have voluntary intellectual activity and because of this, we can immediately point out that Hard Cases do not have the same voluntary epistemic processes we do. ...read more.


in specific versus Hard Cases, we can assess nearly every infinite regress objection as a moot point. We know that Hard Cases do not see the world the way we do and because of this, they are not justified in their beliefs. We can see that Hard Cases have a set of evidence that they are in effect ignoring; they are not being proper epistemic inquirers by deontologists' standards, although they are not at fault for this. However, because they are in effect missing information that they could possibly use to perhaps change their "involuntary beliefs" in the soft involuntary sense, they are not justified in believing what they do. This would be the best deontological reply and as such, it would work only on a limited scale. There would be a lot of debate as to whether or not one's likeness is actually transferable and because of this, there wouldn't be necessarily any agreement outright. On the other hand, this seems to provide the absolute best solution to preserve deontological theory and serves a very important function in helping us discern what is evidence and experience really mean to us. I think that this reply is successful on many grounds. It helps to preserve deontological theory, it helps to distinguish between people that are phenomenologically stuck on one evidentiary platform from those that can discern between the best evidence available, it helps to lay out a foundation for the definition of "same." On these grounds, success is defined by the absolute refutation of the attack on deontological theory and preserves the notion of voluntary belief while also helping to account for those involuntary beliefs (soft involuntary) that we are allowed to access through our epistemic duty. 1 The Problem of Consciousness. J. Searle. 2 Ibid 3 Ibid 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Minds, Brains and Science. J. Searle. 7 Ibid. 8 The Problem of Consciousness. J. Searle. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. Philosophy 302 - Final Term Paper ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Morality of War section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Morality of War essays

  1. Israel and palestine is it justified?

    As a result of this 'Wall' families have to open their door to a 40m concrete wall and children don't have anywhere to play since their gardens have been snatched from them in a blink of an eye. How exactly can the Israeli government justify the building of this Wall with the excuse of security?

  2. Explain the beliefs Christians hold about their responsibilities for those at the beginning and ...

    They believe that abortion is not just a matter of Religion, but it is about murder, injustice, and denial of human rights. The UN declaration of human rights declares that children need protecting before, as well as after birth. It is a fact to them that every aborted foetus was a potential human being.

  1. Religous Studies Marks Gospel Unit P

    In 'The feeding of the five thousand' 6:30, he shows pity for those who needed food as Mark writes 'he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd'. Even in 4:35 'The calming of the storm' at the start of the story Jesus is described as sleeping with his head on a cushion.

  2. Explore the idea that organisations fail when it comes to supporting domestic abuse survivors ...

    Davison (1997) suggests that it is important to identify the victims/survivors of Domestic Violence and health professionals must be familiar with common signs. The key to good assessment lies in allowing the woman of abuse the opportunity to talk about their injuries, but bearing in mind that not all victims may have traumatic injuries.

  1. What does Christianity teach about human responsibility for the world?

    wages and a new sense of dignity for craft workers in countries such as Bangladesh, Peru and South Africa. Christians can support these charities by buying the products that are produced in these countries at fair triad costs. Tearfund is another organisation which some Christians choose to support by giving

  2. What are the characteristic features of Reliabilism, and how reliable is it?

    From these two examples we notice the aim of the original Reliabilist was to introduce reliability as a condition directly necessary for a definition of knowledge. This seems to be intuitively correct as it fits in with our natural understanding of justification.

  1. The question is, what is happiness? And is technology being exported to benefit ...

    Ullrich states that even if the entire world were to exploit fossil fuel energy, we would sooner or later not have enough natural resources to provide for our energy needs. He brings up a very strong point. By contrast, in Europe most power plants are either nuclear or use natural gas.

  2. In life, there are many cases, in which we have to kill some people ...

    We often kill one person to prevent harm to others. We killed Timothy McVeigh, so he would never be free to bomb another building. We killed John Wayne Gacy, so he could not kidnap rape and kill any more male teenagers.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work