After my A level exam for Knowledge and Inquiry paper 2, I jotted down the essay plan that I had. That was the day I had the biggest sigh of relief. On hindsight, I really enjoyed the essay questions. I somehow stumbled upon my note recently. Looking back at my rough plan, I am surprised I managed to pull it off…


By the way, here are my KI notes.

Q1: “All I know is that I know nothing” To what extent does philosophical skepticism undermine the quest for human knowledge?

Intro

  • Contradictory. Not all so extreme
  • Taking knowledge as JTB (Justified True Belief) - philosophical skepticism can come in two forms - one concerning the T (idealism), the other concerning the J (Cartesian, Humean, Agrippan)
  • Undermine if we apply it to our everyday lives. However if we draw the line and use it as a thought experiment, it can enhance knowledge construction

Paragraph 1: Philosophical skepticism concerning the T undermines K construction

  • Berkeley’s idealism - extreme
  • Even Kant, after making the distinction between the noumena and the phenomena, qualified by saying reality should be redefined to what we can access
  • Moore, on his essay “a Defense of Common Sense”, rejected Berkeley’s idealism by saying “there are two hands in front of me”
  • Using a commonsensical approach, we realized why such philosophical skepticism should not be involved in our lives

Paragraph 2: Philosophical skepticism concerning the J undermines K construction

  • Agrippan trilemma + explanation
  • We can never fully and sufficiently justify
  • Attempts to circumvent it through accepting theories of justifications such as foundationalism and coherentism

Paragraph 3: Philosophical skepticism seems to take issue with the lack of certainty in our knowledge inquiry

  • Cartesian systematically discard beliefs that can be doubted
  • Perception (hallucinations etc.)
  • Even Math which we once considered to be indubitable (evil demon argument)
  • Humean doubt - reason and experience (which are our main sources of knowledge)
  • His assault on causality sheds doubt on the very basic tool in which we used to make sense of the world
  • However, it seems absurd if one applies it to their everyday lives - doubting their senses or refusing to board a plane due to the fear that the laws of aerodynamics might fail

Paragraph 4: Such skepticisms are not meant to undermine K construction, but enhance it

  • Descartes wanted to find a belief that he can be absolutely certain of, concluding with his “cogito ergo sum”
  • Even so, Russell pointed out that there is still a leap in reasoning. Only sufficient to lead to the conclusion that “I think, therefore there are thoughts”
  • Differentiate between philosophical K and human knowledge (perhaps this is why the question makes the distinction?) since human knowledge hardly require certainty
  • Hume in his work, An Enquiry Pertaining Human Understanding, claimed that “be a philosopher; but amidst your philosophy, be still a man”
  • When used as a thought experiment, perhaps philosophical skepticism can enhance K inquiry.

Paragraph 5: Philosophical skepticism inspires ordinary skepticism

  • Science - role of skepticism in the scientific method
  • History - role of skepticism in historical inquiry

Conclusion: The principles used in philosophical skepticism can be applied to our K construction to enhance it

  • Edge cases are common in philosophical question
  • Challenges our beliefs…

Q2: We should make our laws based on the principle of utility

When I first read this question, I wanted to skip it - because of the ambiguity that come with interpreting this question. The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret this question:

  1. Utility can be interpreted as “usefulness”, or Pragmatism and laws can be interpreted as Scientific laws.
  2. Utility can be interpreted as “happiness”, and laws can be interpreted as the one that… get you in jail.

For me, I used the second interpretation.

Intro

  • Principle of Utility - (maximize pleasure, minimize pain; utilitarianism)
  • Laws - countries
  • “Should” normative - can be interpreted two ways - 1) we should because it is right 2) we should because it is pragmatic
  • Thesis: I disagree that the principle of utility is sufficient to enable us to know what laws we should make since it is neither “right” nor “practical”

Paragraph 1: It is not practical

  • Different types of “principle of utility”, what to adopt?
  • Bentham: quantity (intensity, duration)
  • Mill: quantity and quality (distinction between higher pleasure and lower pleasure)
  • Negative utilitarian - focus more on pain rather than pleasure
  • Even if we decide on one, still impractical
  • Bentham’s felicific calculator - how to calculate?
  • Mill’s rule utilitarianism - what about rules that are more gray? Like the banning of chewing gum in SG

Paragraph 2: It is not right

  • Odd cases
  • Benthem - Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas - child in the basement -> applied in the real world - law permissing organs extraction from one person without consent to save 5?
  • Negative utilitarianism -> Though intuitive, if we take it to the extreme, does it entail that countries should pass anti-natalist laws? Since if children are not born, suffering decreases (beings in non-existence will not have the capacity to feel pain)
  • All these are intuitively wrong. But the case can be made that it need not be intuitive to be “right”. Thus whether it is right or not warrants discussion. G.E. Moore Open Question Argument

Paragraph 3: Any attempts to create laws based on what is right is problematic, as it is unclear whether moral “truths” exist

  • G.E. Moore’s intuitionism is-ought
  • Intuition as a by product of evolution and culture
  • Supernatural
  • All these either falls into the is-ought or not justified. Are they exhaustive? Maybe not, but I’m not denying their existence, I’m merely skeptical to commit to their existence

Paragraph 4: Does this mean we fall into the traps of moral nihilism and let anything goes?

  • Hobbes - without laws - chaos - human nature - barbaric
  • Thus law is needed for pragmatic purposes

Conclusion: Laws should not be seen as static, but a dynamic process that refines based on the people’s changing moral principles

  • Rawl’s reflective equilibrium - not by appealing to moral facts, but other factors (reason, experience, principles)
  • Our moral position changes, and since a society is an aggregate of individuals, a society’s moral position changes
  • As I’m writing this - there are people protesting against the death penalty since the death penalty for Nagaenthran is scheduled 2 days from now