Questions & explanations
1. If moral realism is true, how could we ever know what is morally right or wrong?
Moral realists say we can know moral facts through reason, intuition, or observation. For example, we might reason that causing unnecessary pain is wrong because it violates a principle of non-harm. Some realists say we have a moral intuition — a direct sense that some actions are right or wrong, like seeing that a child's smile is good. Others say we can observe consequences: helping others leads to well-being, so it's good. But critics ask: if moral facts are like scientific facts, why is there so much disagreement? Realists reply that disagreement doesn't disprove facts — people disagree about science too. So knowledge comes from careful thinking and experience.
2. Compare the existentialist view of meaninglessness with the sociological view of alienation. How are they similar and different?
Both views agree that meaninglessness arises from a lack of authentic connection. Existentialism sees meaninglessness as a fundamental human condition that we must overcome by creating our own meaning. Sociology, through alienation theory, sees meaninglessness as caused by social structures like capitalism that separate people from their work and each other. The similarity is that both recognize meaninglessness as a real problem. The difference is that existentialism focuses on individual choice, while sociology focuses on social conditions. Existentialists would say you can create meaning despite alienation; sociologists would say changing society is necessary.
3. Compare exact truthmaker semantics with inexact truthmaker semantics.
Exact truthmaker semantics uses minimal truthmakers that are exactly enough to make a sentence true. Inexact truthmaker semantics allows any truthmaker that makes the sentence true, even if it includes extra stuff. For example, the exact truthmaker for 'the cat is on the mat' is just that state. An inexact truthmaker could be the whole room. Exact semantics gives a finer analysis of meaning. Inexact semantics is simpler but less precise. Fine prefers exact because it captures the idea that the truthmaker is relevant to the sentence. Inexact semantics might treat different sentences as having the same truthmakers if they are true in the same situations.
4. What is the difference between using a description to refer to someone and using it to describe someone?
Donnellan distinguished two uses of definite descriptions. In a referential use, you use a description to pick out a specific person you have in mind, even if the description is wrong. For example, if you say 'The man drinking champagne is happy' but the man is actually drinking water, you still refer to that man. In an attributive use, you use a description to say something about whoever fits that description. For instance, 'The murderer of Smith is insane' describes whoever actually murdered Smith, even if you don't know who that is. The key difference is whether you intend to refer to a particular individual or to whoever satisfies the description.
5. If someone says 'murder is wrong,' does the word 'wrong' describe a fact about the world or just express the speaker's feelings?
This question gets at the debate between moral realism and expressivism. Moral realists think 'wrong' describes a fact, like 'murder causes suffering,' which is true or false. Expressivists think 'wrong' expresses disapproval, like saying 'Boo, murder!' — it's not a fact but an emotion. A simple example: if two people disagree about 'stealing is wrong,' a realist says one is right and one is wrong, while an expressivist says they just have different feelings. So the meaning of moral terms depends on your view: fact-stating or emotion-expressing. This matters because it changes how we argue about ethics — as discovering truth or negotiating attitudes.
6. Compare moral realism and expressivism: which view better explains why people feel strongly about moral issues?
Moral realism says people feel strongly because they believe they're responding to objective moral facts, like 'torture is truly wrong.' Expressivism says the feeling itself is the source: we call something 'wrong' because we feel disapproval, and the strength of the feeling explains our passion. Realism can explain why we think moral truths apply to everyone; expressivism explains why moral disagreements often feel emotional rather than factual. Both have strengths: realism matches our sense of moral objectivity, while expressivism fits the link between morals and emotions. Neither is proven, but each offers a different account of moral meaning.
7. Compare existentialist meaning with the idea that meaning comes from a divine plan. Which view gives more responsibility to the individual?
Existentialism says meaning is created by the individual through free choices, while a divine plan says meaning is given by God. In existentialism, each person is fully responsible for creating their own meaning, which can be heavy but also empowering. With a divine plan, meaning is already set, and the individual's role is to discover and follow it. Existentialism gives more responsibility because there is no external guide; you must choose your values and actions. The divine plan view reduces personal responsibility because the meaning is predetermined. Existentialists argue that accepting full responsibility is necessary for authentic living.
8. What is truthmaker maximalism?
Truthmaker maximalism is the idea that every true statement has something in the world that makes it true. For example, the statement 'the cat is on the mat' is made true by the cat being on the mat. But some truths, like 'there is no cat on the mat', seem hard to find a truthmaker for. This is called the problem of negative truths. A negative truth says something does not exist or is not the case. The problem is that if nothing exists to make it true, then truthmaker maximalism might be false. Some philosophers say negative truths are made true by the whole world or by absences. Others say we do not need truthmakers for negative truths.
9. Explain why 'Necessarily, the morning star is the morning star' is de dicto true but de re false if 'the morning star' is a description.
De dicto: the proposition 'the morning star is the morning star' is necessarily true because it is a logical identity. De re: the object that is the morning star (Venus) is necessarily identical to itself, which is true. Wait, that is actually true de re as well. But if we consider a different description, say 'the morning star is the evening star', de dicto is false (it's contingent), but de re: the object Venus is necessarily identical to itself, so de re is true. So the distinction is subtle: de re about the object is often true when the object is the same. The key is that de dicto depends on the description, de re on the object.
10. Compare a blessing and a curse as speech acts. How do their conditions of success differ?
Both blessings and curses are performative speech acts that aim to bring about a change in the world through words. A blessing typically requires the speaker to have goodwill and authority, and the recipient to be open to receiving it. A curse often requires the speaker to have perceived power or grievance, and the target to be vulnerable. Success conditions include the speaker's sincerity and the appropriate ritual context. For example, a blessing in a religious service may need holy words, while a curse in folklore may need a specific formula. The main difference is the intended effect: blessing seeks good, curse seeks harm.
11. How does direct reference theory for indexicals differ from the view that indexicals have descriptive meanings like 'the speaker'?
Direct reference theory says indexicals refer directly without a descriptive meaning. The alternative view, called descriptivism, says that 'I' means 'the speaker' and refers to whoever fits that description. But direct reference theory argues that descriptions are not needed because the referent is fixed by context. For example, if I say 'I am here,' the word 'I' refers to me directly, not through a description. Descriptivism would have trouble with cases where the description is wrong, like if I am not the speaker (e.g., in a recording). Direct reference avoids these problems by saying context alone determines reference.
12. What is the difference between de re and de dicto modality?
De re modality is about a thing itself having a property necessarily or possibly. For example, 'Necessarily, 9 is greater than 7' is de re because it says something about the number 9 itself. De dicto modality is about a statement or proposition being necessarily or possibly true. For example, 'Necessarily, the number of planets is greater than 7' is de dicto because it says that the proposition 'the number of planets is greater than 7' is necessary. But since the number of planets is 9, the de dicto claim is false because it is contingent. The distinction matters for understanding modal logic and philosophical puzzles.