Critical Philosophical Arguments

Why This Matters

Philosophy isn't just abstract theorizing—it's the foundation for how we think about everything testable in the humanities. When you encounter questions about ethics, knowledge, justice, or human nature, you're being asked to apply frameworks these thinkers developed centuries ago. The arguments here represent turning points in intellectual history: moments when someone challenged conventional wisdom so effectively that we're still grappling with their ideas today.

These arguments cluster around four major questions: How do we know what's real? How do we gain knowledge? What makes actions right or wrong? How should society be organized? Don't just memorize who said what—understand which problem each thinker was solving and how their solutions compare. When an essay prompt asks you to evaluate competing ethical frameworks or trace the development of epistemology, you'll need to connect these arguments to each other, not just recite them in isolation.

---

Arguments About Reality and Knowledge

These arguments tackle the most fundamental question in philosophy: How do we know anything at all? Each thinker offers a different starting point for building reliable knowledge—whether through reason, experience, or radical doubt.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave

• Distinguishes appearance from reality—prisoners see only shadows on a cave wall, mistaking them for the true world, illustrating how sensory experience deceives us
• True knowledge requires philosophical ascent—escaping the cave represents moving from doxa (opinion) to episteme (genuine knowledge) through reason
• The Forms are ultimate reality—physical objects are imperfect copies of eternal, unchanging Forms that only the intellect can grasp

Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum

• "I think, therefore I am" establishes the one indubitable truth—even if a demon deceives me about everything else, I must exist to be deceived
• Methodological doubt strips away all uncertain beliefs to find a foundation for knowledge, making this the starting point of rationalist epistemology
• Mind-body dualism emerges from this argument—the thinking self (res cogitans) is distinct from the physical body (res extensa)

Locke's Tabula Rasa

• The mind begins as a "blank slate"—rejecting innate ideas, Locke argues all knowledge derives from sensory experience and reflection
• Empiricism's foundation—this argument grounds the claim that observation and experience, not pure reason, are the sources of knowledge
• Simple ideas combine into complex ones—the mind passively receives sensations, then actively combines them into abstract concepts

Hume's Problem of Induction

• We cannot logically justify inductive reasoning—just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't prove it will rise tomorrow; past patterns don't guarantee future ones
• Habit, not reason, drives our beliefs—we expect regularity because of psychological custom, not logical necessity
• Undermines scientific certainty—if induction is unjustified, all empirical knowledge rests on an unproven assumption that nature is uniform

---

Ethical Frameworks: Duty vs. Consequences vs. Character

These three arguments represent the major competing approaches to ethics. Each answers the question "What makes an action right?" differently—and exam questions frequently ask you to apply, compare, or critique them.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

• Act only according to maxims you could will as universal laws—if everyone lying would destroy trust, lying is always wrong regardless of consequences
• Treats morality as absolute duty—intentions matter more than outcomes; an action is moral only if done from duty, not self-interest
• Respect persons as ends, never merely as means—the second formulation requires treating rational beings as inherently valuable, not tools for your goals

Mill's Utilitarianism

• The greatest happiness principle—actions are right insofar as they promote happiness (pleasure, absence of pain) for the greatest number
• Distinguishes higher and lower pleasures—intellectual and moral pleasures outweigh bodily ones; "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"
• Consequentialist ethics—only outcomes matter morally; intentions are irrelevant if the action produces more harm than good

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics

• Character, not rules or outcomes, determines morality—ethical behavior flows from cultivated virtues like courage, honesty, and temperance
• The Golden Mean—virtue lies between extremes; courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness
• Eudaimonia (flourishing) is life's ultimate goal—happiness isn't pleasure but living well through the exercise of reason and virtue over a complete life

---

Existence, Freedom, and Meaning

These arguments shift from abstract metaphysics to the lived experience of being human. They ask: What does it mean to exist? How should we face life's apparent meaninglessness?

Sartre's Existentialism

• "Existence precedes essence"—humans aren't born with a fixed nature or purpose; we create ourselves through choices
• Radical freedom entails radical responsibility—with no God or human nature to blame, we're "condemned to be free" and fully accountable for who we become
• Bad faith is self-deception about our freedom—pretending we "had no choice" or are determined by circumstances denies our fundamental condition

Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence

• Imagine living your exact life infinitely—this thought experiment tests whether you affirm your existence or wish it were different
• Life-affirmation over nihilism—rather than despairing at meaninglessness, the Übermensch creates values and embraces life fully
• Challenges you to live without regret—every choice should be one you'd willingly repeat forever; this reframes how we evaluate our decisions

---

Justice and Social Organization

This argument applies philosophical reasoning to political questions: How should society be structured if we want it to be fair?

Rawls' Veil of Ignorance

• A thought experiment for designing just institutions—imagine choosing society's rules without knowing your race, class, gender, talents, or position
• Eliminates self-interested bias—behind the veil, you'd ensure fairness because you might end up disadvantaged
• Produces two principles of justice—equal basic liberties for all, and inequalities permitted only if they benefit the least advantaged members (difference principle)

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both Descartes and Locke seek a foundation for knowledge—what is each thinker's starting point, and why do their conclusions differ?

2. If asked to evaluate whether lying to protect someone is ethical, how would Kant and Mill each analyze the situation? Which framework prioritizes intentions over outcomes?

3. Compare Aristotle's virtue ethics to Kant's categorical imperative: what role does character play in each system, and which focuses more on rules?

4. Sartre and Nietzsche both reject traditional sources of meaning. How does each philosopher recommend we respond to a universe without inherent purpose?

5. Explain how Rawls' veil of ignorance addresses the problem of bias in designing just institutions. Why might a utilitarian critique this approach?