Intro To Philosophy Quiz Part- II

If determinism is true, it means that every event, including our actions and thoughts, is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature. Therefore, if determinism is true, the fact that you are reading this question right now is a result of events that occurred before the Earth came into existence. This implies that every event, including our current actions and decisions, is ultimately determined by past events and not by free will.

The given statement suggests that Clarence Darrow argued in favor of Leopold and Loeb, stating that they were not responsible for murdering Bobby Franks. Darrow believed that their actions were influenced by their heredity (genetic factors) and environment (upbringing and surroundings). This implies that Darrow believed in the concept of determinism, where individuals' actions are shaped by external factors beyond their control. Therefore, the statement is true as it accurately reflects Darrow's argument.

According to Clarence Darrow's view, he believed in the concept of determinism, which suggests that individuals are not ultimately responsible for their actions as they are influenced by various external factors such as genetics, environment, and upbringing. Therefore, it can be inferred that Darrow's view aligns with the statement that no one is responsible for anything, making the answer "True".

Rachels argues that being a teenage mother is a social factor that has been statistically proven to be predictive of criminal behavior. This suggests that individuals who become mothers at a young age are more likely to engage in criminal activities.

Sigmund Freud is famous for his view that unconscious motives explain behavior. He developed the theory of psychoanalysis, which suggests that unconscious thoughts and desires influence our actions. Freud believed that early childhood experiences and unconscious conflicts shape our personality and behavior. This theory has had a significant impact on the field of psychology and continues to be influential today. B.F. Skinner is known for his work in behaviorism, Stanley Morgan is not a well-known psychologist, and Phillip Zimbardo is known for his Stanford Prison Experiment but not for his views on unconscious motives.

According to Clarence Darrow, a famous lawyer, no one is morally better than Leopold or Loeb. This implies that Darrow believed there was no moral superiority between the two individuals. Therefore, the correct answer is true, indicating that Darrow did not consider either Leopold or Loeb to be morally superior to the other.

Compatibilists believe that determinism and free will are compatible. They argue that even if our actions are determined by external factors, we can still be considered free if our actions are in accordance with our own desires and motivations. In other words, determinism does not necessarily mean that we are not free to make choices and act upon them. Therefore, the statement that "Compatibilists hold that determinism does not preclude our acting freely" is true.

Rachels suggests that researchers have found that approximately 50% of our personalities are influenced by our genes. This means that half of our personality traits, characteristics, and tendencies can be attributed to our genetic makeup. The other half is likely influenced by environmental factors, such as upbringing, experiences, and social interactions.

The Problem of Fatalism does not assume that what you do today cannot make a difference in what happens to you tomorrow. The problem of fatalism is the philosophical question of whether we have free will or if everything is predetermined. It suggests that no matter what you do tomorrow, you couldn't do otherwise, implying that our actions are predetermined and we have no control over them. The other two statements are assumptions of fatalism, stating that statements about the future are either true or false and that our actions today cannot change the outcome tomorrow.

The Good Samaritan Experiment actually found that religiosity had no significant correlation with the likelihood of being a Good Samaritan. The experiment involved seminary students who were asked to deliver a sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan. The researchers manipulated the participants' sense of urgency by telling them they were either running late or had plenty of time. The results showed that the sense of urgency had a greater impact on whether or not the students stopped to help a person in need, regardless of their level of religiosity. Therefore, the statement that the more religious a person is, the more likely they are to be a Good Samaritan is false.

Rachels' statement suggests that individuals who are born bad cannot improve. However, this statement is not necessarily true. People have the ability to change and grow throughout their lives, regardless of their initial nature or circumstances. Personal development, learning, and experiences can contribute to positive changes in individuals, allowing them to improve and become better versions of themselves. Therefore, the given statement is false.

Aristotle is known for arguing that the future might be fixed because of the laws of logic. He believed in the principle of causality, which states that every event has a cause, and that the laws of logic determine the outcome of events. According to Aristotle, if the laws of logic are fixed and unchanging, then the future is also fixed and predetermined. This idea is in contrast to other philosophers who argue for free will and indeterminism.

Kornhuber's experiment suggests that the feeling of making a decision may actually be caused by an earlier neural firing. This means that our perception of free will and decision-making may be an illusion, as our decisions could be predetermined by neural activity in our brains. Kornhuber's findings challenge the notion of conscious control over our actions and raise questions about the nature of free will.

The statement is false because the given information states that when Jose Delgado conducted his brain-stimulating experiment on humans, they did not provide any reasons for their movements. Therefore, it implies that there were reasons for their movements, but they were not disclosed or mentioned in the given information.

The statement "God does not know what you will do tomorrow" is not true according to the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge. This problem suggests that if God is omniscient and knows everything, then he would already know what you will do tomorrow. Therefore, the statement contradicts the assumption of God's omniscience and goes against the problem's premise.

Rachels mentions Eric Rudolph as an example of someone whose behavior can be explained without free choice playing any part. This suggests that Rudolph's actions were determined by external factors or circumstances beyond his control, indicating that he did not have the ability to freely choose his behavior.

Penfield is the correct answer because he was a scientist who used surgery to demonstrate the causal connection between brain events and mental events. He pioneered the technique of stimulating specific areas of the brain with electrical currents to observe the resulting mental responses in patients. Through his experiments, Penfield was able to map out the sensory and motor functions of different regions of the brain, providing evidence for the relationship between brain activity and mental processes.

If the evidence of similarities in personalities was purely anecdotal, it means that there was no scientific or empirical data to support the claim that identical twins reared apart have similar personalities. This would weaken the main conclusion drawn from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, as the study's findings would be based on subjective and unreliable information rather than rigorous scientific evidence.

Laplace's view is actually the opposite of the given statement. According to Laplace, our actions are not spontaneous and free, but rather determined by external factors such as past events and physical laws. He believed that if we had complete knowledge of these factors, we could predict and explain all human actions. Therefore, Laplace's perspective does not support the idea of holding people responsible for their actions based on the belief in spontaneity and freedom.

not-available-via-ai