Final answer:
The Phenomenal Conservatism and Common Sense Privilege arguments justify belief in other minds by emphasizing direct sense perception, common sense, and everyday experiences as reliable evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Phenomenal Conservatism argument and the Common Sense Privilege argument are two philosophical approaches used to justify belief in other minds. The Phenomenal Conservatism argument asserts that our beliefs in other minds are justified based on our direct sense perception and immediate experience of other people's mental states. It suggests that when we observe other people's behavior, expressions, and emotions, we have a reasonable basis to believe that they have conscious mental states similar to ours.
On the other hand, the Common Sense Privilege argument suggests that our beliefs in other minds are justified because they are fundamental and common sense. It denies the possibility of being skeptical of certain basic claims of sense perception. According to this argument, our everyday experiences and interactions provide evidence for the existence of other minds. For example, when we engage in conversation, observe shared emotions, or witness voluntary actions of others, it becomes natural and reasonable to believe that they possess minds like ours.
Both arguments aim to defend the belief in other minds by highlighting the importance of direct sense perception, common sense, and our everyday experiences as reliable evidence. They provide a philosophical foundation for accepting the existence of other minds based on our subjective experiences of interacting with others.