meta ethical theories

what is naturalism?

• there are objective facts about right and wrong

• by observations of the world we can find these moral truth

• they can be verified or falsified
  → e.g. if you want to know if euthanasia is bad then look at the facts surrounding it

• any theory which says goodness is something with natural features

name 6 naturalists

1. aristotle

2. epicurus

3. bentham

4. aquinas

5. bradley

6. foot

what does aristotle say about naturalism

• we need to find the right balance between things to have virtues

• this is called the golden virtue

• we can have practical wisdom
  → this can’t be taught and has to be learnt through experience of watching moral exemplars (imitation)

• we need to develop practical wisdom (becoming wise and making accurate decisions about right and wrong)
  

• developing practical wisdom results in eudaimonia
  → gives us fulfilment when we’ve worked hard and effort, failure, etc is needed
  

• all things have 4 causes and the most important is the final cause (telos)

• when something reaches its purpose it can be described as good
  → e.g. a pen with no ink is a bad pen as it can’t fulfil its purpose

give an example of the golden virtue

vice: stinginess- rich and not donating

vice: overly generous- buying drugs for an addict

golden virtue: generosity- knowing when to give and when to keep for yourself

what is the hedonist view of naturalism?

• only moral good is pleasure or happiness (held by bentham)

• more happiness = morally better

• goodness = happiness which is a natural property of the world

• we are all hedonists as we all seek pleasure and avoid pain

what are 3 issues of hedonism and naturalism?

1. what gives us pleasure changes as we age

2. not everything is pleasurable for all people all the time → e.g. sex or good food

3. can lead to addictions when people focus too much on pleasure being again
   → leads to epicurus

what does epicurus say about hedonism and naturalism?

• hedonist but thought it needs to be done in moderation

• overindulgence leads to pain and so we should avoid it
  → e.g. too much food = health issues

• still eat the food but know when to stop and not in excess

name a strength and limitation of epicurus

strength:
aquinas- alcohol is good for sociability but too much needs to be stopped before people get too rowdy and take it too far

weakness:
aristotle- thought epicurus only had his view to his own good self control, but not everyone else is like that. we need to do unpleasurable things for pleasurable results
pain is necessary for greater pleasure and eudaimonia

what does bradley say about naturalism (key one)

we have ethical statements which are either true or false, so there must be some way to figure that out

there has to be some reality beyond statements which make them true or false

we can verify these statements by observing the natural world

what quote does bradley say about naturalism?

“my station and its duties'“

we all have a duty to do and if we do it wrong there will be bad results

societal roles exist and come with expectations
→ they arise from how human life comes

break down in this leads to natural consequences like:

harm, instability, breakdown of trust
→ e.g. bad parenting and abuse leads to harm of the children

objective moral truth which hurts people and damages human life

what does aquinas say about naturalism?

• largely agrees with aristotle

• things which exist are good → if something exists it has to have goodness
  → “god saw everything he made and it was good” - genesis
  → reproduction is good as it is a natural quality humans possess and leads to fulfilment of a human’s purpose

• real and apparent goods:

  • humans sometimes pursue things which seem good but after reflecting realise it was bad and not consistent with natural law

• WORLD- different tiers of law, etc.

what does foot say about naturalism?

• evil is a natural defect
  → fair man is one who has certain values like fairness and honesty

• when we know eachother, we learn how good people are at having these values like justice/honesty

• if someone is a bad person then they have a defect
  → e.g. a defect of honesty

• we see it in people empircally
  → suggests objective moral absolutism and is observable

• we can decide what is moral even if we can’t measure it precisely
  → not necessary to do hedonic calculus or test like ayer

explain excellence and defect in nature (foot)

1. a natural cycle of self maintenance and reproduction

2. general features cause certain norms to be developed

3. by recognising these norms we can establish if a person excels or is defective
   → e.g. fast cheetah excels / slow cheetah is defective

explain morals=biology (foot)

• no difference between a good root of a tree and a good person

• even if there are times we get away with things like dishonesty, we can see how these virtues benefit us and allow flourishing

explain naturalism and absolutism

• absolutism = something is always right or wrong

• suggests there is objective moral rules to be followed in the world

• e.g. utilitarianism:

  • absolutist: always try to maximise happiness

  • not: no general rules about lying

explain evolutionary theories and naturalism

• what is good can be identified by what gives a survival advantage

• good eye sight, healthy body, working together in society

• all natural features of the world

• counterpoint: naturalistic fallacy. just because this is what happens, doesn’t mean it’s good

name 2 strengths of naturalism

1. able to know what is good
   all people want to be happy and that is part of the world. we can observe things that make people happy in the world and decide that that is good
   e.g. giving to charity
   

2. significant agreement on moral values
   the agreement on moral values across the world suggests that right and wrong are factual things rather than opinions. if they differed it could be based on culture but natural law and utilitarianism are both very secular
   → counterpoint: however, some people do bad things
   → counterpoint to that: aquinas- we haven’t reasoned properly then (link to conscience)

name 3 limitations of naturalism

1. moore- naturalistic fallacy
   suggests that if something is natural then it must be good which is wrong.
   nature gave us sharp teeth to tear into meat → might be pleasurable but doesn’t make being vegan immoral
   it assumes just because something is natural then it is good but that’s not true
   

2. pleasure can’t equal goodness
   it might be pleasurable to eat crisps but that doesn’t mean that it’s moral to eat crisps
   → counterpoint: epicurus: pleasure is good in moderation
   

3. sartre and existentialism
   aquinas and aristotle: there is a telos for humans which requires the existence of god in some way
   → sartre and existentialism: no firm purpose

what is emotivism?

morality isn’t factual truths→ just personal opinions

name 2 emotivists

1. ayer (vienna circle and verification principle)

2. stevenson

what does ayer say about emotivism?

• ethics are a result of our emotional responses

• terrorism = sad = morally wrong

• helping animals = happy = morally right

• this is also known as ethical non-naturalism
  → no objective facts about right and wrong, only emotional responses

• stealing is wrong can be changed to stealing annoys me
  → just an emotion/subjective experience

• it also can’t be falsified or verified through senses
  → can’t be empirically tested but are just linked to emotions

explain ayer’s boo hurrah theoru

boo= holocaust

hurrah= fundraising for charity

moral statements aren’t facts but just expressions of emotion like saying boo or horrah to something to try and sway others to agree with your view

→ ethical non-cognitivism

what does stevenson say about emotivism?

• moral language has both emotive and prescriptive elemts

• prescriptive elements: telling you to do something
  → moral language described what we should do

• stealing is wrong = it angers me = don’t do it

• emotive element is also used to sway the listener to have the same POV as you about something

explain emotivism and relativism

• relativism: truth is relative to certain person or culture

• non-cognitive approach

• normally people would think murder or torture is objectively wrong

• emotivism disagrees
  → someone who has positive feelings towards murder or torture is just as right as you are. they are stating their feelings on a topic just like you

• morality becomes extremely relative if emotivism is true

name 3 strengths of emotivism

1. explains why different people have different responses and moral views on different topics
   → e.g. assassination of charlie kirk shows divided views on morality
   

2. avoids naturalistic fallacy
   rejects moral values are linked to the world in anyway
   they are just products of our personhood
   

3. recognises feelings drive ethical disagreements more than reason
   psychologist (goleman) found that emotional part of the brain responds before the reasoning part does

name 5 limitations of emotivism

1. good/bad is more than preference
   most people would feel positively towards MILk and negatively towards Hitler
   → counterpoint: some people like hitler and dislike MLK
   → counterpoint back: they could have reasoned wrong- aquinas
   

2. foot
   if you encountered the cruelty of the holocaust we wouldn’t just say it’s bad because we are sad about it. something intrinsically wrong about it
   → counterpoint: brings emotional response which tries to defeat emotivism.
   

3. practical consequence
   no morality past emotions means we have non reason to do anything
   if there was a child drowning and we didn’t feel like helping we have no reason to stop them dying
   kant: categorical imperatives
   law: somethings are right and wrong
   

4. naturalism
   agrees we have emotional responses but this is consistent with there being actual facts. maybe we have emotions to awaken us to the reality of right and wrong
   

5. emotional response doesn’t mean correct ethical conclusion
   a child could be upset their parent said no to them going for the bleach bottle. that doesn’t mean they are correct
   

6. racism
   someone is just as right as you to say racism is good since all they are doing is expressing their feelings towards black people
   → totally unacceptable to us which suggests there is a factual element when you say something is immoral

name 3 intuitionists

1. moore

2. prichard

3. ross

explain moore’s view of intutionism

• goodness can’t be defined

• it is a property of a situation which we either recognise or don’t recognise
  → this recognition is called intuition

• example of mother theresa

• analogy of colour yellow

• we either are in tune with our moral vision or we aren’t
  → people who can’t see mother theresa’s actions as good can’t be persuaded
  → they simply fail to see what everyone else can

• people who are psychopaths or morally unaware don’t see the world in the same way as us
  →there is no use in arguing with them since goodness is indefineable
  → only course of action is to keep showing them good actions until they start to see what we do

• we are either morally sighted or morally blinded

what is the example of mother theresa? (intuitionism)

• if we watched mother theresa, we would observe her actions as good

• someone else might not be able to see why it’s good

• it is impossible to explain to them why it is good

explain the analogy of the colour yellow (intuitionism)

• we can see the colour yellow and know what it is because we have a normal sense of colour

• however, we can’t explain it to a person who is colour blind because it is indefineable

• either we see it or we don’t

explain dylann roof for intutionism

• he went into a church and shot 9 black people in the congregation dead

• he insisted there was nothing wrong with his actions and they were good

• intuitionist would argue that he doesn’t see the world in a normal way
  → morally warped and blind so he can’t see what he did was wrong

what does prichard say about intutionism?

• developed moore’s ideas further

• both good and the idea of obligation is indefinable

• obligation refers to how we always know when we need to act a certain way
  → intuitionism helps people know how to act

• everyone has a different moral intuition- some people’s are more developed than others

• when there is conflict between our moral obligatins, we examine the situation and choose the greater one

what does ross say about intuitionism?

• developed moore and prichard’s ideas further

• dentologist and thought certain actions were right
  → callled these prima facie duties

• we recognise prima facie duties in all situations

• ross’s approach tells us to obey the greater prima facie
  → but he doesn’t expand on which duty is greater as he didn’t order them

name the 7 prima facie duties

1. fidelity (promise keeping)

2. reparation (when we do something wrong)

3. gratitude

4. justice

5. benefice (helping others)

6. self improvement

7. non-maleficence (not harming others)

name 3 strengths of intuitionism

1. kant
   he is a dentologist
   he would agree it is possible to know the good
   he suggests there are categorical imperatives which tells us the right way for people to behave
   suggests that the right action will always be the good action
   

2. secular
   it fits with how most people make moral decisions.
   it recognises how people make moral judgements instinctively without applying rules or calculations
   → for example, we might just feel like it is wrong to kill 4 children over an elderly tramp in the trolly problem without much consideration
   

3. moral truths are self evident
   e.g. lying is wrong
   this gives ethics a strong foundation because it avoids moral relativism
   some things are either right or wrong

name 4 limitations of intuitionism

1. warnock
   simply a sense of bewilderment used to look like a theory
   intuitionism offers no obvious way of resolving what is good or bad
   we just know that we have some sense of it but not what it actually is
   → maybe we have this sense because of natural things in the world or it’s just emotivism
   

2. teleological is stronger
   consequentialist ethicists would argue that good is only detemined by the outcome of a moral problem
   → e.g. situation ethics and util suggests that if the outcome is loving or brings happiness then we should do it
   → good is based on the end result
   

3. how could we measure?
   if good isn’t a natural quality then it isn’t measurable or detectable by ordinary senses, how can we know for certain what is good or bad?
   → can be affected by emotions
   → empiricists like hume would argue any theory that is a priori is limited
   

4. augustine
   humanity is fundamentally flawed due to the fall and original sin. humans can’t ever know what is good
   augustine has a pessemistic view of humans and thinks they are controlled by lust and can’t know what is good