OCR A Level Religious Studies Ethics - Meta-ethics theories

meta-ethics

- focuses on the language of ethics

- do moral statements refer to fixed truths (ethical absolutism) or are relative to emotions or beliefs e.g.

- how do we come to know morals e.g. intuition

absolutism

morals are fixed, unchanging truths that everyone should always follow

relativism

moral truths are not fixed or absolute. what is right images according to the individual, situation, culture, time and place

naturalism

ethical theories that hold morals part of the natural world can be observed and recognised in some way

intuitionism

ethical theories that hold that moral knowledge is received in a different way from science and logic

Vienna Circle

group of philosophers known as logical positivists who rejected claims that moral truth can be verified as objectively true

emotivism

Ethical theories that hold that moral statements are not statements of fact but are either beliefs or emotions

Hume's law

You cannot go from an "is" (statement of fact) to an "ought" (a moral)

naturalistic fallacy

Moore's argument that it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties (a mistake to break Hume's law)

cognitive

- moral statements describe world e.g. if I say murder wrong, I have given murder property of wrongness, so my statement is objectively either true or false

- moral facts objective facts are out there in the world

- moral values real properties e.g. of people the same way rough properties of physical objects

non-congnitive

- when people make moral statement, are not describing world, but expressing their feeling, or telling people what to do

- subjective

- Meta-ethics not concerned with what is right/ wrong, but with what it means to be moral

hume

- fact/value problem based on principle there is a difference between what truth (fact) is and what is right (value)

- fact an actual state of the world e.g. Mount Everest is taller than Mount Kilimanjaro.

- value is something someone believes is good e.g. freedom is a central value of humanity; many believe freedom is good, so value it

Hume

- philosophers speak about certain facts and then make an illegitimate leap to tell us how to behave; no justification for this

- moral judgement about what is right/ wrong beyond possibility of factual description and human reason

- impossible to make firm moral judgements as we are unable to know exactly what is right/ wrong as based on values rather than facts

naturalism

- cognitive theory

- all ethical statements same as non-ethical (natural) ones: factual so can be verified/ falsified

- look at evidence to test veracity (accuracy) of the statement

naturalism

- 'good' could be identified with a natural quality, as it is a natural psychological state

- identified by amount of happiness in situation

- situation where there is a lot of happiness morally better than one where there is less

- theories of morality argue good is whatever gives survival advantage e.g. good eye site

naturalism - Bradley

- an ethical theory: everything arises from natural properties and causes

- morals fixed absolutes that can be observed

- morals can be perceived in same way other features of identified

- evil/ good absolute facts of natural world

- morals not about your opinion but objectively true

- links to NML and how morals and ethics can be seen within nature

naturalism - Foot

- when we call someone 'honest woman' e.g., referring to something, have evidence backs this up

- virtues can be observed by watching how a person acts

- e.g. honest person does honest things, which can be observed

- we can perceive moral absolutes

- "The fact that a human action or disposition is good of its kind...[is] a fact about a given feature"

naturalism - Foot

- draws upon Kropotkin's example of when an anthropologist goes to study native Malayan people under instructions to not take photos. he finds opportunity to take one when someone is sleeping but stops himself because of his promise

- such rules natural and absolute

- humans developed ways to live well together and developed rules to ensure everyone can live happily

naturalism - Aristotle

- intellectual virtue: things taught and developed through teaching

- moral virtue: qualities of character, can't be taught and come about through habit and experience

- everyone can become virtuous, but not everyone will

- most valuable virtue reason; we can work out what is right: eudaimonia

- "we become just by doing just acts"

- but, virtues only accessible to men

naturalism - Aristotle

- arete: "moral virtue"; purpose/ function: living up to full potential

- all virtues have two vices: deficiency (too little) and excess (too much); virtue in middle

- finding golden mean between vices is how to work out a virtue; doesn't show how to do this

· e.g. bravery: vice of deficiency cowardice, vice of excess foolishness, and in middle lies bravery vices

naturalism - Aristotle: weaknesses

- morality part of happy life and because we aim for happiness, gives us reason to be moral, so we are acting out of self-interest

- KANT: emotions part of inclination that causes us to act

- moral Relativism: moral virtues differ depending on culture. morality product of our culture so unlike reason (Kant)no objectively correct moral virtues

naturalism - Aristotle: strengths

- explains motivational force of ethics

- moral actions part of happiness and emotions

- must have desire to perform good act, so based on emotions

- gives everyone reason to be moral

- morality part of happiness and all humans aim for happiness, so have reason to be moral

naturalism - strengths

- moral values e.g. good properties of people, like rough property of a rock

- happiness an important part of life

- absolutist, you should always aim for happiness - straightforward

- goodness as a natural property means morality can be part of science and calculated

naturalism - weaknesses

- right and wrong subjective not objective; humans need to exist to determine how we should live

- euthanasia may still break the law; pointless

- do ethical/ moral situations have evidence? Which evidence do we accept/ ignore?

- MACKIE: rules not facts, are accepted to varying degrees by those inside institution

naturalism - weaknesses

- are natural properties (happiness) always good? e.g. Dylan Roff

- only absolutist to a general level e.g. utilitarianism allows you to kill innocent people if it maximises happiness; what is right/ wrong depends on a situation

- are some kinds of happiness more important than others? e.g. lower and higher pleasures

intuitionism - Moore

- we should do what causes most good

- moral truths indefinable but self evident through intuition

- good a simple notion like yellow; you know when you see it, cannot be broken down into different qualities

- good indefinable: we know what is yellow and can recognise it but cannot define it or describe particular qualities of it

intuitionism - Moore

- attempts to define good in terms of something that can be verified is to commit naturalistic fallacy

- influenced by Hume's is /ought distinction; cannot infer from a description of how the world 'is' to how the world 'ought' to be

- cannot identify good (ethical statement) with a natural quality it is a statement about the world (non ethical statement)

intuitionism - Prichard

- reason collects facts and intuition determines which course of action to follow

- general thinking/ reasoning used to assess facts

- moral thinking based on an immediate intuition about the right thing to do

- different people have different intuitions about what is right

intuitionism - Ross

- what is right unique, depending on what is morally suitable in situation

- never know all the facts on situation - base judgment on intuitions

- prima facie duties; obvious certain types of actions are right

intuitionism - Ross

- prima facie duties:

- when these conflict we follow what we think is right in that situation - first sight duties.

- fidelity (promise keeping)

- reparation

- gratitude

- justice

- beneficence (helping others

- self improvement

- non maleficent (not harming others)

strengths of intuitionism

- Moores analogy helpful as if one is colour blind you cannot describe yellow to them; you cannot describe good to the morally blind

- KANT: possible to just know good; categorical imperatives (absolute laws) that are the 'right' way people behave. 'Right' and 'good' are the same; a right action will always be a good one

- most agree on what is right/ wrong

weaknesses of intuitionism

- doesn't explain how we know good through intuition and not senses

- is our intuition correct?

- what happens if intuitions conflict?

- MACKIE: morality not just about what one believes is intuitively right, but doing something about it

- teleological approaches: 'good' determined by outcome, so knowledge of it based on end result

- if someone morally blind, impossible for them to understand good

weaknesses of intuitionism

- WARNOCK: a sense of bewilderment, and offers no obvious way of determining or agreeing what is good

- empiricists: knowledge only available through the senses; not a priori

- AUGUSTINE: due to the fall, humans incapable of knowing what good is, as we are overwhelmed by lust, so cannot know good

- intuition can be dangerous e.g. most through slavery as right

emotivism - Ayer

- influenced by Hume

- worked with Vienna Circle

- three types of statements: logical (analytical), factual (synthetic) and moral

- language has no absolute meaning

emotivism - Ayer

- boo-hurray theory: moral statements express an emotion e.g. murder - boo

- morals only relative to emotions, so cannot be verified through science or maths

- these tell us about person not external world

- 'good/ bad' express approval or disapproval

emotivism - Ayer

emotivism ethical non naturalism as rejects morals tell you anything about the external world

emotivism - Stevenson

- interested in how moral statements are used and what results they are intended to produce

- moral judgments contain an element that expresses attitude relative to a belief and an element that seeks to influence others

- arguments based on different beliefs

emotivism and relativism

- if emotivism true, relativism is true reactions to actions

- morality becomes relative and a way of expressing feelings and has no cognitive content

- but, most think some actions moral/ immoral, and it describes those actions rather than being a way of expressing feelings

emotivism and prescriptivism (HARE)

- moral statements prescriptive as command out behaviour and guide our actions

- reason makes them universal

- so in our best interest to prescribe these to others (similar to Kant)

strengths of emotivism

- part of being human to express emotions, especially in moral situations

- everyone can understand and apply it

- everyone's opinions equally valid

- explains why we feel motivated to do good things

- made morality meaningful, when a lot of people thought it was factual

- morality something we care about and is explained

weaknesses of emotivism

- morality subjective

- RACHELS: moral judgments appeal to reasoning not just expressions of feelings

- MACINTYRE: 'opaque'; doesn't explain how we can distinguish feelings and attitudes that are moral from other feelings and attitudes we have

- most would say Roofs actions wrong; morality doesn't just depend on feelings

- people can feel positive towards actions but know they are wrong

Dylan Roff

- racist murderer

- in 2015, Dylan Roof went into a church in Charleston and shot dead 9 black

- claimed he can see nothing wrong in his actions and that they were in actual good one

Dylan Roof: naturalism (utilitarianism)

- his action is wrong as it causes a lot of pain and misery

- but, could also say his actions were right if they caused a lot of happiness and joy

Dylan Roof: intuitionism

- he doesn't see the world in the same way as normal people, so, he is so morally blind that he cannot see that he has done is terrible

Dylan Roof: emotivism

- there is no objective factual wrongness in his actions

- morality about people's feelings, and these change from person to person depending on how they have been brought up