Meta- ethics !!!!

Meta-ethics AO1

• question of what goodness is.

• 1: Whether goodness exists in reality or not (moral realism vs moral anti-realism)

• 2: What the meaning of the word ‘good’ is (cognitivism vs non-cognitivism)

Naturalism – (realist & cognitivist)

• values can be defined in terms of natural property in the worl and application to absolutism (right and wrong)

• Bentham claims goodness = pleasure.

• Utilitarianism is a form of meta-ethical naturalism

• Goodness is real because pleasure is real (moral realism)

• “Hitler was wrong”, we are expressing our belief that Hitler’s actions failed to maximise pleasure

• ethical language is cognitive

• common sense- synderesis natural law- see what works in the world (pragmatism)

bradley and foot- is naturalistic ethics- society class tells you

strengths and weaknesses and eval of naturalism

moostrengths

• Bentham/Mill argues:

• P1. It is human nature to find pleasure good

• C1. Pleasure is good and we ought to maximise pleasure.

weaknesses

• Naturalistic fallacy - Hume’s is-ought gap – attacks the realism and cognitivism of Naturalism- MOORE coined 20th century- turned natural into ethics- not in books should be burnt

• Factual is-statements do not entail moral ought-statements

• breastfeeding, euthanise old lady example

• Naturalistic Fallacy: It is a mistake to assume that what is natural (e.g., pleasure) is automatically good.

• moore- open q arg goodness= pleasure, open q with many other q’s - too much pleasure could be bad - is pleasure always good- spoilt children- pain isnt always bad soul making etc

• moore- unanalysable- horses (can be broken down) and yellow (doesnt have characteristics) cant break down the good - moore

• is there a god- natural law

evaluation

human flourishing defends

• Anscombe argues that “Ought” really functions like the word “need”

• Foot concludes there is “no difficulty” in deriving ought from is

• action good or bad, we refer to its enabling or disabling of flourishing

• need certain things in order to flourish, to live well. This is a fact, from which can be derived oughts

• attfield- perhaps we havent find right definition of good- could be naturalistic but unsure

• MacIntyre proposes a return to Aristotelian ethics, where moral concepts are rooted in human practices and purposes.

• In this view, "ought" is grounded in "is"—facts about human nature and flourishing.

• This reconnection offers a solution to moral relativism and nihilism in modern society.

Intuitionism

• G. E. Moore rejected Naturalism using two key arguments:- natural fallacy, open q, unanalysbale

• Moore's conclusion: Goodness is a non-natural property—it cannot be defined in terms of anything physical or natural..

• Moral intuition: We have a mental ability called intuition that allows us to directly apprehend moral truths without reasoning or calculation.

• Intuitionism:

  • Claims we know whether ethical propositions are true or false through intuition.

  • Is a cognitivist theory because moral statements express beliefs that can be true or false.

• Ross- posits that we have self-evident, "prima facie" duties, which are conditional and can be overridden by other duties, rather than absolute rules, and that moral truths are objective and knowable through intuition

• Pritchard- moral obligations are known directly through intuition, not through reasoning or empirical evidence, and that the concept of "ought" is indefinable and irreducible

strength, weakness, evaluation

strength

• cross-cultural moral agreement on a core set of moral codes

• intuitive sense of what is right/wrong

• dont face same issues as naturalism ie naturalistic fallacy- intuition- open q arg- doesnt need a god

Counterargument (Mackie's View)

• Mackie cites descriptive moral relativism: there is widespread moral disagreement across cultures.

• While this doesn't prove moral anti-realism, it supports it via abductive reasoning.

• Intuitionists say one side in a moral dispute might have the "right" intuition.

• Mackie argues it’s simpler to explain differing intuitions as products of social conditioning.

• Therefore, we are justified in believing anti-realism—there are no objective moral properties.

Evaluation / Strengthening Mackie's View

• Cross-cultural moral agreement may result from evolutionary pressures and practical social needs.

• Societies must prohibit killing/stealing to function—no need for non-natural moral properties.

• A simpler explanation is that moral relativism is true, not moral realism.

Emotivism

• Ayer - verificationist

• vienna circle, humes fork

• the belief that ethical terms evince approval or disapproval and its application to relativism

• boo hurrah theory

• stevenson another emotivist- moral judgments primarily express emotions and aim to influence others' attitudes, rather than stating objective facts

• P1. Only desires are motivating, not beliefs.

• P2. Ethical language involves motivation

• C1. So, ethical language expresses desires

• Ayer concludes ethical language just expresses emotions

question is on realism/anti-realism, use the moral nihilism section- strengths weak

Moral Nihilism and Anti-Realism (Ayer’s View)

• Moral nihilism: the view that morality is meaningless or pointless.

• Concern: if widely accepted, it could lead people to abandon moral behavior and laws.

• Anti-realism, like Ayer’s emotivism, seems to lead toward nihilism.

• Ayer claims there is no objective right or wrong—we can only express approval/disapproval.

• Example: Ayer says we can dislike Hitler’s actions, but not say they were objectively wrong.

• Ayer’s theory was popular until WWII and the Holocaust, which led philosophers like Philippa Foot to question its validity.

• Foot suggested that such moral anti-realism may have contributed to the atrocities.

Evaluation and Response

• The nihilism objection alone doesn’t prove Ayer wrong—it assumes moral realism is true (begs the question).

• Ayer would argue that Foot's reaction to the Holocaust was emotional, fitting his emotivist view.

• To refute Ayer, one must demonstrate that morality is actually real, not just undesirable if false.

Foot’s Critique and Moral Realism

• Foot's deeper critique: the fact-value (is/ought) separation is the real mistake.

• She argues values are a kind of fact, which can be verified through experience (a posteriori).

• Therefore, Hume’s fork and Ayer’s verification principle wrongly exclude moral knowledge.

• Viewing the Holocaust, Foot wasn’t just reacting emotionally—she was recognizing a factual disabling of human flourishing.

• Thus, moral realism is true: values are part of the world and verifiable, making anti-realism false.

• Nihilism highlights anti-realism’s flaw, not because it’s horrifying, but because it's based on a mistaken metaphysical divide.

question is on cognitive vs non-cognitive, use the ‘moral disagreement’ section- strengths weaknesses

strengths

• Moore criticises non-cognitivism, because he noted that ethical language seems to involve features that require more than emotion

• moral reasoning, persuading, disagreeing

• ‘Boo to stealing’ cannot be said to disagree with ‘hurrah to stealing’.

• P1. emotions cannot disagree 

• P2. ethical language involves disagreement

• C1. Ethical language cannot reduce to the expression of emotion.

• Ayer’s non-cognitivism seems to be false

weakness- counter prescriptivism HARE

• we prescribe it universally

• ethics reduces to universal commands

• We can’t reason/disagree/persuade about emotions, but we can with prescription

• So ethical language reducing to prescriptions makes more sense

evaluation

• Mackie’s error theory

• Mackie accepts that we have feelings about ethics, but he argues we also have beliefs about it

• Example: A bioweapons scientist questioning their work isn’t just asking how they feel or what they can universalize—they seek to know if it’s truly right or wrong.

• This shows people treat morality as though it refers to objective facts.

• believe that right and wrong are real, that they exist

• ethical language is cognitive

• Children believe santa exists – they express beliefs about santa. There is no santa, but santa-language still expresses beliefs

• conclude that ethical language expresses cognitive beliefs which are all false