Meta Ethics

F.H. Bradley (Ethical Naturalism)

• moral truths about the world can be proved

• therefore moral language can be factual

• ethical terms can be defined using empirical knowledge/sense experience

G.E. Moore (intuitionism)

• we know what yellow is and can recognise but not define it - in the same way, we know what ‘good’ is but can’t actually define it

• moral judgements cannot be proven but that doesn’t make them untrue

H.A. Prichard (intuitionism)

• intuitive knowledge of moral terms were ‘direct knowledge by rational insight’

• tried to give a reason to account for moral disagreements and how they could be resolved: when our opinions clash we can intuit our primary duty 

• two different types of thinking:

  • reason: collects information and facts 

  • intuition: decides what to do based on the information available 

W.D. Ross (intuitionism)

• agreed we cannot define moral terms 

• believed our intuition works based on seven prima facie duties, known intrinsically (and are self-evident) 

A.J. Ayer (emotivism)

• ethical statements are non-natural

• teach us nothing about the natural world 

• ethical statements ‘are calculated to arouse feelings and to stimulate action’ 

C.L. Stevenson (emotivism) 

• all ethical language seeks to express a person’s attitude or belief about something + approval/disapproval 

• when a person expresses their moral beliefs they are trying to get someone to agree with them 

Cognitivism

• moral realism

• ethical statements are about fact

• factual, objective knowledge about their meaning

• give absolute truths and their meaning is fixed

Non-cognitivism

• moral anti-realism

• all use of ethical terms is subjective

• clear distinction between facts and values 

• moral statements are relativist 

Ethical naturalism

• Absolutist belief that good can be defined using natural terms

• Observing good and bad in the natural world

Intuitionism

• The belief that the basic moral truths are indefinable but self-evident

Emotivism

The belief that ethical terms indicate approval or disapproval

• have no meaning factually, but they are meaningful in that they express emotions

• relativist - meaning of ethical terms neither fixed nor universal

Emotivism example

‘Simon stole that bread’ (expressing a fact AND expressing disapproval)

• Sometimes known as the boo-hurrah theory

4 criticisms of ethical naturalism

1. Hume’s is-ought fallacy - can’t use a statement of fact (‘is’) to say what someone ought/ought not to do - cannot derive a value from a fact

2. Naturalistic Fallacy - although we can have factual knowledge of ethical terms, they cannot be defined - logical problem with using natural world as evidence

3. Naturalism reduces ethical terms to social approval - we can’t define ‘good’ in a simple way - not everyone agrees on what it means

   • Natural definitions (e.g. bachelor) close the matter, can’t be applied to ‘good’, because it will always be open

4. Value of moral statements reduced to that of empirical statements - ‘abortion is wrong’ > ‘Mike is a bachelor’. Reduces complexity/importance

3 arguments to challenge Hume’s is/ought law

1. Phillipa Foot: existence of virtues prove that there is goodness - suggests we can determine moral goods by observing virtuous behaviour

2. J.L. Mackie: we can use reason/senses to determine right/wrong

3. John Searle: focus on emotions - influence of human behaviour, not just reason

3 strengths of ethical naturalism

1. Reducing moral statements to opinion reduces their worth: basing knowledge of morality on natural knowledge gives us solid evidence

2. Definitions for moral terms allows for ‘effective altruism’: (Singer) If ethical statements are factual, then people are more likely to be charitable

3. No definition of moral terms risks moral nihilism: saying moral terms/words are not definitive and reducing them to opinions risks nihilism

How does intuitionism differ from ethical naturalism?

• Intuitionists don’t believe moral terms can be defined

• We cannot use the natural world to prove their meaning

• Knowledge of ethical terms is intuitive

3 criticisms of GE Moore

• Cannot prove his theory

• His theory doesn’t account for moral disagreements

• He says if you don’t agree with him then you haven’t thought about it enough (elitist)

3 strengths of H.A. Pritchard’s approach to intuitionism

1. Acknowledges values can clash, gives us a way to determine which is correct

2. We all have understanding of what intuition means, therefore we can understand his theory

3. Doesn’t just rely on intuition, also takes into account information about situation

   • Although we can’t define moral language, we can use empirical knowledge to guide our moral decision-making

2 criticisms of H.A. Pritchard’s approach to intuitionism

1. Gives a way to account for moral disagreements, but not to solve them - vague

2. Intuition is broad and unspecific

3 strengths of intuitionism

1. Innate: Human beings have an innate moral sense independent of innate personal experience

2. Universal moral values: many different societies share moral values such as murder is wrong

3. Independent: not dependent on natural world, not guilty of naturalistic fallacy, has independent principles

3 weaknesses of intuitionism

1. Conflicting ideas: Intuitionists have conflicting ideas. If we knew intuitively what was wrong, intuitionists would agree

2. Not based on self evident truths: Moore - "Self evident to me is not what is self evident to you"

3. Not applicable: no intrinsic reason why human intuition should be taken as basis for moral judgement

3 strengths of emotivism

1. If morality is subjective and not based on facts then both the naturalistic fallacy and the is/ought gap avoided

2. Only value in moral statements is that they motivate people to act, as do emotions

3. Accounts for the variety of beliefs - morality is dependent on the beliefs of the individual

3 weaknesses of emotivism

1. Blanshard - absurdity of grounding right and wrong in fickle human emotions

2. Morality based on emotions can easily be influenced/changed by propaganda

3. Emotions based on beliefs can be reasoned over