Meta ethics

ethical naturalism definition and main scholar

the idea that good is an existing natural property. good is absolute and a fixed fact of the natural world. it is lingusitically cognitive. F.H Bradley

aristotlean naturalism

goodness=flourishing, flourishing is a natural feature of organisms

philipa foot expanded aristolean naturalism (tree)

saying a person has “good disposition of will” (good ethics) is like saying a tree has good roots. it refers to flourishing

humes challange to naturalism

moral claims derrived from sentiment not reason. Moral writers make mistake of going from an “is” to a prescreptive “ought”. you cannot deduce a value from a fact, just because it is human nature to find pleasure good doesnt mean we can deduce that pleasure is good (to use benthams example)

G.E moore “What is good?”

“What is good?” is a open question, you cannot describe it with natural values. goodness is a simple non definable property of an action.

Moore naturalistic fallacy

it is a fallacy to assume that just because something is natural makes it good. applies also to divine if god commands something that doesnt make it good. moore argues any attempts to define good commit naturalistic fallacy.

JL Mackie critique of naturalism

moral rules are observable but based on tradition rather than nature.

intuitionism definition and main scholar

believed in objective moral truths but they are known instinctively, they are indefinable but self evident. It is an objective and absolute as well as being linguistically cognitive. mainly forwaded by G.e Moore and is a development of his critiques of naturalism.

PRitchard on intiutionism

all people use reasoning and intution to make desicion, we collect facts then intuit a course of action.

Ross on principles

principles are not absolute but they emphasise a personal character, and should be evaluated when deciding how to balance a moral dilemma

how does moore explain cross cultural moral disagreement

Moore says that this is due to people not articulating their moral views clearly

how does pritchard explain cross cultural disagreement

this is due to people having different practical understandings of the world, and diffeeing levels of personal moral development

MAckie critique of intutionism

he does not say that cross cultural disagreement means no objective morals, as disagreement on shape of earth doesnt make it non objective. however scientific disagreement comes from lack of evidence where as moral disagreement comes from social conditioning. he admits that there is no way to prove goodness doesnt have some objective definition/ property however there is no reason to assume it does when we have a much more simple explanation in conditioning.

weakness of mackie critique

could argue that social conditioning is just a lack of evidence like with scientific disagreement. it doesnt rule out an objective moral truth.

emotivism defintion and main scholar

the belief that moral language simply expresses a belief/emotion. it is objectivelly meaningless but still contains subjective meaning. forwarded by A.J Ayer as an extension of Hume naturalist critiques. it is relativist and non cognitive

Ayer qoute

“in saying that a certain type of action is wrong or right… i am merely expressing certain types of moral sentiments.”

Brink against Ayer

argues non cognitivist theories implausible, believes we can make moral judgement without expressing emotions.

Hare devlopment of Ayer

agreed that moral language is an expression of sentiment but argued it also involves a prescription. we share our attitude when we say murder is wrong but also tell others what we think they should do. moral statements are commitments to action.

emotivism of stevenson

ethical labguage seeks to do two things:

1. express a attitude or feeling

2. move people to behave in a certain way

vardy critique of emotivism

“nothing but hot air” tells us nothing and doesnt allow for ethical discussion