META-ETHICS.

Introduction to meta-ethics.

-What is goodness? Do goodness, right & wrong actually exist or is it a matter of opinion. These questions are at the heart of meta-ethics.

-Meta-ethics analyses 3 main meta-ethical positions:

-Naturalism believes right & wrong can be known empirically & these truths reveal absolute moral standards.

-Intuitism agrees w naturalism that there is such as a thing as right & wrong yet disagrees on how it’s known; for the intuitionist moral truths are self-evident, we ‘just know’.

-Emotivisim offers a diff view, arguing there are no moral facts but that our ethical judgements are merely showing approval or disapproval, indicating subjective feelings on the issues. It argues that ethical claims are factually meaningless.

Define meta-ethics.

-From the Greek word meta meaning above & beyond. The study of the meaning of ethical concepts.

Define normative ethics.

-Theories of ethics that give advice on how we ought to behave.

Define naturalism.

-The idea that moral values can be correctly defined by observation of the natural world.

Define moral realism.

-The belief that right & wrong actually exist; they’re real properties.

Define cognitivism.

-The belief that moral statements are subject to being either true or false.

What is ethical naturalism?

-Ethical naturalism believes moral truths can be discovered by observation of the world. What is right & wrong can be established by looking at the world around us.

-A moral realist theory (believing moral facts or truths actually exist) & is also cognitivist - believing statements made about right & wrong are subject to being either true or false.

-Naturalists believe that ethical terms are meaningful.

What are 3 versions of ethical naturalism?

-One key feature they all have in common is the idea that moral values can be defined & discovered by looking at some aspect of the world around us. They’re known empirically.

1) Aquinas would hold to a theologian naturalism. The world has a God-given order built into it. Moral values can be worked out by understanding our God-given purpose & observing the natural order.

2) British philosopher F.H. Bradley argued it’s possible to understand our moral duties by observing our position or station in life. Although to some extent this is outdated & has a hint of Victorian class divisions, it could be argued that certain roles, for example, teacher. nurse, mother, do seem to have certain duties or moral values attached to them.

3) Utilitarian thinkers such as Bentham & Mill, argue that we can discover right & wrong by discovering what actions lead to pleasure or pain. By observing that stabbing someone causes them pain, we can infer that this action is wrong.

Naturalism & absolutism connection.

-Ethical naturalism links very strongly with the idea of absolutism; however, they aren’t necessarily the same thing.

-One way of arguing for ethical naturalism is to use the thinking of Natural Law; the moral values that we discover when we consider purpose do indeed create absolute rules.

-Equally, there could be a utilitarian form of naturalism. However, if a thinker believes that right & wrong are linked to pleasure & pain, there may be more relative moral truths discovered.

F.H Bradley & naturalism.

-Duty is universal, concrete & objective. Duty is determined by who we are/our place in society - this directs us to what to do & how to act.

-A key issue with Bradley’s naturalism is being defined through a fixed moral social order. Whilst this gives clear moral rules & could be universally applied, the development of the Western world means ppl don’t necessarily have defined roles in social order. Would this mean that Western society has morally failed?

-It also suggests that we only have moral duties fixed to these roles, but aren’t some moral duties beyond our roles?

Hume’s objection to naturalism.

-One objection to naturalism has its origins in the writings of David Hume & is known as the fact-value distinction or ‘is-ought’ problem.

-When we consider an action such as a murder we can describe the facts empirically - using statements, involving the word ‘is’ - but we then move towards moral claims involving ‘ought’ & ‘ought not’.

-Hume suggests that no matter how closely we examine the situation itself we will not be able to empirically see or hear the ‘wrongness’ of such an action.

Philippa Foot & naturalism.

-Hume’s view was challenged by Foot. She suggested that moral evil is like a natural defect. When we call someone a ‘good person’, we are referring to something specific - a person who recognises values & morals as a compelling reason to do good actions.

-Like Aristotle, Foot argues there are virtues, characteristics & behaviour which aim towards a ‘good’. There virtues can be observed by watching how people act in consideration of them. Therefore moral absolutes can be observed & measured - naturalism.

-Foot draws on Aristotle’s observation that the natural world includes a good way of doing things, arguing this applies to morality;

-There is a life-cycle of self-maintenance & reproduction.

-Self-maintenance & reproduction can be achieved differently in each species.

-From this norms can be deduced.

-By applying the individual norms to the species, we can judge whether they’re effective or defective.

-Therefore humans have developed ways to live well together & moral rules to ensure we can all live happily together. These rules are natural & absolute. We can observe whether or not ppl follow the rules & therefore are moral.

Mackie’s challenge to naturalism.

-Mackie argues against naturalism & absolutism.

-Argues it’s possible to describe an institution from the outside e.g you shouldn’t chew gum in school. The institution demands that promises can be kept or rules be followed. However, we can also make observations from inside the institution, e.g ‘I can chew gum in science bc my teacher never notices.’’ The rules themselves aren’t facts, instead they’re accepted to varying degrees by those inside the institution.

-Believes the degree to which moral rules should be followed can be disputed. Additionally, following the rules isn’t the same as acting logically. Following rules is a social expectation, not a response to demands which could be made. Morals are therefore based on tradition, but aren’t absolute.

What are the strengths of naturalism?

-Makes sense to have morals as being something observable & absolute.

-Needed for society to function - we must have commonly agreed rules to live together & we do intend to judge morality based on these rules.

-Most theories we have looked at are based on naturalism e.g NL, Utilitarianism.

What are the weaknesses of naturalism?

-Mackie’s ideas are reflective of the world - morals are dictated by social expectations rather than being absolute.

-Makes assumptions about moral actions & suggests that all people will want to or at least should act the same. (Humes law).