Meta-ethics

Naturalism

Belief that values can be defined in terms of some natural property in the world

Intuitionism

The Belief that basic moral truths are indefinable but self evident

Emotivism

The Belief that ethics terms evidence approval or disapproval

Cognitive theories

The Belief that moral statements are able to be true or false

Non-cognitive

The Belief that moral statements are not subject to truth or falsity

Ethical questions of ethical discussion:

• Meta-ethics: is there such a thing as right and wrong? What do these words actually mean?

• Normative ethics: what is the best approach to ethical issues? It’s it about happiness (utilitarianism) or duty (Kant)?

• Applied ethics: was it right for her to steal the bead? Is stealing ever justified?

Cognitive vs non-cognitive

• some philosophers see moral language as cognitive - when we say ‘murder is wrong’, we are saying something that can be shown to be either true or false, in the same way that ‘it is raining outside’ can be true or false

• Other philosophers disagree and suggest moral language is non-cognitive - when we make amoral statement, we are merely expressing our own feelings on an issue. It is not in any sense true or false

3 main theories

Naturalism:

Suggests that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can be observed and discovered empirically - using our senses - in the same way that we find out other acts about the world around us - realist and cognitive theory

Intuitionism:

Suggests ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually exists but cannot be seen or discovered in the same way as other facts. Moral truths are self evident and are known by intuition. Realist and cognitive theory

Emotivism:

Rejects the view that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually exist. When we make moral statements, we are simply showing our opinions and feelings. Anti realist and non-cognitive theory

Naturalistic fallacy

The effort of reducing goodness to a property that is found in nature

Types of naturalism

1. Natural law - Aquinas

2. Utilitarianism - JSM/Jeremy Bentham

3. Phillipa foot - we can observe morality when we see people’s behaviour

4. FH Bradley - believed that ethical statements expressed propositions which were provable as true or false

Naturalism is right to say that moral values are a feature of the natural world

1. Mills argument - all people desire happiness. This is enough poof to show that happiness is actually a good thing

2. Significant agreement on moral values through the world. Shows that morality is a factual matter rather than a matter of opinion

3. If morality is subjective, we reduce the significance of ethical debates

• discussing murder is wrong is not the same as discussing which drinks you like

Naturalism is wrong to say that moral values are a feature of the world

1. David Hume’s ‘is/ought’ fallacy

2. Naturalistic fallacy

3. G.E. Moores criticism - open questions argument

4. Satres existentialism would reject the assumptions of Aquinas

Open question argument

2 types of questions we can ask:

1. Closes questions - only one answer is posssible

2. Open questions - several different answers are possible

• If Mill is got that pleasure is good, then it ought to be a closed question to ask if something that brings pleasure is really good

• (However, we know that something that brings us pleasure may not be good - therefore an open question)

• This problem seems to exist whenever we try and define hate or god in terms of something that is observable in the world

Understanding good:

• Key point - although Moore believes ‘goodness’ cannot be defined, he is a cognitivist ad a realist. There are truths about what is right and wrong - known intuitively (indefinable but self evident)

• e.g., we know that the colour yellow is yellow

• ‘Good’ is a simple idea, unlike a horse

Prima Facie duties

• People may take the most obvious course of action on first sight, when faced with moral problems

• To be followed unless there is another duty which overrides it:

1. Promise keeping

2. Repairing harm done

3. Gratitude

4. Justice

5. Beneficence

6. Self-improvement

7. Non-maleficence

Intuitionism is right to say that moral values are indefinable and self-evident

1. It takes the is/ought problem of Hume seriously and doesn’t attempt to find moral values through observation of the world

2. Recognises the considerable amount of moral agreement in the world

3. Abe to establish moral facts and ensure hat ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are not just a matter of taste or opinion

Intuitionism is wrong to say that moral values are indefinable and self-evident

1. How do we resolve moral disagreement in the world if goodness is self-evident to all (HA Prichard counters that some peoples intuition is better than others)

2. So we all ‘just know’ the same thing? E.g., matters like abortion

3. Is there a difference between “just knowing something” and “just having a feeling”? If not, isn’t similar to emotions?

4. What even is the ‘power of intuition’? Where does it come down from? Is it not just a cut short reason? Surely the evolutionary explanation of Dawkins or Psychological explanations like Freud would be better accounts for morality

The fork and the circle

• Ayer, Hume and the Vienna circle

• AJ Ayer (1910 - 1989) created the ‘verification principle’ and provides the background of his ideas ‘based n the original ideas of David Hume as well as a group odd early 20th century a Austrian philosophers known as the Vienna circle

2 types of knowlage (Humes fork)

1. Relation of ideas - A priori knowlage of how things relate to whether

2. Matters of fact - A posteriori knowlage of things we can observe in the world

Any books which do not contain either of the above should be ‘committed to the flames’

Ayers verification principle

• A statement is meaningful if it is either:

1. An analytical statement - it is true by definition

2. A synthetic statement - it is possible to say (in theory) how it would be possible to verify it

How to understand ethical statements

• Ayer is concerned not with what ethical statements mean, but with what they are for

• What are people doing when they use the words ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’?

• He argues that ethical statements are simple expressions of personal preferences or emotions

CL Stevenson

• moral language has a moral element as well as a ‘prescriptive’ one

• When one says ‘stealing is wrong’, what i am really saying is ‘i dislike stealing and encourage you to dislike it as well’

Emotivism is right to suggest that moral statements merely show approval and disapproval of actions

• Explains why r there is much moral disagreement in the world i.e., no ‘fact’ about right and wrong - just feelings and attitudes

• Avoids GE Moores criticism of the naturalistic fallacy - they are merely the product of our entitlement

• Acknowledges that ethical disputes are driven by feelings and not reason

• People experience actions and emotions differently, meaning examining it on a case-by-case basis is more valuable

Emotivism is wrong to suggest that moral statements merely show approval and disapproval of emotion

• renders debate and discussion on ethics useless if its about feelings and attitudes - becomes a ‘boo-hurrah’ shouting match

• Trivialises ethical decision e.g. Phillipa Foots example of concentration camos to suggest that Ayers view cannot be right

• RN Hare argued that moral language is in fact prescriptive; it is an attempt to persuade others to adopt our view

• Does not give a clear meaning to moral statement

‘Levels’ of ethical discussion

Ethical questions:

• Meta-ethics: from the Greek ‘meta’ - meaning above and beyond. The study of the meaning of ethical concepts e.g., what is ‘good’; does it exist?

• Normative ethics: considers ethical theories that give advice on how we ought to behave

• Applied ethics:discusses specific problems in ethics, e.g., whether euthanasia should be permitted

Questions of ethical discussion

Ethical questions:

• Meta-ethics: is there such a thing as right and wrong? What do these words actually mean?

• Normative ethics: what is the best approach to ethical issues? Is it about happiness (utilitarianism) or duty (Kant)?

• Applied ethics: was it right for her to steal the bread? Is war ever justified?

Growing interest in language

• Discussion of whether goodness can be found of whether it is a matter of opinion goes back to the influences of Wittgenstein

• His book ‘Tractalus logico-philosophous’ made the argument that it was a misunderstanding of language that was responsible for many philosophical problems

• “Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday’

Macintyre’s criticism of meta-ethics

• Main criticisms came in his book called ’after virtue’

• Argues that our society has dismantled key moral ideas e.g. telos, but is looking to use old moral language and terminology to discuss moral ideas

• Since many modern thinkers have adopted existentialism and there is ultimate no purpose or truth, discussion of moral ideas will fail and lead us logically to emotions.nihilism inspired by Nietzsche

• Meta-ethics is therefore a distraction and misses the real point of ethics

Discussion of the meaning of ethical terms is the most impotent debate in ethics

• Meta-ethical discussion is by nature the highest level of ethical discussion

• The meaning of terms is actually important and could lead to misunderstanding (Wittgenstein)

• Prevents a decent into Nihilism

Discussion of the meaning of ethical terms is not the most important debate in ethics

• Little relevance in day-to-day moral decision making

• Even if meta-ethics discussion is imparted, the question of normative ethics will still need to be asked since the question ‘what should i do?’ Remains

• Macltyres argument - focus on meta-ethics has proved harmful to moral development

  • Lead to an emotivist position that moral judgements are just opinion and nihilism being the result

  • We should therefore focus more on normative theories so that we can share a view of what goodness is