Meta-Ethics

Meta-Ethics

the study of moral language

Absolutism

moral truths are fixed rules which do not change

Relativism

moral truths are not fixed and change depending on the situation, individual, etc

Cognitive

Morality is factual, we can know objectively what is right and wrong: moral claims can be true or false (meaningful)

Non-Cognitive

morality is opinion; it is subjective and individualism; moral claims cannot be true or false (meaningless)

Naturalism

ethical theories that hold that morals are part of the natural world can be recognised or observed in some way

Intuitionism

ethical theories that hold that moral knowledge is received in a different way from science and logic

Vienna Circle

a group of philosophers known as logical positivists who reject claims that moral truth can be verified as objectively true

Emotivism

ethical theories that hold that moral statements are not state of fact but either beliefs or emotions

Hume’s Law

you cannot go from an ‘is’ (a statement of fact) to an ‘ought’ (a moral)

Naturalistic Fallacy

G.E. Moore’s argument that is is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties (a mistake to break Hume’s law)

What is Naturalism?

ethical theories that hold that morals are part of the natural world and can be recognised or observed in some way

What type of theory is Naturalism?

Cognitivist - moral truths can be verified

What are Naturalists?

Absolutists - moral evil and goodness are absolute facts of the natural world; they are fixed things

When someone says a moral statement, what does a Naturalist believe that they are saying?

expressing a moral truth - part of the reality of the universe

• not an opinion

What perspective does Bradley take?

Naturalism

What perspective does Foot take?

Naturalism

What did Bradley claim?

ethics is something that can be explained by the concrete absolute reality we observe - place we hold in society, which directs what we should do (duty)

What is Bradley’s quote on social order?

“What he has to do depends on what his place is”

How is Aquinas’ Eternal Law used to develop Naturalism?

idea that we can look into the world and perceive morals from the purposes of life that we see in the world

• links goodness to divine will and the kind of creatures God has made us to be

How is Bradley’s fixed moral social order highly questionable?

twentieth century had many radical changes in Western countries - idea of individual freedom or self-determination and equality for all undermined concepts of class, fixed gender roles and institutions such as marriage

• changes overtime - how can it be fixed?

Which Empiricist challenges Naturalism?

Hume

What does Hume suggest about moral statements?

not deprived from reason, but rather from sentiment

• when we see something we think is wrong, the ‘wrongness’ comes from our sentiment, not from our observation

What is Hume is/ought problem?

we cannot go from a fact (is) to a moral (ought)

• e.g. sex can lead to reproduction (fact) does not always result in reproduction (ought)

What is Hume’s Fork?

claims meaningful knowledge is either analytic or synthetic

• moral statements do not fit Hume’s fork - they are meaningless!

Which Naturalist criticises Hume?

Foot

How does Foot describe moral evil?

“a kind of natural defeat”

What does Foot argue?

there are virtues, characteristics or behaviours that aim at some good (Aristotle) - these virtues can be recognised or observed by watching how a person acts in consideration of those virtues

What is Foot’s example of an oak tree?

no difference between saying a living thing has ‘good roots’ and saying a human being has ‘good dispositions of will’

What does Foot say about moral judgement?

“A moral judgement says something about the action of any individual to whom it applies”

What does Mackie believe?

naturalist: moral rules can be observed - based on tradition rather than being absolute constructs

How could Mackie be used to criticise Naturalism?

rules themselves are not facts - accepted to varying degrees by those inside the intuition - if they were absolute, they would all be absolutely accepted

Which two scholars are supportive of Naturalism?

• Bradley

• Foot

Which two scholars are critical of Naturalism?

• Hume

• Mackie

What are the strengths of Naturalism?

• Natural - everyone can experience

• Universal

• Solid guideline

What are the weakness of Naturalism?

• Situation may have evidence to support it whilst breaking the law - pointless

• Right & Wrongs are not subjective but objective

• Evidence? What do accept/ignore?

• Hume is-ought problem

What is Intuitionism?

ethical theories that hold that moral knowledge is received in a different way from science and logic

What type of theory is Intuitionism?

Cognitivist - moral truths can be verified

What perspective does Moore take?

Intuitionism - did not define himself like this

What perspective does Prichard take?

Intuitionism

What perspective does Ross take?

Intuitionism

What does Moore claim?

intrinsically good things exist for their own sake - cannot be analysed or broken down like other things in the physical world

• can be recognised - not about proving these things but rather seeing them

What is Moore’s quote on good?

“Good is good, and that is the end of the matter”

What is Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy?

mistake to define the term "good" in terms of natural properties, such as "pleasurable," "desired," or "evolved"

• "good" is a simple, unanalysable property - cannot be reduced to natural, scientific, or metaphysical facts

How is Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy explained by the colour yellow?

good is a simple notion, just as yellow is a simple notion - you know it when you see it

• e.g. complex notion: horse - can be broken down into different qualities

What does Prichard claim?

moral decision making includes both reasoning and intuitionism

• reason - collects the facts

• intuition - determines which course to follow

not linked to to the intrinsic goodness of any action - simply considers the different obligation in the situation at hand

How does Prichard explain why morals differ?

some people have more clarity around moral intuitionists - they are enlightened

What does Ross claim?

goodness cannot be defined in natural terms - cannot be absolute

• moral theories are a list of principles from which we deduce course of actions

What is Ross’ idea of prima facie duties?

moral obligations which we are bound to follow unless there’s an overriding obligation

• e.g. promise-keeping, justice, and gratitude

What are prima facie duties according to Ross?

things to consider, rather than direct rules on what to do

• duties are identified by intuition and we improve our ability to make moral judgements through experience

• take situation into account and emphasise duty

How is Ross’ Intuitionism successful?

took account of clashes of apparent absolutes, when a dilemma forces a choice that must lead to the abandonment of one principle or another

• solution to Kantian issue

How is Ross’ Intuitionism successfully address the issues of Kantian Ethics?

son who is required to be honest to a murderer’s enquiry about the whereabouts of his father because one must always be truthful

• allows discernment between requirement to be truthful and the obligation to always try to preserve life

What are the strengths of Intuitionism?

• attempts to deal with the is-ought problem

• doesn’t rely on reason

• acknowledges moral disagreements - culture & education

What are the weakness of Intuitionism?

• does not explain or prove

• reduces morality to just what a person thinks is intuitively right

• unreliable guide

Which three scholars are supportive of Intutionism?

• Moore

• Prichard

• Ross

What is Emotivism?

ethical theories that hold that moral statements are not statements of fact but are either beliefs or emotions

What type of theory is Emotivism?

Non-Cognitivist - moral truths cannot be verified

What are Emotivists?

Relativists - promoting the idea that there are no fixed morals

What perspective does Ayer take?

Emotivism

What perspective does Stevenson take?

Emotivism

What did Ayler claim?

morals are relative only to our emotions, they do not tell us anything about the external world

What does Ayler claim a meaningful statement is?

Verification Principle

• Synthetic - statements that can be verified by ourselves

• Analytical - can be verified analytically; true by definition

Does Ayler believe that moral judgements are meaningful?

cannot be verified - meaningless

• ‘hurrah/boo’ theory - expression of feelings only

How does Ayler describe moral judgements?

“I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments”

How does Stevenson develop Ayler’s Emotivism?

people express a moral opinion not as an emotional response - an expression of an attitude or a belief they have

• element that seeks to persuade or influence others

Which two scholars are supportive of Emotivism?

• Ayler

• Stevenson

Which two scholars are critical of Emotivism?

• MacIntyre

• Rachels

How does MacInytre challenge Emotivism?

opaque - we can rationally determine the best possible life for humans and so can have moral judgements which are more than mere preferences

• Stevenson makes an unpleasant world where people are just imposing their view on others

How does Rachels challenge Emotivism?

moral judgements appeal to reasoning not just expressions of feelings

What are the strengths of Emotivism?

• everyone can understand and apply this theory

• opinions are equally valid

• being human is to express emotions especially in moral situations

What are the weaknesses of Emotivism?

• Rachels - moral judgements appeal to reasoning not just expressions of feelings

• MacIntyre - opaque, does not explain how we can distinguish feelings and attitudes

• does not explain how moral views are formed in the first place