4.1 Meta-Ethics Flashcards
what is meta-ethics
meta-ethics analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral terms such as ‘good’ and ‘right’
two main views of meta-ethics: cognitivism
- moral truths exist independently of our mind, moral judgments can be true or false
- terms such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ correspond to facts in the world
two main views of meta-ethics: non-cognitivism
- there is no such thing as moral truth within the world
- what we call moral facts are just subjective moral responses
realism
moral truths exist independently of human opinion (objective morality)
anti-realism
moral truths do not exist independently and instead bases on human attitidues, emotions, agreements
how does ethical naturalism support cognitivism?
- treats moral statements as objectively true or false based on empirical facts
- so, it aligns with a cognitivist approach to moral language
what is ethical naturalism?
ethical naturalism argues that moral statements are factual and can be verified using empirical evidence
ethical naturalism - strengths
- accounts for moral feelings when we feel outraged by clear injustice
- moral statements are meaningful; unlike emotivism, treats moral claims as factual
- compatible with science; aligns with scientific teachings about human behaviour and well-being
ethical naturalism - weaknesses
- the naturalistic fallacy (g.e moor): terms like “good” cannot be defined in terms of ethical properties (eg pleasure)
- the is-ought problem (hume): you cannot logically derive moral oglibations from factual statements
- moral disagreements persist: if morality was based on objective, natural facts, we could expect less disagreement within ethics
what is emotivism?
moral statements are not statements but expressions/indicators of emotional states
how did a.j ayer positivism influence emotivism?
- as it argues that only statements verified by emprical evidence/logial reasoning are meaningful
what is the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory?
- ayer’s idea that moral statements simply express approval or disapproval
- eg) stealing is wrong = boo to stealin g
what is prescriptivism?
- the belief that moral statements prescribe actions rather than simply express emotions
who developed prescriptivism?
r.m hare
how is prescriptivism different to emotivism?
- prescriptivism sees moral language as action-guiding, where emotivism sees it as emotional expression
strengths of emotivism
- promotes tolerance of different viewpoints
- supported by verification principle
- explains moral disagreement
emotivism weaknesses
- reduces morality to subjective feelings
- cannot resolve moral disagreements
- undermines moral progress
A.J Ayer Emotivism
- as moral statements are neither logical nor provable by the senses, so are factually meaningless
- emotional statements instead show emotional states/feelings, merely convey an approving/disapproving tone
intuitionalism
- moral truths are indefinable and self-evident, we know ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can’t be discovered - instead they are self evident
- like naturalism, its a moral realist and cognitivist theory
G.E Moore - Intuitionalism
- we don’t recognise through empirical facts: the ‘good’ is self-evident to our intuition
- good is a ‘simple concept’ which we ‘just know’ intuitively
- eg) wouldn’t know how to describe colour yellow, we just know
normative ethics
first-order ethical questions about how we should behave, and ethical norms
applied ethics
applying normative principles and arguments to particular areas, eg medical ethics
naturalistic fallacy
criticism of naturalism that we cannot assume that just because something is natural doesn’t mean its good
moral realism (discovery)
belief that right and wrong objectively exist independently from the mind, they are real properties known via observation
