A2 Ethics Flashcards
META ETHICS
non cognitivist theories
There is no ethical knowledge, because ethical statements are not statements that can be proven true or false. -Emotivism > A.J.Ayer > C.L. Stevenson - Prescriptivism > R.M.Hare
META ETHICS
ethical naturalism
Believes that all ethical statements are the same as non-ethical statements (natural) - they are all factual and can therefore be verified or falsified.
> E.g if you want to know if euthanasia is wrong, you look at the evidence so that you can test the veracity of the statement
+ COGNITIVE AND OBJECTIVE
+ ETHICAL AND NONETHICAL STATEMENTS ARE THE SAME
+ ETHICAL STATEMENTS CAN BE VERIFIED AND FALSIFIED
META ETHICS
criticisms of ethical naturalism
G.E.Moore + naturalistic fallacy
Moore argued against ethical naturalism and called the attempt to identify goodness with a natural quality a mistake. He said that to claim that moral statements can be verified or falsified using evidence is to commit to the naturalistic fallacy.
Moore stated that whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term ‘good’ by using a natural property such as ‘pleasing’ or ‘desirable’ they are committing a naturalistic fallacy.
Naturalistic theories of ethics attempt to define good in terms of something which can be identified in the world or in human nature - eg claiming that what is natural is good, or what makes us happy or healthy.
> there is nothing intrinsically good about happiness or health! they are only good is we define them as good.
If we adopt this approach, we effectively move from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ which HUME claimed was logically impossible
> an ‘is’ can be discovered by science,philosophy or reason
> an ‘ought’ is a judgement which can be achieved by consensus.
META ETHICS
INTUITIONISM
G.E.Moore
Good is a simple, unanalysable property, just as a primary colour is.
> Moore’s adapted version of utilitarianism says that right acts are those which produce the most good, but he said that good cannot be identified with some natural property such as pleasure; goodness cannot be defined.
- we cannot use our senses to tell whether something is good but we can use our ‘moral intuition’ and so we can still say whether a moral statement is true or false
> we recognise goodness when we see it! we just know if something is good.
> he called this a ‘simple notion’ and explained it by saying it is rather like trying to define the colour yellow - just as we cannot explain what ‘yellow’ is by means of definition, but only by showing an example, we can only explain what goodness it by example, not definition.
META ETHICS
INTUITIONISM
H.A.Pritchard
Pritchard discusses the moral claim ‘ought’ by saying that no definition can be given to this word, but, like Moore’s idea about ‘good’, we all recognise its properties - everyone recognises when we ought to do a certain action, so moral obligations are obvious.
> Pritchard believes that intuition would show which particular action was right or wrong and where our moral obligations lay.
> he recognises the problem that people’s morals are different, but he said that this may be because some people had developed their moral thinking further than others.
META ETHICS
INTUITIONISM
W.D.Ross
Claims that it is obvious that certain types of actions which he called ‘prima facie’ duties,were right.
In any situation we would come to recognise certain prima facie duties.
He listed 7 classes of prima facie duties;
1) duties of fidelity (promise keeping)
2) duties of reparation (when you’ve done wrong)
3) duties of gratitude
4) duties of justice
5) duties of beneficence
6) duties of self - improvement
7) duties of non - maleficence
Ross says that when these prima facie duties conflict, we must follow he one we think is right in the situation
META ETHICS
criticisms of intuitionism
The concept of knowing what is good by intuition and not empirical evidence is not conclusively proven by Moore, he says “you either agree with me or you have not thought about it properly”
> how can we be sure that intuitions are correct! since people may come to different conclusions
> as sense experiences cannot be used, how can we decide between intuitions
> if intuitions contradict each other then they can’t both be right
> moral intuitions seem to come largely from social conditioning and differ between cultures, so it is hard to see how such intuitions can be a reliable guide to objective ethical truths
META ETHICS
Emotivism
A.J.Ayer
Emotivism has it’s roots in the Vienna circle, logical positivist who believe in the verification principle that a statement should be verified by empirical evidence. Ethical statements cannot be tested by sense experience, so are not genuine truth claims and can only express feelings.
Ethical statements do not serve only to express feelings, they are calculated also to arouse feeling, and so to stimulate action.
When we are talking about “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong” we are simply expressing emotional states of approval and disapproval. Any other interpretation of ethical statements are meaningless.
Ayer said that there are toe types of meaningful statements;
> ANALYTIC STATEMENTS; truth or falsity of statements can be determined simply by understanding the terms that occur in them [eg all bachelors are unmarried men]
> SYNTHETIC STATEMENTS; truth or falsity of a statement can be determined by checking established facts.
- Emotivism is sometimes called the “boo/hurrah theory” as in saying “murder is wrong” you are saying “boo to murder” and by saying giving to charity is good you are saying “hurrah to giving to charity”
META ETHICS
EMOTIVISM
C.L.Stevenson
Discussed the emotive meaning of words - many moral terms are both descriptive and emotive, expressing also what we feel about the,.
When an individual is making a moral judgement, he is not only giving vent to his feelings, but he is also trying to influence others attitudes.
Ethical statements can be based in emotions, however they are not arbitrary, but are based on our experiences of the world and how we want it to be.
Ethical disagreements between people are disagreements about fundamental principles
META ETHICS
PRESCRIPTIVISM
R.M.Hare
Prescriptivism says “you ought to do this” and means that everyone should do the same in similar situations
If we use the word good in a moral sense, we are using a set of standards that apply to a person or an action and we commend that person or action
> this means that good has a prescriptive and descriptive meaning; they both command and describe
> “stealing is wrong” really means “you ought not to steal and neither will I”
> ethical statements are expressions of opinion
ethical statements statements are also universal
they are not just expressing our views, but prescribing them to others
META ETHICS
cognitive theories
Moral statements describe the world and are objectively wither right or wrong eg "murder is wrong". Cognitivism is the view that we can have moral knowledge, ethical statements are about facts and can be proven true or false. - ethical naturalism - intuitionism > G.E.Moore > H.A.Pritchard > W.D.Ross
Free will and determinism
Hard determinism
Libertarianism
Soft determinism
Hard determinism - accept determinism and reject freedom and moral responsibility
Libertarianism- reject determinism and accept freedom and moral responsibility
Soft determinism - freedom is not only compatible with determinism but actually requires it
Free will and determinism
Hard determinism
All our actions have prior causes - we are neither free nor responsible. Hard determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility. As all our actions are caused by prior causes, we are not free to act in any other way
More modern versions of hard determinism point to our genetic heritage, social conditioning or subconscious influences as prior causes - behaviourism
Free will and determinism
Hard determinism
JOHN HOSPERS
Modern hard determinist who said; there is always something which compels us both externally and internally to perform and action that we think is the result of out own free will, he concludes “it is all a matter of luck”
Free will and determinism
Hard determinism
CLARENCE DARROW
Defended two young men on charges of murder and claimed that it was not their fault, but the result of their upbringing, ancestry and wealthy environment. Darrow was successful with the plea.
