Ethical language

Question 1

What does meta ethics mean?

Answer 1

Literally means beyond ethics

Question 2

Explain the difference between meta ethics and normative ethics

Answer 2

While normative ethics is concerned with the question of what is good, meta ethics is concerned with what we actually mean when we say something is good

Question 3

What is the fundamental concern of meta ethics?

Answer 3

It is fundamentally concerned with language

Question 4

What does this primary concern mean in terms of the kind of philosophers who are prominent in the field of meta ethics?

Answer 4

Subsequently, many of the philosophers in this section were part of the ‘linguistic turn’ that occurred in the early 20th century

Question 5

What were these thinkers concerned with?

Answer 5

These thinkers were not concerned so much with ethical statements of right and wrong, but rather whether moral statements were meaningful at all

Question 6

Explain realism

Answer 6

Realism holds that moral facts exist

Question 7

Explain anti realism

Answer 7

Anti realism holds that moral facts do not exist

Question 8

Explain cognitivism

Answer 8

Cognitivism holds that ethical statements make claims about mind independent reality and so can be true or false. Since they can be proven true or false they are objective rather than subjective. They view ethical statements as either right or wrong

Question 9

Explain non cognitivism

Answer 9

Non cogntivism holds that ethical statements do not make claims about mind independent reality and so cannot be true or false. Since they cannot be proven true or false they are subjective. As ethical statements are opinions, non cognitivism holds that they cannot be proven right or wrong

Question 10

What do congnitivism and non cognitivism make claims about?

Answer 10

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism make claims about language

Question 11

What do realism and anti realism make claims about?

Answer 11

Realism and anti-realism make claims about what exists

Question 12

What is the link between realism and cognitivism and anti realism and non cognitivism?

Answer 12

Generally, realists will be cognitivists and anti realists will be non cognitivists

Question 13

Why is it not enough to simply split meta ethics into these two camps?

Answer 13

Within these two camps, there are numerous highly nuanced positions

Question 14

What are the examples of cognitivism we will learn about in this chapter?

Answer 14

Naturalism and intuitionism

Question 15

What are the examples of non cognitivism we will learn about in this chapter?

Answer 15

Emotivism and prescriptivism

Question 16

What are ontological claims?

Answer 16

Claims about what does or does not exist are referred to as ontological claims. This comes from the Greek ‘ontos’, meaning being. This is where the ontological argument gets its name from, because it begins with the ontological claim that God must exist in order to truly be ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’

Question 17

What do absolutism and relativism make claims about?

Answer 17

the nature of morality

Question 18

What do absolutists think about morality?

Answer 18

Absolutists hold the morality holds no exceptions and that certain actions are always wrong or right, regardless or the context

Question 19

What two camps can we split relativism into?

Answer 19

Individual or cultural relativism

Question 20

What does individual relativists argue?

Answer 20

Individual relativists hold that morality is relative to each individual

Question 21

Explain cultural relativism

Answer 21

cultural relativists argue that morality is relative to a particular culture

Question 22

What do relativists think about different ethical perspectives?

Answer 22

all perspectives are equally vaild.

Question 23

What does this mean for ethical debate?

Answer 23

This means that in an ethical debate, one party cannot establish that their position is superior to the other party’s position. For this reason, few philosophers identify themselves as relativists. Infact, the term is often used as one of derision.

Question 24

What do critics of relativism say?

Answer 24

that the position of relativism is self defeating, as if we can never say that one position is better than another, it calls the whole practise of philosophy and ethics into question

Question 25

Use contemporary moral developments to discredit the position of relativism

Answer 25

Things like human rights and greater equality in recent years are used as examples for why moral progress is not only a real force, but is also something incredibly desireable. Defending the idea that a moral perspective that supports slavery is equal to one that doesn’t is a challenge for even the most ardent relativists

Question 26

In whom can the modern origins of relativism be found?

Answer 26

Although the position of relativism is as old as philosophy itself, its modern origins can be found in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche

Question 27

Briefly describe the impact of N’s work generally?

Answer 27

After having been misunderstood and underappreciated by most contemporaries, he posthumously became a huge influence on countless intellectual and artistic movements

Question 28

What issue did N have with the way that philosophers approached philosophy and ethics?

Answer 28

Nietzsche thought that philosophers were wrong to think of themselves as working in the realm of abstract ideas and absolute knowledge, when what in fact holds is perspectivism

Question 29

Explain this idea of perspectivism?

Answer 29

This is the idea that how we view the world is inevitable shaped by values we have already absorbed

Question 30

How did this lead N to his support of relativism?

Answer 30

Nietzsche therefore saw it as foolish to see one perspective as being superior to another, because we are all laden with culturally and individually relative assumptions

Question 31

Give a quote from N where he outlines his support of perspectivism over absolutism

Answer 31

‘there is no such thing as moral phenomena, only an interpretation of moral phenomena’ in chapter four of ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

Question 32

What does factual langauge do?

Answer 32

Simply states what is the case

Question 33

What does symbolic language do?

Answer 33

tries to point beyond itself to something deeper

Question 34

Is ethical naturalism cognitive or non cognitive?

Answer 34

cognitive

Question 35

Explain the theory of ethical naturalism

Answer 35

It is the belief that decisions about what is right and wrong can be arrived at through discovery of the world and human nature

Question 36

Why is NML an example of ethical naturalism?

Answer 36

NML is an example of ethical naturalism because it says that an action is right if it fulfils the purpose of human nature, and human nature is something that exists in the world and can be assessed and empirically tested

Question 37

How is utlitarianism an example of ethical naturalism?

Answer 37

Utilitarianism is also an example because it sees an action as being right if it produces happiness, and happiness is something that exists in the world and can be assessed and empirically tested and because we can know empirically that the vast majority of humans work towards achieving happiness

Question 38

How does ethical naturalism treat ethical language?

Answer 38

Ethical naturalism treats ethical language the same as other types of language

Question 39

How does ethical naturalism treat EL the same as other types of language?

Answer 39

Just like how we empircally test normal statements to see if they are true, ethical naturalism holds that we can do the same to ethical statements

Question 40

What does this mean EL is according to ethical naturalism?

Answer 40

verifiable or falsifiable

Question 41

How is the is ought gap a blow to NML and utilitarianism?

Answer 41

Critics of moral theories like NML and utilitarianism say that they make the mistake of conflating what is the case with what ought to be the case

Question 42

Who first pointed out the is ought gap?

Answer 42

David Hume

Question 43

What did Hume drawing this distinction have a profound impact on?

Answer 43

Hume drawing this distinction had a profound impact on 20th century meta ethics

Question 44

What does the is ought gap say philosophers are prone to do when talking about ethics?

Answer 44

He made the point that when philosophers talk about ethics they are prone to make an unqualified inductive leap from what is the case to what ought to be the case

Question 45

Explain how the is ought gap works in terms of utilitarianism

Answer 45

To take utilitarianism as an example, Bentham talks about how maximising pleasure and avoiding pain is what all humans work towards. Hume would take no issue with this. Bentham then goes on to make the claim that because everyone works towards maximinisng pleasure and minimising pain, that everyone should work towards maximinising pleasure and minimising pain. For Hume, this conclusion is unjustifiable

In saying that everyone avoids pain and seeks pleasure, Bentham makes a descriptive statement that the majority would agree with. However, from this, Bentham then goes on to make the normative claim that pleasure and pain should therefore determine what we ought to do. Normative claims are very different to descriptive claims

Question 46

Why does Hume find this conclusion unjustifiable?

Answer 46

Hume thinks it is unclear how someone could justify such a move. If it is the case that everyone in on the planet acts in a certain way, it does not necessarily mean that they should be acting and continue to act in this way

Question 47

Use an example to illustrate how just because something is commonplace does not make it ethically sound

Answer 47

Just because lots of people act in a certain way does not make that behaviour ethically desirable. For instance, the vast majority of African Americans in Missisippi were enslaved in the 18th century, but this obviously does not mean that this ought to have been the case

Question 48

How does the is ought gap call the whole of ethics into question?

Answer 48

This begs the question of which ethics can be right if ethic theories are based upon this fallacy

Question 49

Which other philosophers is GE Moore associated with?

Answer 49

GE Moore is often associated with his Cambridge colleagues, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein

Question 50

Why was their work seen as radical at the time?

Answer 50

The work of these philosophers was considered radical at the time due to its close focus on linguistic analysis and a lack of interest in speculation

Question 51

What were Moore and his colleagues particularly influential in?

Answer 51

analytic philosophy, which is now the dominant way of doing philosophy in English speaking countries

Question 52

What is an open question according to Moore?

Answer 52

Moore considered an open question to be one that can be answered positively or negatively without ‘self-contradiction

Question 53

Explain how the open question arguement works in terms of the utilitarian notion that pleasure is good

Answer 53

Moore used the example of the naturalistic element of pleasure from utilitarianism, but other terms could be used. A utilitarian might say that ‘helping a person who is ill creates pleasure’ and therefore helping someone who is ill is good. The open question would respond to utilitarianism by asking whether pleasure was good. The answer to this question could logically and without self contradiction be no. From this Moore, argues that good and pleasure cannot be called analytically the same. This means that good is not the same as pleasure and good cannot be defined as pleasure, as the utilitarians would have it

Question 54

What does a definition of good have to be according to the open question arguement?

Answer 54

A definition of good therefore has to be things that are analytically identical

Question 55

Give an example of something that could not be called an open question

Answer 55

If we ask the question ‘can a bachelor not be an unmarried man?’, this would not be an open question because it would be a logical contradiction to answer yes

Question 56

What can we conclude from this?

Answer 56

From this we can therefore conclude that the ideas of a ‘bachelor’ and an ‘unmarried man’ are analytically the same

Question 57

What is the impact of the open question arguement on EL?

Answer 57

Moore concludes that no natural properties can ever be equated with the term good because this will always lead to an open question

Question 58

What is the term for this conclusion by Moore?

Answer 58

naturalistic fallacy

Question 59

Explain the naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 59

the idea that it does not make sense to equate good with any natural properties

Question 60

What did Moore still think as a cognitivist despite all this?

Answer 60

Moore did not argue that good did not exist

Question 61

Explain his cognitivist ethical theory

Answer 61

He thinks that what is good can be identified through our intuition – we know good when we see it – things are self evidently good

Question 62

How did Moore use the example of the colour yellow to identify his theory of intuitionism?

Answer 62

Moore uses the example of yellow to help explain this. Yellow cannot be defined but we know it when we see it. We cannot say what yellow is – only that things have yellow as a property

Question 63

Give a quote from Moore where he summarises his idea of intuitionism

Answer 63

‘We know what yellow is and can recognise it where it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same we know what good is, but cannot actually define it’

Question 64

How has intuitionism developed over time?

Answer 64

Other philosophers at the time built on the theory and attempted to rescue it from some of its criticisms

Question 65

What view did Harold Arthur Pritchard share with Moore?

Answer 65

that good cannot be defined but can be known by our intuition

Question 66

What were the two types of thinking outlined by Pritchard?

Answer 66

reason and intuition

Question 67

What did Pritchard think reason and intuition respectively did?

Answer 67

Reason looks at the facts of the situation and then intuition used this information to decide what action should be taken. Intuition tells us what is right and wrong from the available options and how to decide between obligations

Question 68

How did Pritchard think that intuition was indivdually relative?

Answer 68

Pritchard argued that intuition develops from one person to another as some people are more morally developed than others

Question 69

How did WD Ross have a different approach to intuitionism compared to Moore and Pritchard?

Answer 69

because he is a deontologist rather than a consequentialist

Question 70

What did Ross think intuition allowed us to do?

Answer 70

He considered intuition as allowing us to identify what our duty is in a specific moral situation

Question 71

How is the way Ross regarded duty an example of intuitionist thinking?

Answer 71

Ross argued that our duty in a given moral situation is self evident and easily recognisable. They are prima facie (from the Latin for ‘at first appearance’) duties

Question 72

How many core prima facie duties did Ross identify?

Answer 72

7

Question 73

What were they?

Answer 73

Promise keeping

Faithfulness in relationships

Gratitude

Justice

Generosity

Self-improvement

Non-maleficence

Question 74

How did Ross get around the challenge levelled at all deontological ethical frameworks - that sometimes absolute rules, or in this case duties, will come into conflict with one another?

Answer 74

He recognised that these sometimes conflict but said that in the situation it will be clear which one is more important

Question 75

What is the main strength of intuitionism?

Answer 75

Moore’s theory is able to overcome the naturalistic fallacy while maintaining that good exists objectively

Question 76

List the weaknesses of intuitionism

Answer 76

Moore claims that we are able to intuitively recognise goodness, but does not explain how we do this or what exactly the nature of goodness is, only that it is non-natural and so unlike anything else. This begs the question of how we can actually recognise goodness. Geoffrey Warnock points out that this creates a number of serious difficulties. Firstly, it begs the question of how non natural moral properties can interact with normal natural properties. A utilitarian might say that hurting people is wrong because it causes them pain, but this route is not open to the intuitionist due to the open question argument. This seems impractical, as it seems practical that whether or not an action produces pain or pleasure should have a bearing on our moral thinking

We can also ask how intuitionism can solve ethical dilemmas. As a cognitivist, Moore believes in moral facts and moral falsehoods. However, he does not make clear how we can know when we have found these moral facts and falsehoods. If one person thinks that abortion is wrong while the other is pro-choice, we cannot know who is grasping the moral fact and the moral falsehood

Even if there are moral facts, intuitionism gives us no reason why we should care. If I judge that torturing innocent children is wrong, I may well be stating a moral fact, but simply stating a fact does not give anyone any reason not to torture children. All this does is state the obvious, because of the naturalistic fallacy this stating of a moral fact is not relevant to how people should act

Question 77

Where can the roots of emotivism be found?

Answer 77

the Vienna Circle

Question 78

What was the Vienna Circle?

Answer 78

a group of early 20th century philosophers and scientists who met regularly in Vienna to discuss ideas

Question 79

What position did the Vienna Circle advocate?

Answer 79

logical positivism

Question 80

What is logical positivism?

Answer 80

The idea that science and logic are the only legitimate sources of knowledge. Logical positivism holds that something must be meaningful for it to be called knowledge

Question 81

What does the verification principle do?

Answer 81

sets out criteria for deciding which statements could be called meaningful

Question 82

What are analytic statements?

Answer 82

Statements that are true by definition

Question 83

What are synthetic statements?

Answer 83

Synthetic statements are statements that can be proved according to empirical evidence. They cannot be proved a priori (by reason alone), only be a posteriori (experience)

Question 84

Give an example of a synthetic statement

Answer 84

the synthetic statement ‘it is raining’ cannot be proved by thinking alone, but rather by going outside and looking

Question 85

What did AJ Ayer have in mind when developing emotivism?

Answer 85

The verification principle

Question 86

What happens when we apply the verification principle to EL?

Answer 86

if we put ethical language to this test, we will find that it is not tautological (e.g., the concepts of murder and wrongness cannot be called analytically identical). It is also not possible to determine empirically whether the idea that murder is wrong is true or false, as any attempt to do so would commit the naturalistic fallacy

Question 87

What does the verification principle mean for EL?

Answer 87

According the the verification principle, since ethical language can neither be called analytic or synthetic, it has to be meaningless

Question 88

Why is this so damaging for ethics?

Answer 88

If ethical langauge is meaningless, this begs the question of why we still use terms such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’

Question 89

What does Ayer think EL still has despite being logically meaningless?

Answer 89

A purpose

Question 90

What does he think this purpose is?

Answer 90

it expresses our disapproval or approval of a certain course of action, behaviour or characteristic.

Question 91

What has this led to emotivism being called?

Answer 91

the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory

Question 92

Why is emotivism referred to as the boo-hurrah theory?

Answer 92

since it reduces ethical language down to a mere expression of opinion (approval or disapproval)

Question 93

What did Ayer do to his theory later?

Answer 93

Amended it

Question 94

Explain this amendment

Answer 94

He developed a weak verification principle which held that statements could be considered meaningful, even if they could not be definitively proved by empirical evidence, if it was still possible for experience to render it possible

The weak verification principle made scientific and historical statements meaningful, but not RL.

Question 95

How does the weak verification principle relate to EL?

Answer 95

It considers ethical statements meaningful only if the statement refers to an objective experience, e.g., when breaking a rule makes you feel guilty

Question 96

List the strengths of emotivism

Answer 96

Helps us explain why it is so difficult to reconcile conflicting moral viewpoints, as there is no objective truth to arrive at at all

It recognises the wide variety of moral viewpoints and gives them equal value, even if they are equally meaningless

It is consistent with our understanding of morality and human development that we make statements in order to influence others and seek approval

It shows how emotive statements, which lack empirical evidence, can still be very influential and impactful on others

Question 97

List the weaknesses of emotivism

Answer 97

Makes moral debate pointless and meaningless since all moral views are equally meaningless

There is no way to judge between ethical statements and decide which one is right

People make ethical statements because they think they are true, they are not just an attempt to influence others

Denies the opportunity for any universal or widely agreed upon principles

Emotivist theories fail to distinguish ethical language from other forms of language which create an emotional impact. It also seems that ethical language is also not necessarily emotive. Often ethics is discussed dryly in a matter of fact fashion. Historically, more ethical decisions have been made bureaucratically rather than emotionally

The verification principles views other forms of knowledge (e.g.,historical) as meaningless

The emotivist theory itself is not verifiable and so is meaningless according to its own standards. The same is true of the verification principle itself, since the statement ‘all meaningful statements are either analytic or synthetic’ is itself neither analytic nor synthetic

Question 98

Who developed prescriptivism?

Answer 98

hare

Question 99

How does prescriptivism view moral statements?

Answer 99

Sees moral statements as prescriptive – telling or prescribing what someone ought to do. People therefore make moral statements to convince others or influence them about what they should do. For instance, if I say ‘murder is wrong’, what I am really saying is ‘you should not murder’, with the hope that listeners will respond to this statement by not murderi

Question 100

Give a quote from Hare where he explains his view that EL is prescriptive

Answer 100

I have said that the primary function of the word good is to commend. We have, therefore, to inquire what commending is. When we commend or condemn anything, it is always in order, atleast indirectly, to guide choices’.

Question 101

What does prescriptivism think all moral commands should be?

Answer 101

Universalisable

Question 102

Explain the idea that moral commands should be universalisable

Answer 102

they should apply to everyone. This means that prescriptions should be consistent and not hypocritical

Question 103

What is the main strength of prescriptivism

Answer 103

The main strength is that it moves on from emotivism to show how non cognitive moral statements can still have a purpose and express something more than just emotions

Question 104

List the weaknesses of prescriptivism

Answer 104

Hare does not provide a way to differentiate between different prescriptions and make decisions about which are correct

Even if people make moral statements that our universalisable, it does not mean that these moral laws are universal because people can come up with different prescriptions

Like emotivism, it denies the possibility of objective moral truth or knowledge. It is impossible to say something is right because someone can always prescribe the opposite

Prescriptive statements fail to have that much of an effect on other people because there is no weight behind them. If someone says ‘abortion is wrong’ and the listener asks why, no reasoning can be given

There is nothing to stop someone changing their preference

Question 105

List the strengths of ethical naturalism

Answer 105

Basis in Empirical Observations: Ethical naturalism anchors moral claims in the natural world, allowing for empirical verification and grounding ethics in observable phenomena.

Alignment with Scientific Understanding: It harmonizes ethical principles with scientific knowledge, making it appealing to those who value empirical evidence and scientific inquiry. This alignment can strengthen the credibility of ethical claims.

Objectivity: Naturalism suggests that moral truths are objective features of the world, stemming from natural properties or facts. This objective basis provides a firm foundation for ethical reasoning.

Explanatory Power: It offers explanations for moral phenomena by tying ethical principles to observable natural properties or states. This can provide a comprehensive framework for understanding moral concepts.

Coherence with Evolutionary Theory: Ethical naturalism can align with evolutionary theories by explaining how certain moral tendencies or behaviors might have evolved due to their adaptive advantages, offering insights into the origins of moral sentiments.

Clarity and Precision: It provides a clear and precise language for discussing ethics by grounding moral concepts in natural terms, aiding in the analysis and evaluation of ethical propositions.

Avoidance of Non-Naturalist Critiques: Ethical naturalism tends to sidestep some criticisms directed at non-naturalist theories, such as the ‘queerness’ problem (questioning the existence of non-natural moral properties) or issues related to the non-naturalist’s reliance on non-empirical foundations for ethics.