Ethical language Flashcards
What does meta ethics mean?
Literally means beyond ethics
Explain the difference between meta ethics and normative ethics
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
What is the fundamental concern of meta ethics?
It is fundamentally concerned with language
What does this primary concern mean in terms of the kind of philosophers who are prominent in the field of meta ethics?
Subsequently, many of the philosophers in this section were part of the ‘linguistic turn’ that occurred in the early 20th century
What were these thinkers concerned with?
These thinkers were not concerned so much with ethical statements of right and wrong, but rather whether moral statements were meaningful at all
Explain realism
Realism holds that moral facts exist
Explain anti realism
Anti realism holds that moral facts do not exist
Explain cognitivism
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
Explain non cognitivism
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
What do congnitivism and non cognitivism make claims about?
Cognitivism and non-cognitivism make claims about language
What do realism and anti realism make claims about?
Realism and anti-realism make claims about what exists
What is the link between realism and cognitivism and anti realism and non cognitivism?
Generally, realists will be cognitivists and anti realists will be non cognitivists
Why is it not enough to simply split meta ethics into these two camps?
Within these two camps, there are numerous highly nuanced positions
What are the examples of cognitivism we will learn about in this chapter?
Naturalism and intuitionism
What are the examples of non cognitivism we will learn about in this chapter?
Emotivism and prescriptivism
What are ontological claims?
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’
What do absolutism and relativism make claims about?
the nature of morality
What do absolutists think about morality?
Absolutists hold the morality holds no exceptions and that certain actions are always wrong or right, regardless or the context
What two camps can we split relativism into?
Individual or cultural relativism
What does individual relativists argue?
Individual relativists hold that morality is relative to each individual
Explain cultural relativism
cultural relativists argue that morality is relative to a particular culture
What do relativists think about different ethical perspectives?
all perspectives are equally vaild.
What does this mean for ethical debate?
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.
What do critics of relativism say?
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
Use contemporary moral developments to discredit the position of relativism
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
In whom can the modern origins of relativism be found?
Although the position of relativism is as old as philosophy itself, its modern origins can be found in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche
Briefly describe the impact of N’s work generally?
After having been misunderstood and underappreciated by most contemporaries, he posthumously became a huge influence on countless intellectual and artistic movements
What issue did N have with the way that philosophers approached philosophy and ethics?
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
Explain this idea of perspectivism?
This is the idea that how we view the world is inevitable shaped by values we have already absorbed
How did this lead N to his support of relativism?
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
Give a quote from N where he outlines his support of perspectivism over absolutism
‘there is no such thing as moral phenomena, only an interpretation of moral phenomena’ in chapter four of ‘Beyond Good and Evil’
What does factual langauge do?
Simply states what is the case
What does symbolic language do?
tries to point beyond itself to something deeper
Is ethical naturalism cognitive or non cognitive?
cognitive
Explain the theory of ethical naturalism
It is the belief that decisions about what is right and wrong can be arrived at through discovery of the world and human nature
Why is NML an example of ethical naturalism?
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
How is utlitarianism an example of ethical naturalism?
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
How does ethical naturalism treat ethical language?
Ethical naturalism treats ethical language the same as other types of language
How does ethical naturalism treat EL the same as other types of language?
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
What does this mean EL is according to ethical naturalism?
verifiable or falsifiable
How is the is ought gap a blow to NML and utilitarianism?
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
Who first pointed out the is ought gap?
David Hume
What did Hume drawing this distinction have a profound impact on?
Hume drawing this distinction had a profound impact on 20th century meta ethics
What does the is ought gap say philosophers are prone to do when talking about ethics?
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
Explain how the is ought gap works in terms of utilitarianism
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
Why does Hume find this conclusion unjustifiable?
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
Use an example to illustrate how just because something is commonplace does not make it ethically sound
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
How does the is ought gap call the whole of ethics into question?
This begs the question of which ethics can be right if ethic theories are based upon this fallacy
Which other philosophers is GE Moore associated with?
GE Moore is often associated with his Cambridge colleagues, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein
Why was their work seen as radical at the time?
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
What were Moore and his colleagues particularly influential in?
analytic philosophy, which is now the dominant way of doing philosophy in English speaking countries
What is an open question according to Moore?
Moore considered an open question to be one that can be answered positively or negatively without ‘self-contradiction
Explain how the open question arguement works in terms of the utilitarian notion that pleasure is good
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
What does a definition of good have to be according to the open question arguement?
A definition of good therefore has to be things that are analytically identical
Give an example of something that could not be called an open question
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
What can we conclude from this?
From this we can therefore conclude that the ideas of a ‘bachelor’ and an ‘unmarried man’ are analytically the same
What is the impact of the open question arguement on EL?
Moore concludes that no natural properties can ever be equated with the term good because this will always lead to an open question
What is the term for this conclusion by Moore?
naturalistic fallacy
Explain the naturalistic fallacy?
the idea that it does not make sense to equate good with any natural properties
What did Moore still think as a cognitivist despite all this?
Moore did not argue that good did not exist
Explain his cognitivist ethical theory
He thinks that what is good can be identified through our intuition – we know good when we see it – things are self evidently good
How did Moore use the example of the colour yellow to identify his theory of intuitionism?
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
Give a quote from Moore where he summarises his idea of intuitionism
‘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’
How has intuitionism developed over time?
Other philosophers at the time built on the theory and attempted to rescue it from some of its criticisms
What view did Harold Arthur Pritchard share with Moore?
that good cannot be defined but can be known by our intuition
What were the two types of thinking outlined by Pritchard?
reason and intuition
What did Pritchard think reason and intuition respectively did?
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
How did Pritchard think that intuition was indivdually relative?
Pritchard argued that intuition develops from one person to another as some people are more morally developed than others
How did WD Ross have a different approach to intuitionism compared to Moore and Pritchard?
because he is a deontologist rather than a consequentialist
What did Ross think intuition allowed us to do?
He considered intuition as allowing us to identify what our duty is in a specific moral situation
How is the way Ross regarded duty an example of intuitionist thinking?
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
How many core prima facie duties did Ross identify?
7
What were they?
Promise keeping
Faithfulness in relationships
Gratitude
Justice
Generosity
Self-improvement
Non-maleficence
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?
He recognised that these sometimes conflict but said that in the situation it will be clear which one is more important
What is the main strength of intuitionism?
Moore’s theory is able to overcome the naturalistic fallacy while maintaining that good exists objectively
List the weaknesses of intuitionism
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
Where can the roots of emotivism be found?
the Vienna Circle
What was the Vienna Circle?
a group of early 20th century philosophers and scientists who met regularly in Vienna to discuss ideas
What position did the Vienna Circle advocate?
logical positivism
What is logical positivism?
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
What does the verification principle do?
sets out criteria for deciding which statements could be called meaningful
What are analytic statements?
Statements that are true by definition
What are synthetic statements?
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)
Give an example of a synthetic statement
the synthetic statement ‘it is raining’ cannot be proved by thinking alone, but rather by going outside and looking
What did AJ Ayer have in mind when developing emotivism?
The verification principle
What happens when we apply the verification principle to EL?
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
What does the verification principle mean for EL?
According the the verification principle, since ethical language can neither be called analytic or synthetic, it has to be meaningless
Why is this so damaging for ethics?
If ethical langauge is meaningless, this begs the question of why we still use terms such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
What does Ayer think EL still has despite being logically meaningless?
A purpose
What does he think this purpose is?
it expresses our disapproval or approval of a certain course of action, behaviour or characteristic.
What has this led to emotivism being called?
the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory
Why is emotivism referred to as the boo-hurrah theory?
since it reduces ethical language down to a mere expression of opinion (approval or disapproval)
What did Ayer do to his theory later?
Amended it
Explain this amendment
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.
How does the weak verification principle relate to EL?
It considers ethical statements meaningful only if the statement refers to an objective experience, e.g., when breaking a rule makes you feel guilty
List the strengths of emotivism
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
List the weaknesses of emotivism
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
Who developed prescriptivism?
hare
How does prescriptivism view moral statements?
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
Give a quote from Hare where he explains his view that EL is prescriptive
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’.
What does prescriptivism think all moral commands should be?
Universalisable
Explain the idea that moral commands should be universalisable
they should apply to everyone. This means that prescriptions should be consistent and not hypocritical
What is the main strength of prescriptivism
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
List the weaknesses of prescriptivism
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
List the strengths of ethical naturalism
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.
