Ethics: Meta-ethics

Question 1

Foot’s thinking

Answer 1

Ethical naturalist
- must observe human behaviour

Question 2

What is the purposes of human for Foot?

Answer 2

The purpose is to fulfil Eudaimonia. This is to practice “good dispositions of the will” , or virtues. We know these virtues are good through observation of the natural world.

Question 3

Explain the background of Foot’s thinking.

Answer 3

• Influenced by Aristotle.
• Draws on his ideas of observation of the natural world and claims that from this there is a good way of doing things.

Question 4

Foot’s analogy

Answer 4

A tree which has sturdy roots is not defective, and is a good tree. If it has weak roots then it is defective and cannot function properly and fulfil its purpose.

Question 5

Foot’s example of character traits and conclusions of this:

Answer 5

character traits are observable and absolute. She writes that
we can call a person a “just man “ or an “honest woman “ and that when we do
this we are referring to a person who recognises certain traits such as promise
keeping as being a powerful reason to act. We can observe these qualities in other
people. We can observe an honest person doing honest things and having a reason
for doing this. From this then we must conclude that morals and traits are
absolute and can be observed.

Question 6

Hare’s thinking

Answer 6

Non-cognitivist
Emotivist + prescriptivist
(neo-kantian)

Question 7

Hare’s ideas

Answer 7

beyond the idea that moral statements are just expressions of our feelings to
state that they are prescriptive and tell us how we ought to act. His theory is known as
prescriptivism. If I state that You shall not murder not only am I expressing my personal
feeling of revulsion but I am also stating that everyone should follow this rule. This is how we
ought to act. This is known as the principle of universalizability. The basis of this is the
Golden Rule. I must think what I would like in situation x and then prescribe this for
everyone.

Question 8

What is ethical naturalism?

Answer 8

• This treats ethics like maths or science. We observe evidence using reason and from this claim that ethical statements convey knowledge and meaning - they are verifiable.

Question 9

For ethical naturalists, are terms such as good / bad, right / wrong definable?

Answer 9

Yes, we can observe consequences of actions to deduce whether something is right/wrong. We can define these words using non-moral terms e.g. for Aquinas, good is God’s will. For Bentham, good is to be happy.

Question 10

Problems of ethical naturalism?

Answer 10

• There is little agreement on the term ‘good’ so it is impossible to know what good/evil mean. (though this doesn’t mean that one of them is right) - If you cannot define it then it is of no help.
• It is wrong to treat ethics like maths or science because ethics ad morality can be grounded in other elements- such as emotion/intuition

Question 11

Strengths of Ethical naturalism?

Answer 11

• It defines the word good evil etc which means there can be objective morality to some extent.
• It treats ethics like maths or science, factually which means it is more logical in its approach to
  ethics. (Strongest strength as it takes away subjectivity of ethics - less room for error in interpretation)
• Consequences can indicate to the Naturalist what is good/evil etc so there is evidence to base the ideas on

Question 12

What is good for R.B. Perry?

Answer 12

‘good’ means being an object of favourable interest, and ‘right’ means being conducive to harmonious happiness.

Question 13

What is emotivism?

Answer 13

(ethical non-naturalism)
We cannot observe ‘morality’ through evidence, it is our emotional response to an action which tells us whether it is good/bad, wrong/right.

Question 14

Hume’s emotivism

Answer 14

1711-1776
Argues against existence of objective moral facts
Treatise of human nature - 1739. If you see a murdered body, you cannot look at the body and say ‘it was a wrongful act’
Cannot deduce the facts from the evidence. You cannot observe wrongness.
Wrongness lies in us - we adopt either a disapproving and approving attitude towards the evidence. It is an emotional response from within us.
Cannot observe ‘morality’ through evidence: The evidence could be mistaken ( a scene with a brightly lit room, pool of blood and a body: could be either a murder scene or a surgery)

Question 15

A.J. Ayer

Answer 15

An emotivist but also:
Non-naturalist: we cannot observe morality through nature.
Non-cognitivist: ethical statements are meaningless and cannot be verified. They are merely expressions of feelings.

Question 16

The Hurrah / Boo theory

Answer 16

Set forward by Ayer: If I say Abortion is wrong then I am simply expressing my feelings about abortion and saying Boo to abortion. If I think that warfare is moral then I am expressing my feeling about
warfare and saying hurray to warfare.

Question 17

What is a synthetic statement?

Answer 17

We need to look at evidence to verify it.

Question 18

What is an analytic statement?

Answer 18

Contains the definition within itself.
(for Moore, ‘good’ is analytic)

Question 19

What is a meaningless statement?

Answer 19

Neither synthetic nor analytic.

Question 20

What was the Vienna Circle?

Answer 20

In the 1920’s - group of philosophers who developed a theory called logical positivism. Aimed to give an account of ethical language that was scientific rather than intuitive / naturalistic.

Question 21

What did the Vienna circle say about ethical statements?

Answer 21

They are meaningless because they are not synthetic or analytical

Question 22

Stevenson similarities with Ayer

Answer 22

agreed that ethical statements are meaningless and could not be verified with empirical evidence.

Question 23

Stevenson differences with Ayer

Answer 23

Considered moral statements to contain deep-rooted beliefs.

Question 24

Stevenson and moral terms

Answer 24

argued that moral terms have a strong persuasive/emotive force to them i.e. we choose words with negative / positive connotations to persuade others to see errors e.g. rape / fraud

Question 25

Stevenson and ethical opinions

Answer 25

An ethical opinion (which is meaningless) is supported by a belief system based upon our own experiences

Question 26

Does ethical language have any factual basis - for emotivists?

Answer 26

It has no factual basis because it’s meaningless because it is non cognitive and this means that ethical statements cannot be empirically verified.
Personally subjective because one person might have a feeling of disapproval about e.g abortion and another might have a feeling of approval about abortion. There is no objective standard of ethics . ( Ayer)
We all have different experiences from which we gain our beliefs so ethical statements are subjective and not objective (Stevenson) Like Ayer for Stevenson ethical statements are meaningless and cannot be verified.

Question 27

Strength 1 of emotivism

Answer 27

It is supported by relativism- individual relativism e.g Protagoras claimed man is the measure of all things because we all have different individual emotive responses to ethics and cultural relativism because cultures have different values and this supports the idea that there is no universal absolute truth which emotivism presupposes. Use Herodotus recounting that King Darius would not swap the Greek tradition of burning the dead for the Callation tradition of eating the dead. William Graeme Sumner- the anthropologist who claimed that we follow the tradition of our ancestors ( culturally) and Mackie- all ethics is relative to culture.

Question 28

Strength 2 of emotivism

Answer 28

It approaches language scientifically breaking language down into analytic, synthetic and meaningless statements which had never been done before.

Question 29

Weakness of emotivism - moral judgements

Answer 29

You can make no moral judgements on other people. As moral statements are just matters of opinion (they can not be falsified or verified) and set out to persuade others. This also means that we use people to persuade them that our way of thinking is right. Our moral judgements are not based upon what is right for people. This does not make for a very virtuous person.

Question 30

Weakness of emotivism - morality

Answer 30

reduces morality down to a matter of feelings and this is over simplified e.g we don’t just believe that killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust was wrong because we have a bad feeling about it! Rachels said that moral judgements require reasoning or else they are too arbitrary.

Question 31

Rachels and emotivism

Answer 31

Rachels is a naturalist. After the second world war even Ayer changed his mind about emotivism when he saw the devastating consequences of Hitler’s ethical views which were simply his expression of approval of killing! He realised that there has to be something more substantial than emotivism in ethics, something by which to judge ethical actions/ views by.

Question 32

Weakness of emotivism - Macintyre

Answer 32

(promotes virtues) claimed that the problem with emotivism is it leads to the conclusion that we can use people as a means to an end e.g According to Ayer Hitler thought that killing 6 million Jewish people was his expression of feeling hurrah to killing 6 million Jews- this then meant that he could use the Jews as a means to fulfilling his final Solution, he could use them as a means to an end. This is not virtuous behaviour.

Question 33

Weakness of emotivism - Vardy

Answer 33

Reduces ethics to nothing more than hot air. If I say Murder is wrong and you say murder is right then there is no debate. We are simply speaking a lot of hot air!
- Both opinions can be right - if you feel like saying ‘hurrah’ to stealing, nothing can be done about it as this is your feelings.
- You must be able to say which opinion is right and wrong.