Meta - Ethical Theories

Question 1

What is cognitive language?

Answer 1

The belief that moral statements are able to be true or false

Question 2

What are non-cognitive statements?

Answer 2

The belief that moral statements are not subject to truth or falsity

Question 3

What is the difference between realists and anti-realists?

Answer 3

Realists argue that moral truths actually exist and are features of the world, however anti-realists reject this

Question 4

What do naturalists believe?

Answer 4

Naturalists suggests that good bad right and wrong can be observed and discovered empirically - the same way we find out other facts about the world around us.

Naturalism is a realist cognitive theory

Question 5

What do intuitionists believe?

Answer 5

Intuitionists suggest that good bad right and wrong actually exist but cannot be seen or discovered in the same way as other facts. More truth or self evident, and are known by intuition.

Intuitionism is a realist and cognitive theory

Question 6

What do emotivists believe?

Answer 6

Emotivists reject the view that good bad right and wrong actually exist. When we make moral statements we are simply showing our opinions and feelings.

Emotivism is an anti-realist and non-cognitive theory

Question 7

Naturalism

Answer 7

The belief that moral values can be defined in terms of some natural property of the world

Question 8

Naturalistic fallacy

Answer 8

The error of reducing goodness to a property that is found in nature, for example, pleasure

Question 9

Aquinas’ naturalism

Answer 9

Aquinas views the world as God given natural order that we can discover through observation and reasoning. Everything has a telos, and we can observe how good something is by asking whether it fulfils its purpose.

Question 10

J. S. Mill’s naturalism

Answer 10

As we observe the world, we can see what actions lead to pleasure, and which lead to pain. This enables us to discover right and wrong.

Question 11

Naturalism is right to say that moral values are a feature of the world, because…

Answer 11

Mill argues we are able to know what is good or desirable as these are things that people actually desire. The fact all people want happiness is enough to show happiness is a good thing

Naturalists might also point out that there is significant agreement on moral values throughout the world. The fact we can agree on the right and wrong suggest it is a factual matter e.g bricks are solid and not a liquid or gas

Naturalists worry that reducing morality to a matter of opinion, reduces the significance of ethical debates, discussing whether killing is wrong, is not the same as food preferences

Question 12

Naturalism, it’s wrong to say that moral values are feature of the world, because…

Answer 12

Hume is concerned, we move to easily from is to an ought… when we consider an action is wrong, we cannot empirically detect the vice or wrongness

Naturalism is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy, not all things from nature are good. Nature has given us sharp teeth to eat meat We cannot jump from this to that would it be morally wrong to be vegetarian.

G. E. Moore criticises Mill as pleasure cannot be the same as goodness as eating chips is a pleasure, but we can ask whether this is truly good

Naturalism, especially for Aquinas, takes the assumption of Telus. This requires the existence of God. Some philosophers, e.g, Sartre would reject these assumptions if there’s no definite purpose, there could not be any definite ideas on Goodness.

Question 13

Intuitionism

Answer 13

The belief that moral values can be defined in terms of some natural property of the world

Question 14

G. E. Moore open and closed questions… dismissing Mill

Answer 14

Moore suggest there are two types of questions we can ask:
Close questions are questions, where only one answer is actually possible, for example, if we were told that someone is The Bachelor the question is is he unmarried only has one answer

Open questions are questions were several different answers can be possible e.g does the triangle have a right angle

Moore uses this to reject naturalism. If Mill is right that pleasure is good then it ought to be a closed question to ask if something that brings pleasure is really good. However, it may or may not be good. It is an open question.

Question 15

G. E. Moore on defining and understanding good

Answer 15

Moore argues that good is a simple idea like the concept of yellow they cannot be broken down into parts or properties. A complex idea like a horse can be for example, legs mane ears etc

Moore stated’ if I am asked” what is good?” my answer is that good is good and that’s the end of the matter. And it cannot be defined.

Question 16

Intuitionism is right to say that moral values are indefinable and self evident, because…

Answer 16

Unlike naturalism, intuitionism does not attempt to find moral values through observations of the world

It recognises there is considerable more agreement in the world

Unlike emotivism, it is able to establish facts, ensure that right and wrong are not a matter of opinion

Question 17

Intuitionism is wrong to say that moral values are in definable and self evident, because…

Answer 17

Although there is more agreement, there is significant amount of disagreement

Intuitionism does not make clear what the faculty or power of intuition actually is . Cannot be scientifically analysed

Intuitionism leads into emotivism as we just know is similar to our just feeling

Intuitionism makes ethics seem like maths where truths are self evident and just obviously true

Question 18

Emotivism

Answer 18

The belief that ethical terms show approval or disapproval

Question 19

The fork and the circle

Answer 19

Emotivism is a theory from A. J. Ayer it stems from the ideas of David Hume and the Austrian philosophers - Vienna circle

Hume argues there are two types of knowledge that philosophers can obtain:
Relation of ideas - a priori e.g two added to 3 makes five

Matters of fact - a posteriori things we can observe in the world e.g the water boils at 100°

Question 20

Ayer’s verification principle

Answer 20

The verification principle combines the ideas that statement is meaningful if it is either:
Analytic - true by definition
Synthetic - possible to verify it
Any statement that does not fit into these categories are not cognitive and are thus meaningless

Moral statements are not logical, nor can any fact prove them, so ethical statements are factually meaningless

Question 21

Ayer on understanding statements

Answer 21

Ethical statements are simply expressions of personal preferences or emotions. If I say, you are wrong to tell a lie, the word wrong doesn’t add any factual content.

Question 22

Emotivism is right to suggest that moral statements, merely show approval and disapproval of actions, because…

Answer 22

Explains why people have different moral views on different topics. There are no facts about right and wrong, just feelings and attitude.

Avoids naturalistic fallacy as it rejects the idea that moral values are linked to anything in the world, they are merely the product of our sentiments

It recognises disputes and ethics are driven by feelings over reason - SUPPORT - Daniel Goleman argues the emotional part of our brain reacts before the reasoning part kicks in

Question 23

Emotivism is wrong to suggest that moral statements merely show approval and disapproval of actions because…

Answer 23

Critics suggest a debate, then become a ‘boo-hurray’ shouting match as both sides are merely expressing feelings and attitude

Philippa foot cites, the example of concentration camps to suggest that there are significant debates that should not be reduced to a matter of opinion

R. M. Hare argues that moral language is in fact prescriptive; it is an attempt to persuade others to adopt our view - the idea of us merely expressing feelings and attitude is not a complete description

Question 24

Ethical statements have no objective meaning

Answer 24

A1
Naturalism -> meaning through Aquinas telos -> we can observe -> Mill-> we see pleasure we can therefore say what is good and bad -> significant agreement on moral values The fact we can agree suggest it is a factual matter -> reducing morality to a matter of opinion, preserves ethical debates->Moore’s -> Good is good, and that is the end of the matter. -> Hume naturalistic fallacy -> saying that just because something makes us feel happy, we can’t therefore define it as ‘good’. -> bad for utilitarianism, which argues that something is good if more people experience pleasure from it. -> can be dangerous-> logical jump

A2
Intuitionism is a cognitive non-naturalistic theory -> we know what good is, we cannot define it -> the colour yellow,-> H.A Pritchard reason fact of situ and intuition establishes what to do-> moral obligation differ due to development of moral thinking-> HOWEVER -> intuitionism reliant on upbringing? Is it different from opinion (emotivism) impossible to prove-> intuit differently (genocide) W.D Ross prima facie duties 7 rules should be followed -> when conflict use intuition

A3
Reason isn’t the best -> emotivism recognises disputes and ethics are driven by feelings over reason - SUPPORT - Daniel Goleman argues the emotional part of our brain reacts before the reasoning part kicks in -> boo hurrah -> isn’t intuition Stevenson people just saying what they want -> Critics suggest a debate, then become a ‘boo-hurray’ shouting match as both sides are merely expressing feelings and attitude -> Philippa foot cites, the example of concentration camps should not be reduced to a matter of opinion -> Rachel’s moral statements need reason -> arbitrary -> free for all

Due to lack of agreement-> preference -> It is more logical to say that ethical language is meaningless-> good and bad do not exist other than in a personal sense.

Question 25

What is meant by the word good is the defining question in the study of ethics

Answer 25

There are those who would argue that the meaning of “good” is certainly the defining question in the study of ethics, as without a cognitive moral-realist understanding, it may seem impossible for ethical discussion to take place

The importance of the word good would be emphasized from those who assert that morality must be cogntive and intuitively known.
Whilst maintaining morality is cognitive, intuitionism asserts that moral facts are not to be discovered, but rather are self-evident and known intuitively.

“If I am asked ‘How is good to be defined?’ my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it” (G.E. Moore ‘Principia Ethica’) Moore likened good to the colour yellow - we only demonstrate our knowledge by pointing to the colour yellow; it can be shown and known, yet not defined seems true that people have an intuitive sense of morality

Bertrand Russell, in ‘The Problems of Philosophy’ argues perception of good is a priori, “the truth of such knowledge can neither be proved no disproved by experience”