Meta-ethical theories Flashcards
ethical language
ethical standpoints
- absolutism
- relativism
-disagree about what it means to make a moral statement
- absolutism
-morals are fixed, unchanging truths that everyone should always follow
- relativism
-moral truths aren’t fixed
-what is right changes based on: individuals, situation, culture, time and place
meta-ethics
-focuses upon the language of ethics
-concerned with whether moral statements = fixed truths or are relative to emotions/beliefs.
-concerned with how we come to know morals; through senses and observations or intuitive knowledge
ethical naturalism
-naturalism = ethical theory that holds that everything arises from natural properties and causes
-morals= fixed absolutes, observed as part of universe
-scholars – Bradley and Foot, morals can be perceived in the world
-evil and good = absolute facts of natural world
-morals = not about ‘opinion’ but objectively true
-synoptic links = Aquinas Natural Law, morals and ethics can be seen within nature
-morals = observable as part of concrete world (Bradley)
-a statement can only be factual and have meaning if it can be verified empirically
-ethical sentences = propositions
-propositions = made true by objective features of world
example of naturalism
-ethical statements (good, bad, right and wrong) and non- ethical statements (facts about the world), they’re the same (naturalism states)
-example, Trump is going to ban abortion (non-ethical), he is a bad man (ethical)
-loads of evidence to back up statements, no longer an opinion becomes an ethical fact
Hume - critic of ethical naturalism
-moral good and evil cannot be distinguished using reason
-cannot move from an objective factual statement based on observations to a subjective moral statement
-example, forensics = a man is dead = verified but can’t find evidence of wrongness of murder
-Hume’s law: “is doesn’t imply ought”
-is = facts, ought = moral behaviour
-no amount of fact is ever sufficient to lead to an ethical statement
-“tis the object of feeling not of reason. It lies in yourself the objects” - A Treatise of Humans
Phillipa Foot - defender of ethical naturalism
-“the fact that a human action or disposition is god of its kind…[is] a fact about a given feature” - Natural Goddess
-argues that when we call a person a ‘honest man or woman’, referring to something - some evidence backs this up
-virtues can be observed by watching how a person acts
-an honest person does honest things and can be observed, we can then perceive moral absolutes
Foot continued
-uses Kropotkin’s example:
-anthropologist goes to study the native Malayan people under strict instructions to not take photos, the anthropologist has the opportunity to take a picture, but stops himself due to the promise
-such rules = natural and absolute, humans have developed ways to live well and have developed rules to ensure happiness
strengths of ethical naturalism - AO2
-makes morality objective rather than subjective – morality is universal, gives it importance rather than just being a matter of personal opinion
-allows moral claims to be tested in a scientific way, gives morality a strong foundation and also importance
-gives morality a set of absolutes (murder is wrong), matches a moral agents common sense view on ethics
-fits with normative ethics: Natural Law and Rule Utilitarianism
weaknesses of ethical naturalism - AO2
-right and wrong are subjective - need humans to exist to determine how we live
-regardless of whether a situation may have evidence to support that it is right, it may still break the law = pointless
-do ethical/ moral situations have evidence? which evidence do we accept/ ignore?
-Mackie- rules themselves aren’t hard facts, they are accepted to varying degrees by bias inside the institution.
Intuitionism - Moore
-believed that we should do the thing that causes most good to exist
-moral truths = indefinable but self evident through intuition
-concerned with rejecting utilitarianism, argued that goodness can be defined, quantified and qualified
-good = simple notion, cannot be broken down, just like yellow (you know when you see it), a horse can be broken down into different qualities, it is a complex notion
-“good is good and that is the end of the matter” - Principa Ethica
Moore continued
-attempts to define good in terms of something that can be verified or falsified is to commit the naturalistic fallacy (fault in statements made)
-influenced by Hume’s is-ought distinction
-you cannot identify goodness with a natural quality
-cannot infer from a description of how the world ‘is’ to how the world ‘ought’ to be
Intuitionism - Prichard
-reason collects the facts and intuition determines which course of action to follow
-distinguished between:
1.”general thinking (reasoning)” - used to asses the facts of a situation
2.”moral thinking” - based on an immediate intuition about right thing to do
-recognised that different people have different intuitions about what is right
Intuitionism - Ross
-what is right is always unique, depending on what is “morally suitable” for the situation a person is in
-never know all the facts about a situation = base our judgements about what’s right and wrong on intuitions
-obvious that certain types of actions are right - prima facie duties (actions that are always right): fidelity, reparation, justice, beneficence, self improvement and non maleficent
-when duties conflict - follow what would be right in that situation - first sight duties
strengths of intuitionism - AO2
-makes logical sense; we have examples in the world of people making decisions without using reason (gut feelings)
-presents a simple guideline for how to make moral decisions – everyone can use their intuition
-provides an explanation for incapability to define ‘good’
weaknesses of intuitionism - AO2
-Moore doesn’t explain or prove how we know good through intuition alone and not through senses
-how can we be sure our intuitions are correct?
-what happens if these intuitions conflict?
-can someone lack intuition?
-Mackie – argues that morality isn’t about what a person believes is intuitively right but is about doing something about it
emotivism
-Ayer, part of Vienna Circle, drew on thinking of Hume
-believed there were three types of statements: logical (analytical), factual (synthetic) and moral
-moves away from claim that moral language has absolute meaning
-emotivism = ethical (good, bad, right, wrong) non naturalism (going against ethical naturalism), rejects the view that morals tell you anything about the external world
-morals = relative to our feelings and emotions, cannot be verified through science/maths
-tell us about person not external world = relative
-‘good, bad, right, wrong’ express approval or disapproval – ‘Boo! Hurrah!’ theory: moral statement express emotions
-example, ‘Boo! murder’, ‘Hurrah! school’
emotivism - Stevenson
-interested in how moral statements are used and what results they are intended to produce
-moral judgements contain an elements that expresses an attitude relative to a fundamental belief and element that seeks to persuade/influence others
emotivism - Ayer quote
-“And the man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments. So there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition.” - Language, Truth and Logic
-when somebody contradicts you or disagrees with you, there is no point asking which of you is right, because neither of you are right
-facts not emotions
strengths of emotivism - AO2
-part of being human is to express emotions especially in moral situations
-everyone can understand the theory and apply it
-everyone’s opinions are equally valid
-using emotive language in changing attitudes of others is effective
-people make decisions based on emotions, describes the workings of the world accurately
-just because they aren’t verifiable, they still have worth
-Vardy, it is a moral ‘non-theory’, isn’t an ethical theory
weaknesses of emotivism - AO2
-ethics based on attitudes, upbringing and feelings - lead emotivism to being ‘simply subjectivism’
-Rachels points out that moral judgements appeal to reasoning not just expression of feelings - some fact
-Hare, we are too complex to reduce morality to this, too simplistic, morality involves reason
-MacIntyre, questions Stevenson’s views about how moral views are formed in the first place, calls emotivism ‘opaque’ - doesn’t give any help in explaining how we can distinguish the feelings and attitudes that are moral from other feelings and attitudes we might have
