Meta-ethical Theories

Question 1

What are the 11 key words and what category do they fit in and why?

Answer 1

Cognitivism : moral judgements are not just feelings they are making truth claims that can be true or false
→ may be difficult to prove judgments or religion or relativism are true or false

Non - cognitivism : moral judgments are not true or false as they do not make truth claims. They express emotions, preferences, commands and attitudes

Egoism : the belief individuals have a moral duty to optimise good consequences for themselves

Emotivism : any moral claim is essentially an emotional plea for others to disapprove, approve or be persuaded of this feeling

Ethically hedonism : the view pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is bad so ought to aim at maximising pleasure

Intuitionism : “ good “ and “evil” are objective but indefinable. Basic moral truths are self evident or perceived similarly to how our senses experience the physical world

Ethical naturalism: defines “ good “ by a natural property like pleasure and human flourishing.
→Subjective naturalist: moral statements true regarding attitudes society approves of
→Objective naturalism: what is good promotes human flourishing in harmony with the planets resources

Moral objectivism: Moral objectivism is true independent of what people think or feel

Nihilism : objectivity is impossible. Moral truths do not exist and if they do then they are unknowable

Prescriptivism: moral statements function as a command or imperative as opposed to descriptions. Builds on emotivism but sees ethical decision making as rational rather than just emotional influence .
- consistency in applying ought statement.

Moral realism: moral statements are true or false based on how they correspond to reality and can be objectively verified or falsified. Many believe it is God’s commands but they may not all be theists

Question 2

How do relativists and absolutists differ in their understanding of moral statements?

Answer 2

Relativists:
• Believe that moral statements are subjective.
• Moral judgments depend on context, culture, or individual perspectives.
• Moral truths are seen as fluid and open to interpretation.
Absolutists:
• Believe that moral statements reflect universal truths that are always valid, regardless of context.
• They argue that moral rules are fixed and unchanging, applicable to everyone at all times.

Absolutism:
• Moral statements are fixed and unchanging.
• They apply universally, meaning that if something is wrong (e.g., killing), it is always wrong for everyone.

Relativism:
• Moral truths are not fixed and can change depending on the individual, culture, situation, or time.
• What is right or wrong is context-dependent, and moral judgments can vary.

Question 3

What is meta-ethics, and what does it address? What is normative ethics?

Answer 3

• The branch of philosophy that explores the nature and meaning of moral statements and the language of ethics
• It examines whether moral terms like “good” and “bad” refer to reality and objective facts (absolutism) or are shaped by emotions or beliefs (relativism).
• It also questions how we come to know morals—whether through observation, intuition, attitudes, values judgments, god, reason, emotion or if moral knowledge is even possible.

Normative ethics
• Standards or rules which our behaviour ought to conform
• How and why we ought to live and act
→ Values like “honesty is the best policy” and “you ought to honour your parents”

Question 4

What are the main ethical theories in meta-ethics?

Answer 4

Naturalism:
• Holds that moral truths are fixed and observable in the natural world, just like physical facts.

Intuitionism:
• Suggests that moral knowledge comes from an intuitive sense, not from external observations or facts.

Empiricism:
• Argues that moral statements arise from human sentiment or emotional responses.
• Suggests that moral language is relative to our feelings and beliefs.

Question 5

What is naturalism in ethics, and who are its key proponents?

Answer 5

• The theory that moral truths are absolute
• Moral facts exist independently of human perception.
• Can be observed in the world, much like other natural phenomena.
• Can be studied scientifically

Key Philosophers:
• F.H. Bradley (1846-1924)
• Philippa Foot (1920-2010)

Question 6

How does intuitionism differ from naturalism in meta-ethics?

Answer 6

Intuitionism:
• Morality is not observable through the natural world.
• Moral knowledge is gained through intuition, an inner sense or feeling of what is right or wrong.

Naturalism:
• Morality is observable and can be studied in the same way as other natural facts in the world.

Question 7

What is the main idea behind G.E. Moore’s challenge against Naturalism? How does H.A. Prichard define moral intuition?

Answer 7

• Moore argued that moral properties (e.g., goodness) cannot be defined by natural properties like pleasure or social benefit.
• In his work Principia Ethica (1903), he suggested that “good” is a non-natural property that cannot be reduced to any naturalistic explanation.
• He rejected the idea that moral terms have a scientific or empirical basis, instead positing that they are known intuitively.

H.A. Prichard’s Intuitionism:
• Prichard expanded on Moore’s idea by arguing that moral knowledge comes from an intuitive sense of duty or obligation.
• This intuition is not a result of reasoning but an immediate recognition of what is morally required
• Which cannot be reduced to empirical observations or logic.

Question 8

How did W.D. Ross contribute to intuitionism and how does it differ from absolutism?

Answer 8

• Ross accepted that moral principles cannot be absolute but argued that there are moral duties based on character and intuition.

• He believed in a set of prima facie duties—moral duties that are binding unless overridden by stronger duties in a specific context.

• He proposed that we have multiple, sometimes conflicting, moral duties (e.g., duties to promote well-being or keep promises), which are context-dependent.

• Unlike absolutism, which holds that there are fixed moral rules (e.g., always wrong to lie), Ross’s approach allows for the prioritisation of certain duties over others based on the situation.

Question 9

What is the stance of empiricists on moral statements?

Answer 9

• Believe that moral statements are grounded in human emotions or sentiments, rather than objective observations of the world.
• They argue that moral judgments are not based on observable facts, but on individual feelings or societal conventions.

Question 10

Who is A.J. Ayer and what is his emotivism?

Answer 10

• A.J. Ayer (1910-1989),
• Emotivism is the theory that moral statements do not assert facts but instead express the speaker’s emotions or attitudes towards something

• Moral language is used to express approval or disapproval, and it does not correspond to objective truths or facts.
• For Ayer, statements like “murder is wrong” are simply emotional outbursts, not assertions about the world.

Question 11

How did C.L. Stevenson expand on Ayer’s emotivism?

Answer 11

• Stevenson expanded on Ayer’s emotivism by suggesting that moral judgments are tied to our beliefs and attitudes about morality

• He argued that moral language has a persuasive function, influencing others to adopt the same beliefs or behaviors.

• Unlike Ayer, who focused primarily on emotions, Stevenson argued that moral statements reflect our beliefs about what is morally right or wrong, influencing social and personal decisions.

Question 12

How does relativism contrast with absolutism in terms of the stability of moral truths?

Answer 12

• Moral truths are not fixed; they change depending on context, culture, individual perspectives, or time.
• Moral judgments are flexible and subjective
•. There is no truth, it is relative to certain groups and individuals

• Moral truths are fixed and universal, applying consistently across all contexts, cultures, and times.
• Moral rules are unchanging, and certain actions (like killing) are always wrong, regardless of the situation.

•. Attained through observation, intuition and rational deduction

Question 13

What is ethical naturalism?

Answer 13

• Ethical naturalism is the belief that moral values are absolute facts in the natural world, similar to other kinds of facts.

• Morals are fixed and do not change depending on situations, results, or cultural practices.

• Ethical naturalists hold that moral truths are objective, not a matter of opinion.
→ Example: If someone says “euthanasia is evil” or “everyone has human rights,” ethical naturalists argue these are expressions of moral truth, part of the universe’s reality.

• Historically linked to the rise of modern science, which emphasised that truths about the world can be proven.

Question 14

What did FH. Bradley contribute to ethical naturalism?

Answer 14

• Bradley (1876) in “Ethical Studies” claimed that a person’s moral duty is linked to their place in society and cannot be seen as incidental.

• Morality is universal, concrete, and objective, based on a person’s station in the social order.
→ “We are part of an organism, and our duties depend on our station in society.”

• Ethics can be explained by observing the absolute, concrete reality of the world.

Question 15

How does the modern day challenge FH Bradley’s ethical naturalism?

Answer 15

• Bradley’s focus was on the importance of societal roles, but his fixed social moral order is now questioned due to changes in gender roles, individual freedoms, and equality in the 20th century.

• Despite these challenges, in some parts of the world and migrant communities, fixed moral social orders still hold.

Question 16

How do theological and hedonic naturalists view morality?

Answer 16

• Theological naturalists (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) link morality to divine will and the purposes of life established by God.
→ Example: Adultery is wrong because it prevents human flourishing as intended by God.

• Hedonic naturalists link goodness to pleasure or happiness.
→ What causes happiness is considered right.
→ Moral statements are justified by other things, such as happiness or pleasure.

Question 17

What challenge did David Hume present to ethical naturalism?

Answer 17

• Hume (1738) argued that moral claims are not derived from reason ( reason only guides fact )but from sentiment and emotion .

• Moral judgments stem from the emotions and passions ( empathy ) of the observer, not from rational reasoning.

• He claimed reason is impotent in moral matters, as moral good and evil cannot be distinguished using reason. Only judgment can tell us how to act.

• He argued that when we observe something wrong, the “wrongness” is a feeling within us, not a fact we observe.

• Hume’s Law: You cannot move from an “is” statement (fact) to an “ought” statement (prescription). Ought requires an additional premise or judgement typically rooted in human emotion not objective reasoning
→ Example: A person tells a lie, and a moral philosopher says “you ought not to lie.”

• Hume suggests this connection between “is” and “ought” is unjustified.

Question 18

How did Philippa Foot respond to Hume’s challenge?

Answer 18

• Philippa Foot (2001) countered Hume’s argument by suggesting that moral evil is “a kind of natural defect.”

• Foot argued that moral actions can be observed in the way people act according to virtues like honesty or promise-keeping.

• A moral person acts with virtues that can be recognised and observed in their actions.

• Foot’s argument is rooted in Aristotle’s concept of life offering patterns of excellence and defect, and these patterns can be applied to morality.

• Life aims at self-maintenance and reproduction, and the norms of these functions can be observed and judged.
→ Example: An owl with poor night vision is considered defective, just as a person failing to act morally is seen as defective.

Question 19

How does Philippa Foot’s example of an oak tree relate to moral judgment?

Answer 19

• Foot used the example of an oak tree with good roots to explain how moral judgments work.
• An oak tree with deep, sturdy roots is considered a good tree because these qualities serve the tree’s purpose of staying upright.
• In the same way, a person with good moral qualities (honesty, kindness) is seen as good because those virtues align with human purposes.

• Moral judgments about humans can be seen in how well they live according to certain virtues and moral duties.

Question 20

What does Philippa Foot’s example of Mikluko-Maklay show?

Answer 20

• Foot cites Peter Kropotkin’s example of Mikluko-Maklay, who refrained from taking a photograph of a native servant despite being tempted.
• The servant had an agreement to never be photographed, and Maklay respected that agreement.
• This demonstrates the wrongness of breaking a promise, which involves trust and respect.
• Trust is central to human communities, and breaking a promise is considered morally wrong because it undermines that trust.
• Moral rules are natural and absolute, observable through actions and consequences.

Question 21

What is the distinction between external and internal perspectives on moral institutions according to J.L. Mackie?

Answer 21

• External perspective: Describes an institution from the outside, focusing on observable facts (e.g., promises must be kept).

• Internal perspective: Involves speaking within the institution, addressing its rules (e.g., “Don’t break a promise, John”).

• Mackie argues moral rules depend on acceptance within the institution, not on objective facts.

Question 22

How does J.L. Mackie view the nature of moral rules?

Answer 22

• Mackie sees moral rules as social constructs rather than absolute truths.

• Moral rules are based on tradition and social acceptance within an institution, not on natural law or objective morality.

• They are accepted to varying degrees by those involved in the institution.

Question 23

What is Mackie’s stance on moral obligations like keeping promises?

Answer 23

• Mackie argues that the obligation to keep promises exists because of the social acceptance of that rule.

• The rule is not an absolute fact but a construct that people agree to follow within a social context.

Question 24

What does Mackie say about the moral relevance of others’ desires and suffering?

Answer 24

• Mackie asks whether the desires and suffering of others should provide a moral reason for us to act.
• It is natural to consider others’ desires and suffering, but the strength of this reason may vary depending on other moral considerations.

Question 25

How does Mackie resolve disputes about the application of moral rules?

Answer 25

• Disputes about the application of moral rules (e.g., should we prioritise promises to family over strangers?) are resolved by using moral institutions and traditions. • Moral institutions guide us in determining how we should prioritise different obligations based on social expectations.

Question 26

What is Mackie’s position on naturalism in ethics?

Answer 26

• Mackie is a naturalist who believes moral rules can be observed, but he argues they are socially constructed rather than based on absolute, objective facts. • He challenges the idea that moral rules are inherent in nature, suggesting they are created and sustained by social practices.

Question 27

What is G.E. Moore’s definition of ‘good’ in Principia Ethica?

Answer 27

• Good is an indefinable and simple notion, not reducible to any other concept (e.g., pleasure, happiness). • Moore rejects attempts to define good in terms of something else, such as pleasure or happiness, which he calls the naturalistic fallacy. • Good is recognised intuitively, much like how we recognise colors such as yellow—it is perceived directly without analysis.

Question 28

What is the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ according to G.E. Moore?

Answer 28

• The naturalistic fallacy refers to the mistake of defining “good” by other properties (e.g., pleasure, self-interest). • Moore argues that good is a simple, indefinable property and cannot be defined or reduced to anything else. • Attempts to define goodness in terms of something else are incorrect because they misunderstand the concept of goodness.

Question 29

How does Moore compare ‘good’ to concepts like ‘yellow’?

Answer 29

• Moore compares good to yellow—both are simple notions that we recognise without needing to break them down into smaller elements. • Yellow cannot be defined by light waves or particles, and similarly, good cannot be defined by anything else. • In contrast, complex notions like horse can be broken down into constituent parts (quadruped, mammal, etc.).

Question 30

What is Moore’s view on defining ‘good’ as something else (e.g., happiness or pleasure)?

Answer 30

• Moore criticises utilitarianism for trying to define “good” in terms of happiness or pleasure. • This, he argues, turns good into a complex notion and misrepresents its true nature. • He insists that good is an independent and simple property that cannot be reduced to anything else.

Question 31

What does Moore consider ‘good’ examples in life?

Answer 31

• Moore mentions the pleasures of human intercourse and the enjoyment of beautiful objects as examples of what is intrinsically good. • For Moore, beautiful art is inherently good but cannot be fully defined—its goodness is perceived intuitively.

Question 32

What does H.A. Prichard argue in Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?

Answer 32

(1912) • Prichard argues that moral philosophy cannot provide definitive answers to questions about moral obligations. • He distinguishes between the concept of duty and the good, asserting that duty is not based on producing the greatest good but is a separate moral obligation. • Justifications for actions (e.g., “it will make you happy”) miss the distinctiveness of duty.

Question 33

How does Prichard distinguish between intuition and reasoning in ethics?

Answer 33

• Reasoning involves gathering facts and data about a situation. • Intuition determines the right action based on moral judgment. • In ethical dilemmas, reasoning helps assess the situation, but intuition helps decide the right course of action based on moral obligation.

Question 34

What does Prichard say about moral vocabulary (e.g., ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘duty’, ‘obligation’)?

Answer 34

• Prichard emphasises the complexity of moral vocabulary, noting that terms like “good,” “right,” “obligation,” and “duty” each serve a distinct purpose in moral discourse. • These terms cannot be understood simply in terms of other concepts like “pleasure” or “happiness.” • His work highlights the nuance and richness of moral language in ethics.

Question 35

How does Prichard suggest we deal with moral uncertainty?

Answer 35

• Moral uncertainty arises when moral intuitions are not clear, and people may need to think through the situation more deeply. • Prichard suggests using imagination to hypothesise what one would do in a similar situation or putting oneself in the situation to clarify moral intuitions. • People may need to reflect on the moral dilemma, as some individuals may be more enlightened in their intuition, leading them to better moral decisions.

Question 36

Who was W.D. Ross, and how did he build on Moore and Prichard’s work?

Answer 36

• W.D. Ross was a student of H.A. Prichard and built upon the works of both G.E. Moore and Prichard in his books The Right and the Good (1930) and Foundations of Ethics (1939). • Ross aimed to understand the moral principles that guide people’s decisions in ethical dilemmas. • He agreed with Moore’s view that goodness cannot be defined in naturalistic terms and with Prichard’s emphasis on moral intuition as central to ethical decision-making.

Question 37

What problems arise when applying moral principles in real-life situations, according to Ross?

Answer 37

• Conflicting principles: → For example, to keep a promise, one might have to lie, which creates a moral dilemma. →Example: The younger sister asks to keep her hiding place a secret, while the older brother insists on telling the truth about her whereabouts. • Cultural differences: Some moral principles may vary across cultures. → Example: The expectation in some cultures that a person should marry someone chosen by their parents, emphasising family approval over personal freedom.

Question 38

How does Ross define moral principles and their application?

Answer 38

• Ross argues that moral principles should not be taken as absolute rules that guarantee the rightness of any action. • Instead, he proposes that principles are guidelines that tend to promote right action, but they can be overridden by other principles in certain situations. • Ross suggests that moral decisions are based on balancing conflicting duties and that moral judgments require deliberation rather than following rigid rules.

Question 39

What are prima facie duties, and how do they apply to moral dilemmas?

Answer 39

• Prima facie duties are moral obligations that appear to be binding at first glance, but can be overridden by other more pressing duties in specific situations. • These duties are not absolute; their importance depends on the particular moral context. • Ross identified seven key prima facie duties: • Promise-keeping • Reparation for harm done • Gratitude • Justice • Beneficence • Self-improvement • Non-maleficence → These duties are not ranked in order of priority but require judgment to balance in moral decisions.

Question 40

How does Ross describe the nature of moral judgment and intuition?

Answer 40

• Moral judgment involves recognising prima facie duties through intuition, but the right course of action is not always clear-cut. • Moral decision-making requires careful judgment and may lead to conflicting duties (e.g., between telling the truth and preserving life). • Moral uncertainty arises because we cannot always be certain about the right choice or have complete knowledge of the situation. • Experience with previous moral dilemmas can improve one’s ability to make better moral judgments over time.

Question 41

How does Ross address the Kantian problem of moral conflict?

Answer 41

• Ross provides a solution to the Kantian problem of a son who must decide whether to lie to a murderer asking about his father’s whereabouts. • According to Kant, truthfulness must always prevail, but Ross suggests that in this case, preserving life should take precedence over the moral duty to be truthful. • Ross’s framework of prima facie duties allows for a moral hierarchy, where some duties may override others depending on the situation.

Question 42

What is Ross’s overall view of morality?

Answer 42

• Ross believes that morality is a complex and difficult area, where certainty is often unattainable. • He argues that moral principles are guidelines to be interpreted based on context and intuition, rather than absolute rules. • Ross’s view challenges those who seek absolute answers in life-and-death situations and emphasises the importance of moral judgment and the balancing of duties.

Question 43

How does Ross’s view of intuitionism differ from other moral theories?

Answer 43

• Unlike utilitarianism (which emphasises the greatest good for the greatest number) or Kantian ethics (which insists on following universal principles), Ross’s intuitionism emphasises the individual’s judgment in weighing conflicting prima facie duties. • Ross’s approach is less rigid than those of Kant or Mill, allowing for flexibility when moral principles conflict. • His theory rejects absolutes and instead focuses on the moral context and personal responsibility in making ethical decisions.

Question 44

What do Intuitionists reject?

Answer 44

• Intuitionists reject the naturalist claim that moral knowledge is absolute and can be perceived through our senses in the facts of the world. • They propose that morality can be identified through alternative forms of knowledge, such as intuition, even when verifiable science does not reveal it.

Question 45

What is logical positivism?

Answer 45

• Logical positivism was developed by the Vienna Circle in the 1920s. • It asserts that meaningful statements must be verifiable through science or logical analysis. • Morality is not verifiable and is, therefore, not considered factual knowledge.

Question 46

What do logical positivists accept from David Hume?

Answer 46

• They accept Hume’s idea that one cannot move from an “is” to an “ought” (from a fact to a moral conclusion). • They also accept Hume’s conclusion that morality is based on sentiment—a feeling for the common person, not a factual claim.

Question 47

What are the three types of judgements according to A.J. Ayer?

Answer 47

• Logical (analytical) judgements: True by definition, e.g., “2 + 2 = 4.” • Factual (synthetic) judgements: Can be verified through senses, e.g., “It is raining outside.” • Moral judgements: Cannot be verified scientifically or analytically and are expressions of feelings or emotions.

Question 48

What does Ayer’s emotivism say about moral statements?

Answer 48

• Moral statements are not factual claims but expressions of emotional responses. • Saying something is “good” expresses positive feelings, while saying something is “bad” expresses negative feelings. • Emotivism is sometimes referred to as the “hurrah/boo” theory of ethics.

Question 49

How does C.L. Stevenson build on Ayer’s emotivism?

Answer 49

• Stevenson adds that moral judgments not only express emotions but also reflect attitudes and beliefs. • He argues that moral statements also aim to persuade others, influencing their beliefs or actions. • For example, when saying “abortion is wrong,” one is expressing their belief and encouraging others to agree.

Question 50

What is the central idea of relativism in emotivism?

Answer 50

• Emotivism is a form of relativism, meaning there are no fixed moral truths. • Moral values differ from person to person and culture to culture. • There is no objective or universal morality, just subjective feelings and beliefs.

Question 51

What are some criticisms of emotivism according to Alasdair MacIntyre?

Answer 51

• Emotive meaning: MacIntyre argues that emotivism conflates meaning with use, not accounting for how context changes the significance of statements. • Imposition of beliefs: Stevenson’s view creates a world where people are always trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs, which MacIntyre finds undesirable. • Lack of clarity: MacIntyre argues that emotivism doesn’t help distinguish moral feelings from other types of feelings, making it opaque and difficult to navigate. • The role of relevance: MacIntyre suggests that moral utterances have meaning based on their relevance to people, which emotivism overlooks. • Formation of moral views: MacIntyre criticises emotivism for not explaining how moral views are initially formed.

Question 52

Why is language significant in moral debates?

Answer 52

• Moral debates are linked to issues such as suffering, justice, and rights. • Language in moral discussions directly influences how these issues are understood and acted upon. → For example, discussing whether something is right or wrong has implications for law and policy. • The language used shapes moral judgments and decisions in society, framing the nature of justice and rights.

Question 53

What is meta-ethics and its focus?

Answer 53

• Meta-ethics questions what is meant by terms like “good,” “right,” “wrong,” and “bad.” • It focuses on the meanings behind moral judgments, such as “murder is wrong.” • This field asks whether moral language refers to fixed truths, subjective opinions, or social customs. • Meta-ethics explores the deeper implications of how we define moral terms and judgments.

Question 54

How can moral terms like “wrong” be interpreted?

Answer 54

• The term “wrong” can be interpreted in several ways depending on the speaker’s perspective. → “Wrong” could mean something is disliked or condemned (emotional or subjective reaction). → It might refer to a violation of eternal or universal moral rules (objective moral laws). → It could mean an act that is not in the best interest of the majority or society (consequentialist view). • These different interpretations of “wrong” affect how moral judgments are made and justified.

Question 55

What impact does belief in the basis of morality have on moral behavior?

Answer 55

• If you believe morality is grounded in factual or objective truths, you may feel a stronger obligation to follow moral rules. • If you believe morality is just a matter of personal opinion, you may feel more inclined to act immorally or follow your own desires. • A belief in happiness as the definition of “good” can also shift how one views morality, questioning whether “goodness” is necessary for moral decisions. • The foundation of morality influences whether one sees morality as absolute or relative.

Question 56

Does the precise definition of “good” matter in moral debates?

Answer 56

• It can be argued that it is less important to define “good” precisely as long as there is general agreement on its direction and purpose. • What is more important is understanding the customs, traditions, and shared values that define morality in a given society. • If people agree on the general moral direction (e.g., following societal customs), the specific definition of “good” becomes secondary. • This view emphasises consensus and understanding over strict definitions of terms like “goodness.”

Question 57

What are alternative ways to think about morality?

Answer 57

• Some philosophers, like Foot, suggest thinking about morality in terms of virtue, habit, or practice rather than defining “good” strictly. • The focus is on how to flourish as human beings, emphasising development and well-being over rigid moral rules. • This approach encourages considering moral decisions in terms of human flourishing rather than merely labeling actions as right or wrong. • This perspective promotes understanding moral choices based on human growth, motivation, and conscience.

Question 58

What other moral concepts does Prichard suggest?

Answer 58

• Prichard suggests using terms like “duty,” “obligation,” and “right” alongside “good” to explore moral decision-making. Key questions arise: • Do I have a duty to do what is good? • Is it right to do my duty? • Am I obligated to always do my duty, even when obligations conflict? • These terms expand the scope of moral language, focusing on motivation, personal responsibility, and choice in moral actions. • These questions help to explore the complexity of moral duties, especially when conflicts or dilemmas arise.

Question 59

How do moral questions eventually return to defining “goodness”?

Answer 59

• Despite shifting focus to concepts like duty, obligation, and virtue, the ultimate question of defining “goodness” remains central to moral debates. • These questions about duty and moral responsibility always circle back to what “good” truly means. • Ultimately, the search for clarity in moral decision-making and understanding moral behavior rests on how we define “good.” • This ongoing return to defining “goodness” illustrates the foundational role of this concept in moral philosophy.

Question 60

How do people’s beliefs about the language of morality influence their actions?

Answer 60

• People’s beliefs about what “good” and “bad” mean can affect their willingness to follow moral principles. • If someone believes morality is based on objective truths, they may feel bound to adhere to moral rules. • Alternatively, if they see morality as subjective, they may act based on personal preferences, leading to moral relativism. • Belief in happiness as the goal of “goodness” may reduce the perceived importance of morality in decision-making.

Question 61

How do historical documents reflect objective morality?

Answer 61

• The American Declaration of Independence states that rights are “self-evident” and apply to all people. • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all individuals are equal in dignity and have rights that must be upheld. • These documents assume that morality is objective, meaning moral truths exist independently of personal opinion.

Question 62

What are the advantages of believing in objective moral truth?

Answer 62

• Provides certainty about how to live and what laws should exist. • Ensures that rights are defended as facts, not just beliefs. • Justifies moral outrage at actions like rape, child abuse, and slavery, as these are not just opinions but objective wrongs.

Question 63

How does G.E. Moore argue for objective moral facts?

Answer 63

• Moore argued that moral disagreements must be based on facts. • If two people disagree on a moral issue, their disagreement suggests there is a truth to be discovered. • If morality were purely subjective, they would not truly be disagreeing, just expressing preferences.

Question 64

How does Stevenson challenge objective moral facts?

Answer 64

• Stevenson argued that moral disagreements are based on beliefs, not facts. • Morality could be shaped by cultural background, meaning moral truth is different for different people. • If morality is purely subjective, what is “true” is only “true for you”, not universally binding.

Question 65

What is the problem with subjectivism?

Answer 65

• Subjectivism allows for personal moral beliefs, but it cannot create a shared moral system. • It struggles with social issues like forced marriage or female genital mutilation—what one culture sees as wrong, another may accept. • It weakens the ability to establish universal moral laws or societal conventions.

Question 66

What are the consequences if moral language is meaningless?

Answer 66

• Morality would be reduced to emotional reactions, lacking any real authority. • It would be difficult to create laws and justice systems based on moral principles. • Cultural traditions and moral rules would become arbitrary, as no moral claim would be more valid than another.

Question 67

How do people commonly experience morality?

Answer 67

• Many people report a sense of knowing when something is right or wrong, often as an instinctive reaction. • This moral awareness feels innate, not something learned or taught, but something that arises naturally within us.

Question 68

What challenge arises when applying this moral sense to laws and rights?

Answer 68

• Not everyone shares the same moral intuitions—some commit acts we find immoral, suggesting moral awareness is not universal. • If moral knowledge is something we “just know,” how do we explain moral disagreements or those who lack this sense?

Question 69

How do emotivists like Ayer and Stevenson explain moral knowledge?

Answer 69

• They argue moral statements are not knowledge but expressions of emotion. • Our moral reactions are not facts but personal responses, much like saying “Boo to murder!” instead of making a truth claim. • The issue: Our emotions can be contradictory and unreliable.

Question 70

How does Ross challenge emotivism?

Answer 70

• Ross suggests morality involves discerning between conflicting duties, meaning we can make mistakes in moral reasoning. • Moral judgement is not just emotion but requires rational thought.

Question 71

How do philosophers like Aquinas and Foot argue moral knowledge is reasoned?

Answer 71

• They claim moral knowledge results from wisdom, intelligence, and rational reflection on reality. • This suggests morality is learned rather than simply felt, linking it to human reason rather than instinct.

Question 72

What problems arise with the reason-based approach to morality?

Answer 72

• Moral decisions produce emotions, which suggests morality is not purely rational. • People reach opposing moral conclusions, implying moral reasoning is not always universally clear.

Question 73

Could morality be shaped by psychology, culture, and spirituality?

Answer 73

• Our past experiences and beliefs likely influence our moral judgements. • Some argue morality could come from a divine force or universal wisdom, rather than human logic alone.

Question 74

What is the problem with relying solely on an inner moral compass?

Answer 74

• Morality is social—it governs interactions between people. • If everyone relies only on their personal feelings, there is no way to create shared moral standards. • Relying on feelings alone is not persuasive to others and does not provide a clear way to distinguish morality from personal preferences.