Meta-ethical theories Flashcards
What is naturalism?
o Naturalism is an ethical theory that believe morals are fixed absolutes in the universe and they can be observed. Naturalists, such as F.H. Bradley (1846-1924) and Philippa Foot (1920-2010), believe that morals can be perceived in the world in the same way that other features of the world are identified.
Where does intuitionism originate from?
o Intuitionism originates from the work of G.E. Moore (1873-1958) in Principia Ethica 1903). Moore rejects Naturalism’s presumption that you can simply see right and wrong in the social order, instead suggesting morality comes from our intuition (natural instinct).
Who are ethical naturalists?
Ethical naturalists are absolutists; they believe there are fixed things that don’t change according to situation, results or cultural practice.
What does F.H. Bradley say about naturalism?
- -F.H. Bradley was an ethical naturalists and in his book, ‘Ethical Studies’ (1876), he wrote our duty is universal and concrete. He represented the naturalism of the 19th century, but there are conceptual links to the natural moral law of Aquinas and his argument that we can look into the world and perceive morals from the purposes of life that we see in the world.
- -Bradley claims that morals are observable as part of the concrete world. The social order and your positions in that order decides your moral duties.
- -The 20th century saw radical changes in many Western countries, where the roles of men and women changed and where hierarchical social roles came under significant pressure. This meant Bradley’s fixed moral social order is highly questionable.
What does David Hume say about naturalism?
- -Hume argued that moral claims aren’t derived from reason, but rather from our feelings. In ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ (1738), he rejected the idea that moral good or evil can be distinguished using reason.
- -Humes’ disagreed with Aquinas that our morality are a result of our applying of reason. He challenges us that when we see something we thing is wrong, the ‘wrongness’ comes from our feelings, not from our observations.
- -He observed that writers on morality often move from ‘is’ statements (statements of facts) to ‘ought/ought not’ statements (statements prescribing what should be done). A person tells a lie and the moral philosophers say ‘you ought not to lie’. Hume argues that this move makes an entirely unjustified new relationship between the words. This is called Humes’ Law: you can’t go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’.
What does Philippa Foot say about naturalism?
- -Foot was a naturalist philosopher who suggested that moral evil is ‘a kind of natural defect’ (defect meaning imperfection).
- -She argues in her book ‘Natural Goodness’ (2001) that we call someone a ‘just man’ or an ‘honest woman’ we’re referring to something, to a person who recognises certain considerations (such as promise keeping, or helping your neighbour) as things that are powerful, compelling reasons to act. The moral person is someone who keeps promises, who defends those rights being violated. A moral person has qualities which, for them, are the reasons they carry out certain actions, and this can be observed. So perhaps we can perceive the moral absolutes that empiricist argue we can’t measure.
- -Foot is arguing that there are virtues, characteristics or behaviours that aim at some good, an idea she takes from Aristotle. However, the key thing to understand is that she thinks these virtues can be seen by watching how a person acts in consideration of those qualities. In this way, we can perceive the moral absolutes that empiricists argue we can’t measure.
Explain Foot’s study on Aristotle’s observation
- -Foot draws on Aristotle’s observation that the natural world includes a good way of doing things. Life offers patterns of excellence and defect, related to the function and purpose of living things, and these apply to morality as much as anything else:
1. There is a life cycle consisting of self-maintenance and reproduction.
2. Self-maintenance and reproduction can be achieved differently in each species depending on how they feed themselves, how they develop ad how they reproduce.
3. From all of this, certain norms can be deduced, such as the night vision of an owl.
4. By applying these norms to individual members of the species, members can be judged to be effective or defective. An owl with poor night vision is a defective owl, for example.
What examples does Foot use to study the people of the Malayan archipelago?
- -Foot uses an example from Peter Kropotkin’s ‘Memoirs of a Revolutionist’ (1971), and the tale of Mikluko-Maklay who was sent from Russia to study the peoples of the Malayan archipelago. He visited a native who didn’t want to be photographed. While collecting anthropological materials, he was tempted to take a secret photo of the nativewhilst hewas fast asleep. He refrained from doing so as it would break their promise. It could be considered that taking the photo would do no harm as the man was asleep. However trust and respect are things that matter.
- -Trust matters in human communities. Human happiness has something to do with justice. Humans have developed ways to live well together and have developed rules (moral rules) to ensure that we can live happily together. These rules are natural and absolute, and whether or not people follow them can be observed.
What does J.L. Mackie say about naturalism?
- -J.L. Mackie was a philosopher who found difficulty with claims about absolute or natural approaches to morality. In his book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977), he noted that institutions (meaning organisations,for examplereligion or schools) make demands that promises are kept. However Mackie argues that whether or not we break these promises depend on the rules of the institution having already being accepted.
- -The rules themselves aren’t hard and fast facts; they’re accepted to varying degrees by all those inside the institution. To degree to which moral rules should be applied can be disputed depending on our relationship with the people affected. Should we be more inclined to keep the promises we make to our family and friends than those we make to strangers?
- -Following the rules of an institution isn’t the same as acting logically in response to agree upon facts. It’s acting in accordance with social expectations; it’s responding to an understanding of the demands that will be made, and what will be approved of and what will be disapproved of.
Was Mackie a naturalist?
–Mackie was a naturalist who believed that moral rules can be observed but believes they’re based on tradition rather than being absolute constructs.
What does intuitionism mean?
o Intuitionism provides deeper insights into what we might mean by the term ‘good’, and how we might distinguish ‘good’ from ideas like ‘right’.
Explain the naturalistic fallacy and who is G.E. Moore?
- -In his book ‘Principa Ethica’ (1903), G.E. Moore thought that intrinsically good things can’t be recognised. It’s not about proving these things but rather seeing them.
- -He thought that we should do the thing that causes most good to exist. Good, according to Moore, is an indescribable thing. Moore was concerned with rejecting utilitarian’s, who argued that goodness can be defined, measured, quantified and qualified.
- -Moore thought that attempts to define ‘good’ in terms of something else is the naturalistic fallacy. For instance, if we try to define good by saying it’s the thing that gives us most pleasure, we have broken good down into something else. This isn’t possible as good is a simple thing and can’t be broken down into parts.
What is good according to Moore?
–Good is a simple notion, just as yellow is a simple notion- you know it when you see it. A horse is a complex notion as it can be broken down into different qualities. A horse is a quadruped, an animal, a mammal and so on. We could say yellow is made up of light waves of some kind and other elements, but what we see is just yellow, not the waves or the particles.
What are philosophers doing when they define well as being made up of something else?
–Philosophers who define well as being made up of something else, or based on other things, are making it a complex notion. They define good as ‘the greatest happiness’ or the ‘pursuit of self-interests’ for example, these become some property of good. The mistake they make is looking into the world for some physical thing they can define (or substitute) in place of good. This changes the moral judgement into a judgment about the physical world, which is wrong.
What does H.A. Prichard say about intuitionism?
- -In his article ‘Does moral philosophy rest on mistakes?’ (Prichard, Mind, 1912),he argues that it’s hopeless to try to find arguments to determine what our moral obligations are.
- -When asked what the purpose of our actions are, it’s usually for achievinghappiness or some good. But perhaps both of these can be achieved: ‘Do the right bring as it will be best for you and will, in the end, make you happy’. But Prichard argues there’s a gap between the good thing and the idea of what things of have a duty to bring about. Duty and good are separate things, duty is something beyond the good thing to do.