Meta-Ethics Flashcards
Define ‘Cognitivism’
Cognitivism - moral judgements eg ‘murder is wrong;
- Aim to describe how the world is
- Can be true or false
- Express beliefs that the claim is true
Moral judgements express beliefs which can be true or false, it aims to describe how the world is
Define ‘ Non-Cognitivism’
Non-Cognitivism - moral judgments;
- Do not aim to describe the world
- Cannot be true or false
- Instead express attitudes towards the world.
Moral judgements do express some non-cognitive mental states and can NOT be true or false, thus don’t argue ‘stealing is wrong’ as that is subjective + up for interpretation by individuals and hence there’s no real truth in ethics. So non cognitivism says morals are expressions of how we want individuals to behave.
Explain the two branches of Non-Cognitivism
1 - Emotivism (Non-cogntivist theory)
Moral judgements express a feeling of approval or disapproval and therefore cannot be true or false Emotivism holds that moral principles originate in emotions and other non-cognitive attitudes. saying ‘x is wrong’ is merely expressing disapproval of x - there’s no ‘truth’ to it.
2 - Pescriptivism (Non-cognitivist theory)
Moral judgements guide conduct through commanding and commending
Define ‘Moral naturalism’ + ‘Moral non-naturalism’
Moral naturalism - moral properties are reducible to natural properties of the world e.g. ‘greatest happiness’ or happiness itself as there usually are psychological properties.
Moral non-naturalism - Moral properties are distinct non natural properties of the world.
What is A.J Ayer?
A non-cognitivist + moral non-naturalist
What type of philosopher is A.J Ayer ?
Emotivist
Explain A.J Ayers argument + his Verification Principle
The verification principle;
- a statement only has meaning if it is either analytically verifiable or empirically verifiable.
- Moral judgements are not analytic + cannot be shown to be true or false by empirical verification
- Therefore they are literally meaningless, stating neither truth nor falsehood.
- ‘Murder is wrong’ - is neither analytically verifiable nor empircally - its not in the defintion and we cant observe wrong so A.J Ayer would argue that its meaningless. So because there neither Ayer would argue that morals arent a natural feature of the world but an opinion you could go and say ‘murder is right’
- Ethical statements have no objective validity or claim or truth. Moral language does not describe the world, it expresses our feelings + aroused feelings in others to influence their actions. If I say to someone ‘ you acted so wrongly in stealing my money’ I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if i had said “you stole that money”
Explain the criticism against Ayers Verification Principle - ‘Rejecting the verification principle’
According to the VP the principle, the principle itself is meaningless.
‘A statement only has meaning if it is analytic or can be empirically verified’ - is in itself not analytic (this statement by Ayer isn’t analytic) + cannot be verified empirically
If the ‘principle’ is meaningless, then it is not true + so the Verification principle doesn’t stand.
Explain the 3 main criticisms against A.J Ayers Emotivism
1 - Can object that bing emotive + influencing people’s attitudes of something that lots of non-moral language does as well eg advertising - we will need more to distinguish morality vs advertising.
2 - Does moral language always function to influence others. We may express our moral attitudes to others who already agree with what we do or they may be indifferent to our views so influencing their attitudes is not the purpose.
3 - Moral language isn’t always so particular or necessarily emotive. The key moral terms ‘good’ and ‘ought’ may arouse emotions in others or express ours but this depends on the context we do not know that it is always god to arouse emotions in others on moral issues especially.
What type of philosopher is Hare?
Hares a Prescriptivist ( non cognitivist + moral anti-realist)
What does Hare argue moral words are?
Hare argued moral words are not descriptive or emotive in meaning but instead they are prescriptive.
= Criticises emotivism for mistaking the ‘force’ of moral statements. When I express a moral judgement, I am not trying to influence or persuade you, nor am I expressing my own feelings, I’m prescribing what you ‘ought’ to do.
Hare; Moral language is descriptive + prescriptive
The function of moral principle i to guide conduct
Not to express feelings or influence you
There’s 2 types of prescriptive meaning or ways of guiding action..
- Imperatives (right/wrong) ‘eating meat is wrong; = ‘don’t eat meat’’ do not murder’ (command)
- Value judgments (good/bad) commend as guidance ‘murder is wrong’
(setting standard)
Hare on something being ‘Good’:
Something is good relative to an assumed set of standards. ‘Good’ is in essence saying something/someone is praiseworthy in some way
Explain Moore’s Open Question argument
Open Question argument;
We cannot define what good is - there’s no fixed definition of what it is. Good is NOT out there in the world + so not a natural feature of the world (non-naturalist)
- Therefore what ‘good is’ is an open question because you can’t define it, it’s not like an analytic truth.
- Similar remarks apply to ‘right’ + ‘ought’ to. They are intended to guide action + they assume standards relating to being a good person. Two similar arguments must be either both right or both not. We must universalise our moral judgements.
State the objections to Hare’s Prescriptivism
1 - ‘The only Rationality is consistency’
2 - Moral language has other functions than prescriptivism
Explain The criticism of Hares Prescriptivism ‘The only Rationality is consistency’
‘The only Rationality is consistency’
1) There can be no criticism of my views of I am consistent ie Hitler. If there no objective good then Hilter can be seen as ‘moral’ as he was consistent and sensear.
SO the fact that ‘good’ can be defined as anything moore’s open question argument can be designed or viewed as good/ moral so long as you live by your own prescriptions. Kant grounds universalizability on objective reason Hare claims prescriptions are ‘free’
Explain the criticism of Hares Perscriptivism ‘Moral language has other functions than prescriptivism
Moral language has many other functions han prescription ie persuasion, confession, complaint. There’s lots of situations were we would use moral language.
Reply; perhaps prescriptivism is still the central aspect of it, since the primary function of morality is to guide conduct. This doesn’t mean it’s used to persuade on every occasion but a moral judgement made to offer such guidance to the listener.
