Meta ethics Flashcards

1
Q

What is meta ethics?

A

It analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral terms such as ‘good’ and ‘right.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the two main forms of meta ethics?

A
  1. Cognitivism- moral truths exist independently of the mind, they can be true/false and terms such as ‘right’ correspond to things in the world. 2. Non cognitivism- there is no such thing as a moral truths, moral facts are subjective emotional responses.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Explain the fact value distinction

A

A fact is a statement of value that can be true/false ‘there are two people in the room.’ A value is a belief, judgement or attitude ‘killing is wrong.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the difference between realism and anti realism

A
  1. Cognitivists are moral realists, certain actions are right/wrong and moral judgements can be objective moral facts. 2 Non cognitivists are moral anti-realists, moral facts don’t exist and are subjective.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is Hume’s is/ought gap

A

Deriving what ought to be done from what is the case is an example of false deduction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What do non cognitivists think of the is/ought gap?

A

You can’t reason from a statement of fact to a statement of value, values aren’t in the world, they are emotional responses to the world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What do cognitivists think of the is ought gap?

A

Morality is attached to certain facts all people share. We can discover it though reason and experience. This idea justifies moral progress and moral truth.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is naturalism?

A

Cognitivist and realist, there are moral principles in the world and terms such as ‘good’ can be understood in natural terms.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What do naturalists think about the Good?

A

It is a natural property of the world and we can infer from this property what the good actually is.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is Mill’s argument that the utilitarian understanding of human nature is the origin of human morality?

A

P1. The aim of our desires is happiness. P2. Things are desirable as people desire them insofar as sounds are audible as people hear them. P3. Personal happiness is a good to each person. P4. As society is a sum of individual interests, general happiness is a good for this sum of interests. C. The good is happiness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How does Mill see the good?

A

When he refers to it, he is referring to morality as a whole, the good is not transcendent but is derived from our very nature as animals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give two strengths of ethical naturalism

A
  1. Accounts for moral feelings- when we feel outraged, we feel pain, this makes us unhappy and leads to the fact that it is morally wrong. 2. It accounts for moral disagreements, if we think of the consequences of our actions in terms of pleasure/pain we can work out what is morally right.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Give two more strengths of ethical naturalism

A
  1. Explains how we use moral language, when we make moral judgments, we state them as facts and imply that they represent something about the nature of reality. 4. We all value pleasure over pain, so it makes sense that the Good is pleasure.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the problem with ethical naturalism?

A

Commits reductionism- reduces moral judgments to natural facts about the world. Fails to distinguish between facts and values and implies that an ought can be derived from an is.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How does G.E.Moore criticize naturalism?

A

Takes a cognitivist position, but argues that morality can’t be reduced to a natural property of the world. Naturalism defines the good as a natural property and holds that you can infer what is moral from such premises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is Moore’s open question argument?

A

If the good was pleasure then the answer to ‘is the good pleasure’ would be so obvious that it would simply require a yes, it would be a closed question. This is not the case, so the good is not pleasure.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the difference between an open and a closed question?

A

Open question- can have any number of answers. Closed question- can be answered with a yes/no or from a limited number of answers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is Moore’s naturalistic fallacy?

A

Attempts to define goodness lead to a naturalistic fallacy wherein a non natural object is given natural properties.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Explain the naturalistic fallacy

A

A non natural object is given natural properties like good/color/pleasure. When you associate the good with natural terms you reduce a key moral term to natural properties. Self interest and pleasure are not moral terms and it is a mistake for morality to be reduced to them.

20
Q

What position does Moore take?

A

We know what is good through intuition, we just know what the good is in the same way that we couldn’t describe yellow without pointing to a yellow object.

21
Q

Why is Moore’s position cognitivist?

A

Moral principles exist and are real, even though they are not natural properties.

22
Q

Give two issues with Moore’s argument

A
  1. Circular- if good is an intuition and intuitions are moral then the good is moral, so the good is the good. 2. What are intuitions and what happens if they conflict?
23
Q

What is the verification principle?

A

A proposition is only meaningful if it is true by definition or empirically verifiable.

24
Q

How does Mackie see moral values?

A

They are relative and are not part of the fabric of the world.

25
Q

How does Mackie prove that moral values are not part of the fabric of the world

A
  1. There is a difference between kind and cruel actions. 2. We can describe such acts and their differences, they are part of the fabric of the world. 3. The values we ascribe to them are not part of the fabric of the world, we can say that an act is cruel, but the idea that it is bad is not part of the fabric of the world.
26
Q

How does Mackie criticize moral realism

A

Moreal properties can’t be absolute as they vary from culture to culture, society to society and individual to individual.

27
Q

How does Ayer see ethical language?

A

It is not factual, but symbolic like religious language.

28
Q

How does Ayer see ethical assertions?

A

They are expressions of personal feelings/emotions and do not correspond to any physical properties, they are neither true nor false.

29
Q

How do non cognitivists/emotivists see morality?

A

Right/wrong are emotional add ons and don’t effect factual claims. We can never morally disagree in the way we disagree about facts.

30
Q

What is the issue with emotivism not distinguishing between moral and non moral judgments?

A

‘Giving to charity is good’ becomes the same as ‘chocolate is good’, moral judgments can’t simply be reduced to subjective feelings and emotions.

31
Q

How does Ayer see moral judgments?

A

They can be detached from the facts of the matter, so are meaningless.

32
Q

What is the main issue with emotivism?

A

We can’t detach facts from moral considerations, even if we could, this wouldn’t make moral judgments meaningless.

33
Q

What is logical positivism?

A

Language is meaningless unless it can be verified empirically through sense experience.

34
Q

Give two issues with emotivism

A
  1. It relies heavily on the fact value distinction. 2. When we make moral judgments, we don’t always try to influence others.
35
Q

Give two more issues with emotivism

A
  1. Does not account for the specificity of moral language, moral statements are not like other statements. 4. Does not account for moral uncertainty or allow for moral progress.
36
Q

What is Brand Blanshard’s problem with emotivism?

A

If morality is just expressing emotions when witnessing an event then a rabbit dying in pain is neither good nor bad if no one observes it.

37
Q

What is Hare’s position?

A

There are no such things as moral facts, moral judgments work to prescribe what to do.

38
Q

What does prescriptivism argue?

A

Moral judgments prescribe what to do, they are evaluative and approve/disapprove of experiences, moral judgements are meaningful when they can apply to all in a similar situation.

39
Q

How does Hare define the good?

A

Calling something good means you choose is and recommend it. Goodness is not a property, but is evaluative insofar as it puts value on an object. Commending something is action guiding, it tells us what we ought to do and bridges the gap between value and fact.

40
Q

How are moral judgments meaningful for hare?

A

Only when they can apply to everyone in a similar situation.

41
Q

What does hare say about universalizability?

A

When we say ‘ought’ we are saying that an action is right for all in particular circumstances and the line of action should be the same.

42
Q

What does hare say about moral and non moral judgments?

A

Moral judgments override non moral judgments, if I thought stealing was wrong, I wouldn’t steal even if I needed to.

43
Q

What is the problem with prescriptivism?

A

It doesn’t account for a clash of moral principles- if life should be preserved at all costs, then abortion is wrong, but what would you do in a situation where the mother would die if she carried the baby? Hare says one principle must be abandoned.

44
Q

What is the problem with universalizability?

A

Circumstances are never completely the same, each situation is unique.

45
Q

Give two more issues with prescriptivism

A
  1. Doesn’t account for rational but bad decisions such as killing a fly becseu it’s annoying. 2. Moral considerations are said to override all other considerations, but how can we make that distinction if we can’t differentiate between moral and non moral uses of the term should?