Meta Ethics Flashcards
what are utilitarian, SE and NML an example of
normative ethics
what is just war theory and sexual ethics an example of
applied ethics
what is cognitivism/non-cognitivism concerned with
intention of a person speaking, if they intend it to be a fact or statement
what is cognitivism
when people give moral statements they intend it to be a fact
non-cognitivism
when people give moral statements they are non intending them to be a fact, but an opinion
strength of moral cognitivism
some ethical claims are much more important than opinions, e.g. murder is wrong
weaknesses of moral cognitivism
can be said it’s false they are factual claims as it is people expressing their preference
ethical statements can’t always be backed up with reason
what is realism
moral statements are factual
they express a truth about morality and aren’t just made up
what is anti-realism
moral statements aren’t factual
no such thing as facts about morality, just opinions
what is symbolic language and who put it forward
Tillich
religious language is symbolic, tries to express things too mysterious and powerful to be spoken about accurately in normal language
what does it mean if a moral law is absolute
must be law-abiding and always followed regardless
what does it mean for a moral law to be relative
moral rule depends on the situation
what is ethical naturalism
a subtype of moral realism
which states moral facts are facts because they come from natural facts which undeniably exist in nature
what is an example of a natural fact
and the ethical framework derived from fact
pleasure is better than pain
morality should maximise pleasure
who came up with the open question argument
G.E.Moore
what is Moore a type of
cognitivist and realist
what does Moore argue against
ethical naturalism
what does Moore not believe ethical statements are
natural facts
what does Moore make a distinction between
natural and non-natural facts
how can Mill’s ethical naturalism be demonstrated to be false
the open question argument
P1 OF OQA
according to JS Mill’s ethical naturalism, the Good can be defines as pleasure
P2 OF OQA
therefore, asking ‘is the Good, pleasure?’ should be the same thing as asking ‘is the Good, good?’
P3 OF OQA
the question ‘is the Good, good’ is a closed question, the answer has to be yes by definition
P4 OF OQA
therefore, ‘is the Good, pleasure’ should be a closed question too, by definition’
P5 OF OQA
however ‘is the Good, pleasure?’ is an open question, one without a straightforward answer
conclusion OF OQA
therefore, ‘the Good’ and ‘pleasure’ are not the same thing
what is ‘the Good’ in the OQA
moral goodness
what does OQA aim to show
that ‘the Good’ and ‘pleasure’ are not the same thing
this disproves ethical facts based on natural facts
what does the open question argument highlight
the naturalistic fallacy
why can’t we define ‘the Good’ (Moore)
because it is not natural, it is beyond nature
the meaning of ‘good’ in an ethical context cannot be contained in what (2)
human language
natural facts
we use words effectively that we cannot fully define, why not
we can’t define words beyond nature
what is the naturalistic fallacy
when someone tries to define something non-natural using natural language
moral goodness cannot be reduced to natural terms about pleasure or pain
(something can be both good and painful)
what does both the open questioned argument and the naturalistic fallacy both criticise
J S Mill
natural facts
ethical naturalism
what type of facts is morality based in
supernatural facts
how can ethical statements be facts, according to Moore
these facts are found in non-natural facts
what is a non-natural fact
a fact that exists outside the natural world
very difficult to express in language
what is Moore’s analogy of describing non-natural facts
yellowness
there is no way of describing yellowness without pointing to something yellow
but yellowness must exist else we would not have yellow things
therefore, yellowness exists apart from an object that is actually yellow
how does good work in the same way as yellowness
u can’t describe ‘good’ without just pointing to something good
goodness must exist as a concept apart from any particular thing that’s good
what is Moore’s overall argument in short
the Good exists as something non-natural, it isn’t just a straightforward part of nature
there are standards of goodness which come outside of nature
weakness of G E Moore 3 parts
if the idea of the good exists outside of nature and isn’t based on facts in nature, how can we come to know it?
humans are physical beings, discover our world through physical sensation and interaction
if the good is non-physical and non-natural, how can we know what it is
what is good or bad?
GE Moore’s solution to the weakness
intuition
humans can know something by simple and immediate knowledge of the thing without having to discover it physically
innate doesn’t need bodily experience
