Meta ethics Flashcards
Cognativists?
people who believe that ethical statements are true and meaningful are cognitivists. They believe that moral
concepts are universal.
Non cognitivists?
non-cognitivist would argue that a statement such as “euthanasia is wrong” is just an expression of
emotion and not based in fact.
Objective moral truth?
This is a belief that there is a moral code
to which all we have access. It might come from God, or somehow be written into nature. A subjectivist, on the other hand,
believes that truth is in the mind of the observer
Ethical naturalism
Ethical Naturalists believe that moral statements can be true or false – i.e. they believe that ideas about “good” can be
scientifically proven through reference to the natural world, and are therefore cognitivists.
EN - bentham
claimed
that it was a scientific fact, and part of the natural order of things, that people prefer pleasure over pain, and therefore it is
‘good’ to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
EN- aristotle
Aristotle’s ideas about eudaimonia and purpose are
simply an extension of his other scientific ideas; through observation of human nature he recognised that our human
purpose is to flourish by contributing positively to society. From this he concluded that any act which contributes to
eudaimonia must be “good”. For Bentham and Aristotle ethical statements can be proven as fact.
EN- f,bradly
F.H.Bradley in his book ‘Ethical Studies’ (1872) argued that ‘good’ can be proven by using psychology. He said that humans
move from a childish egoism (self-centredness) to the ‘self-realisation’ that we will find personal satisfaction by making the
world a better place. He argues that we live in an interdependent society to which we each contribute our own particular
role, and that we see the ‘idealised self’ (the person we want to become) successfully fulfilling that role.
EN - strenghs
Moral claims can be discussed rationally because there is ‘proof’
that such statements are true or false. Subjectivists who argue
that moral statement are non-cognitive have no real reason to
discuss important ethical issues because they see them only as
opinions. This risks ‘nihilism’ (there are no objective rules or
values at all; everyone must decide for themselves and the fittest
will survive). Ethical naturalists can ‘prove’ that we should defend
human rights. These things matter – they should not just be
dismissed as an emotional reaction !
EN - weaknesses
Hume argued that we cannot move from an empirical statement to a moral statement – a
fact to a value. This is called the ‘fact-value gap’ and is sometimes referred to as ‘Hume’s
guillotine’ because he cuts moral judgement off from scientific facts. If we consider
Bentham: just because something is pleasurable does not mean that we should do it. For
example, giving sweets to a class of year 7’s would result in significant happiness, but there
is no reason why I should therefore begin each lesson dishing out the haribos !
(However Searle argues that ‘institutional facts’ bridge the gap between ‘brute facts’ and
value judgements. For example, it is a brute fact that people dislike pain, and as a society
we believe that there are more humane ways to retrieve information from our enemies
(institutional fact), so torture is wrong
Intuitionism- G.E.Moore
G.E.Moore is also an objectivist, but challenges the idea that we can empirically prove moral ideas. He said that “good” is a
simple idea that cannot be broken down any further; just like you cannot explain the colour “yellow”, similarly you cannot
explain “good”. He called this Intuitionism. We cannot define what is “good”, we just intuitively know it when we see it.
Intuitionism- H.A.Pritchard
H.A Pritchard saw morality as common sense. He said that when moral dilemmas occur we intuit our primary duty in the given
situation. Personal introspection accesses a standard sense of moral law and acts upon it
Intuitionism- W.D.Ross
agreed that we intuitively know when something is right, but he also argued that it is our duty to carry our certain
actions i.e. he was a deontologist. He listed seven classes of prima facie duties including duties of fidelity (keeping one’s
promises), reparation (putting right past mistakes) and duties of beneficence (helping others). He sees these prima facie duties
as self evident. If someone does not see the value in (for example) keeping a promise Ross would argue that they simply lack
moral maturity. Sometimes duties clash, so we must make difficult decisions, but he argues that the prima facie duty ‘judged to
be the most morally encumbent will present itself’. For example we might need to go to war (breaking the duty of nonmaleficence
– not doing harm to others) in order to fulfil my duty of beneficence (doing good for others – in this case protecting
the citizens in my country). Clearly, after the war, I have a duty of reparation to the enemy side, to put right any problems I may
have caused.
IN - strenghs
Intuitionism is morally realist (can be verified by examining our intuitions), so we
can be sure that what we are doing is ‘right’. Subjectivism, on the other hand,
offers very little motivation to act because there is no objective right or wrong,
so we don’t really know why we’re choosing to behave in a particular way !
IN - weaknesses
If intuitions all refer to the same objective moral truth, then why do we all
disagree about what is ‘right’ ?.
There are other explanations as to why we see some things as ‘good’ and
others ‘bad’ – for example some argue that beneficence has an
evolutionary advantage’ so this is why we see it as the right way to behave.
Freud argues that ideas of right and wrong are simply the products of social
conditioning – the sub-conscious voice of authority figures such as parents
and teachers. Both these explanations suggest that there is no objective
moral truth to intuit.
Non cognitive theories
A.J.Ayer argued that statements are either analytic (necessarily true or false e.g. “all bachelors are married men” is necessarily
false) or synthetic (can be empirically proven e.g “my slippers are on my head”). “Abortion is wrong” is neither analytic nor
synthetic, therefore it is meaningless or non-cognitive. These ideas are developed out of Hume’s writing and Logical Positivism
developed by the Vienna Circle in the early years of the twentieth century.
