Meta Ethics Flashcards
what is meta ethics
The consideration of second order questions about the nature and purpose of morality.
Such as what is the meaning of “good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”.
What are second order questions?
Questions about first order questions and the answers given to those questions.
What is A priori
Knowledge prior to evidence.
Knowledge in not dependant on sense experience.
What is A posteriori
Argument based on observations of the world.
Uses empirical facts and draws conclusions from them.
Named scholars for Utilitarianism
Mill
Bentham
Named scholars for Intuitionism
G.E.Moore
W.D.Ross
Named scholars for Divine Command Theory
Karl Barth
John Calvin
What is cognitivism
Claims that ethical judgements state facts so are objectively true or false.
What is non-cognitivism
Claims that ethical judgements are not statements of facts therefore cannot be objectively true or false
Implies that moral knowledge is impossible.
Ethical Subjectivism
The view that moral judgements merely state or express the emotions or preferences of the speaker.
Ethical objectivism
The view that moral values are intrinsic and not dependent on anything outside them
What would NML define good as
Abiding to precepts/Ten Commandments/word of God
Following what is natural
What would SE define good as
What brings about Agapeic love
What would VE define good as
Reaching Eudaimonia (happiness)
What is virtuous
Analytic truth
True by definition
E.g. “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “triangles have three sides”
Synthetic truth
True by experience - needs empirical evidence/investigation
E.g. “Everything with a heart has a kidney” or “My village has a church”
What is Humes fork
There are two objects of human enquiry:
1) Relations of ideas (a priori) -
Denial is self-contradictory – denial is inconceivable
Necessary truths – discoverable by thought
We don’t need to gather evidence
2) Matters of facts (a posteriori)-
Claims that are true, but denial is not inconceivable
Observations are needed
How are moral uses of good, circular?
To say a good action is “excellent” or “the right thing to do”
This amounts to nothing more than “what is good is what I believe good is”
Something good from a moral perspective does not tell us why it is good. Only that the person considers it to be good.
Threfore circular argument.
What is ought Problem
You cant go from matter of fact, observable statements of the world to ethical statements on how we ought to behave in the world.
Who came up with the is-ought problem
Hume
What does hume mean by “is”
Statements of the world
Can be dicovered by science
Matter of fact (independant to humans)
What does Hume mean by “Ought”
Values (dependent on humans)
A judgement
E.G how humans should treat eachother or the world etc
Best way Hume describes is/Ought arguments
illogical
An example of an is ought error
Fruit IS full of vitamins
You OUGHT to eat fruit
HUme would suggest there has been a logical mishap here.
Humes Is/Ought quote
“You cannot derive an ought from an is”
Is the vitamin fruit argument really illogical?
Seems reasonable - if fruit contains vitamins then we should eat them as they are clearly good for us.
First premise is true - science tells us this.
However this isnt justified.
The second statement is an ethical claim is subjective - illogical argument. STILL A GAP
Why have vitamins just because they are good for you?
what kind of theory is intuitionism
non-naturalist
consequentalist
cognitive
secular ethics
moral realist
what is moral realism
exists independantly of persons
objective moral values - moraality exists in external world and we can see and recognise it.
what is non naturalism
moral knowledge known by factual property of intuitionism
what is secular ethics
ethical theories and actions are based on human facilities such as reason and logic and not religious values
what is naturalistic fallacy
the fault of attempting to define good in terms of natural properties
not acceptable to confuse ‘good’ with natural properties
GEMoores quote on naturalistic fallacy
naturalistic fallacy is committed when… “a philosopher attempts to prove a claim by defining good by using a natural property”
what was GE moores comment on intrinsic goods and naturalistic theories
naturalistic theories define good as something identifiable in the world e.g happiness
there is nothing intrinsically good about happiness
it is only good if we define it as such - and not not everyone will agree.
what is GE Moores open and closed argument
closed argument = makes no sense to ask - e.g does a triangle have 3 sides - only ignorant to ask as the meaning of triangle is three sides.
open argument = any claim about what goodness is will
A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however
the question “is goodness happiness” remains open since goodness
cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail
ignorance.
basic premise of moral intuitionism
good cannot be defined in terms of any other ideas
goodness is self evidence
G.E Moore against naturalism
good is not synonumus to any ideas - no natural property can be identical to good as no natural property has “has to be doneness” built into them like good
teachings of intuitionism
objective moral truths = independant to humans (cognitive)
fundemental truths = cant be broken down from moral truths
human beings can discover truths through intuition
core beliefs of intuitionism
moral norms = objective existance - independant to human experience
morality is intuitive - what feels to be true without conscious reasoning
intuition tells us something is good. we just know it in situations.
enables us to know basic truths so we are able to make ethical decisions
GE Moore analogy and link to goodness
yellow can be recognised but not defined. same thing for good.
we understand goodness like a fact
GEMoores goodness quote
“good is good and that is the end of the matter”
how is intuitionism a consequentalist theory
can work out right and wrong through impact of our consequences we simply know what actions are right
good comes from consequence not reason - teleological
can moral statements be proven?
not empiracally
dont use scientific observation to percieve good
moral judgements = incapable of being proved
simple vs complex ideas
complex ideas = ideas cant be broken down using other ideas - e.g horse - define and reduce to mammal or herbivor
simple ideas = cant be broken down - e.g yellow - cannot describe in any other way but yellow - has no synonmn
W.d Ross and rightness
What is right is unique depending on what is “morally suitable” for the situation a person is in
Base judgements on what’s right and wrong on intuition
What does Ross agree with Moore on
That there are real objective truths
What did WDRoss say on conflicting duties
Include example
For example a doctor sees it as her duty to keep this seriously ill person as pain-free as possible but equally that is her duty to avoid killing her patient
There comes a point as the quantities of painkilling drugs increase to meet the first duty that is can speed up the patients death as a consequence therefore conflicting the second duty
What are WD Ross Duties
Keep promises
Pay back the home we do to others
Not to injure others
Return favours and service is given to us by others
Not harm innocent people
Look after parents
WT Rosses quote on the prima Facey duties
“What we should do is determined by the balance of these responsibilities “
What does prima Facey mean
At first Face
What do the prima facie mean and how do humans use them
If There are no conflicting circumstances between his duties then each duty is absolute
however if there is confliction then you have to balance them and consider what to do
We should be reasonable and sensible enough to work this out as we have reason and the ability to critically judge
WD Ross in the example of the mad ax murderer
More intuition in this example we need to use our common sense to tell us what we ought to do
If a mad ax murderer knocks on our door and asked For you to tell him where about is an innocent victim is you have a prima Facey duty to protect the innocent
The intent of saving the victims life is more important than going against the problem of lying
This is the intuitive truth
Three main strengths of intuitionism
Allows us to answer issues clearly and instantly
Appeals to human nature – we use our intuition to decide right from wrong
Avoid complex debate as to what is good because we cannot define good
Avoids the problem of subjectivism and also identifying ethics with a natural property
Weaknesses of intuitionism
Most people think morality is subjective or based on emotions
Intuitionism comes from different routes – cultural conditioning
Intuitionism will allow anyone to get away with anything
Some philosophers Criticised Moores analogy of yellow and while ones person may see good as one thing another can see good in a completly different light
Therefore the issue of ethical colour blindness
