Meta Ethics Flashcards
Meta Ethics
What do we mean by ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?
Do independent moral properties exist?
What do moral judgements mean?
Moral Realism
There are objective moral properties and facts
Moral Anti-Realism
There are no objective moral properties and facts
Cognitivism
Moral judgments express cognitive mental states and can be true or false
Non-Cognitivism
Moral judgements express non-cognitive mental states and are not capable of being true or false
Ethical Naturalism Properties
Cognitivist - moral judgements express beliefs that are capable of being true or false
Realist - moral properties exist (these are natural properties)
Ethical Naturalism
Moral truths operate like scientific truths
You can treat an ethical statement in the same way you would treat a scientific statement
e.g., ‘Hitler was a bad person’ - you would verify it by gathering evidence
Ethical Naturalism - ‘murder is wrong’
Expresses a cognitive belief that murder is wrong where ‘wrong’ refers to a natural property
Example of Ethical Naturalism
Utilitarianism says that ‘good’ can be reduced to pleasure and ‘bad’ can be reduced to pain
Hedonic Naturalists would say that the definition of good is pleasure
How does J. Rachels define good?
Whatever satisfies our interests is good
Ethical Non-Naturalism Properties
Cognitivist - moral judgements are beliefs that are intended to be true or false
Realist - moral properties exist (these are non-natural properties)
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Ethical sentences express propositions
e.g., to state that Hitler is bad you still need to define what you mean by the term ‘bad’
Ethical Non-Naturalism - ‘murder is wrong’
Expresses a cognitive belief that murder is wrong where ‘wrong’ refers to a non-natural property
Ethical Non-Naturalism Quote - G. E. Moore
‘it cannot be defined, ‘good’ has no definition because it’s simple and has no parts’ - Principa Ethica 1903
Ethical Non-Naturalism - Naturalistic Fallacy
G. E. Moore describes equating goodness with a natural property as a naturalistic fallacy
You can’t logically jump from a natural statement to a moral statement
David Hume also argues that you can’t derive ought statement from an is statement
Ought Statement
A moral statement that you’re obligated to do
Is Statement
A factual statement
Open Question
The answer isn’t included in the question
e.g., George is my brother but is he a teacher at Harvard?
Ethical Non-Naturalism - Intuitionism
G. E. Moore believed you can use the process of moral intuition to verify a moral statement
Goodness can only be detected by our intuition
Ethical Non-Cognitivism Properties
Non-Cognitive - moral judgements aren’t supposed to be taken as true or false
Anti-Realist - moral properties don’t exist
Emotivism
Moral judgements express feelings of approval or disapproval
e.g., ‘Hitler is bad’ doesn’t involve facts, it just expresses how you feel about the topic
What does Hume believe in accordance to emotivism?
Judgements of reason don’t motivate us to act in any way, instead it’s emotions and desires that motivate us to act
e.g., my belief that ‘murder is wrong’ will motivate me not to murder
Ethical statements are pseudo-concepts and therefore are not factual
Emotivism - A. J. Ayer
Moral judgements fail the verification principle and therefore are meaningless
Moral judgements simply express feelings of approval or disapproval and seek to evoke the same feelings in others
Prescriptivism
Moral judgements express instructions that aim to guide behaviour
When someone says that ‘murder is wrong’ they’re effectively saying ‘don’t murder people’
