Meta Ethics Flashcards
What is normative ethics?
•It is an ethical system that ties to set rules or standards for how we should behave
What are 2 examples of normative ethical theories?
1.Utilitarianism
2.Natural Law
What is meta ethics?
•It is the study of ethical terms where it examines what ethical values mean, how they are used and whether we can prove them
- It is the study of ethical language
2 arguments on why normative ethics is more important:
- More practical as they provide rules/guidelines on how to live
2.No point in debating
3 arguments on why meta ethics is more important:
1.Need meta ethics to make normative ethics possible
2.Allows for ethical debate as ethical language is being agreed upon
3.Most normative ethical theories rely on some type of ethical naturalism in order to work
What are cognitive ethical statements?
•They are ethical statements that are stating factual information, which means the statements can be true or false
What are non-cognitive ethical statements?
•They are ethical statements that are an expression of feelings or a command
- This means they cannot be true or false as they are not stating any facts
Strength of cognitivism:
1.It allows for meaningful debate
Moore - weakness of cognitivism
•Displays how good cannot be defined which reflects how a universal definition of good has not been agreed upon
- This means cognitivism does not work as there is no definition for good
Hume - weakness of cognitivism
•Argues moral judgements are not empirical as they cannot be proven by facts or data
- This means good is meaningless
Ayer & Hare - strength of non-cognitivism
•Explains moral disagreements and supports that we are saying something meaningful
- This is because ethical statements convey our emotions or our commands
2 weaknesses of non-cognitivism:
What is ethical naturalism?
•It is the belief that that ethical values can be defined in terms of some natural property in the world
- This means good and evil are natural properties as they exist and can be found in this world
What do ethical naturalist believe about moral judgements?
•They believe that moral judgements are empirical facts
- This can be seen through the statement “war is evil” as it is a fact that can be verified by our senses
What do ethical naturalists argue about they way good and evil can be defined?
•They argue good and evil can be defined through being verified by using empirical information
- This means there is some kind of objective basis for ethics as it can be found in nature
Which theory supports there is an objective basis for ethics?
•Natural Law
- This is because good is objective and based on our human nature (5 Primary Precepts)
- This means Natural Law is a form of Theological Naturalist
Which other theory supports that there is an objective basis for ethics?
•Utilitarianism
- This is because they use happiness as an objective measure to judge what is good
- This means Utilitarianism is a form of Hedonic Naturalism
Which utilitarianist is an ethical naturalist?
•Bradley
- He believes we become moral through “self-realisation” which he believes we do through our station and our duty
What does Bradley believe about our duty?
•He believes it is universal and concrete which means it is an objective reality
- He also believes it is closely linked with our station and that through our station we can work out right/wrong
3 strengths of ethical naturalism
Foot
•Argues that there are virtues and characteristics of humans that can be objectively good and observed
Moore - Weakness of EN
•Moore’s open question technique displays that we can never adequately define what “good” means
Ayer and Hare - weakness of EN
•Argue we cannot define what good means
- This is because good is meaningless so cannot be proven through empirical evidence
Hume - weakness of EN
•Argues that facts cannot lead us to morality
- This is supported by Hume’s Law which establishes that “is” does not mean “ought” (we cannot work out what we should do by analysing facts)
What is intuitionism?
•It is when we know what is good through our intuition but have no way to prove it
Who established intuitionism?
•Moore
What does Moore believe about moral judgements?
•He argues they are not empirical statements
- This is because empirical facts and moral judgements are logically different
What does Moore believe about good?
•He believes we cannot prove what good means as it cannot be defined
- Moore uses an “open question technique” to prove that good is indefinable (this is because the definition can always be questioned)
What is an example of Moore’s “open question technique”?
•That we can define “good” as “happiness” but then question if “happiness” is always “good”
What does Moore believe about defining good as a natural property?
•He believes that defining good as a natural property is a naturalistic fallacy
- This means Moore believes that it is a mistake to suggest good is a natural property
Why does Moore believe good cannot be defined?
•He believes it cannot be defined as it is a simple property (it has no parts)
- This is shown by a horse being able to defined as it can be broken into parts
What does Moore compare good to?
•He compares “good” to “yellow” as both are of a “simple and indefinable quality”
- This means they cannot be further analysed so cannot be defined
How does Moore believe we define things?
•He believes we use “ultimate terms of reference” to define other things
- Moore uses the example that daffodils are yellow flowers
- This means yellow is a natural property as it can be observed in nature
- However, good cannot be observed which means it is a non-natural property as it cannot be tested by any sense (it is not empirical)
- This means good is an absolute and objective property
What does Moore believe is true about good to any rational person?
•He believes it is self-evident as it is recognisable through our intuition
What quote does Moore state to support that good is indefinable?
•He states that “If I am asked what is good, my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter”
Who developed Moore’s theory of intuitionism?
•Pritchard
- He applied intuitionism to the concept of moral obligation
What does Pritchard believe about moral obligation?
•He believes we cannot define our moral obligation as we know them by intuition
Why does Pritchard believe we do things?
•He believes we do things because our intuition tells us what is right
- He believes that when we have to make a difficult decision we use our reason to asses and that our intuition decides where our moral obligation lies
What does Pritchard recognise about our morals and sense of moral obligation?
•He recognises that they differ from person to person and that some people have a more developed moral thinking then others
- This can be used to explain how we all come to different conclusions with the same sense of intuition
Who argues we cannot define our moral obligation or what is good?
•Ross
- He is a deontologist
What does Ross believe about certain types of actions?
•He believes certain types of actions are always right
- He calls these “prima facie duties”
What are “prima facie duties”?
•They are duties at first sight
What are the 7 prima facie duties that Ross established?
1.Duty of Fidelity
2.Duty of Reparation
3.Duty of Gratitude
4.Duty of Justice
5.Duty of Beneficence
6.Duty of Self-Improvement
7.Duty of Non-Maleficence
What does Ross believe about conflicting duties?
•He believes that the most important duty in that situation should be followed
2 strengths of intuitionism:
Kant - strength
•Agrees morality is objective and that our reason tells us that our moral judgements are correct
+ Example = when we call the Holocaust “evil” we are giving an objective moral truth, not just an opinion
Hume - strength
•Supports that moral judgements are not empirical facts
- This is because Hume believes empirical facts tell us what is the case while moral judgements are logically distinct as they commit us to act in a certain way
2 weaknesses of intuitionism:
Hume - weakness
•Argues that the only way to explain why moral values commit us to action is because they are based on our emotions which vary from person to person
What is emotivisim?
•It is when moral judgements express feelings, so cannot be true or false
Who established emotivism?
•Ayer
- He is a logical positivist which means he believes that if we cannot verify a statement it becomes meaningless
What does Ayer believe about statements?
•He believes that statements can be proven analytically (by definition) or synthetically (by our senses)
What does Ayer believe about moral statements?
•He believes that moral statements cannot be proven analytically or synthetically
- This means all moral judgements are meaningless as they tell us no information, so cannot be true or false
Why does Ayer believe moral statements are non-cognitive?
•He believes they are non-cognitive as they are expressions of feelings
- This is shown through the example of “good” being equivalent to “hurrah!”
What does Ayer believe about the category of moral judgements?
•He believes moral judgements do not “come under the category of truth and falsehood”
What does emotivism make impossible?
•It makes ethical debate impossible
- This is because we cannot agree or disagree as nothing is being claimed (it is impossible to respond to a cheer by saying “you’re correct”)
Despite believing that moral judgements are meaningless, what 3 functions does Ayer believe they have?
1.To express our own feelings
2.To arouse feelings in others
3.To get people to act
- We express our approval or disapproval which causes another person to feel the same way which means they may no longer commit to an action
Why does Ayer state that moral judgements have “no objective validity”?
•He believes this due to there being no independent standard that we can judge the statements against
Strength of emotivism:
Stevenson - strength of emotivism
•Argues emotivism explains moral disagreements
- People express their emotions to try and change the other’s feelings which causes a genuine conflict between them
Hume - strength of emotivism
•Argues moral values commit us to action due to being based upon our emotions
- This is because emotions have the power to alter our behaviour unlike facts
+ Example = fact that smoking kills does not stop people smoking as it is the fear of death or sadness of leaving our loved ones that makes people quit
2 weaknesses of emotivism:
Hare - weakness of emotivism
•Morality is based upon reason
What is prescriptivism?
•It is when moral statements are neither true nor false, but they are rational
Who established prescriptivism?
•Hare
What does Hare believe about ethical judgements?
•He believes they do not say anything that can be true or false and that they are not expression of feelings that can be used to manipulate people’s behaviour (emotional blackmail)
How does Hare believe we should use moral judgements?
•He believes we should use them to guide people’s actions is a rational way
- This means they become like commands
How are ethical statements more than simple commands?
•They are more than simple commands as they refer to all people and the future as well
- This can be shown by the example of the statement “stealing is wrong” becoming the command “do not steal”
- This means commands apply to more than just the present situation
What does Hare call the ethical statements that have become universal commands?
•He refers to them as prescriptions
What does Hare believe moral prescriptions are based on?
•He believes they are based on our attitudes
- This is because prescriptions express what we want people to do
Why does Hare believe prescriptivism is more rational than emotivism?
•He believes this because prescriptions are commands that everyone has to follow, including yourself and because a reason is needed for making moral prescriptions
What does Hare believe about morality?
•He believes it is rational and consistent
- He also believes that moral judgements are not objective as it is the individual that decides what is good
- This means there is no independent standard for right or wrong
4 strengths of prescriptivism:
2 weaknesses of prescriptivism:
Warnock - weakness of prescriptivism
•Returns to ethical naturalism
- Argues that even though good is not fully definable we understand it in terms of whatever promotes human flourishing
- This means statements like “Charity is good” can be factual and tested
