Meta Ethics Flashcards
What does meta ethics literally mean?
Beyond ethics
What is normative ethics concerned with?
What is good
What is meta ethics concerned with?
What we actually mean when we say something is good
What does meta ethics focus on?
Language
What differentiates meta ethical thinkers to normative ethical thinkers?
They were not concerned with moral statements of right and wrong, but whether these statements were actually meaningful at all
What is the difference between cognitivism and non cognitivism and realism and anti realism?
Cognitivism and non cognitivism make claims about language, whereas realism and anti-realism make claims about what exists
What is the link between cognitivism and non cognitivism and realism and anti realism?
Generally, realist are cognitivists and anti realists are non cognitivists
Explain realism
This holds that moral facts exist
Explain anti-realism
Holds that moral facts do not exist
Explain cognitivism
Holds that ethical statements make claims about mind independent reality and so can be true or false. Since these claims can be true or false they are objective. These means that when we make an ethical judgement our opinion is irrelevant, we are either right or wrong
Explain non cognitivism
Holds that ethical statements do not make claims about mind independent reality and so cannot be true or false. This means that ethical judgements are subjective, it is our opinion whether an ethical judgement is right or wrong
What are the two forms of cognitivism
Naturalism and intuitionism
What are the two forms of non cognitivism
Emotivism and prescriptivism
What do absolutism and relativism make claims about?
The nature of reality
Explain absolutism
Holds that the nature of morality holds no exceptions - actions are always right or always wrong. This is true in all situations and contexts. NML is an example of this
Explain relativism
Holds that the nature of morality is relative to each individual or to a culture. What is morally acceptable in one situation may not be in another
What do relativists think about different perspectives?
That they are all equally valid, no matter how ridiculous some may seem
Why do many claim that being a relativist is self defeating?
Because if we can never say one position is better than the other, then why look into ethics at all?
Explain some practical issues with relativism
It could be used to defend the claim that a country without slavery is no better than a country with slavery
In whom can the modern origins of relativism be found?
Nietzsche
How did Nietzsche criticise philosophers at his time?
Because he thought they were wrong to think of themselves as working in the abstract realm of absolute ideas, when a system of perspectivism holds instead
Explain the idea of perspectivism
States that how we see the world is inevitably shaped by the values we have absorbed. It is therefore foolish to consider one viewpoint superior to another, because we are all laden with culturally and individually relative assumptions
Give a quote from N that sums up perspectivism
‘There is no such thing as moral phenomena, only an interpretation of moral phenomena’
Explain the difference between a factual and symbolic statement
A factual statement states what is the case, whereas a symbolic statement tries to point beyond itself towards something deeper, but it still clearly means something
What type of theory is ethical naturalism?
Cognitive
Explain ethical naturalism
The belief that decisions about what is right or wrong can be arrived at through discovery of the natural world and human nature
How does ethical naturalism treat ethical statements?
The same as non ethical statements
What can be done to ethical statements under ethical naturalism?
They can be proved true or false using empirical evidence
What do critics say about ethical naturalism?
That it confuses what is the case with how it ought to be (the is ought gap)
Who first pointed out the is ought gap?
Hume
What does Hume mean when he points towards the is ought gap?
That when philosophers discuss ethics they tend to jump from what is the case to what ought to be the case without ever explaining how they make this link
Why does Hume think the is ought gap is unjustifiable?
Because even if everybody acted a certain way, this provides no evidence that they ought to act this way
What is Hume’s problem with utilitarianism?
It moves from the descriptive statement that we are under the governance of pain and pleasure to the normative statement that they should therefore determine what we ought to do
Give a practical example of the is ought gap?
It is the case that many black people were enslaved in the 18th century, but few today would argue that that ought to have been the case
How did Moore critique philosophical problems from years gone by?
He thought that they were not puzzles at all, but instead the result of confused language
What type of philosophy was Moore influential in?
Analytic philosophy, which is the dominant way of doing philosophy in English speaking countries
Explain Moore’s idea of an open question
One that can be answered positively or negatively without self contradiction
Explain how the open question arguement works in terms of utilitarianism
The open question could be ‘are pleasurable things good?’ It is logically possible that the answer to this question could be no. This means that good and pleasure are not analytically identical. Therefore good is not the same as pleasure and good and pleasure cannot be called the same thing
Explain how the naturalistic fallacy works in terms of bachelors
‘Can a bachelor not be a man?’ is not an open question because it is logically impossible to say yes. We can therefore be certain that a bachelor will always be a man
Explain the naturalistic fallacy
Because nothing in the natural world could ever be analytically the same as the term good, as proven by the open question arguement, it can never make sense to logically equate good with a natural property
As a cognitivist, what did Moore still believe?
That we cannot argue that good does not exist
How did Moore think we could identify good?
Through our intuition - we know things are good upon seeing them - things are self-evidently good
How does Moore use yellow to explain intuitionism?
Yellow is not something that can be defined - we just know it when we see it. We cannot say what yellow is, just point towards things that are yellow. Moore sees good in the same way
Give a quote from Moore about yellow and intuitionism
‘We know what yellow is and can recognise it where it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way we know what good is. But we cannot actually define it
Explain how Pritchard developed Moore’s intuitionism
He agreed that good could not be defined but was recognised via intuition. He identified two types of thinking, reason and intuition. Reason looks at the facts of the situation and uses this information to decide what actions should be taken. Intuition then tells us, from the available options, what is right or wrong or how to decide between obligations. Pritchard argued that intuition varies from person to person depending on how moral they are
How is the way Ross approaches intuitionism different from Moore and Pritchard?
He approaches it as a deontologist rather than a consequentialist
Explain Ross’ take on intuitionism
He believes that we use intuition to decide what is our duty in a specific moral situation. Ross argued that this duty will be self evident and easily recognisable. He said that even though certain duties might conflict it will become clear which is more important in that situation
What is the benefit to Moore’s intuitionism?
It overcomes the naturalistic fallacy while still maintaining that good exists objectively
How do we recognise goodness according to Moore?
He says that we can intuitively recognise the property of goodness, but he does not explain how we do this or exactly what the nature of goodness is, only that it is non-natural and so unlike anything else
How does Warnock criticise Moore’s interpretation of how to recognise goodness?
- He asks how non natural moral properties can interact with natural properties. An action that causes suffering will have an impact on most people’s moral thinking, but Moore denies that this can be the case with his open question arguement
Explain how intuitionism can lead to apathy
Because even if there are moral facts, thinking of these facts as non-natural removes any reason for why we should care
Give an example of how intuitionism can lead to apathy
If I judge that torturing innocent children is wrong, I am stating a fact, but stating a fact does not give anyone any reason not to do this (is ought gap and naturalistic fallacy). We have stated a fact, but it does not link to how people should act
What style of thinking is emotivism grounded in?
Logical positivism
What is logical positivism?
A theory holding that science and logic are the only legitimate sources of knowledge
What is the verification process?
A critereon for deciding whether statements could be seen as meaningful or meaningless
What are analytic statements?
Statements that are true by definition
What are synthetic statements?
Statements that can be proved or verified using empirical evidence. They are proved using a posteriori rather than a priori reasoning
What was Ayer influenced by when developing emotivism?
The verification principle
Explain how Ayer came to the conclusion that ethical language is logically meaningless
- He said that ethical language cannot be analytically true since it is not tautological. For instance, murder and wrongness are not the same
- He thought that any attempt to synthetically prove a statement right or wrong would commit the naturalistic fallacy, ruling ethical language out of being proven synthetically
- According to the verification principle, if a statement cannot be proven analytically or synthetically, it is meaningless
Explain Ayer’s boo hoorah theory
It reduces ethical statements to an indication of whether we generally support or dislike something
How did Ayer amend his theory after criticism?
By using the idea of weak verification
Explain the idea of weak verification
This held that statements can be considered meaningful, even if not definitely proved by emprical evidence, if it refers to an objective experience
What does emotivism help us explain?
Why it is so difficult to reconcile conflicting moral viewpoints, as there is no objective truth to arrive at at all
How can emotivism be seen as fair?
Because it recognises the variety of different moral viewpoints and gives them equal value, even if they are equally meaningless
How is emotivism consistent with how we see morality?
Because we do make ethical statements to express support or disdain
How does emotivism raise the profile of emotive statements?
Because it shows that even though they lack empirical evidence, they can still be very impactful
How does emotivism harm moral debates?
It renders them pointless as all moral statements are equally meaningless
Why do people make ethical statements according to emotivism?
Not because they are true, but in an attempt to influence others
How can emotivism be seen as incompatible with a functioning society?
Because it denies the existence of any universal principles that we can all buy into
What does emotivism fail to make a distinction between?
Ethical language and other kinds of emotive language. Ethical language is often used in a matter of fact fashion, rather than melodramatically. Big ethical decisions are made bureaucratically rather than emotionally most of the time
Explain the two major problems with the verification principle
- It rules out other forms of knowledge, like historical knowledge
- The emotivist theory is itself unverifiable and so meaningless according to its own standards
- The statement ‘all meaningful statements are either synthetic or analytic’ is itself neither a synthetic or analytic statement
What meta ethical theory did Hare develop?
Prescriptivism
Explain the idea of prescriptivism
It sees moral statements as prescriptive - telling someone what to do. If I say something is wrong, I am telling you not to do it in the hopes that you will not
Explain the presriptivist idea that moral commands should be universalisable
This means they should apply to everyone. Prescriptions should be consistent - meaning they hold in all situations - and not hypocritical - meaning they should apply to everyone equally
What is the main strength of prescriptivism?
It moves on from emotivism to show how non cognitive moral statements can have purpose and meaning and do more than just express emotions
What does Hare fail to do?
Provide a way of moving from different prescriptions to deciding which one is right
What is the problem with the idea of universalism?
There can never be universal moral rules because people can come up with equally valid conflicting prescriptions
What does prescriptivism deny the existence of?
Any kind of objective moral truth. It is impossible to say something is right because someone could always prescribe the opposite
Why do prescriptive statements not have much effect?
Because no reasoning or proof can be given to back them up. There is also nothing to stop someone from changing their preference and prescribing something else
What were the two main sources of prescriptivism?
Emotivism and kantianism
How does Warnock summarise prescriptivism?
The idea of prescriptivism implies that the one who accepts the moral judgement that he ought to do X is logically committed to doing X. If you do this you commit yourself to the idea that anyone in that situation must act in the same way
