Meta-Ethics Flashcards
**
what is meta ethics?
meta = Beyond
- The study which seeks to answer the question of what goodness
-
Two aspects of what goodness is:
1: Whether goodness exists in reality or not (moral realism vs moral anti-realism)
2: What the meaning of the word ‘good’ is (cognitivism vs non-cognitivism)
3 standpoints : naturalist, emotivist etc
1: Whether goodness exists in reality or not (moral realism vs moral anti-realism)
- Moral realism is the view that ‘goodness’ is real – exists in reality.
- Anti-realism is the view that goodness is not real – it does not exist in reality.
Cognitive
Naturalism
(realism)
- Moral knowldge known a posteriori e.g. utilitarianism (pain/pleasure), natural law (function)
- An ethical theory that holds that morals are fixed absolute in the universe
keyword
realism
morality can be true objectively = based on facts
cognitive
Non-naturalism
realism
- moral knowldge known a priori
2 strands:
Intutionism = G.E. Moore - feelings are inbuilt
Reason = Kantian ethics = principle of universalisability (part of his categorical imperative)
keyword
anti realism
morality can be true subjectively = based on opinions
Ethical Naturalism is the view that:
- fixed absolute facts - objectively true
- must be verified empircally
1. Ethical terms can be defined/explained using the same ‘natural’ terms that we would use to deifne maths/science
2. Morals could be based on the of observations of the world as used in science. (E.G. The wrongness of murder of an innocent.) - Naturalist theories: F.H.Bradley and Phillipa Foot: believe that morals can be understood in the world in the same way that other features are identified.
- needs to be verified empircally
naturalism
F.H. Bradley
- His argument is a form of cognitivism - we can know objectively and test empirically e.g. honesty is good
- He concluded that the better approach was to pursue self-realisation within the community ‘duty and happiness in one’
- we need to learn from family and adopt the values of our society = as we have a duty to perform the function of that position
- all have a certain role to be fufilled e.g. teacher, mother,etc have certaiin duties/moral values attached to them
- Strength: if we view ethics as fact it means we can consistently apply laws and ensure justice is done.
FH Brad. Links to Aquinas moral natual law
actions right if they lead to happiness.
- we can look at the world and percieve morals and from that our purposes
- Theological naturalists, like Thomas Aquinas, attribute goodness to divine will and human nature, viewing actions like adultery as hindering human flourishing.
- e.g, adultery is wrong as it limits or prevents human flourishing.
- Hedonic naturalists tie goodness to pleasure or happiness, considering actions right if they lead to happiness.
meta-ethical theories: naturalism
J.L. Mackie
Book; ‘Right or Wrong’
- he argues that moral laws can be observed, they are based on traditions rather than absolute construct
- we should act in accordance to social expectations e.g approval and disapproval
- he says it is possible to describe an institution from the outside e.g. social practice of promising or making chess moves.
- The institution demands that promises are kept. However, we can make observations from the inside. For example, ‘don’t break a promise’
- Mackie argued the injunction to not break promises depends on the rules of the institution having already being accepted.
Hume’s is-ought gap
(aka Humes Law)
- Criticises naturalism.
- Language is not appropriate in making ethical statements
- maintained that there is a difference between facts and values. We examine the language in ethical statements carefully, we shouldn’t be adding things that aren’t there
- He claims that we cannot have a description on (how things are) to a prescription on (how things should be). Facts and values are different things.
- ‘Is does not imply ought‘ = ‘is’ is just a fact, however ‘ought’ is presribed
- no amount of fact is suffienct to lead to an ethical statement.
- Empirical information of immediate reality cannot be related at a universal level.
- Hume said philosophers talk about the way things are and then jump with no apparent justification to a claim about the way things ought to be.
In resonse to Hume
Phillipa Foot
naturalism
- “The fact that a human action is good of its kind..(is) a fact about a given feature” - Natural Goodness. - we have obserable evidence that are facts
- virtues can be observed by watching how a person acts. an honest perosn does honest things and can be observed= links to Aristotles ideas of virtues/goods
- When me make promise/agreements these are things that are natural and absolute to us - we wouldnt break it
Two ethical standpoint
RELATIVISM VS. ABSOLUTISM
- Absolutism: Morals are fiexed, unchangingng truths
- Relativism: Moral truths are not fixed, what is right changes according to the indiviual.
- Meta ethics focuses upon langauge of ethics. concern with moral truth
Weakness of ethical naturalism
- right or wrong are subjective not objective - need human to exist to determine how we should live
- Regardless of whether a situation may have evidence to support that it is right (euthanasia) it still may break the law = pointless.
Non- naturalism
Intuitionism: G.E MOORE
- Believed that we should do the thing that causes most good to exists
- We can gain knowldge of objective morality through intuition. (Just know what it is) - cant define it
- uses the good in a simple notion of YELLOW - you know when you see it - self-evident
- no experienced required - priori
- Moore was particularly concerned with rejecting utilitarianism , which argued that goodness can be defined quantified and qualified (Hedonic Calculus).
- He states ‘If I am asked ‘what is good?’ My answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter’ - Principa Ethica
use this as a critic for naturalism - only need one critic
G.E. MOORE - Naturalistic fallacy
influenced by Hume’s Is - Ought distinction
Fallacy: Finding fault in statements that are made.
- G. E. Moore continued that attempts to define good in terms = We cannot identify goodness (ethical statement) with a natural quality – statement about the world (non ethical statement).
- · To claim moral statements can be verified or falsified = to commit naturalistic fallacy
- · Cannot infer from a description of how the world ‘is’ to how the world ‘ought’ to be
- · ‘Is’ are fact = objective statements, ‘ought’ are presecibed.
- · Cannot use facts to work out how we ought to act.
- G. E Moore was influenced by Hume’s Is - Ought distinction.
H. A. Prichard
|| built on Moore’s Work
book - The Right and the Good
-
Reason collects the facts and intuition determines which course of action to follow.
** Distinguished between:
“General thinking (reasoning)”: using empirical evidence around us to present logical argument.
2.”Moral thinking”: based on an immediate intuition about the right thing to do.
- He recognised that different people have different intuitions about what is right.
use in para for prichard
W. D. Ross (Pichards Student)
book - The Right and the Good
- What is right is always unique, depending on what is “morally suitable” for the situation a person is in.
- W.D. Ross, influenced by Moore and Prichard
- Ross acknowledged that moral principles can CAUSE conflict, such as when keeping a promise may require telling a lie.
- He recognized cultural differences in moral principles and emphasized that goodness cannot be defined in natural terms.
-
He called these Pima facie Dulies:
1) Fideity (keeping promises).
2) Reparation - (when you done something wrong repair it).
3) Beneficence (helping others to benefit, self improvement) - These duties are not absolute but reflect the personal character of duty
- Making moral judgments is challenging and prone to error, but experience can improve one’s ability to make sound judgments.
stregnht s + Weakness of the intuition approach
stregnths
* Non naturalist- not dependent on the material world
* Supports the idea that we have an innate moral sense.
* Secular.
Weaknerss
* Moore does not explain nor prove how we know good through intuition alone and not through senses.
* How can we be sure our intuitions are correct?
* What happens if these intuitions conflict?
* J.L mackie - morality isnt about doing what is intuitvely right but it is about doing something about it = ties in with Liberation theology = opraxis over othrodoxy - idea of action - we need action before intitons
Anti-realist theories
Emotivism A.J. Ayer
- Part of A.J. Ayer work was with the Vienna circle, drew on the thinking of David Hume
- He believed that there are three types of statements:
1) Logical (analytical)
2) factual (synthetic)
3) moral (opinions) - only relative to our feeling - not can be observed through facts - If a statement is neither analytically or empirically verifiable, it says nothing of reality and is therefore meaningless.
- Emotivism is an ethical non-naturalism as it rejects the view that moral language has some kind of absolute meaning and anything about the external world.
- Morals are only relative to our emotions and therefore cannot be verified through science.
- relative
Strengths of Emotivism
- Part of being human is to express emotions especially in moral situations
- Everyone can understand the theory and can apply it
- Everyone’s opinions are equally valid.
Weakness of Emotivism
- Ethics based on attitudes, upbringing and feelings - lead Emotivism to being ‘simply subjectivism.
- James Rachels points out that moral judgments appeal to reasoning not just expressions of feelings.
- If all of morality is just emotions whose emotions should we follow?
Vienna circle
A group of philosophers known as logical positivists who rejected claims that moral truth can be verified as objectively value
Evaluating Emotivism
- Rejects any sense of morality that is beyond ourselves.
- Emotivists argue that moral philosophy cannot lead to any particular moral view; it is an individual perspective without universal conclusions.
- Lack of Objective Morality:Emotivism challenges the notion of objective morality, asserting that moral judgments are merely expressions of personal preferences or emotions. This can be seen as liberating, allowing individuals to determine their own moral codes, but it also raises questions about the basis for moral decision-making in society.
- Relativism and Subjectivity: Emotivism’s emphasis on emotions and beliefs as the basis for moral judgments leads to relativism, where moral truths vary from person to person and culture to culture. While this acknowledges diversity in moral perspectives, it raises concerns about the possibility of moral progress and societal cohesion without shared values.
C. L. Stevenson
||emotivism
- C.L. Stevenson expanded on Ayer’s ideas in his book “Ethics and Language” (1944), linking moral statements not just to emotions but also to attitudes
- According to Stevenson, moral judgments express both a belief and an attitude, aiming to persuade or influence others. - whether it is good or bad - seeks the approval/disapproval of things
- For example, saying “This is good” expresses approval, while saying “Abortion is wrong” conveys both belief and a desire for agreement.
- Emotivism challenges the idea that the term ‘good’ represents any kind of fixed MORality.
X: R.M. Hare says that we are too complex to reduce morality to this. He was against this REDUCTIONISM. It was too simplistic an analysis of language. Morality involves the use of reason. He cannot accept that such terrible acts as the Holocaust can be reduced to I believe that killing is bad.
Cognivitivism
moral language is meaningful
= true/false
STRENGHT: This approach takes seriously the idea of moral absolutes,
anti-realists
Non- cognitivism
Moral language is meaningless
not truth-apt
