Meta-ethics Flashcards
Synthetic statements
are based on our sensory data and experience
e.g. Children wear hats
Analytic statements
Statements that are true by definition
e.g. bachelors are unmarried men
Naturalism
(cognitive)
~cognitive and objective
~there are rights and wrongs, morals are not about different points of view, but are about facts of the natural world
~ethical naturalism holds that we can tell what is right and wrong by looking at the world around us and using our reason
~morality is a feature of the universe that we can perceive
Aquinas (an ethical naturalist)
~he thought that we could use our reason and our powers of observation to access the facts about what is moral and immoral
~ he was a theological naturalist because he thought that goodness comes from the will of God
Philippa Foot (ethical naturalist)
~she defended naturalism by saying that we can observe morality when we see people’s behaviour
~we call someone a ‘good person’ or an ‘honest person’ because of our observations
~virtues can be recognised
Criticisms of naturalism
(Hume)
~Hume argued that we can see what there is but not what we ought to do
~He argued that there is no justification for moving from what is to what ought to be
~This is often called ‘Hume’s law’- “you cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”
Other criticisms of naturalism
~empiricists argue that right and wrong cannot be experienced with the senses e.g. we can see that hitting someone makes them unhappy, but we cannot see that making someone unhappy is wrong
Intuitionism
(G.E Moore)
(cognitive)
~good is a simple unanalysable property, but we know intuitively what it means
~he adapted a version of utilitarianism in that he said that right acts are those that produce the most good, but he said that goodness can’t be identified with some natural property such as pleasure
~we can’t use our senses to tell us if something is good but we can use our ‘moral intuition’ so we can still say if a moral statement is true or false
~we recognise goodness when we see it, we just know if something is good, Moore called this a ‘simple notion’
G.E. Moore quotes
~ ‘If I am asked ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter. Or if I am asked ‘How is good to be defined?’ my answer is that it cannot be defined , and that is all I have to say about it.’ (Moore, Principia Ethica)
~’We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but we cannot actually define it.’ (Moore, Principia Ethica)
Intuitionism
(H.A. Pritchard)
~he thought that there were 2 types of thinking, reason and intuition (reason looks at the facts of a situation and intuition decides what to do
~ he thought that intuitionism would show what particular action was right and where our moral obligation lay
~he did recognise that people’s morals were different, but said this was because some people had developed their moral thinking further than others
Intuitionism
(W.D. Ross)
~argued that prima facie duties are intuitively right
~judgement must be used to decide what to do in any situation
~one duty can be rejected in favour of another
Prima facie duties
- fidelity
- reparation (when we have done something wrong)
- gratitude
- justice
- beneficence (helping others)
- self- improvement
- non-maleficence (not harming others)
Strengths of intuitionism
~non- naturalistic, morality is not dependant on the material world, ethical principles are independent of actual events, this theory is not guilty of naturalistic fallacy
~it explains why different societies share moral values such as ‘murder is wrong’
~it does justice to the fact that humans have an innate moral sense
~it doesn’t require a God as a source of morality
Criticisms of intuitionism
~this idea of knowing what is good by intuition and not by empirical evidence is not proved conclusively by Moore- he says you either agree with him or you haven’t thought about it properly
~virtue ethicists argue it’s our emotions and practical wisdom that give us this intuitive knowledge
~how can we be sure that our intuitions are correct as different people come to different conclusions
~moral intuitions seem to come from social conditioning and differ between cultures, so it is hard to see how such intuitions can be a reliable guide to objective ethical truths
Emotivism or Boo/Hurrah theory
~a theory which says that moral statements are just expressions of feelings…murder is wrong…boo to murder!
Logical Positivism
~ emotivism was developed out of the logical positivism that developed from the Vienna Circle (1922-1938)
~logical positivists came up with the ‘verification principle’ where for statements to be true they either have to be analytic or synthetic
~logical positivists then analysed religious and moral language and concluded that discussions about God and goodness can’t be verified and therefore are meaningless
Will emotivism tell us how to lead moral life?
Emotivism will not tell you how to lead a moral life, but simply helps us to understand moral statements- ethical statements guide actions and convey certain attitudes
Emotivism
(A.J. Ayer (1910-1989))
~words like ‘good’ are meaningless
~ethical statements are just expressions of feeling
~ethical statements cannot be validated- there are not empirical facts which can be checked to see if the statement is true or false, they are meaningless
~stated that there are only two types of meaningful statements: synthetic and analytic
Emotivism
(C.L. Stevenson 1908-1979))
~ethical statements are attitudes based on beliefs about the world
~ethical statements are attempts to influence the views of others
~ethical statements are subjective opinions
~people disagree strongly about morality because their ideas are based on fundamental social, political or religious beliefs
~moral statements are the result of subjective opinions, views or beliefs
Strengths of emotivism
~accepts the scientific approach to language- language has to be empirically verified
~allows complex high-level discussion of moral statements
~stresses the importance of each individual’s moral feelings but having an emotion that something is wrong does not mean that others should agree
Criticisms of emotivism
~we know by intuition what is right and wrong and so ethical statements are meaningful
~reducing ethics to the level of emotion makes it impossible to claim that acts such as rape and torture are intrinsically wrong;they become matters of personal taste
~there are similarities in moral codes between societies e.g. ‘murder is wrong’ is not an expression of emotion but ha factual meaning
Prescriptivism
(R.M. Hare 1919-2002)
(non-cognitive)
~ethical statements are expressions of opinion
~ethical statements are universal
~moral language expresses our views and prescribes our views to others
~moral facts are non-provable and so meaningless and non-factual
What is prescriptivism?
~an ethical system that prescribes what a person should do; just like the doctors prescription
~adds an appealing dimensions to the idea that ethical statements are expressions of opinion by saying that they also give directions to how we ought to act
~does not make morality universal as we have the freedom to choose alternatives if we wish
