Meta-ethics

Question 1

What is meta ethics

Answer 1

• its the discussion about the nature of ethical statements and whether or not these are useful and valid
• it analyses ethical language and seeks to understand the meaning of moral judgements

key words:
- cognitive statements: a statement that is subject to being true or false (“the cat is asleep on the chair”)
- non-cognitive statements: a statement that is not subject to truth or falsity (“ouch!”)
- analytic statements: statements that are true by definition (“2+2=4”)
- synthetic statements: statements in which true value can only be determined by relying upon observation and experience (“all cats are cute”)

• both analytic and synthetic statements are cognitive

Question 2

Naturalism (cognitive)

Answer 2

• the belief that all things are knowable using empirical evidence
• “good” is something that can be defined and had real existence
• you can see what ‘is’ happening and decide what you ‘ought’ to do
• F.H Bradley believed moral perspective was determined from self realisation and from observing one’s position in society
• to be a good person, we must know our station and its duties, you have a duty to perform the function of that station
• Hume believed we cannot move from an objective factual statement to a subjective moral one
• e.g. forensics can find out who did a murder, but not the wrongness of the murder
• said there are two kinds of truth claims: priori & posteriori
• Phillipa foot believed you can measure the goodness of something based on facts
• said people are like plants, looking at the leaves tells you if the roots are good

Question 3

Intuitionism (cognitive)

Answer 3

• moral truths are known and understood through intuition
• good cannot be described, it is used to describe an action or object
• Prima Facie duties: these duties are primary ones, that we should attend to first
• G.E. Moore thought good cannot be broken down anymore then it is (“if i am asked what is good? My answer is simply good is good, and thats the end of the matter”)
• it exists as a brute fact of the universe
• the naturalistic fallacy states what we “ought” to do cannot be based in the facts of what “is”, it’s logically impossible to derive an ought from an is
• all attempts to define good fails because of the naturalistic fallacy
• he didnt believe that the properties of goodness could be natural processes, he rejects naturalism as it tries to reduce moral terms and properties to empirical evidence when Moore believes they are more than that
• H.A. Pritchard claimed it was not only goodness, but the idea of obligation is also indefinable
• we always know when we ‘ought’ to do a particular act
• some people have a more developed intuition than others
• W.D Ross agreed that good and obligation are undefinable
• moral obligations should be followed unless a greater one exists
• a set of basic moral principles are apparent Prima Facie
• choosing which Prima Facie obligation prevails is not an easy task

Question 4

Emotivism (non-cognitive)

Answer 4

• it will not tell you how to lead a moral life, but simply how to understand moral statements
• there is no ethical knowledge because ethical judgments are not the kind of statements that can be true or false
• A.J. Ayers said when we talk about “good” or “bad”, we are simply expressing emotional states of disapproval, any other interpretation of ethical statements are meaningless
• Verification principle: statements are only meaningful if they can be verified by the senses or is a tautology (true by definition)
• two types of meaningful statements:
  1) analytic statements: statements true by definition
  2) synthetic statements: statements that can be true or false tested using empirical evidence
• so ethical statements are ultimately meaningless
• C.L. Stevenson thought making a moral statement is trying to influence people’s attitudes
• ethical statements can be based on emotion, but with justification

Question 5

Prescriptivism (non-cognitive)

Answer 5

• R.M Hare was keen on idea of universalisability
• meaning of ethical language is to prescribe what ‘ought’ to be done and such prescriptions are moral as they are universal
• ethical statements are prescriptive, meaning they do not state facts and aren’t true or false, but do express our will and wishes
• argued when we use “good” we do so in relation to a set of standards, means the word good always has a descriptive meaning (“an is”)
• when used in a moral sense, it also has a prescriptive meaning (“an ought”)