Meta ethics Flashcards
What does cognitivism mean?
Ethical statements refer to a mind-independent reality so are truth apt.
What does non-cognitivism mean?
Ethical statements do not make claims about a mind-independent reality so are not truth apt.
What does realism mean?
Ethical terms are objective facts, they are mind-independent.
What is moral anti-realism?
There are no objective moral facts and moral terms do not exist in the real world.
What is ethical naturalism? + Examples
Ethical language makes truth apt claims and features of the natural world as ethical term are natural properties.
Examples - Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics
What are issues with ethical naturalism?
Naturalistic fallacy - G.E.Moore
Is-Ought Gap - Hume
Open Question Argument - G.E.Moore
What theory does Moore propose in response to the Open Question Argument?
Intuitionism
What are issues with moral realism?
Hume’s Fork
Ayer’s Verification Principle
Moral judgements are not beliefs
Is-Ought Gap - Hume
Mackie - Argument from Queerness and Argument from Relativity.
Explain Mackie’s Error Theory?
P1 - there are no objective moral statements/values
P2 - Ethical language claims that moral statements are objective
C1 - When we use ethical language we are in error.
Explain Ayer’s emotivism - Boo/Hurrah theory ?
P1 - Moral statements/values are meaningless - verification principle
C - Moral statements are expressions of our feelings towards an action, stealing is bad = boo stealing
Explain Hare’s Prescriptivism
P1 - There are no objective moral statements/values
P2 - Moral statements do not make objective claims, as good can have no definition.
C1 - Moral statements are not descriptive about something, they express something.
P3 - Moral statements tell others how they ought to act.
C2 - Moral statements cannot simply be expressions of feelings.
C3 - When we express a moral statement we are issuing a command/prescription - recommending a course of action.
What are the criticisms of the Boo/Hurrah?
If a moral argument is only good because it has converted someone to our feelings about it, moral arguments are on par with rhetoric.
Often we try to give advice as a dispassionate spectator, does emotivism mean that this is impossible?
What is the criticism of Hare’s Prescriptivism?
If moral statements are our personal prescriptions, what standard should we judge them against? Hare says that a moral imperative is universalisable so trivial and fanatical ones would also count e.g. wear yellow socks on Tuesdays. Hoss pointed out that if you said that ‘the murder of millions of Jews was right and if I were Jewish I should be killed too’ you would have made a universalisable statement which is not morally good.
What are criticisms of moral anti-realism?
Does moral anti-realism account for how we use moral language? Moral anti-realist theories limit ethical language to expressions of emotions or prescriptions but Warnock says we also use it to confess and resolve - activities which need objective values.
Problems with accounting for moral progress? If there is no objective moral codes, then can we be more moral because we don’t believe in slavery?
Does anti-realism become moral nihlism (a rejection of morality and it’s values).
