Meta-Ethics Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Define meta-ethics.

A

Looks into the language of ethics and uses it to ask how seriously we should take ethical approaches. (meta = out/beyond)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the main questions of meta-ethics?

A

1) What does the word “good” mean and how do we know?
2) What is the purpose of moral statements?
3) Does objective moral truth exist?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Provide examples of moral terms and moral statements and objective moral truth.

A
  • Moral terms: good, bad, right, should, ought
  • Moral statements: murder is wrong
  • Objective moral truth: murder is actually wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism? [Purpose of Moral Statements]

A
  • Cognitivism: moral statements contain facts, so are true or false (e.g., “murder is wrong”) [propositions]
  • Non-cognitivism: moral statements contain no facts, so are neither true nor false [doesn’t have meaning]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define emotivism

A

The theory that the purpose of moral statements is to express emotion (not communicate facts) [“boo-hurrah” theory]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Provide some strengths for cognitivism.

A
  • What sounds like a proposition probably is!
  • Emotivism in discourse is due to search for facts or truth
  • Uses arguments for objectivism - if there are facts, the statements communicate them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Provide some strengths for non-cognitivism.

A
  • Moderate emotivism allows for more than just emotion in statements (e.g., anti-Holocaust statements are more than feelings, they express emotion)
  • Avoids need to define “good”
  • Moral discourse is often emotional!
  • Verificationism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Provide some weaknesses for non-cognitivism.

A
  • Verification principle itself is meaningless
  • Not all statements are necessarily emotional
  • Doesn’t make sense if you replace terms (do what is “hurrah” instead of “good)
  • Simplest method doesn’t always lead to truth
  • You cannot criticise any action (homophobia + racism)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the difference between objectivism/absolutism and relativism/subjectivism? [Moral Truth]

A
  • Objectivism: there is an independent, objective moral truth and moral statements describe these [i.e. everything is absolute]
  • Subjectivism: there is no objective moral truth
  • Relativism: moral truths depend upon culture, time, place, etc, that is never ABSOLUTE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Provide some supporting claims for objectivism and absiolutism.

A
  • Plato and cave allegory ~ dualism (truth exists in realm of forms(
  • Allows criticism of immorality
  • Kant’s categorical imperative + NML
  • UN ~ accessible for everyone (right to education)
  • Global laws prohibiting murder, theft
  • Ross ~ prima facie duties that are obvious
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Provide some supporting claims for relativism and subjectivism.

A
  • Sheer variety of moral views
  • Moral views change
  • Logical positivism ~ no empirical evidence, supports materialist view of the world)
  • Fletcher’s situation ethics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Provide some views against relativism and subjectivism.

A
  • Cannot criticise other’s views
  • James Rachels ~ relativist make tolerance as an absolute rule
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the difference between naturalism and non-naturalism? [what is good and how do we know?]

A
  • Naturalism: the word “good” is a moral term, can only be defined in non-moral for “natural” terms
  • Non-naturalism: the word “good” cannot be defined, but known in another way
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Provide some supporting claims for naturalism.

A
  • Bentham’s utilitarianism
  • Fletcher’s situation ethics
  • Aquinas’ natural moral law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Provide some supporting claims for non-naturalism.

A
  • Moore ~ not fallacy, it is an open question instead
  • Hume ~ Is-Ought, Hume’s fork and fact value distinction
  • Ross ~ intuitionism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Define these other key terms:
- Naturalistic fallacy
- Intuitionism
- Prescriptivism
- Correspondence Theory
- Coherence Theory
- Bivalence
- Constructivism

A
  • Naturalistic fallacy: the error of defining “good” in non-moral terms
  • Intuitionism: we know what “good” means intuitively
  • Prescriptivism: the purpose of moral statements is to instruct or command
  • Correspondence Theory: statement is true if propositions made correctly correspond
  • Coherence Theory: statement is true if it fits with other statements
  • Bivalence: either true or false, difficult to be proved easily
  • Constructionism: truth depends on evidence