Meta-Ethics

Question 1

what is meta-ethics?

Answer 1

two questions:
-what is goodness?
-how do we learn/know something is good?

Question 2

Who is G.E Moore?

Answer 2

devised common sense philosophy in the 20th century to return from the confusing and difficult British philosophy of the 19th century such as hegelianism.

Question 3

Intuitionalism?

Answer 3

-how do we learn/know something is good?
goodness exists independently from us; it is a simple notion and, therefore cannot be defined.

Question 4

complex notion?

Answer 4

something that can be broken down into different qualities and defined eg. triangle: 3-sided shape

Question 5

simple notion?

Answer 5

a notion that cannot be broken down into different qualities and defined
e.g. yellow: a colour and what???

Question 6

G.E Moore’s argument from apparent indefinability

Answer 6

if it is hard for us to find a definition of the word ‘good’, then good must be a simple notion like yellow which is also hard to define as it cannot be broken down further than a color which is an insufficient definition and therefore a simple notion. likewise, goodness can’t be defined and therefore also is a simple notion

Question 7

Moore’s analogy of yellow:

Answer 7

if it is hard for us to find a definition of the word ‘good’, then good must be a simple notion like yellow which is also hard to define as it cannot be broken down further than a color which is an insufficient definition and therefore a simple notion. likewise, goodness can’t be defined and therefore also is a simple notion

Question 8

immediate knowledge/ self-evident knowledge?

Answer 8

we don’t work it out, we just know it when we are confronted by it.

Question 9

H.A Prichard?

Answer 9

who? common sense philosopher that criticised and worked on Kant
what? he thinks that we intuit good, like Moore, but also thinks we can intuit the feeling or motivation to act morally- ‘obligation’

Question 10

intuitionism? modus penuns

Answer 10

1) it is obvious when something is good or not.
This is plausible because we can immediately identify when something is good or not when confronted with it. For example, we immediately know saving someone from a burning building is good, and the holocaust is bad.
2) it is often obvious when something is good or not, then goodness is known immediately. This is plausible because of Moore’s analogy of yellow; it is often obvious to us when something is yellow or not, meaning that yellowness is known immediately. Likewise, it is often obvious to us when something is good or not because goodness is known immediately.
3) so goodness is known immediately.

Question 11

emotivism

Answer 11

aka the ‘boo/hoorah theory’
says that calling something good or bad is just saying ‘boo’ or ‘hoorah’ ; reactionaries

Question 12

why is emotivism called the boo/hoorah theory?

Answer 12

it is called that by people who don’t like it. this is because the emotivist essentially believes that when someone says for example that murder is wrong they are saying ‘boo’ murder.

Question 13

what is goodness to the emotivist?

Answer 13

the emotivist doesn’t believe goodness is anything; it is essentially asking what is hoorahness.
‘good’ is a way of expressing hoorahness.

Question 14

How do we know goodness to the emotivist?

Answer 14

we dont know it. there is no objective ‘good or bad’

Question 15

Hume (emotivism)?

Answer 15

who? sceptic who believes that the cause of the effect is not an observable thing
and an empiricist
why? Hume thinks descriptive beliefs are insufficient to motivate us to do anything. For example, the belief that eating breakfast isn’t enough to motivate us is the hunger (desire) that makes us act on our beliefs.

Who and what? Because Hume is an empiricist and good is not an observable experience, it means he is sceptical about whether it exists or not, but rather ‘this is good or bad’ is an expression of approval or disapproval

Question 16

Hume on motivation (argument)

Answer 16

1)The thought ‘this is good’ motivates us to act.
{example: giving to charity}
objections: the thought ‘this is good’ doesn’t motivate us could be a desire to gain approval or some ulterior personal gain desire.
2)If the thought, ‘this is good’ motivates us, it can’t be a belief- it must be a desire.
This is plausible because Hume thinks a descriptive belief alone isn’t enough to motivate us– we also need an emotion/feeling/desire to go with it. For example, a person might not
be motivated merely by the thought that eating breakfast is healthy – they would also need to feel hungry (or the desire to be healthy). Likewise, ‘this is good’, if it motivates someone, must be a feeling, not a mere belief.
3)So, the thought, ‘this is good’ can’t be a belief, it must be a desire.

Question 17

H.A Prichard objection to Hume

Answer 17

believes that we intuit good and we also intuit the motivation to act morally or the feeling of being obliged to act morally.

Question 18

AJ Ayer:emotivist

Answer 18

who? concerned with the philosophy of language, truth and logic (if we look at the use of language closely, all philosophical problems will be solved)

what? logical positivist; philosophy has made no progress for thousands of years. this is because it is meaningless; it doesn’t truly or falsely describe anything about the world.

Question 19

verification principle

Answer 19

Verification principle:

language is only literally meaningful if it fits into one of the
following criteria:

an analytic statement

it is not analytic, but we know how to verify it empirically

Question 20

What does Ayer think about goodness?

Answer 20

Ayer thinks that goodness is meaningless as it is not an analytical statement, and there isn’t a method to empirically verify it.

Question 21

AJ Ayer argument

Answer 21

1) the verification principle is true. this is Ayers basic assumption

2)if the verification principle is true, then moral statements are meaningless (so moral statements are meaningless)

3)if moral statements are meaningless, then people must use them to express emotion

4) So, people must use moral statements to express emotion.

Question 22

what does naturalism say?

Answer 22

naturalism says that goodness is a complex property that can be discovered through science.

Question 23

what is hedonic naturalism?

Answer 23

goodness means maximal utility (most pleasure least pain)
eg) translating ‘Stealing from the shop is bad’ to ‘stealing from the shop does not create maximal utility’

Question 24

what is the argument from science?

Answer 24

contempary philosophers, impressed by the power of science, believe that goodness, like every other property to there can be discovered by science. the argument for this view follows;
1)everything can be known by science. this is plausible because it has been thus far. for example, while previously it was unexplainable why things fall, science explains that this is due to gravity.
2)if everything can be explained by science, then moral properties can be known by science. this is
3)So, moral properties can be known by science.

Question 25

Hume:

Answer 25

empiricist and skepticist. (does not believe case of effect is observable)
goodness is not a thing in itself, it is the expression of approval or disapproval.
descriptive belief are not enough to motivate us to act, we need a desire to go along with it.

Question 26

Hume argument

Answer 26

1) the thought ‘this is good’ motivates us to act.
2) if the thought ‘this is good’ motivates us to act, then it must not be mere belief, and must express a desire.
3) So, the thought ‘this is good’ can’t be a belief, it must express a desire.
breakfast/ hunger analogy

Question 27

GE Moore’s open-question argument

Answer 27

1) the question ‘I know it helps me reach eudaimonia, but is it morally good’ is an open question
2) the question ‘I know it helps me reach eudaimonia, but is it morally good’ is an open question, then ‘helps me reach eudaimonia’ can’t mean the same as ‘morally good’.
3) SO: ‘helps me reach eudaimonia’ can’t mean the same as ‘morally good’.

Question 28

JL Mackie (who and what)

Answer 28

JL Mackie is an atheist philosopher who believed there is no objective right or wrong as the one that should set the precedent for this is God. however, due to the problem of evil it’s logical to assume that God doesn’t exist as well as right and wrong so people absorb the views of society.

Question 29

JL Mackie: argument

Answer 29

1) Different cultures think differently about what is good.

2) if different cultures think different things about what is good, then people’s views of goodness must be a reflection of their social norms, not a reflection of an objective reality.

3) People’s view of goodness must be a reflection of their social norms, not a reflection of objective reality.