Meta-Ethics Flashcards
what is meta-ethics?
two questions:
-what is goodness?
-how do we learn/know something is good?
Who is G.E Moore?
devised common sense philosophy in the 20th century to return from the confusing and difficult British philosophy of the 19th century such as hegelianism.
Intuitionalism?
-how do we learn/know something is good?
goodness exists independently from us; it is a simple notion and, therefore cannot be defined.
complex notion?
something that can be broken down into different qualities and defined eg. triangle: 3-sided shape
simple notion?
a notion that cannot be broken down into different qualities and defined
e.g. yellow: a colour and what???
G.E Moore’s argument from apparent indefinability
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
Moore’s analogy of yellow:
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
immediate knowledge/ self-evident knowledge?
we don’t work it out, we just know it when we are confronted by it.
H.A Prichard?
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’
intuitionism? modus penuns
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.
emotivism
aka the ‘boo/hoorah theory’
says that calling something good or bad is just saying ‘boo’ or ‘hoorah’ ; reactionaries
why is emotivism called the boo/hoorah theory?
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.
what is goodness to the emotivist?
the emotivist doesn’t believe goodness is anything; it is essentially asking what is hoorahness.
‘good’ is a way of expressing hoorahness.
How do we know goodness to the emotivist?
we dont know it. there is no objective ‘good or bad’
Hume (emotivism)?
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
Hume on motivation (argument)
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.
H.A Prichard objection to Hume
believes that we intuit good and we also intuit the motivation to act morally or the feeling of being obliged to act morally.
AJ Ayer:emotivist
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.
verification principle
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
What does Ayer think about goodness?
Ayer thinks that goodness is meaningless as it is not an analytical statement, and there isn’t a method to empirically verify it.
AJ Ayer argument
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.
what does naturalism say?
naturalism says that goodness is a complex property that can be discovered through science.
what is hedonic naturalism?
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’
what is the argument from science?
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.
