Meta ethics Flashcards
What is the difference between cognitivists and non-cognitivists
Cognitivists- Believe that morals can be derived from experience or intuition meaning they can be subjectivly true or false.
Non-C: Believe that ethical statements cannot be derived from the senses so are not open to being true or false.
Examples of cognitivist theories
Ethical naturalism
Intuitionalism
Example of a non-cognitivist theory
Emotivism
What is ethical naturalism
Morality is observable and provable
Therefore good and bad are FACTS of nature (like ice melting in hot condictions)
So good and bad have fixed definitions.
What was F.H Bradley’s take on ethical naturalism
Sociological naturalism- Bradley believed that ‘good’ meant finding ones place in society and fullfilling ones duty. We can observe people’s ‘goodness’ through their actions ad fullfillment of their duty.
What is a critique of Bradley’s sociological naturalism?
Hume and his natualisic fallacy. Hume aruged that it is illogical to derive an ‘ought’ from and ‘is’. From example in responce to Bradley he would say that it is illogical to say ‘we ought to help our community because it is our duty…therefre helping our family is good’. This put into toher contexts does not work so it should not work in all contexts.
What is intuitionism
The idea that we know things like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ intuitively. It is not something we see around us or experience we just know it.
Who developed intuitionalism and what did he say about it?
G.E. Moore- argued that we cannot break terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ into other definitions/words like we can with say a horse. They are simple ideas. One is just aware of these things intuitively.
‘Everything is what it is, not another thing’
Who added to Moore’s intuitionalism?
W.D. Ross and his prima facie duties. HE suggested that we know what these duties are and it is good to follow our own duties.
What is a critique of intuitionism
‘There can be no way of determining the validity of an ethical statement’ (AJ Ayer)
Saying ‘we just know’ is not a sucessful way to understand how we know what morality is. Everyone has a different understanding of the world experience. So if that is so how just everyone ‘just know’ morals from other feelings.
What is emotivism
The argument that ethical statements are simply expressions of feelings and emotions. If I say murder is bad the I am merley saying I feel murder is bad.
What did AJ Ayer say about emotivism
HE was a non-cognitivist who believed that statements had to be verifiable for them to be meaningful. He belived that only synthetic and analytical statements are facts as they can be verified. Moral judgements cannot be verified as to him they are expressions of feelings so are NOT factual.
What was Ayer’s theory also named?
The ‘Boo-Hurrah’ theory.
This is because when we are saying a moral statement like ‘murder is wrong’ we are simply saying ‘boo to murder’.
Why is AJ Ayer’s emotivism bad?
-Doesnt consider that it may be wrong to dissaporve of something just because of a feeling.
-Takes away from the morality of the situation (doesnt consider the people involved). Say if I said Genocide is bad, emotivism suggests that I am just expressing a feeling. What about the people involved? Is them loosing their lives just equated to my feelings? How can that stop anything.
-Unlike intuitionalism, Ayer doesnt tell us what emtiotions we are talking about. What about the feelings that contradict what we think, the conflicted emotions we have?
What did C.L. Stevenson develop about Ayer’s emotivism?
Suggested that moral statements have more debth than emotional outbursts. They are reflections of beliefs and experiences people have had. They aim to infuence others, not just an expression of a feeling.
