Meta Ethics Flashcards
what do we mean by meta ethics ?
we look at the language used to express morality , do words like good exist ? from the Greek word meta meaning above and beyond
normative ethics
theories of ethics that give advice on how we ought to behave e.g Kantian ethics
Absolutism
morals are fixed , unchanging and everyone should follow e.g Natural law
Relativism
moral truths are not fixed and not absolute ; what is right changes according to the individual , situation , culture , time , place e.g Situation ethics
Cognitivist
. objective moral truths exist
. moral statement are factual
.moral words exist such as good
.moral concepts can be proven
. naturalism
. Intutionism
Non - cognitivist
. opinion can not be logically tested
. mind dependent
.subjective
.words like good do not exist
. Emotivists
. Prescriptivists
Naturalism
moral values can be determined in terms of some natural property in the world . 2 types hedonistic and theological
Aquinas
we can use our reason and our powers of observation to access facts about what is moral and immoral .. believed goodness came from the will of God
F. H Bradley
ethics can be explained by concrete absolute reality we observe , our place in society directs what we should do and your moral duties ; duty is universal
Bentham and Mill
we can discover good / bad from whether it causes or removes pleasure
Phillipa foot
we can observe moral absolutes e.g through how a person acts in consideration of these virtues
Naturalistic fallacy
G. E Moore - error of reducing goodness to a property found in nature e,g pleasure
Open question argument
if goodness = pleasure we would not be able to ask if pleasure is good … pleasure is not always good so it cant be the defintion of good .
but bachelors = unmaaried men is a closed question it has a definitve answer
Hume / is - ought gap
when we start with a fact we infer something moral from it this is wrong we can only infer something moral from a moral statement
Naturalism is right to say moral values are a feature of the world 1
mill argues that we are able to know what is good and desirable .. people want hapiness this shows happiness is a good thing
Naturalism is right to say moral values are a feature of the world 2
agreement on moral values throughout the world
Naturalism is right to say moral values are a feature of the world 3
reducing morality to opinion reduces the signifcance of ethical debates
Naturalism is wrong to say moral values are a feature of the world 1
naturalistic fallacy and open question argument
Naturalism is wrong to say moral values are a feature of the world 2
forms of naturalism like aquinas natural law makes the assumption that there us telos but many disagree - if there isnt a definitve purpose there cant be definitve ideas on goodness
Intuitionism
Believes that morality is intuitve
you can not define words like good we simply know bcs our intuition tells us it is
intuitionism enables people to know basic moral truths to inform their ethical decsions not all moral decsions are reacted by relying on intuition,
G.E MOORE
Good can not be equated with something else as it cant be defined .. it is like the colour yellow we know what yellow is but we cant describe it .we know good when we see example of it by intuition and we know something is right or wrong by looking at the consequences ( telelogical)
W.D ross
student of pritchard
accepts that duties conflict and change from one culture to another so moral principles are not absolute , But we have prima facie duties these are absolute and the most important ,
In making moral decisons our intuition decided our prima facie duties .accepts that moral duties do conflict. he tries to tackle the issue of conflicting duties by putting forward a series of duties which are most important. He called these ‘first sight’ duties, or “prima facie duties”
Prima facie duties
Promise keeping
repairing harm done
gratitude
justice
benficence
self improvement
non-malifcence
H.A pritchard
leading UK moral philospher in the 1920s and 30s
There is a gap between the good thing and the idea of what thing i have a duty to bring about for P duty is beyond the good thing to do , working out right or wrong is our duty which we use intuition to work out .H. A. Pritchard argued that working out what is right and wrong is our duty, which we use intuition to work out. the concept of duty here sounds more deontological than Moore’s teleological perspective.
P does not explain how we choose or the fact different ppl have different intuitions he say when ppl disagree moral thinking has not been fully developed
Intuitionism weakness 1
intutionism seems to assume an odd faculty of the mind aside from normal perception. knowledge of objects is from sense experience in a physical means. moore is claiming we are able to recognise on-natural qualities. how can we do this? how do we know we are not just making it up? you may argue that this is an a priori perception.
Intuitionism weakness 2
if we simply know the good by process of intuition, how can we discuss our views? if good is intuitive, how is it possible to judge that your view is better or worse than mine? if you say the eiffel tower is in italy, there is a factual dispute with an outside criterion to judge rightness or wrongness. there is no resolution to intuitive rights or wrongs.
Intuitionism weakness 3
what does the concept of a non-natural property even mean? it is not detectable by senses, so how is it recognised or described, since we lack non-sensory language?
Intuitionism weakness 4
virtue ethicist MacIntyre simply said that “The word intuition is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong.
Intuitionism weakness 5
people’s intuitions will differ
most people see morality as subjective
intuitions come from different roots – intuition may be the tip of an iceberg, but beneath the water there may lie a greater sense of cultural conditioning
emotivism
this is the theory, promoted mainly by logical positivists, that ethical statements simply reveal emotions, although they are meaningless in themselves. it has been criticised by Mel thompson as the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory. emotivism is a non-cognitive meta-ethical theory which states quite simply that ethical language are only used in expressions of feeling. when we say ‘murder is wrong’, we’re not saying that it is immoral, we’re saying that we don’t like the idea. when we use ethical language we are not judging morality or making normative truth claims – we are simply expressing emotion.
