Meta ethics Flashcards
What is a cognitive statement?
Moral language can be shown to be true or false.
What is a non-cognitive statement?
Moral statements cannot be shown to be true or false.
What is a realist?
Argues that moral truths actually exist and are real features in the world.
What is an anti-realist?
Claim that there are no real truths in the world.
What is naturalism?
Moral truths can be observed and discovered empirically.
Realist and cognitive.
What is intuitionism?
Moral truths do exist but cannot be seen in the same way as other truths.
We just know about them through intuition.
Realist and cognitive.
What is emotivism?
Moral truths do not exist.
When we make a moral statement we are simply expressing our opinions and feelings.
Anti-realist and non-cognitive.
What two claims do ethical naturalists make?
Moral judgments can be true and false and make knowledge claims.
Moral facts are identifiable with natural properties in the world.
Which two ethical theories are ethically naturalist and why?
Natural law - the eternal law is seen in nature, concluded through the primary precepts.
Utilitarianism - ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure…’
What does F.H Bradley argue?
Naturalist
We can observe what is good from one’s position in society, analyzing our functions and fulfilling our duties.
Our practical reasoning finds satisfaction in developing a mature self that lives up to these ideals.
‘…our function as an organ in the social organism’
What does Phillipa Foot argue?
Naturalist
There are virtues, characteristics or behaviors that aim at some good.
We can observe these virtues by looking at the way in which someone acts, for example, a person who values honesty will act in an honest way.
Moral evil is ‘a kind of natural defect’.
What is Phillipa Foot’s argument about the oak tree?
An oak tree is good so far as it has the traits to allow it is flourish, this also applies to humans.
Links the natural world to human morality.
Why does J.L Mackie feel that moral truths are not always absolute?
Our society has placed rules upon us.
Society has therefore accepted what is right and wrong - not necessarily because something makes it or that it is intrinsically right or wrong.
It is relative because these notions change overtime.
What is G.E Moore’s objection to naturalism?
Moral terms are simple concepts.
The identification of the moral with the natural fails the open question argument (equating of the property of goodness with some non-moral property).
For example, there is no clear answer as to whether keeping promises is good.
What is the naturalistic fallacy?
The mistake of attempting to reduce the moral property to the natural property.
Quote on F.H Bradley’s view on naturalism?
‘Good, like truth and beauty, is concrete. It is not an abstraction, or a rootless generality’.
Quote for G.E Moore’s rejection of naturalism?
‘Naturalistic ethics is entirely unconvincing and should be given up’.
Quote for Hume’s ‘Is/Ought’ theory?
‘You can’t get an ought from an is’.
Who says that ‘reason is the slave of the passions’?
Hume.
According to Moore, when can we define something?
When it leaves us with no questions.
Definitions are only possible when the notion is something complex.
What did Moore believe that we could not define?
Simple objects.
For example, good, as we intuitively know what it is - it cannot be defined as we would always ask questions.
What does Moore say in Principia Ethics to show we cannot define simple things?
‘everything is what it is and not another thing’
Why did Moore reject utilitarian’s?
Utilitarian’s often argued that good could be defined, measured, quantified and qualified.
What are H.A Pritchard’s beliefs on intuitionalism?
He separates ‘good’ and ‘duty’.
Reason collects the facts whereas intuition determines the course to follow.
Personal introspection accesses a standard sense of moral law and acts on it.
Why is H.A Pritchard successful in what he is says about reason and intuition?
This explains why different people have different levels of moral intuition, hence why we make different decisions.
What are W.D Ross’s beliefs on intuitionism?
Principles sometimes conflict meaning there cannot be moral absolutes.
Our intuition identifies our prima facie duties (duties based on our first impressions).
Why is Ross’s approach to intuitionism successful?
Ross solves the problems identified with Kant’s ethic whereby duties can sometimes conflict.
For example, the axe murderer example, Ross would acknowledge that the friend would not tell the murderer where the other friend is.
What is Daniel Kahneman’s criticism of intuitionism?
A gap exists between our intuition and our rational judgements.
Out intuitions are automatic, quick and emotionally charged whereas our reason is slow and conscious.
Intuitions may be mistaken, they are inconsistent and incoherent.
What is Hume’s fork analogy?
Statements are either synthetic or analytic.
Synthetic = need to be proven with experience.
Analytic = true by definition.
What did Ayre believe about moral statements?
Moral statements are neither analytic or synthetic hence they are meaningless.
For example, ‘good’ is neither true by definition of can be empirically verified.
What does Ayre believe about emotivism?
Ethical symbols, e.g ‘good, are simply the person displaying emotion about a fact rather than it portraying any real meaning.
‘I am simply evincing my moral disapproval’ (Ayre, Truth and logic).
What does C.L Stevenson make a difference between?
He makes a distinction between statements about things that we like/dislike and moral statements.
Words can be used descriptively or dynamically (add to something).
What does C.L Stevenson believe about moral statements?
When making moral statements, we are attempting to influence other people’s behavior and attitudes, rather than simply expressing emotion.
Our moral attitudes are based on belies held within a social context.
We can never fully separate our emotive responses so we can never be fully rational (our emotive responses will always try to influence others).
How does Phillipa Foot reject emotivism?
She claims that some thing ARE wrong, this is more than just an expression of how a person feels.
For example, this can be applied to the discussion of concentration camps.
What are strengths of emotivism?
Avoids the naturalistic fallacy.
Once you accept the face value distinction (Just because something is, doesn’t mean it is good), it provides a clear account of moral motivation.
It accounts for why moral disputes and complex and ongoing.
What are weaknesses of emotivism?
It is too quick to give upon moral reasoning.
It leads to ethical egoism ( what you think is right).
Ethical debates and rendered meaningless (Boo-hurrah).
It is an incomplete picture of what moral language is aiming to do.
Some moral debates cannot be reduced down to just feelings.
