Meta Ethics 2 Flashcards
What is prescriptivism a type of and who
moral non-cognitivism and anti realism
no moral facts or intention of one
created by Hare
what is prescriptivism ideology
when people make moral claims they are trying to force their preferences onto other people
Don’t believe in any objective morality, so can’t agree that moral claims are realist
what is an example of prescriptivism
sexism is wrong
I really would prefer that u would’nt be sexist
what is Hume
an anti realist
what is Hume’s is-ought gap
can’t draw a link between facts and values
belong in different conversations, not appropriate to base morality on natural facts
can’t relate natural facts to moral claims, just something we ought to do
Just because something is a fact, doesn’t make the moral conclusion a fact, we just ought to
example of Hume’s is-ought gap
P: animals are sentient and feel pain (fact, is)
C: therefor we should not eat them (value, ought)
what is Hume’s is-ought gap a criticism of and why
ethical naturalism
how it tries to make a link between nature; facts and ethical values
What is emotivism a type of
non-cognitivism and anti-realism
What did Hume think in term’s of emotivism
humans don’t engage in moral reasoning to decide what to do
but justify the emotions they feel about certain actions
Hume’s example of a seed (emotivism)
why don’t humans think it’s immoral when a sapling that grows from a seed over takes its parent and blocks it from sunlight?
Isn’t that the height of ingratitude?
Isn’t it ‘immoral’?
Hume’s example of animals (emotivism)
why don’t humans think it’s immoral when animals engage in incest?
Immoral for humans, why not for animals?
why do we condone these examples - Hume
we don’t condemn these things as immoral in nature because they have no emotional impact on us
what do Hume’s examples therefore argue
therefore arguing morality is based on emotion, not factual
if we are emotionally hurt by something it’s immoral
s statements about morality put forward by hume
- there are no moral truths in the world
- all ethical statements are expressions of emotion
- values cannot be logically derived from fast (is ought gap)
what are ethical statement to hume
Ethical statements are merely statements of our emotional responses to certain things
2 weaknesses of emotivism
isn’t it the other way round? are we just upset by immoral things?
the examples are not natural for humans
what group took up Hume’s idea of emotivism
Logical positivists
what is the view of logical positivism and what is this known as
something can only be known to be true if it can be proved empirically
verification principle
what does it mean for something to be proved empirically
through physical observation and evidence
what makes a statement meaningful
if it can be checked empirically/using our senses, and meaningless if not
Ayer
the most famous of the logical positivists
what’s Ayer’s main book and what’s it about
language truth and logic
argues against intuition/ethical non-naturalism (Moore)
What does Ayer think about moral statements and what’s his theory
no factual content, only expression of ethical disproval ‘emotional ejaculations’
Boo Hurrah Theory
Ayer’s quote about stealing money
“stealing money is wrong… expresses no proposition which is true or false”
Who are the thinkers of the emotivist approach
Hume, Ayer, Stevenson
what does Strevenson do
split moral reasoning into 2 different phases: first and second pattern analysis
Strevenson’s phase 1 of moral reasoning
first pattern analysis
ethical statements have two functions: emotivism and prescriptivism - express emotion and encouraging a similar action
purpose is to alert the listener of consequences and therefore give support in favour of an action
What is Strevenson’s phase 2 of moral reasoning
second pattern analysis
ethical action is analysed as a more general rule
what is an example of Strevenson’s 2 phase emotivism
Surface level: murder is wrong
first pattern analysis: murder causes grief
second pattern analysis: I disapprove of things that cause grief
weakness of emotivism about disagreeing and dispute
no one can ever disagree, no facts to disagree with
no purpose in dispute because no truth can be established
there’s still meaning to debate without facts
weakness of emotivism about disapproval and dispute
emotivism teaches disapproval is the only emotional response and not in a factual way, no proper reason
moral statement could be deemed as factual because it upsets people
weakness of emotivism about delusion
emotivism tells cognitivists they are deluded, not deluded for people to believe their own claims to be factual and meaningful
not just baseless opinions
weakness of emotivism about truth
moral uncertainty implies a truth
if morality was simply an expression of approval or disapproval, there wouldn’t be any uncertainty about moral actions
people debate about using rational faculties
