Meta Ethics

Question 1

What is Meta Ethics?

Answer 1

The way language is used in ethics: good, bad, right and wrong, What morality itself is.It is about normative Ethics and tries to make sense of the words are used so we understand what we mean when we call something good or bad.

Question 2

What is Normative Ethics?

Answer 2

It gives a guide to moral behavior, in essence what should I do in situation X? E.G Kantian ethics, Two approaches: teleological concerned with ends or consequences and deontological based on moral rules that can’t be broken and the consequences aren’t important, only the act matters.

Question 3

What is first order moral discourse?

Answer 3

When we apply ethical theories, 1 step theory to application, so normative ethics.

Question 4

What is second order moral discourse?

Answer 4

Theory to application to analysis. Takes the next step to analyse the language used, the words we use, the way we use them and the structure of the arguments. As there are many different definitions to the words e.g. the mean of these numbers is.. what did you mean? etc.

Question 5

What do cognitivists believe?

Answer 5

Moral facts or the nature of things can be known objectively. Deals with making statements which can be known to be either true or false e.g. Kant our reason allows us to discover objective moral laws that apply to all,. Gives reason for our ethical beliefs and statements as based on fact, There is something real we are talking about. Ethical naturalism. Non naturalism. Intuitionism.

Question 6

What are cognitvists also?

Answer 6

Realists - concepts have a value in and of themselves independent of the human mind e.g. murder is wrong. They believe moral statements are objective, based on facts, ethical values exist independently. Therefore ethical statements have meaning.

Question 7

What do non cognitivists believe?

Answer 7

Moral statements are subjective. Statements can’t be proved to be true or false and depend on what someone thinks, so are subjective personal opinion, emotion or feeling. Moral values aren’t based on any reality in the world. Emotivism and prescriptivism. Tend to think ethical statements have no meaning.

Question 8

What are non cognitivists also?

Answer 8

Anti realists, concepts are subjective not referring to anything with an intrinsic value.

Question 9

What are a priori analytic statements?

Answer 9

Intrinsically true, just know 1+1=2. Tautologies. Explain relation of ideas. Formal abstract knowledge maths and logic 2+2=4.

Question 10

What are a posteori statements?

Answer 10

Need to verify after experience, either true or false. Empirical statements e.g the children wear hats.

Question 11

What is Hume’s fork?

Answer 11

Statements and logic have to be either a priori or a posterori synthetic statements to be meaningful.

Question 12

What is the naturalistic fallacy (David Hume)?

Answer 12

Linked to a claim made by David Hume, called the is ought gap, meaning you can’t move from a factual statements about the world such as John is killed to an ought statement like you ought not to kill. It is too big a jump ion knowledge with a lack of information.He thought we can’t appeal to facts when drawing ethical conclusions. Ought statements don’t seem to seem to fit into these categories, ethical statements aren’t factual but expressions of opinion, so aren’t meaningful.

Question 13

What did Hume think about cognitivists?

Answer 13

They are commiting a fallacy by trying to place moral statements in the fork and state there are facts when they don’t fit into either category.

Question 14

What is ethical naturalism?

Answer 14

Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same non ethical natural terms used to define scientific knowledge, thus can be verified or falsified. E.g I can verify Henry VIII had 6 wives the same as I can verify he was a bad man. Morals can be based on observation of the world like in science - a posteori ( experience of the 5 senses) Our sense perceptions and logic are the methods for which can be used for a person to discover ethical truths.

Question 15

What are moral truths according to naturalists?

Answer 15

Facts like chemical properties. I can conclude that something is wrong by observation and analysis. When I see the murder of an innocent person I see not only the facts of how the person was killed, who the killer is and what happens, but also the fact ‘it’ is wrong. Wrongness of murder in the universe as the fact plunging a knife into the heart can stop it. Moral facts aren’t views or opinions, likes or dislikes or based on spiritual or intuitive sense. When I observe something is wrong it’s a moral, objective absolute fact of the universe.

Question 16

Who was a famous ethical naturalist and what did he say?

Answer 16

F.H. Bradley said that we discover moral obligation from observing our place in society. Each person became one with ‘good will’ in acceptance of his station and duties e.g. rich help the poor. Universal good will is unquestioned. What was good, bad, right and wrong clearly indentified.

Question 17

What are the types of naturalists?

Answer 17

Theological - Goodness is linked to the will of God seen in nature e.g Aquinas. Hedonistic naturalists - Goodness is a fact of pleasure or happiness. Teleological - Aristotle goodness is linked to a proper goal of human kind eudaimonia, based on facts about shared human nature.

Question 18

What are the strengths of naturalism?

Answer 18

It provides clarity re. good, bad, right, wrong. Supports and universalistic and absolutist approach. Through observation and analysis of the evidence people conclude what would be good, bad, right, wrong for society e.g. genetic engineering. MacIntyre shows terms like good, bad, right wrong fit into the general telos based approach to morality thus are meaningful. He is a bad doctor= he doesn’t achieve his telos of healing and helping.

Question 19

What are the weaknesses of naturalism?

Answer 19

G.E. Moore to claim that moral and ethical statements can be verified or falsified using evidence is to commit the naturalistic fallacy, based on is ought discontinuation form Hume.
Naturalistic fallacy Hume.
Right and wrong may be subjective relying on own interpretation.
Do ethical/moral situations have evidence?
Even if it might have evidence to support that it is right euthanasia it may still break the law and be wrong.

Question 20

What are the 3 main teachings of intuitionism (cognitivism)?

Answer 20

There are real objective truths that are independent of human beings. These fundamental truths can’t be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything other than moral truths. Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.

Question 21

Who gave up with inuitionism and what book did he outline his ideas in?

Answer 21

G.E. Moore in Principia Ethica taking on the common naturalistic ideas in moral philosophy.

Question 22

What were his main ideas?

Answer 22

” We know what yellow is and can recognize it wherever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but we cannot actually define it.” Good is indefinable. There are objective moral truths. The basic moral truths are self evident to the mature mind. Ethical language can’t be broken down or defined by reference to anything except moral truths.

Question 23

What did Moore think about ethical language?

Answer 23

It is based on facts not emotion and is reliable and meaningful and independent of us.

Question 24

What is good according to Moore?

Answer 24

He concluded that “ good is good and that is the end of the matter” it is an “indefinable” and “simple” quality, good and ethical language is beyond my mind and logic and can’t be defined.

Question 25

What example did he use to distinguish between ethical and normal language?

Answer 25

He compared yellow and a horse, there are complex ideas like a horse that can be broken down into parts and explained fro example it canters. He thought that there were simple ideas like yellow, comparable to ethical language as we know what yellow is, but we can’t categorize it. We know what ethical; language and good are without needing a definition, good is self evident truth like a maths equation.

Question 26

What do we have in our minds when we talk of things that ‘ought to exist’?

Answer 26

E,g, intrinsically good peace, we have a notion of good in our mind and know its qualities, we just know the qualities of good and the greatest good. Ethical language is objective not just emotions.

Question 27

What are the strengths of this theory?

Answer 27

We can identify a moral sense in the same way we may identify an aesthetic sense in art or literature.
It is plausible as it may not be possible to come up with a plausible definition for good, good innate.
It explains our sense of duty and moral sense, widespread agreement we do have feelings of moral duty and know when things are right and wrong.
Very logical division between simple and complex language, easy to understand and apply to our everyday thinking and use of moral language.

Question 28

What are the weaknesses of this theory?

Answer 28

Not defining good which may lead some to the conclusion good can’t be defined and is a subjective feeling.
It is non verifiable so may not be meaningful.
People use intuit and reason to different conclusions and no obvious way to resolve their differences.
How can we be sure our intuitions are correct.

Question 29

What did Prichard think?

Answer 29

Moral obligations form immediate apprehensions like mathematics e.g. 1+1=2 without needing further explanation. Moral intuitions are self evident, the intuition that something was our duty doesn’t come from the action e.g. know murder is wrong, so the action of murder tells us we have a duty to avoid it, built from our thinking about the action.
We get our sense of duty from feelings about particular actions, more subjective as it depends on our thoughts about the action.

Question 30

What did he think people have that varies?

Answer 30

Some people have clearer moral intuition than others as their moral thinking has been further developed, so we make different moral actions. But didn’t say who had clearer intuition? How do we decide which option is more enlightened when people draw different conclusions to moral problems?

Question 31

What did he think were the two types of thinking?

Answer 31

Intuition and reasoning. Reason collected together the facts and intuition decided what to do with them. Ethical dilemmas happen when there are conflicting moral obligations e.g. in the case of abortion there is an obligation to the unborn baby and another to the mother, which is the biggest obligation is decided by intuition. Didn’t believe in linking moral obligations to the intrinsic goodness of any action, more about considering obligations.

Question 32

What did Ross think?

Answer 32

Built on the work of Prichard and Moore in his works, accepted Moore’s argument goodness can’t be defined in natural terms. He developed the prima facie duties, duties on first appearance. In any moral dilemma the obligations we had were apparent, follow a prima facie duty unless there is a higher duty that overrides it.

Question 33

What were Ross’ prima facie duties?

Answer 33

7 foundational are( not complete but correct) promise keeping, gratitude, justice, reparation for harm done, beneficence, self improvement and non maleficence. Emphasise a personal duty not absolutes, rejected ‘greatest good for greatest number.’ Choice of action down to judgement. Differences between actions that are good to do and actions that are right to do. Something can be a right action but if it is done for the wrong reasons it may not be good. Vague and what is highest duty?

Question 34

What are the strengths of intuitionism?

Answer 34

Avoids the problems of identifying ethics with a natural property.
Associated with conscience as a moral guide so plausible.
Allows for moral duty and obligation, satisfactory for moral absolutist.
Allows for moral realism as possible for objective moral values to be discovered.

Question 35

What are the weaknesses of intuitionism?

Answer 35

It is not explained properly and it would seem our moral intuitions could come from social conditioning and vary between cultures, so it is difficult to see them as a reliable guide for objective moral truths.
Doesn’t explain how our knowledge of moral facts can motivate us to act morally.

Question 36

What is emotivism?

Answer 36

Subjective ethical theory, as ethical statements are only really statements of opinion as opposed to statements of fact.

Question 37

Who was A J Ayer influenced by?

Answer 37

The Vienna circle: a group of scientists originated logical positivism, sceptical of theology. Logical positivism only things that can be tested are meaningful.

Question 38

What did he believe?

Answer 38

” Ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings, they are calculated also to arouse feeling and so to stimulate action.” Two kinds of meaningful statements: Analytic - determined by understanding the terms that occur in them e.g. triangles have 3 sides.
Synthetic - determined by checking facts to establish if the facts given are true e.g. all tigers are fierce.

Question 39

What therefore did he think about moral statements?

Answer 39

They can’t be verified synthetically or analytically, not truths or facts. Simply expressions of preference, attitude or feeling. Statements of logic and mathematics are tautologies true by definition. Thus moral statements aren’t meaningful as can’t be expressed as propositions.

Question 40

What principle did he work on?

Answer 40

The verification principle that things are only meaningful if you can give firm empirical evidence and come to a conclusion it is true or false e.g. I am sat in an ethics lesson meaningful as verifiable. Can’t verify God exists so meaningless.

Question 41

What theory did he develop to show moral statements come from emotional responses to our situation?

Answer 41

The boo hurrah theory. Michael murdered someone, saying that is wrong like saying boo to murder, I think it is wrong. Giving to charity is good, is like saying hurrah to charity, makes me and others feel good is my opinion.Ethical statements simply express my approval or disapproval not an assertion, dependent on my circumstances.

Question 42

What book did Stevenson write (emotivism)?

Answer 42

Ethics and language 1944.

Question 43

What did he think moral statements are?

Answer 43

When I make emotive statements, I am expressing my opinion and trying to influence to think similarly or sympathise. Moral statements express my emotions and also my experience of the world and what I want it to be like. They are emotional and I want to provoke others to have the same response, so influence on others can be meaningful.

Question 44

What did he think about language?

Answer 44

There are 2 types: Descriptive and dynamic.Descriptive language is stating a fact and informing others of my situation. dynamic language is trying to influence what others feel and make them behave in a certain way. If I said ‘I don;t want to go to the party’ the descriptive language is stating that fact, dynamic is more the underlying why I don’t want to go, e.g. I am tired and I don’t like the people going.

Question 45

What are the strengths of emotivism?

Answer 45

Easy to understand and apply. Using emotive language is affective in changing attitudes of others. People do make decisions based on emotions, describes the workings of the world accurately.

Question 46

What are the weaknesses of emotivism?

Answer 46

Doesn’t explain why our opinions aren’t meaningful. James Rachels: Moral argument not judged on response it creates, but whether claims are valid. Morality not about emotions may be discussed rationally i.e I like coffee needs no reason ,moral statements do. Your opinion is forced on to others, but why is yours more valid than anyone else’s? How do we judge between 2 people’s opinions? Ridiculous to say “ I don’t like cheese” is the same as saying “rape is wrong”, emotivism devalues the level of importance moral statements contain for people.
Ayer - fails on own reasoning, we shouldn’t make statements we can’t verify, but can’t prove ethical statements are just expressions of opinion and emotion either.

Question 47

Who came up with the theory of prescriptivism?

Answer 47

RM Hare, ethical statements can be meaningful. Criticised Ayer and Stevenson as they separated facts and values, ought can’t come from an is.

Question 48

What did he think about moral language?

Answer 48

The word ‘good’ is descriptive, when we put words like ‘good’ into ethical statements not just describing but also prescriptive e.g. you shall not murder not just personal repulsion, telling others not to do so and prescribing everyone should follow the moral truth that murder is wrong. Ethical statements aren’t just expressions of our feelings, but ethical language doesn’t state facts, prescriptions are subjective, different for different people. Tried to make moral statements objective.

Question 49

What was his universability principle?

Answer 49

Moral statements are prescriptive and universal. The only coherent way to behave morally was to act on judgements we can apply to everyone, didn’t want the abuse he received whilst in a prison camp in ww2 to ever be universalised. Wanted to come up with a secular version of the golden rule.When individual prefers 1 thing over something else, this implies his preference would be for the good of anybody e.g. not doing your hw not universalised. When we say murder is wrong we’re not just saying I disapprove of murder, trying to convince others we are morally right.

Question 50

What did he think about moral laws?

Answer 50

Some humans need moral laws to guide them, Those with good critical powers can use moral laws, but more as rules of thumb that can be used or not according to our critical appraisal of moral preferences. Not everyone has the critical ability or time to work out what he or she should do in particular situation.

Question 51

What were his 4 basic ideas?

Answer 51

1) That moral sentiment isn’t enough, the individual’s morality needs to involve doing what is morally required.
2) Ethical action needs to be consistent in all situations.
3) Moral belief must be kept in harmony with others ‘treat others as you wish to be treated.’
4) Can’t be hypocritical.

Question 52

What are the strengths of prescriptivism?

Answer 52

Makes a case for why statements are more than just emotion, building on the work of Ayer.
Beneificial to have a common code of conduct.
Supports our legal system.
Plausible as are trying to persuade others to think similarly.

Question 53

What are the weaknesses of prescriptivism?

Answer 53

How do we judge between competing prescriptivisms?
Who has the authority to prescribe?
JL Mackie - morals aren’t absolute or universal, they vary from person to person.