Meta - Ethics Flashcards
What is meta ethics
Ethics is about moral choices. It is about the values that lie behind them, and the language they use to describe them. It is about innocence and guilt, right and wrong, and what it means to live a good or a bad life.
Language of morals
beyond ethics
theories of meanings
what is normative ethics?
systems of thought
study of ethical actions
e.g. Kant, bentham, aquinas and Aristotle
what is ethical naturalism (Definism)
- Aristotle and Plato can rightly be claimed as the founders of this school of ethics, in that they maintained that you could deduce truth in nature from that which was observed. In a real sense you can therefore ‘define’ that which is good.
- In this theory, all ethical statements are similar to factual statements in that they are verifiable (or falsifiable) first by resort to evidence, and second by examination of their behaviour or consequences of behaviour.
Definism example
e.g. Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, was an evil man.
In this theory, all ethical statements express either approval or disapproval; but this is somewhat problematic:
Is my approval a personal or general view?
It is difficult to debate because both views are valid.
Criticism of Definism
The greatest opponent of Definism was probably G.E. Moore (1873-1958). He argued that it is simply not possible to define all words, to do so was to fall into the ‘naturalistic fallacy’.
Moore argued that terms like ‘good’ are impossible to define. He used a ‘open question’ technique whereby he tried to reduce a idea to its simplest idea.
E.g. Horse – a complex idea that can be broken down – Equus caballus, mammal, quadruped, solid hoofed perissodactly, beast of burden with mame, tail and a neigh
Moore
What did he disagree with and example
Definism
Moore stated that you cannot define a simple idea because it cannot be broken down. His most famous example was yellow.
Try to describe yellow to the person next to you, imagining that they have been blind since birth.
Like yellow, we cannot define good but we know what it is. Equally good is the ultimate definition i.e. is your definition of good, good?
Moore argued that ‘good’ has no parts so can not be defined
“It is one of the innumerable objects of thought which are themselves incapable of definition because they are the ultimate terms of reference by which whatever is capable of definition must be defined”
(Principia Ethica)
Ethical language is not the same as factual language (which definism tries to do) Just because something is one way doesn’t mean it ought to be that way.
His thinking was simple, just because something is a particular way, that does not mean it has to be that way. When you define something you say it ‘is’ something. If you cannot say it ‘is’ you also cannot say it ‘ought to be’. Those who try to do so commit the naturalistic fallacy.
What is Ethical Non-Naturalism (Intuitionism)
Moore stated that some things are ‘self-evidently good or self-evidently bad’.
This is known as intuitionism as you intuitively know whether something is good or bad. You don’t try to define its goodness or badness, you just know.
Returning to yellow:
“We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise it where it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but we cannot actually define it.”
What did Moore claim he wasnt
Now Moore himself claimed that he was not an intuitionist ‘in the ordinary sense of the term’, yet he set up our second ‘way’.
What did H. A Prichard say
We all recognise the properties of good – what we ought to do in any given situation.
There are two types of thinking – reason and intuition:
Reason looks at the facts of the situation,
Intuition tells us what to do.
Prichard did recognise the problem that people’s moral were different but simply said that this was because some people had developed their moral thinking further than others; however, does not expand on this problem any further.
What did W D Ross say
Ross fleshes out intuitionism further with the notion on prima facie duties (duties at first sight).
These duties are obviously right and we would recognise them at first sight in any situation.
Ross lists seven classes of prima facie duties: duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, benevolence, self-improvement, and non-malevolence.
However, Ross does not explain how we will actually know what a prima facie duty is.
Criticism of Intuitionism
Just like definism, it is difficult to debate as there is no common ground.
It is hard to decide between ‘intuitions’ – whose intuition is the most correct? – as we have seen, intuitionists cannot even agree amongst themselves.
What is Ethical Non Cognitivism (Emotivism)
It was A J Ayer (1910-1989) who argued that we make decisions based not on knowledge but emotion, e.g. TV advert
He said that all ethical arguments are emotive arguments.
Furthermore, they do not contain knowledge and cannot be either verified or falsified. But, they do express the feelings of the employer of the decision.
E.g. Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, was an evil man, suggest that I do not approve, do not like him or what he did.
Mother Teresa, the carer of the poor in Calcutta, was a good woman, suggests that I approve, like her and what she did.
nickname; The Boo! Hooray! Theory
What did R M Hare say
Hare took emotivism a stage further to develop prescriptivism.
Put simply, Hare suggests that ethical statements not only express an emotion, but in a real sense they can command an action, attitude or response.
Using this idea it is suggested that there are times when we make a decision because we feel so strongly (positively or negatively) that we are forced or ‘prescribed’ to act upon this decision.
e.g. Mr Bayliss Dad - Nestle and the baby milk - boycotting all Nestle products
Criticism of Emotivism
Again, how can we really debate what is good if we are simply basing our decisions on our emotions?
Prescriptivism is also too personal – it fails to see universal guides.
Definition of Naturalism Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism
Naturalism - claims that there are objective moral truths and that ‘goodness is known’, definable and provable using empirical evidence.
Intuitionism - claims that objective moral truths are known through the use of reason apriori. However they claim that words such as good are indefinable. Therefore goodness is known only intuitively.
Emotivism - consider ethical statements to be no more than an expression of emotion/opinion. Ayer came to the conclusion that ethical statements were neither analytic nor synthetic. Due to this they could not be verified and were therefore meaningless.
Prescriptivism - takes emotivism a step further. Hare argued that ethical statements were more than simply the utterance of emotion but attempts to influence the actions of others - ethical statements are therefore vocative statements i.e. vocal persuasions to act in a certain way.
