Meta-ethics

Question 1

Meta-ethics

Answer 1

Looks at the language we use to express morality.
What do we mean by good?
Are ethical dilemmas subjective or objective?

Question 2

Cognitive

Answer 2

Moral statements are about facts that describe the world. They are based on sense experience and can be verified by empirical data.
They are also based on moral absolutes.
To say “murder is wrong” is to give the murder the property of wrongness, so this statement is either objectively true or false.

Question 3

Strengths of cognitive statements

Answer 3

Morality is too important to just be a matter of opinion so there has to be absolutes.
Absolutes can be tested by human reason and logic. This is because humans don’t just observe the universe, they experience it.

Question 4

Weaknesses of cognitive statements

Answer 4

“Murder is wrong” is an opinion, not fact, and opinions cannot be logically tested.
Non-cognitivism also value moral statements, it just recognises that subjective opinions are valuable in themselves. Morality is a matter of personal choice which society formulates into laws for the betterment of the majorities’ preferences. Cognitive approaches do not allow for more flexibility.

Question 5

Non-cognitive statements

Answer 5

Moral statements are not describing the world but are actually expressing their own opinion. Moral statements are therefore subjective and cannot be described as either true or false.

Question 6

Weaknesses of non-cognitive statements

Answer 6

They could lead to a chaotic state in which truths do not exist and where moral absolutes change from day to day.

Question 7

Normative ethical theories

Answer 7

They aim to differ between right and wrong.

Question 8

Naturalism

Answer 8

Ethical statements = non-ethical statements
They can be verified or falsified by looking at the natural world or human nature.
We observe the world around us and create moral theories to fit our observations.
To find out if something is right or wrong, we look at historical evidence and then formulate an opinion e.g. murder

Question 9

Criticism of naturalism

Answer 9

Is this really a simple process?

In cases such as euthanasia it can be difficult to form one opinion for several situations.

Question 10

F.H.Bradley

Answer 10

Ethical naturalist
Society and community are the source of ethics.
We discover moral obligation from the community in which we live. We must conform to our societies values to become moral.

Question 11

Principles behind ethical naturalism

Answer 11

Duty=moral obligation from the society in which we live in.
Good actions conform with social values
Morality is NOT absolute.

Question 12

Hume

Answer 12

Critic of naturalism
You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
You cannot jump from looking at the world to how you should act.
You are moving from an objective statement to a subjective one.

Question 13

G.E.Moore

Answer 13

You cannot identify goodness with a natural quality e.g. happiness.
To do so is to commit a naturalistic fallacy.
You shouldn’t define good as something that makes us happy —- is this really ethics? or rather sociology/psychology.
Ethical judgements do not equal factual ones.

Question 14

Intuitionalism

Answer 14

Morality is objective and cognitive.

Good is a simple idea it cannot be broken down, we know what it is but it is a indefinable notion.

Question 15

Moral judgements - Intuitionalism

Answer 15

Morality depends on consequences - teleological
You simple know if an action and its consequence are right or wrong - moral decisions bring about good things.
Good things are self evident - we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of them.
Moral disagreements are about the ACTIONS that bring about good things, not the good things themselves.

Question 16

Pritchard

Answer 16

Working out right/wrong is our duty, which we do by using intuition.
This approach appears to be deontological.
Good is our obligation, we always know when we ought to do something.

Question 17

Process of intuitionalism - Pritchard

Answer 17

1. Reason - look at the facts of the situation
2. Intuition - decides on what we should do depending on our moral obligation.
   Conflict arises when one persons moral thinking isn’t fully developed.

Question 18

W.D.Ross

Answer 18

Accepts that moral duties do conflict.
Prima facie “first sight” duties are most important and should always come first e.g. promises, fairness and benevolence.
During conflict, we must always do what we think is right. Sometimes one duty must give way to another, but our intuition will always tell us which one.

Question 19

Strengths of intuitionalism

Answer 19

It allows us to answer issues clearly and instantly
It appeals to human nature - we do often use our intuition.
It avoids complex debates because we simply cannot define good.

Question 20

Weaknesses of intuitionalism

Answer 20

Normative ethics would argue that good can be defined. 
Intuitions differ - cultural? 
Most people see morality as subjective 
Lack of evidence
Some situations are too complex
Conflicting duties 
You could get away with anything.

Question 21

Nietzsche

Answer 21

Criticises Moore’s yellow analogy.
People may see good differently
“Ethical colour blindness”

Question 22

MacIntyre

Answer 22

“the word intuition is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong”

Criticises emotivism - paedophiles? can we trust everyone’s emotions?

Question 23

Emotivism

Answer 23

From the vienna circle.
Based on the verification principle.
Ethical language is an expression of feelings, it cannot be verified empirically so is meaningless.

Question 24

Verification principle

Answer 24

A statement is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified.
The weak verification principle (Ayer) states that if something can be verified in principle, it has meaning.

Question 25

Wittgenstein

Answer 25

We need morals despite not being able to verify them. Morality necessary but not verifiable.

Question 26

A.J.Ayer

Answer 26

Moral language and judgements are just expressions of feelings or opinions.
Sentences that express moral judgements do not say anything.
“ejaculations or commands which are designed to provoke the reader to action of certain sort” - arouse a response
Boo/Hurrah theory - X is good, hurrah for X. - just emotion.

Question 27

A.J.Ayer 2

Answer 27

Ayer initially said that ethical statements were unverifiable however in a new addition of Language, Truth and Logic he claimed that certain statements were verifiable. e.g. “Murder is wrong” can be verified using evidence.

Question 28

C.L.Stevenson

Answer 28

Moral language is emotive and descriptive but there is more to it than Ayer suggests in his boo/hurrah theory.
There are genuine moral disagreements - they are expressions of personal preference that are intended to influence the feelings of a believer.

Question 29

Brandt

Answer 29

Criticises Stevenson
We do not expect others to agree when we express language.
We should not assume that we have a ‘magnetic influence’ over others.

Question 30

Strengths of emotivism

Answer 30

Accepts the scientific importance to language
Develops complex and sophisticated discussions
Stresses the importance of individual moral feelings
Culturally aware
Resolves moral dispute by concluding that emotions vary.

Question 31

Weaknesses of emotivism

Answer 31

Are/should moral judgements be emotional?

Question 32

Mel Thompson

Answer 32

Boo/hurrah is too simple

“You cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos”

Question 33

Prescriptivism

Answer 33

“Good” is an action statement.
By saying that something is good, we are prescribing or recommending a course of action.
They are not objective but they enforce a certain behaviour that everyone should follow
e.g. ‘stealing is wrong’.

Question 34

Strengths of prescriptivism

Answer 34

Logical, realistic, straightforward.
Universal- easy to follow
Solves the issue of moral language being meaningless- it is prescribed actions.

Question 35

Weaknesses of prescriptivism

Answer 35

Not strict enough - anything could be universalised as good.
There is no reason behind following moral laws - do what you want?
Surely we should put logic and reason above recommendation?

Question 36

J.L.Mackie

Answer 36

Criticises prescriptivism

It cannot be universal if it is to be culturally aware.