Meta Ethics Flashcards
1
Q
Define meta ethics
A
- challenges assumptions by normative ethics
- not telling us what to do but looks at the language of ethics
- getting people to think about where their ideas came from
2
Q
What is a subjectivist
A
Believes that the truth is in the mind of the observer
3
Q
What is an objective moral truth
A
A moral code already out there in the world e.g in gods mind
4
Q
What does Wittgenstein argue about meta ethics
A
- you can divide all statements into either synthetic ( can be physically proven) , analytic ( more like maths, makes logical sense ) or meaningless ( no proof )
- rationalist
5
Q
What is a cognitivist
A
- someone who believes ethical statements are true ( or can be proven to be false ) and are therefore meaningful
6
Q
What is a non cognitivist
A
- someone who believes that ethical statements are different to synthetic or analytic statements - they cannot be proven
7
Q
What are ethical naturalists
A
Believe that ideas about ‘good’ can be scientifically proven
8
Q
What does Bentham say about objective arguments
A
- it is a scientific fact that we dislike pain and enjoy pleasure
- so we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain
9
Q
What does Aristotle argue about objective arguments
A
- his ideas about purpose are an extension of his other scientific ideas
- through observation of human nature he recognised that our purpose is to flourish by contributing positively to society
10
Q
What does F.H. Bradley argue about objective arguments
A
- good can be proven through psychology
- children are self centred. But go through a phase of realisation that personal satisfaction comes from making the world a better place
- he argues that we all contribute our own particular role. If we fall short of this we feel disappointed
- this is why ‘good’ actions are ones we do in order to benefit others. This is are natural psychological inclination
11
Q
A problem with ethical naturalist is the naturalistic fallacy. Explain this
A
- Hume argued that we cannot move from an empirical statement to a moral statement
- e.g. Just because orange juice is good for me it doesn’t mean I ought to drink it
- e.g. If we consider natural law. It is a fact that we are designed to reproduce but doesn’t mean we should
12
Q
What does G.E Moore argue about intuitionism
A
- is an objectivist but challenges idea that we can empirically prove moral ideas
- ‘good’ is just something you know. It is simply an idea. You cannot explain ‘good’. We just simply know it when we see it
- this is insituitionism
13
Q
What does W.D Ross say about intuitionism
A
- built on Moores ideas
- as an intuitionist he agreed that we intuitively know what something is right but it is also our duty to carry out certain actions
- if someone doesn’t know when something is right then they lack moral maturity
- prima facie duties = things that we know are right. Fidelity (keeping ones promises), reparation ( putting right past mistakes) , beneficence ( helping other)
14
Q
5 problems with intuitionism
A
- some people don’t know what is naturally right e.g. Murderers
- children taught by parents what is right. Fried argues that what is right and wrong is the products of social conditioning
- if we all know what is naturally right then why are are ideas of what is good are cultural different
- intuitionists don’t explain why we should base ethics on intuitions - people have intuitions about a lot of things
- intuitionists dint explain why intuitions seem to differ from societies. Seems environmental not innate
15
Q
What does J.L. Mackie criticise about intuitionism
A
- it states what is right, but doesn’t guide us in deciding what to actually do in response
16
Q
what are the objective arguments
A
- ethical naturalists
- intuitionism
17
Q
what are subjective arguments ?
A
there are no absolute truths or laws , it is entirely up to what the individual thinks is right or wrong
18
Q
what is A.j. Ayer argument in subjective arguments
Emotivism
A
- statements are either analytic (necessarily truth or false) or synthetic ( can be empirically proven )
- ‘abortion is wrong’ is neither analytic or synthetic so it is meaningless
- these ideas developed out of the logical positivism by the Vienna circle in the early 20th century
- when we are making moral statements all we are doing is expressing emotion. This is emotivism. Hurray-boo theory
- After ww2 Ayer did give more authority to ethical statements
19
Q
what is James Rachel’s argument on subjective arguments
A
- points out that moral judgements do appeal to reason
- ‘I like marmite’ is meaningless, but when I say ‘vivisection is cruel and therefore wrong’ it has good reasons for this expression of feeling.
20
Q
what does C.L. Stevenson argue on subjective arguments ?
A
- words have descriptive and dynamic meaning
- ’ I am loaded with work’ is descriptive but also dynamic as I am hoping I won’t be given work.
I.e I expect others to act in some way - there is a deeper meaning
- similarly with moral statements. ‘abortion is wrong! is non cognitive but with the statement I am expecting others to act in this I.e. ‘women who have abortions should be condemned’ - this is a dynamic meaning
21
Q
what dies R.M Hare argue on subjective arguments
A
- takes it further
- when I say something is wrong, I am implying that everyone should think the same as I do. I am in fact universalising my opinion.
- this is called prescriptivism as I am in effect prescribing what other people should think
- when I say ‘stealing is wrong’ I am in fact saying ‘you should not steal and neither should I’
22
Q
use Nozick’s thought experiment as a weakness of ethical naturalism
A
- it demonstrates the dangers of basing moral judgements on natural properties
- if Bentham is right, and good is equated with pleasure, then surely the most good would come from wiring everybody up to ‘experience machines’ that stimulate the brain to experience happiness
22
Q
1 strength to ethical naturalism that moral claims can be discussed rationally
A
- moral claims can be discussed rationally because there is ‘proof’ that such statements are true or false
- subjectivists who argue that moral statements are non cognitive have no real reason to discuss important ethical issues because they see them only as opinions
- this risks ‘nihilism’ (there are no objective dukes or values at all , everyone must decide for themselves and the fittest will survive)
- ethical naturalists can prove that we should defended human rights
- these things matter, they shouldn’t just be dismissed as an emotional reaction
23
Q
what is another strength of ethical naturalism
A
- people are more likely to take a moral statement seriously if it can be measured in some way
- e.g. people are more inclined to give to charity if they know that it is a good action because it will result in measurable pleasure and less pain
24
what is H.A Pritchard's argument for intuitionism
- saw morality as common sense
| - he said that when moral dilemmas occur we intuit our primary duty in the given situation
25
explain W.D Ross war example to demonstrate that sometimes duties clash but the prima facie duty judged to me the most morally encumbent will present itself
- we might need to go to war (breaking the duty of non-maleficence, not doing harm to others ) in order to fulfil the duty of beneficence ( doing good for others- protecting citizens )
- clearly, after the war, I have a duty of reparation to the enemy side, to be right any problems caused )
26
explain Kahneman's argument against intuitionism
- points out that intuitions are often driven by fear, greed and limited knowledge
- there is a gap between our intuition and our rational judgements and that there needs to be a 'reflective equilibrium' where we respond intuitively (using emotion) but also our reason to review our intuitions
27
what is Hume's argument for subjectivist theories
it is natural for humans to act emotionally, and judge accordingly
- our emotions and desires motivate our actions and reason only plays a small role in guiding them
28
strength of subjectivist theories
- it accounts for why we can never agree on what is right, and why debates are often heated
29
1 weaknesses with subjectivist theories that emotivism is too quick to give up on moral reasoning
- emotivism is to quick to give up on moral reasoning
- James Rachel's points out moral judgements do appeal to reason 'I like marmite ' is meaningless, but when we say ' genocide is cruel and therefore wrong' there are good reasons for this expression of feeling
- was that abolition of the slave trade, voting rights for women and the equality and discrimination act just a change of emotions, or was the rightness of these decisions based on reason ?
30
2 weaknesses with subjectivist theories
- emotivism seems to suggest that everybody's emotive feelings are equally valid. However, Hitlers emotional statements within his speeches must sure,t have a different value to Martin Luther kings
- there is a danger of nihilism ( there are no objective rules or values at all, everyone must decided for themselves and the fittest will survive ) Objectivists can prove that we should defend human rights. These things matter - they shouldn't just be dismissed as a emotional reaction
31
' Is Defining the word good the key question of ethics '
three points to argue yes
5 points to argue no
yes
1. Bentham
2. Aquinas
3. If we think of good as meaningless, we risk nihilism
no
1. It results in the naturalistic fallacy
2. Moore - impossible to establish 'good'
3. Ayer - 'good' is subjective. No point trying to establish what it means
4. We should ask 'what should I do?' rather than 'what does good mean?'
5. good is culturally relative
32
Is ethics just common sense? To what extent to people just know what is right or wrong?
3 points for is common sense
5 points for isn't common sense
is common sense
1. G.E. Moore - We simply know what good is
2. H.A. Pritchard - Morality is common sense
3. W.D. Ross - we intuitively know when something is right and when prima facie duties clash we just know which one to follow through with
isn't common sense
1. Kahneman - suggests there needs to be a reflective equilibrium where we respond intuitively but also with reason
2. Ayer- there is no common sense objective moral truth
3 Freud - we don't intuitively know good. It is the product of social conditioning
4. Kant - use reason to find out absolute moral truths
5. Aquinas - purpose which we find through reason to work out what is good
33
outline essay plan for 'Is defining the word good the key question in the study of ethics?'
Intro
- define meta ethics
- problems raised
- argument = defining good isn't the most important consideration
para 1
- Outline Bethan, Aquinas, Kant. Means different things
- unless we establish good then discussion is difficult and don't know right course of action
- problem = using ethical naturalism falls into the neath rallying fallacy
para 2
- Moore = impossible to establish good so meaningless. e.g. of yellow
- Problem = intuitions are culturally determined
- problem = if we just know what is good then we would all reach same conclusion. We don't. Need to collectively agree on good
para 3
- Ayer = good is subjective. No point establishing its definition
- counter = if good is meaningless we risk nihilism
- counter = rather than establish what is good is makes more sense to ask what to do
conclusion - weigh up
34
out,one essay plan for ' is ethics just common sense? To what extent do people just know what is right or wrong ?
Intro
- Define common sense. Suggest objective moral truth that we can all access
- Problems raised
- Argument= Is not common sense
para 1
- G.E.Moore = intuitively know what is good. e.g. of yellow
- strength = fits in with common sense. E.g. struggle to provide reasons why racial discrimination is wrong but out common sense tells us
- counter with Freud and social conditioning
para 2
- W.D. Ross - Prima facie duties and war e.g.
- Counter = some argue that beneficence has an evolutionary advantage so this is why we see it as the correct way to behave
para 3
- Aquinas argument . Purpose found through reason to work out good
- Support with Kahneman's 'reflective equilibrium'
para 4
- H.A. Pritchard = morality is common sense
- Counter = why do we all disagree with what is right
- Ayer to support and conclude
conclusion
- weight up
35
essay plan for 'to what extent is ethics meaningful?'
intro
- outline meta ethics. What emotivism argue, what ethical naturalist argue
- argument = ethics is meaningful
para 1
- ethical naturalism e.g. Bentham
- counter = Nozick's thought experiment
- counter = people more like to take moral stat,net seriously if can be measured in some way. e.g. charity
para 2
- non cognitive, subjective theories. Ayer. Emotivism
- C.L. Stevensons development of this
- strength = why we don't agree over what is right
- weakness = James Rachel's. Judgments do appeal to reason. e.g. marmite
- difference between emotion and reason. Voting rights for women etc
para 3
- criticism of good is meaningful = Hume's fact to value gap. E.g. class of year 7s
- counter = Seale's institutional facts
para 4
- ethical naturalists Aquinas
- strength = gives purpose to our morality.
conclusion
- weigh up
- ethics is meaningful
36
subjectivist theories mind map
emotivism
- A.J. Ayer
- C.L. Stevenson
prescriptivism
- R.M Hare
37
objective theories mind map
ethical naturalism
- F.H Bradley
Intuitionism
- G.E. Moore
- H.A Pritchard
- W.D. Ross
38
Two key scholars for naturalism
- Aquinas = reason and observation to work out what is right
- F.H Bradley = Good proven though psychology
39
3 main scholars for intuitionism
- G.E.Moore = you just know goodness
- H.A Prichard = morality is common sense
- W.R Ross = Prima Facie duties . Things that are good
40
Two key scholars for emotivism
- Ayer = statements are only meaningful if they can be proven empirically by an actual experience or if they are a tautology
- Stevenson = prescriptivism
41
Hume’s argument against ethical naturalism
- we cannot move from an empirical statement to a moral statement
- if we consider Bentham just because something is pleasurable does not mean that we should do it
- e.g giving sweets to year 7s
42
strengths of intuitionism that it is morally realist
- intuitionism is morally realist (can be verified by examining our intuitions) so we can be sure that what we’re doing is right
- subjectivism, on the other hand, offers very little motivation to act because there is no objective right or wrong, so we don’t really know why we’re choosing to behave in a particular way
43
Strength of intuitionism that it fits with common sense
- ethical naturalism could struggle to provide reasons why racial discrimination is wrong, but our common sense tells us that it is
44
Explain the counter to intuitionism that there are other explanations as to why we see some things as good and others bad
- Freud argues that ideas of right and wrong are simply the products of social conditioning
- the sub conscious voice of authority figures such as parents and teachers
- this suggests there is no objective moral truth to intuit
