Meta Ethics

Question 1

What does meta mean?

Answer 1

It is greek for above/beyond

Question 2

What is Meta Ethics?

Answer 2

Looks at ethical theories, the terms we use and what we mean by them. It asks what we mean when we say we ought to do something or that something is right or wrong.

Question 3

What is Normative Ethics?

Answer 3

Concerns itself with what we ought to do and assumes objective moral truths

Question 4

What is an objectivist?

Answer 4

Someone who argues there is moral truths that we all have access to.

Question 5

What is a subjectivist?

Answer 5

Someone who argues truth is in the mind of the observer

Question 6

What is a cognitivist?

Answer 6

Someone who argues ethical statements are true or false and meaningful

Question 7

What is a non-cognitivist?

Answer 7

Someone who argues ethical statements are just emotions being expressed and are meaningless

Question 8

What is an ethical naturalist?

Answer 8

A cognitive objectivist theory that suggests moral statements are true or false and goodness can be scientifically proven. Eg) Bentham thought it could be scientifically proven we prefer pleasure over pain. FH Bradley supports it

Question 9

What are the two objectivist cognitive theories?

Answer 9

1) Ethical Naturalism

2) Intuitionism

Question 10

What did FH Bradley argue?

Answer 10

He was an ethical naturalist. In his book ‘Ethical Studies’ (1872) he argued goodness can be psychology proven as humans move from childish egoism to self-realisation that we will find satisfaction from making the world a better place. We see our idealised self fulfilling our role in society and when we fall short of this we feel disappointed. This is why good actions benefit others - it is our psychological inclination.

Question 11

What are the strengths/weaknesses of Ethical Naturalism?

Answer 11

+ Subjectivists who argue moral statements are non-cognitive have no reason to discuss issues because they are opinions which is nihilistic. Ethical naturalism can prove we should defend human rights and these things matter - shouldn’t be dismissed as emotions
+ People are more likely to take moral statements seriously if they can be measured
- Hume said we can’t move from an empirical statement to a moral statement - Hume’s guillotine
- Nozick’s Though Experiment supports this as if Bentham was right about goodness being pleasure then we should wire people up to experience machines
+ However Searle’s institutional facts bridge the gaps between brute facts and moral statements eg) people dislike pain, there are humane ways to retrieve information, therefore torture is wrong

Question 12

What is intuitionism?

Answer 12

The argument that goodness cannot be proven or defined but we just intuitively know it - it’s still an objective theory. GE Moore, WD Ross, and HA Pritchard support this.

Question 13

What does GE Moore argue?

Answer 13

He is an intuitionist. Challenges whether you can prove moral statements. He says goodness is a simple idea that cannot be broken down any further just like you can’t explain yellow you can’t explain goodness.

Question 14

What does HA Pritchard argue?

Answer 14

He is an intuitionist. Morality is just common sense and that personal introspection accesses a standard of moral law and acts on it.

Question 15

What does WD Ross argue?

Answer 15

He is an intuitionist. Agreed that we intuitively know when something is good and it is our duty to carry out certain actions. He listed 7 prima facie duties such as reparation (fixing mistakes), fidelity (keeping promises), and beneficence (helping others). He saw these as self-evident. If someone doesn’t see value in these duties they simply lack maturity. When duties clash Ross says the most important duty will present itself.

Question 16

What are the strengths/weaknesses of Intuitionism?

Answer 16

+ It is morally realist and can be verified by examing our intuitions but subjectivism offers no real motivation to act good.
+ Fits with common sense- Ethical NAturalism would struggle to assert why racism is bad but our common sense tells us it is
- If intuitions all refer to the same objective truths then why do we argue over goodness?
- Kahneman points out our intuitions are driven by fear, greed and ignorance. He says there’s a gap between our intuitions and rational judgements and there needs to be a reflective equilibrium (reason) that checks our intuitions
- There are other reasons we may see things as good. For example, evolutionary advantages to helping others and Freud would argue it is social conditioning. Both suggest there are no objective moral truths.

Question 17

What does Kahneman argue?

Answer 17

Against intuitionism
Kahneman points out our intuitions are driven by fear, greed and ignorance. He says there’s a gap between our intuitions and rational judgements and there needs to be a reflective equilibrium (reason) that checks our intuitions

Question 18

What does Hume argue?

Answer 18

He is a non-cognitivist subjectivist. It is natural for humans to react emotionally and judge accordingly. He says emotions and desires motivate our actions and reason only plays a small part in guiding them.

Question 19

What does AJ Ayer argue?

Answer 19

He is a non-cognitivist subjectivist. Argued meaningful statements are either analytic or synthetic and ethical statements are neither so meaningless or non-cognitive. (He was influenced by the logical positivists). He argued that when we make moral statements we are expressing emotions eg) If I say fox hunting is wrong I am effectively saying “boo fox hunting”. Ayer calls this Emotivism. However, after WW2 Ayer did give more authority to ethical statements.

Question 20

What does CL Stevenson argue?

Answer 20

He is a non-cognitivist subjectivist. Argued words have descriptive and dynamic meanings eg) when I say I am loaded down with work this is descriptive but also dynamic as you are expecting someone to help - this is the same with ethical statements

Question 21

What does RM Hare argue?

Answer 21

He is a non-cognitivist subjectivist and follows on from RM Hare. He points on that when I say something is wrong I am implying that everyone should think the same- I am universalising my opinions and this is called prescriptivism because I am prescribing what others should think. He says although morality is subjective the individual should be consistent in their actions.

Question 22

What are the strengths /weaknesses of non-cognitive subjective theories?

Answer 22

+ It accounts for why we don’t agree on morality

• Emotivism is too quick to give up on moral reasoning. James Rachels points out moral judgements appeal to reason eg) when I say genocide is wrong there is reasoning behind it
• Emotivism seems to suggest everyone’s emotive feelings are equal but surely Hitler’s statements are different to Martin Luther King’s?
• There is a danger of nihilism. Objectivists can prove that we should defend human rights - these things matter not just emotions