Meta Ethics Flashcards
naturalism
the belief that values can be defined in terms of some natural property in the world and its application to absolutism
working out what is right or wrong
intuitionalism
the belief that basic morals truth are indefinable but self-evident and its application to the term good
whether good is a meaningful term
emotivism
the belief that ethical systems indicate approval or disapproval and its application to relativism
expressing our emotions
what is normative ethics
- begins by asking which actions are good/bad and what behaviour is moral/immoral
- aim is to give us a guide
- two main ethical systems within - deontological and teleological which don’t always agree leading some to claim ethical statements are meaningless
what is deontological ethics
- concerned with nature of the acts themselves
- acts are intrinsically right or wrong because of an absolute moral law laid down by God or because they go against duty
- e.g. Natural Law (NL) and Kant
what is teleological ethics
- concerned with consequences of actions as this determines is rightness or wrongness
- e.g. situation ethics and utilitarianism
what is the difference between normative ethics and meta ethics
- normative ethics is concerned with behaviour and doing
- meta ethics concern is meaning
what is meta ethics
- explores meaning and function of ethical/moral language
- whether the definitions of moral terms can be defined/agreed upon
- whether they are meaningless
- what we mean when we make a moral statement
- rather than agreeing whether abortion is right or wrong
- interest in what we mean by right or wrong in moral statements
what does meta ethics consider
- whether meaning is different in different cultures and times
what is the main question of meta ethics
- whether the terms we use in ethical language refer to something real existing out there in the world or something in ourselves e.g. emotions/personal feelings
- whether something is objective fact or subjective personal emotion
- leads to key question of whether ethical language is meaningless or meaningful!!!!
what is the Moore quote on intutionism
“If I am asked what is good, my answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter”
what is a key factor in ethical dilemmas
whether something is subjective or objective as people often feel if ethics is subjective its meaningless
cognitivism
- objective ethics
- based on fact
- making statements which can be known to be true or false
- ethical statements express propositions which are meaningful declaratives
- naturalism and intuitionism
non-cognitivism
- subjective ethics
- ethical statements cannot be proved to be true or false depending on what someone thinks
- ethical statements do not assert propositions
- if they don’t express factual claims and thus neither true or false its impossible for non-cognitivists to define moral terms
- emotivism
what is important to note about all the meta-ethical categories
- they don’t agree
- naturalists and intuitionists are cognitive and agree ethical statements are meaningful/based in fact
- but disagree where these facts come from
- naturalism - natural world
- intuitionism - morality based on intuition
what are the cognitive bits of the flow chart
- cognitive
- naturalism and intuitionism
- express knowledge so meaningful
- can test them true or false `
what are the non-cognitive bits of the flow chart
- non-cognitive
- emotivism
- ethical statements don’t express knowledge but feelings
- non-factual
- so meaningless for people like Ayer
why is ethical naturalism an example of cognitivism
- it maintains that ethical values can be demonstrated in the same way as scientific ones were using evidence and proofs
- can test by observation of the natural world where ethics is based
- factual can be verified or falsified
how do naturalists believe that moral terms such as good can be defined
- in terms of human nature or properties in the natural world that can be known through or mind or senses
- they may be religious grounded in way God made the world/the capacity for reason we have as shown in NL
- they may be secular based on what makes good consequence of flourishing life
what is utlitarianism
- a form of naturalism
- the claim that of Bentham that nature has placed us under two sovereign masters pleasure and pain
- they are natural properties that exist and we all feel
what do naturalists share in common and where do they differ
- share their certainty we can prove moral judgements to be true or false
- believe goodness is a natural property located in the natural world
- disagree what features of natural life are good
what is Merriman’s quote and what does it teach us (naturalism)
teaches naturalists believe by observing/considering naturally occurring facts we can conclude what is moral behaviour
- natural ethics derive from what is observable e.g. empirical facts about natural order
- its prescriptions are thus apparent to any individual who studies and reasons to the correct procedural behaviours necessary to accomplish ends in accordance with human purpose
how do ethical naturalists reach their conclusions
- observe the world, reason, conclude what is right and wrong
- by going from what ‘is’ to what ‘ought’ to be
what is an is and an ought for ethical naturalists
- an is is a statement of fact about the world we have observed
- an ought is a value statement about how we should behave, the conclusion of our observation and reason
give an example of ethical naturalists deriving and ought from an is and how opinions about this may differ
“heterosexual sex is the natural way to procreate; therefore heterosexual ought to be the only sex people have”
- for some naturalists each bit is as factual as the other
- but it depends on what natural properties we use to define goodness
- a utilitarian would define goodness as that which produces the most pleasure and say the main issue of sex is pleasure and preference
- whereas in NL procreation is good and a primary precept so would derive this ought from this is
What is intuition
The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes
You just know
But we do need to use rational processes for moral decision making
How are intuitionists similar to ethical naturalists
Believe we can be certain about what is right and wrong
That moral statements are factual and therefore can be proven to be true or false
What is the difference between ethical naturalists and intuitionists even though they are both cognitive
Difference as to how we know right and wrong
Naturalists believe goodness is a property in the natural world and moral statements can be derived from facts (ought/is)
Intuitionists agree there are objective moral facts but knowledge is innately or intuitively known
How do intuitionists believe we make moral judgements
We have a special form of consciousness called intuition that accesses moral knowledge and leads to moral judgements and actions
This doesn’t mean all moral decisions reached by relying on intuition
But it enables discovery of basic moral truths and everyday moral decision making then involves thinking about the choices available and making moral judgements in like with these basic moral truths
What is the criticism of Hume towards naturalism
“Moving from an objective statement of fact to a subjective statement of value does not work because it leaves open questions that have not been answered”
- fact value gap
- an ought can’t be derived from an is
- evaluation can’t be derived DIRECTLY from fact
- too many other layers going on and it depends on individuals values
What is the fact value gap criticism of naturalism
- can’t derive an ought from an is
- can’t draw ethical conclusions from non ethical premises (facts)
- moral rules are a product of culture
- cannot be established with the objective certainty available in matters of science/logic through empirical evidence and facts
what did Moore argue naturalism does and is flawed for
- ethical naturalism makes the mistake of assuming that moral statements can be verified simply by looking at the evidence available to the 5 senses
what is the naturalistic fallacy Moore argues about naturalism
- naturalism makes a mistake in defining goodness as a natural property in the world
- a flawed or false notion that moral term can be defined
what does Moore argue about ethical language
- ethical language ascribes qualities to actions in the same way you ascribe the quality of colour to a rose
- goodness resists definition
- can only be described with examples of itself
- by trying to define goodness you lesson what it actually is
- there is no sufficient definition of it
give the quote of Moore in explaining the naturalistic fallacy
- “If I am asked what is good my answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter”
- “good is a simple notion that cannot be explained to anyone who does not already know it just like colour”
what approach does Moore suggest instead of naturalism due to the naturalistic fallacy
- advocated the cognitive approach of intuitionism
- argument that although qualities like goodness resist definition we can still intuitively recognise them when we see them even if we can’t define them
- when intuitionists say something is good they’re not merely expressing opinion but making a judgement about something of which they can be certain we are just unable to define them
who is emotivism associated with
- Ayer
- Stevenson
what type of ethical theory is emotivism and why
- non-cognitivism
- non-cog argues no ethical knowledge as ethical statements can’t be proved true or false and non-cognitivists make a distinction between facts and values
- emotivism suggests when we make ethical statements we express statements of opinion and not fact
what does emotivism have its roots in
- logical positivism and the Vienna Circle
- embraced scientific method of verification
- emotivism holds that ethical statements can’t be verified and so are not genuine truth claims and can only express feelings
- analytic synthetic stuff
what is the only way statements like adultery is wrong can be understood for Emotivists
- as an expression of feelings of approval or disapproval
- often called hurrah/boo theory
- to say lying is wrong is to boo lying and express a feeling of disapproval about it
- ascribing behaviour to not lie
give Ayer’s quote about emotivism and hurrah/boo theory
- “in saying a certain type of action is right or wrong I am not making any factual statement”
- “merely expressing moral sentiments”
- “the man contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments so there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right for neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition”
what did Ayer think about moral arguments
- moral arguments serve no real purpose as they’re simply an expression of feeling
- but did suggest they are also calculated to arouse feeling and stimulate action
- “we may define ethical words in terms of the feelings they express and the responses they are calculated to provoke”
what did C.L Stevenson contribute to emotivism
- he built on Ayer’s theory arguing moral judgements have two elements: an expression of attitude based on belief and a persuasive element which seeks to influence others
- didn’t use verification - works for scientific terms but insufficient for ethical language
- discussed emotive meaning of moral terms as descriptive and emotive
discuss the dynamic way of saying something argued in emotivism
- you are guilty of having non-consensual sex
- you are guilty of rape
- both mean the same
- but word rape often has more emotive response than just describing it
- thus language has descriptive and dynamic use
- saying something is wrong is the dynamic way of saying you disagree with an action and is an attempt to persuade the other person
how did Stevenson see ethical statements
- not only as an expression of emotions but also as result of attitudes based on fundamental beliefs
what did Stevenson think about moral disagreement
- disagreements about fundamental principles
- attitudes formed by these principles/beliefs
- Ayer thought moral statements were emotive expressions
- Stevenson maintained that a moral disagreement tells us something about a person’s beliefs rather than simply illustrating a ‘hurrah/boo’ emotive shouting match
- Stevenson appreciated the strong roots that underlie people’s ethical disagreements more fully than Ayer
- for Ayer its meaningless because the facts have been agreed upon but the opinions are unverifiable
- arguments have meaning because based on fundamental belief about objective facts
what did Stevenson ultimately think
- even for Stevenson moral judgements/statements don’t imply any kind of objective truth or fact
- ultimately considered moral statements as the result of subjective opinions, views, beliefs
what is different about emotivism compared to naturalism and intuitionism
- no universal truth or absolute right or wrong in emotivism
