Meta ethics (Ethics)

Question 1

What is moral realism?

Answer 1

Moral properties do exist in reality

Question 2

What is moral anti realism?

Answer 2

Moral properties don’t exist in reality

Question 3

What is cognitivism?

Answer 3

Moral statements are truth apt, meaningful and mind independent stating a factual claim about the world

Question 4

What is non cognitivism?

Answer 4

Moral statements are meaningful but not truth apt, they express a subjective belief

Question 5

Explain ethical naturalism and examples

Answer 5

A cognitivist realist meta ethical theory. Moral properties are natural properties which are reductive or non reductive. THey are empirical and discovered through sense experience and science. Examples are utilitarianism or Aristotelian virtue ethics. Aristotle claims goodness is eudaimonia (flourishing). Bentham claims goodness is pleasure, a natural property we strive for.

Question 6

Explain weaknesses of ethical naturalism

Answer 6

Hume’s is-ought gap.

Question 7

Explain non naturalism (intuitionism)

Answer 7

A cognitivist realist meta ethical theory. Goodness is a non natural property but belongs somewhere real. Moore’s open question argument shows philosophers conflate the meaning of good.

Question 8

What is Moore’s open question argument?

Answer 8

What is good?
good is happiness=wrong
happiness is good=wrong
good is good=right
‘Good is good and that is that’. You cannot reduce good down. If X is good by definition asking is X is good is meaningless.
Philosophers conflate the meaning of it.

Question 9

What makes intuitionism a strong argument?

Answer 9

It states we have an inbuilt recognition of right or wrong and we have a unique way of processing them. So we have an innate moral compass that doesn’t require reason which fits human psychology.

Question 10

Explain criticisms of intuitionism (non naturalism)

Answer 10

There is no way to distinguish between what’s really right and merely seemingly right to the person. If the theory was correct then everyone should come to the conclusion but they don’t. It fails to prove there’s objective moral truths.

Question 11

Explain emotivism (Ayer and Hume)

Answer 11

(Boo hurray theory)A non cognitivist anti realist meta ethical theory arguing ethics is purely attitudes and feelings, with no truth apt. The status of moral claims cannot be known.

Question 12

How do Hume and Ayer reject intuitionism and naturalism?

Answer 12

Verification principle and Hume’s Fork. A statement is only meaningful if it’s synthetic and empirically verifiable or analytic and a tautology. If it’s neither it’s meaningless. Ethical language does not fit on the fork and is therefore meaningless.

Question 13

What is Hume’s sorting machine argument?

Answer 13

Emotivism is simple and links to Hume’s sorting machine. He argues our minds are like sorting machines. We use previous experience or feelings. Feelings aid the machine to process experience. ‘Murder is wrong’ or ‘puppies are cute’ are simply statements, they aren’t objective.

Question 14

What are strengths of emotivism?

Answer 14

-It reflects our lives and is intuitive.
-It’s based on personal belief so doesn’t need abstract concepts like intuition to be proved meaningful
-Promotes a tolerant and accepting attitude towards moral diversity. As moral judgements are nothing more than expression of feelings no one has the right to say their morality is true and another’s false.

Question 15

Explain emotivisms issues

Answer 15

-Ethical statements may be instruments to control and influence social behaviour. A moral argument isn’t good or bad its about the desired effect- how it changes someone’s behaviour.
-Kant’s universalisability. Everyone would act purely through their feelings so you cannot guarantee they’d act the same next time. If everyone did this society would have no orderly morality.
-

Question 16

What is prescriptivism?

Answer 16

Hare- A non-cognitivst anti-realist meta ethical theory. The function of moral principles is to guide and conduct, prescribing what you ought to do.

Question 17

What are value judgements and imperatives?

Answer 17

In Hare’s prescriptivism moral statements prescribe what you ought to do. Some are imperative statements and some value judgements- commanding things with the words good or bad rather than prescribing. They cannot be defined in terms of other words.

Question 18

Explain strengths of prescriptivism

Answer 18

Unlike emotivism it allows conversation and reasoning and can allow Kant’s universalizability principle and has consistency. Moral judgements apply to everyone in any similar situation. “Is your judgement an imperative and would you universalise?”

Question 19

Issues with prescriptivism?

Answer 19

There are two inadequate situations to universalisations: Trivial prescipitions aren’t moral.
-Allows wrong prescriptions as long as you stay consistent and universalise it’s a moral judgement. Nazi example “The murder of one million Jews was right, and If I were jewish I should be murdered too” If he accepts this and stays consistent it’s universal so according to Hare it’s moral.

Question 20

What is error theory?

Answer 20

A cognitivist anti-realist meta ethical theory proposed by Mackie which argues there are no objective moral values as the properties necessary don’t exist. Moral values are radically different to anything else.

Question 21

What is the linguistic claim Mackie makes in his error theory?

Answer 21

Talking is primarily cognitivist as we assert and make claims with true or false value which is an error. ‘murder is wrong’ or ‘abortion is wrong’ is not an actual fact so it’s not true it’s just culturally relative.

Question 22

What is in Mackie’s ontological claim?

Answer 22

The argument from relativity and the argument from queerness.

Question 23

What does Mackie’s argument from relativity attack?

Answer 23

In Mackie’s cognitivist anti-realist theory, one half of his ontological argument which proves there are no objective moral values.

Question 24

Explain Mackie’s argument from relativity

Answer 24

In Mackie’s cognitivist anti-realist theory, one half of his ontological argument which disproves objective moral values. Different cultures hold different moral code and they change over time. It is a reflection of the lives people have and the fact it’s all subjective based off collective beliefs there can be no objective moral values.

Question 25

What consists of Mackie’s argument from Queerness?

Answer 25

Metaphysical strangeness and epistemological strangeness.

Question 26

Explain metaphysical strangeness

Answer 26

One half of Mackie’s argument from queerness attacking naturalism. An essential ‘ingredient’ to moral values is that they provide motivation to act. At the core all moral values have a strange magnetic quality motivating us to act. It’s independent to any reason or desire that we have. This is strange as how can a part of the world be intrinsically motivating? There is no such property, nothing can do that so there’s no objective moral values.

Question 27

Explain epistemological strangeness

Answer 27

One half of Mackie’s argument from queerness attacking non-naturalism. Mackie claims the moral realist commits to perceiving strange moral entities. For example we make a moral judgement it’s wrong we use cars that cause pollution. We can’t see wrongness. To detect special moral qualities we must possess some other special faculty additional to our senses. We don’t have that and we don’t sense moral value through our senses. . Mackie argues there are no strange moral entities, objective morals don’t exist. Everything is anti realist.

Question 28

What are strengths of Mackie’s error theory?

Answer 28

-Works well with science (queerness) as we cannot physically prove the existence of moral sense or properties.
-Solves ‘What is the status of moral language’ as morals simply don’t exist.
-Encompasses moral difference
-If Mackie’s linguistic cognitivist argument is correct it explains why naturalism and non naturalism don’t work.

Question 29

What are weaknesses of error theory?

Answer 29

-‘Basic foundational principles. Mackie agrees there are basic agreed principles across societies. They are not based on moral property so there must be something psychological or something else deciding it. This would then lead to emotivism.
-In conversation, you can’t have a meaningful talk about anything if nothing has any morality. Objectively the Nazis did nothing wrong.

Question 30

Explain moral nihilism

Answer 30

Crucial weakness to Mackie’s error theory and anti realism altogether. If right or wrong doesn’t exist, morality is pointless. People may lose belief in society and chaos ensues because there’s nothing to stick to.