Metaethics Flashcards
What are ‘ought’ statements?
Hume claims ‘ought’ statements are judgements, normative statements, values dependent on humans
What are ‘is’ statements?
Hume claims ‘it’ statements are statements about the world which are descriptive, discovered by fact, independent of humans
Explain Hume’s is-ought problem/why he claims we can’t derive ought from is
- Hume claims ‘is’ and ‘ought’ statements are in totally different realms.
- Many ethicists make the mistake of going from statements about the world to statements about how we ought to behave
- Hume argues you cannot move from statements about the world to what a human might do as it is illogical.
- there is nothing in a descriptive statement that allows us to proceed from what people actually do to making a rule ahoy what people should do
- Factual to value is a logical error
What is Moore’s naturalistic fallacy?
- A naturalistic fallacy is committed ‘whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics through appealing to a definition of the term good by using a natural property such as pleasing or desirable’
- Moore argues it is not acceptable to confuse good with natural properties or had it to be identical with such property.
Naturalistic fallacy: explain why Moore thinks attempts to define goodness are futile
- Naturalistic theories of ethics attempt to define good in terms of something that can be defined in the world - for example claiming that which is natural is good
- These are non-moral concepts since there is nothing intrinsically food about happiness/fitness/health - they are only good if we define them as such
- According to Moore there is nothing intrinsically good about these things because not everyone will agree they are good
Naturalistic fallacy: Explain why Moore criticises ethical naturalism
- Naturalistic theories of ethics incorrectly attempt to define good in terms of something that can be defined in the world
- He uses this argument to support moral intuitions, and reject naturalism - good cannot be explained by comparing it to positive things naturally occurring in the world
- Goodness is self evident, no natural problem we can discover through the empirical sciences could be identical to good and in the end humans have tp just fall back on their initial intuition
Moore’s intuitionism: Explain the key things intuitionism teaches
- There are real objective moral truths which are independent of humans = cognitive
- These are fundamental truths which can’t be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything else - goodness is a simple concept
- Humans can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way
Moore’s intuitionism: Describe Moore’s comparison between good and yellow
- We know what yellow is but we can’t define it
- We know what good is and we can’t define it
- ‘Good is good and that is the end of the matter’
Moore’s intuitionism: What does he say about morality
- Morality is objective and cognitive
- Intuitionists argue we just know what goodness is
- It exists independently of humans
Moore’s intuitionism: How do we make moral decisions
- We work out right and wrong by looking at the impact consequences have upon an action
- If the consequence is right, (we’ll know it) it becomes good
- This presents Moore’s intuitionism as teleological
Moore’s intuitionism: What is the open question argument?
- Used to disprove naturalism
- When a naturalist claims that goodness consists of things that lead to pleasure, we can then identify one of those things and ask ‘But is it good?’ - it may well be that something leads to pleasure but isn’t intrinsically good in itself
- So naturalistic definitions cannot be correct
Moore’s intuitionism: What does Moore say about proving moral judgements
- They can never be proved empirically
- We don’t use scientific observation/logical analysis to percieve good
- We recognise good things empirically
- Moral judgements are incapable of being proved
Moore’s intuitionism: Explain the difference between complex and simple ideas
- Simple = ideas that can’t be broken down
- Complex = ideas that can be broken down using other ideas
Moore’s intuitionism: The trolley problem
- Trolley problem provides a clear example of the balance between utilitarian and intuitionist approach to moral dilemmas
- trolley hurtles towards five people tied to the track - the only way to save them is by pulling a lever which sends the trolley down another track killing one other person - what do you choose
- Utilitarian: kill one to save five - however many people faced with this argument cannot bring themselves to actively choose to kill people
- It is at its heart a clash between a utilitarian assessment and a deeply held intuition that killing the innocent is always wrong
- That intuition is justified with reference to the absolute prohibition of killing but it still remains the foundation of much thinking
Moore’s intuitionism: Give the strengths of intuitionism
- Allows for objective moral values to be identified and therefore proposes a form of moral realism
- Allows us to answer issues clearly
- Not subjective but does avoid the problems of identifyign ethics with a natural property - avoids complex debate
- Whilst we may recognise the wrongness of some actions it can be difficult to specify why they are wrong - rather we interpret it through a moral sense - appeals to human nature
- Allows for moral duties /obligations so satisfies a moral absolutist
- Points to the existence of a common consensus on moral issues - eg valuer of human life
Moore’s intuitionism: Give the weaknesses of intuitionism
- People intuit and reason to different conclusions and there is no obvious way to resolve their differences - morality is subjective - Nietzsche’s ‘ethical colourblindness’
- We can never be sure our intuitions are correct
- Intuition is non-verifiable so it could be considered meaningless
- Hume argues we may have a motivation for acting in certain ways although intuitionists may respond to this by saying that if we have a motivation to do something it is because we have an innate desire which goes beyond reason
- Non cognitive ethics argues good can be defined
Moore’s intuitionism: How did HA Prichard build on his work?
- Reason collects the facts and intuition determines which course of action to follow
- Distinguished between General thinking (reasoning) used to assess facts of a situation
and Moral thinkign based on an immediate intuition about the right thing to do - People have different intuitions about what is right
Moore’s intuitionism: How did WD Ross build on his work?
- What is right is always unique depending on what is morally suitable to the situation
- We never know all the facts about the situation so we base our judgements about what is right/wrong on intuitions
- It is obviosu certain actiosn are right/wrong - prima facie duties
- When these duties conflict we act based on what we think is right - first sight duties
WD Ross and Prima Facie Duties: Who was Ross?
- moral realist, ethical non-naturalist, intuitionist
WD Ross and Prima Facie Duties: Explain why he asiad conflicting duties were an issue
- People sometimes have conflicting duties and it is not always obvious which should take priority
WD Ross and Prima Facie Duties: Describe prima facie duties
- Duties we feel instinctively we must do - e.g duties of fidelity (keep promises), duties of reparation (obligation to right a wrongful act)
- Means ‘first face’
- By this he meant that if there are no conflicting circumstances between duties each one is absolute, however if there are, you must balance them and consider what to do
- Ross advocates we should be reasonable and sensible enough to work this out - we are rational animals and can use reason to judge
- ’ The moral order expressed in these duties is just as much part of the fundamental part of the universe as… the spatial or numerical structure expressed in the axioms of geometry’
WD Ross and Prima Facie Duties: What did HA Prichard say about moral duties?
- Working out right/wrong is our duty, we use intuition to work it out
- ## When people disagree about morality one person’s moral thinking si simply not developed enough - weak!