Metaethics

Question 1

naturalism 1

meta ethics

Answer 1

• Ethical Naturalism is a meta-ethical doctrine, which maintains moral truths can be empirically discovered via observation of the world. It is a moral realist theory (insofar as it believes moral facts exist) and is thus cognitive (as moral statements can be judged true or false).
• Aquinas’ Natural Law is a form of theological naturalism – one can understand the moral standard (set by God’s Eternal Law) through observation of the natural world/ order (Natural Law)

Question 2

hume criticism of naturalism

Answer 2

• Hume argued one cannot go from a descriptive premise of what “is”, to a prescriptive conclusion, “ought” statement. No matter how closely you empirically examine a situation, the rightness or wrongness will no be objectively clear.

Question 3

utilitarians defence against hume

Answer 3

• Utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill believed morality could be deduced from observing what brought about most pleasure and least pain

Question 4

ge moore criticism of naturalism

Answer 4

• G.E. Moore argues moral properties may be correlated with natural properties, but moral properties are not identical to natural properties. For example: a moral act such as giving to charity might make me happy, but the morality of the act merely gives way to the happiness, and is not the happiness in itself. Or more explicitly, inflicting pain for a sadist is pleasurable, but is it good?
• OPEN QUESTION ARGUMENT – if goodness and pleasure were the same thing, it would not make sense to ask “is pleasure good?” because it would be like asking “is pleasure pleasure?” – yet as the former question does make sense, clearly good is distinct from pleasure (or any other natural property) moral properties cannot be reduced to anything simpler, such as pain or pleasure, because moral properties are basic.

Question 5

intuitionism, Bertrand russell, 2

Answer 5

• Whilst maintaining morality is cognitive, intuitionism asserts that moral facts are not to be discovered, but rather are self-evident and known intuitively.
• “If I am asked ‘How is good to be defined?’ my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it” (G.E. Moore ‘Principia Ethica’) Moore likened good to the colour yellow – we only demonstrate our knowledge by pointing to the colour yellow; it can be shown and known, yet not defined seems true that people have an intuitive sense of morality
• Bertrand Russell, in ‘The Problems of Philosophy’ argues perception of good is a priori, “the truth of such knowledge can neither be proved no disproved by experience”

Question 6

nietzsche criticism of russell

Answer 6

• Yet how can morality be cognitive and intuitive, if many have different intuitive understandings of good and bad
• Nietzsche raised the issue of ethical colour blindness to highlight how different intuitions may point to different ideas of right and wrong; what one may see as yellow, another may see as green
• If knowledge of good and bad is a priori, and unable to be proved by outside criterion, then there is no way to prove whose interpretation of moral dilemmas is correct! If a murder thought murder was right, and killed someone who thought it was wrong, there would be no way to discern who had knowledge of moral truth.

Question 7

pritchard defence of intuitionism

Answer 7

• H.A. Pritchard – people disagree on what it good because their minds are not ordered correctly. Conflicting ideas does not undermine the objectivity of goodness, rather highlights some have fuller understanding than others.

Question 8

warnock criticism of intuitionism

Answer 8

• The phenomenon of intuition does not seem to be sufficiently explained and the idea of knowledge detached from experience or the senses may be puzzling to some, much like Plato’s concept of innate knowledge of the forms G.J. Warnock used to argue intuitionism was simply a sense of bewilderment got up to look like a theory.

Question 9

ayer emotivism, 3

Answer 9

• A.J. Ayer, in ‘Language, Truth and Logic’ explained that putative propositions can only be literally meaningful once they have been analytically or empirically verified (or falsified): Ayer developed the principle of weak verification, which claimed that statements could be verified if one is able to state what evidence would make the sentence probable
• He claimed moral statements were neither analytic or provable by the senses, and were therefore factually meaningless non-cognitive

Question 10

wojtyla criticism of emotivism

Answer 10

• Although Ayer’s emotivism sets the bar too high by arguing that because I cannot prove something it becomes meaningless, one can argue that whilst moral statements clearly express preference they can be validated through reasoning and experience (as opposed to scientific or factual proof).
• For example, although I cannot prove paedophilia is wrong, I can give reasons for why it is wrong e.g. damaging psychological effects, abuse, violation of human rights
• Karol Wojtyla, in ‘The Acting Person’, highlights that ethical demands and stances grow out of human encounter – it is through encountering good, bad, needs, desires that we uncover a sense or morality and the need to be moral ethical statements do not require logical or scientific justification, but instead experience of being human and living

Question 11

thompson criticism of emotivism

Answer 11

• Mel Thompson has argued “you cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos”; if morality is not more than personal opinion, then laws such as “do no murder” seem to be no more important than someone claiming “I don’t like red sweets”. MacIntrye argues emotivism places child carers and paedophiles as equals CLEARLY THE QUESITON OF WHAT “GOOD” MEANS IS INTEGRAL FOR FUNCTIONING SOCIETIES